Much Ado about Nothing?

[stemelbow]

3 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

We are probably more comfortable when we feel we are with the majority. Thus my facetious comment that consensus and objectivity consists of those who think like I do. We make progress going with the herd, but sometimes we find ourselves led to a place we didn't expect or want to be. At what percentage do you think consensus locks in truth?

Sounds like a great question we should be asking at Church.  I try but it usually just upsets everyone and I get no response. 

[rongo]

On 9/11/2017 at 8:43 AM, Benjamin McGuire said:

For Rongo:

This idea of revelation is largely a red herring. It isn't really used by academics. That by itself makes me question how much you understand of the "Isaiah problem" and the views about it that are published in scholarship.

Scholars rarely (although they sometimes do) come out and openly say, "I don't believe in the possibility of prophecy," but this is absolutely an underlying theme for those who reject the unity of Isaiah. Evangelical scholars who subscribe to higher criticism can, of course, be named (and LDS higher critics trying to get the knuckle-dragging, uni-browed traditionalists to fall in line and stop being an embarrassment never fail to mention that even some evangelical scholars have fallen in line), but even they, when pressed on it, don't believe in it --- at least in the same way that conservative believers do. The same is largely true within the active LDS community.

 The challenge is that Sperry is dead before (what I would consider) the really important stuff comes out, which makes his work really dated on this issue. . . .

In my experience, Sperry's points are timeless, and apply just as much to developments after his time. More on this later.

[Current, more recent scholarship] forms the foundation of what I would consider to be current thought on Isaiah . . . These arguments are all about the relationships between texts (and not so much about comparing the text to the historical record). What do we do when it appears that a passage in Isaiah borrows from Jeremiah (and not the other way around)? These are not simple arguments - and most often (in my experience), in apologetic discussions they are swept aside for an appeal to a simpler sort of discussion that inevitably fails to engage the arguments made using the tools of higher criticism. These arguments are simply not about prophetic foresight (or lack thereof). They are about the language and the way that the language is used.

More on this later (I'm preparing a detailed response), but I just want to point out that my experience with discussing the bona fides and merits of arguments and evidence is always kind of disappointing in terms of what is promised/assured by higher critics vs. what is delivered. That is, they tend to insist that they will make an airtight case that only a simpleton could question --- and that it will center around technical details that are irrefutable and inarguable, while avoiding stylistic and subjective interpretive arguments. But, then, when the rubber hits the road, they tend to spend the bulk of their time and effort dealing with . . . stylistic and subjective interpretation. And circular question begging. 

[rongo]

On 9/11/2017 at 7:10 AM, hope_for_things said:

For a Mormon audience, David Bokovoy wrote a couple really good posts on this subject last year that I would recommend reading just to give some examples of how scholars have determined differences in authorship in Isaiah.  

http://rationalfaiths.com/truthfulness-deutero-isaiah-response-kent-jackson/

http://rationalfaiths.com/truthfulness-deutero-isaiah-response-kent-jackson-part-2/

Let's see how much I can get done with the time I have right now.

Using the two links you linked to as representative of current explanations of the superiority of Bokovoy, et. al. to Sperry, let me quote and comment on some things. 

[We have to have] "

 a willingness to shift our traditional paradigms to accommodate for new truths."

New, current scholarship = "new truths." Old, out-dated scholarship = silly literalists

I

n reading the piece, I was left wondering how much exposure Dr. Jackson himself has actually had to the scholarship on this topic.

I've noticed this is a stock response (we've seen it in this thread). Anyone who disagrees with the party line, by definition and by default, is ignorant and unaware of current scholarship. I'm in good company with Dr. Jackson . . .  

[After discussing a three-line gap in the Qumram Great Isaiah Scroll between what is chapter 33 and 34 in our Bible] 

“This most likely reflects a scribal recognition of a major division in the book.”

Bokovoy uses a lot of qualifiers like "seems," likely," "probably," etc. And it is these points that supporters hail as silver bullets. 

I'm not convinced that a larger-than-usual space between lines closes the case that the Qumram scribe(s) knew and recognized that there were two or more authors for Isaiah. If this is the case, this is the smoking gun, but look at how tentative and reliant on subjective interpretation it is ("most likely reflects"). And, it's a matter of convenient opinion, at that. 

It is true that scholars who take a historical approach to the Bible cannot rely upon miracles to recreate what happened in the distant past . . . And it would be a miracle if a prophet in the 8^th century BCE saw into the future and predicted the very name Cyrus, the man who would liberate the exilic community in 538 BCE.

By definition, a miracle is the least likely thing to have happened in the past, and the nature of the historian’s craft is to identify the most likely thing that happened based upon the evidence. But it is misleading to suggest that scholars identify Isaiah 40-66 as a postexilic addition simply because they do not believe in prophecy. In reality, we have considerable evidence to support this position that Jackson’s essay fails to address . . . Scholars do not simply date this passage to the exilic era because they reject the possibility that the historical Isaiah could have correctly predicted this event . . . It’s wrong to leave LDS readers with the impression that scholars date Isaiah 40-66 the way they do simply because critical historians reject prophecy . . . Jackson’s essay wrongfully gives readers the impression that the mainstream consensus is determined solely by the fact that critical scholars reject prophecy and that there is a unique literary feel to 40-66 different from the rest of the book

I've noticed (and noted) that higher critics are very touchy about the suggestion that unbelief in the possibility of actual predictive prophecy (like names and specific events) plays a role in their adherence to higher criticism (we've seen that in this thread as well, and right on cue, Bokovoy sounds this note). The next step is to state that scholars take an objective, sober look at the evidence, without considering the supernatural at all. They're just going where the evidence leads! But then, they inevitably twist the knife a little and reveal their disdain for embarrassing belief in the supernatural (what a miracle naming Cyrus would have been! I mean, come on!)

