Reading the New Testament, Part 1

While reading Misquoting Jesus, Bart Ehrman's popular critique of biblical inerrancy (I posted on it here), I was shamed into finally getting to Christopher Tuckett's Reading the New Testament: Methods of Interpretation (Fortress, 1987), which has been sitting on my bookshelf, unread, for several years now. Tuckett reviews textual criticism, source criticism, form criticism, and other academic approaches to unscrambling the text and meaning of the Bible as it has come down to us. In this post I'll summarize his treatment of textual criticism, cultural context, and genre; in a planned second post, I'll cover other approaches.

Mormonism and Higher Criticism
First, a puzzle. The canonical LDS position against biblilcal inerrancy ought to make Mormons very open to scholarly critiques of the Bible as articulated by scholars over the last couple of hundred years. "We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly" says the 8th Article of Faith — a bold invitation to investigate the extent to which particular Bible passages are, in fact, authentic and accurately transmitted by the manuscripts that have come down to us. And D&C 91 extends a similar invitation to consider non-canonical writings: "There are many things contained [in the Apocrypha] that are true, and it is mostly translated correctly." On the other hand, "there are many things contained therein that are not true, which are interpolations by the hands of men."

I will grant that LDS scholars in the post-Nibley era have started to do work in this area. My question is why rank-and-file Mormons see higher criticism as just another tool of the adversary, right up there with evolution. I've got two theories: (1) The first generation of LDS scholars took their cues from orthodox Protestant scholars who, by the mid-20th century, saw evolution and higher criticism as twin evils threatening Christendom; and (2) LDS leaders who were instrumental in establishing the organizational culture of the CES had no formal training in or working knowledge of Hebrew, Greek, or Latin. Consequently, they were suspicious of scholars whose academic approach to the study of scripture was founded on studying the scriptural record in the original ancient languages. That's just my own speculation; perhaps readers have other ideas. I'll move on now to summarize some of the methods Tuckett covered in his book. They seem like useful tools for a Mormon reader to bring to a close reading of the New Testament.

Textual Criticism
If we truly had a copy of an inerrant Bible, the texts as they fell from the lips or the pen of the original speakers or writers, how would it differ from the present collection of thousands of manuscripts that have survived to the present day? Careful comparison between surviving manuscripts (the ones our present Bible is based on) permit modern scholars to identify and correct some (but not all) transmission errors. It seems obvious that anyone who takes the Bible seriously would like to have the best possible form of the text as a basis for study. As summarized by Tuckett:

However we approach the New Testament text and apply our various skills to it, we have to know what "it" is. All study of the New Testament presupposes a text, and hence a vital initial problem must be to determine what precisely is the wording of the text to be interpreted. ... The branch of study devoted to this problem is known as textual criticism.

That all sounds fine, so what's the problem? I think people get defensive when textual critics cast doubt on traditional biblical passages or interpretations that orthodox believers would prefer to rely on as authentic. For example, the story of the woman caught in adultery, John 7:53 to 8:11, is not in the earliest manuscripts of John (although it does appear in the manuscript used for the KJV New Testament, which is why it still appears in modern Bibles). The story appears to be a later addition, not part of the original text of John, and while that does not establish definitively that the story is apocryphal or fictional rather than beng an authentic teaching of Jesus, it is strong evidence against it.

Another example is Mark 16:9-20, the last half of the last chapter of Mark, which is also not present in the earliest manuscripts and appears to be a later addition. For some, it's easier to throw out textual criticism and keep the traditional text than to ask tough questions about which passages are reliable and which are not. Modern Bibles have text notes that comment on some of the problematic passages, helping modern readers be better informed about the text. I can't think of any good reasons the LDS edition of the Bible doesn't provide such information to LDS readers.

Cultural Context
That's a term I simply made up to convey the idea that to properly understand a book of scripture or another ancient writing, you need to know (or would very much like to know) who wrote it, who the intended audience was, what motivated the author to write it, and so forth. Such problems are traditionally the focus of books titled "Introduction to the New Testament," which are often highly technical treatments of difficult interpretation problems related to authorship and audience. Tuckett devotes two separate chapters to these "Problems of Introduction," one covering general NT background issues such as who the Pharisees were or the details of Roman rule and administration of Judea and Galilee, and the other covering questions related to individual books such as Mark or Galatians. Obviously some background in these areas promotes better understanding of NT texts.

