The Problem Of Decontextualizing

[Bill Hamblin]

http://mormonscriptureexplorations.wordpress.com/2013/03/23/the-problem-of-decontextualization/

[nealr]

I've read part of Joseph Spencer's "An Other Testament" and found it to be quite interesting. But I agree that the whole "bracketing" nonsense is just that - nonsense. Both Spencer and Grant Hardy (in 'Understanding the Book of Mormon") do it, but in both cases, they proceed to make arguments that are meaningless if the Book of Mormon is not really ground in ancient history. For example, Spencer suggests that the "great and spacious building" in Lehi's Dream may have been the corrupted Jerusalem temple, and thus there is a sort of anti-establishment message to the symbol. This kind of reasoning means nothing if Joseph Smith made up the book in the 19th century. And Hardy does a great deal of analysis on what Laman and Lemuel might have really been like - but if they are fictional characters, then they have no personality beyond that given in the text.

So yes, there are other questions that are interesting and worth pursuing other than historical questions. But these questions require a historical context that can't be ignored. Furthermore, those of the Mormon Studies crowd who would like to hold this kind of research up as "true" Book of Mormon scholarship vs. the classic-FARMS, historical authenticity focused work are really missing an important point: Work like that of Spencer's and Hardy's could not have happened if the groundwork had not been laid by classic-FARMS. Both Hardy and Spencer cite FARMS work. Now that classic FARMS has elucidated the historical context, other work on matters of theology and literary content can move forward using that context. That of course does not mean that work of the historicity of the text should cease, but it means that we can more meaningfully explore other avenues as well.

Edited March 23, 2013 by nealr

[Kevin Christensen]

Good points Bill.

We can't know what a difference reading in specific cultural context makes until we read the text in that context. So bracketing important questions in the interest of not offending people who don't and won't read the Book of Mormon in the contexts it claims for itself amounts a complete uncondtional surrender, that for political purposes, we call tact and diplomacy.

While I've appreciated things by Spenser and Grant Hardy, and even Mark Thomas, I have to say that there is a completely different dimension of understanding that comes in when I look at the Nibley's discussion of qasida, or Margaret Barker's First Temple theology, or candidates for Nahom and Bountiful in the Old World, and in looking at Larry Poulson's reading of specific physical locations, and their implications for reading specific stories in the text, such as Limhi's explorers. You do the experiment, find mind explanding enlightenment, fruitfulness, accuracy in important details, and then I can almost hear Alma asking "Is this not real?"

Some time back I ran across a 1998 essay by John McDade, citing a study by Telford on various schools of Jesus Research, in which the conclusions that various scholars reach in their investigations turns out to be determined by how they decide to contextualize Jesus, both in terms of background and foreground.

Here, weighting is all and what should strike us about this helpful taxonomy is the selective and constructed character of the images of Jesus offered by historians, depending on their choice of emphasis, what counts as primary data, which heuristic models are used, etc. Telford speaks of a consensus today ‘that a combination of teacher, prophet, healer best captures historically his social identity or role’ (Telford, p.55).

Foreground data

· If weight is given to the miracle tradition, then Jesus emerges as an ancient magician (Morton Smith) or as a Jewish charismatic healerand exorcist (Vermes).

· If the weight is given to the sayings tradition, then a range of images of Jesus is adduced.

· If the wisdom sayings (proverbs, parables, aphorisms etc.) are given prominence, then Jesus emerges as a sage (Vermes, Flusser) or even an itinerant subversive sage (Borg, Robinson, Funk).

· If an emphasis on the authenticity of the prophetic and apocalyptic sayingsis retained, then Jesus emerges as an eschatological prophet (Meyer, Sanders, Charlesworth).

· If his Kingdom saying are interpreted apocalyptically (following Schweitzer), and linked with the Son of Man sayings, then Jesus is an other-worldly figure, expecting cosmic catastrophe and relatively indifferent to social concerns.