This text illuminates the historical context of the material in Deutero-Isaiah.   Jews living in Babylon who continued to embrace their religion would have rejected the assertion that Marduk chose Cyrus as a deliverer.   Hence, they developed a counter-theology to these specific claims, and that theology appears in Isaiah 45 where their god Yahweh, not Marduk, called Cyrus to his position. The phrase, “I call you by name” in Isaiah 45:4 directly matches the statement in the Cyrus Cylinder: “He [Marduk] called out his name: Cyrus, king of Anshan; he proclaimed his name.” This connection illustrates that Isaiah 45 serves as a polemic against the claims made by those backing Marduk, the high-god of the Babylonians, in the Cyrus Cylinder. In fact, this same polemical effort on the part of the authors of this material also appears in the so-called “radical monotheism” in passages such as Isaiah 44:9-20. This famous pericope specifically makes fun of the Mesopotamian worship that the exiled authors had witnessed by wrongfully suggesting that Mesopotamians believed their idols were literally the god Marduk.

This is begging the question. Jews living in Babylon "would have" chafed against Marduk being credited, so some sort of polemic elevating Jehovah was needed. That's why we have the Cyrus section. So, why isn't Marduk listed among the deities mocked by Isaiah, then? 

The same is true of the "radical monotheism" passages. These sections "had to have been" a response to conditions in the exile, and could not have been revealed to him by God 200 years earlier. So, they had to have happened during or after the exile.

Begging the question. And circular.

[quiote]He makes the assertion that Isaiah 40-66 is revelation, but the book of Isaiah itself never makes this claim.[/quote]

That's an interesting comment for Bokovoy to make in an LDS polemic/apologetic discussion --- especially when you're bristling and touchy about being accused of downplaying the reality or possibility of prophecy. "But the Book of Isaiah itself never makes this claim?"

Another point he harps on is that evangelical scholars overwhelmingly also favor multiple authorship of Isaiah, but he only cites or quotes from Kenton Sparks. 

Here's a classic example of circular reasoning and begging the question:

: The historical Isaiah prophesied in Jerusalem during the second half of the eighth century BCE. His prophetic call narrative (Isaiah 6) dates the experience to the year king Uzziah died, i.e. sometime during the 740’s. At this time, the northern kingdom of Israel and the southern kingdom of Judah were both in existence, although the north was destroyed by the Assyrians in the later part of Isaiah’s prophetic career. As a result, the Assyrians are the only enemy mentioned in his oracles (7:17, 20; 8:4, 7; 10:5,12; the prophecy against Babylon in chapter 13 is a later addition). During Isaiah’s ministry, the Babylonians had not yet become a significant world power. For Isaiah, it was Assyria that Yahweh had chosen as “the rod of his anger” to afflict the covenant people for their wickedness ]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but his argument seems to be:

1) Since Isaiah lived ca. 740 B.C., the only enemies he would be aware of were the Assyrians. The Babylonians weren't on the horizon yet.

2) "Proto-Isaiah's" writings can only, then, have mentioned the Assyrians

3) Thus, items that mention Babylon or the Babylonian captivity had to have been written by a later person living during or after those times. 

That's completely circular, and depends completely on the assumption that a) there is no prophetic vision, and b) Isaiah was limited to a narrow focus of time, place, and purpose.

Even though Isaiah predicted judgment against his people, he held fast to a view scholars refer to as “the inviolability of Jerusalem.” Isaiah believed that Jerusalem was a sacred place that could not be annihilated by its enemies . . . In contrast to this perspective, Isaiah 40 begins as a message of comfort to the Judean people since Jerusalem had been destroyed. But this was not something that the historical Isaiah believed would happen.

Says who? This is more circular question begging. Since Isaiah (asserted without evidence by higher critics --- it's just on their say-so) believed (how do they know? Because only the real Isaiah passages mention the inviolability of Jerusalem. How do we know they are real Isaiah passages? They hold Jerusalem to be inviolable. What do we make of passages that acknowledge that Jerusalem may fall? They are relegated to mysterious, unknown deutero- and trito-Isaiahs. Why? Because Isaiah couldn't have seen the exile and captivity) that Jerusalem couldn't fall, anything acknowledging that it can or did must come centuries later.

In trying to prove that Isaiah quoted Jeremiah, Bokovoy acknowledges the obvious (Jeremiah could have been familiar with Isaiah's writings), but tries to dispose of this by showing that Jeremiah was unaware of deutero- or trito-Isaiah:

 It is clear, however, that Jeremiah didn’t know the material in Deutero-Isaiah. During the sixth century, the prophet Jeremiah entered into a heated debate with other Judean prophets concerning the fate of Jerusalem because they, like the historical Isaiah, believed in the inviolability of Jerusalem. In opposition to this view, Jeremiah went to the Jerusalem temple and prophesied that the Babylonians would destroy the city if the people did not repent (Jer 26). These are the same people who would have preserved and had access to the book of Isaiah. Why didn’t they know that Isaiah had provided a detailed prophecy that supported Jeremiah’s claims—the material in Isaiah 40-66? Perhaps even more telling, if the book of Isaiah existed in any form with its prophecies concerning the exile and restoration of the doomed city then Jeremiah would have had prophetic material that he could have used to support his own prophecy. Surely he would have known of the amazing prophecies of Isaiah, which would have been preserved and transmitted by Judean scribes for well over a century if these prophecies existed. Jeremiah was well-educated.  We know that he knew a form of Deuteronomy. If any of the second half of Isaiah had existed during Jeremiah’s day, why didn’t he cite this material as evidence that Judah would be defeated by Babylon, go into captivity, and eventually be delivered by the Persian king Cyrus?

