Don't take the Bible literally' says scholar who brought to light earliest Latin analysis of the Gospels

[Gray]

 

An interesting topic - we modern people often assume that fundamentalism is a return to some ancient tradition. In fact, it's is really quite a modern idea.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/22/dont-take-bible-literally-says-scholar-brought-light-earliest/

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Benjamin McGuire]

The book is open access in its electronic format, which is also very cool.

https://www.degruyter.com/viewbooktoc/product/469498

[ksfisher]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

 

An interesting topic - we modern people often assume that fundamentalism is a return to some ancient tradition. In fact, it's is really quite a modern idea.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/22/dont-take-bible-literally-says-scholar-brought-light-earliest/

 

 

 

 

 

 

You seem to be implying that the scriptural interpretation described in the article was universally held to be true.  Is there any evidence for this to be true or was this particular interpretation one among many?

[smac97]

From the article:

Quote

Lost for 1,500 years, the fourth-century commentary by African-born Italian bishop Fortunatianus of Aquileia interprets the Gospels as a series of allegories instead of a literal history.

Dr Hugh Houghton, of the University of Birmingham, who translated the work, said it was an approach which modern Christians could learn from.

The find adds weight to the idea that many early biblical scholars did not see the Bible as a history, but instead a series of coded messages which represented key elements of Christianity, he said.

"There's been an assumption that it's a literal record of truth - a lot of the early scholars got very worried about inconsistencies between Matthew and Luke, for example.

"But for people teaching the Bible in the fourth century, it's not the literal meaning which is important, it's how it's read allegorically.

"In contemporary Biblical scholarship a lot of the gospels are written with symbolism in mind.

"They are not setting out to be literal accounts but they are set out to be symbolic."

He said that the Bible had to be "understood in the context that the authors were working in." 

The approach differs from the trend of biblical literalism adopted by modern evangelical and fundamentalist Christians, which interprets the Bible as the literal word of God which is not open to interpretation. 

This has been the basis for beliefs such as the idea that the earth is 6,000 years old and that it was created in seven days. 

Modern archaeologists have also used the Bible to search for evidence about the life of Jesus, with mixed success. 

I guess I don't understand the gravamen of the article.  He seems to be suggesting the polar opposite of "biblical literalism," namely, that the Bible is not historical at all ("{t}hey are not setting out to be literal accounts..."), but instead are purely metaphorical ("they are set out to be symbolic").  Is this an accurate assessment?

Thanks,

-Smac

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

 

An interesting topic - we modern people often assume that fundamentalism is a return to some ancient tradition. In fact, it's is really quite a modern idea.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/22/dont-take-bible-literally-says-scholar-brought-light-earliest/

 

Thanks for the article.  What does this tell us about how society works?  We have access to so much information, most people are literate today, yet the majority of Christians misread the Bible in significant ways by taking so much of it as literal history, and expecting that history to be factually accurate by modern standards.  How is this happening in the modern information age?  

[Gray]

4 hours ago, ksfisher said:

You seem to be implying that the scriptural interpretation described in the article was universally held to be true.  Is there any evidence for this to be true or was this particular interpretation one among many?

I certainly don't mean to imply that. But the literalism of modern fundamentalism is a post-englightenment affair.

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

I certainly don't mean to imply that. But the literalism of modern fundamentalism is a post-englightenment affair.

It largely develops with the rise of hermeneutics - including scientific, historic and legal hermeneutics. However that's not to say such things didn't matter before. Just that how they conceived of it was somewhat different. But it's important to recall most people weren't literate. However they also had conceptions of things that happened and didn't happen. But figuring out what happened in the past was much more difficult.

However we should also note that "literalism" is a particularly problematic way of understanding what's going on. The particular kind of literalism that arose in the 19th century largely arose in opposition to more skeptical dismissals of many aspects of the Bible. Charles ****ens quip about angels in an age of railways captures that idea. The rise of what we'd call conservative Christianity or Evangelicalism really was much more an opposition to moves demythologizing the scriptures. And those demythologized elements could be found quite early. Jefferson's Bible which removed all reference to miracles is one great example.

