"Davidic References in the Book of Mormon as Evidence Against its Historicity"

[tagriffy]

This is a title of a Master's thesis submitted by Kyle R Beshears to the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. The paper can be found here. It's such a horrbly bad argument that I'm surprised it would be accepted, even for SBTS. I wondered if someone had already seen this and wrote a response. If not, I'll write one of my own.

[InCognitus]

Not only is it a bad argument, but he also mistitled his thesis, His real title should have been "THE LACK OF DAVIDIC REFERENCES IN THE BOOK OF MORMON AS EVIDENCE AGAINST ITS HISTORICITY", because that's really what his argument is all about.   i.e. "The [Book of Mormon] boasts no unique messianic prophecies that specifically mention David", and "The mormonic [sic] treatment of David is inconsistent with what would be expected, given the religious background, texts, and culture from which they claim to have arisen."

[tagriffy]

40 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

Not only is it a bad argument, but he also mistitled his thesis, His real title should have been "THE LACK OF DAVIDIC REFERENCES IN THE BOOK OF MORMON AS EVIDENCE AGAINST ITS HISTORICITY", because that's really what his argument is all about.   i.e. "The [Book of Mormon] boasts no unique messianic prophecies that specifically mention David", and "The mormonic [sic] treatment of David is inconsistent with what would be expected, given the religious background, texts, and culture from which they claim to have arisen."

Agreed, but the question is whether anyone knows if someone had already written a response to it.

[InCognitus]

1 hour ago, tagriffy said:

Agreed, but the question is whether anyone knows if someone had already written a response to it.

Yes, there was a response by Jeff Lindsay available on the Interpreter Foundation website:  Too Little or Too Much Like the Bible? A Novel Critique of the Book of Mormon Involving David and the Psalms, by Jeff Lindsay.

And here, where Jeff Lindsay summarizes his response to Beshear's work:  

Quote

1. Beshears shifts his inquiry midstream from asking if the Book of Mormon contains adequate references to David and the Psalms to denying the merit of potentially relevant passages since their similarity to the King James Bible shows “plagiarism.” In doing so he departs from scholarly inquiry.
2. In his analysis and dismissal of John Hilton’s work, the only LDS source considered (of many excellent candidates) on the relationship between the Psalms and the Book of Mormon, Beshears appears to neglect the strongest aspects of Hilton’s work, the detailed analysis of how Jacob used Psalm 95 and how Nephi used numerous Psalms in crafting his own impressive psalm. 
3. Indeed, the absence of any treatment of the Psalm of Nephi in 2 Nephi 4, an important concept in Book of Mormon scholarship for over 50 years, is unfortunate, especially since analysis of Nephi’s Psalm formed a significant portion of the John Hilton article that Beshears treats in his thesis.
4. Beshears’ tool for testing the historicity of a text purportedly from ancient Hebrews is flawed and would condemn many legitimate ancient Jewish texts which refer to David infrequently or not at all.  
5. The Book of Mormon has slightly more content relative to David (Nephi’s usage of the David and Goliath motif) and much more influence from the Psalms than Beshears recognizes. The many references to the Psalms are not scattered randomly in the text, but are concentrated among those writers who had the most familiarity with the brass plates, particularly Nephi and Jacob. Indeed, the details of usage of the Psalms as well as Nephi’s detailed allusion to David is not easy to explain as mere fabrication by Joseph Smith. 
6. The Book of Mormon’s willingness to criticize King David for his polygamy (ironically, a troubling issue for Beshears in his role as an evangelical critic) and its lack of emphasis on the David covenant or the greatness of King David is actually consistent with scholarship since Joseph Smith’s day on pre-exilic religion among the Jews, the divisions in religious belief among them, and the impact of the Deuteronomist reforms under King Josiah initiated. What Beshears sees as a hopeless weakness in the Book of Mormon may actually be one of its strengths.

And a later reflection on his response here, where Lindsay notes:

Quote

What Beshears overlooks is extensive, but one key gap is failure to recognize that in light of modern scholarship, there are good reasons why a group of Hebrews like Lehi's family with roots from the Northern Kingdom and the tribe of Joseph would not buy into the ruling paradigm among the Judeans regarding the greatness of David and the majesty of the so-called Davidic covenant, which allegedly guaranteed the Israelites that they would be safe and a king would remain on David's throne no matter how bad their behavior.