Why didn't they know? There are lots of scriptural examples of obvious and open prophets' teachings and prophecies being overlooked or ignored ("Have you not seen? Have you not heard?", indeed). This is more circular question begging. That Jeremiah didn't cite what Bokovoy feels he should or would have in a debate with scribes can only mean that they didn't yet exist.

Does Bokovoy really believe that citing this would have made any difference, or that they would have said, "You know what! He's right! It does mention that. We should stop fighting Babylon, and submit!" I don't find this to be strong textual evidence at all. It relies on mind-reading and assumptions about what arguments people would have made in certain circumstances.

Bokovoy makes much of how convincing Aramaic or post-exilic Hebrew in Isaiah is, but says repeatedly that this "is a complicated issue that is difficult to explain in a simple blog post . . . It’s difficult to explain these grammatical issues in a simple blog post"

I find this to be generally the case with the technical, nuts-and-bolts evidence: lots of ballyhoo and promises about what it will show, but very few actual examples given. And, the examples are underwhelming.

More later, as I have time . . .

[Danzo]

10 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

If this is the best example anyone can find of scientific consensus being wrong, then I'm feeling pretty confident in following the mainstream.  This is from the 17th century if wikipedia is correct.  I asked for examples in the past 100 years.  

Dinosaurs have certainly changed appearance since I was a lad.

[Johnnie Cake]

On 9/11/2017 at 7:58 AM, rongo said:

I recently read Shakespeare's "Much Ado about Nothing" for the first time. I have read many Shakespeare plays, but never this one. I found the tone, dialogue, and writing to be much different from other Shakespeare plays I have read. This reminded me of the Isaiah authorship controversies, and indeed, really higher criticism of everything, really (Homer, the Bible, etc.). It was really a personal reaction based on my own background and experience (i.e., based on nothing but my gut reaction. It didn't seem to me to have been written by the same person who wrote the other plays), nothing scientific. But, it reminded me of the reasons and arguments behind questioning Isaiah's authorship in a lot of ways --- and something I have said in defense of authentic Isaiahan authorship against stylistic criticism: So, one assumes Deutero and Trito Isaiah because "proto-Isaiah" could not have varied his style, tone, or mood? (one point is that 2 and 3 Isaiah are joyous and exulting, while "proto-Isaiah" is somber and pessimistic. I agree with Sperry that the subject matter plays an important role: prophesying about the downfall of Israel will by definition be more gloomy than prophesying about the gathering of Israel or the Millennium   ). 

I just found it interesting to be on the other side of the fence on this one, based on stylistic reasons and personal reaction. 

If only Biblical criticism was so easy to dismiss...unfortunately the scholarship supports deutero-Isaiah 

[Atheist Mormon]

On 9/11/2017 at 9:10 AM, hope_for_things said:

 

I would hope that you won't confuse your surface reading of differences in tone in Shakespeare with the robust scholarship around Isaiah authorship.

What is there to be confused? There were several Isiah Authors, as it was Apostle Paul's letters.....But it takes a Historian (not an Apologist) to assert this.

[Bernard Gui]

7 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Sounds like a great question we should be asking at Church.  I try but it usually just upsets everyone and I get no response. 

Why not ask and answer here where it's probably more appropriate?

[Bernard Gui]

9 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I think truth is more of a process and a probability.  We're 99.999% sure gravity exists and works the way it does, but we can't explain how it works or the specific boundaries around what causes it.  I wouldn't describe consensus as "locking in truth."  The contrasting perspective that has been expressed by a few people on this thread is that they may have studied some elements of an issue, and based on that limited understanding they are able to reject the ideas of professionals who collectively have likely devoted thousands of hours examining these issues using the scientific processes of testing eliminating other possibilities.  

To dismiss this collective effort based on a personal undisciplined review of the materials is reckless and doesn't reflect a rigorous engagement with the material, rather it typically reflects a misunderstanding of the issues.  

Or mistrust. There is a difference.

 

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, Danzo said:

Dinosaurs have certainly changed appearance since I was a lad.

T-rex in a boa?

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, Johnnie Cake said:

If only Biblical criticism was so easy to dismiss...unfortunately the scholarship supports deutero-Isaiah 

Biblical criticism is a fluid endeavor and often blows with the prevailing winds.

[Stargazer]

10 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Because do you really think the collective scientific endeavor was as robust in the 17th century as it is today.  We have hundreds of scholarly institutions and peer reviewed journals and worldwide collaboration on problems in the modern age.  Its the power of large numbers, as the numbers increase accuracy increases as well. 

I don't need to respond to this. You've already been presented with sufficient examples of the problems of peer review in this century, and you just blew it all off. I'd be wasting my time, and I just don't feel like it.