To understand fundamentalism in terms of literalism rather than literalism in terms of fundamentalism is to misunderstand what's going on I think. That's not to deny a certain element where people accepted what the scriptures (typically the KJV) said as if they were saying it to a regular person. But more fundamentally what happens is a rejection of simply dismissing anything out of common experience. That then in turn shapes significantly how one reads texts.

This is important because turning to the culture of the scripture the real question is whether things were seen allegorically or whether they simply accepted intervention of supernatural beings. I think one will quickly see that while allegorical treatments were common in medieval and ancient times, it was in no small part due to dismissing the superstitions of the common people in preference to a more intellectual skepticism. But which culture represents the correct culture for scriptures often not written by that philosophically erudite elite?

 

Edited August 28, 2017 by clarkgoble

[clarkgoble]

Seriously the name of the author of Oliver Twist is considered a swear word?

[Calm]

Just half of it....

[SamuelTheLamanite]

9 hours ago, Gray said:

An interesting topic - we modern people often assume that fundamentalism is a return to some ancient tradition. In fact, it's is really quite a modern idea.

I don't know about that, but we have the Book of Mormon, modern scriptures, General Conference, and church manuals to help us interpret the Bible. 

[Gray]

4 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

This is important because turning to the culture of the scripture the real question is whether things were seen allegorically or whether they simply accepted intervention of supernatural beings. I think one will quickly see that while allegorical treatments were common in medieval and ancient times, it was in no small part due to dismissing the superstitions of the common people in preference to a more intellectual skepticism. But which culture represents the correct culture for scriptures often not written by that philosophically erudite elite?

There are several quite early schools of thought against literalism in the Christian tradition. I forget which early church father called literalism a "heresy". That does not mean that some things were not taken literally (and indeed, even I take some things literally), but I suspect the distinction between literal and symbolic is not one that would have been well understood very early in the Christian tradition.

Edited August 29, 2017 by Gray

[Benjamin McGuire]

SamuelTheLamanite writes:

Quote

I don't know about that, but we have the Book of Mormon, modern scriptures, General Conference, and church manuals to help us interpret the Bible. 

 

The problem with this, of course, is that no one who wrote the Bible, or who read it in its original context had any of these things (and of course the authors could never have intended for their text to be read in this way). And so our interpretation when it uses these things (the Book of Mormon, modern scriptures, General Conference, and church manuals) can only be very, very different from the interpretations that would be given by its first readers and intended by its authors. This isn't a bad thing - after all, this is exactly what Nephi talks about when he discusses likening the scriptures unto ourselves. It is only bad if we start with the fundamental idea that our interpretation (coming through all of these filters) is the same as the what was intended by the original authors.

And in this sense, the issue of whether or not the events in the Bible are literal history becomes actually far less significant than we might think. Nephi writes:

Quote

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. (2 Nephi 25:6–7)

And then he goes on to explain that he chooses (deliberately) not to share this historical data with his people. They then have no real way to access the historical context of scripture. They can only understand it through the lens of their own experience, and through things like 'the Book of Mormon, modern scriptures, General Conference, and church manuals'. Part of our problem with scripture is that we continue (for the most part) to adopt the idea that scripture has a determinate, fixed meaning, and that our interpretation (however we come to it) is not only the best interpretation, it is the true interpretation.

On top of this, we have the problem that we like to have evidence for truth. Since we can test (to some extent) the text against what we know of history, we can look at the historical validity of the text. But, then there is this substitution which tries to suggest that because the text is historical it must also be true. This is made much worse when this idea is adopted and reversed - that is, the idea that if the book is true (which we may come to believe for many other reasons), then it must also be historically accurate.

And of course, there are always limits to this. As President Spencer W. Kimball noted (Ensign, March 1976) once when talking about the narrative of the creation of Eve in the Garden of Eden:

Quote

The story of the rib, of course, is figurative.