 

Edited September 29, 2022 by InCognitus

[tagriffy]

Thanks! I'll take a look at it and decide what to do from there.

[tagriffy]

After reading Lindsay's responses, I find myself in a bit of a quandry. There are a number of points of contact between his thoughts and mine (e.g., I also though Beshear's use of the term "mormonic" was conveniently close to "moronic"), but they also diverge substantially. I wonder whether it would be worthwhile to go ahead and write my own response.

[InCognitus]

24 minutes ago, tagriffy said:

After reading Lindsay's responses, I find myself in a bit of a quandry. There are a number of points of contact between his thoughts and mine (e.g., I also though Beshear's use of the term "mormonic" was conveniently close to "moronic"), but they also diverge substantially. I wonder whether it would be worthwhile to go ahead and write my own response.

Why not?     There's always room for more points of view.  I'd love to see it.

[Benjamin McGuire]

It's a Masters Thesis. Generally speaking, they aren't taken too seriously. (And, of course, it doesn't mention my material 😉 ).

[tagriffy]

I don't think we've interacted before, so before sharing what my thoughts are, I need to make it clear that I am myself an Book of Mormon environmentalist. That is, I would agree with Beshears that the Prophet Joseph Smith is the human author of the Book of Mormon. Nonetheless, Beshears thesis is an example of how not to do Book of Mormon studies.

The core problem with Beshears' thesis is that it actually proves nothing in the first place vis a vis Book of Mormon historicity. Lindsay touches on the problem when discussing the alleged lack of allusions to the Psalms. Beshears argues the lack of allusions argues against historicity and dismisses what is actually there as "plagiarism." Again, Beshears argues the lack of references to David is proof against historicity, but if the Book of Mormon bristled with Davidic references, that would not actually point to historicity, since, after all, such references could be derived from the Bible--just as in the case of all the other biblical figures mentioned in it. It is difficult to see how the lack of something that "should be there" can count against historicity when, if it actually was there, it would prove nothing.

So much for the thesis itself. The argument made, i.e., that the Book of Mormon should have more Davidic references fails to account for the fact that the Book of Mormon has a perfectly good--"in universe" if you will--explanation for the lack of Davidic references and even for criticizing David. Lindsay makes a stab at this by noting that Lehi was a descendant of Joseph, likely from the northern tribes, and thus likely not to have as much respect for the Davidic dynasty. But let's also more fully explore what we see in the Book of Mormon itself. Nephi is eventually proclaimed king of the Lehite community that separated from the Lamanites, establishing a dynasty that lasts until Mosiah II. Politically speaking, they are not going to sing the virtues of the Davidic dynasty because it would come with a note of illegitimacy to their own dynasty.

The problem becomes worse with the discovery and absorption of the Mulekite community. Remember, Mulek himself is depicted as a son of Zedekiah and as such, has a claim to the Davidic throne. So now Nephi's dynasty actually has potential rivals to its rulership that have to be dealt with. Frequently mentioning David, how great he was, God's promises to David, the fact he was the standard by which other kings are measured by, etc., might give these Davidic descendants ideas. On the other hand, the Nephites need the Mulekites so they can't outright disparage David too much (Jacob's criticism of David came before the discovery of the Mulekites). Better to avoid mentioning the topic at all.

Later it its history, the Nephites adopt a more democratic approach to government. This new form of government essentially begins when Mosiah II's sons refuse the throne. In inaugurating this new form of government during his farewell speech, Mosiah badmouths the entire concept of monarchy. Later still in that history, the Nephites have a civil war over the question of installing a new monarchy. This is not a community pining for a "golden era" of kingship--Davidic or otherwise.

In light of all this, the question is not "Why does the Book of Mormon not mention David all that much?" The question is "Why would the Book of Mormon mention David all that much?"