[Calm]

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/mayacode/time-nf.html

"Nevertheless, glyph studies nearly came to a halt during this time, in large part because Thompson had most scholars convinced that each of the symbols in glyphs stood for entire words or ideas. For instance, the glyph for "west" included a well-known symbol for the sun and an as-yet unidentified symbol depicting a nearly closed hand. Thompson suggested that the hand meant "completion." And so "west," where the sun sets, was symbolized by "completion of the sun." It was a reasonable guess, but one that, along with Thompson's more general take on the glyphs, would be proven wrong."

[Benjamin McGuire]

Rongo writes:

Quote

Scholars rarely (although they sometimes do) come out and openly say, "I don't believe in the possibility of prophecy," but this is absolutely an underlying theme for those who reject the unity of Isaiah. Evangelical scholars who subscribe to higher criticism can, of course, be named (and LDS higher critics trying to get the knuckle-dragging, uni-browed traditionalists to fall in line and stop being an embarrassment never fail to mention that even some evangelical scholars have fallen in line), but even they, when pressed on it, don't believe in it --- at least in the same way that conservative believers do. The same is largely true within the active LDS community.

This is nonsense Rongo. It just isn't the case. There is more than one issue here - not the least of which is the fact that you probably are not as well read as you suggest that you are on the topic.

Quote

In my experience, Sperry's points are timeless, and apply just as much to developments after his time. More on this later.

This is also nonsense. Sperry may have worked with the best information he had, but just as with any other field of inquiry, there isn't really anything out that there that is immune to better information and methods.

Quote

More on this later (I'm preparing a detailed response), but I just want to point out that my experience with discussing the bona fides and merits of arguments and evidence is always kind of disappointing in terms of what is promised/assured by higher critics vs. what is delivered. That is, they tend to insist that they will make an airtight case that only a simpleton could question --- and that it will center around technical details that are irrefutable and inarguable, while avoiding stylistic and subjective interpretive arguments. But, then, when the rubber hits the road, they tend to spend the bulk of their time and effort dealing with . . . stylistic and subjective interpretation. And circular question begging. 

I'll be happy to respond. But I suspect that I am going to get a bunch of relatively uninformed opinions on the matter.

Part of this problem is scripture is sometimes given a special treatment by some kinds of believers. Scriptures - the Bible, the Book of Mormon, and whatever else you want to put into that category, is still literature, and it still functions in certain predictable ways. We don't need the idea of revelation to understand how texts work, and how they relate to each other. We can take tools that work well with modern texts and apply them to ancient texts. When we look at higher criticism, one of the greatest failings with armchair apologists (of any religious stripe) is that they focus very narrowly on certain issues (as you do), while ignoring the fact that there is a tremendous amount of material that details the process, the methods, and their application in all sorts of contexts (modern and ancient). The reason why we see these important developments in the last half of the 20th century was because biblical scholars began applying tools developed in other disciplines to their studies of scriptural texts.

Let me ask you a straight forward question. Suppose we took some texts that might be related. Could we determine something about the nature of that relationship strictly from the texts (without the need to appeal to history)? Try Psalm 95, Hebrews 3-4, Jacob 1-2,6. What can we determine about the relationship of these texts? Can we determine the direction of borrowing? Can we determine a textual genealogy without having to appeal to things outside the texts?

You want to say that it is all about the issue of revelation, but, it simply isn't. And if you haven't read anything current, or recent, or material that actually explains how scholars use higher criticism as a literary tool to understand literary texts, then I can understand why you might take this sort of position. But it is not a defensible position, and when you get around to posting some examples, I will be happy to respond to you. I suspect, that your biggest arguments are all about the value of revelation, about what sorts of authorities you are willing to recognize, and so on - and so everything that doesn't rest on what you value most in interpretation becomes "stylistic subjective interpretive arguments". Like the old saying goes - "What I do is exegesis, what you do is Eisegesis". Could I ever change your mind? Probably not. But, my arguments (published and otherwise) are well thought out considerations of the evidence in front of me. So my positions are not nearly as capricious you seem to be suggesting.

We have had this interesting discussion in this thread about science, and science moving forward and changing its views, and so on. I want to add something to that discussion that I find to be highly relevant here.

What distinguishes between good theory and widely accepted understandings is often the notion of prediction. It is very easy to produce an explanation of something that draws together all of the facts that we have. It is much harder to create a theory that predicts things accurately. In physics, for example, in 1964, we had this suggestion that a major part of the Standard Model of particle physics was the predicted idea of a Higgs field mechanism and the necessary existence of what we call the Higgs Boson. The technology to prove this didn't exist. But it's existence was a necessary part of theory. In 2012, after decades of efforts aimed at moving technology forward to the point where this part of the theory could be tested, we find that yes, indeed, there is a Higgs field mechanism, and we have identified a particle that functions as that Higss boson (we aren't certain of all of the details yet - especially the idea that there may be more than one kind of boson). But, a discovery decades later verifies the theory in a powerful way - because the theory became a predictive model. And the prediction proved to be true.

Prediction is an amazing thing. The odds of a particular individual winning the lottery twice in a five year window would be astronomical. But only from the perspective of prediction. That is, if you picked the person who was going to win twice before they actually won, we would assume that it was rigged. On the other hand, the odds of someone actually doing it (out of all the people playing) is close to a certainty. As long as we don't predict who it will be, the odds are very much in favor of it happening to someone, some place. The problem inevitably is in changing the context. Pretending, after we already know who did it, that the odds suggest that it must have been rigged after all.

