Adding "not" in Hebrews 6:1

[mfbukowski]

Mr. Bukowski,

Your question to David asked him if "Biblical scholars" made the sort of argument I did. You did not specify "Mormon" scholars in your question to David.

I am confident, however, that any Mormon historian would understand "the difference between a circular argument that assumes the truth of a document and a historical argument that examines what the document says to see what can be determined to be factual," as I put it.

Of course I asked David the question, since he is a Mormon. I did not ask you the question- I have already heard your answer, and your suggestion that I ask a Mormon expert. I appreciate that advice.

I am pleased that you finally seem to be willing to discuss it, after two threads.

Of course the question at hand specifically, is whether or not the Resurrection as an historical event can be proven by Biblical evidence, since your claim was that that was not a circular argument.

My original assertion was of course that one can only know that the Bible is "true", or therefore that any given "translation" is from God and not an invention of several thousand years of oral tradition, the fantasies of scribes, erroneous re-translations from various earlier languages, etc- in other words, the works of men, is by obtaining a testimony to that effect.

[mfbukowski]

So before I answer your question, it's important to note that not all biblical scholars, nor their institutions are created equal. There are critical biblical scholars trained and connected with universities and biblical scholars trained and affiliated with divinity schools trying to prove the Bible accords with their own religious and historical perspectives.

Thanks for the beginning of your response.

I understand the difference, and feel no need to compare the rigor of either set of institutions, but I think the difference is clear.

[Hughes]

Of course I asked David the question, since he is a Mormon. I did not ask you the question- I have already heard your answer, and your suggestion that I ask a Mormon expert. I appreciate that advice.

I am pleased that you finally seem to be willing to discuss it, after two threads.

Of course the question at hand specifically, is whether or not the Resurrection as an historical event can be proven by Biblical evidence, since your claim was that that was not a circular argument.

My original assertion was of course that one can only know that the Bible is "true", or therefore that any given "translation" is from God and not an invention of several thousand years of oral tradition, the fantasies of scribes, erroneous re-translations from various earlier languages, etc- in other words, the works of men, is by obtaining a testimony to that effect.

This question isn't a question pertaining to Hebrews 6:1, but rather a broader question of Epistemology.

It's clear that Joseph Smith taught his followers to trust the "spirit" as epistemological way of learning what is true or not (ie seeking to have a testimony about "A") where one trusts what the "spirit" says personally to the him/her. And yet, with Hebrews 6:1, he obviously didn't do that at all, he was attempting to "correct" what to him was a clear objective contradiction in the text.

Deriving truth from an objective study of the biblical text is foundational to an evangelical approach to the study of the biblical text (or any ancient text for that matter), which is epistemologically different from what Joseph Smith taught. Hence, the question.

[Hughes]

Of course I asked David the question, since he is a Mormon. I did not ask you the question- I have already heard your answer, and your suggestion that I ask a Mormon expert. I appreciate that advice.

I am pleased that you finally seem to be willing to discuss it, after two threads.

Of course the question at hand specifically, is whether or not the Resurrection as an historical event can be proven by Biblical evidence, since your claim was that that was not a circular argument.

My original assertion was of course that one can only know that the Bible is "true", or therefore that any given "translation" is from God and not an invention of several thousand years of oral tradition, the fantasies of scribes, erroneous re-translations from various earlier languages, etc- in other words, the works of men, is by obtaining a testimony to that effect.

This question isn't a question pertaining to Hebrews 6:1, but rather a broader question of Epistemology.

It's clear that Joseph Smith taught his followers to trust the "spirit" as epistemological way of learning what is true or not (ie seeking to have a testimony about "A") where one trusts what the "spirit" says personally to the him/her. And yet, with Hebrews 6:1, he obviously didn't do that at all, he was attempting to "correct" what to him was a clear objective contradiction in the text.

Deriving truth from an objective study of the biblical text is foundational to an evangelical approach to the study of the biblical text (or any ancient text for that matter), which is epistemologically different from what Joseph Smith taught. Hence, the question.

[Rob Bowman]

David,

You wrote:

I have no doubt that our friend Rob won't like this answer, but it is essential to note in this type of discussion that there are two groups of biblical scholars. Those trained and associated with conservative minded/apologetic divinity school programs, and those trained and associated with critical biblical scholarship.

