Evangelical fear of Biblical scholarship

[JLFuller]

He would probably be shunned by his faith community, but I consider your hypothetical is highly unlikely.

That is my point. Only independents, (secular) can provide a truly objective viewpoint regardless of which tradition they are discussing.

[phaedrus ut]

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.

I've noticed the same thing time and again. But I've also noticed that those that choose to stay with their original religious tradition do so not stubbornly holding on to what they lost but rather because they found something new.

David, have you ever read Marcus Borg's book Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time? It's one of the more insightful reads about the challenges faced by believers and critical biblical scholarship.

Phaedrus

[The_Monk]

Peter Enns got "fired" and his was a pretty good book. Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament.

[jadams_4242]

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..."

And this is why we continually get new translations almost on a daily basis, because the oldest translations do not support theory of some.

[Bill Hamblin]

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).

Well, I don't know if I "deny" it, but I certainly am willing to consider the possibility. I haven't studied the issue enough to make a decision.

There are certainly many fine Evangelical biblical scholars, but not a one of them I know of believes in biblical inerrancy as generally understood by your average Evangelical (like some on this board, and most on CARM).

[cinepro]

Regarding "Biblical scholarship", to what degree does the LDS focus on the KJV hold us back?

Another factor is obviously going to be the Book of Mormon. There are certain claims made in the Book of Mormon that require certain things in the Bible to be true.

While apologists and scholars do a pretty decent job tap-dancing around sticky issues (like the scope of Noah's flood) that appear in both the Bible and BoM, there will be places where Biblical scholarship threatens to drastically "redefine" our understanding of the BoM story. If that were to happen, what would the outcome be?

I'd love to hear David Wright's thoughts on the subject.

[Nevo]

Regarding "Biblical scholarship", to what degree does the LDS focus on the KJV hold us back?

Another factor is obviously going to be the Book of Mormon. There are certain claims made in the Book of Mormon that require certain things in the Bible to be true.

While apologists and scholars do a pretty decent job tap-dancing around sticky issues (like the scope of Noah's flood) that appear in both the Bible and BoM, there will be places where Biblical scholarship threatens to drastically "redefine" our understanding of the BoM story. If that were to happen, what would the outcome be?

I'd love to hear David Wright's thoughts on the subject.

This why I don't think Mormons should be taunting other conservative, literal-minded Christians with the likes of Bart Ehrman, as though critical biblical scholarship only cuts in one direction. David Bokovoy says we have nothing to fear from biblical scholarship, but I'm not so sure that that's true.

The Book of Moses, with its explicitly Christian Adam and Eve, doctrine of the Fall, and fully-developed Satan, is pretty hard to reconcile with current scholarship on Genesis and the Ancient Near East. And the Book of Mormon doesn't fare much better: the Deutero-Isaiah passages are problematic; the Sermon on the Mount, which appears in the Book of Mormon virtually unchanged, is widely considered by scholars to have been composed by Matthew; Jesus quotes a speech (attributed to Peter) in Acts before Luke writes it; Nephi and Moroni borrow liberally from the NT as well.

Scholars tell us that the doctrine of hell, the devil, individual salvation, final judgment, resurrection, and the millenniumâ??not to mention messianismâ??were post-exilic developments, reflecting Persian influence. The "messianic" psalms refer to living Israelite kings, not to a future eschatological savior. Isaiah's suffering servant was not a messiah figure. Etc.

[volgadon]

Except that it is worth bearing in mind that those are only theories and often based on what did or didn't exist in other contemporary religions (as far as can be deduced). Take Deutero-Isaiah for instance. The philological evidence is not conclusive either way and the strongest arguments in favour of there being a second 'Isaiah' is the mention of Cyrus, a couple of centuries before his birth and the focus on Babylon.

An LDS scholar might find in his faith personal confirmation for not accepting the Deutero-Isaiah theory, but that doesn't mean that he is a poor scholar or mistaken in his belief, though probably unpopular.

[Urloony]

there will be places where Biblical scholarship threatens to drastically "redefine" our understanding of the BoM story. If that were to happen, what would the outcome be?

