Controversial Scholarship, Audience, and Red Lines

Stephen Fleming

•

No doubt SOME found the posts unwelcome in challenging a historical theology central to belief. That’s totally understandable, and I’m guessing that attitude would fit the vast majority of active members. A similar percentage would likely find debates over controversial topics in Mormon history unwelcome. Lots aren’t interested in delving in.

Like I said in this post, it’s never been my intention to proselytize my views to the general membership, but instead to have discussions with those who ARE interested in scholarship.

But it can be hard to keep those boundaries distinct. I’ve stated I view the Bloggernacle as a place to share ideas, and thus don’t see myself as some contrarian in Sunday School. These blogs are a different kind of space.

But I DO find the study of history compelling and thus found it noteworthy that biblical scholarship has come up with some curve balls. I’ve observed some different responses to this scholarship: dismiss the scholarship altogether, try to find scholarship that supports previous held views, lose all belief in religion, etc.

So like I’ve said, I think having conversations about this scholarship is worthwhile even if there’s a chunk of readers who find it uninteresting or offensive. This kind of scholarship is pretty easy to access, and like I said, I’ve heard some people cite it in their descriptions of their faith crises.

So I had some thoughts to share that I’ve mentioned a few times, but was likely naïve about how foreign a lot of my thinking has been to many readers. Last week I ran a summary of my overarching concept by a friend I was out to lunch with and his response was, “There is not a single member of the church that will find what you are saying appealing.”

Me: “Okay, but in 10 to 20 years, a few might!”

No doubt I’ll have many adjustments to my own thinking in the coming decades, but to repeat, I do think these conversation are important, and it’s okay to suggest some possibilities. Jonathan mentioned red lines, but I even wonder if we can have conversations about those also.

Comments

20 responses to “Controversial Scholarship, Audience, and Red Lines”

  1. Jonathan Green

    Stephen, yes, it’s important to be aware of the scholarship. People draw different conclusions from it, though. It doesn’t mean that they’re choosing to remain uninformed, just that what they do with it is different. Frank and others have explained how they look at scholarship on the OT based on experience in their own academic fields, which is what we’re all going to do – filter new information through previous experience. And it’s important to recognize that as a valid part of the conversation, since we’re all outsiders to OT studies, rather than seeing it only as some form of defensive rejection.

    I mentioned red lines because they exist and they’re important. People have prior commitments to critically important propositions – things like “God exists” and “the Church is true” – and aren’t interested in spending time on a discussion that doesn’t respect those propositions. It’s not that they’ve never considered the alternative – we’re confronted by the alternatives all the time! People’s commitments will differ to some extent, even as church members, and I’m not unduly concerned with whether or not you accept the historical existence of Moses. But you do need to understand the commitments of the people you’re in conversation with.

    I don’t know why conversation is getting stuck on OT historicity. You were headed towards some thoughts on Platonic thought in the work of Joseph Smith. Why take this detour? I don’t know why it’s necessary to erase the OT before talking about Plato.

  2. ji

    Historians seem to agree in asserting that Herod was already dead when Jesus was born. Does this mean the scripture stories of the visit of and magi and the slaying of the innocents must be false?

    I am not a historian, but I appreciate historical efforts. I like reading history and wondering about the things I read.

    However much I respect historians, I am not ready to join them in declaring the scripture stories as false – I’m not willing to abandon my faith based on the findings of historians. I won’t argue with the historians about their methods or their findings, and I will continue to accept the scripture stories as largely true* or otherwise purposeful. I am okay with a little dissonance between my faith and the findings of historians (and other academics).

    It is good when a historian shares the results of his or her on-going research, and it is especially joyful when history seems to support the scripture stories. But I get a little tense when a person attempts to use history to weaken the faith of others. Maybe I prefer to keep history and faith in separate spheres. Faith has more power to save souls than history. Let me take the Savior’s phrase, this ought ye to have done (faith), not leaving the other undone (history).

    I am tired and wholly unpersuaded on arguments for or against the historicity of the scriptures.

    *Some will note that definition of the word “true” has shifted over time. I am sympathetic to the older understanding of the word.

