David P. Wright: Historical Criticism: A Necessary Element In The Search For Religious Truth
DAVID P WRIGHT is an assistant professor of Hebrew Bible and Ancient Near Eastern Studies at Brandeis University in Waltham, Massachusetts. He received his doctorate in Near Eastern Studies at the University of California, Berkeley in 1984. He has taught at Brigham Young University and Middlebury College. This paper was delivered at the B. H. Roberts Society panel discussion, "Do What is Right, Let the Consequence Follow: Telling the Truth about Our Scriptures," on 6 February 1992 in Salt Lake City. Sunstone Vol. 16 No. 3 pp. 28-38 September 1992
For those who don't want to read the full article (excerpts divided by paragraphs):
Transition can only really come from a "conversion experience" in which an individual, upon perceiving the deficiencies of one framework and the overwhelming strengths of the other, is catapulted into the perceived stronger mode of thinking. I had such a "conversion experience." I grew up a traditional Mormon and decided to pursue a career in Near Eastern studies so as to contribute to the "defense of the faith" along traditionalist lines. But during my university preparation I found that many of the traditional historical assumptions that I held did not make sense against the evidence that I was encountering.....Above all it has been a spiritual journey and experience of the highest order, one that I would not choose to undo.
BEFORE I actually describe the two modes, I need to make it clear that I am not talking about methods of study, but rather intellectual attitudes and orientations toward texts.
Sometimes when traditionalist study is undertaken systematically or in depth, certain peripheral traditional views and assumptions are modified to harmonize with or support central tenets.2 Nevertheless, conclusions in many respects are predetermined. All this indicates that the ideology of the traditionalist approach is conservative. It preserves preexisting ideas and practices. (I do not mean to imply here that conservatism is a negative feature.)
The main objection of traditionalists to the critical mode is that it requires denying supernatural elements and discounting the evidential value of mystical and emotive-spiritual experience. Theoretically, the critical mode does not require such a humanistic coloring. All it requires is a willingness to subject to critical review all historical questions as well as presuppositions about what counts for evidence and how evidence is construed. But it is true that the critical mode as used, for example, by biblical scholars has resulted in conclusions with a rather humanistic coloring. The question here is whether this is the fault of the mode or whether is it indicative of the truth behind the evidence. I would suggest the latter. This certainly does not mean that there is no divine element, but it may be that it operates differently than what we have come to expect traditionally.
I found that the traditional explanation that Israelite sacrifice typologically represented the death of Jesus did not make sense in view of the complexity of the sacrificial system of the Hebrew Bible and the general purpose of sacrifice indicated by that text. The evidence, found mainly in the priestly legislation of the Pentateuch (Leviticus and parts of Exodus and Numbers), showed that there were several types of sacrifices each with divergent goals: some for praise, some for thanksgiving, some for rectification of the noxious effects of one's impurity or sin on the sanctuary, and some for the rectification of damage done to what is holy The theory or perspective that held these diverse sacrifices together was that they were gifts, specifically food gifts, to the deity to respond to or induce his blessing or to appease his wrath. It was not the slaughter or death of the animal, but the presentation of fat and meat pieces to the deity on the altar as a type of meal that was the focus of the rites.8 This view was corroborated by the fact that cereal offerings accompanied (and sometimes substituted for) the animal offerings-this was the bread portion of the meal. Wine was also offered in libation, the beverage portion of the service (cf. Numbers 15:1-16).
In sum, the ancient Israelites had a different view of the meaning of sacrifice than we did. The view that it represented Jesus' death seemed to be an imposition on the text. Thus ideas about the meaning of sacrifice were not the same in all the ages.
But whereas the Old Testament was peppered with clear references to circumcision, it had none regarding baptism. This evidence led me to the conclusion that baptism, for the purposes we supposed, was probably not practiced in ancient Israel. This then provided an example of [31] where Mormon and Christian practice, not just ideas, differed from those of our more remote religious ancestors.
Prophecy
AT the same time that I was rethinking the matter of the sameness imagined to be found in religious phenomena and ideas, I was rethinking traditional assumptions about the phenomenon and nature of prophecy in the Bible and other Mormon scripture. The traditional view was that prophets are able to see far into the future and do so with clarity This did not seem to be sustainable upon critical study.
This picture suggested to me that prophecy has the following characteristics: (a) it does not concern itself generally with events far in the future-it has an imminent orientation (the hopes of the foregoing beatific restoration are localized in the sixth century B.C.), and (b) the Vision of even the imminent future is not clearly predicted or known (note that several of the aforementioned expectations did not occur: the propensities of the people to sin remained the same; only some, not all, of the Israelites returned to the land; the Judeans remained dominated by foreign nations; the rebuilt temple and Jerusalem were not as glorious as expected; Ezekiel's ideal temple was not built; the Davidic dynasty was not restored, and Zerubbabel in particular did not become king; this unclear vision of the future is also marked by an apparent ignorance of the vicissitudes of Christian and Jewish history in the years far into the future).
My critical view about the last half of Isaiah did not come easily because it meant that the Book of Mormon exhibited [34] anachronism in its citing of five full chapters of Second Isaiah and portions of others.52 Lehi and his family could not have brought these chapters to the New World since the chapters were composed according to the critical view some sixty years after the family came to the new world. Indeed, four full chapters of Second Isaiah are cited in First and Second Nephi which are traditionally dated before 544 B.C. Because in my early university studies I could not accept the conclusion that the Book of Mormon was not ancient, I was very reserved at first about accepting the conclusion that chapters 40-55 were written after Lehi's supposed departure from Jerusalem. But other lines of evidence led me to the conclusion that the Book of Mormon was a work-a scriptural work to be sure-composed in the nineteenth century by Joseph Smith.[added emphasis] Some of the evidence pertained to matters listed in other sections above: the book portrayed a relative homogeneity of religious ideas and practices which contradicted the critical perception of the evolution of religious phenomena. And the character of prophecy in it did not accord with that studied in scriptural works and expressions whose date was relatively certain. But the decisive evidence for me was textual anachronism. I will give one other brief piece of evidence.
For example, Alma 13:17-19 and Hebrews 7:1-4 speak about the priest-king Melchizedek. Hebrews begins by paraphrasing Genesis 14:18-20, which speaks of Melchizedek, and then constructs an argument about his greatness. What shows the dependence of the Alma passage on Hebrews is that it has the same elements in the same order as the Hebrews passage and in this reflects the particular argument of Hebrews: (a) both passages refer demonstratively to "this Melchizedek"; (b) they say he was king over the land of Salem; (c) they say he was a priest; (d) they explain his title of king of Salem and king of peace; (e) they mention something about Melchizedek's father; and (f) they note that Melchizedek was "great." The last three elements are not in Genesis 14 and are thus part of the unique argument Hebrews develops. This indicates the Alma 13 passage is dependent upon Hebrews.
The FARMS reply: http://farms.BYU.edu/display.php?table=jbms&id=49
Comments?