· If the Kingdom sayings are not interpreted apocalyptically, and the Son of Man sayings are viewed as secondary, then Jesus emerges as a this-worldly figure, asocial prophet, with a social programme (Borg, Horsley, Hollenbach).

· If the emphasis is placed on the opposition to him and his death at the hands of the Romans, then Jesus emerges as a para-Zealot revolutionary (Brandon) or the pacifist victim of oppression.

Background data

The choice of context in which to place Jesus affects the estimate given of him:

· When emphasis is placed on the Palestinian Jewish context and within that on the Rabbinic tradition (although that did not flourish till after 70AD), then Jesus can be seen as the inspired Rabbi (Flusser, Chilton) or the Pharisee(Falk).

· If the choice is made to place him in the context of apocalyptic Judaism, then he can be seen as the ‘humane apocalyptist’ (Charlesworth) or the ‘reasonable visionary’ (Sanders).

· If his Galilean provenance is emphasised, then he becomes a charismatic holy man or hasid in the same tradition as Honi the Circle-Drawer or Hanina ben Dosa (Vermes).

· If Hellenistic influences in Galilee are emphasised, then he can be seen as a Cynic teacher (Mack, Crossan)

· If it is judged that he conforms to no particular social type, he cannot be placed in one of these categories (Hengel)

The Jesus who is envisaged in these accounts is the pre-canonical Jesus, arrived at through certain judgements about the nature of the Gospel traditions (both canonical and extra-canonical -- the Gospel of Thomas is now a controversial card in the game), and set in the dynamics of the religious, social and economic life of Palestine. There is then a radical dependence between the reconstructed Jesus and the reconstructed context/model: how the context and social model are understood determines how Jesus is understood. ‘Determines’ is not too strong a word, for one of the problems with this approach is that the grid of social and economic context is such a strong factor it can inhibit responsible handling of the actual textual evidence we have for Jesus.

At the Joseph Smith conference in 2005, Richard Bushman made a similar observation about approaches to Joseph Smith:

As you can imagine, the context in which he is placed profoundly affects how people see the prophet, since the history selected for a subject profoundly colors everything about it. Is he a money digger like hundreds of other superstitious Yankees in his day, a religious fanatic like Muhammad was thought to be in Joseph Smith’s time, a prophet like Moses, a religious revolutionary like Jesus? To a large extent, Joseph Smith assumes the character of the history selected for him. The broader the historical context, the greater the appreciation of the man. If Joseph Smith is described as the product of strictly local circumstances--the culture of the Burned-Over District, for example--he will be considered a lesser figure than if put in the context of a Muhammad or Moses.

Bushman argued that Joseph Smith came to understand himself best when he put himself in a Biblical context. Like Paul, he had seen a vision, and he knew it, and knew that God knew it. After Martin Harris returned from his visit with Professor Anthon, he saw himself as fulfilling Biblical prophecy.

I wrote this up for a part of a FAIR paper a few years ago.

http://en.fairmormon...nd_Joseph_Smith

The issue is not whether we contextualize Jesus or Joseph Smith or the Book of Mormon, but whether the way we do so provides answers to the most important questions.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

Edited March 24, 2013 by Kevin Christensen

[Bill Hamblin]

Joe Spencer gave a thoughtful response here:

https://mormonscript...ation/#comments

Edited March 23, 2013 by Bill Hamblin

[Bill Hamblin]

Good points Bill.

We can't know what a difference reading in specific cultural context makes until we read the text in that context. So bracketing important questions in the interest of not offending people who don't and won't read the Book of Mormon in the contexts it claims for itself amounts a complete uncondtional surrender, that for political purposes, we call tact and diplomacy.

While I've appreciated things by Spenser and Grant Hardy, and even Mark Thomas, I have to say that there is completely different dimension of understanding that comes in when I look at the Nibley's discussion of qasida, or Margaret Barker's First Temple theology, or candidates for Nahom and Bountiful in the Old World, and in looking at Larry Poulson's reading of specific physical locations, and their implications for reading specific stories in the text, such as Limhi's explorers. You do the experiment, find mind explanding enlightenment, fruitfulness, accuracy in important details, and then I can almost hear Alma asking "Is this not real?"