I not only don't like it, I don't agree with it. Are you familiar with the scholars I listed?

Richard Bauckham: educated at Cambridcge

Craig Blomberg: educated at Aberdeen

Darrell Bock: educated at Aberdeen

F. F. Bruce: educated at Cambridge and Vienna

William Lane Craig: educated at Birmingham (UK) and Munich

Gregory A. Boyd: educated at Yale Divinity School and Princeton Theological Seminary (not exactly bastions of evangelical, conservative thought!)

R. T. France: educated at the University of Bristol

Daniel P. Fuller: educated at UC Berkeley (!), Fuller Theological Seminary, and University of Basel

Gary Habermas: educated at Michigan State University

Craig Keener: educated at Duke University

Michael Licona: educated at the University of Pretoria

Grant R. Osborne: educated at Aberdeen

Ben Witherington III: educated at Durham

N. T. Wright: educated at Oxford

Care to make a retraction?

[Ron Beron]

I'd like to note that Rob's scholarship is far from sloppy. While I disagree with his interpretations regarding particular points of evidence, he is one of the best critics I have seen on this board. Discussions with him have been fruitful.

Ditto

[WalkerW]

I not only don't like it, I don't agree with it. Are you familiar with the scholars I listed?

Richard Bauckham: educated at Cambridcge

Craig Blomberg: educated at Aberdeen

Darrell Bock: educated at Aberdeen

F. F. Bruce: educated at Cambridge and Vienna

William Lane Craig: educated at Birmingham (UK) and Munich

Gregory A. Boyd: educated at Yale Divinity School and Princeton Theological Seminary (not exactly bastions of evangelical, conservative thought!)

R. T. France: educated at the University of Bristol

Daniel P. Fuller: educated at UC Berkeley (!), Fuller Theological Seminary, and University of Basel

Gary Habermas: educated at Michigan State University

Craig Keener: educated at Duke University

Michael Licona: educated at the University of Pretoria

Grant R. Osborne: educated at Aberdeen

Ben Witherington III: educated at Durham

N. T. Wright: educated at Oxford

Care to make a retraction?

For the record, I like and have read work by Bauckham (I have Jesus and the Eyewitnesses), Blomberg (liked him ever since How Wide the Divide?), Craig (great arguments for the Resurrection and religious experiences), Boyd (hurrah for Open Theism), Habermas (the Resurrection master), Keener (love his Socio-Rhetorical Commentary), Witherington (Ditto), and Wright (I have a slight man-crush on him). I've only recently began looking at Licona's work. The rest I'm not familiar with beyond their names.

[PacMan]

Bump my post.

Point: your interpretation of the Greek, if original, doesn't make sense. You don't mature beyond the two great commandments or set them aside to go on to perfection. The basic Christian principles bring perfection. Unless, of course, you need something more. Like works... Then it'd make sense. Take your pick.

PacMan

[WalkerW]

Speaking of my man crush, see N.T. Wright's discussion of Acts on

. It is multiple parts, but there is a wealth of information that should be interesting to LDS listeners.

[mfbukowski]

I will just say this.

Beginning with a belief in God, one already has a "testimony", as we LDS do.

Perhaps what is being said is that those considered "critical" scholars, do not begin their argumentation with a presumption, even tacitly, of God's existence.

Atheists are not often instantly converted by historical arguments for the Resurrection precisely for this reason, whereas for those who already believe in God, historical arguments for the Resurrection seem to make their beliefs more plausible. The fact that atheists are not often converted by these arguments

The bottom line is that, in my opinion, Evangelicals base their beliefs on "testimonies" just as we do; they simply do not like to admit it. You cannot believe in God without the testimony of the Holy Spirit.

[Robert F. Smith]

What is needed here is some indication from Joseph Smith himself that he thought he was doing something fundamentally different when he was tinkering with verses like Hebrews 6:1 from what he was doing when he was adding large portions of material to Genesis. It is only in hindsight that LDS "scholars (and pretend scholars)" have discovered that some of Joseph's revisions to the Bible were not inspired revelations but midrashic or (as you say next) scribal emendations. It is an interesting coincidence that the uninspired bits so often happen to be the bits that display Joseph's lack of understanding of the Bible.