  3. RLD

    “I don’t know why it’s necessary to erase the OT before talking about Plato.”

    If I’m understanding Stephen’s case, it’s so we can replace the prophets of the House of Israel with Plato as the “source of truth” about God. The Old Testament (or maybe just the Pentateuch and histories?) needs to be written late and be non-historical so that it can be derivative of Plato’s teachings.

    I’m not clear on the role of the New Testament here. Stephen has indicated he does not believe in the atonement, but I’ll leave it to him to say if he believes Jesus is divine or just a teacher who got ideas from the Greeks as well.

    Then Joseph Smith discovered the “ancient theology” (i.e. Plato) from his reading and wove it into his restored gospel along with a lot of conventional Christianity in an effort to make it palatable to his audience.

    Is that close, Stephen?

    If so, it’s no wonder that raises red flags: it’s an entirely new religion (to us anyway). I don’t mean that as a criticism, but it should not be surprising that committed Latter-day Saints are skeptical.

  4. Stephen Fleming

    It’s the opposite of that, RLD. It’s not ME that is making the claim for the historicity problems of the Pentateuch, it’s the experts on the topic.

    I feel like I’ve said this a number of times: the evidence and scholarship indicate the Pentateuch is not historical. Some interesting evidence suggests it’s pretty late. This is not MY scholarship, this is the experts.

    These posts are a RESPONSE to that scholarship. Me saying simply this: “the evidence demonstrates the historicity problems of the Pentateuch. I’ve seen lots of people use that as a reason for loss of faith in God, the church etc. So let me propose another idea.” THEN all the Plato stuff based on what I think influenced Joseph Smith. The Plato stuff I’m proposing is RESPONSE to the scholarship on the OT. I’m not making that scholarship/evidence up!

    And this is my point about audience. I get that a whole lot of commentators are more in the mode of “no thanks” to all of this. But again, the scholarship is out there nonetheless.

    In terms of JS and the ancient theology, my argument is that he came to believe that the ancient theology was at the heart of the lost truth, rejected by orthodox Christians, that he (JS) was called to restore. Thus the plan of salvation etc.

  5. Stephen Fleming

    In other words, I’m mentioning this OT stuff because these are the issues that I’m wanting to respond to.

  6. RL

    If the audience doesn’t seem interested your understanding of the reasons for this are interesting:

    “Lots aren’t interested in delving in.”

    “those who ARE interested in scholarship.”

    “Me: “Okay, but in 10 to 20 years, a few might!””

    These show an interesting imaginal audience and contrasting sense of self.

    As far as Biblical scholarship in my mind there are interesting technical somewhat dry examinations of portions and then there are broader summaries combined with existential takes.

    A guy with financial degrees or psychology degrees instead of history degrees might have different takes on parts of the religion, but when it gets broader than that it kind of turns into just another guys view on the universe. Which is interesting but usually it’s harder to summarize these concisely than it is to expand upon them.

  7. Stephen Fleming

    Yes, do let me know what the “right” answer is, RL. As it stands, I don’t see how simple snark adds to our understanding of OT historicity.

  8. RLD

    I apologize if my poor wording gave the impression that I think you reject Old Testament historicity because of a commitment to Plato. I only meant to describe why I thought you were discussing Old Testament historicity first.

    I completely agree that experts reject the historicity of the Pentateuch. You’re not making that up. Given a range of plausible dates for its composition, you’ve chosen one that’s consistent with your belief that it is derivative of Plato. That’s reasonable. Certainly no worse than my insisting on a “minimal Moses” because I believe Joseph Smith really did see him in the Kirtland temple. (And I’m sure you can present more secular evidence that the Pentateuch is derivative of Plato than I can that Moses appeared to Joseph Smith.)

    So there are many ways believers can respond to the evidence the experts present. It seems to me that you’re rejecting more than the evidence requires, including things that are red lines for most Latter-day Saints. But I’m not suggesting you’re distorting the evidence.

  9. Stephen Fleming

    I see your point about you seeing me as abandoning more than I need to, RLD. This is all a product of me trying to piece things together history and faith that obviously gets complicated.

