Canada is a tad trickier given that most of the Mormons live in Alberta and Ontario but that we make up a relatively tiny percent of the population. My understanding is that Canadian relative percentages are down about 6% in Canada over 10 years. But that’s in large part due to a lot of immigration in Canada. Absolute numbers have increased but not by a great deal. According to a Stats Canada study similar to the ARIS self identification study in the US the Mormon population was 101,805 in 2001 and 105,365 in 2011. For more info see my old blog post on the topic.

For Europe I don’t really know. Given how secular Europe is I’d not be surprised to see numbers dropping there. My understanding is that what religiosity increases there comes primarily from immigration.

One thing I’ve often wished though was someone in the field laying out the different camps, their main assumptions and positions. N. T. Wright has done this at times relative to his own studies which as a non-expert I’ve found very helpful.

According to Mormon Newsroom and The Wayback Machine, the most recent US Church membership totals in reverse chronological order have been

6,531,656
6,466,267
6,398,889
6,321,416
6,229,233
6,144,582

Shrinking?

When it comes to Revelations, I like Beale’s the best. He has just introduced a simplified version of his NIGTC volume. I HIGHLY recommend it. Its also available on Kindle [Clark :) ]. As Clark pointed out above, Koester’s got a shorter paperback that’s not really a commentary in the traditional sense. If you have to choose, I’d choose Beale over Koester, although I like Koester’s. I especially appreciate Beale’s use of the Old Testament and the temple. Beale also is the co-editor of the Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament with D.A.Carson. This book is very under-publicized, but it highly useful.

If you’re trying to evalutate commentarys, there’s Tremper Longman III’s Old Testament Commentary survey (available on Kindle) and there’s a New Testament one as well. I don’t necessarily agree with all the rankings, but its pretty thorough and gives you a good idea of which commentary (or series) has the types of things you want in terms of technicality, readability, etc. I’m not particularly enthused with the commentaries that are aimed at pastors and preaching. For my purposes, they’re less useful.

Second, I’m open to suggestions on the best available commentary on Isaiah. I’ll certainly be consulting Koester next time I hit Revelation but at this point I’ll “run into” Isaiah before I hit Revelation. To be clear, I am very much open to both LDS and non-LDS sources, but am looking for something better than what I might find on the shelves at my local Deseret Book.

I appreciate your comments, see the project in a new light, and look forward to the publication of more of the volumes!

That said, what’s wrong with BYU doing a more limited yet faithful commentary akin to the numerous commentaries on the Book of Mormon Deseret Books sells? While I’d love a more academic one, there are just a ton of problems with that. Not the least of which is plainly grappling with the theological issues in the texts. There’s no good place to hash out those debates right now. BYU Studies comes closest but isn’t really doing that too much (and has it’s own issues again due to its connection to BYU). It’s hard to fathom writing an academic commentary before those are worked out unless it is a more personal effort to start the discussion going.

I can also see the problems for scholars on working on such projects. Those hoping to be accepted in wider academics have to worry about the stigma on working on a project that isn’t fully academic. Those at BYU probably worry about consequences of writing something some judge as controversial (even if it doesn’t seem as such at the time). There are lots of dangers with few upsides. Throw in the surprising feature of it not counting towards tenure and it’s amazing anyone is working on it.

The project itself seems like a great idea, if only to start more serious discussion. But it seems like it’ll at best be either a first step or more likely a variation on the types of commentaries already available at Deseret Books.

There are now six LDS NT scholars with PhDs who publish/work outside of the LDS community and the bench gets deeper every year. However, they tend to keep a low profile around here, so whether or not they chose to identify themselves is up to them. None are involved with the BYUNTC project.

#34 TerryH

In introducing your audience to good biblical commentaries, you do the Lord’s work. No question about it.

If the flaws in the BYUNTC were those common to all projects but present to a greater degree, it would simply be a matter of editing — and you have also noted the lack of this activity. Two things, however, are more serious because they introduce potential vulnerabilities in readers. The first is omitting unfavorable evidence and/or misrepresenting methodologies to eliminate otherwise viable readings that do not cohere with the LDS tradition. The second is that the LDS community has not yet worked out how it intends to deal with situations where the “plain reading” of a text does not cohere with the wider LDS tradition in some fashion. This is why a first, introductory volume is so important — and why it isn’t yet written.

