Author: benspackman

Raymond Brown on Understanding and Teaching Complicated Historical Issues

Raymond E. Brown SS, was a Catholic priest and Bible scholar, known for his Introduction to the New Testament, his volumes in the Anchor Bible Commentary series, and other academic and semi-popular works. He also wrote a popular book called 101 Questions on the Bible which has some really great stuff. As you might expect from the title, he presents this in Q&A format.

Several questions address the nature of scripture and genre, but also how to teach and preach passages where there is a large difference between scholarly understanding and popular traditions. (Virtually all the italics are mine.) Continue reading

Some quick and short book notes

My image.

As is my wont, I’m excited about a few books, two popular and two more academic.

First, Peter Enns has a new book coming early next year, How the Bible Actually Works: In Which I Explain How An Ancient, Ambiguous, and Diverse Book Leads Us to Wisdom Rather Than Answers—and Why That’s Great NewsEnns is one of my favorite authors, an academic who can also write for normal people. In fact, my Mom’s been reading his Genesis for Normal People and loving it. (Enns has been on the Maxwell Institute Podcast a few times and spoken at BYU.) For a content summary from the publisher, see here.

Second, Kyle Grenwood’s edited collection, Since the Beginning: Interpreting Genesis 1 and 2 through the Ages should appear in the next month. Greenwood’s book on science and cosmology in the Bible is on my top 10 list for the early chapters of Genesis.

A claim is often made like “Christians have always interpreted Genesis literally until science came along!” There’s a lot wrong with that claim, which I’ve written about…somewhere. I can’t find my own darn post. Greenwood’s volume will not be the first to tackle the various interpretations of Genesis throughout the ages, but I hope will do it well and in an accessible and popular way. It’s no good for academics to know this stuff if it doesn’t filter down to popular discussion and debate. Continue reading

Old Testament Gospel Doctrine Lesson 30: 2 Chronicles 29–30; 32; 34

Here’s the link to my combined podcast of lessons 29-30, and transcript.

I find the order of the next few lessons a bit odd. Today we cover about 100+ years of major history (c. 750BC- 609BC), which happens to be the same time period and historical background for Amos (760 bce), Micah and Isaiah (735-700), Nahum (between 663 and 612), Jeremiah (627-??), Lehi, Urijah (Jer 26:20-23) and we’ve probably skipped Joel (uncertain), Obadiah (uncertain), Habbakuk (uncertain), and Jonah (set sometime before 612). (All dates are approximate.) Continue reading

Old Testament Gospel Doctrine Lesson 29: 2 Kings 2, 5-6

Elijah and da Bearss: 1 Obnoxious Youths: 0

Elijah and da Bearss: 1
Obnoxious Teenagers: 0
( Bundel, public domain via wikipedia)

Here’s the link to my combined podcast of lessons 29-30, and transcript. These chapters are about the transition from Elijah to Elisha and some of Elisha’ prophetic acts, which raise questions about the varying nature of prophets and prophetic succession. The manual suggests that in 2:1-10, “Elijah prepares Elisha to become the new prophet.” This kind of language assumes several things, namely, that there is only “one” prophet, namely,“the prophet,” the one prophet who is THE Prophet. Continue reading

Old Testament Gospel Doctrine Lesson 27: 1Ki 12-14, 2 Chr 17:1-10 & 20:1-30

In these chapters, “the golden age” of Israel comes to an end as United Kingdom of David splits into the Divided Kingdom, and things generally start going downhill. No one remembers the names of all the kings that follow Solomon, and there are two parallel kingdoms to keep track of.

The way the lesson’s stated purpose frames these chapters, you might expect that Solomon is the ideal leader but then his son goes bad. And indeed, in many ways, Solomon is portrayed as quite good. But in other ways, the things he accomplished (following in David’s footsteps) certainly had a heavy price that was not popular with his people at the time. Let’s look at this. Continue reading

Old Testament Gospel Doctrine Lesson 26: King Solomon, 1 Kings 3-11

We skip chapters to move into Kings today, but it’s useful to recap the history.

David virtually passes sentence upon himself and his house in 2Sa 12:5-6, “As the LORD lives [an oath], the man who has done this deserves to die.” (NRSV)

When Nathan says to him, “Now the LORD has put away your sin; you shall not die” he’s not absolving him of adultery and murder per se (as the JST would take it), as much as “look, you’re forgiven to the extent that the Lord is not going to strike you down right here and now, which is what you said should be done to someone who has done what you did.” Continue reading

Come Follow Me: Deuteronomy

“Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

This is the first and great commandment.
And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. (Mat 22:36-40 KJV)

I begin with this familiar passage because it bears directly on our study of Deuteronomy. It illustrates two things. Continue reading

A second blog update, and podcast

A candle inside the Holy Sepulcher. My pic.

