DiscussMormonism.com

As I said in this thread, from over a year ago, in a short exchange with ennumaelish

== In the Hebrew Bible, the word şelem “image” refers to physicality. Every time (and I do mean every time) it appears in the Bible one can touch that which has a şelem.

One exception may be found in Psalm 73:20 (? - I'm at work so I'm going from memory here) where tselem refers to a phantom or shadow from a dream. In any event, it is futile for orthodox Christians to deny the meaning of tselem, which always refers to a three-dimensional image (physical or not).

JP Holding is one Evangelical who at least realizes this futility, and has managed to work around it. He accepts the fact that the image in Gen 1:26 refers to a concrete physical image. But how he interprets it is this:

"Man was created as an image for God."

This is very different from the natural rendering of:

"Man was created in the image of God."

Holding borrowed this apologetic from scholars like Kenneth Mathews, but it is also argued by liberal scholars like David Clines that the Hebrew text could in fact be translated "as" an image as opposed to "in" the image.

...we should make sure we don't overstep our bounds when we suggest that tselem supports the notion that God has a physical body. I'm not sure this is what you are suggesting though. Even the scholars and Hebrew grammarians that support our argument on this verse (insofar as we argue that God was understood as having a "three-dimensional image"), do not agree that God is therefore "physical."

No offense Kevin, but you were wrong then and you are wrong now. I have established a very strong case for interpreting tselem in these passages in accordance with Dr. Marc Brettler’s observation.

Neither you nor Mark has presented a cogent argument to negate my readings. Moreover, Dr. Marc Brettler, whom I know personally (in fact I spoke with today regarding some views that I have concerning Psalm 114), agrees with my claims.

Exactly how much Hebrew have you and Mark studied? Dr. Brettler, an Orthodox Jew, began a serious study of biblical Hebrew at age four. He is the primary editor for the award winning Jewish Study Bible with the help of Adele Berlin and Michael Fishbane.

He’s been commissioned to write the forthcoming Psalms commentary for the Jewish Publication Society series for which Nahum Sarna did the Genesis and Exodus volumes and Jeffery Tigay did the Deuteronomy contribution (in fact, as the current faculty chair over the Near Eastern and Judaic studies department at Brandeis, Brettler holds Sarna’s old position).

Brettler is recognized as one of the foremost Old Testament scholars in the world. In sum, I can assure you, Dr. Brettler has forgotten more about the Hebrew Bible than the three of us will ever know in this lifetime.

That having been said, until you and/or Mark actually deal with the evidence I have presented in this thread, your replies amount to nothing more than a silly “no it's not” retort—that quite frankly, I’ve grown a bit tired of considering.

I strongly suggest that the two of you go back and read the articles I mentioned concerning the image of the sleeping God.

== No offense Kevin, but you were wrong then and you are wrong now.

Wrong about what exactly?

== I have established a very strong case for interpreting tselem in these passages in accordance with Dr. Marc Brettler’s observation.

If you’re sure your case is so compelling, why not present it in a scholarly venue and see how well it is accepted by other scholars. My point is simply this. I have read profusely on this issue and I believe I have read the most reputable Old Testament scholars. Perhaps one in ten actually believe God was physical for the Ancient Jews. You found one. He is your buddy. That is fine. But he does not represent the scholarly consensus, no mater how early he started studying Hebrew. Others scholars accept the point you are making about tselem usually or almost always referring to physical idols/objects, but others also acknowledge the plausibility for it referring to non-physical images such as shadows. This is why Scholem cut through the ambiguity and said it refers to a three-dimensional form – not necessarily physical.

== Neither you nor Mark has presented a cogent argument to negate my readings. Moreover, Dr. Marc Brettler, whom I know personally (in fact I spoke with today regarding some views that I have concerning Psalm 114), agrees with my claims.

I am not trying to side with Markk, so much as I am trying to make sure we as apologists do not overstep our bounds in what we are arguing. Sure, the Bible makes it clear that God has a form. What that form consists of cannot be deduced from the word tselem. Period. If God appeared as a spirit form to the Ancient Jews, tselem would have been a perfectly good word to use in describing the experience. To argue that tselem elsewhere refers strictly to physical objects, therefore it must also be referring to physicality in God, is a very weak, and fallacious argument.

== Dr. Brettler, an Orthodox Jew, began a serious study of biblical Hebrew at age four. He is the primary editor for the award winning Jewish Study Bible with the help of Adele Berlin and Michael Fishbane.

That is well and good, but he is not the foremost expert on the matter.

== He’s been commissioned to write the forthcoming Psalms commentary for the Jewish Publication Society series for which Nahum Sarna did the Genesis and Exodus volumes and Jeffery Tigay did the Deuteronomy contribution (in fact, as the current faculty chair over the Near Eastern and Judaic studies department at Brandeis, Brettler holds Sarna’s old position).