I don't think that we, as Mormons, are as afraid of a BoM "redefinition" as EV's are of a Biblical "redefinition." I think this stems, quite frankly, from the fact that modern revelation tends to trump all. In the EV world, the interpretation of the Bible trumps, thus carrying significantly more weight and a much greater fear of changes that may come from scholarship. From a secular stand point, the LGT, for some, is a radical theory of interpretation, but it doesn't change the validity of the BoM.

[cinepro]

As a total novice, my knowledge of "Biblical Scholarship" is pretty much confined to these bits of trivia:

1. Job was probably a mythical figure.

2. Two or more people probably wrote Isaiah, with part of it being written after Lehi left Jerusalem.

3. Moses probably didn't write the first five books of the OT.

4. Noah's flood probably didn't cover the entire planet.

Would I be correct in assuming these are almost universally agreed upon by biblical scholars (except for LDS scholars and #2)? If so, I would also point out that I don't think even the possibility of any of these 4 points have ever been acknowledged in any church-published curriculum or paper.

Certainly, I wouldn't expect the Primary lessons to be updated to include Biblical scholarship, but it is also my impression that the CES materials (meant for college level study) are totally devoid of any sort of modern Biblical scholarship. It's been a while since I read them, so please correct me if I'm wrong.

[LifeOnaPlate]

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...

Amen.

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.)

Amen

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.

and Amen.

Awesome thread, I likes.

[Sargon]

As a total novice, my knowledge of "Biblical Scholarship" is pretty much confined to these bits of trivia:

1. Job was probably a mythical figure.

2. Two or more people probably wrote Isaiah, with part of it being written after Lehi left Jerusalem.

3. Moses probably didn't write the first five books of the OT.

4. Noah's flood probably didn't cover the entire planet.

Would I be correct in assuming these are almost universally agreed upon by biblical scholars (except for LDS scholars and #2)? If so, I would also point out that I don't think even the possibility of any of these 4 points have ever been acknowledged in any church-published curriculum or paper.

Certainly, I wouldn't expect the Primary lessons to be updated to include Biblical scholarship, but it is also my impression that the CES materials (meant for college level study) are totally devoid of any sort of modern Biblical scholarship. It's been a while since I read them, so please correct me if I'm wrong.

I'm very far from being a biblical scholar. Nonetheless, I find myself attracted to more liberal ways of thinking about Mormonism. For example, I'm cool with Job being a fictitious character, with multiple Isaiahs, with the Documentary Hypothesis (that Moses didn't author the Pentatuch), and that Noah's flood didn't cover the whole earth. I've even entertained the idea that Adam and Eve aren't literal people as described in Genesis. I'm undecided on that one.

Most LDS would probably consider me apostate for those views. Nevertheless, I feel that Mormonism has more than enough room in it for such divergent views on non-essential matters. After all, I also believe in dieing and resurrecting gods, angels, gold plates, and Jaredites.

It isn't likely that biblical scholarship such as that will make its way into CES manuals any time soon. Joseph Fielding Smith and McConkie are too fresh in our collective memories for that. It will be a number of generations away if it happens at all.

Concerning the PoGP issues that Nevo brought up, and I haven't studied this issue much, but I think Kevin Barney views at least parts of it as pseudepigrapha.

[Nevo]

Certainly, I wouldn't expect the Primary lessons to be updated to include Biblical scholarship, but it is also my impression that the CES materials (meant for college level study) are totally devoid of any sort of modern Biblical scholarship. It's been a while since I read them, so please correct me if I'm wrong.

The Old Testament Student Manual: Genesisâ??Samuel 2 mentions the following OT scholars:

• Adam Clarke (1760â??1832) - 57 references
  
• C.F. Keil (1807â??1888) and F. Delitzsche (1813â??1890) - 44 references
  
• Andrew Jukes (1815â??1901) - 6 references
  
• Alfred Edersheim (1825â??1889) - 3 references
  
• Merrill Unger (1909â??1980) - 3 references
  
• C.D. Ginsburg (1831â??1914) - 2 references
  
• James Hastings (1852â??1922) - 2 references
  
• Donald Guthrie (1915â??1992) - 2 references
  
• Derek Kidner (1913â??2008) - 1 reference
  

Clearly, the most popular non-LDS expositors of the biblical text are Adam Clarke and Keil and Delitzscheâ??contemporaries of Joseph Smith. A handful of 20th-century conservative Evangelical scholars (Unger, Guthrie, Kidner) are also mentioned.