The irony here is delicious. Mormons commonly complain that we cannot rely fully on the Bible because the scribes who copied it made changes to it, resulting in numerous variations in the biblical manuscripts. Now you are comparing Joseph Smith's revision of the Bible (or at least the embarrassing parts of it) to some of the work of the scribes who caused the trouble that Mormons historically thought Joseph was trying to correct!

You may find it delicious to create several strawmen and then attack them, rather than dealing with what has actually taken place, but in so doing you clearly have no idea what is actually going on with the emendations to the KJV text which Joseph & Sidney made.

First, midrash is commentary and is not the same as the scribal emendations which I mentioned. You had wrongly stated (in response to someone else) that Joseph could not do midrash unless he knew the meaning of the word. Not only was that a silly and false statement for the reasons I stated, but it shows that you have no idea what such terms mean.

Furthermore, you may be too young to realize it, but LDS church members (including most scholars) gave little thought to the so-called JST, and so had no "hindsight" to employ in evaluating the various emendations to the KJV text. The RLDS Church had long published the full JST, though not under that rubric, and LDS Church members were blissfully unaware of it. Later, after the hard work of BYU Professor Robert Matthews, attention was given to the JST, and it was added as notes and an appendix to the 1979 LDS KJV. This is a very recent phenomenon and does not have canonical status..

Regarding Joseph Smith's revision of Genesis 6:6, it removes what Joseph Smith viewed as an offending statement from the Bible and replaces it with another statement that has no substantive connection with the original statement or the context in which it appears. That is, the revision "It repented Noah that God made man" does nothing to clarify Genesis 6:6; it simply removes what Genesis 6:6 says and replaces it with a completely different statement that superficially resembles the original statement because it uses the same words. The two statements use the same words but they don't have any relationship in terms of their meaning. The statement "It repented Noah that God made man" (Gen. 8:13 JST) makes no sense at all. Noah can't "repent" of something about which he had no involvement or role. The word "repent" and related forms appear over a hundred times in the KJV, and I don't think it ever allows such a usage. To repent in the KJV means to change one's mind, attitude, or decision about one's own actions or intentions--what one has done or was planning to do. Furthermore, in Genesis there is a clear and logical (even if theologically troubling for some) connection between Genesis 6:6, 8 and 6:7. Because the Lord was sorry that he had made man (6:6 KJV), he decided to wipe out mankind (6:7), "for it repenteth me that I have made them" (6:8 ). In the JST this connection is muddied. Now the text says that Noah was sorry that the Lord had made man (8:13 JST) and so the Lord announced that he would wipe out mankind, "for it repenteth Noah that I have created them" (8:14-15). In Joseph's zeal to make Genesis more theologically palatable, he actually made the text less clear.

At least the sopherim's proposed scribal emendations made sense!

False. The emendations made by the pious Jewish scribes frequently made no more sense than the one you point to in Gen 6:6 (by Joseph & Sidney). They were made for only one reason: To eliminate a case of blasphemy or the like as perceived by the scribe. You admit that this is the purpose of Joseph & Sidney in your comments above (see the bold print).

Now, what about your claim that in a verse like Genesis 6:6, Joseph was merely making a scribal emendation to clarify the text, as distinguished from the truly revelatory (and thus inspired) additions he made to the Bible as seen in the Book of Moses? Perhaps you missed it, but Genesis 8:13-15 JST (the revision of Genesis 6:6-8 KJV) is identical to Book of Moses 8:25-26! So Joseph's revision to Genesis 6 is part of the LDS canon, and is presented as revelation, not mere scribal emendation.

I made no such claim. I was discussing Heb 6:1 as a case of clarifying the text -- for the same reasons that the learned commentators which you quoted saw fit to discuss the same text in order to clarify any possible misunderstandings. You even admitted the primary reason for the change by Joseph & Sidney was just that rational reason. By faulting Joseph & Sidney you are faulting the very sources you cited. After all, such an addition to the text only clarifies what your own learned commentators tried to clarify.

It stretches all credulity to claim that Moses 8:24 is an inspired revelation while Moses 8:25-26 is a mere scribal emendation.