And you realize of course that Sarna disagrees with yours and Brettler’s position, right? Does Brettler Trump Sarna, who is clearly more respected in the field?

== Brettler is recognized as one of the foremost Old Testament scholars in the world.

According to what survey? If I had to guess, I would say he might be in the top 30.

== That having been said, until you and/or Mark actually deal with the evidence I have presented in this thread, your replies amount to nothing more than a silly “no it's not” retort—that quite frankly, I’ve grown a bit tired of considering.

What evidence? Nobody is disagreeing with the fact that tselem almost always, or always, refers to physical objects in the Hebrew Bible. But it does not logically follow that this proves tselem means physicality. This is inductive reasoning, not deductive.

Take the English word “image” for example. Suppose someone digs up an English text 3000 years from now and finds the word “image” used 20 times. It refers to the image of a dog, a house, a chair, a mountain, et cetera, all of which the future scholars of the Ancient English language recognize as physical objects. In one instance the word refers to the outline and image of a “SHADOW.” Suppose the word shadow is one that has lost its usage through the centuries and the future scholars of the Ancient English language do not know what it means. By using your logic, they insist a shadow is a physical object.

Why? Because the word image clearly refers to physical objects in other instances. But they only had two dozen instances to choose from. Ultimately, they are wrong.

In our present situation we are dealing with a word like shadow except it is GOD. Did “God” mean something physical to the Ancient Jews? Sure, there is some evidence that would make sense of this, but there is also plenty of evidence that would indicate God is an incorporeal enity, although he retains a form.

== And you realize of course that Sarna disagrees with yours and Brettler’s position, right? Does Brettler Trump Sarna, who is clearly more respected in the field?

Absolutely. Sarna was far too conservative in his views. This is a case where the student has clearly passed up his mentor. Something that a good professor always hopes will happen.

Busy morning today. I’ll provide a detailed response later.

Have a good day.

== Absolutely. Sarna was far too conservative in his views.

And a conservative would argue that Brettler is far too liberal. Ultimately the labeling means nothing. You were arguing from authority, as if I had no authoritative support of my own. You made it clear Brettler was to be believed because he is a credentialed guy who knows the Hebrew better than any of us. Well, does he know it better than Sarna? You are probably the only person on the planet who might make that argument; I highly doubt Brettler would.

== This is a case where the student has clearly passed up his mentor.

I don't see how this is "clear" at all. It is merely asserted. Brettler's scholarly accomplishments haven't even begun to compare to those of Sarna, Westermann, von Rad, et al. And these guys are considered liberals as well.

PS: I am heading back to the States (Atlanta) tonight, and won't be back until the 18th.

I’m not the only person in the world who knows this fact—though I suspect you are right that Brettler would be far too humble to admit it. This is why several PhDs from Brandeis who received degrees under Sarna quite regularly frequent Professor Brettler’s text courses.

Believe it or not; I am in a pretty good position to make this assessment.

A lot goes on in the world of biblical scholarship which unfortunately, the average intelligent lay reader does not have an opportunity to fully digest. Granted, names like von Rad, Sarna, and Westermann would not doubt sound more familiar to the average well-read lay person but, you’re missing an incredibly crucial point.

Gerhard von Rad was born in 1901, he died in 1971. Nahum Sarna was born in 1923, he passed away last year. As far as I know, Claus Westermann is still very much alive, though he was born in 1909.

Like you, I am a big fan of Westermann’s 1974 three volume commentary on the book of Genesis. In my estimation, this exhaustive treatise provides an outstanding analysis of form-critical issues, as well as Near Eastern parallels while moving in the direction of narrative theology. I dare say that Westermann’s is my favorite commentary on Genesis.

But… a lot has happened since 1974.

Take for example Mayer Gruber’s “In the Image of God’ What is it?” in Homage to Shmuel. Jerusalem: Bialik, 2001, 81-87 [Hebrew]. Like others before him, Gruber shows that the Tell Fakhariyeh inscription reveals the synonymous status of the terms demût and selem, both of which mean 'statue.'

Through his careful analysis, Gruber illustrates that the syntax of the biblical verses in which these terms occur disproves Tigay's view that their occurrences in Genesis are simply metaphorical. In the relevant texts the preposition b is beth pretii (cf. Gen 23:9). Hence, the biblical statements assert that whereas other ancient Near Eastern deities had statues, the image of Israel's God is to be found in human beings. Human beings are the selem.

John Kutsko made a similar discovery in the 1998 article “Will the Real selem elohîm Please Stand Up?: The Image of God in the Book of Ezekiel” in SBLSP 1998: Parts 1 & 2 p 55-85. Atlanta: Scholars, 1998. David P. Wright was one of the scholars commissioned to critique Kutsko at the SBL convention and I have read his notes.

Hopefully, you are starting to catch the vision. Scholarship naturally builds upon the arguments and genius of previous generations. Hence, textual, archeological, and linguistic discoveries mean that Brettler has surpassed Sarna in understanding.

