David L., who recently joined M*, and I have been having a really wonderful conversation about methodologies of interpretation and comparison. My response got too long, and so I thought it would be better to put up as a full post of its own. At issue, I believe, is how LDS should understand themselves and their relationship to the ancient world, David and I representing two different approaches that are currently wrestling for primacy in LDS scholarship more generally. Let me summarize the main outline of the methodogical issues at stake.
Continue reading “Guarding the Temple: Our Procession to a Better Understanding; a Response to David L.”
Ten Tidbits About Prophets and Prophecy in the Old Testament
1. The biblical, or so-called “canonical,” prophets–those whom we tend to consider the prophets–in many instances (e.g., Amos, Isaiah, Micah, and Hosea) are not called prophets (Hebrew nabi’) in the superscriptions to their books, or elsewhere, and indeed probably would have rejected this label for themselves. For instance, in a third person biographical narrative about Amos, he rejects the Bethel priest Amaziah’s suggestion that he is a nabi’ (See Amos 7:10-17; cf. Hosea 9:7; Micah 3). This is because… Continue reading “Ten Tidbits About Prophets and Prophecy in the Old Testament”
1 Enoch in Jude’s “Bible”: Issues of Canonicity and Scriptural Inspiration
Jude 1:5-7 (NRSV): Now I desire to remind you, though you are fully informed, that the Lord, who once for all saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterwards destroyed those who did not believe. And the angels who did not keep their own position, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains in deepest darkness for the judgement of the great day. Likewise, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which, in the same manner as they, indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural lust, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.
In the passage quoted above the author of Jude draws on past examples to show that God punishes sinners in order to demonstrate that God will eventually condemn his own contemporary opponents too: v.5 relies on Exodus and Numbers concerning Israelite rebellion and punishment in the wilderness; v.6 draws on 1 Enoch 6-16 about the “angels” who left their appointed sphere and who were thus condemned (cf. Gen. 6:1-4); and v.7 speaks of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah found in Genesis.[1] Continue reading “1 Enoch in Jude’s “Bible”: Issues of Canonicity and Scriptural Inspiration”
Faith Promoting “Problems”
A few weeks ago my Bishop asked me to be the speaker at the monthly Bishop’s Youth Discussion. I’ve spoken at several of these events and enjoy teaching the youth so I quickly agreed. When I asked what subject I should speak on he thought for about 5 seconds and asked that I speak on the prophet Joseph Smith. This is an interesting occurrence since 9 times out of 10 church leaders ask me to speak on topics that have to with the scriptures, but in this case: Joseph Smith. Preparing and delivering my remarks has drawn my mind to reflect on Joseph Smith, Church History, etc. over the past few days so I share a few autobiographical thoughts akin to some fairly recent posts found here by Enoch and here by TT.
In the last 18 months I have come to realize just how complex the prophet (and human being) Joseph Smith is. Never again will I look at him the same. Whether this is a good thing or a bad thing only time can tell; however, I feel blessed to have somewhat of a better understanding about the history of our founder. Magic, seer stones, masons, plates and all, I feel that I am a more informed person having learned what I have learned. Many have asked me how I can know the things that I know and still have a desire to be a Mormon (just last night in fact). The answer, like Joseph, is complex but certainly entails these points: (1) I feel that the gospel as taught by the LDS Church (despite many concerns) helps me and my family to be better people, (2) I find it comforting to belong to a group of people that know how to serve and push me to serve more, (3) I love belonging to a group with such a rich history and tradition. I would be dishonest if I didn’t feel a need/want to carry on this tradition (at least the parts I like :)) (4) It’s fun! I’ve met a number of amazing people in the church that make life better and certainly a whole lot more interesting. Strangely enough though, I must say that many of the more “human” episodes in Joseph’s life (and in Church History) have helped me to feel closer to Joseph than before. Why? Because he is not just an infallible fairy tale that my parents tell me about anymore. He is a real man that makes real mistakes and is yet (according to my faith) a prophet of God. How prophets are nothing more than human and yet represent the divine is quite a paradox and yet, paradox describes my faith so adequately. I believe it was Richard Bushman in a podcast who said something to the effect of, “if you don’t have paradox in your life, then you are not living.” This is certainly not to say that I have found ways to view all the less-than-stellar moments in our church’s history (not to mention present situations/happenings) that are helpful and make sense, but I have found enough to continue. And so it is that many of the events in our Church’s history that have been seen as “problems” have, in an odd sort of way, become faith promoting problems.
