I agree with your comment about commentaries and personal study of the texts. They’re worthless if you’re not considering the text, which is exactly what James has started here. I know I’ve benefitted from it (and the comments) and I’m sure I’m not alone. I agree in part about the survey texts. I forgot one book that I found helpful to a degree, its the Old Testament Commentary Survey (5th ed.) by Tremper Longman III and the New Testament Commentary Survey by D. A. Carson. Both are available electronically as well (for Clark Goble). I don’t exactly agree with the recommendations and filter out their evangelical bias, but the most important benefit is that they list the most notable and important commentaries and series. They mention where its helpful for pastors and scholars. Since I’m not a pastor in the sense they’re thinking of, some of them have more limited uses. There are a few omissions (like Dozeman on Exodus) but its a good place to see what you like and don’t like. Then you can check them (with electronic previews for some) or at a good library.

There are three other publishers to watch that are quasi-religious and quasi-academic: Eerdmans, Baker (mostly paperback reprints) and Eisenbrauns. Zondervan is a bit like Deseret Book. An occasional good thing, but a lot more devotional that’s soft on academics. A good soft-cover publisher is Wipf & Stock (especially for paperback reprints). The top (and most technical scholarship) comes from Brill, Mohr-Siebeck and De Gruyter.

Your comment about the Catholics is not surprising. Most of their scholarship is very close to that of ours. Scott Hahn in his Kinship and Covenant is extremely close and so is Brant Pitre with his latest books. Most traditional Protestant is more secular (especially the Lutheran and German). The evangelical scholarship is hit and miss. The younger ones seem to be better.They try to apply what they find to their faith rather than attempt to make everything more secular.

I’m not sure your generational recommendation is as helpful. Much of the work in the 20th century is much more secular and since the 1980s, it has been surpassed by a group of much more faithful scholars. The scholarship for the 1800s isn’t all that helpful to me. Most of the most detailed commentaries also address interpretations through history, especially the rabbinical commentaries if they exist. For example, Milgrom on Leviticus provides a lot of Middle-Ages scholarship and interpretation.

Amen to Mirror’s final comments, though.

From Jim Faulconer ( LINK) –

we do not realize that each of us has the ability to be a scholar of the scriptures. It is important to remember that the word scholar means “a person of leisure”—someone who has the time. Given today’s society, most of us have the time, if we want to, to spend reading the scriptures carefully…. This is something that any member of the Church can do. You do not have to have a PhD to do it; you just have to take the time. If you have that time you can be a scholar, but it does mean reading a lot and think carefully about what you read. It means studying, but you do not have to have formal training. Of course, that is not to say that I do not appreciate what those with formal training can do. We need more people in the Church with formal training in Hebrew and Greek and in biblical scholarship, church history, and so on. I just don’t want to cede all thinking and discussion to them.

re: Jeremiah 8:8, “It is important first to separate the literary question from the historical question of the attitude of the prophet Jeremiah to the reform of Josiah. The historical question has received diametrically opposed answers, both earlier in the twentieth century and currently: some scholars claim that Jeremiah supported the reform, while others claim that he opposed it.” – Holladay, William L. “Elusive Deuteronomists, Jeremiah, and Proto-Deuteronomy.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 66 (2004): 58-59.

If you do start with survey texts, I would recommend reading one from a Catholic, one from a Protestant, one from an atheist, and one from a Latter-day Saint view. By looking at the curriculum vitae of the primary author of a text, you should be able to find out her or his leanings pretty easily, if it not apparent from the text itself (which, from a good scholar, it often isn’t). If the author is still teaching somewhere, their CV will usually be on their university’s website. If not, it can usually be found with a little help from Google. I also generally recommend works from scholarly presses, like Princeton, Harvard, Oxford, University of Chicago, etc., and not religious ones like Deseret Book or its affiliates. Religious presses do occasionally put out really good work, but they also put out a lot more of questionable quality, which can be hard to sift through.

It is interesting to see where each of the different approaches agree and where they depart from each other. Personally I usually find myself most sympathetic to the ideas of Catholic scholars, and least sympathetic to mainline Protestant work, but you may well have a very different experience.

And finally, I would encourage you to read texts from more than just one generation of scholarship. Historical scholarship tends to generally divide itself into different eras of thought, and I think there is great value to be gleaned from familiarity with all of them. With Christianity, it is probably not feasible to sample ALL the eras, but I would at least get things from a couple of different centuries (2000s, 1900s, 1800s, etc.), as well as several different decades for more recent scholarship (2010s, 1980s, etc.). That will help you see the evolution of various theories, as well as to see how established different ones are.