    But to repeat, having looked over some of this biblical scholarship, it’s been my sense that the evidence looks pretty good for a later composition of the Pentateuch (while drawing on some earlier stuff) and that has theological implications. It really was my intent to think about those implications in terms of the research I’ve done on Joseph Smith. I’ve thought we could have our own Mormon angle on this biblical scholarship.

  10. Curtis Pew

    As someone who has pushed back in the comments, I just want to say that I’m fine with you posting your ideas, but I also feel the need (perhaps even obligation) to comment when I think you or (perhaps better) the scholars you cite have gone farther than what I see the evidence as supporting.
    I’m also curious about how you’ll tie in Plato to Joseph Smith’s teachings, since I’ve always understood the adoption of Neoplatonism as the foundation of Christian theology as a part of the apostasy, and the Restoration as a rejection of “the philosophies of men, mingled with scripture.” Not to mention wondering how a semi-literate backwoods farm boy would know much about Plato beyond what’s become a part of Western Civilization in general.

  11. Stephen Fleming

    Thanks for your contribution, Curtis.

    Yes, idea that Christian adopting Neoplatonism was part of the apostasy is a common one I’ve heard among church members, but I’m arguing in my book that Joseph Smith new of that idea (I call Platonic corruption) and completely rejected it.

    I just so happen to be giving a presentation about some of this on a podcast this morning and will post when it’s available. But here’s the gist.

    1) The idea that Platonism corrupted early Christian thinkers was VERY popular in Smith’s day and Smith even owned a book by one of the ideas leading proponents: Johann Lorentz von Mosheim’s INSTITUTES OF ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY (donated it to the Nauvoo library in 1843).

    Extremely popular and early Mormons quoted it a lot. Mosheim not only described Neo and Christian Platonists with tons of Mormon ideas, but he also presented the Christian Platonist Ammonius Saccus as having a view of the apostasy similar to 1 Nephi 13. Mosheim said Ammonius believes that Jesus had a fuller truth, but that his followers removed some of it.

    2) The presentation I’m giving notes how Platonic ideas that show up in Mormonism were discussed in books connected to the Smiths while they were in Vermont. Stuff life that.

  12. BR

    The end of the world is coming! Someone (RLD) apologized on the internet and the recipient of the apology (Stephen) admitted to seeing the apologizer’s point. On a serious note, it is encouraging to see that actual communication and use can be explored in a comments section.

  13. Jonathan Green

    Stephen, regarding the audience and why we should be interested, you have a good answer: Plato is interesting and relevant for us becomes Joseph Smith thought it was important. That sounds like it could be potentially interesting! There’s nothing special about Plato, but his influence on Joseph Smith would make him relevant.

    But that also highlights a problem you’re running in to. We’re interested in the OT to a very limited extent as a work of history, and quite a bit more as a record of God’s dealing with his people, but primarily we’re interested because Jesus and Paul and other NT authors thought the OT was important, and because Joseph Smith thought it was important.

    So you can’t take the OT out of play by saying that Jesus was wrong about its historicity, for reasons that shouldn’t need explanation. And more to the point, you can’t take the OT out of play by saying that Joseph Smith was wrong about its historicity. If his interest in the OT and its influence on him are not enough in themselves to justify our continued interest in the OT, then why should they be enough to justify our interest in Plato?

    There’s an easy and obvious solution here: You could approach your project as illuminating a facet of Joseph Smith’s work and an important influence that has been largely overlooked. That sounds interesting! No erasure of other facets is required. And if you see Platonic influence in the OT, that’s totally okay – our earliest manuscripts are centuries later than Plato. The way is clear for you to make your argument, but if you choose a path that requires running through a brick wall, that’s not the fault of the audience.

  14. Jack

    It seems like a lot of Latter-day Saint scholars view Hellenistic influence on the early church as a huge problem. Just today I read through a new article at Interpreter on the very subject.

    That said my question is: is there some way to separate Plato from the general idea of Hellenism? Or am I being naive?

  15. Stephen Fleming

    Jonathan, I guess the relevant question is, how DO we talk about scholarship on the OT? Again, there’s a whole lot of information out there. And I think there is the major issue of the fact that Jesus made major changes.

    But I do see I got ahead myself.