Not all NT introductions are designed for specialists, of course. For example, my bookshelf sports Raymond Brown's An Introduction to the New Testament (Doubleday, 1997, carrying the Catholic Nihil obstat imprint, no less), a detailed treatment that runs 800 pages but which is nevertheless aimed at the general reader. LDS scholars have contributed a steady stream of similar works tailored to LDS readers, such as Sidney B. Sperry's Paul's Life and Letters and also his The Spirit of the Old Testament. But even simple "Introduction" issues like the authorship of the Second Isaiah material or the authorship of the disputed Pauline letters create problems when writing to a general LDS audience.

Genre
A third general topic is genre. Given a few sentences of text, knowing whether they are part of a science fiction novel, a newspaper story, a high school student's book report, or an advertisement makes a lot of difference how you, the reader, are going to understand what is really being said. For example, a story that starts "once upon a time" is actually implying just the opposite: This never really happened.

But it's not immediately obvious why genre is an issue for the Bible: Isn't it all just scripture? No, it's not, it is all different types of writing, but some of the types or genres are quite unfamiliar to modern readers. For example, the long geneaologies of Jesus (each different) that show up early in Matthew and Luke. What are they trying to communicate? Or stories: The story of the good Samaritan, for example, is not really telling us anything at all about a particular Samaritan (the good one) or even Samaritans in general. But the story of the rich young man who came to Jesus with a question is presented as a true story, an event that actually happened, not as a parable. Or the difference between literal and figurative language: "No one puts new wine into old wineskins" isn't really teaching about wineskins, but not all such pronouncements are so easily judged. Learning about genre is one method of determining how we should understand these and other passages.

Incidentally, I posted my review of a short book on biblical genres awhile back: Making Sense of the Bible: Literary Type as an Approach to Understanding. The thumbnail is under Bible Books on the left sidebar.

Comments

[John]

What a fun topic! I don't know where to begin--other than there's too much good stuff covered in one post (although it's summarized very well). Each section could easily be covered by a whole string of posts (if not an exclusive blog). :)

I share the puzzlement regarding LDS aversion to critical Biblical scholarship. I think that the adherence of J. Reuben Clark and his "Clark men" to the KJV has also aligned Mormons with the more conservative-Evangelical side of the contemporary debate on the study and translation of the Bible.

Ongoing revelation also takes some of the impetus out of trying to discover the original text of the Bible.

In our Irvine study group, Mike and I set up a one year New Testament course. In it we tried to introduce the current approaches to the study of the Bible that are used by scholars (in and out of faith). I think that there were a handful of enthusiasts, but the rest were much less interested. The latter wanted to wrestle with the Book of Mormon and Latter-day church history.

Learning about the three approaches has definitely enriched my understanding (and enjoyment) of the Bible. I've started treating it less as one book and more as a collection of documents, each with its own textual history, social context, community, purpose, style, etc. It's much more interesting to study a library of books than one monolithic document.

[Dave]

John, based on the dozens of comments to this post ... I think you're right, not too many are interested in all this Bible stuff. Maybe I'll give that topic its own discussion in a later post.

[Mark Butler]

What is there to say, other than "Nice Post"? The issue of the merit of many forms of the "higher criticism" is pretty much a settled issue in the Church, and has been for about three decades now.

[Mark Butler]

Of course, if we were to talk about the implications of this history in terms of informal doctrine and theology in the Church, that would be a subject about which a rather lot could be said. I read Quinn's biography of J. Reuben Clark's tenure as a Church authority, and I don't see any discussion of scriptural literalism at all. Clark was much more involved in administrative issues, and comparatively little in doctrinal issues, from what I can tell.

Joseph Fielding Smith seems to me to be the right man to examine for twentieth century doctrinal issues. And his father, of course.

[Mike]

Yeah, I'd say interest by LDS in higher criticism is mixed. But I wonder if that is partly due to the way LDS are introduced to the stuff. If you frame the discussion with our "as far as it is translated correctly" AofF and stress why this makes the BoM important for Mormons, then people are more open about flaws in the Biblical text and in commonly held perceptions about the Bible.

