D&C 20:1, Plain Reading, and Literal Reading; or, Chexegesis Before You Wrexegesis

The line “check yourself before you wreck yourself” is from a rap song but also happens to just be good advice. “Chexegesis before you wrexegesis” adapts that wisdom to the realm of scripture, that you shouldn’t make strong declarations about scripture’s meaning without checking up on what it actually says and means.

This post contains Amazon Affiliate links

If you’re unfamiliar with exegesis (pronounced EX-uh-JEEZ-us) it refers to the process of formal interpretation of scripture, the “drawing out” of meaning from the text. It’s often contrasted with eisegesis (pronounced ACE-uh-JEEZ-us) where instead of drawing out (Greek ex-) the meaning that resides there, you are instead reading in (Greek eis-) the meaning you want to see, importing something that isn’t really there.

“Plain reading” operates under the assumption that the only thing you need understand scripture is clear language. It  gives lip service to context, but in practice denies its necessity.

By contrast, “literal reading” of scripture tries to understand the text as its original author or audience(s) might have, and this requires things like historical context, genre recognition,  text criticism (if the text has changed at all during transmission, editing, etc.), cultural context, etc. I think we need to engage in more literal reading in the Church, and not just with issues of creation and science. Literal reading helps us steer clear of “wrexegesis.”

Let’s apply the different frameworks of “plain reading” and “literal reading” to D&C 20:1, which some Latter-day Saints have claimed is revelation establishing Jesus’ birth on April 6, precisely 1830 years before the Church was established. This has even been represented in manuals, though they have backed away from monolithic views on this topic; when Church leaders have expressed different views, and manuals reflect only one of those views, it gives the false impression that that one view is the revealed, official, and unified view of Church leaders. That’s a problem, and one that I find is resolved by reading more Church history and gaining awareness of the variety of views held by prophets and Apostles current and past.

So, to summarize. The core problem with “plain language” reading is its false assumption that all the necessary information needed to understand a passage is explicit in the words of the passage, and either a) the modern reader inherently knows all this contextual information through “plain language” or b) none of this contextual information is relevant to understanding what it meant.

D&C 20:1 demonstrates why plain reading is problematic. In order for D&C 20 to be revelatory data proving Jesus’ birth, three things are necessary.

1) The function of D&C 20:1 must to be “precise calendrical data,” not “common literary convention of introduction” in use at the time. This is a question of genre and literary conventions; contemporaries are much more familiar with these conventions than people at a distance. Notably, no 19th century Latter-day Saint read this as revelation of Jesus’ birthday, and John Whitmer used near identical language in his journal on June 12.

It is now June the twelfth one thousand eight hundred and thirty one years, since the coming of our Lord and Savior, in the flesh

This data strongly suggests the “literary convention” category.

2) The date of the revelation must actually be April 6 but the earliest manuscripts, available through the Joseph Smith Papers online, date the revelation to April 10. This is a question of both historical context and text-criticism, which involves investigating the differences between manuscripts and publications of the same text to establish the oldest or best text.

Edit: this third datum below may be incorrect, but the first two are sufficient to establish my point, I think.

3) D&C 20:1 must actually be revelatory, part of the revelation.   This appears to be the case on “plain reading,” since it’s verse 1. However, I rely here on Steven Harper, the Joseph Smith Papers, from a Deseret News article on this topic.

The recent discovery of the Book of Commandments and Revelations manuscript of D&C 20, however, showed that the verse was actually an introductory head note written by early church historian and scribe John Whitmer — something he did for many of the revelations, Harper said. “So those are separate from the texts that Joseph produces by revelation.”

Conclusion?

The claim that D&C 20:1 provides revealed calendrical evidence of Jesus’ birth on April 6 can only be made when engaged in “plain reading,” which denies in practice that linguistic context, text-criticism, historical context, or genre issues should play a role in understanding a text. Further, it does not matter how many hundreds of times one rereads D&C 20:1, because you cannot learn the information above from D&C 20 alone. Externally-sought contextual information is necessary.

Plain language reading of the D&C can result in serious misunderstandings and claiming things for revelation which it does not actually say when read in context. Indeed, crucial contextual information—linguistic, text-critical, historical, literary/genre— is necessary to understand it, and that contextual information is available only from extra-scriptural sources seeking to recover it, like the Joseph Smith Papers.

Now, if this kind of information is necessary for D&C, which is only 200 years old, set in America, and in English — and the existence of Church publications like Revelations in Context suggests institutional recognition that this is true — how much more so is contextual information needed when the distance between reader and the world of the text is 10 times more than between us and Doctrine&Covenants? For scripture of 2000 or 3000 years ago, from different places, different cultures, different languages, and radically different historical and theological contexts? Say, the New Testament and Old Testament? All scripture has implicit contexts.

Finally, a note to Seminary teachers, who are working hard and doing their best; this is not meant to frighten you or make you feel bad, nor do you need a PhD in 19th century American Religious history to teach. Rather, this is a caution to bear testimony boldly and interpret scripture cautiously. You can’t check everything, and intellectual humility is a key part of teaching for everyone, including those who do have PhDs in History. In practice this means, before you make absolute declarations, check it out. Consult some resources. Teach your students that our knowledge is progressive, line upon line; don’t be afraid to follow Elder Ballard’s advice and avoid overclaiming, which

must be avoided by our gospel teachers. It is perfectly all right to say, “I do not know.” However, once that is said, you have a responsibility to find the best answers to thoughtful questions your students ask.

Lastly, does the date matter? No. But as I’ve argued elsewhere, the assumptions behind “plain reading” of scripture border on fundamentalism, and that kind of worldview often takes people out of the Church.

So please. Chexegesis, before you wrexegesis 🙂

As always, you can help me pay my tuition here via GoFundMe. *I am an Amazon Affiliate, and may receive a small percentage of purchases made through Amazon links on this page. You can get updates by email whenever a post goes up (subscription box below) and can also follow Benjamin the Scribe on Facebook.