One of the problems I find with your version of events is that it is purely explanatory. It tries to make the facts conform to a theory. It doesn't help with any of the non-scriptural texts that we have, or their textual histories as we understand them (both ancient and modern). It doesn't create a model that is useful for predicting how texts work (especially where we have well known textual histories) - because (at least in part) it wants to treat scripture as a literary "other". And so ultimately it is only useful as a convenient (and incredibly flawed) way of trying to make the text of scripture conform to pre-existing expectations of the text. There is this real problem in that you see it is as a set of dichotomies. You suggest that you cannot be a "conservative" believer and hold to these views of scripture and higher criticism. But that is just a way of creating a meaning for a label with the purpose of castigating those who disagree with you. And we see this in particular in certain types of believers (just as you point out). Bart Ehrman described it like this:

Quote

There are certain views of the inspiration of Scripture, such as the one I had pounded into me as a late teenager, that do not stand up well to the facts of textual criticism. For most Christians, who don't have a conservative evangelical view like the one I had, these textual facts can be interesting, but there is nothing in them to challenge their faith, which is built on something other than having the very words that God inspired in the Bible. . . . In any event, as I indicated, these theses themselves were almost entirely noncontroversial. Who can deny that we have thousands of manuscripts? Or hundreds of thousands of variants? Or that lots of the variants involve spelling? Or that scholars continue to debate what the original text was in lots of places? All of these statements are factually true.

The one statement that has stirred up controversy is my claim that some of these variations are significant. This view has been objected to by some conservative evangelicals and no one else that I know of. That gives me pause—why is this criticism coming only from people with a particular set of theological views?

This is quite easy to apply to certain views that Mormons have of their own scripture. Why can't we tackle the Book of Mormon from a text-critical view? Why does a certain view of the Book of Mormon dictate what some of us believe about the Biblical text? Obviously, it has more to do with "a particular set of theological views" than with any other consideration (including the value of textual criticism, science, and all sorts of other, testable, notions).

At any rate, bring it on.

[Physics Guy]

15 hours ago, rongo said:

I'm not convinced that a larger-than-usual space between lines closes the case that the Qumram scribe(s) knew and recognized that there were two or more authors for Isaiah. If this is the case, this is the smoking gun, but look at how tentative and reliant on subjective interpretation it is ("most likely reflects"). And, it's a matter of convenient opinion, at that. 

Bokovoy does not present this extra space in Dead Sea Scroll as a smoking gun which proves Isaiah to be a composite work. He presents it to say that there exists some direct physical evidence for the theory that Isaiah is composite. He never says or implies that this evidence is conclusive. He simply mentions it to contradict Kent Jackson's assertion that there is no evidence at all.

Nobody finds a bit of extra space in an ancient scroll to be conclusive evidence for anything. It would be at least somewhat odd, however, for an ancient scribe to leave a gap at one particular place in the middle of a single text, when otherwise the writing is dense. If the gap marked a transition between two texts, however, then it would make sense. Of course that doesn't prove that there was a transition. Maybe the scribe just left some lines blank on a dare from a friend; nobody can rule out that kind of senseless explanation. But the gap clearly makes more sense if there are two texts than if there's just one. That's what it means for the gap to be evidence for a composite text. So Bokovoy is not speculating at all, but simply stating a fact, when he says that the gap in a the Great Isaiah Scroll is evidence for Isaiah being composite. How strong you feel that evidence to be may be a matter of subjective interpretation, but admitting that it is evidence is not.

Edited September 13, 2017 by Physics Guy

[rongo]

1 hour ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Sperry may have worked with the best information he had, but just as with any other field of inquiry, there isn't really anything out that there that is immune to better information and methods.

In my experience, Sperry's observations about the "lay of the land" in the Isaiah controversy from decades ago still hold true, even with the "new and improved and updated" scholarly points (Bokovoy, you, others either of you cite, etc.).

I'll be happy to respond. But I suspect that I am going to get a bunch of relatively uninformed opinions on the matter.

Why the perceived need to poison the well in advance?

Let me ask you a straight forward question. Suppose we took some texts that might be related. Could we determine something about the nature of that relationship strictly from the texts (without the need to appeal to history)? Try Psalm 95, Hebrews 3-4, Jacob 1-2,6. What can we determine about the relationship of these texts? Can we determine the direction of borrowing? Can we determine a textual genealogy without having to appeal to things outside the texts?

I don't think that we actually can to nearly the degree of confidence and accuracy that higher critics (or those who try to browbeat recalcitrants through an appeal to authority) insist we can. A lot of this is agenda and assumption driven, and when people press them on it, they become exasperated and resort to acting superior to their unrefined and simplistic bent.

One of the problems I find with your version of events is that it is purely explanatory. It tries to make the facts conform to a theory . . . And so ultimately it is only useful as a convenient (and incredibly flawed) way of trying to make the text of scripture conform to pre-existing expectations of the text. There is this real problem in that you see it is as a set of dichotomies. You suggest that you cannot be a "conservative" believer and hold to these views of scripture and higher criticism. But that is just a way of creating a meaning for a label with the purpose of castigating those who disagree with you. And we see this in particular in certain types of believers (just as you point out).

Is it a lack of self-awareness on your part that you don't see your camp as also "trying to make the facts conform to a theory" or "making the text of scripture conform to pre-existing expectations of the text?" The higher critics see only traditionalists as being guilty of this, but they are engaging in exactly the same thing. I pointed out some examples of this in my cursory commentary of Bokovoy's blog posts (using his examples). 