And yet, how many believe that it is literal? That is is historical? That is has historicity? And will cite in favor of such a view the literalness of scripture or even the inclusion of that scripture in the temple endowment? What fascinates me more than a little bit is the idea that how we understand a text (the degree to which we make these kinds of assumptions about literalness and historicity) shape the way that we read the text and directly affects how we interpret them. And in turn, this impacts the ways that we can use the text (and even the degree to which we can liken it unto ourselves). Understood figuratively, we can all participate in the events described in the Garden of Eden narrative (the fall of mankind) - just as the temple ceremonies encourage us to do. Understood completely literally, it becomes something completely foreign to our own experience. In some ways, the idea of a completely literal garden narrative and a completely fictional garden narrative are two sides of the same coin.

Ben McGuire

[RevTestament]

On 8/28/2017 at 8:05 AM, Gray said:

 

An interesting topic - we modern people often assume that fundamentalism is a return to some ancient tradition. In fact, it's is really quite a modern idea.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/22/dont-take-bible-literally-says-scholar-brought-light-earliest/

I take Yeshua's life pretty literally - He said, and He did stuff I think happened. However, obviously, He gave parables which aren't meant to be taken as true actual accounts, but symbolic teaching accounts. I believe our Heavenly Father does the same in the OT. If one wants to understand the scriptures they need to study them with an eye towards different possible interpretations, and be willing to pray for guidance. Even simple things such as punctuation can vastly affect interpretation. One example which immediately comes to mind is what is Yeshua telling the thief on the cross with him? Is He telling Him "surely I say unto thee this day, thou shalt be with me in paradise" or is He saying "I say unto thee, this day thou shalt be with me in paradise"? I've opted for the latter, but concede the former may be intended.

If one really wants to understand scripture, I suggest understanding the Hebrew rules of interpretation. Traditionally, they look for four possible ways to interpret: the literal, the spiritual, the symbolic, and the hidden secret meaning. I have seen all these in scripture. Any one approach without spiritual guidance is doomed to failure, imho.

[clarkgoble]

15 hours ago, Gray said:

There are several quite early schools of thought against literalism in the Christian tradition. I forget which early church father called literalism a "heresy". That does not mean that some things were not taken literally (and indeed, even I take some things literally), but I suspect the distinction between literal and symbolic is not one that would have been well understood very early in the Christian tradition.

It's worth noting though that the Christians largely took up the traditions that were already in the philosophical tradition of Hellenism/Rome. So you'd already had the Greek and Roman myths heavily allegorized into the philosophical tradition. When say Philo allegorizes Hebrew scripture to ascertain a hidden inner platonic truth, he's really just doing what had been done for a few centuries before. Yet it's also important to note that even in the philosophical tradition this was somewhat controversial. The main original way neoplatonists were characterized was by their tendency to allegorize Plato as opposed to other platonists. (The category is pretty problematic - but it's worth noting that it was created by looking at the exegesis of the ancient schools to the degree their texts were known in the 18th and 19th centuries)

The early controversies over hermeneutics among the Fathers of the 2cd and 3rd centuries are very much tied similar questions in the larger pagan tradition. So one has to be careful. Further, the tendency towards allegorization by say Origin, was as much tied to how they appropriated major platonic works as it was Biblical works. Typically the allegorization move was designed as a way to maintain contact with major authoritative or quasi-authoritative figures yet promote ones desired theology or ontology. That is it's rarely that one starts with allegory so much as one has ones own beliefs with allegory being a strategy to justify them against ones foes. To such an extent that it's probably hard to really discuss the literal/allegorical divide without noting the underlying ontological disputes.

Throw in politics where there are other incentives to privilege one group above an other (say in the Arian controversies) and it's hard to see the issue as fundamentally driven by allegory versus literalism. In the same way in the late 19th century and early 20th century you typically had basic ontological and political disputes with hermeneutics being used to drive ones preferred theology.