This fact has little to do with talent and/or abilities. It is the endless cycle of all things scholarly.

And yes, one of Sarna’s weaknesses is that he fails to approach the Bible critically. While his Genesis commentary has a few nice literary observations—his analysis is problematic in that Sarna fails to consider the implications of source criticism.

David B., I have a couple of hours before I head out. You said " But… a lot has happened since 1974."

But you present no new evidence per se; just a few examples of post-1974 scholars who followed the likes of P.Humbert and Zimmerli. There is nothing new at all about his argument. It has been around for most of the 20th century and I see no reason to believe the view is winning over modern scholars, or that it does so through compellng argument. And I am fully aware of the fact that some scholars draw the conclusion that tselem must refer to corporeality in every single instance. They remain in the minority.

Your back-handed dismissal of Sarna and praising of those who disagree with him is a highly opinionated perspective. Now, I disagree with his exegesis of a few Exodus passages, but you cannot make the argument that he who knows Hebrew best, wins - which seems to have been wher you were heading all along. At some point subjective interpretation has to come into play. Your prefered scholar is a rookie. One day he might carry the weight of von Rad and Sarna, but as it is he is just borrowing the same argument that was forwarded by P. Humbert in 1940 (and Gunkel who followed up on his work in 1967). Theodore Nöldeke argued this as early as 1897.

We are talking about a view that is at least 66 years old in scholarly circles, but has been around for more than a century. This is hardly ground breaking, scholarly innovation by modern scholars who simply agree with him.

I see nothing in anything you have presented - though I would like to - by way of archeological or linguistic breakthroughs that would make this view rock solid. The scholarly consensus moves up and down as it has always done so I would not read too much into a recent fluctuation in our favor. A recent tendency towards a newer view doesn't necessarily prove the veracity of said view.

== But you present no new evidence per se; just a few examples of post-1974 scholars who followed the likes of P.Humbert and Zimmerli.

Followed them, and then took the argument to new levels. And I did provide a brief summary of this new evidence though you may want to consider the entire article if you are really interested.

My heavens!! I see no reason whatsoever that I should have to provide a detailed point by point summary of these essays in order to establish a valid point.

== There is nothing new at all about his argument.

I assume you mean Brettler. True, his argument is not new. But we have stronger evidence to support its correctness today then we did in previous generations. See my previous posts.

== I see nothing in anything you have presented - though I would like to - by way of archeological or linguistic breakthroughs, that would make this view rock solid.

Well, what scholarly argument is rock solid Kevin? Would you be happier if I stated all evidence appears to point this direction and that the best biblical scholars, in my humble opinion, acknowledge the clarity of my position?

I’m willing to state the argument this way if it makes you happy.

However, I’m not willing to post on this message board a detailed summary of every single scholarly piece of evidence presented over the past two decades to support my readings. I feel that I have provided enough information to prove that I’m not stretching the facts too far.

However, since you clearly do not agree, I’m willing to give it yet another try and draw your attention to the recent discovery by Werner Mayer discussed by Victor Hurowitz in JQR 87 (1997), 414 in which the Akkadian phrase nibnima salam titti “let us create an image of clay” spoken by Belet-ili to Ea in a Mesopotamian myth dealing with the creation of man and king appears. Hurowitz drew attention to the obvious link with Genesis 1:26.

The Akkadian salam is of course cognate with the Hebrew selem. Notice that the salam is created from clay. It is therefore a concrete, not an abstract image.

== Followed them, and then took the argument to new levels. And I did provide a brief summary of this new evidence though you may want to consider the entire article if you are really interested.

I saw nothing that would indicate new evidence per se. The basic knowledge of tselem and its cognates have been well known for more than a century. Nobody is arguing against this.

== My heavens!! I see no reason whatsoever that I should have to provide a detailed point by point summary of these essays in order to establish a valid point.

I never requested that. But you did say that things have changed since 1974; implying that since then, the old argument has been completely turned on its head by recent evidences. What do we know from scholarship post-1974 that we didn't know pre-1974? That is all I am asking.

== True, his argument is not new. But we have stronger evidence to support its correctness today then we did in previous generations. See my previous posts.

But there was never any question that tselem had a concrete corporeal sense. The question is whether that is its only sense. Adding more examples of a corporeal connecton does not eliminate the possibility of other meanings.

== Well, what scholarly argument is rock solid Kevin?

That tselem refers to a three-dimensional form. That is rock solid. You said I was "wrong then" and I am "wrong now," simply because I said tselem does not, in and of itself demand physicality. This implies you feel your argument is rock solid.

== Would you be happier if I stated all evidence appears to point this direction and that the best biblical scholars, in my humble opinion, acknowledge the clarity of my position?

Well, that way would be better since it wouldn't give critics the opportunity to derail on an irrelevant point. This is an inductive argument, and inductive arguments are not to be concluded with absolute and dogmatic assertions.