From there, things would go against both Beshears and Lindsay. Contra Beshears, it must be pointed out that the sources he points to that glorify David (DSS, NT), come at a time when the disasters the monarchy brought to Israel and Judah were largely forgotten and current events of the day led the Jewish community to pine for a savior figure--one that would be after God's own heart. This was not necessarily the case in the immediate historical situation of Babylon conquering Judah and the subsequent destruction of Jerusalem and the temple. Lindsay is correct to point out that there was a "real break and change of perspective" regarding the Davidic dynasty.

But contra Lindsay, this is also something that can be derived from the Bible itself. Joseph may not have known much about modern biblical scholarship, but the fact still remains that the last four kings are not compared to David and centralization of worship is suddenly not so important is still found in the Bible itself. What specifically came to my mind was Ezekiel's vision of the New Jerusalem. I'll dig out the references later, but for now it is important to note that in Ezekiel's vision, the role of the king is greatly truncated. Ezekiel only refers to him as a "prince," for example. There is enough there that, technically speaking, the Davidic covenant is still in effect, but the prince has nowhere near as much power as David and his descendants had before the Exile. I could probably add more support for historical ambivalence toward the Davidic monarchy using Jeremiah, Haggai, and Zechariah, but that would require further research as I have no specific references in mind.

That would be the core of my argument. First, Beshears is attempting a type of but-for argument against historicity, but if the opposite were true, it still wouldn't prove anything. Second, the structure of the Book of Mormon itself is such that it shouldn't be very surprising that David is not mentioned all that much. (I could also argue that at the meta-level, it shouldn't be all that surprising that a book written in America some forty or fifty years after the American Revolution wouldn't glorify a monarchy even if we are talking about David.) Third, the historical setting the Book of Mormon's opening is at a time when ambivalence toward the Davidic monarchy is a demonstrable fact. While this is not exactly evidence for Book of Mormon historicity in itself, it does lend the work some verisimilitude.

I am not sure I would do much of anything regarding the alleged lack of allusions to the Psalms. Beshears seems to take it for granted that David wrote the Psalms attributed to him; I do not. However, I don't know whether this is a point worth arguing. Lindsay is correct that the Book of Mormon does not preclude the Nephites having some form of the Psalter on the brass plates. But what I know about the formation of our book of Psalms is a double-edged sword. The formation of the book as we have it is certainly post-Exilic, i.e., if the Nephites had a Psalter, it certainly was not our book of Psalms. But it is also uncertain whether any form of the book existed at the time the Nephites are depicted leaving as leaving Judah. So even if Beshears is correct that the Book of Mormon doesn't contain many allusions to the Psalms (except for the "plagiarisms"), that could actually wind up being a point in favor of historicity. On the other hand, if Lindsay is correct that the Book of Mormon bristles with allusions to the Psalms (and for the record, I think he is), then it could wind up being a point against historicity if it turns out the Nephites shouldn't have had access to the Psalms to begin with.  However, note that Ostler's expansion theory could readily handle the allusions, so that wouldn't necessarily be actual proof against the Book of Mormon having some historical core. But again, I'm not sure it would be worthwhile to do all the necessary digging for a topic I'm not particularly interested in.

 

[tagriffy]

3 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

It's a Masters Thesis. Generally speaking, they aren't taken too seriously. (And, of course, it doesn't mention my material 😉 ).

Granted, but it is still such a p--- poor argument that it makes me wonder if it would be accepted anywhere other than a place like SBTS. I mean, come on, I wrote a better paper about Mormonism in English 101 (which I dearly wish I could find again)! Sure, in retrospect it was probably a note too naive and almost certainly a note too triumphalist, but I could still work the core concept into something worthwhile today (assuming I could get my hands on the necessary material).

I will take a moment to mention I am something of a fan of your work. The main thing I admire is that your work doesn't seem too interested in "proving" anything about the Book of Mormon, even when you think there are implications for it. It looks to me like you're much more interested in drawing meaning from what is going on in the text regardless of what the implications might be.

[Benjamin McGuire]

First, I'm flattered. For me, the text of the Book of Mormon is something that is wonderfully engaging - a fact which remains true no matter what your view of its authorship is.