But most importantly, realize that all of these opinions are just that: opinions. A lot of dedication goes into creating them, but that doesn’t mean they’re right, and different theories tend to wax and wane in favor over time. Your own opinions will be less-researched than theirs, but that does not mean they are automatically wrong. And above all, I would say, follow the Spirit. The greatest theologian in history was a lower-class carpenter (or possibly stonemason or general handyman) from Galilee. It is true Joseph Smith tried to gain all the secular knowledge of scripture that he could, but he never let that become a substitute for personal revelation. When done properly, I think study of scholarship and the Spirit work together, helping direct you to what you need to know about.

But like I said, I would go with Clark or Terry or Ben or James over myself—they’re the pros.

You make a really good point about factions. The one unfortunate aspect of the Documentary Hypothesis is that it tends to incentivize a kind of reductionism to four traditions. (I recognize most scholars are more sophisticated in that in arguments) There’s almost certainly much more going on. For one the DH is made out of a real paucity of texts. Especially the lack of pre-exilic texts. That is effectively one is using literary criticism to make historical claims of what went on centuries earlier. Lots can go wrong in that – and of course there are tons of disagreements. Almost certainly traditions that were significant in pre-exilic times were lost during the exile. Likewise traditions in the pre-exile likely became significantly transfigured through the trauma of the exile.

It also depends on the translation. My JSB has it as “the Instruction of the Lord” as opposed to the Law of the Lord, which is in most translations. The note states that the phrase is used 11 times, more than in any other prophetic book. My views on the Deuteronomists are evolving from Barker (who has opened the door for my investigations on these issues). I frankly, should revisit Jeremiah more deeply. I’m sure my thoughts have matured since the last time I read him closely.

This illustrates what was going on at the time of Lehi and Nephi. The Law itself was in flux and various parties (the priests and the scribes) were putting it together according to their views and interpretations. The Deuteronomists were only one of these factions (although their record has become the most dominant since the Exile and has affected both Judaism and Christianity. That’s another reason I enjoy the explorations of Margaret Barker and others in trying to find what the alternatives were. I DO agree with her reasoning that its those alternatives that were an important factor in the people of Jesus’ time recognizing him as the Messiah. I think that’s an area where the Book of Mormon can give us insight.

The Jewish Study Bible us on Kindle for only around $30. But in a rarity it’s also only around $30 on Logos. I’d definitely go Logos if you can. Although to be fair the version in the Logos doesn’t come with the TANAKH Bible translation which must be purchased separately.

Of course a lot depends upon how you are reading.

I would balance that with Jeff Bradshaw’s Interpreter Review at .http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/sorting-out-the-sources-in-scripture. Much basic information can just be found on Google like First Temple (Solomon); Second Temple (Ezra-Nehemiah) Herod (Expansion of Second Temple). I gave a fireside once and used the terms “exilic and pre-exilic” and was asked about it after. The Exile is the Babylonian Captivity (587 B.C.) Pre- of course means before and post-exilic is after.

I view the Book of Mormon as pre-exilic. There are elements that some critics challenge as “anachronistic” and I think there’s less of a split between them then many think. Its a kind of question in the scholarship as to why certain books (like the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) and other literature of that period doesn’t focus on Moses as much. There are post-exilic elements or motifs in the Book of Mormon (like Nephi’s interpreting angel and another interpreting angel to King Benjamin). Kevin Christensen’s article in Glimpses of Lehi’s Jerusalem and the Maxwell Institute website as a good place to begin searching. Like the best articles, his work led me to many more.

I’ve gotten in the habit of looking at the bibliography and notes of an article or book first to see what I’ve already read (or have) and then seeing what it says about it. For my Book of Mormon studies, l’ve also benefitted greatly from the Jewish Study Bible from Oxford. I don’t know if I’d recommend it on the Kindle. It looks a bit unwieldy to me. Clark Goble (who’s big on e-books) probably has a more useful take on that.

I’m a bit of a dinosaur since I’d rather have the print in front of me than the e-version (at least for more technical books). Thrillers and novels are great electronically. Its also surprising how much free material is really out there, even without access to a good research library.

Clark: Pondering your question.