== However, since you clearly do not agree,

The only thing we seem to disagree on is the required understanding of tselem in Gen 1:26. It is simply fallacious to insist that since it refers to physical objects in other verses, even all other verses, that this leaves no room for a possible abstract connotation.

== I’m willing to give it yet another try and draw your attention to the recent discovery by Werner Mayer discussed by Victor Hurowitz

You pointed this out a year ago (assuming you are ennumaelish). While interesting, it doesn' really provide anything compelling for scholars. Scholars simply are not surprised or shocked to find new evidence of tselem referring to physicality. This is old news. But ultimately this says nothing about its meaning in Gen 1:26.

== I never requested that. But you did say that things have changed since 1974; implying that since then, the old argument has been completely turned on its head by recent evidences. What do we know from scholarship post-1974 that we didn't know pre-1974? That is all I am asking.

I answer this question towards the end of the post.

== It is simply fallacious to insist that since it refers to physical objects in other verses, even all other verses, that this leaves no room for a possible abstract connotation

Since Biblical Hebrew is a dead language, all we can go on is the way the word has been persevered.

But you're right.

Biblical authors never use the word tselem for a Tyrannosaurs Rex, but I suppose we can never know for sure whether someone, somewhere, might have used the Hebrew word tselem to describe a Tyrannosaur Rex.

As I have illustrated, all other verses connect tselem with physicality, but by all means, tselem could have referred to an abstract flesh eating lizard at one point.

== You pointed this out a year ago (assuming you are ennumaelish). While interesting, it doesn' really provide anything compelling for scholars. Scholars simply are not surprised or shocked to find new evidence of tselem referring to physicality. This is old news.

Indeed its about 10 years old—which is old news. What does that say for Westermann’s commentary published in 1974?

== While interesting, it doesn' really provide anything compelling for scholars.

Allow me to explain why, contrary to your assessment, the evidence is quite compelling for scholars.

David Wright has recently published several preliminary papers concerning his discovery that the Covenant Code in Exodus derives directly from the Laws of Hammurabi (as I have mentioned the fuller version will appear through Oxford University Press later this year).

Also, in recent years, scholars have compiled additional evidence for the influence of Assyrian Vassal Treaties on the Book of Deuteronomy.

These discoveries have supported those scholars who for years have rightfully drawn our attention to underlying Mesopotamian influence on biblical texts as witnessed, for example, through the fact that Eden takes place in Mesopotamia, the biblical flood stories have been influenced by Atrahasis and Gilgamesh, the tower of Babel was a Babylonian ziggurat, Abram left Mesopotamia for Canaan, etc.

However, most importantly, at least for our discussion, the Babylonian kingship story Enuma Elish has had a direct influence upon the creation story presented in Genesis 1-2:4a.

Therefore, this evidence suggests that contrary to your claim that the Akkadian phrase nibnima salam titti “let us create an image of clay” spoken by Belet-ili to Ea in a Mesopotamian myth dealing with the creation of man “doesn’t really provide anything compelling for scholars,” this discovery is very, very significant.

== But ultimately this says nothing about its meaning in Gen 1:26.

Thank you for sharing your expert opinion, which runs contrary to, well… real expert opinions. I know for a fact that Michael Fishbane and Victor Hurowitz believe that this Mesopotamian text says a great deal about Gen. 1:26.

But alas, it is quite clear that you are interested only in debate and not in the opportunity to learn something new.

== I answer this question towards the end of the post.

But it isn't new.

== Biblical authors never use the word tselem for a Tyrannosaurs Rex, but I suppose we can never know for sure whether someone, somewhere, might have used the Hebrew word tselem to describe a Tyrannosaur Rex.

But Tyrannosaur Rexs are not described as beings with attributes that would imply incorporeality. In fact, they are not mentioned at all. God, on the other hand, is.

== As I have illustrated, all other verses connect tselem with physicality, but by all means, tselem could have referred to an abstract flesh eating lizard at one point.

Which would still imply physicality.

All verses unambiguously connect tselem with a visually discernable three-dmensional form. Most scholars do not read physicality from the Psalms examples, even if we do.

== Indeed its about 10 years old—which is old news. What does that say for Westermann’s commentary published in 1974?

It says nothing. You are, of course, aware that Westermann's conclusions are favorable to ours.

== These discoveries have supported those scholars who for years have rightfully drawn our attention to underlying Mesopotamian influence on biblical texts as witnessed

For years! Exactly. So this "new" evidence in and of itself really proves nothing "new" since scholars have already conceded the Mesopotamian influence. You agreed that ten years is old news, but this was discussed in Eichrodt's Old Testament Theology ten years ago. Since the, “accounts of Babylonian culture of the creation of man, which frequently appears to have a physical similarity in mind,” he concludes that “it is certain that the original idea was of man's outward form as a copy of God's.”(p.122)

== However, most importantly, at least for our discussion, the Babylonian kingship story Enuma Elish has had a direct influence upon the creation story presented in Genesis 1-2:4a.