Some time back I ran across a 1998 essay by John McDade, citing a study by Telford on various schools of Jesus Research, in which the conclusions that various scholars reach in their investigations turns out to be determined by how they decide to contextualize Jesus, both in terms of background and foreground.

At the Joseph Smith conference in 2005, Richard Bushman made a similar observation about approaches to Joseph Smith:

Bushman argued that Joseph Smith came to understand himself best when he put himself in a Biblical context. Like Paul, he had seen a vision, and he knew it, and knew that God knew it. After Martin Harris returned from his visit with Professor Anthon, he saw himself as fulfilling Biblical prophecy.

I wrote his up for a part of a FAIR paper a few years ago.

http://en.fairmormon...nd_Joseph_Smith

The issue is not whether we contextualize Jesus or Joseph Smith or the Book of Mormon, but whether the way we do so provides answers to the most important questions.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

I fully agree.

[Stone holm]

I've read part of Joseph Spencer's "An Other Testament" and found it to be quite interesting. But I agree that the whole "bracketing" nonsense is just that - nonsense. Both Spencer and Grant Hardy (in 'Understanding the Book of Mormon") do it, but in both cases, they proceed to make arguments that are meaningless if the Book of Mormon is not really ground in ancient history. For example, Spencer suggests that the "great and spacious building" in Lehi's Dream may have been the corrupted Jerusalem temple, and thus there is a sort of anti-establishment message to the symbol. This kind of reasoning means nothing if Joseph Smith made up the book in the 19th century. And Hardy does a great deal of analysis on what Laman and Lemuel might have really been like - but if they are fictional characters, then they have no personality beyond that given in the text.

So yes, there are other questions that are interesting and worth pursuing other than historical questions. But these questions require a historical context that can't be ignored. Furthermore, those of the Mormon Studies crowd who would like to hold this kind of research up as "true" Book of Mormon scholarship vs. the classic-FARMS, historical authenticity focused work are really missing an important point: Work like that of Spencer's and Hardy's could not have happened if the groundwork had not been laid by classic-FARMS. Both Hardy and Spencer cite FARMS work. Now that classic FARMS has elucidated the historical context, other work on matters of theology and literary content can move forward using that context. That of course does not mean that work of the historicity of the text should cease, but it means that we can more meaningfully explore other avenues as well.

You made a reference here that is something I am interested, have to admit I don't give a rat's --- about the academic methodology debate, but could you expound on the reference to the alternative understanding of the spacious building, that is a very important point.

[mfbukowski]

The issue is not whether we contextualize Jesus or Joseph Smith or the Book of Mormon, but whether the way we do so provides answers to the most important questions.

I just hope that no one here thinks that getting to choose contexts is always voluntary. I think what we see here is another historic context or "generation" seeing things their own way in their own context. For some it is not a choice of how to place religious matters contextually, but what makes them relevant - at all- in their lives. Much of European culture sees religion as totally irrelevant largely because, in my opinion, they do no understand what makes it relevant to their lives- they find it to be dead superstition.

If we sit around waiting for people to choose a context for religious belief much longer, there won't be any choices left Scientism will have devoured them all. As I see it, we must show Scientism to be what it is-one of many contexts for classifying our ways of experiencing and speaking about the world

So as we strive to answer those "most important questions" I hope we understand that de-contextualizing is just the first part of re-contextualizing and is an indispensible part of the process and most emphatically must not be linked in any way to "heresy".

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I've read part of Joseph Spencer's "An Other Testament" and found it to be quite interesting. But I agree that the whole "bracketing" nonsense is just that - nonsense. Both Spencer and Grant Hardy (in 'Understanding the Book of Mormon") do it, but in both cases, they proceed to make arguments that are meaningless if the Book of Mormon is not really ground in ancient history. For example, Spencer suggests that the "great and spacious building" in Lehi's Dream may have been the corrupted Jerusalem temple, and thus there is a sort of anti-establishment message to the symbol. This kind of reasoning means nothing if Joseph Smith made up the book in the 19th century. And Hardy does a great deal of analysis on what Laman and Lemuel might have really been like - but if they are fictional characters, then they have no personality beyond that given in the text.

