As promised, Serenity Valley and I will be posting a series of comments on interesting talks and moments from General Conference. I’ve already discussed one remark that I think was especially valuable; this post will focus on a quite different idea.
Many Latter-day Saints tend to cling to the idea that the different books in the Bible were written by their traditionally assigned authors. Thus, for example, the first five books in the Old Testament were written personally by Moses, the prophesies of Isaiah were written down personally by him, the gospels and epistles in the New Testament were all composed by people who personally knew Christ, and so forth. However, a large body of historical and textual scholarship now exists that casts substantial doubt on these interpretations. The earliest available texts of some books date several centuries after the date they were supposedly composed. Linguistic evidence sometimes shows that texts use words and phrases that were not invented until well after the events depicted, and also that some supposedly single-authored texts seem to be compilations of multiple writers.
How are Latter-day Saints to respond to this body of scholarship, which
is sometimes collectively referred to as critical biblical
scholarship? In General Conference, President Hinckley suggested a
response, in a speech entitled “The Great Truths Which God Has
Revealed”:
The Christian world accepts the Bible as the word of God. Most have no idea of how it came to us.
I have just completed reading a newly published book by a renowned
scholar. It is apparent from information which he gives that the
various books of the Bible were brought together in what appears to
have been an unsystematic fashion. In some cases, the writings were not
produced until long after the events they describe. One is led to ask,
"Is the Bible true? Is it really the word of God?"We reply that it is, insofar as it is translated correctly. The hand of the Lord was in its making.
What is remarkable in this statement is that President Hinckley is
explicitly accepting the conclusions of critical biblical scholarship:
the Bible was haphazardly compiled, and a number of the books were not
written until long after the nominal authors had died.
Two interesting implications arise from this. First, Latter-day Saints
are obviously free to agree with President Hinckley that traditional
ideas about the origins of the Bible are inaccurate. This
clarification is obviously a wonderful development.
Second, the standard that President Hinckley sets for considering a
book of scripture to be true is interesting. The Bible is true because
the hand of the Lord was in its making. Note that the book isn’t true
because every story it discusses actually happened, because the
quotations that it describes were actually said by the people quoted,
or because the doctrine it teaches is infallible. All that is required
is that the Lord have a hand in its making. Inspiration, it would
seem, is sufficient! How does this apply to our understanding of
debates about the Book of Mormon?
“First, Latter-day Saints are obviously free to agree with President Hinckley that traditional ideas about the origins of the Bible are inaccurate. This clarification is obviously a wonderful development.”
I don’t think this is something that can be accepted unqualified. I think it would be much more accurate to say that some of the traditional ideas about the origins and content of the Bible are inaccurate. Of course, that fairly describes the state of Biblical studies in any case, so perhaps this caveat was unnecessary.
“Second, the standard that President Hinckley sets for considering a book of scripture to be true is interesting. The Bible is true because the hand of the Lord was in its making. Note that the book isn’t true because every story it discusses actually happened, because the quotations that it describes were actually said by the people quoted, or because the doctrine it teaches is infallible. All that is required is that the Lord have a hand in its making. Inspiration, it would seem, is sufficient! How does this apply to our understanding of debates about the Book of Mormon?”
To paraphrase an argument from Paul Hoskisson, it is hard to have an Abrahamic covenant without an Abraham. So making the truth value of the Bible wholly dependent on the truth of its teachings is fallacious. To do the same to the Book of Mormon would be the equally so.
John,
Thanks for your comments!
I´d like to comment quickly on the argument that there couldn´t be an Abrahamic covenant without an Abraham. This is logically similar to the argument that it´s important to figure our who the literal, biological descendents of Lehi are (out of the different pre-Colombian peoples) because the prophetic promises about Lamanites would only apply to those descendents.
Limited-geography theories of the Book of Mormon make it impossible to specify anyone in particular as a literal descendent of Lehi–and make it likely that most pre-Colombians are not Lehites. In spite of this, Church leaders have repeatedly referred to those promises as applying to specific groups of people. This kind of “adoption into” a scriptural lineage means that (1) biological relationships between the people in question and scriptural patriarchs may not be important in determining the extent of prophesies; therefore, (2) covenants with these patriarchs may be valid descriptions of God´s plan for humanity even if the patriarchs in question didn´t actually exist.