Well heck, even Sarna, Brettler's mentor, discusses the significance of the Enuma Elish, but he doesn't draw the same conclusion about tselem. So clearly it wasn't "compelling" for him.

== Therefore, this evidence suggests that contrary to your claim that the Akkadian phrase nibnima salam titti “let us create an image of clay” spoken by Belet-ili to Ea in a Mesopotamian myth dealing with the creation of man “doesn’t really provide anything compelling for scholars,” this discovery is very, very significant.

And again, this is old news. The proper ANE backdrop for the Old Testament texts has long since been recognized by scholars. But the next step involves applying the information and developing an interpretation based, usually in inductive reasoning.

== Thank you for sharing your expert opinion, which runs contrary to, well… real expert opinions.

As does yours. So what? When it comes to who has more scholars on their side, you lose. Period. It is poor logic to say that since term X means Y in other instances, that it must mean Y in all instances. It s an illicit leap in logic that amounts to a best guess, and I don't know any scholar who rests their case on this alone.

== I know for a fact that Michael Fishbane and Victor Hurowitz believe that this Mesopotamian text says a great deal about Gen. 1:26.

And I know for a fact that the majority of experts disagree with this interpretation of its influence. All you are left with really is an attack on the experts you don't like, which seems to have been the reason for your newer thread.

== But alas, it is quite clear that you are interested only in debate and not in the opportunity to learn something new.

Nonsense. I have asked you to present something new, and you decided to be offended. You have not been able to do this. While your commentary might seem new to the casual onlooker, it certainly isn't to me, and I can prove it. Everything you mentioned above was covered in a piece I researched more than two years ago.

I like you David. You remind me of me 5 years ago. I was always on the offensive when it came to apologetics, but I like to think I learned from my mistakes. Ultimately all this approach does is backfire, and gives the critics ammunition when they want to call us arrogant bigots or what not. Apologetics, by definition, should be about defending one's faith, not telling other theists that they have been getting it all wrong because their scholars are not really scholars. This comes across as petulant and unscholarly.

We should be content with the fact that a large portion of scholarship agrees with us that Gen 1:26 refers to a visual form. That alone provides enough plausibility for our case to silence most Evangelical bloviaters. It demonstrates that LDS doctrine is not anti-Bible. But you are not satisfied with that apologetic accomplishment. You have the taste for blood, and you won't stop until you've trashed all scholars who disagree with you.

23 Dec 2006

Kevin, once again, I do not believe that you are being disrespectful. I’m simply responding to one of the reasons that some LDS readers might see you as an attacker.

As Bushman explains, Latter-day Saints never use the “distant” surname in reference to the Prophet.

But I can assure you, it’s really not a big deal to me whatsoever. Just an observation.

Best wishes.

Joined: 23 Dec 2006

Kevin, I would certainly vote that you not receive a ban.

I always feel that you make important contributions to discussions. But even in this last post, Kevin, you illustrate a strong passion towards making things personal when they need not escalate to that level. I know that others have taken this same course against you, and we ought not to have done so.

I am truly sorry for any part that I may have played in the problem.

Once we factor into account that often those who enjoy participating in these forums are intelligent people with strong feelings, discussions are bound to get a bit heated.

I honestly believe that most people who have interacted with you, Kevin, believe that you are highly intelligent and extremely capable.

No need to continue carrying this chip upon your shoulders.

The answer to this question is an obvious, NO!

Recent exchanges here on the FAIR board have prompted the need for a new thread. Not all biblical scholars are created equal—a fact that if I had known a decade or so ago, would have saved me a lot of money.

Now I own most of the Word Biblical Commentary series and in my opinion, the only thing that these books are really good for, is their bibliographies at the beginning of each section.

To illustrate a few of the reasons that not all biblical scholars are created equal—a fact that I think would help participants and readers of the FAIR board make their way through technical arguments and formulate their own opinions—I have posted the following link to an essay by Dr. Marc Z. Brettler featured on the Society for Biblical Literature website.

I have also extracted the following paragraphs that I find particularly significant:

“Unfortunately, the growing compartmentalization and overspecialization of most graduate programs, and their over-emphasis on methods rather than text-skills will make it more difficult to train scholars who can complete such studies. To complicate matters further, many American programs are not even making sure that their graduating Ph.D. students have strong knowledge of Biblical Hebrew. Unless corrective action is taken, there will be a chasm between the continental, British, and Israeli scholars, who generally know Hebrew well, and those in the States, who often emphasize methods that talk about the text rather than engaging it closely and carefully in the original language.