Isaiah 7:14 and Scriptural Hermeneutics
Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. (Isa 7:14, KJV)
Isaiah 7.14 is one of three prophetic sign-acts in Isaiah chapters 7-8 in which Isaiah of Jerusalem associates or gives an ambiguous or multivalent ominous name to a child as a means of sharing the divine message to his contemporaries. The historical context of these chapters is the Syrio-Ephraimite War. At this time Israel (the northern kingdom), Aram, and others, joined in an alliance to combat the rising Assyrian threat headed by king Tiglath-pileser III (r. 745-727 BCE). The kingdom of Judah (the southern kingdom) would not join the alliance and so Israel and Aram sought to remove the new Judean king, Ahaz (r. ca. 734-715), from power in order to install a more politically favorable king (referred to by Isaiah as the son of Tabeel; Isa. 7.6) who would join the alliance to stop Assyria. Ahaz, however, appealed to Tiglath-pileser III for help against Israel and Aram and submitted to Assyria as vassal to suzerain, stripping the temple in the process in order to pay the necessary tribute (2 Kgs. 16:17-18). Assyria would go on to conquer Aram and reduce Israel to vassal status before Israel’s final destruction in 722/721 BCE by Sargon II. Continue reading “Isaiah 7:14 and Scriptural Hermeneutics”
Scriptural Authority, Normativity, and Hermeneutics: Women and the Priesthood
Introduction [1]
The Bible often privileges men as normative for what it means to be human, frequently considers women as inferior to men, and presents God in overwhelmingly male terms. For the contemporary believer who is committed to the full equality of men and women the problem is not simply one of reconciling isolated patriarchal, sexist, or misogynistic biblical passages with an egalitarian or feminist perspective, but the revelatory nature of the biblical text itself. “How can a text that contains so much that is damaging to women function authoritatively in the Christian community as normative of faith and life?” (36). A theology of Scripture that takes this problem seriously must reject the traditional understanding of Scripture as divinely revealed in verbal form to its ancient authors lest the pervasive androcentrism, patriarchalism, and sexism of the biblical text be understood as divinely revealed. 1) What then does it mean for Scripture to be the “Word of God”? 2) How can the Bible function authoritatively for the Church? 3) And is the Bible materially normative for modern faith and practice? Continue reading “Scriptural Authority, Normativity, and Hermeneutics: Women and the Priesthood”
Old Fashioned Philology: Dead? Useless? Not so fast…
So I haven’t read this book and I am cherry picking a money-quotation but these words offer balm to my troubled soul.
“All the more reason that the sense of what is and is not a sound reading needs development in every historian who seeks to work with papyri–a sense that comes from reading a lot of texts and from working with the artefacts themselves, from bearing the editor’s and critic’s burden oneself. It would be pleasant to be able to offer to historians in general the good news that all of that philological baggage and training really is not essential, that the doors have been flung wide open, but this is just not the case.
“The necessity of sound philological underpinnings to historical work is only part of the explanation of the durability of philology…it remains a fertile source of questions and insights. The best collaboration, as Louis Robert never tired of saying, takes place inside a single brain, and it is above all the well-stocked mind that tends to generate connections previously unnoticed (Roger S. Bagnall. Reading Papyri, Writing Ancient History. 1995) ”
I am not a papyrologist but I believe in the value of general, wide reading of primary sources in their original languages. But lately I have been feeling insecure because I get the sense that this is a dinosaur-mentality and that my training has damned me to the ranks of the intellectually obsolete. And that I have wasted my 12 years of adulthood.
So thanks, Roger Bagnall, you made my day.
Research and Responsibility
Recent discussions about the influence a vague entity called “Correlation” has on various Bloggernaclers got me thinking about the problem of responsibility in research. I admit I’m personally less likely to blog about certain sensitive LDS issues. For example, there are elements of temple ritual I feel comfortable writing about and other elements I don’t. I personally don’t feel like my reticence is due to being trapped in the Panopticon. I admit I’m less likely to be flippant or brash about topics that may be particularly challenging to the faith of other Latter-day Saints, and beyond that, to the general faith of other believers as well (except for the new atheists. I wouldn’t mind trying to burst bubbles there; perhaps I should be more careful). The question I am confronting is the responsibility I have to the effects of the research I create, participate in, or disseminate.
I’d like to hear reactions to an assertion made back in 1929 by sociologist George Lundberg:
“It is not the business of a chemist who invents a high explosive to be influenced in his[!] task by considerations as to whether his product will be used to blow up cathedrals or to build tunnels through the mountains” (quoted in John Durham Peters, “The Part Played by Gentiles in the Flow of Mass Communications: On the Ethnic Utopia of Personal Influence,” ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, November 2006, 100).
I disagree with Lundberg’s vision of a social scientist’s business. What if we extend the scope from social scientists to historians, theologians, philosophers, political scientists, etc.? Should these people allow considerations of effects to influence what they write or the way they write it? What undergirds the attitude that “truth will always win out”? Are there potential downsides to the desire to “let the chips fall where they may”? Of course, the question is not always whether a particular sticky subject is handled, it can also involve how it is handled. But is it our business to even consider such things when researching and writing?
The Truth of Personal Narrative
Bart Ehrman has pointed out that the popular view of Paul and his conversion makes it difficult for historians to evaluate what actually happened to make him “turn around.” In the scriptural record Paul does not present himself as a guilt-ridden legalist whose realization that the law was impossible to keep led him to find forgiveness in Christ and motivated him to bring the good news of release to those burdened with guilt complexes like his own. Ehrman calls this view “fiction” and “widespread misperception” and instead directs us to Paul’s own accounts found in Acts chapters 9, 22, and 26. The problem is that these accounts are difficult to harmonize; as they differ in several details. Paul’s recounting of the event is suspect because he is remembering the event long afterward and reflecting upon it in light of his later experiences. Such a conundrum finds a parallel in our own Mormon foundation narrative of Joseph Smith’s first vision. In Joseph’s case, he leaves at least seven narratives, each a bit different, each a bit contradictory of the others. Continue reading “The Truth of Personal Narrative”
Patrick Henry and Right-Wing (Anti-) Constitutionalism
The Patrick Henry Caucus is the pro-state’s right group within the Utah State Legislature. This is the right-wing of a very right-wing legislative body. They are in many ways the voice of the tea party movement and the 9/12 groups.
The choice of Patrick Henry as their symbol is an appropriate one. Henry is most famous for his “Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death” speech. While this speech is a rousing oration, it points in many ways to who Henry is. He is not the great revolutionary, but America’s first great demagogue. Continue reading “Patrick Henry and Right-Wing (Anti-) Constitutionalism”