Edited August 29, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Gray]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

It's worth noting though that the Christians largely took up the traditions that were already in the philosophical tradition of Hellenism/Rome. So you'd already had the Greek and Roman myths heavily allegorized into the philosophical tradition. When say Philo allegorizes Hebrew scripture to ascertain a hidden inner platonic truth, he's really just doing what had been done for a few centuries before. Yet it's also important to note that even in the philosophical tradition this was somewhat controversial. The main original way neoplatonists were characterized was by their tendency to allegorize Plato as opposed to other platonists. (The category is pretty problematic - but it's worth noting that it was created by looking at the exegesis of the ancient schools to the degree their texts were known in the 18th and 19th centuries)

The early controversies over hermeneutics among the Fathers of the 2cd and 3rd centuries are very much tied similar questions in the larger pagan tradition. So one has to be careful. Further, the tendency towards allegorization by say Origin, was as much tied to how they appropriated major platonic works as it was Biblical works. Typically the allegorization move was designed as a way to maintain contact with major authoritative or quasi-authoritative figures yet promote ones desired theology or ontology. That is it's rarely that one starts with allegory so much as one has ones own beliefs with allegory being a strategy to justify them against ones foes. To such an extent that it's probably hard to really discuss the literal/allegorical divide without noting the underlying ontological disputes.

Throw in politics where there are other incentives to privilege one group above an other (say in the Arian controversies) and it's hard to see the issue as fundamentally driven by allegory versus literalism. In the same way in the late 19th century and early 20th century you typically had basic ontological and political disputes with hermeneutics being used to drive ones preferred theology.

Good points. We would certainly expect to see some hermeneutical changes when Christianity began to separate from its Jewish roots. Judaism underwent similar changes centuries before when it adopted some things from Zoroastrianism. However, the evangelists Matthew and Luke had no issue with changing Mark, (and John went off on entirely different tangent from the synoptics) indicating they were more concerned with teaching what they thought was correct theology and Christology rather than an accurate recitation of the life of Jesus and the early saints. Based on the NT, I think it's fair to say there is an early tradition of using story as vehicle for the message rather than story as a vehicle for history.

In that sense reading stories in the scriptures as allegorical seems like a venerable ancient tradition, even before the Hellenization of Christianity. The stories were vehicles for their theologies. I've heard it suggested for instance that Mark's story of the loaves and fishes is a parable, with a message about how the church should care for the poor. The two nativity stories are non-historical narratives that simply illustrate the theological belief that Jesus was chosen and adopted by God at his birth. 

 

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

Good points. We would certainly expect to see some hermeneutical changes when Christianity began to separate from its Jewish roots. Judaism underwent similar changes centuries before when it adopted some things from Zoroastrianism. However, the evangelists Matthew and Luke had no issue with changing Mark, (and John went off on entirely different tangent from the synoptics) indicating they were more concerned with teaching what they thought was correct theology and Christology rather than an accurate recitation of the life of Jesus and the early saints. Based on the NT, I think it's fair to say there is an early tradition of using story as vehicle for the message rather than story as a vehicle for history.

In that sense reading stories in the scriptures as allegorical seems like a venerable ancient tradition, even before the Hellenization of Christianity. The stories were vehicles for their theologies. I've heard it suggested for instance that Mark's story of the loaves and fishes is a parable, with a message about how the church should care for the poor. The two nativity stories are non-historical narratives that simply illustrate the theological belief that Jesus was chosen and adopted by God at his birth. 

 

The Gospel of John and then Hebrews are the two most platonic texts in the NT. (They're not as bad as say Augustine later appropriation of platonism of course) Similarly while how he uses them are complex, Paul tends to make us of a lot of Stoicism. 

