Two honest questions for Bible scholars...

[Archaea]

Do you wish to write my brief that's due soon? Thanks SEIQ.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

At last, my response. I'll inject myself into the ongoing discussion as well.

First, in answer to:

1. For the most part they do not support the JST at all. There are a few passages that are interesting in this regard, and as I recall there is some ancient support for JS reworking the titles of the Gospels, but overwhelmingly the answer is "no." (they contradict it). From my training (I'm writing the last chapter of my dissertation in Communication Studies, review articles for the Journal of Media and Religion, have had extensive graduate training in historical, culture-based and literary methods, have interned with the head archivist at a presidential archive--all of which means that I'm not an expert on the JST or Greek or anything like that, but do have a good grasp of the historical issues and have formal academic training and extensive, but informal, training in Church History and doctrine) the JST is most accurately understood as not a translation of the bible, but rather an interpretation (or midrash). It tells us about JS and his developing theology, but does nothing to get the bible closer to the autographs (original texts).

For those less intellectually inclined who may be uncomfortable with what I've just written, I offer a few tangential observations:

A. Despite the presence of JST passages in the footnotes and appendix to the LDS edition of the KJV, it is almost never cited by General Authorities. They cite the King James, and have only very occasionally drawn on the JST to make a point (which I interpret as expressing agreement with JS, or thinking with JS, on a point, and not as making a claim to biblical originality).

B. Any brief foray through the accumulated mass of official LDS study materials and GA talks will reveal that scriptural passages have often been interpreted by different Church authorities in contrasting, and sometimes wholly exclusionary ways. I have no problem with this as I see similar tensions in scripture itself and feel that the burden (more of a joy, really) of truth seeking is on me. From where I sit, truth is paradoxical and constellational, and cannot be completely and universally captured by reason--this is the weakness of modernism in it's attempted supplanting of the universal discovery of truth via religion--that doesn't mean that I relinquish reason, but rather, like Emerson, James, Benjamin, and many others, use it dialectically with my faith. They are like pedals on a bicycle who's productive opposition propels me forward in my quest to catch little glimpses of knowledge and truth.

C. I have no problem with the idea of JS, or any prophet, growing, regressing, and struggling in what he knows. I see this in scripture, and more broadly, in human experience.

2. For starters, I have no problem with the idea that JS simply felt inspired to plug those passages into the BoM. As well ask Matthew or Luke why they selected certain passages from Mark, but also felt obligated to change them (yes, I find myself agreeing much with the Mark as the first gospel we have in the Canon hypothesis, drawing on Q, and oral tradition and all that), or ask the writer of Daniel why he reinterpreted Jeremiah's prophecy (and Daniel is a history book, not a future predicting book, in my view). Prophets and bible writers often draw on and change older scriptural writings, and typically do so in a way that can make them more relevant in the now. Scriptures are just words and shouldn't be worshipped. They are digital (in that they’re alphabetic), and are and can never capture the more analogue aspects of human experience. Moreover, and from a communication studies perspective, I think the sola sciptura doctrine of the Reformation is a colossal mistake. Other prophetic forms such as images (I’m working on an article on the word-image contrast in the stone tablets vs. golden calf account in Exodous), theatre (such as in the Endowment presentation), and the voice of the living should be accounted for. The scriptures have their value and I'm commited to striving for accuracy in their texts (Insert my pitch for you to go out and buy an NRSV here!!! Do it now!!!), but much of their relevance comes from the continuing tradition of prophets and prophecy. Hence, my perspective is quite LDS, actually.

As someone somewhat trained in historical criticism, I can make a much, much, stronger case AGAINST the BoM as the history it has been purported to be than I could make in FAVOR of it. Linguistically it has some interesting features and has the marks of a religious genius. It has turns of phrase that strike me as 19th century New York, Elizabethan, 13th century English, and even ancient (I’m thinking of John Welch’s chiasmus material here, but not only that). Similarly, I believe the Gospels (and much of the NT) were written pseudonymously, Paul only wrote some of the letters attributed to him, and the fantastic stories in the OT are essentially folklore (and some of those, such as from the early part of Genesis, correspond to Babylonian myth and were doubtlessly handed down via oral tradition for a long time before they were even written down.). But then I’m not in the business of conflating scripture with some kind of definitive historical record. Jesus’ parables aren’t describing “real” historical events, yet they reverberate with the human experience. The same goes for Job (my favorite OT book, hands down), the Song of Solomon (another favorite, I love that there’s some erotica in the bible to stick a thorn in the feet of the puritan minded), the allegory of the olive tree in Jacob five and on and on.

As a correlative to this, I’m not inclined to look for truth exclusively within the Church. I read philosophy, literature, holy books from other traditions (such as the Qur’an and Bhavagad Gita), and have found much value in them. I believe that the ordinances of my Church are valid and that it is an excellent framework for my search for truth, but I don’t make the kinds of exclusive claims that many Mormons do. If you want some insight into my perspective, read 2 Kings 22 where Hilkiah finds the lost book of the law and sends people out to all the various and sundry Israelite sects to come and perform the temple ordinances again. In other words, I believe that while a priest may be a prophet (and in the case of the LDS church, is), a prophet doesn’t have to be a priest. I believe this view is very much supported in scripture, and even in the 1978 First Presidency statement that said there was a measure of inspiration in Mohammed and Confucius. Moreover, the bible speaks of prophetesses like Deborah, and that even after some very patriarchal folks had control of the manuscripts for a long time.