    Jack, yes, the claim that “Hellenism” corrupted Christianity is a popular Protestant theme going back to the 17th century (See Wouter Hannegraaff’s ESOTERICISM AND THE ACADEMY).

    This was part of the presentation I gave recently (I’ll post when it’s up). But what I call the “Platonic corruptions model” is problematic for several reasons.

    1) It’s totally false. Judea was totally Hellenized by the time of Jesus. Christianity was thoroughly Hellenized from the get go.

    2) Protestants made up this false narrative to attack Christian Platonic doctrines central to Mormonism: Preexistence, deification, eternal matter. Again, the plan of salvation is in Plato’s writing much more clearly than anything in the Bible.

    3) Joseph Smith was well aware of Protestants claiming Platonic corruption. It was in TONS of book of the era, the most popular was Mosheim’s ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY. Early Mormons quoted Mosheim all the time.

    4) Joseph Smith OWENED Mosheim. He donated it to the Nauvoo library in 1843.

    5) Joseph Smith rejected the Protestant claims of Platonic corruption from the beginning. The Book of Mormon’s claims specifically reject those Protestant claims.

    So in sum, that Protestant claim is FASLE and Joseph Smith rejected it. Good for him!

    Anyway, that’s kind of what I’m trying to show in these posts. Maybe I should have come about it from a different angle.

    I’ll post that presentation soon.

  16. Stephen Fleming

    And bringing on the end of the world is one of our chief objectives here at T&S, BR! :)

  17. Jonathan Green

    Stephen, I agree that there’s a lot of interesting scholarship out there, both challenging (in a good way) and devotionally useful (also in a good way). Even work focused on (non)historicity can be useful – it would simplify the teaching of Judges, for example, to be able to say: Why do you think the idea of obliterating Canaanite cities was meaningful for Jews in 300 BC? “Obedience is better than sacrifice” is an important principle, and it would simplify teaching it if we could teach the principle without the context of obliterating cities and their inhabitants. And I think a lot of people would be receptive to the idea that a lot of rules found in Leviticus are only a late addition.

  18. Ryan Mullen

    Jonathan,

    I wouldn’t expect the mortal Jesus to grapple with Old Testament historicity anymore than I would expect him to develop calculus, administer vaccines, or hand out smartphones. That’s in no way a knock against Jesus. It’s simply part of recognizing that he was a first-century, Mediterranean, Jewish man. Like all divine revelation, the ministry of Jesus was encultured.

    “take the OT out of play” I can’t speak for Stephen, but I find the Old Testament / Hebrew Bible to be *more* fascinating since accepting that its etiological narratives are not historical. Back when I thought it was historical, I read it reluctantly, if at all. Now, I regularly study it and often buy books that explore it in new ways. Rather than take the OT of play, I just engage with it differently than you do.

  19. Jonathan Green

    Ryan, sorry, the contours of this discussion are confusing and it’s not always clear who is arguing for what. But I would be surprised if there’s much difference in how you and I engage with the OT. I think there’s some reality to a lot of the OT, although that reality is largely imperceptible in the historical record; if I’ve understood correctly, Stephen doesn’t think that element of reality exists. Where he and I seem to disagree most is about the implications – I don’t think the presence or absence of historical reality affects the significance of the OT, which is what you also seem to be saying.

    Talking about the mortal Jesus and encultured revelation is all well and good, but it only gets us so far, as most of us are also interested in the transcendent and eternal aspects of his mission. So when Paul says that “Christ, our Passover, has been sacrificed in our place,” we may not have firm evidence of OT historicity, but we have a pretty compelling reason to pay close attention to Exodus.

  20. Stephen Fleming

    In terms of still incorporating the OT into Christian theology, certainly. I guess there’s the question of to what degree. For me, I don’t feel the need to ascribe to God all the actions the OT ascribes to him. I do recognize the NT authors make strong allusions to the OT, and that’s fine too. I understand that cultural inheritance is very important and the OT certainly has lots of valuable messages and stories.

    But I also think that other cultures in the area have valuable teachings and stories too. And I think it’s okay if it looks like Christ was alluding to some of those other cultures too.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.