So yes, there are other questions that are interesting and worth pursuing other than historical questions. But these questions require a historical context that can't be ignored. Furthermore, those of the Mormon Studies crowd who would like to hold this kind of research up as "true" Book of Mormon scholarship vs. the classic-FARMS, historical authenticity focused work are really missing an important point: Work like that of Spencer's and Hardy's could not have happened if the groundwork had not been laid by classic-FARMS. Both Hardy and Spencer cite FARMS work. Now that classic FARMS has elucidated the historical context, other work on matters of theology and literary content can move forward using that context. That of course does not mean that work of the historicity of the text should cease, but it means that we can more meaningfully explore other avenues as well.

Just a word of advice, highlighted comments usually mean put/ paste written by others...this requires listing of author's.

[nealr]

Just a word of advice, highlighted comments usually mean put/ paste written by others...this requires listing of author's.

It is "highlighted" because I copy and pasted from my own facebook comment on Bill's facebook posting of the blogpost. When I saw it was here as well, I thought some might also be interested in my comment. Thus, it was not written by others and requires no listing of authors.

[nealr]

You made a reference here that is something I am interested, have to admit I don't give a rat's --- about the academic methodology debate, but could you expound on the reference to the alternative understanding of the spacious building, that is a very important point.

I sincerely wish I could expound in greater detail, but what I said is more of less the sum of Spencer's comments on the matter as well. For your benefit, and for others who maybe interested, here is his comment on the great and spacious building:

2. The dream of the tree of life perhaps set the stage of Lehi’s criticisms of

Jerusalem. It seems to me most natural to see in the image of the “great and spacious

building” a reflection of the corrupt temple of Lehi’s day, from which the wealthy

Jerusalem elite would have mocked the wild-eyed prophets who dared to retreat

into the wilderness to eat of the fruit of the tree of life. On such an interpretation,

it seems clear that Lehi’s dream of the tree of life was at least in part meant to be

understood as a critique of the self-satisfied Jerusalem establishment.

That is from Joseph Spencer, An Other Testament: On Typology (Salt Lake City: Salt Press, 2010), 99 n.2. This is available for free download at saltpress.org.

[Bill Hamblin]

I

I sincerely wish I could expound in greater detail, but what I said is more of less the sum of Spencer's comments on the matter as well. For your benefit, and for others who maybe interested, here is his comment on the great and spacious building:

That is from Joseph Spencer, An Other Testament: On Typology (Salt Lake City: Salt Press, 2010), 99 n.2. This is available for free download at saltpress.org.

I discuss the issues in more depth here

https://mormonscriptureexplorations.wordpress.com/2012/01/14/1-nephi-819-38/

[Robert F. Smith]

http://mormonscriptu...textualization/

Bill,

While it is true that Joe Spencer said that historicism closes the possibility of studying other features of the text, I thought he meant that assertion to be taken in the context of historicism crowding out other, crucial perspectives (sucking up all the oxygen in the room). I thought we all agreed there and then that there is nothing at all wrong with Grant Hardy bracketing out the historical questions in his wonderful Understanding the Book of Mormon: A Reader’s Guide, which is reminiscent of Northrop Frye’s The Great Code, and both successful for similar reasons. One does not have to be a believer to enjoy those perspectives.

On the other hand, we did witness Kristian Heal saying online this past February that “Nibley, IMHO, did not read texts in their own terms. He mined them for parallels or other canon fodder. The results are evocative, beautifully crafted narratives that seem to be about ancient texts but really are only about Mormonism.” Neither side should be privileged or preferred.