In brief, the word-for-word Isaiah passages don’t bother me at all and I see no reason not to accept the scholars’ dating of second Isaiah. If the BoM is the historical artifact it's purported to be, or something similar, great. If not (and I suspect that this is so), that's not a problem for me whatsoever.

Also, one of the plusses of moving on from the KJV would be a renewed understanding that the JST is about Joseph and not about bible originals.

In conclusion, I’m going to quote President Hinckley on the BoM. This is from the First Presidency Message of the February, 2004 Ensign (p.6). The emphasis is mine:

“The evidence for its truth, for its validity in a world that is prone to demand evidence, lies not in archaeology or anthropology, though these may be helpful to some. It lies not in word research or historical analysis, though these may be confirmatory. The evidence for its truth and validity lies within the covers of the book itself. The test of its truth lies in reading it. It is a book of God. REASONABLE PEOPLE MAY SINCERELY QUESTION ITS ORIGIN; but those who have read it prayerfully have come to know by a power beyond their natural senses that it is true, that it contains the word of God, that it outlines saving truths of the everlasting gospel, that it "came forth by the gift and power of God … to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ.”

Can I add an Amen without sounding trite

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

B. Any brief foray through the accumulated mass of official LDS study materials and GA talks will reveal that scriptural passages have often been interpreted by different Church authorities in contrasting, and sometimes wholly exclusionary ways. I have no problem with this as I see similar tensions in scripture itself and feel that the burden (more of a joy, really) of truth seeking is on me.

The one that bugs me on this is

2 Nephi 25:23 For we labor diligently to write, to persuade our
children, and also our brethren, to believe in Christ, and to be
reconciled to God; for we know that it is by grace that we are
saved, after all we can do.

The correct (IMHO) interpretation which I've seen a couple times is that Nephi's "after all we can do" is a grace scripture with emphasis on the word "all" with a sarcastic tone meaning it's all we can do is a pitiful amount.

The most common interpretation is emphasis on the word "after" or emphasis on the word "do" changing it into a works scripture with emphasis on our part of the equation, and implying grace is less abundant and only exists after (chronologically) we do all we can.

[Indy Coug]

1. Grace is an absolute requirement for salvation.

2. Grace sufficient for exaltation is not extended to those that refuse to reach for it. How do we reach for it? By our efforts in trying to become more Christlike (aka "WORKS").

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/moro/10/32#32

[pelagius]

Originally Posted by SteelBlue

Sidenote: Pelagius, you've got the econ and stats skills and now you come forward with a bunch of esoteric knowledge about Isaiah. Man, you guys make me feel like I don't know ANYTHING about ANYTHING.

Ya, but my 40 time really does suck (if that helps).

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

1. Grace is an absolute requirement for salvation.

2. Grace sufficient for exaltation is not extended to those that refuse to reach for it. How do we reach for it? By our efforts in trying to become more Christlike (aka "WORKS").

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/moro/10/32#32

I'm not sure I entirely agree with your #2, but it doesn't matter for this thread.

The basic point is that this is an example of a scripture that can be (and is) interpreted in opposite directions. And this particular one is perturbing to me.

[BarbaraGordon]

Originally Posted by jay santos

I'm not sure I entirely agree with your #2, but it doesn't matter for this thread.

The basic point is that this is an example of a scripture that can be (and is) interpreted in opposite directions. And this particular one is perturbing to me.

Yeah, someday I want to do a whole nother thread just on number two.

[creekster]

I'm getting dumber by the post.

Keep it up; it's fascinating.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by Chapel-Hill-Coug

Why do you want to talk about every part of the bom except the part with Isaiah in it? The Isaiah chapters are in 2nd Nephi. They aren't in the large plates, they aren't in the book of Lehi, they aren't in the sealed portion. I feel like you're having a completely different conversation with someone else, yet responding to me. 2 Nephi was written by Nephi, and nobody else, according to the text. Nephi quotes from Isaiah, including chapters that had not been written yet. The compilation of the BOM as a whole has nothing to do with this problem. As to your last statement: I agree, but if you think the BOM is not a history, then why argue that the inclusion of the Isaiah chapters had a historical basis?

One cannot seperate the Isaiah chapters from the context of the whole abridgment. They must always be considered in context to the whole, for that is the purpose of their placement.

One cannot state with certainty that further eloboration or the same Isaiah scriptures might not have be found in the book of Lehi, or the sealed portions.

Again, one must make a distinction between abridgment and compilation. The way in which the BOM was abridged and for what purposes has everything to do with this problem!

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

SEIQ,

Thank you for taking the time to put together that post. I really enjoy your contributions on this site.

No kidding. That was fantastic.