Even if there never was an Abraham, then, there could be an Abrahamic covenant as a valid description of God´s activity in history. Likewise, even if there never was a Lehi, there can be a covenant with the Lamanites as a valid description of God´s activity in the Western hemisphere.
I´m not arguing against the existence of Abraham or Lehi, obviously. What I am arguing for is a more flexible definition of our faith, in which we distinguish between historical claims and the central, spiritual faith claims. Historical claims can sometimes end up looking bad in light of evidence, even if they are correct–and this can kill people´s faith if they have learned to rely too centrally on these kinds of points; spiritual faith claims don´t have this liability.
At any rate, President Hinckley´s comments are clearly more accepting of current Biblical scholarship than the remarks in the Hoskisson volume. It would seem to me that these now represent competing strands of LDS thought.
“Even if there never was an Abraham, then, there could be an Abrahamic covenant as a valid description of God´s activity in history.”
But a covenant is intended to be more than a description of what God has done, is doing, and might do (although all of that is involved). It is primarily a contract between two interested parties. The Abrahamic covenant does act in a way to deliniate the relationships between God and humanity, but its efficacy as a binding contract can be called into question if either of signatories didn’t actually exist. The covenant itself is prescriptive, making demands of people who self-identify as descendants of Abraham by lineage or baptism and making promises to them, dependent upon how they make use of that self-identification. Those promises are entirely dependent on the existence of an interested Deity who, on occasion, meddles in human affairs. Without the deity, the covenant cannot be binding (although the lifestyle choices it advocates may be advantageous). I believe that it goes both ways. You cannot seriously talk about an Abrahamic covenant without an Abraham because he has to exist as a co-initiator of the covenant. It is important that whether by biology or by initiation into the covenant, the purpose of the covenant is to obtain for the new covenantee the promises given to the original one.
“At any rate, President Hinckley´s comments are clearly more accepting of current Biblical scholarship than the remarks in the Hoskisson volume. It would seem to me that these now represent competing strands of LDS thought.”
I don’t believe that this is necessarily the case. I think you are likely reading too much into Pres. Hinckley’s comments. They could be taken as an indication that secular scholarship leads to confusion that can only be corrected by revelatory experience (i.e. the Book of Mormon). In any case, the comments fall short of a full endorsement of secular approaches as opposed to more theologically grounded approaches. With both Hoskisson and Hinckley, I would assume that a middle ground is being advocated.
John,
It is likely futile to try to climb inside Hinckley’s head and determine which of our interpretations he had in mind when he mentioned secular biblical scholarship in conference. My reading is that he himself seems to have accepted the conclusions of whatever unnamed book on biblical studies it is that he read. Yours would seem to be that he simply mentions those conclusions to contrast the Bible and the Book of Mormon. I accept that as a possible reading. In doing so, I lament my lack of telepathy!
One thing that does seem to be clear on either reading is that Hinckley mentioned current secular Bible scholarship without condemning it or its conclusions. Whatever he himself thinks about these studies, it seems to me that, if Hinckley is willing to read them and take them seriously, it is clearly acceptable for members to do likewise.
Let me return to the more important point about covenants and the need for a literal historical founding figure. From the perspective of someone alive today, I submit that what is important about a covenant are the following three features: (1) what is promised by God in the covenant; (2) what do participants in the covenant have to do; and (3) who’s allowed in. For the sake of argument, let’s assume that Abraham is a mythical figure representing all those who accept the covenant. (Think of Adam’s occasional scriptural, etc., role as a symbol of all humanity–a role he possesses in addition to his possible literal personhood.) Which of the three defining features that I just mentioned would be altered? God would still promise each individual involved in the covenant the same things, the individual would still have to be righteous in the same ways, and everyone would have to be baptized to enter (regardless of their personal geneology). In other words, my point is that the content of this covenant for a person alive today is unaffected by the existence of Abraham–unless there is some aspect of our current experience of the covenant other than the three features I’ve mentioned above. This is of course possible, and I’d appreciate having this other aspect pointed out to me.
None of this means that I don’t believe in the historicity of Abraham. I have no special expertise on the matter one way or the other, so I’m inclined to accept the traditional account. My point is just that the spiritual, divine content of the Abrahamic covenant is separable from the flesh-and-blood reality or national-mythological character of Abraham.
Furthermore, as a living participant in this particular covenant, what matters to me isn’t the contract between God and Abraham–but the contract between God and me. Do I really have to drag someone else into this?