No one made such a claim here, and this is a further indication that you have no idea what tiqqune soferim were.

What Joseph claimed to do is one thing; the rationale that he gave for it is something else. Joseph claimed to be revising the Bible as an inspired prophet with the gift of translation, not as a scribe. In saying that Joseph thought he was inspired to make his changes, I was acknowledging the traditional LDS belief in the matter. How ironic, that I am being criticized for saying that Joseph claimed to be inspired in that work!

Who criticized you for saying that Joseph (& Sidney) claimed to be inspired? Is this another straw man?

Joseph's changes to Genesis 6:6 and Hebrews 6:1 did nothing to update or clarify the KJV wording. In both cases Joseph retained the KJV words and either rearranged them (in Genesis 6:6) or negated them by adding "not" (in Hebrews 6:1). This is most decidedly not what learned commentators do.

False on both counts. You yourself cited the learned commentators attempting to clarify the text of Heb 6:1, and then you hypocritically attack Joseph & Sidney for doing the same thing by employing a typical scribal technique of emendation of the text. Now, it may be that the soferim should have let certain texts stand without alteration, but that is a value judgment made in hindsight.

[Nathair/|\]

Nathair,

Two points here.

1. You should not need a personal revelation from the Lord that the Book of Mormon is his word to know that adultery is wrong. The moral law of God is written on our hearts (Rom. 2:14-16) and we already know that adultery is wrong. The fact that God has said so in his word, in the Ten Commandments, is simply confirmation of what we already know.

2. Imaginative scenarios in which you can speculate that adultery might be necessary are beside the point. I can think of some too. But I don't need a special revelation from God to know that the hypothetical possibility of adultery becoming necessary after a nuclear holocaust does not authorize me now to commit adultery with that cute young woman I met across town. I can use my reasoning faculties to know that God's prohibition of adultery has no legitimate exception in that instance.

1. I have to disagree with you there. Were it not for the scriptures (or the prohibition of whatever gods I worshiped in the hypothetical situation that the scriptures were not available to me) I would most likely conclude that adultery is not wrong per se, but only in that it harms another person. Therefore, I would believe that adultery would be ethical if I could avoid harming another person. Now maybe that's because, like my buddy Tao, I probably have Asperger's, I don't know. But given that the Romans and Greeks were notoriously libertine about sexual matters and many cultures seemed to practice ritual adultery, I don't think so. My own people, the Celts, seem to have come to the same conclusion prior to the coming of Christianity. I am told that it was even part of Brehon law that a wife was permitted to take lovers on the side. I offer Queen Medb as an example.

2. I am uncomfortable with absolutes and tend to avoid them without sufficient justification. I do believe there are legitimate absolutes, but before taking an absolute position, I try to confirm that this is one of them. I also find that exceptions to a rule help me understand the purpose of the rule.

Yours under the Celtic oaks,

Nathair /|\

For what it's worth, I agree with David Bokovoy about you as a critic.

[Robert F. Smith]

mfbukowski, on 07 April 2011 - 03:26 AM, said:

"What Paul said" is gone forever, if it ever existed.

By this reasoning, the author of 2 Peter was mistaken when he referred to what Paul had written (2 Peter 3:16), because what Paul had said was "gone forever, if it ever existed." Likewise, Jesus was mistaken in appealing to things that David, Isaiah, or other OT writers had written or said (e.g., Matt. 13:14; 22:43, 45).

mfbukowski is here suggesting that we do not have the autographs (original letters) and hence cannot be absolutely sure what someone said. You clearly misunderstand him here and need to read more carefully.

[Robert F. Smith]

There are some extremely bright and well-educated persons in this forum. I think our differences are the result less of our education and more of a pre-commitment to defend Joseph Smith on the part of many (not all) LDS here. You might suppose that I have just as deep a pre-commitment to criticize Joseph Smith as Mormons have to defend him. Not really, not with regard to specifics like this. Some of Joseph's revisions of the KJV are fine, though none, in my estimation, provide evidence of supernatural knowledge or inspiration. Where Joseph was right, he was right, and I have no trouble saying so. But where he was wrong, I'm not going to be shy about pointing it out.