Another thing: When Joe Spencer was delivering his paper comparing Arjuna and the Brother of Jared, I understood him to say that Moroni classified Jared as the exemplary gentile, i.e., not part of the covenantal people of Israel. And yet, the Brother of Jared’s remarkable faith requires the subsequent vision.

I think that you misconstrued Joe’s comment there. For, surely a Manassite like Moroni can classify a gentile as such, in the same way that Judaism has come to classify Noah as a gentile — from whom we obtain the Noahide Laws applicable to all gentiles, rather than the rules of Jewish kashrut.

Bob

Edited March 24, 2013 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

We can't know what a difference reading in specific cultural context makes until we read the text in that context. So bracketing important questions in the interest of not offending people who don't and won't read the Book of Mormon in the contexts it claims for itself amounts a complete uncondtional surrender, that for political purposes, we call tact and diplomacy.

While I've appreciated things by Spenser and Grant Hardy, and even Mark Thomas, I have to say that there is a completely different dimension of understanding that comes in when I look at the Nibley's discussion of qasida, or Margaret Barker's First Temple theology, or candidates for Nahom and Bountiful in the Old World, and in looking at Larry Poulson's reading of specific physical locations, and their implications for reading specific stories in the text, such as Limhi's explorers. You do the experiment, find mind explanding enlightenment, fruitfulness, accuracy in important details, and then I can almost hear Alma asking "Is this not real?"

..........................................

The issue is not whether we contextualize Jesus or Joseph Smith or the Book of Mormon, but whether the way we do so provides answers to the most important questions.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

I enjoyed the summary of views, Kevin, and I was reminded of Birger A. Pearson, “The Gospel According to the Jesus Seminar,” Religion, 25 (Oct 1995), 317-338, saying on p. 334, “The fabrication of a non-Jewish Jesus is one particularly pernicious side effect of the Jesus Seminar’s methodology.” This paper was originally presented at a Biblical Archaeology Society seminar held in Marina Del Rey, California, which I attended.

However, I think that you misunderstand the entirely appropriate manner in which both Grant Hardy and Joe Spencer go about analyzing texts, and the value that it can have.

[Bill Hamblin]

I enjoyed the summary of views, Kevin, and I was reminded of Birger A. Pearson, “The Gospel According to the Jesus Seminar,” Religion, 25 (Oct 1995), 317-338, saying on p. 334, “The fabrication of a non-Jewish Jesus is one particularly pernicious side effect of the Jesus Seminar’s methodology.” This paper was originally presented at a Biblical Archaeology Society seminar held in Marina Del Rey, California, which I attended.

However, I think that you misunderstand the entirely appropriate manner in which both Grant Hardy and Joe Spencer go about analyzing texts, and the value that it can have.

I agree it can have value. But it also has very important limits, which need to be recognized.

I've posted a couple of comments on my blog that examine these limits.

https://mormonscriptureexplorations.wordpress.com/2013/03/23/the-problem-of-decontextualization/#comments

[Bill Hamblin]

Bill,

While it is true that Joe Spencer said that historicism closes the possibility of studying other features of the text, I thought he meant that assertion to be taken in the context of historicism crowding out other, crucial perspectives (sucking up all the oxygen in the room). I thought we all agreed there and then that there is nothing at all wrong with Grant Hardy bracketing out the historical questions in his wonderful Understanding the Book of Mormon: A Reader’s Guide, which is reminiscent of Northrop Frye’s The Great Code, and both successful for similar reasons. One does not have to be a believer to enjoy those perspectives.

On the other hand, we did witness Kristian Heal saying online this past February that “Nibley, IMHO, did not read texts in their own terms. He mined them for parallels or other canon fodder. The results are evocative, beautifully crafted narratives that seem to be about ancient texts but really are only about Mormonism.” Neither side should be privileged or preferred.

Another thing: When Joe Spencer was delivering his paper comparing Arjuna and the Brother of Jared, I understood him to say that Moroni classified Jared as the exemplary gentile, i.e., not part of the covenantal people of Israel. And yet, the Brother of Jared’s remarkable faith requires the subsequent vision.

