Evangelical fear of Biblical scholarship

[Urloony]

Iâ??m afraid that you are mistaken. Until my banning for using biblical scholarship to defend Mormonism, I had never registered at this forum under another name than Elds.

Despite false accusations to the contrary, Mac and I are not the same person. As far as I know, Mac is in Utah and I am on the East Coast. Though I havenâ??t met him personally, I have read many of Macâ??s on line posts. Mac is clearly very bright and well educated. I look forward to his contributions to both LDS and Biblical scholarship.

Mac is headed to the Claremont School of Theology to study Hebrew Bible as a doctoral student.

I received my MA and PhD in Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East from a prestigious East coast institution.

Despite the fact that the â??Christianâ? posters on this forum called me names, mocked my religion, and deleted my threads, I never responded in kind.

I was banned for one reason: my ability to use biblical scholarship to challenge the misconceptions of Evangelical critics.

This is my final post, to clarify what has occurred on this forum. My banning and the deletion of my thread on the implications of the word elohim for LDS theology have illustrated how important it is for Anti-Mormon Evangelicals to censure the truth.

For those interested, I post on the MAAD board and have recently registered at Walter Martin. I will not return to post or read any further comments.

Sincerely,

Elds

[Sargon]

Are you Elds?

Yes, I've witnessed the reluctance of the Evangelical posters to deal with biblical scholarship as well. I find it remarkable that all the while they accuse us of keeping our heads in the sand.

[JLFuller]

Sounds as though he was at C**M or M*M. Anyway, I am not surprised by the lame meanderings of some historic Christians who don't know or care to know what real scholarly biblical research can tell us. I have been castigated for my opinions of the poor leadership and preparation of so many traditional Christian pastors but I still think I am spot on. I don't have to be a PhD in order to appreciate one.

[e=mc2]

Are you Elds?

Yes, I've witnessed the reluctance of the Evangelical posters to deal with biblical scholarship as well. I find it remarkable that all the while they accuse us of keeping our heads in the sand.

As have I. That is the reason for my jumping onto it with all the strength I can muster (not much, but hey, it's sumpthun!) This, perhaps, is one of the reasons they were completely overlooked to be on the International Dead Sea Scrolls committee whilst 4 BYU scholars were included. The BYU work on the scrolls is simply second to NONE, and the world has recognized that contribution, appropriately.

[Urloony]

Are you Elds?

Yes, I've witnessed the reluctance of the Evangelical posters to deal with biblical scholarship as well. I find it remarkable that all the while they accuse us of keeping our heads in the sand.

Agreed. I found it rather hypocritical that EV's routinely criticize us for not examining Biblical scholarship, and then when it is analyzed, want nothing to do with it.

I'm not Elds. I was participating in some of the threads he was posting on. I must admit it was entertaining to watch the EV weekend scholars stammer around his comments attempting to come up with something that wouldn't make them sound utterly ignorant. Moderators started by removing one of his threads and later banning him for what I can only guess was a violation of one of their forum rules:"Users that attempt to interfere with Christian evangelism will be suspended..."

[cinepro]

What an odd accusation.

Personal observation and Philip Barlow's Mormons and the Bible have certainly left me with the impression that LDS are hardly on the cutting edge of Biblical scholarship ourselves. Especially when it comes to anything that might contradict well-ingrained LDS beliefs...

[JLFuller]

What an odd accusation.

Personal observation and Philip Barlow's Mormons and the Bible have certainly left me with the impression that LDS are hardly on the cutting edge of Biblical scholarship ourselves. Especially when it comes to anything that might contradict well-ingrained LDS beliefs...

To us dummies, the best way to read this kind of stuff is if we have a DCP or Bill Hamblin type to tell us what is really being said. Ergo, no half-baked, lazy pastors or EV "intellectuals"can pass of their anti-Mormon crap off on us without being called on it.

[Zakuska]

It looks like Im banned again.

Point them to www.thedivinecouncil.com on the psalms 82 thread.

[Urloony]

It looks like Im banned again.

I noticed that. I must be doing something wrong, I haven't even received any warnings.

Point them to www.thedivinecouncil.com on the psalms 82 thread.

Is this our friend Elds?

[phaedrus ut]

As have I. That is the reason for my jumping onto it with all the strength I can muster (not much, but hey, it's sumpthun!) This, perhaps, is one of the reasons they were completely overlooked to be on the International Dead Sea Scrolls committee whilst 4 BYU scholars were included. The BYU work on the scrolls is simply second to NONE, and the world has recognized that contribution, appropriately.

I've also noticed that critical biblical scholarship is threatening to evangelicals traditional view of the bible and scripture. Don't you think saying BYU's work is second to none is a bit overstating the case.