The textual examples you and others cite rely on certain assumptions. And those assumptions hark back to skepticism about the possibility of predictive prophecy (even Bokovoy went into those weeds). If pressed, you would insist on keeping things clinical and objective and not considering the question of prophecy as relevant to textual analysis, right? But, the underlying reason for your assumptions about textual interplay and borrowing stem from skepticism that the process of transmission of scripture involves supernatural revelation. 

[Gray]

My understanding is that even very conservative Biblical scholars accept that Isaiah is written by multiple authors. It's kind of a flat earth position these days to say that the historical Isaiah wrote all of the chapters attributed to him.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Rongo,

Quote

In my experience, Sperry's observations about the "lay of the land" in the Isaiah controversy from decades ago still hold true, even with the "new and improved and updated" scholarly points (Bokovoy, you, others either of you cite, etc.).

And I am saying that your experience is extremely limited. The "lay of the land" is dramatically different than it was decades ago when Sperry was really working out his ideas. And it doesn't hold true at all today. I suggest that this is because you either don't actually know what the land looks like today (for whatever reasons) or because you have a very restrictive notion of what constitutes an appropriate authority in the context of this discussion. Nothing you have written here suggests that you have ever read any of these opposing views. But, if you look at the scholarly field, you will find that they believe that these scholars who have changes the trajectory of biblical studies in these areas are absolutely essential. In a way, it's like asserting that we can understand physics entirely through Newton, and that Einstein and relativity have nothing of consequence to add.

Quote

Why the perceived need to poison the well in advance?

Responding in kind perhaps? But really, it's because you haven't actually presented any evidence to back up your statements. It has all been generalizations and innuendo that simply do not match up to my personal experience.

Quote

I don't think that we actually can to nearly the degree of confidence and accuracy that higher critics (or those who try to browbeat recalcitrants through an appeal to authority) insist we can. A lot of this is agenda and assumption driven, and when people press them on it, they become exasperated and resort to acting superior to their unrefined and simplistic bent.

And? This isn't responding to what I wrote. It is a deflection. It is a statement that you have to do what I say, but I don't have to show anything at all. Apart from which it is a largely unsubstantiated set of claims. Who gets frustrated? Certainly not those engaged in these sorts of endeavors. This is the challenge is talking to you (through this forum). When the ideas and methods of higher criticism work in cases where we have a really good knowledge of the history and genealogy of a textual tradition, why shouldn't we expect it to work in situations where we have less knowledge? The ideas of higher criticism are much more well established than your comments try to suggest. It is not assumption driven (like you say). That is a stylistic and subjective judgment on that literature (exactly what you were being critical of earlier). If you really want to keep maintaining this position, then start by providing us evidence where the methods absolutely fail (in a demonstrable way). Don't simply tell me that this is simply a bunch of people making stuff up and not being able to defend it. Because that simply isn't true.

Quote

Is it a lack of self-awareness on your part that you don't see your camp as also "trying to make the facts conform to a theory" or "making the text of scripture conform to pre-existing expectations of the text?" The higher critics see only traditionalists as being guilty of this, but they are engaging in exactly the same thing. I pointed out some examples of this in my cursory commentary of Bokovoy's blog posts (using his examples). 

 

Do you see how you try to set up the polemical argument here? The us versus them? Your 'camp' as opposed to mine? We are the heretic higher critics (as if there is something as a 'higher critic' - what someone - is as opposed to those who employ higher criticism as a tool - what someone does) while you are the 'traditionalists' (whatever that is supposed to mean - it certainly isn't defined, but it is clearly a polemical description). And you return to this idea that you like of trying to explain the data instead of creating these predictive models that I speak of. It is part of this problem that I face when trying to discuss this with you where you consistently want to return to this idea of scripture as a special category,exempt from study by the tools and methods that we find work so well with other kinds of literature.

Quote

The textual examples you and others cite rely on certain assumptions. And those assumptions hark back to skepticism about the possibility of predictive prophecy (even Bokovoy went into those weeds). If pressed, you would insist on keeping things clinical and objective and not considering the question of prophecy as relevant to textual analysis, right? But, the underlying reason for your assumptions about textual interplay and borrowing stem from skepticism that the process of transmission of scripture involves supernatural revelation. 

No, they don't rely on certain assumptions. The tools that higher criticism employs can be applied to any text. This is the point with producing better and better methodologies. You start with a method, you test it, when you find errors (through predictive application), you readjust and try again. And this has absolutely nothing to do with the idea of predictive prophecy - because that idea is firmly rooted only in the notion of scripture. But scripture (as subject matter) reflects a tiny, tiny percentage of the actual application of higher criticism to texts.

Our understanding of the process of textual interplay and borrowing stems from the fact that there is textual interplay and borrowing occurring in virtually every text ever written. It is you who wants to make this idea of scripture some sort of isolated study, with no practical connection to any other literary study or application. And this is why I can say with some confidence that when you talk about the "lay of the land" you are looking only at that one spot over there ...

[hope_for_things]

16 hours ago, rongo said:

Quote

I

n reading the piece, I was left wondering how much exposure Dr. Jackson himself has actually had to the scholarship on this topic.

I've noticed this is a stock response (we've seen it in this thread). Anyone who disagrees with the party line, by definition and by default, is ignorant and unaware of current scholarship. I'm in good company with Dr. Jackson . . .  