That you are unable to perceive that Joseph & Sidney's addition to Heb 6;1 clarifies the meaning indicates that you do indeed have an overwhelmingly deep precommitment to fault their insertion. Moreover, you have been noticeably unwilling to admit that they were right when they were right -- as for example in the case I cited in Ex 6:3, which you have carefully ignored.

[Robert F. Smith]

Would you feel comfortable if someone treated Dr. Peterson with disdain because the church pays his salary, and he is a "professional apologist".

Dan Peterson is not a paid professional apologist. It is true that he is a professor at Brigham Young University, but the university does not pay him to do any apologetics. He does that on his own time, and it is not part of his job in any sense.

Just for the record.

[Robert F. Smith]

Mr. Bukowski,

a long list of biblical scholars who make much the same argument (or in some cases key parts of that argument) that I did. And although you didn't ask me, I will go ahead and provide what will actually be a short, select list, just as examples.

This list would keep you very busy for a long time. All of these books are solid works of high-caliber, academic biblical scholarship.

You might want to add a broader reading list of excellent works:

Archer, Gleason L., II, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties.

Ball, William P., George W. Foote, John Bowden, Richard M. Smith, et al., The Bible

Handbook: For Freethinkers and Inquiring Christians, 8th ed.

Barr, James, Fundamentalism

Boer, Harry R., Above the Battle? The Bible and Its Critics

Davis, Stephen T., The Debate About the Bible

Ehrman, Bart D., The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early Christological

Controversies on the Text of the New Testament

Ehrman, Bart D., Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the New Testament

and Why

Evans, Craig A., Fabricating Jesus: How Modern Scholars Distort the Gospels

Glassman, Eugene H., The Translation Debate: What Makes a Bible Translation Good?

Herford, R. Travers, Christianity in Talmud and Midrash

Johnston, Robert K., Evangelicals at an Impasse: Biblical Authority in Practice

Kaiser, Walter C., Jr., Peter H. Davids, F. F. Bruce, and Manfred T. Brauch, Hard Sayings of the

Bible

Levin, Saul, The Father of Joshua/Jesus

Lohfink, Gerhard, The Bible: Now I Get It! A Form-Criticism Handbook

MacDonald, William, II Peter and Jude: The Christian Apostasy

Montefiore, Claude G., Rabbinic Literature and Gospel Teachings

[zerinus]

I think our differences are the result less of our education and more of a pre-commitment to defend Joseph Smith on the part of many (not all) LDS here. You might suppose that I have just as deep a pre-commitment to criticize Joseph Smith as Mormons have to defend him. Not really, not with regard to specifics like this. Some of Joseph's revisions of the KJV are fine, though none, in my estimation, provide evidence of supernatural knowledge or inspiration.

Now that is a strange kind comment to make. Joseph Smith was not a trained scholar. He was very young, and he had a very limited formal education. And considering the extensive nature of some of the changes he made, and your observation that “some” of those changes were okay, yet provide no “evidence of supernatural knowledge or inspiration” (as he claimed), seems a very strange kind of observation.

Where Joseph was right, he was right, and I have no trouble saying so. But where he was wrong, I'm not going to be shy about pointing it out.

That begs the question, Where do you think he was right, and where do you think he was wrong? The “wrongs” you have pointed out to so far (assuming they are wrong) are negligable compared to the extensive changes that were made. Are you okay with the rest of them then? If you are, what is the basis of your comment that they were not inspired as he claimed—given his obvious limitations? If they are all or mostly wrong, you haven’t told us which ones, and why?

[David Bokovoy]

Care to make a retraction?

Absolutely not. Biblical scholarship falls into two very distinct camps: those who for religious reasons treat the Bible as a privileged text versus those who study the Bible critically. For a helpful introduction to this distinction, I would invite those interested to simply compare the comments made on the SBL website pertaining to Ron Hendel's article:

Comments

It is true that some conservative divinity school scholars have been trained at secular schools. However, in order to avoid approaching the Bible critically, often these scholars will pursue studies in peripheral areas, including the the history of biblical exegesis, and then present themselves to their respective communities as "biblical" scholars.

[David Bokovoy]

Though no doubt unintentional on his part, the following statement presented by Rob is a bit misleading.