Borrowing methodologies can be good, and the field of biblical studies has been enriched significantly by using methods developed elsewhere. I fear, however, that young scholars are spending so much time on these methods, that they do not have enough familiarity with the biblical text to apply these methods to the text in a responsible fashion. Certainly, over the last decade, the result has been what I would call "the social-scientification" of the field, where the Hebrew text is being replaced by graphs and models. Too many of these studies reflect a better understanding of social scientific models than of the Hebrew texts that these models are trying to elucidate.

I am also concerned about the proliferation of literary studies of the Hebrew Bible, especially about the extent to which they are replacing, rather than working in tandem with historical-critical methods. Many scholars have either explicitly claimed that literary study and historical-critical study are incompatible, or they have explicated texts in a manner that suggests that they are. This is simply incorrect — literary methods may be used in conjunction with the historical-critical method. Why can't we distinguish the literary technique of "real" Jeremiah from that of the Deuteronomic Jeremiah? Why can't we discuss J as literature, and categorize how it differs from P as literature? Furthermore, I am very concerned that too many such studies reflect religious study of the Bible masquerading as scholarship, trying to show that the Bible is the best, most perfect book ever written.

The previous comments have highlighted my fears about the future — the loss of knowledge of Hebrew, more concern with external social scientific models and literary models than with the text itself, and a growing, difficult to discern new Christian bias entering the academy, to name just a few. I do not, however, want to be painted as a total pessimist. I highlighted some positive developments that I think will continue to inform us for the future. I see further strongly positive developments as well, including a much better understanding of ideology and its role in the production and preservation of biblical texts, and an absorption of feminist models into the academy. Finally, the last decade or two has seen a remarkable change in the way that ancient Near Eastern literature is used in relation to the Bible. Instead of being employed to "prove" that Bible is better — esthetically, morally, and in every other way — than the texts or surrounding cultures, ancient Near Eastern texts are utilized in helpful comparisons that allow us to understand, rather than to evaluate. Yet, due to the structure of most graduate programs and the deep skepticism of many universities toward (under-enrolled) ancient studies, there are too few scholars who truly control the cultures and languages of more than one ancient society, enabling them to really develop these observations. Too often these texts continue to be misused, especially due to lack of proper linguistic and cultural training and sophistication. In fact, it is quite possible that this lack of good training is responsible for the spate of studies on "The Bible and," where more and more scholars are looking at reflections of the biblical text in modern literature, or in Hollywood.”

== David B: Many conservative Christians who do not want to confront the fact that today’s archeological and textual evidence negates their understanding of the Bible, will often pursue graduate work in the history of interpretation and then, return to their respective traditions presenting themselves as biblical experts.This trend, however, is only part of the problem that Brettler addresses.

But Brettler says nothing about conservative scholars in the article you linked. Sure, some American schools could do a better job than they are, but I see no intended dichotomy between Liberal vs. Conservative in Brettler's article. American schools are not strictly conservative.

== David B: The other issue is that many American programs do not place emphasis upon mastering the intricacies of biblical Hebrew and related Semitic languages

But many do. And within those programs there are scholars who received an "equal" education, yet disagree on various issues. How is this explained if all one needs is a specific level of Hebrew?

== Dale: LDS Bible scholars will argue for the viewpoint they hold, and Catholics will do the same for the positions that favor them. The same with Evangelicals, and atheists.

Naturally.

== David B: This is simply not true.

Of course it is. Are you actually saying that scholars, no matter what their religious background, do not argue for the viewpoints they hold? They're arguing for viewpoints they don't hold?

== David B: Biblical scholarship represents a highly trained—intensive discipline that requires the mastery of several ancient languages and other highly developed skills. Just because the Bible is a religious text doesn’t mean that everyone’s opinion is equally valid.

You need to understand that the majority of theological points argued from the sacred texts are a result of inductive reasoning. In other words, these are arguments in which it is thought that the premises provide reasons supporting the probable truth of the conclusion. You seem to suggest these arguments are deductive, meaning they provide a guarantee of the truth of the conclusion. Conservatives are generally those who are guilty of confusing the two by pretending their conclusions have been deduced from facts.

But scholars generally do not speak in absolute terms unless it is the overwhelming consensus that it is so. Even Brettler demonstrates this tendency in his work, by refusing to come right out and provide his audience with a discernable list of smart scholars and dumb scholars.

Your comments remind me of Tradd Button, who seems to believe truth about his preferred religion could be guaranteed by relying on the most prestigious scholars in the field- even those who are not adherents of his faith. I have demonstrated to him on numerous occasions how his preferred scholars have been proved wrong by those whom he would consider amatuers (even those with no background knowledge of the relevant language). Biblical scholarship is different of course, but the same principle holds true. Liberal scholars are generally no more objective than conservatives. My observation is that Liberal scholars, perhaps by definition, like to stir the pot, rock the boat, create change, sway from the norm, et cetera. No view can be settled enough for a true Liberal, because there is always room for a more profound understanding - especially if it flies in the face of consensus. By contrast, Conservative scholars generally hold to the traditional views. They like to keep things the way they are. The differences are not too different from the Liberal and Conservative agendas in politics.