Quote

[After discussing a three-line gap in the Qumram Great Isaiah Scroll between what is chapter 33 and 34 in our Bible] 

“This most likely reflects a scribal recognition of a major division in the book.”

Bokovoy uses a lot of qualifiers like "seems," likely," "probably," etc. And it is these points that supporters hail as silver bullets. 

I'm not convinced that a larger-than-usual space between lines closes the case that the Qumram scribe(s) knew and recognized that there were two or more authors for Isaiah. If this is the case, this is the smoking gun, but look at how tentative and reliant on subjective interpretation it is ("most likely reflects"). And, it's a matter of convenient opinion, at that. 

Unfortunately people are so wedded to their theology, that they can't wrap their minds around the actual arguments, so instead of trying to understand the comment by Bokovoy that Dr. Jackson also doesn't understand the topic well, you retreat to your theological bias and don't try to understand Bokovoy, but you try to dissect Bokovoy instead.  

What Bokovoy nicely does is elaborate on mainstream biblical approach to this uniquely Mormon topic around Isaiah and the BoM.  Mainstream biblical scholars don't care one iota about Mormon claims and the BoM, so thankfully Bokovoy who actually understands the scholarship because of his intellect and training is willing to elucidate Mormons on this topic and do so in a very careful way that is respectful of Mormon beliefs.  I can't tell you how much I appreciate how thoughtful he is in his approach to these topics, and I again recommend you read his book and dig into the actual scholarship that non-Mormon biblical scholars have produced in order understand the arguments.

Other than that, I really appreciate Ben's responses to you, which I whole heartily endorse, he is much more articulate than I am and I'm not sure I could add to his replies to you on this subject.  

[hope_for_things]

12 hours ago, Stargazer said:

I don't need to respond to this. You've already been presented with sufficient examples of the problems of peer review in this century, and you just blew it all off. I'd be wasting my time, and I just don't feel like it.

I haven't seen one relevant example yet, care to point something out?  Also, lets assume for a moment you can find one example that has relevance, does this make the whole enterprise of scientific peer review completely untrustworthy in your opinion?   

[Danzo]

2 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Rongo,

And I am saying that your experience is extremely limited. The "lay of the land" is dramatically different than it was decades ago when Sperry was really working out his ideas. And it doesn't hold true at all today. I suggest that this is because you either don't actually know what the land looks like today (for whatever reasons) or because you have a very restrictive notion of what constitutes an appropriate authority in the context of this discussion. Nothing you have written here suggests that you have ever read any of these opposing views. But, if you look at the scholarly field, you will find that they believe that these scholars who have changes the trajectory of biblical studies in these areas are absolutely essential. In a way, it's like asserting that we can understand physics entirely through Newton, and that Einstein and relativity have nothing of consequence to add.

Responding in kind perhaps? But really, it's because you haven't actually presented any evidence to back up your statements. It has all been generalizations and innuendo that simply do not match up to my personal experience.

And? This isn't responding to what I wrote. It is a deflection. It is a statement that you have to do what I say, but I don't have to show anything at all. Apart from which it is a largely unsubstantiated set of claims. Who gets frustrated? Certainly not those engaged in these sorts of endeavors. This is the challenge is talking to you (through this forum). When the ideas and methods of higher criticism work in cases where we have a really good knowledge of the history and genealogy of a textual tradition, why shouldn't we expect it to work in situations where we have less knowledge? The ideas of higher criticism are much more well established than your comments try to suggest. It is not assumption driven (like you say). That is a stylistic and subjective judgment on that literature (exactly what you were being critical of earlier). If you really want to keep maintaining this position, then start by providing us evidence where the methods absolutely fail (in a demonstrable way). Don't simply tell me that this is simply a bunch of people making stuff up and not being able to defend it. Because that simply isn't true.

 

Do you see how you try to set up the polemical argument here? The us versus them? Your 'camp' as opposed to mine? We are the heretic higher critics (as if there is something as a 'higher critic' - what someone - is as opposed to those who employ higher criticism as a tool - what someone does) while you are the 'traditionalists' (whatever that is supposed to mean - it certainly isn't defined, but it is clearly a polemical description). And you return to this idea that you like of trying to explain the data instead of creating these predictive models that I speak of. It is part of this problem that I face when trying to discuss this with you where you consistently want to return to this idea of scripture as a special category,exempt from study by the tools and methods that we find work so well with other kinds of literature.

No, they don't rely on certain assumptions. The tools that higher criticism employs can be applied to any text. This is the point with producing better and better methodologies. You start with a method, you test it, when you find errors (through predictive application), you readjust and try again. And this has absolutely nothing to do with the idea of predictive prophecy - because that idea is firmly rooted only in the notion of scripture. But scripture (as subject matter) reflects a tiny, tiny percentage of the actual application of higher criticism to texts.

Our understanding of the process of textual interplay and borrowing stems from the fact that there is textual interplay and borrowing occurring in virtually every text ever written. It is you who wants to make this idea of scripture some sort of isolated study, with no practical connection to any other literary study or application. And this is why I can say with some confidence that when you talk about the "lay of the land" you are looking only at that one spot over there ...

I thought that I might weigh in with a little "higher Criticism" on your posting.  

I personally don't know or care whether Isaiah was written by a person or a committee, but it seems like you and others in academia can have some real difficulty with relating your ideas with people who are not in your profession.  Comments like "I don't have anything to show at all.  Or "Who gets frustrated? Certainly not those engaged in these sorts of endeavors." or "This is the challenge is talking to you" or "Nothing you have written here suggests that you have ever read any of these opposing views."