Phaedrus

[Nevo]

Saying "Evangelicals fear biblical scholarship" is like saying "Mormons fear biblical scholarship". It's inaccurate. Some do, some don't.

What is certain, is that Evangelical scholars have produced, and continue to produce, vast quantities of biblical scholarship, whereas LDS scholars have produced very little.

(And, yes, there are Evangelical scholars working on the DSS publication project.)

[Zakuska]

I noticed that. I must be doing something wrong, I haven't even received any warnings.

Is this our friend Elds?

Nope. Thats Dr. Heiser, the Evangelical OT Scholar who says Psalms 82 is speaking of actual divine beings who are being stripped of imortality.

When the Author of Psalm 82 tells them they will die "LIKE" men he is saying they are something other than men. Men die period. You cant die "Like" yourself.

[JLFuller]

Saying "Evangelicals fear biblical scholarship" is like saying "Mormons fear biblical scholarship". It's inaccurate. Some do, some don't.

What is certain, is that Evangelical scholars have produced, and continue to produce, vast quantities of biblical scholarship, whereas LDS scholars have produced very little.

(And, yes, there are Evangelical scholars working on the DSS publication project.)

I really hate it when you are right. But in this case, your use of the term "EV scholars" leaves the subject door open too wide. If the "scholarship" is based on just confirming their preconceived notions then it isn't scholarship is it? If they ignore real scholarship, that is, take the work in whatever direction it leads, then I, for one, would be interested to read it. I use Bart Ehrman as an example. But if it is just Timothy Paul Jones doing the "research" it is something else entirely. An apologist isn't necessarily a researcher. Can you name some legitimate EV biblical researchers?

If you can't that is OK. I like what Charles Geischen wrote about Christ receiving God the Father's name which was used only by the High Priest in the Second Temple period and only in the temple and at certain other times. It supports the idea that Christ can speak as the Father as we see in the New Testament. I would think that would or could clear up much of the misunderstanding Trinitarians have with LDS theology on the matter. It is fundamental to Trinitarians that these passages are proof of the nature of the triune God. Mormons, of course, think it is proof of the separate nature of the Godhead members. None of this however is likely to ever get a fair airing with your average church leading pastor to whom this is Greek.

[Urloony]

Saying "Evangelicals fear biblical scholarship" is like saying "Mormons fear biblical scholarship". It's inaccurate. Some do, some don't.

What is certain, is that Evangelical scholars have produced, and continue to produce, vast quantities of biblical scholarship, whereas LDS scholars have produced very little.

(And, yes, there are Evangelical scholars working on the DSS publication project.)

I have to disagree. The challenge that EV's face is their dogmatic view of the inerrancy of the Bible. Look at the dramatic reaction Bart Ehrman receives from the likes of James White and other EV's. Their view of inerrancey seriously hampers any honest view of ancient text and culture.

[The_Monk]

Everyone fears the authority of scholarship that does not support their conclusions. That's why EVs tend to listen to theirs, and the average Mormon tends to listen to his. Human nature.

Edit: Most people just prefer to read what's comfortable and agrees with them. That's why we see the ghetto-ization of news sources, as people turn towards the kind of news reporting that confirms ideas they already hold.

[Sargon]

Saying "Evangelicals fear biblical scholarship" is like saying "Mormons fear biblical scholarship". It's inaccurate. Some do, some don't.

What is certain, is that Evangelical scholars have produced, and continue to produce, vast quantities of biblical scholarship, whereas LDS scholars have produced very little.

(And, yes, there are Evangelical scholars working on the DSS publication project.)

I agree. The unclarified meaning of "Evangelical" in the OP was in reference to the Evangelical posters of CARM, where the exchange took place.

I should add, the relative amounts of biblical scholarship produced by Mormons and Evangelicals is probably a direct product of their ages as mature religious movements.

[JLFuller]

Everyone fears the authority of scholarship that does not support their conclusions. That's why EVs tend to listen to theirs, and the average Mormon tends to listen to his. Human nature.

Edit: Most people just prefer to read what's comfortable and agrees with them. That's why we see the ghetto-ization of news sources, as people turn towards the kind of news reporting that confirms ideas they already hold.

Monk, you are right. It is human nature to keep as much stress out of our lives as possible. That is why only some researchers have credibility and some don't. The "don't rock the boat" thinking is more pervasive in Christian universities than secular ones. That includes BYU too. However I don't think BYU is supposed to be research university in the same way as a U of NC or a private instutute. BYU has an interest in promoting the LDS life and theology and should. That is their calling just as is Bob Jones or Oral Roberts. Train the kids to be good grownups and let the cutting edge folks cut somewhere else - preferably in some separately funded research organization which specializes in that kind of stuff. It should be where the Church can put some distance between thinking that is not yet conclusive and current accepted theologcal thinking.