I certainly wouldn't want to dispute that how these texts present things aren't making use of symbols, allegory and so forth. Often in somewhat problematic ways. (Think how Paul uses a dead spouse as legitimizing a new marriage as a way of explaining why Jews can enter into a new covenant with Christ) The gospels that modify Mark clearly have their own issues to promote. But all that said I think you are creating two big a divide between history and philosophy/theology. Even in contemporary academic history you get the same thing such as one sees among more postmodern influenced history, more "power relation" interpretations influenced by Foucault, or a more positivist history. So to say that because people push a view or see an ontology behind the history, while perhaps more pronounced, is also something that continues to this day in academic history. My complaint is that you're pushing too much of an either/or kind of false dichotomy.

When you say, "before the Hellenization of Christianity" I'd quibble too. Christianity was born into an already heavily Hellenized Judaism. In many ways the Jews hated Hellenism yet it had already transformed Judaism. The influence of Philo on Christianity takes place almost certainly before Paul's epistles are written. In the Church we like to portray a kind of simplistic model where Augustine and others transform Christianity but that's almost certainly wrong. (It's also misleading since creation ex nihilo is a huge major break with Platonism whereas much of the D&C and possibly even elements of the Book of Mormon exhibit aspects of platonism - particularly D&C 88 & 93 - and possibly the word "telestial") As I said both the later Gospel of John but also the earlier Epistle to the Hebrews exhibit a lot of platonic elements as well. There's likewise Stoic influence - with Paul being the best example of that.

So I don't think we should see allegorization as merely the influx of platonism - although that contributes as we see with Philo. I think though we should also be careful not to call every literary form allegory. Type scenes are a pretty well established aspect of ancient near eastern literature but aren't really allegories in a normal sense. (In the same way we ought distinguish allegory from metaphor even though they're related) I find people confuse type scenes and allegories a lot. However a type scene is much more seeing a true archetype that repeats itself through history. While platonists obviously make use of this to establish their ontology of forms matter exemplifies, technically they predate Plato. While there are clear allegories in the gospels there's also a lot of type scenes. 

Edited August 29, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Gray]

17 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

The Gospel of John and then Hebrews are the two most platonic texts in the NT. (They're not as bad as say Augustine later appropriation of platonism of course) Similarly while how he uses them are complex, Paul tends to make us of a lot of Stoicism. 

I certainly wouldn't want to dispute that how these texts present things aren't making use of symbols, allegory and so forth. Often in somewhat problematic ways. (Think how Paul uses a dead spouse as legitimizing a new marriage as a way of explaining why Jews can enter into a new covenant with Christ) The gospels that modify Mark clearly have their own issues to promote. But all that said I think you are creating two big a divide between history and philosophy/theology. Even in contemporary academic history you get the same thing such as one sees among more postmodern influenced history, more "power relation" interpretations influenced by Foucault, or a more positivist history. So to say that because people push a view or see an ontology behind the history, while perhaps more pronounced, is also something that continues to this day in academic history. My complaint is that you're pushing too much of an either/or kind of false dichotomy.

Now you're going above my head, although my wife could probably talk to you about Foucault.

No, I agree, it doesn't have to be a dichotomy between literal and metaphor. I think sermons in the scriptures are largely intended to be taken literally. But stories? Many of them are invented. Could a Biblical writer who invented a story intend them to be taken literally? It seems clear to me that an invented story must be taken metaphorically. It functions as parable. There seems to be little to no regard on the part of Biblical writers for literal truth when it comes to stories. They seem comfortable embellishing, changing existing stories, or inventing new ones at will. They seemed to be to using stories to push theology and doctrine. In that sense, it doesn't make sense to me to take the resurrection stories as a literal recitation of historical events, for example. The stories function as symbols for something else.

 

17 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

When you say, "before the Hellenization of Christianity" I'd quibble too. Christianity was born into an already heavily Hellenized Judaism. In many ways the Jews hated Hellenism yet it had already transformed Judaism. The influence of Philo on Christianity takes place almost certainly before Paul's epistles are written. In the Church we like to portray a kind of simplistic model where Augustine and others transform Christianity but that's almost certainly wrong. (It's also misleading since creation ex nihilo is a huge major break with Platonism whereas much of the D&C and possibly even elements of the Book of Mormon exhibit aspects of platonism - particularly D&C 88 & 93 - and possibly the word "telestial") As I said both the later Gospel of John but also the earlier Epistle to the Hebrews exhibit a lot of platonic elements as well. There's likewise Stoic influence - with Paul being the best example of that.

