Johannes wrote:Just to be contrarian, I'd question this. I've read a couple of biographies of Smith (Bushman and Vogel), and I gather that questioning the status of the Bible as a fax from God was quite common in 19th century America, even among less educated people. Didn't Smith's grandfather reprimand him for being too conservative and demand that he read Tom Paine, a radical critic of scripture?
Is fax from God a fair metaphor? I am not talking about the finger of God writing on the temple wall here. I am only referring to the idea that the Bible has *a* message from God as his Word. The fact that Joseph Smith could write the Book of Mormon as a single piece of literary architecture with an overarching message does reflect this overall sense that there is not an argument in the Bible so much as there is a message. Tom Paine is showing the absurdity of this, but is not the fact that he has to make a point of challenging it revealing in itself?
Joseph's solution to the problem of Biblical inconsistencies is not to acknowledge disagreement but to create a conspiracy theory starring wicked priests. The clear message there is that the original text had the pure, consistent Gospel. This position is further reinforced by his Christianizing rewrite of the story of Adam being baptized for the remission of sins. Oy vey!
I think I could make a case for challenging this, and not just in the liberal modern era. To take just one example, it was always at least implicit, if not explicit, in the Reformation project that people had the right to read and interpret the scriptural text for themselves, as members of the "priesthood of all believers". They could, in effect, become the latest generation of "arguing Jews". Of course, state authorities in various parts of Europe managed to make sure that it didn't necessarily turn out like that, but the potential was always there.
OK. Cool. Well, my impression of this has usually been that the point was to put the scripture in the hands of the people so they could have direct access to God's word without the mediation of priests. I was not aware that there was any thought that they could take up the many arguments of arguing Jews in the different books. I look forward to the thread in which you sketch that out. Can you recommend any books or articles on that?
Hmm. This interests me. I'm not au fait with the scholarship in this area, so I can't really push back against you here. I'd like to ask, though, what sort of evidence you have in mind. What is there that tells us that "middle-class" people would have been conversant with, say, Stoic ideas?
Stoicism is an interesting example because its founder was a metic from Cyprus teaching philosophy in the ancient equivalent of an Athenian shopping mall. The influence of Stoicism reached down to the grammatical terminology still in use today. I don't know about the history of the use of this terminology, but it is conceivable that this is one way that Stoicism shaped the organization and transmission of knowledge whose impact was felt in schools of the "middle class." Of the Cynics, Diogenes of Sinope practically turned Cynicism into a public performance. Cynic missionaries seem like another way in which philosophy could have reached beyond the elite.
I certainly agree that the church became hierarchical and élitist, but there have always been contrary currents which have sought to emancipate, or indeed been led by, ordinary people. In LDS terms, tou sound like you're talking about the "great and abominable church". I return to my example of the Reformation, even if its full dangerous potential was not fully realised at the time. There were popular lay movements in mediaeval times, too. Ordinary people have always looked for ways to reappropriate the Christian heritage as their own, even at the cost sometimes of coming into conflict with the church hierarchy.
Yes! I recall reading about lots of interesting popular movements in Gregory of Tours' History of the Franks. But we are talking about the transmission of learning, so I ask, what was the role of scriptural study and exegesis in the popular movements of Medieval Christianity? I understand that my views have been impacted in some way by LDS polemics against Catholicism, but I don't think I am completely unaware of such movements. I recall the contemporary criticisms of their participants as ignoramuses, but I may be forgetting the role played by Biblical reading and interpretation in these movements.
It's interesting - for obvious reasons - that you define your upbringing as LDS rather than Christian. Is that how you would have seen it at the time?
I really thought of myself as Mormon, and I recall feeling uncomfortable attending a Christian Bible camp as a child. I felt like an outsider there, even though I was familiar with many Bible stories and readings.