I am not sure a thesis like this would fly anywhere but at a place like SBTS. His Doctoral Thesis was better, but not something that is worth a lot of time investment (it deals with Strangite apologetics - and is mostly a historical summary). There is (at least for me) some remarkable absences in the authors he cites in both of these theses - absences that suggest to me that part of the problem stems not from his own bias (which may be there) but certainly from a bias in his education at SBTS. There are just holes in his knowledge base and subsequently holes in the sources he knows to use (if that makes sense).

There has been a lot written about the Book of Mormon's engagement with David, the Psalms, and of course its changing views on the monarchy. But a good portion of these discussions in the context of the Book of Mormon revolve around aspects of the history of Israel and the history of the Biblical text (engaging with some form of the Documentary Hypothesis) that are largely rejected by conservative evangelicals - and in particular by the SBTS. So it shouldn't surprise us that this thesis largely ignores Mormon discussion which often focuses on traditions more widely recognized in the Biblical Studies community - the different valuations of David, the distinction which can be made between northern and southern traditions - and perhaps most importantly, theoretical reconstructions of the textual history of the Old Testament epitomized by the some what dated documentary hypothesis. The Book of Mormon engages Davidic traditions extensively in the first few books. But this range of topics would be difficult to deal with, I think, from the perspective of an SBTS theological student (if he was even aware of them) - because he wouldn't have the tools to understand the issues being raised.

 

 

[Navidad]

34 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

I am not sure a thesis like this would fly anywhere but at a place like SBTS.

Methinks your generalizations about "a place like SBTS" lessen your own credibility. SBTS was founded in 1859 and has graduated thousands of fine pastors, scholars, and missionaries, as well of course, as some less than wonderful folks. As have most educational institutions it has gone through a number of transformative changes over those 163 or so years. Its student body and faculty have been very diverse, probably second only (of the six SBC seminaries) to the Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary.  I would also suggest that today's Evangelical community is similarly diverse and capable of transformation in virtually any manner that you choose to use the term.

I wouldn't sit by while non-LDS Christians generalize about LDS institutions. Neither can I when LDS Christians generalize about non-LDS Christian institutions. Generalization, normalization, and ranking are precursors to conflicts of all sorts, perhaps especially within and between religious institutions and dogma (not doctrine). Best wishes.

 

[Benjamin McGuire]

56 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I wouldn't sit by while non-LDS Christians generalize about LDS institutions. Neither can I when LDS Christians generalize about non-LDS Christian institutions. Generalization, normalization, and ranking are precursors to conflicts of all sorts, perhaps especially within and between religious institutions and dogma (not doctrine). Best wishes.

There are some areas where religion sometimes engages in denial of principles generally recognized by the scientific community. There are areas where religion sometimes engages in denial of principles generally widely recognized by historians and other fields of study. When religious institutions also create educational institutions that engage in this denial while teaching others, they deserve that criticism. BYU is not immune to this sort of criticism (and I have no problems making such criticisms). It would be hard, for example, to take seriously a paper on human evolution coming from someone at SBTS - precisely because SBTS is a religious school with a set of tenants that are closely aligned to religious beliefs rather than a commitment to the advancement of scientific understanding. In the same way, it is hard to take seriously a paper dealing with a history that patently ignores all of the historical understanding that we have (collectively) that contradicts its own closely held beliefs about the historical artifacts on which that history is built. This is the price such organizations pay for running an institution of higher learning motivated by religious objectives.

If my credibility with someone is going to be damaged by making such an observation, I am sure it wasn't very good with them to begin with. I can live with this.

[Navidad]

3 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

There are some areas where religion sometimes engages in denial of principles generally recognized by the scientific community. There are areas where religion sometimes engages in denial of principles generally widely recognized by historians and other fields of study. When religious institutions also create educational institutions that engage in this denial while teaching others, they deserve that criticism. BYU is not immune to this sort of criticism (and I have no problems making such criticisms). It would be hard, for example, to take seriously a paper on human evolution coming from someone at SBTS - precisely because SBTS is a religious school with a set of tenants that are closely aligned to religious beliefs rather than a commitment to the advancement of scientific understanding. In the same way, it is hard to take seriously a paper dealing with a history that patently ignores all of the historical understanding that we have (collectively) that contradicts its own closely held beliefs about the historical artifacts on which that history is built. This is the price such organizations pay for running an institution of higher learning motivated by religious objectives.