My claim is not that Jesus was resurrected because the Bible says so. I can show on historical grounds that Jesus rose from the dead without treating the Bible as inspired. Evangelical scholars have been doing this for generations. The Gospels and other NT writings, especially Paul's, are treated as historical documents, and their testimonies weighed using historical methods of analysis to determine what we can know historically about what happened to Jesus.

It is true that scholars treat biblical texts as “historical documents,” but this does not mean that these sources contain historicity and/or present a correct retelling of the past. The Bible features a variety of diverse literary genres, including law, proverbs, psalms, prophesies, epistles, and historical narratives. Biblical historical texts provide a narrative that presents a past (note the lack of the definite article), and in this sense, these sources are “historical documents” from the ancient world.

In producing a narrative that presents a past, both Old and New Testament authors created “propaganda.” As biblical scholar Marc Brettler explains, “propaganda is a useful term when applied to the production of literature in antiquity; propaganda was originally a neutral term, used especially within the Church in relation to the propagation of ideas.” in the Creation of History in Ancient Israel, pg. 13.

Historical narratives in the Bible do not present a scientific, objective retelling of past events. Instead, historical narratives in the Bible are in every sense propaganda, i.e. presentations of a past written to persuade a group to follow a particular ideology. Hence, biblical history often features important internal discrepancies.

In his highly personal account of coming to terms with this reality, New Testament scholar Bart D. Ehrman shared the implication of his critical awakening:

“Maybe when Mark says that Jesus was crucified the day after the Passover meal was eaten (Mark 14:12; 15:25) and John says he died after the day before it was eaten (John 19:14)—maybe that is a genuine difference. Or when Luke indicates in his account of Jesus’ birth that Joseph and Mary returned to Nazareth just after a month after they had come to Bethlehem (and performed the rites of purification; Luke 2:39), whereas Matthew indicates they instead fled to Egypt (Matt. 2:19-22)—maybe that is a difference. Or when Paul says that after he converted on the way to Damascus he did not go to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before him (Gal. 1:16-17), whereas the book of Acts says that that was the first thing he did after leaving Damascus (Acts 9:26)—maybe that is a difference.” in Misquoting Jesus, pg. 9-10

[David Bokovoy]

I appreciate Robert's contributions and agree with his responses to Rob. I would like to add an observation to the following comment:

False. The emendations made by the pious Jewish scribes frequently made no more sense than the one you point to in Gen 6:6 (by Joseph & Sidney). They were made for only one reason: To eliminate a case of blasphemy or the like as perceived by the scribe. You admit that this is the purpose of Joseph & Sidney in your comments above (see the bold print).

And of course the effort to correct, harmonize, and explicate authoritative religious texts is not simply a late Rabbinic technique. It is biblical.

The Prophet Joseph's correction of Genesis 6:6 makes just as much sense as the Chronicler's revision of Josiah's Passover offering told in 2 Chr 35:13. The Chronicler reshaped his retelling of Israel's past to conform to the legal norms of the Torah. Therefore, when various Torah traditions conflicted with one another, the Chronicler found creative ways to harmonize the discrepancies. In the case of Josiah's Passover offering, two equally authoritative Torah texts presented the Chronicler with a serious problem.

Exodus 12:9 prohibits the sacrifice from being eaten raw or boiled. According to the Exodus law, the Passover sacrifice needed to be roasted in fire. In contrast, Deuteronomy 16:7 states that the Passover sacrifice was to be boiled. Historians of ancient Israel recognize that these differences reflect two distinct customs. However, by the time of the Chronicler, both laws had been "canonized" as Torah mandates and so the Chronicler found a way to harmonize the discrepancy.

2 Chronicles 35:13 blends both laws by stating: "They boiled the Passover sacrifice in the fire." As Marc Brettler notes, "This creates a wonderful image of a caldron consumed with flames, somehow fulfilling the laws of both Exodus and Deuteronomy." in the Creation of History in Ancient Israel, pg. 24.

Hence, in many ways, the JST simply follows the pattern of the biblical Chronicler who sought to correct and harmonize earlier authoritative religious texts with his own religious world view.