I am sorry that it has taken me so long to respond. Things got super busy for a while there.
“as a living participant in this particular covenant, what matters to me isn’t the contract between God and Abraham–but the contract between God and me. Do I really have to drag someone else into this?”
Um, yeah. I kinda think you do. What I mean by that is that I have come to think that vicarious ordinances and covenants are at the heart of the gospel. The Atonement, baptism, prayer, temple ordinances, and the sacrament all have an element of proxy representation. I would think that as we partake of “named” covenants, the same sort of vicarious rules apply.
Am I saying that there has to be an intermediary? Not necessarily. But there almost always is.
John,
I don´t immediately see the connection between proxy baptism for the dead and my personal decision to enter the Abrahamic covenant. In one case, the role of the proxy is simply to provide meat and bones for someone who doesn´t have them anymore. In the other, I guess the proxy for me would be Abraham or something. But Abraham doesn´t play any role in my decision as to whether or not to accept the covenant. Nor does he act in my behalf. His only relevance, as far as I can tell, is that I symbolically stand in his shoes and make the same promises as him. But my point is that, since his entire role in my covenant is as a symbol, I don´t see that it matters whether he is in fact only a symbol or also a person.
“I´d like to comment quickly on the argument that there couldn´t be an Abrahamic covenant without an Abraham. This is logically similar to the argument that it´s important to figure our who the literal, biological descendents of Lehi are (out of the different pre-Colombian peoples) because the prophetic promises about Lamanites would only apply to those descendents.”
The problem with that comparison is that the Book of Mormon itself doesn’t nail down who the Lamanites are (especially post 4 Nephi, when almost every hint of biological determination is thrown out the window). Whereas Abraham is given a lineage, a location, an immediate family, which is also true of the other main biblical people with/through whom the Lord established enduring covenants (that I can think of) - Adam, Moses, Noah and most crucially, Christ.
If Abraham didn’t actually exist, then how can the Lord command Joseph to do the works of Abraham? If Adam never was, then how come ‘in him we all die’? How in the world did Joseph F Smith see him in the spirit world?
“I don´t immediately see the connection between proxy baptism for the dead and my personal decision to enter the Abrahamic covenant. In one case, the role of the proxy is simply to provide meat and bones for someone who doesn´t have them anymore. In the other, I guess the proxy for me would be Abraham or something. But Abraham doesn´t play any role in my decision as to whether or not to accept the covenant. Nor does he act in my behalf.”
Strictly speaking, our work in the temple doesn’t play any role in decision making either, but without it, the decision is meaningless and without effect. I don’t really understand why that is the case. The idea that covenant making needs a physical body doesn’t make much sense to me and I have to take it on faith, and I have to do the same thing with my part in the Abrahamic covenant. I don’t get why it required a precedent (and a relatively late one at that), but it’s there.
The basic problem with divorcing a spiritual principle from it’s historical instantiation is context. Laws, covenants, and principles are recorded within the context of the people recieving them. Without that context, it’s far more difficult to correctly apply the principle being taught.
While I agree that we should be careful in historical analysis (as our records are for the most part not first-hand), to remove history completely would be counter-productive. Fortunately, we have some excellent further info on all of the major covenant players throught modern revelation (particularly the Pearl of Great Price).
Fraggle,
I’m certainly not arguing in favor of divorcing ideas from context. The idea of the works of Abraham is certainly uninterpretable without the narrative of Abraham. Likewise, the concept of the covenant of Abraham is definitely enriched by the recorded narrative that we have about him. But both of these aspects rely on the narrative context involving Abraham, not the historical context. We only interact with the texts about Abraham, which exist in exactly the same way whether or not there ever was an Abraham. So, I would suggest that the context is available (and necessary) regardless of our position on historicity.
With respect to the fact that Abraham is a player in modern revelation, this may be a serious issue or not, depending on our understanding of how revelation works. If revelation is a partly subjective process, with an element of human interpretation, then this is obviously unproblematic. Alternatively, if we see revelations as often containing symbolic or metaphorical content (as would seem to be supported by a reading of a great many scripturally recorded visions and revelations), the inclusion of a fictional figure in a revelation is also unproblematic.
By the way, I’m going to assert once again that I don’t have any personal belief against the historicity of Abraham. My argument here is simply against the idea that acceptance of scriptural historicity is a make-or-break issue for Latter-day Saints.