If my credibility with someone is going to be damaged by making such an observation, I am sure it wasn't very good with them to begin with. I can live with this.

My observation was about your generalization about the quality of the work product coming out of SBTS. You perhaps correctly criticized one master's thesis. Fine, I haven't seen it so I take your word for it. But to make a blanket statement regarding  "a place like SBTS" is cringeworthy. I assume you must know the institution well, probably have lectured there, know its history and its positions regarding the Documentary Hypothesis. I know of a number of conservative institutions worthy of the monikor of "a place like," but SBTS is not one of them. I know many professors from there over the years, many many graduates, the quality of its programs, especially in church and sacred music, missiology, and indeed Biblical Interpretation. I thought I saw an observation based on bias and lack of information about an institution needed to make such a derogatory statement. I apologize if I was incorrect.

[Benjamin McGuire]

22 hours ago, Navidad said:

My observation was about your generalization about the quality of the work product coming out of SBTS. You perhaps correctly criticized one master's thesis. Fine, I haven't seen it so I take your word for it. But to make a blanket statement regarding  "a place like SBTS" is cringeworthy. I assume you must know the institution well, probably have lectured there, know its history and its positions regarding the Documentary Hypothesis. I know of a number of conservative institutions worthy of the monikor of "a place like," but SBTS is not one of them. I know many professors from there over the years, many many graduates, the quality of its programs, especially in church and sacred music, missiology, and indeed Biblical Interpretation. I thought I saw an observation based on bias and lack of information about an institution needed to make such a derogatory statement. I apologize if I was incorrect.

The thesis was an overt apologetic argument. It was theological (not academic). There are a lot of theses that have been written about Mormons and Mormonism - but most come from candidates for degrees in history and the study of religion. This thesis could not have come from a university other than one that was offering theological degrees. Further, it would need to come from a school that had certain requirements about the things that it taught relative to religion - otherwise, its doubtful that this thesis would have stood up to any sort of academic scrutiny - because of its subject matter.

My claim about SBTS was not a reflection of general academic quality outside of the specific issue of biblical studies, or about the quality of its staff. I have never taught there. I am more than a little familiar with its history. You were aware, right, of the substantial percentage of staff that was forced out in 1993 by Albert Mohler because they refused to sign on to the Baptist Faith and Message. This is not a school that affords its staff and students much latitude with regard to orthodoxy. This is important, perhaps, when your goal is to produce ministers of the faith (like Kyle Beshears who authored the thesis). But it is a much more significant problem in the wider academic space - because it represents a suppression of ideas - when a certain kind of Biblical Interpretation is required, it represents a real failure of the idea of education as we generally understand it today. And when that required interpretation becomes the basis for an apologetic argument in the form of a Masters Thesis - well ....

[Navidad]

56 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

You were aware, right, of the substantial percentage of staff that was forced out in 1993 by Albert Mohler because they refused to sign on to the Baptist Faith and Message.

Ok. I appreciate the dialogue. However, I do reject the idea that there is something contrary between a paper being both theologically and academically sound. Theology is a systematically-based study of God and faith that includes deity. Its very systematic nature demands academic rigor. Hence we normally call a course of studies specializing in theology as "systematic theology" where theology is broken down into its component parts and studied apart from a required orthodoxy.  That is what I studied, learned, and later taught in a number of Baptist educational institutions.

My best friend was a professor at SBTS and I am sure he would shake his head in disbelief at your simple and reductionist description of the challenges at a number of the Southern Baptist seminaries in the late seventies, eighties, and nineties. The conflicts were many and varied in their etiologies.

I would suggest that something similar occurred in the LDS world from the 1890s to the 1930s. It happened again in the upheavals caused by the "New" Mormon history, and to some degree is occurring today in the scope and perhaps change in what is included in LDS orthodoxy. Many, if not most religious organizations periodically experience these upheavals and redefinition of orthodoxy. The pendulum of expressed faith continues to swing. That is part of the reason in the non-LDS Christian world we have Fundamentalists, Evangelicals, and what has been characterized as Mainline organizations, each of which overlap with the other. There are certainly parallels in the Mormon (used as an adjective) world, are there not? Gotta run. Best wishes.