[zerinus]

I have no doubt that our friend Rob won't like this answer, but it is essential to note in this type of discussion that there are two groups of biblical scholars. Those trained and associated with conservative minded/apologetic divinity school programs, and those trained and associated with critical biblical scholarship. The word "critical" does not mean to criticize or to belittle, but rather to approach with objectivity, interpreting the Bible in its ancient Near Eastern context rather than through the lens of contemporary religious beliefs. Divinity school Bible scholars are quite deeply troubled by critical studies. Due to financial struggles, the flagship program for serious biblical scholarship, i.e. the Society of Biblical Literature, has recently changed its mission statement in order to placate these groups, removing the word "critical" from their mission statement.

Here is a site set up to protest this move:

Put "critical" back into SBL

Here is the original article by Jewish scholar Ronald S. Hendel criticizing the fact that SBL has made moves to attract evangelical groups into the academic fold:

Hendel

So before I answer your question, it's important to note that not all biblical scholars, nor their institutions are created equal. There are critical biblical scholars trained and connected with universities and biblical scholars trained and affiliated with divinity schools trying to prove the Bible accords with their own religious and historical perspectives.

I think that that statement is a partial reflection of the truth. Your portrayal of what you call “those trained and associated with critical biblical scholarship” as those who “approach with objectivity, interpreting the Bible in its ancient Near Eastern context rather than through the lens of contemporary religious beliefs”—thus attributing impartiality and “objectivity” to the latter—is a false observation. In reality, the latter kind of “scholars” are no more “objective” than the former. They just look at it through a different kind of biased and distorting “lens”. Whereas the former group may look at it though the “lens of contemporary religious beliefs” (your words), the latter group (with whom you obviously feel comfortable) basically look at the biblical texts through the “lens” of unbelief. They don’t believe in the reality of miracles, they don’t believe in the reality of prophecy, and so their “scholarly” investigation is geared towards eliminating those phenomena as possible causes of their observation, and look for other possible explanations for them, which they “wrap up in scholarly paper,” and pass off as genuine, impartial research. They don’t believe that the miracles of Moses or of Jesus really happened, so they try to figure out plausible explanations to eliminate them. They don’t believe that Isaiah could have really foretold the fall of Babylon as precisely as he did, so they try to find plausible sounding explanations to circumvent them. They don’t believe in the story of Noah and the Flood, so they try to figure plausible sounding “scholarly” explanations to discredit them. In reality they are just as biased, and try to look at their subject through a distorted “lens” as the other group does—if not more so.

And where does that leave people like me, who do believe in miracles, prophecies, and the rest? I take the scriptures literally—except where they are obviously not meant to be taken literally. I believe that the miracles of Moses really did happen; the miracles of Jesus (and His disciples and Apostles) did really happen; the Flood really did happen; Isaiah really did predict the fall of Babylon, exactly as it did happen. And I am not the only one that does. I think that the prophet does. I think his counsellors do. I think all the Apostles do. I think all the General Authorities of the Church do. I think pretty much all LDS do—and I think they are right! And so where does that leave us? Are we also looking at it through the biased “lens” of “contemporary religious thought”? Do we all really have to agree with you, and with your small clique of “scholars” to be right? I think it is your brand of “scholarship” that lacks objectivity more than any other, because it looks at the subject through the most “distortionist” lens of all—the lens of unbelief. A truly impartial scholar is one who is willing to allow for all possibilities to explain the phenomenon he is investigating—including a miraculous one, where one is claimed. If he is not willing to consider that possibility, where one is claimed, then he is not being impartial. That is obviously the brand of “scholarship” that you favour. You can rest assured that I, and many other people in the Church don't.

[Rob Bowman]

Robert,

You wrote:

You had wrongly stated (in response to someone else) that Joseph could not do midrash unless he knew the meaning of the word. Not only was that a silly and false statement for the reasons I stated, but it shows that you have no idea what such terms mean.

CFR that I ever said what you claim here.

[erichard]

...

The second statement would completely miss a basic point that the author of Hebrews is making: his readers are spiritually immature and have failed to move beyond baby food to the solid food fit for the mature (Heb. 5:11-14). Translating "not leaving" in Hebrews 6:1 loses the point that the author is making by saying "leaving," which is that his readers need to advance in their spiritual growth and theological education beyond the ABCs.

...