Yes, fair point. Judaism was Hellenized as well. But I think there's a turning point in Christianity where it stops becoming a Jewish sect and starts becoming its own religious tradition, and that's where some radical changes start occurring. The gentile converts take over and the Jewishness of Christianity starts to become lost.

 

17 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

So I don't think we should see allegorization as merely the influx of platonism - although that contributes as we see with Philo.

 

Yes, the Tanakh is full of allegory as well.

 

 

 

17 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

 

I think though we should also be careful not to call every literary form allegory. Type scenes are a pretty well established aspect of ancient near eastern literature but aren't really allegories in a normal sense. (In the same way we ought distinguish allegory from metaphor even though they're related) I find people confuse type scenes and allegories a lot. However a type scene is much more seeing a true archetype that repeats itself through history. While platonists obviously make use of this to establish their ontology of forms matter exemplifies, technically they predate Plato. While there are clear allegories in the gospels there's also a lot of type scenes. 

Interesting points, thank you.

 

 

[clarkgoble]

47 minutes ago, Gray said:

No, I agree, it doesn't have to be a dichotomy between literal and metaphor. I think sermons in the scriptures are largely intended to be taken literally. But stories? Many of them are invented. Could a Biblical writer who invented a story intend them to be taken literally? It seems clear to me that an invented story must be taken metaphorically. It functions as parable. There seems to be little to no regard on the part of Biblical writers for literal truth when it comes to stories. They seem comfortable embellishing, changing existing stories, or inventing new ones at will. They seemed to be to using stories to push theology and doctrine. In that sense, it doesn't make sense to me to take the resurrection stories as a literal recitation of historical events, for example. The stories function as symbols for something else.

That's definitely one example. Effectively allegory becomes deployed by people who don't want to dismiss the texts even though they believe they are made up. It's kind of a way of trying to have it both ways. I don't think it ultimately works for the same reason that Shakespeare doesn't really work as extended allegories. People might say there are 'truths' in some ambiguous way in Shakespeare but fundamentally they aren't real. As such they lose a lot of their authority.

Quote

Yes, fair point. Judaism was Hellenized as well. But I think there's a turning point in Christianity where it stops becoming a Jewish sect and starts becoming its own religious tradition, and that's where some radical changes start occurring. The gentile converts take over and the Jewishness of Christianity starts to become lost.

Yes, the Jewishness becomes forgot and then eventually repressed until actually fairly recently. When the Book of Mormon appeared with a very Jewish Christianity and a very Christian Judaism it was quite odd. These days with more attention to the very Jewish context to the New Testament that's less unique.

 

[Gray]

48 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

That's definitely one example. Effectively allegory becomes deployed by people who don't want to dismiss the texts even though they believe they are made up. It's kind of a way of trying to have it both ways. I don't think it ultimately works for the same reason that Shakespeare doesn't really work as extended allegories. People might say there are 'truths' in some ambiguous way in Shakespeare but fundamentally they aren't real. As such they lose a lot of their authority.

But the genre is totally different. Scripture is largely a genre intended to impart spiritual teachings, not as entertainment. A lot of that teaching is done through story, and the way to receive the spiritual message is to try to decipher the meaning of the story. Even if the the story is "factual", it still has to be interpreted to have meaning.

For example, suppose Jesus rose bodily from the grave. What does that mean? Good for Jesus, I guess? Without an interpretation, it's just one more miracle story - the ancient world was full of those.

What many people interpret that to mean is that death has been overcome and we will have eternal life. That's one possible meaning behind that story, but it doesn't start to have meaning until it's interpreted.