[David Bokovoy]

What an odd accusation.

Personal observation and Philip Barlow's Mormons and the Bible have certainly left me with the impression that LDS are hardly on the cutting edge of Biblical scholarship ourselves. Especially when it comes to anything that might contradict well-ingrained LDS beliefs...

In my estimation, Philip Barlow's book is an outstanding resource and clearly documents the fact that for many decades, Latter-day Saints were generally speaking, a bit uncomfortable regarding the pursuit of biblical scholarship.

As I have shared before, after I had been accepted to a graduate program in Hebrew Bible, I was even told by a BYU faculty member not to pursue graduate degrees in biblical studies, but to instead choose another focus such as Northwest Semitics, since basically no one had been able to take that course and retain a testimony.

Our conversation (which I obviously ignored) occurred a little over a decade ago, and from what I've personally witnessed, fortunately things have changed dramatically in terms of a williness on the part of LDS students/scholars to engage the Bible critically.

We have nothing to fear.

For the record, many, many conservative Christians who want to pursue biblical studies pursue degrees and course work on a history of interpretation so that they are not forced to read the Bible in its ancient Near Eastern context, a process which ultimately destroys almost everyone's ability to retain a belief in Evangelical Christianity.

These conservative Christians then return to their various seminary programs in order to teach the Bible and present themselves as experts when they have never been truly exposed to critical scholarship.

However, the truth of the matter is that all religious folk who pursue graduate work in the Bible end up tainted via the process. Most end up liberal interpreters of their respective faiths and/or abandon their religious convictions altogether.

[e=mc2]

What an odd accusation.

Personal observation and Philip Barlow's Mormons and the Bible have certainly left me with the impression that LDS are hardly on the cutting edge of Biblical scholarship ourselves. Especially when it comes to anything that might contradict well-ingrained LDS beliefs...

Heh...... that is actually a tough one to argue with. That's kind of been my point of discussion as well also. I suppose it is only going to come about by means of examples of using the BIBLE in its languages that we show there is much more to it than what we put into the scriptures.

[e=mc2]

I've also noticed that critical biblical scholarship is threatening to evangelicals traditional view of the bible and scripture. Don't you think saying BYU's work is second to none is a bit overstating the case. Phaedrus

Not as far as representation on the International Dead Sea Scrolls team from American Universities it's not exaggerating. Is there *any* other university so well and powerfully represented on the team than BYU? I honestly don't know totally, so I am legitimately asking. But 4 scholars from one university seems to me to be rather substantial.

Saying "Evangelicals fear biblical scholarship" is like saying "Mormons fear biblical scholarship". It's inaccurate. Some do, some don't. What is certain, is that Evangelical scholars have produced, and continue to produce, vast quantities of biblical scholarship, whereas LDS scholars have produced very little. (And, yes, there are Evangelical scholars working on the DSS publication project.)

That's not what I meant, but thank you for pointing this out.

[Nevo]

I really hate it when you are right. But in this case, your use of the term "EV scholars" leaves the subject door open too wide. If the "scholarship" is based on just confirming their preconceived notions then it isn't scholarship is it? If they ignore real scholarship, that is, take the work in whatever direction it leads, then I, for one, would be interested to read it. I use Bart Ehrman as an example. But if it is just Timothy Paul Jones doing the "research" it is something else entirely. An apologist isn't necessarily a researcher. Can you name some legitimate EV biblical researchers?

I think there are many fine "legitimate" Evangelical scholars. Some that come to mind are: Gordon Wenham, Richard Hess, Daniel Block, Gary Knoppers, Ralph Klein, Leslie Allen, Richard Bauckham, R.T. France, Craig Keener, Craig Blomberg, Daryl Bock, Joel Green, C.E.B. Cranfield, Grant Osborne, Anthony Thistleton, Gordon Fee, Peter O' Brien, Klyne Snodgrass, I. Howard Marshall, Peter Davids, and William Mounce. All of these deal in historical-critical approaches to the Bible (i.e., higher criticism) and they do it quite well, in my opinion. And they don't all come to the same conclusions. I. H. Marshall, for example, denied Paul's authorship of the Pastoral Epistles in his ICC commentary (something I doubt I'll ever see a BYU-affiliated LDS scholar do).