I’ve finally had time to update some Old Testament posts, and run into some technical issues. Patheos is looking into it, and I hope to be caught-up soon.

In the meantime, I had opportunity to record a podcast with LDS Missioncast. Although aimed at missionaries and pre-missionaries, I hope what I had to say will have some insight for everyone. We talked about the problem of proof-texting, or using a verse out of context to prove a point, and why that’s problematic. I then went into how and why the Bible functions differently for Mormons vs. Protestants, which I hope will help us teach differently.

In essence, when we teach Protestants, we are NOT asking them to accept a different, Mormon interpretation of this or that scripture as much as asking them to shift their epistemology, their conception of authority. That is, for sola scriptura Protestants, scripture is the highest authority. Protestants expect Mormons to be able to demonstrate why Mormon doctrines are actually better, more accurate interpretations of the Bible than Protestant doctrines, because that’s how doctrine is made in the Protestant sola-scriptura worldview. (They think we’re like JWs.) Although missionaries often end up talking about specific passages or doctrines, conversion involves a change in religious worldview and epistemology. Mormon missionaries often unwittingly get pulled onto this Protestant ground, and try to prove the Word of Wisdom, for example, solely from the Bible.

In reality, we are asking Protestants to shift from sola scriptura not just to a bigger canon of scripture (Bible+ Book of Mormon, etc.), but to an authority structure that is canon+ modern prophets.

One non-LDS scholar really gets this, better than many Mormons do.

It is important to underscore here the way in which the Mormon restoration of these ancient offices and practices resulted in a very significant departure from the classical Protestant understanding of religious authority. The subtlety of the issues at stake here is often missed by us Evangelicals, with the result that we typically get sidetracked in our efforts to understand our basic disagreements with Mormon thought. We often proceed as if the central authority issue to debate with Mormons has to do with the question of which authoritative texts ought to guide us in understanding the basic issues of life.  [That is, is Mormonism just Protestantism with a bigger canon?] We Evangelicals accept the Bible alone as our infallible guide while, we point out, the Latter-day Saints add another set of writings, those that comprise the Book of Mormon, along with the records of additional Church teachings to the canon- we classic Protestants are people of the Book while Mormons are people of the Books.

This way of getting at the nature of our differences really does not take us very far into exploring some of our basic disagreements. What we also need to see is that in restoring some features of Old Testament Israel, Mormonism has also restored the kinds of authority patterns that guided the life of Israel. The old Testament people of God were not a people of the Book as such— mainly because for most of their history, there was no completed Book. Ancient Israel was guided by an open canon [of scripture] and the leadership of the prophets. And it is precisely this pattern of communal authority that Mormonism restored. Evangelicals may insist that Mormonism has too many books. But the proper Mormon response is that even these Books are not enough to give authoritative guidance to the present-day community of the faithful. The books themselves are products of a prophetic office, an office that has been reinstituted in these latter days. People fail to discern the full will of God if they do not live their lives in the anticipation that they will receive new revealed teachings under the authority of the living prophets.

– Richard Mouw, “What does God think about America?” BYU Studies, 43:4 (2004): 10-11. My italics.

Two other citations on this idea.

Brother Brigham took the stand, and he took the Bible, and laid it down; he took the Book of Mormon, and laid it down; and he took the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, and laid it down before him, and he said: “There is the written word of God to us, concerning the work of God from the beginning of the world, almost, to our day.” “And now,” said he, “when compared with the living oracles those books are nothing to me; those books do not convey the word of God direct to us now, as do the words of a Prophet or a man bearing the Holy Priesthood in our day and generation. I would rather have the living oracles than all the writing in the books.” That was the course he pursued. When he was through, Brother Joseph said to the congregation, “Brother Brigham has told you the word of the Lord, and he has told you the truth.”

-Wilford Woodruff, Conference Report, October 1897, pp. 22-23.

The Latter-day Saints do not do things because they happen to be printed in a book. They do not do things because God told the Jews to do them; nor do they do or leave undone anything because of the instructions that Christ gave to the Nephites. Whatever is done by this Church is because God, speaking from heaven in our day, has commanded this Church to do it. No book presides over this Church, and no book lies at its foundation. You cannot pile up books enough to take the place of God’s priesthood, inspired by the power of the Holy Ghost. That is the constitution of the Church of Christ. …Divine revelation adapts itself to the circumstances and conditions of men, and change upon change ensues as God’s progressive work goes on to its destiny. There is no book big enough or good enough to preside over this Church.

-Conference Report, October 1916, p. 55.  Elder Orson F. Whitney Quoted by Loren C. Dunn, in General Conference, Ensign May 1976,  p.65-66

As always, you can help me pay my tuition here. You can also get updates by email whenever a post goes up (subscription box on the right). You can also follow Benjamin the Scribe on Facebook.