== David B: Part of the objective of this thread is to discuss the fact that there really is a difference between a true Bible scholar and an Evangelical/Catholic Biblicist.

This is cheap polemic which I believe your primary source, Marc Brettler, would disagree with. I would like for you to get a statement from him that dismisses Evangelical and Catholic scholarship as pseudo-scholarship. His published works don't even come close to making such a dogmatic assertion

== David B: A true Bible scholar approaches the text objectively, even when it contradicts his or her personal beliefs.

You might be shocked to know this, but no scholar is truly objective. This is a truism that has been reasserted numerous times on this forum by scholars like Daniel Peterson. There are plenty of Evangelical scholars who approach the text, while acknowledging that their understanding of it conflicts with their theology. I can think of at least two worthy scholars who admitted this to me in email. Kenneth Mathews, who wrote the Genesis WBC, and Carlton Winbery who is a world class expert in Greek, both conceded the point that God may actually have an anthropomorphic form. This, in spite of their Evangelical leanings. Brettler is hardly unique because he believes the text says something that conflicts with his Jewish orthodoxy.

== David B: I think we should, however, work through the assessments of trained professionals with respect and an open, albeit critical mind.

But this seems to be at odds with your advice. First you offer a psychoanalytical statement on how an entire field of scholarship, that engulfs tens of thousands of experts, and centuries of tradition, should be casually dismissed because they are not objective. You arbitrarily toss Evangelical scholarship into the bin of worthlessness; such advice you infer from an article that makes no such recommendation in the first place.

== Dale: I think we can agree Bible scholars are not equal.

I don't. All humans are equal. But I understand the point he is making. The wording was poorly chosen, however. It seems he is basically asserting that some scholars know more Hebrew than others. Well, obviously. This is supposed to be news to anyone? This fact doesn't present a problem for anyone or anything. Rather, the problem is that David is trying to educate us as to which schools of scholarship should be trusted and which ones should be ignored. David is not qualified to pass this judgment, and even if Brettler was, he doesn't.

I have already demonstrated on the original thread that the mentors of David's preferred scholar, disagree with him on the tselem issue, proving that a plethora of viewpoints has nothing to do with knowledge of Hebrew, or liberal vs. conservative agendas, or objectivity vs. subjectivity. It is simply a matter of interpretation that is drawn from, in most cases, inductive reasoning. Arguments for probability, not guaranteed truth. That is how scholars operate, including Brettler.

So it is pointless to pretend that truth can be better obtained by focusing on one particular school of thought. Liberals disagree amongst themselves just as much as they disagree with conservatives. I think this stubborn fact kinda throws the purpose of this thread into a tail spin.

Sorry about the confusion. I just switched to MAC in order to run Accordance and I can't seem to get the quote function to work.

[Kevin] But Brettler says nothing about conservative scholars in the article you linked. Sure, some American schools could do a better job than they are, but I see no intended dichotomy between Liberal vs. Conservative in Brettler's article. American schools are not strictly conservative.

[Me] Of course I was responding to Charity’s request for further clarification on Brettler’s views regarding biblical scholarship. My comment that this trend, i.e. conservative biblical scholarship, is only part of the problem Brettler addresses, extends Brettler’s views that I have heard him express time and time again beyond the scope of the essay.

Sorry about the confusion.

[Kevin] But many do. And within those programs there are scholars who received an "equal" education, yet disagree on various issues. How is this explained if all one needs is a specific level of Hebrew?

[Me] I certainly did not state, nor do I believe, that a mastery of Hebrew is the only requirement necessary to correctly interpret an Old Testament text.

[Kevin] Of course it is. Are you actually saying that scholars, no matter what their religious background, do not argue for the viewpoints they hold? They're arguing for viewpoints they don't hold?

[Me] Yes. A good biblical scholar will quite frequently argue for the attestation of a theological view in the Bible that he or she does not personally accept. As a case in point, I provided Brettler’s explanation of tselem. However, I could have easily provided many, many more examples of this trend off the top of my head.

[Kevin] You need to understand that the majority of theological points argued from the sacred texts are a result of inductive reasoning

[Me] And inductive reasoning can only take a person so far, especially when a person lacks the necessary skills to explore the text in its original linguistic and/or cultural setting.

[Kevin] But scholars generally do not speak in absolute terms unless it is the overwhelming consensus that it is so. Even Brettler demonstrates this tendency in his work, by refusing to come right out and provide his audience with a discernible list of smart scholars and dumb scholars.

[Me] Do you honestly believe that Brettler does not have a personal list of scholars that he trusts vs. scholars that he finds less than competent? Sometime ago, I sought Brettler’s approval to take a course from Simon Parker at BU, Brettler’s response, “that would be fine, Parker is a good scholar.” Of course Brettler has a list of “smart and dumb scholars.”