[JLFuller]

I think there are many fine "legitimate" Evangelical scholars. Some that come to mind are: Gordon Wenham, Richard Hess, Daniel Block, Gary Knoppers, Ralph Klein, Leslie Allen, Richard Bauckham, R.T. France, Craig Keener, Craig Blomberg, Daryl Bock, Joel Green, C.E.B. Cranfield, Grant Osborne, Anthony Thistleton, Gordon Fee, Peter O' Brien, Klyne Snodgrass, I. Howard Marshall, Peter Davids, and William Mounce. All of these deal in historical-critical approaches to the Bible (i.e., higher criticism) and they do it quite well, in my opinion. And they don't all come to the same conclusions. I. H. Marshall, for example, denied Paul's authorship of the Pastoral Epistles in his ICC commentary (something I doubt I'll ever see a BYU-affiliated LDS scholar do).

In your opinion, how would they be treated within their theological culture if they arrived at a conclusion that threatened the mainstream approach? For example, how would Dr. Block be received if he suddenly concluded that Trinitarianism was heretical based on the overwhelming evidence of his research?

I have to be up front about this subject. Trinitarianism is the most blatant example of fourth century heresy to which historic Christianity continues to cling. I find it unfathomable and its scholarly adherents automatically become suspect. I can understand why the average congregant believes but why do so many serious researchers? The evidence against it is overwhelming.

[David Bokovoy]

I think there are many fine "legitimate" Evangelical scholars. Some that come to mind are: Gordon Wenham, Richard Hess, Daniel Block, Gary Knoppers, Ralph Klein, Leslie Allen, Richard Bauckham, R.T. France, Craig Keener, Craig Blomberg, Daryl Bock, Joel Green, C.E.B. Cranfield, Grant Osborne, Anthony Thistleton, Gordon Fee, Peter O' Brien, Klyne Snodgrass, I. Howard Marshall, Peter Davids, and William Mounce. All of these deal in historical-critical approaches to the Bible (i.e., higher criticism) and they do it quite well, in my opinion. And they don't all come to the same conclusions. I. H. Marshall, for example, denied Paul's authorship of the Pastoral Epistles in his ICC commentary (something I doubt I'll ever see a BYU-affiliated LDS scholar do).

Gordon Wenham makes some nice literary observations, however, his work unfortunately suffers due to his avoidance of the issue of source criticism. His two volume Genesis commentary is especially problematic. To properly interpret the text, one has to be willing to consider both a diachronic and a synchronic analysis. Wenham is only willing to pursue the latter.

[Nevo]

Gordon Wenham makes some nice literary observations, however, his work unfortunately suffers due to his avoidance of the issue of source criticism. His two volume Genesis commentary is especially problematic. To properly interpret the text, one has to be willing to consider both a diachronic and a synchronic analysis. Wenham is only willing to pursue the latter.

Wenham's commentary is literary-critical in orientation, since he judges it best "to discuss first what is certain, namely, the present form of the text, before tackling the less certain issues of sources and their redaction" (1:xxxvi). He doesn't ignore source criticism altogether, but it's definitely a secondary concern. Whatever the weaknesses of this approach, however, I think you'll agree that Wenham's commentary still "counts" as legitimate biblical scholarshipâ??which was my original point to JLFuller.

[Nevo]

In your opinion, how would they be treated within their theological culture if they arrived at a conclusion that threatened the mainstream approach? For example, how would Dr. Block be received if he suddenly concluded that Trinitarianism was heretical based on the overwhelming evidence of his research?

He would probably be shunned by his faith community, but I consider your hypothetical highly unlikely. For one thing, Dr. Block specializes in the Old Testament. For another, biblical scholars don't generally make judgments on what doctrines may or may not be "heretical."

I've found that scholars who believe in the Trinity seem to have little trouble reconciling it with their reading of the Bible. Thus, the Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible states: "The frequent use of the divine name in its plural form, and the intimations of divine personhood in references to the Word of God and the Wisdom of God all imply OT roots for a doctrine of the trinity. While there is no explicit doctrine of the trinity in the NT, one can more easily trace its trinitarian reflection" (s.v. "Trinity," 1336).

Anthony Thiselton sees 1 Cor. 12:4-7 as providing "a kind of 'ground plan' of trinitarian theology. . . . Paul's emphasis upon unity-in-diversity is grounded in the nature of the one God, who is holy Trinity" (Anthony C. Thiselton, 1 Corinthians: A Shorter Exegetical and Pastoral Commentary [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2006], 197). Other scholars are more cirumspect, however. Commenting on the same passage, the Roman Catholic NT scholar Raymond Collins writes: "Paul's three parallel statements speak of the Spirit, the Lord, and God respectively, but the text should no more be construed as an expression of Trinitarian theology than are the other so-called 'Trinitarian formulae' in the Pauline writings (2 Cor. 1:21-22; 13:13; Gal. 4:6; Rom. 8:11; 15:15-16, 30). Trinitarian theology is a later theological development" (Raymond F. Collins, 1 Corinthians [sacra Pagina 7; Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1999], 449).