I think that you misconstrued Joe’s comment there. For, surely a Manassite like Moroni can classify a gentile as such, in the same way that Judaism has come to classify Noah as a gentile — from whom we obtain the Noahide Laws applicable to all gentiles, rather than the rules of Jewish kashrut.

Bob

Bob, I respond to your points in my comments on my blog here:

https://mormonscriptureexplorations.wordpress.com/2013/03/23/the-problem-of-decontextualization/#comments

[Stone holm]

I

I discuss the issues in more depth here

https://mormonscriptureexplorations.wordpress.com/2012/01/14/1-nephi-819-38/

Thank you

[Benjamin McGuire]

I want to add a couple of thoughts, and I hope I don't get too far off topic here.

Bill mentioned the idea of hidden contextualizations. I am a fan of Donald Davidson. This bit is taken from his 1993 essay "The Third Man":

Writing deviates startlingly from the original triangle. The object directly observed by both reader and writer is the text. It is produced by the writer, but in the case of literature the text is alienated from its creator by the lapse in time between when it is made and when it is read; the interaction between perceiving creatures that is the foundation of communication is lost. Plato marks the gulf between talking to a person and reading his words:

"That's the strange thing about writing, which makes it truly analogous to painting. The painter's products stand before us as though they were alive: but if you question them, they maintain a most majestic silence. It is the same with written words: they seem to talk to you as though, they were intelligent, but if you ask them anything about what they say, they go on telling you just the same thing for ever."

It's true that generally neither the text nor its author can respond to the reader. The interaction is of another sort. The text, unlike most objects, has meaning, and its meaning is the product of the interplay between the intentions of the writer to be understood in a certain way and the interpretation put on the writer's words by the reader. For the most part this interplay is, and is meant to be, routine, in the sense that the writer knows pretty well how he or she is apt to be understood, and the

typical reader knows pretty' well how the writer intended to be understood. This is not always the case. Writers like Shakespeare, Dante, Joyce, Beckett strain our interpretive powers and thus force us into retrospective dialogue with the text, and through the text with the author. Authors may choose from many devices to rouse the reader to wrestle with the text: thought provoking puzzles, ambiguous authorial attitudes, plays within plays, stylistic references to other writers, autobiographical hints. But however it is done, and to whatever extent the reader's connivance is won, authors have contrived or commandeered an arena of ideas and assumptions large enough to contain both themselves and their audience, a common conceptual space.

One of my recent essays (still awaiting publication) deals with the issue of narrative strategy by Nephi (in 1 and 2 Nephi). Within the context of that discussion, there are three roles. We have an author, we have a narrator, and we have a writing character. If we assume historicity, then the historical Nephi is both the author and the narrator. The writing character is this historical Nephi's self portrayal (and as with most self portrayals, the character in his text is probably ethically superior to the historical person). If on the other hand we assume that the work is a modern fiction, then the author is some unknown person, and Nephi exists both as a fictional narrator, and as a fictional writing character. In both cases, we have at least a minimally fictional writing character. But the audience of the narrator and the audience of the author can be quite different in these two ways of reading the text. It is impossible in many ways (and this is Bill's point) to read a text without having some assumed understanding of what the text is. You cannot decontextualize the Book of Mormon - because you cannot hold both readings at the same time and still draw out a single understanding of that text. As Davidson points out, reading is an interaction between a reader and the intentions of an author. Any reading of any text (whether on a conscious or unconscious level) can only occur with some sort of construct that we create of the author's intentions. There has to be some determination of who that author is - and thus, decontextualization on this level becomes impossible.

There was this interesting comment by Joe Spencer in one of the links that Bill gave - Joe wrote this:

There are nonetheless historians, persons, who claim that all meaning is historically determined, that the meaning of a text can only be arrived at beginning from the world behind the text.