Finally, you have referred repeatedly to “sensitive” criticisms with something of a negative reaction. I wonder about this reaction in a church that is driven by missionary work. In the last General Conference, it was reported that the annual growth rate was 1.7%. This implies that church membership is actually shrinking in the US, Canada, and Europe. Given this, more care in crafting an appealing formulation of the church’s message is something to be desired. Perhaps what looks like sensitivity from the perspective of a conservative in St. George is simply prudence and courtesy elsewhere. I am sure that the authors and editors of these volumes do not intend to make missionary work more difficult, but the potential is there and so they must exercise vigilance to hear themselves as all members of their potential audience might do. Reviewers with a perspective shaped by living and working outside of Utah are far best able to help in this regard.

Could you just go ahead and name some of the “best” LDS NT scholars? Or heck – be as expansive as you want – a list of 30 people is just fine! My concern is that there a very small list of *any* LDS, NT-trained, NT scholars with doctorates that publish in the field. Anywhere. So far one–one–name has been put forward that meets the bill.

Al. Perhaps I can explain my passion. For the last 22 years I have done a daily book review on the radio in St. George. I interview authors all the time, including some top historians (not just LDS either). My purpose in doing this work (and its a lot of work every day) is to promote literacy, books, education and reading. I do all kinds of books. My audience is primarily LDS and extremely conservative (as am I). That doesn’t mean they don’t appreciate being introduced to other viewpoints. I have talked about N.T. Wright for years. I have talked about the Hermeneia and a lot of other books. Brill, Mohr Siebeck, Oxford, Yale, Harvard and the mainstream publishers have dealt with me for books and interviews for years. I believe that everyone has a level of improvement they can get from reading. I have a client who doesn’t read well at all. Before he died, he started reading David Ridge’s Book of Mormon made easier. Frankly, I don’t bother with that book, but it has a place for people who need it. I get that and support it. I believe the BYU NT Commentaries are the best types of these works to come along aimed at the LDS market ever! I like the Kofford series (http://ldsmag.com/article-1-14739/) as well as longer commentaries. My goal is to introduce interested listeners to something they haven’t thought of before. That opens the doors. My own interest in serious biblical scholarship started kind of small and has really expanded. Is this series flawed? Absolutely. As I say above, my biggest disappointment is the apparent absence of the best LDS scholars. Why is that? I haven’t a clue. There are probably a lot of reasons. Lack of administrative support is probably high up there. Perhaps its personality conflicts. Like that’s never happened before in the academic arena. Can more be done? Absolutely. Will it? hopefully. That’s the point. I view these as beginnings and am optimistic that they’ll lead to something better. I think these commentaries, flaws and all, are way better than their competitors on the shelves at DB. For that reason, I’m a big supporter. I also appreciate the extremely critical reviews in the MI Journal among others, even when I disagree with some of their more “sensitive” complaints. If they make changes to the series, its all to the good. Just look at the fact that BYU itself (through the MI) published them. That ought to tell you something. These kind of works take years to make. Nickelsburg spent 50 years on the 2 Hermeneia volumes on 1 Enoch. Is it definitive? Not quite. There are still areas to explore. However, these authors are to be commended for their sacrifice and efforts. They are also to be criticized when they deserve it. The fact that such criticisms exist doesn’t make the whole project worthless. Perhaps I’m just getting the impression that if they can’t compete with the AB or the ICC or the Hermeneia, they shouldn’t try. My attitude has always been that Latter Day Saint scholars are far more able to deal with Old Testament scholarship rather than New. But then again . .. what do I know?

Your passion for this project kind of amazes me. It has been widely critiqued by outside experts and abandoned by RelEd professors, who are probably its “natural” source and audience. When they don’t want it, why does it move you to protect it?

The others you mention are part of the “almost”. But still: Blumell is not, strictly speaking, a scholar of New Testament, even though he does produce rigorous scholarship on Late Antique papyri, (and wants nothing to do with BYUNTC, last I heard). Wayment is a scholar of NT, though he also hews closer to the safe zones of text criticism. And he wants nothing to do with the project. Seely, who hasn’t published in the field in quite a while (decades?), is indeed finishing Weinfeld’s commentary, God willing, which would make the first BYU contribution to the OT field in a long time. And there are others we could mention, like Matt Grey, a first-rate archaeologist of late antiquity who occasionally publishes on New Testament stuff, who also wants nothing to do with JW’s project. But let’s remember, these are less than a handful of people, out of a *whole department* of “Ancient Scripture” with thirty-four (34!) faculty by my count.

Welch has made the “BYU”NTC series and conferences in his image: preferring people who have marginal, master’s level training over scholars active in the field.