Interestingly, the third-most-quoted non-LDS authority (with 10 references) isn't a biblical scholar at all, but a segregationist and Holocaust-denier said to be influential in the modern Christian homeschool movement (see Wikipedia: Rousas John Rushdoony).

[JLFuller]

I would be interested in reading some of these EV scholars if I believed they respected the subject matter more than they feared retribution. But they don't. They can't. The best they can do is present the "approved" version which supports the company line. That is OK if there is someone who presents an objective view. Let no one mistake my intentions here. If there isn't a Cliff's Notes version, it isn't going to be me. That is why I respect the work of Bart Ehrman and would not read Jones if the book was given to me.

[JLFuller]

I'm very far from being a biblical scholar. Nonetheless, I find myself attracted to more liberal ways of thinking about Mormonism. For example, I'm cool with Job being a fictitious character, with multiple Isaiahs, with the Documentary Hypothesis (that Moses didn't author the Pentatuch), and that Noah's flood didn't cover the whole earth. I've even entertained the idea that Adam and Eve aren't literal people as described in Genesis. I'm undecided on that one.

Most LDS would probably consider me apostate for those views. Nevertheless, I feel that Mormonism has more than enough room in it for such divergent views on non-essential matters. After all, I also believe in dieing and resurrecting gods, angels, gold plates, and Jaredites.

It isn't likely that biblical scholarship such as that will make its way into CES manuals any time soon. Joseph Fielding Smith and McConkie are too fresh in our collective memories for that. It will be a number of generations away if it happens at all.

Concerning the PoGP issues that Nevo brought up, and I haven't studied this issue much, but I think Kevin Barney views at least parts of it as pseudepigrapha.

It can't be about what we like or dislike. It isn't about us. There can be but one truth. That is what I want, not a "your version versus mine" thing. That sounds too much like historic Christianity. I could not care less what the outcome is. I am not interested opinions that carry the day. They are meaningless or the next thing to it. Maybe they are the best we can get for now. OK. I can live with that - for now. Learning is a process and we all learn at our own rate. But in the end there is only one truth. People who have the talent and skills and training to do better work but do not, should have their cape and magic decoder rings taken away.

[Nevo]

I would be interested in reading some of these EV scholars if I believed they respected the subject matter more than they feared retribution. But they don't. They can't. The best they can do is present the "approved" version which supports the company line.

I've seen a version of this argument before, but with "LDS scholars" in place of "EV scholars."

That is OK if there is someone who presents an objective view. Let no one mistake my intentions here. If there isn't a Cliff's Notes version, it isn't going to be me. That is why I respect the work of Bart Ehrman and would not read Jones if the book was given to me.

I don't know who Jones is or what you mean when you say a non-existent "Cliff's Notes version" isn't going to be you, but I don't believe you're correct about Evangelical scholars or Bart Ehrman. Check out Richard Bushman's essay "The Social Dimensions of Rationality" sometime. Nobody writes in a social vacuum. Everyone writes for a community. As Bushman puts it, in a scholarly work "a conclusion is presented as the outcome of careful scrutiny of the facts and rigorous analysis; but the assumptions, the perspective of the work, the fundamental attitude come from some community, from a society with which the scholar is implicitly and probably quite hopefully associating." There is no such thing as pure objectivity in scholarship.

[DH]

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...

Indeed. I have a close friend who's a CES Coordinator/Institute Director, and who has a PhD in biblical studies, knows Hebrew, Greek, Latin, and smatterings of other languages. He has the feeling that his peers in the CES tend to actually look down on those who have his kind of education, suspecting that such education leads to heresy/unbelief. So my friend normally keeps a low profile and doesn't make a big deal of the fact he can actually read the Bible in the original languages.

(sigh)

DH

[Mudcat]

Urloony,

To the OP...

I am an EV. I have no particular fear of Bible scholarship.

What sort of things seem to make Evangelicals fearful?

If so, what are they?

Respectfully,

Mudcat

[cinepro]

So my friend normally keeps a low profile and doesn't make a big deal of the fact he can actually read the Bible in the original languages.

(sigh)

DH

I hope he doesn't hide his knowledge from his students. That could be great experience to learn from someone like that (and maybe it could even help his students take an interest in such scholarship as well).

[JLFuller]

I've seen a version of this argument before, but with "LDS scholars" in place of "EV scholars."