Since Biblical writers don't seem to have much concern for accuracy in the details of the stories they're telling, the stories themselves seem to be less important than the interpretation of the stories. The stories effectively become parables.

 

48 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Yes, the Jewishness becomes forgot and then eventually repressed until actually fairly recently. When the Book of Mormon appeared with a very Jewish Christianity and a very Christian Judaism it was quite odd. These days with more attention to the very Jewish context to the New Testament that's less unique.

 

Could you provide an example of what you think the Jewish Christianity of the BOM is? I think I know what you mean by very Christian Judaism.

[clarkgoble]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

Could you provide an example of what you think the Jewish Christianity of the BOM is? I think I know what you mean by very Christian Judaism.

I think N. T. Wright's particular take within the New Perspectives on Paul is interesting. It's not exactly the same as the Book of Mormon yet gets at the pre-Lutheran/Calvinist take of Paul. i.e. Paul is speaking mostly to Jews from a Jewish cultural expectation. Many of those elements - particularly the covenant view - are also in the Book of Mormon. The second example would be the explosion of Jesus the Jews literature from Vermes or many others in the 90's. Now there some of the parallels aren't relevant to the Book of Mormon as they are more unique to the rise of Rabbinical Judaism. (And interestingly those elements tend not to be in the Book of Mormon) But the other elements would be the precursors or influences on the Christology of the NT that arise out of things like Melchezedek speculation such as at Qumran, Merkabah texts, or the like. Son of Man and Son of God phrases predate Jesus for instance. Most tie that to Daniel 7 (although Vermes doesn't) which in turn relates to angelology often associated with Merkabah literature. While the angelology is post-exilic and likely arises due to Babylonian influence, the other elements likely are earlier. Interestingly they are in the Book of Mormon but the angelology isn't. While the dating doesn't quite work for the Book of Mormon, it is interesting looking at how Enoch/Metatron as mediator who is made like God in 1 Enoch and 3 Enoch parallels Jesus but more particularly the Book of Mormon treatment of Jesus.

I'd also say the Book of Mormon, while it certainly can be read in terms of Christian appropriation of messianic passages in Isaiah or elsewhere tends to take up an anticipatory stance tied to the Law of Moses in a somewhat interesting fashion.

The main counterarguments are say Lehi's explanation of the Messiah in 2 Nephi 2 which to many seems to be an anachronism tied to Romans 7 or related texts. However you have similar logic arrived at in a slightly different way -- largely for Lehi, Nephi and Jacob in terms of Isaiah. The Exodus pattern is in both and functions on similar levels. For the Lehites it's on the person level with sin, the historical level with the actual leaving of Egypt, the present typological sense where it describes the Lehites leaving Jerusalem and crossing the ocean to a new promised land, in the future typological historic sense of the last days, and most importantly in the messianic sense as applying to Christ. Paul's treatment is slightly different. The waters of Jordan are still baptism of course, as in the Book of Mormon. The sin level maintains, minus all the appeal to that strata in Isaiah. For Paul though Christ's death and resurrection are the real passover and exodus. That's alien in the Book of Mormon. 

Instead the Book of Mormon appears to instead appeal first to a different system of priesthood - possibly tied to the tradition of the Sons of Moses as opposed to the Sons of Aaron (who are largely absent). There's a weird tension we've often discussed relative to the Deuteronomist/Josiah tradition. (Say the Ashtoreth imagery in Nephi's vision or Lehi's willingness to do sacrifice independent of the Jerusalem cult) This tradition that seems to persist to the time of Alma 12-14 is inexorably tied to both their Messianic outlook but also Melchezedek in some way. (It's unclear how from the text). So while there are definite similarities to the type of forward looking Judaism that Paul argues for, the differences are quite pronounced as well. Further these are elements of Paul that in many ways were not taken up well by the way Paul was read in the 19th century. It's much more a perspective that either arises with the New Perspectives movement of the past couple of decades or else is rather alien perhaps bearing more resemblance to Qumran.