Hi,

I read Hebrews 5:11-14 and it makes its point very clearly. I do not find your argument convincing that somehow this point is "lost" if the first part of Hebrews 6:1 briefly brings up another point: that going on to perfection does not mean one is really "leaving" the first principles.

My own answer, by the way, to the question I posed to you is this: I simply do not know what the prophet who wrote this would choose as the best Modern English version of what he wrote.

But not knowing leaves open to me the possibility that he may very well may choose the version with "not leaving".

If he choose the version with just "leaving" I would agree that he must be thinking like you argue.

But I am willing to trust the Prophet Joseph on this one since I do not know what all points the original writer was trying to make.

By the way, I find it a bit strange that this thread is dealing with a scripture with such a Mormon doctrine: the need to "go onto perfection" and not stay at the milk stage of living the gospel.

Mormons believe that Christ, through the Holy Ghost, will eventually reveal many MORE things to his people. This is taught in John 16:12-13. Maybe that is why they are called MOREmons.

How exactly does one "go onto perfection", in other words become like Christ?

Is it not important in heeding the advice in Hebrews 6:1 to be open to MORE revelation from Christ beyond what is found in the New Testament?

Richard

[erichard]

....

[David Bokovoy]

I think that that statement is a partial reflection of the truth. Your portrayal of what you call “those trained and associated with critical biblical scholarship” as those who “approach with objectivity, interpreting the Bible in its ancient Near Eastern context rather than through the lens of contemporary religious beliefs”—thus attributing impartiality and “objectivity” to the latter—is a false observation. In reality, the latter kind of “scholars” are no more “objective” than the former.

If I led you to believe that I maintain that critical biblical scholars are objective, that was not my intent. No human being is purely objective. I was simply pointing out that such scholars strive to interpret the Bible objectively, as opposed to those who view the work as a privileged text. By "privileged text," I mean that traditional religious interpreters have believed that as a perfect God-breathed work, one should not interpret the Bible like regular non-biblical texts, bur rather according to special rules.

In his introduction to the book The Bible As It Was, scholar James L. Kugel captures this traditional mindset:

"There is no mistake in the Bible, and anything that might look like a mistake--the fact that, for example, Gen. 15:13 asserts that the Israelites 'will be oppressed for four hundred years' in Egypt, while Exod. 12:41 speaks of 430 years, whereas a calculation based on biblical genealogies yields a figure of 210 years--must therefore be an illusion to be clarified by proper interpretation" pg. 20.

This approach does not simply reject mistakes and/or inconsistencies, "it posits a perfect harmony between the Bible's various parts." Biblical scholars who attempt to approach the book objectively do not use this lens to interpret the text. Hence, a spade can truly be a spade. In this sense, they have been influenced by the rise of 17th century European rationalism as expressed by Baruch Spinoza in his classic work, Tractatus Theologico-Politicus: "I hold that the method of interpreting Scripture is no different from the method of interpreting nature, and is in fact in complete accord with it."

They just look at it through a different kind of biased and distorting “lens”. Whereas the former group may look at it though the “lens of contemporary religious beliefs” (your words), the latter group (with whom you obviously feel comfortable) basically look at the biblical texts through the “lens” of unbelief.

This is not true. Many critical scholars, myself included, are believers. We just do not believe in the Bible in the same way you do. Despite the inspiration behind the work, in a historical context, we do not believe that interpreters should read the Bible as a privileged text. The Bible is imperfect. It does not need to be interpreted as a God-breathed seamless whole.

They don’t believe in the reality of miracles, they don’t believe in the reality of prophecy, and so their “scholarly” investigation is geared towards eliminating those phenomena as possible causes of their observation, and look for other possible explanations for them, which they “wrap up in scholarly paper,” and pass off as genuine, impartial research. They don’t believe that the miracles of Moses or of Jesus really happened, so they try to figure out plausible explanations to eliminate them. They don’t believe that Isaiah could have really foretold the fall of Babylon as precisely as he did, so they try to find plausible sounding explanations to circumvent them. They don’t believe in the story of Noah and the Flood, so they try to figure plausible sounding “scholarly” explanations to discredit them. In reality they are just as biased, and try to look at their subject through a distorted “lens” as the other group does—if not more so.

While true for some, this is a false generalization of scholars who adopt the historical-critical approach.