I don't know who Jones is or what you mean when you say a non-existent "Cliff's Notes version" isn't going to be you, but I don't believe you're correct about Evangelical scholars or Bart Ehrman. Check out Richard Bushman's essay "The Social Dimensions of Rationality" sometime. Nobody writes in a social vacuum. Everyone writes for a community. As Bushman puts it, in a scholarly work "a conclusion is presented as the outcome of careful scrutiny of the facts and rigorous analysis; but the assumptions, the perspective of the work, the fundamental attitude come from some community, from a society with which the scholar is implicitly and probably quite hopefully associating." There is no such thing as pure objectivity in scholarship.

Timothy Paul Jones wrote a book called Misquoting Truth : A Guide to the Fallacies of Bart Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus to answer Bart Ehrman's book Misquoting Jesus. Jones is an EV author.

Cliff's Notes are the pamphlet publications you find in university bookstores. They are study guides for dozens of courses/texts that, for many students, are the only way they pass some classes. I meant that I am not world class scholar material but I sure can form an opinion if someone explains it all to me first.

[JLFuller]

Indeed. I have a close friend who's a CES Coordinator/Institute Director, and who has a PhD in biblical studies, knows Hebrew, Greek, Latin, and smatterings of other languages. He has the feeling that his peers in the CES tend to actually look down on those who have his kind of education, suspecting that such education leads to heresy/unbelief. So my friend normally keeps a low profile and doesn't make a big deal of the fact he can actually read the Bible in the original languages.

(sigh)

DH

I have heard that before and there is some truth to the accusation. It would be interested to see how many LDS PhDs subscribe to and/or belong to Sunstone and like organizations. In previous posts I have likened them to those who peer over the edge and stray from the comfort and safety of mainstream Mormonism. It seems their quest for knowledge can take them right to Satan's front door.

[JLFuller]

"a conclusion is presented as the outcome of careful scrutiny of the facts and rigorous analysis; but the assumptions, the perspective of the work, the fundamental attitude come from some community, from a society with which the scholar is implicitly and probably quite hopefully associating." There is no such thing as pure objectivity in scholarship.

That, sir, is precisely why we need others to review and comment on the work of others. Pedestrians, like me, do not have the skills, or willingness, to do the hard work scholars do. Trusting only certain people to provide arguments countering the other is the only way I know to form an opinion. The Socratic method serves us very well as long as somebody doesn't sneak in a ringer. The problem becomes knowing who to trust. I used Timothy Paul Jones as an example of who not to read because he is a commercial writer not a researcher. He writes books for a living. He does not do scholarly research. I would not trust John Updike to comment on Mormonism or Evangelicalism either.

[JLFuller]

Urloony,

To the OP...

I am an EV. I have no particular fear of Bible scholarship.

What sort of things seem to make Evangelicals fearful?

If so, what are they?

Respectfully,

Mudcat

MC

I can't answer for anyone but me, but there is serious scholarship ongoing that refutes many traditional Christian notions. Bart Ehrman is one researcher with scholarly bone fides, that is highly criticized in EV circles.

[Nevo]

That, sir, is precisely why we need others to review and comment on the work of others. Pedestrians, like me, do not have the skills, or willingness, to do the hard work scholars do. Trusting only certain people to provide arguments countering the other is the only way I know to form an opinion. The Socratic method serves us very well as long as somebody doesn't sneak in a ringer. The problem becomes knowing who to trust. I used Timothy Paul Jones as an example of who not to read because he is a commercial writer not a researcher. He writes books for a living. He does not do scholarly research. I would not trust John Updike to comment on Mormonism or Evangelicalism either.

I agree that you should read reviews of Ehrman's work by pedigreed scholars instead of opportunistic mass-market hack jobs trying to cash in on Ehrman's success. But the comparison between Timothy Paul Jones and John Updike was beyond the pale. Updike was an immensely gifted writer. I'm sorry he's gone.

[JLFuller]

I agree that you should read reviews of Ehrman's work by pedigreed scholars instead of opportunistic mass-market hack jobs trying to cash in on Ehrman's success. But the comparison between Timothy Paul Jones and John Updike was beyond the pale. Updike was an immensely gifted writer. I'm sorry he's gone.

Your point is well taken. Mea culpa.