With regards to the Book of Mormon, this is a fascinating subject because the Book of Mormon itself makes the argument that this approach is unsustainable. Not only does the Book of Mormon argue that this approach is wrong, it does so in a very explicit way. Quoting from my essay:

Writers assume a certain amount of knowledge on the part of their audience. Where they believe that this knowledge will not be present, they must provide it. Nephi shows a rather keen awareness of this idea of the necessity of knowledge for understanding. He discusses it with us (his hypothetical audience) when he explains his reasons for his approach to Isaiah. In fact, Nephi and Rabinowitz describe this awareness in very similar ways. First Rabinowitz:

"If historically or culturally distant texts are hard to understand, it is often precisely because we do not possess the knowledge required to join the authorial audience."

Nephi, in similar fashion tells us this:

"Now I, Nephi, do speak somewhat concerning the words which I have written, which have been spoken by the mouth of Isaiah. For behold, Isaiah spake many things which were hard for many of my people to understand; for they know not concerning the manner of prophesying among the Jews."

Nephi describes for us this body of necessary knowledge without which it becomes hard to understand Isaiah. This situation can be mitigated – Rabinowitz tells us that “even such things as the belief structures of a society must often be “explained” to the reader before he can fully understand the text.” And Nephi suggests that his own understanding comes from this sort of experience and learning – he tells us that:

"I know that the Jews do understand the things of the prophets, and there is none other people that understand the things which were spoken unto the Jews like unto them, save it be that they are taught after the manner of the things of the Jews. … but behold, I, of myself, have dwelt at Jerusalem, wherefore I know concerning the regions round about;"

If Nephi is aware that certain knowledge is necessary to understand Isaiah, and is in possession of that information, then we would expect as an author that he would provide that knowledge so that his text too could be understood. Rabinowitz explains that a novel dealing with the political environment of the 1960’s might achieve its intended “sense of impending doom only if the reader knows that John F. Kennedy will be assassinated when the events of the novel reach 22 November 1963.” The effect would be lost on an audience unfamiliar with that history – and if the author anticipated this in an audience he would need to “rewrite the book accordingly.” Nephi, on the other hand, while recognizing this issue, takes us in the opposite direction:

"For I, Nephi, have not taught them many things concerning the manner of the Jews; … But behold, I, Nephi, have not taught my children after the manner of the Jews;"

Nephi has deliberately prevented his authorial audience from being able to understand Isaiah in the same way that Nephi understands Isaiah – and at the same time, Nephi is letting that audience know that this step in his writing isn’t merely accidental, or caused by Nephi’s own flawed assumptions in creating his authorial audience. This development is deliberate. What remains is something even more radical. The authorial audience is an audience that doesn’t have this social and cultural knowledge – and in fact who may have no recourse to receive it. This absence of knowledge is by design, and not by accident.

For the approach described by Joe Spencer (and I don't think Joe actually believes this approach - given what I know of him), the end result would potentially be unknowable (only guessed at). Further, there is the realization that no matter what else we might think, the meaning of the Isaiah quoted in the Book of Mormon (whether it is a historical text or not) cannot be equated with the meaning of Isaiah as found in the Hebrew scriptures. Both were produced in very different worlds behind the text.

I think we have more of these "hidden contextualizing assumption(s)" than we often consider. And we can probably do a better job collectively at voicing our assumption. But, the very act of reading itself engages these assumptions. We can of course get into a limited discourse that is empty of them. Word print studies do this marvelously well. But while a set of frequency vectors for non-contextual words will tell us many very interesting things, it will not tell us what the text means. Likewise, we can spend a great deal of time dealing with all sorts of observations - both modern and historical - but the moment we engage meaning is the moment that all of these hidden assumptions come into play.

Ben M.

[Bill Hamblin]

Ben has it exactly right.

[Stone holm]

I

I discuss the issues in more depth here

https://mormonscript...1-nephi-819-38/

Thanks, my wife and I listened to this audio last night and I think she is going to join up to this board as a result.