It would almost seem that academics get frustrated talking to people who are not them, like there is some sort of intelligence test that people who are not academic failed.  

My profession is trying to make sense of US tax law.  I have been told by numerous people (some that are academics, my clients) that US tax law is  most incomprehensible thing in the world.  When talking shop with my colleagues, it would be difficult for someone to even follow what I am saying.   I could easily overwhelm my clients with jargon. I could tell them that I have done the research and they haven't and therefore they do what I say and they will just have to trust me.  I could tell them that they couldn't even discuss the issue with them until they have a full understanding of the case law, code and regulations.

Instead, I feel that the mark of a true profession is to be able to explain to people without any background in the subject so they can understand the issues that I raise.  Often my success is based on this ability more than my actual knowledge of the US tax code.  I spend a great time teaching people about Tax Law.  I find the "Shut up because I know more than you " approach to not be very effective when people ask questions, or disagree with me.  It can be frustrating when people ask questions you think they should already know the answer to,  Sometimes its best to just find out at what level they are at and add to it in a way they understand.

I just think that instead of telling someone "Study Harder" when they don't agree with you is less productive than finding out what they know and then saying something like "well have you considered this?" or "I actually read here that ", or "Mr so and so had a great point in this book where he said ______"

 

 

 

[Steve J]

I have talked to Mr. McGuire multiple times on various issues and he has always been patient in explaining his knowledge and views. Your view based on this one interaction is not a real representation of his willingness to help explain is answers to questions.

[rongo]

6 minutes ago, Steve J said:

I have talked to Mr. McGuire multiple times on various issues and he has always been patient in explaining his knowledge and views. Your view based on this one interaction is not a real representation of his willingness to help explain is answers to questions.

Ben McGuire is a polite, respectful, patient person (I knew him from when I was on the FAIR list years ago). While I was a little surprised by the tone of his interaction with me in this thread, I don't take it personally or project that on to his interactions in general. 

I agree with Danzo that, when it comes to discussing issues like this where there is a divide, the scholarly group displays frustration, arrogance, and condescension towards people who don't accept their theories or explanations. This doesn't mean that they are jerks in real life --- or that this is typical for their interactions about other things. It's kind of the nature of this. They come across as a reincarnation of S.A.B Mercer responding to Mormons about the 1912 Book of Abraham criticisms (when the scholars speak, the thinking is done).

[stemelbow]

19 minutes ago, rongo said:

Ben McGuire is a polite, respectful, patient person (I knew him from when I was on the FAIR list years ago). While I was a little surprised by the tone of his interaction with me in this thread, I don't take it personally or project that on to his interactions in general. 

I agree with Danzo that, when it comes to discussing issues like this where there is a divide, the scholarly group displays frustration, arrogance, and condescension towards people who don't accept their theories or explanations. This doesn't mean that they are jerks in real life --- or that this is typical for their interactions about other things. It's kind of the nature of this. They come across as a reincarnation of S.A.B Mercer responding to Mormons about the 1912 Book of Abraham criticisms (when the scholars speak, the thinking is done).

It feels far more like frustration, arrogance and condescension to say something like "higher critics don't believe in the possibility of prophecy and revelation" while alluding to Bokovoy.  It's just false.  I dont' get the need to tell us what another believes when it doesn't seem like you have a very good grasp on where that other comes from.  To me it sounds like your participation has been one of frustration, arrogance, and condescension. 

[Physics Guy]

1 hour ago, Danzo said:

I feel that the mark of a true profession is to be able to explain to people without any background in the subject so they can understand the issues that I raise.  Often my success is based on this ability more than my actual knowledge of the US tax code.  I spend a great time teaching people about Tax Law.  I find the "Shut up because I know more than you " approach to not be very effective when people ask questions, or disagree with me.  It can be frustrating when people ask questions you think they should already know the answer to,  Sometimes its best to just find out at what level they are at and add to it in a way they understand.

I agree. Explaining things clearly is hard work, though. So it's one thing to explain things to paying clients during your workday, and another to explain things to people on the Internet for free in your spare time. If you don't have the energy to work hard for nothing like that, then of course you could just let someone be Wrong On The Internet; but academics often care personally about their subjects in ways that tax advisors might perhaps not, and find it harder to just leave the topic alone. 

Also, people don't always politely ask for your expert explanation; often instead they declare some amateur verdict of their own as if it were the obvious truth. Would you still be patient with someone whose declared opinion was that the US tax code is transparently simple? It would be understandable if you got a bit snarky, because this opinion also casually implies that your whole profession is a scam. Some amateur views on academic subjects aren't far from that.

The other thing to bear in mind is that academic expertise is a high mountain, and even earning a PhD is really still just the foothills. Providing instant clarity to lay people is a legitimate expectation for the top experts, but it may well take a top expert to do it. Someone who is still working on getting there may be sure they are right about something, and also actually be right, but not be able to explain quickly and convincingly why they are right.

[Danzo]

37 minutes ago, Physics Guy said:

Also, people don't always politely ask for your expert explanation; often instead they declare some amateur verdict of their own as if it were the obvious truth. Would you still be patient with someone whose declared opinion was that the US tax code is transparently simple?

People who think the US tax code is simple are those that end up paying me. Turbo Tax is my favorite tax software, people who rely on it generate a substantial part of  my revenue.