Higher Criticism and Mormonism

Sticking with my topic for the week, I have a couple of essays to offer as my online essays of the week. The first essay is a 1911 Improvement Era article by B. H. Roberts entitled Higher Criticism and the Book of Mormon. Elder Roberts took Book of Mormon apologetics seriously and is still regarded as one of the Church's finest intellectuals, a truly remarkable accomplishment given that he grew up poor and was largely self-taught. He was not one to shrink from an intellectual challenge. Here's a quote supporting in principle, if not in all its generally held conclusions, the application of "higher criticism" to the scriptures:

You recognize, do you not, that the methods of higher criticism are legitimate; that is to say, it is right to consider the various books of the scriptures, the Old Testament and the New, as a body of literature, and to examine them internally, and go into the circumstances under which they were written, and the time at which they were written, and the purpose for which they were written? All that we recognize as legitimate, though I must say, in passing, that when one enters into the details of these methods, it is rather astonishing, at least it is to me, to see what heavy weights are hung upon very slender threads! The methods, then, of higher criticism we recognize as proper; but we must disagree as to the correctness of many of the conclusions arrived at by that method.

Here's another quote from Roberts, where he states one of the frequent criticisms leveled at scholars who adopt the presumptions common to higher criticism, generally referred to in present LDS apologetic debates as "naturalistic" assumptions:

Higher critics, as a rule, insist that the miraculous does not happen, that wherever the miraculous appears, there you must halt, and dismiss the miraculous parts of narratives, since they suggest fraud on the one hand and credulity upon the other — therefore we are asked to reject the second part of Isaiah as being the work of the prophet who wrote the first part of the book of that name, since accepting it would involve us in the belief of the possibility of Isaiah being so immersed in the events of future time as to speak from the midst of them as if they were present.

The second essay is by the renowned Sidney B. Sperry, first presented at BYU in 1959 and subsequently republished. It is entitled The Book of Mormon and Textual Criticism. Keep in mind the distinction that some commentators make between textual criticism or "lower criticism, and historical criticism or "higher criticism." Here is the abstract to Sperry's presentation, as given at the beginning of the article:

The text of the Book of Mormon contributes to the understanding of the Pentateuch and to a confirmation that Moses was indeed its author. The Book of Mormon also helps confirm that Isaiah was the author of the book of Isaiah. The Isaiah chapters quoted in the Book of Mormon are a better translation than the King James Version, as they are undoubtedly from an older version. Micah and Malachi are quoted with clarification, and selected New Testament scriptures are augmented.

I won't offer any commentary. It is plain from these two essays why many LDS scholars and leaders have come to view "higher criticism" with considerable wariness and distrust. On the other hand, the essays also show that LDS scholars are quite familiar with the substance and method of higher critics, although they understandably dispute the assumptions that some scholars bring to their work and the conclusions that many higher critics draw from their research.

Comments

[Clark Goble]

I think the problem is that the evidence within most higher criticism arguments is fairly weak. Now when metaphysicians among philosophers make an argument they admit it is weak and recognize that even dominant consensus among philosophers doesn't mean they are right.

Unfortunately often among Biblical critiques the arguments are also correspondingly weak but there is, I think, a tad more hubris regarding the conclusions.

Not always of course and certainly some arguments are stronger than others. But, as someone once said, it is amazing that one can get so much from so little.

[Kevin Christensen]

To bring things more up to date, you could also mention Kevin Barney's Dialogue essay, "Reflections on the Documentary Hypothesis."

Kevin Christensen
Pittsburgh, PA

[John]

Clark said that "the evidence within most higher criticism arguments is fairly weak." There's a lot to this area of study, and while I agree that there are assertions that are controversial, there are also arguments that are accepted by most biblical scholars.

For example, the evidence in favor of Matthew and Luke using Mark as a source (and quoting extensively from it verbatim) is accepted by the vast majority of scholars--including conservative evangelicals and LDS scholars. I realize that "majority" doesn't equal "truth", but what I'm trying to say is that the evidence for Markan priority is strong enough that even the most Biblically literal/inerrant scholars find it hard to challenge it.

[Clark Goble]

Yes, I don't mean to imply there aren't strong arguments. (I think there are strong arguments in metaphysics as well for that matter.) But I think you must concede that a lot of the arguments of who wrote what in the OT with it being divined within a verse tend to strain credulity a bit. But certainly there are some strong arguments. (I think the Deutero-Isaiah argument is fairly strong for example.)

[David J]

Clark, your view of right and wrong in biblical scholarship is not how those in the science view it in the least bit. Nobody stands up and claims absolute certainty for their theories in biblical studies (save maybe Wellhausen). The lessons of the 20th century taught biblical scholars that to support a theory as absolute truth is a risky business. I've read of many exegetes who bet the whole farm (i.e., they published and stated their unwavering allegiance to such and such a theory) on a specific model or theory only to be wrong once further evidence arises and lose their jobs, credibility, and in some cases, their sanity. Now days, a scholar may state a certain theory in an article or what not, but calmly "back away" from the idea when closing the article, leaving it open ended for further information to add insight to what was written. We all know it's theory, man. It's a given; it goes without saying. And as John says above, some of what these guys have found, even though it's theory, is so jaw-droppingly incisive that no amount of angels, still small voices, peep stones, or anything supernatural could make a stronger persuasion than what some of the "experts" have deduced.

If you want a good laugh, go look up "higher criticism" in Mormon Doctrine. It's one of my favorite BRM moments ... classic (theological) fundamentalism on display.

[Clark Goble]

I'm not saying "absolute truth" but I think you'd agree David that there are views with fair consensus that still have a shaky epistemic basis.

[John W. Redelfs]

David J. wrote:

If you want a good laugh, go look up "higher criticism" in Mormon Doctrine. It's one of my favorite BRM moments ... classic (theological) fundamentalism on display.

The Iron Rod responds:
I'm sure it will come as a complete surprise, but I agree with everything Elder McConkie said in the article you reference. If there is one thing that is clear from my study of scripture, it is that the scriptures simply cannot be understood correctly unless a person believes them, and reads them with the same Spirit that was present when they were written. Without the revelations of the Holy Ghost, secular man cannot begin to understand the scriptures. Most of what the scriptures "say" is between the lines, not actually included in the text. In this they are very similar to the Endowment.

This being the case, how could anyone hope to arrive at the truth by dissecting and endlessly researching the words themselves? This is also the problem with those who endlessly agonize over the alleged Book of Abraham difficulties. How can a person refute an interpretation or translation when what is being refuted isn't even written down, and probably can't even be expressed in human language? Some of the most profound revelations are not even verbal or in the form of words. They come in the form of a profound understanding flooding into the mind without language. And for that reason, it is possible for the heart to "know" truth that cannot even be explained logically in the language of science or scholarship. Logic, reason and "empirical evidence" have their place and uses, but those who worship them as the highest value in their list of priorities are just as guilty of idolatry as anyone else who places something above God and his religion.