[Questing Beast]

When I read the scriptures now, my context is: all of the holy books are man-made, and some of the contents under inspiration via our metaphysical connection to "God". That makes all writings of an inspirational nature "scripture". Therefore, books usually contain some or a lot of "scripture", and there is no such thing as a purely scriptural book, no matter how many "authorities" seek to make such by "canonizing" them. Most of the LDS "canonized" scriptures ("the standard works") are not scripture. Sifting the scripture out of the mass of text is an individual matter. But most of the text is not scripture in the "inspired writings" sense. And I have already said what I think of the "historical" aspects: the so-called history in the "holy books" is mostly reworked to present a story that supports the religious world view, which boils down to mankind's relationship to "God". This relationship is necessarily defined by the dogmatic assertions of the holy books. As I do not believe that any of the holy books present a reliable history, i.e. factual history, I don't any longer read them to acquire an education about "what happened". I pass on judging whether or not the characters in the stories even lived or not. I suspect that at least the biblical characters are based on some people who existed and are not created out of whole cloth.

The BoM is a different kind of book altogether. My context cannot make much use of it, because it has no earthly setting, no geographical foundation that can be walked over and dug into. If such a place was positively identified, such that I could go to the ancient ruins of Zarahemla like anyone can visit Jericho, perhaps my thinking of the named characters would undergo a transformation to at least accepting them as based on once-living people.

So, the paradigm, the context, of the holy books is to me one of a metaphysical communication of ideals, morals and eternal truths vis-a-vis human nature and the quest for Joy. Joy is the unbroken, unsullied presence, the companionship, of "God". If the holy books contain anything of value, it must be the transmission of these unchanging ideals that direct the reader toward that relationship.

But any books based on such ideals, verities of human thought and behavior, are as much books of "scripture" as the vaunted holy books are. I believe all that J.R.R. Tolkien has to say about what motivates human beings, and how "God" sees the purpose of the world. At least in broad brush strokes. For greater details on what Tolkien thought about man's relationship to the Divine, reading "Letters" contains more "scripture" than all of Tolkien's literature does....

Edited March 25, 2013 by Questing Beast

[volgadon]

When I read the scriptures now, my context is: all of the holy books are man-made, and some of the contents under inspiration via our metaphysical connection to "God". That makes all writings of an inspirational nature "scripture". Therefore, books usually contain some or a lot of "scripture", and there is no such thing as a purely scriptural book, no matter how many "authorities" seek to make such by "canonizing" them. Most of the LDS "canonized" scriptures ("the standard works") are not scripture. Sifting the scripture out of the mass of text is an individual matter. But most of the text is not scripture in the "inspired writings" sense. And I have already said what I think of the "historical" aspects: the so-called history in the "holy books" is mostly reworked to present a story that supports the religious world view, which boils down to mankind's relationship to "God". This relationship is necessarily defined by the dogmatic assertions of the holy books. As I do not believe that any of the holy books present a reliable history, i.e. factual history, I don't any longer read them to acquire an education about "what happened". I pass on judging whether or not the characters in the stories even lived or not. I suspect that at least the biblical characters are based on some people who existed and are not created out of whole cloth.

That is not context, but presupposition.

[Bill Hamblin]

That is not context, but presupposition.

Indeed.

[volgadon]

With regards to the Book of Mormon, this is a fascinating subject because the Book of Mormon itself makes the argument that this approach is unsustainable.

I won't name names, but I know who he had in mind, and the approach is the one where the 19th century Weltanschauung dictates the context and meaningof the BoM, and that exclusive approach is what frustrated SPencer.

[Questing Beast]

That is not context, but presupposition.

All contexts are "presuppostion". You presume that a context is valid. Others will take exception to your context. For instance, I take exception to the context that scripture, the "holy books", are direct and infallible "word of God". Yet millions of Bible believers uphold that context and interpret scripture with that context....

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

All contexts are "presuppostion". You presume that a context is valid. Others will take exception to your context. For instance, I take exception to the context that scripture, the "holy books", are direct and infallible "word of God". Yet millions of Bible believers uphold that context and interpret scripture with that context....

I am not sure that is context.