[Jettboy]

Haven't you read "Mormons and the Bible" by Barlow? Obviously you have because it is on the side of your blog. I think that pretty much sums up Bible attitudes and approaches for Mormons, even if I disagree with minor conclusions.

Personally, I find Mormons ambivalent about the "inerrancy" idea, especially when talking with Christian evangilicals. Yet, in practice they are very literalist themselves - to a point. In other words, Mormons are very literalist with the stories and miracles. When questioned farther, they are usually very open about the non-binding nature of the text itself. It is a very nuanced viewpoint. Sometimes they don't know that is what they are doing themselves its such a subtle distinction.

[Mark Butler]

I think Mormons tend to be historical inerrantists (roughly speaking) and leave more room open for occasional doctrinal error. It is a lot easier to identify why a doctrine may have been transmitted incorrectly than a historical account.

[Dave]

Interesting point, Mark. Yes, I think many Mormons would affirm a literal and inerrantist view of the stories -- such as Noah and the worldwide flood or Jonah and the big fish -- while feeling free to reinterpret or simply reject doctrinal discussions.

That seems completely reverse to the views of some Protestant "modified inerrantists" (my term), who might admit that words get changed here and there and some of the stories are plainly mythical or symbolic, yet hold that the essential salvific doctrines of Christianity were nevertheless preseved accurately in the Bible.

It's almost as if to some Mormons it's the stories that are really important, not the doctrines! You might even extend that thinking to the popular Mormon treatment of the Book of Mormon, where stories (about Nephi going after the plates and finding Laban, or about Helaman's stripling warriors) sometimes seem to overshadow doctrinal pronouncements.

[Ann]

I think the general Mormon lack of interest in biblical higher criticism is a direct offshoot of their suspicion of intellectuals.

What can we learn from a bunch of Protestants, no matter how educated they are? We have the Truth, and they Don't.

After all, if there's something about the Bible we ought to know, the Prophet will tell us.

Great, great post, Dave. Again.

[Clark Goble]

I'm not sure that's right Mark. Certainly Mormons are apt to give the benefit of the doubt to the history. But I tend to see proof-texting (which depends upon consistent doctrine) much more than appeals to history.

But it's always hard to say given that appeals to what "most Mormons believe" are typically more "most Mormons I've talked to." Since I live around BYU I'll be the first to admit most Mormons I've encountered are probably atypical.

[Mark Butler]

It is very easy to become suspicious of intellectuals if all of them you know seem to be tearing down your faith rather than building it up. Setting aside historical issues, how many Mormon scholars do you know who actively work to establish doctrines through say metaphysical analysis rather than use often a rather naive rationality to persuade people to discard them - not just oddities like Jonah and the whale, but key doctrines without which the plan of salvation is meaningless?

Theology is intended to sustain faith, not tear it down. Whenever I see somebody working too hard to argue against pinciples known by revelation, I think of someone who has lost their testimony and doesn't have anything better to do than help other people lose theirs. A good scholar thinks so that he may understand, rather than thinks to justify disbelief in what he does not.

Now on the main topic, I agree it is hard to make generalizations, and I would not go as far as Dave has. People who believe only in stories and have lost the gospel are cultural Mormons at best. Plenty of Jews like that.

I am not inclined to believe for various reasons that the flood covered the *whole* earth. However, no one is going to persuade me that Abraham or a contemporary of his just made the whole thing up.

That is what I mean about historicity. Sometimes we misunderstand auxilliary doctrines and we end up with revelations or whatever implicitly admitting that our understanding or someone's understanding was flawed. Our interpretation of whole passages of scripture often changes without public notice, just private scholarship. So we are not strictly speaking doctrinal inerrantists to the degree many Protestants are. I think the Lord has a good reason for that, namely teaching us according to our language and understanding.

But historically speaking, we might see minor errors, a little too zealous hagiography, etc. But how many Mormons really believe that any of the recorded scriptural or historical accounts are fictional simply because they seem out of the ordinary or speak of divine intervention?

That is an effective way to lose your testimony in a hurry. It is very hard to be a faithful member if you believe God is either impotent or an absentee landlord. Just about any denomination or philosophy is compatible with an abstract Deism, so why wouldn't the person drift to a less demanding one?