[Kevin] Your comments remind me of Tradd Button, who seems to believe truth about his preferred religion could be guaranteed by relying on the most prestigious scholars in the field- even those who are not adherents of his faith.

[Me] That’s ridiculous. I happen to think David Wright is one of the best biblical scholars in the United States. David obviously does not believe that critical scholarship sustains the tenets of Mormonism.

I feel strongly enough about the importance of admitting when critical studies do not sustain one’s own religious views that I emphasized the point at the conclusion of my recent review of the Bible vs. the Book of Mormon currently posted on the FARMS web site.

I even acknowledged the fact that many critical views espoused by contemporary scholars create challenges for accepting the Book of Mormon as an ancient text.

[Kevin] This is cheap polemic which I believe your primary source, Marc Brettler, would disagree with. I would like for you to get a statement from him that dismisses Evangelical and Catholic scholarship as pseudo-scholarship. His published works don't even come close to making such a dogmatic assertion.

[Me] There really is a big difference between a true biblical scholar and an Evangelic/Catholic biblicist--even if you are not aware of it. The FAIR board regularly receives posts from Evangelic and Catholic participants who know a lot about the Bible.

Some of these posters, together with their preferred sources, even possess some skills in Hebrew and Greek. Their approach to the Bible, however, is much different than the one taken by true biblical scholars who attempt to approach the text objectively.

On this issue, I appreciate that Juliann occasionally draws our attention to the fact that these types of scholars can move between academic vs. confessional and/or apologetic spheres.

[Kevin] You might be shocked to know this, but no scholar is truly objective

[Me] But I’m not shocked to know this fact--not at all. In fact, I already pointed out in this thread the statement by James Kugel: “It is true we all have bias, but it is not true that all we have is bias.”

That pretty well sums up my point.

I am so glad to see you standing up for scholarship. I understand the self-preservation instinct when people that want to join the conversation insist that academics are irrelevant....but it astounds me that anyone would think students just play checkers (or something irrelevant) for years and have nothing more compelling to offer than a high school graduate. If it was that easy I would be in the PhD program tomorrow.

The fact that LDS students are thriving in liberal programs should be the first indication that personal beliefs do not have to interfere with scholarship....and that scholarship does not have to interfere with personal beliefs.

== Of course I was responding to Charity’s request for further clarification on Brettler’s views regarding biblical scholarship.

So David, is it at least fair to say that your extended comments are based on, not Brettler's published writings, but from your own personal interaction with him? That seems to be the case, because I find no support for any of this in the links you've provided - or his book for that matter.

== My comment that this trend, i.e. conservative biblical scholarship, is only part of the problem Brettler addresses, extends Brettler’s views that I have heard him express time and time again beyond the scope of the essay.

But that is not the problem, according to his essay, and I would be curious to wonder why he doesn't just say it, if that is truly how he feels. Where does Brettler rail into conservative scholarship, dismissing it entirely as pseudo-scholarship? I am not talking about what you infer from his nonpublished statements.

== I certainly did not state, nor do I believe, that a mastery of Hebrew is the only requirement necessary to correctly interpret an Old Testament text.

You have implied that this is the single most important factor that determines who is and who isn't a good scholar. Brettler has studied Hebrew since he was four years old, you said. He is an orthodox Jew. He criticizes university programs because they do not make sure their Ph.Ds obtain the master level of knowledge. Understanding the meaning of a text doesn't come from dwelling on methods, but rather dwelling on the intricacies of the Hebrew. And from this you justify an attack on an entire field of scholarship that consumes tens of thousands of scholars.

== Yes. A good biblical scholar will quite frequently argue for the attestation of a theological view in the Bible that he or she does not personally accept.

This is an oxymoron, and nobody said anything about a "theological" view in the Bible. How does one argue for a position he or she does not believe to be true? This is like me arguing 2+2 = 5, although I do not believe this to be the case. If someone, nay, anyone, is going to argue a position, it is because they believe it to be true. Anything else is dishonest.

== As a case in point, I provided Brettler’s explanation of tselem.

Right. And Brettler argues for a position he believes to be true. The argument is that tselem refers to a physical image. Brettler believes this. He has said as much. So how is this an example of Brettler arguing for something he doesn't believe?

Since he believes the early Genesis text to be mere "myth," and not divine scripture that truly tells us about God's nature, it is easy to see how he reconciles this with his belief that God is incorporeal. So there is no reason to make much ado about nothing.

== And inductive reasoning can only take a person so far, especially when a person lacks the necessary skills to explore the text in its original linguistic and/or cultural setting.

Inductive reasoning is limited by default, no matter what the credentials, or lack thereof.

== [Me] Do you honestly believe that Brettler does not have a personal list of scholars that he trusts vs. scholars that he finds less than competent?

You're the expert on Brettler's mindset, so you tell us; especially since you cannot seem to persuade the man to write any of these heavy opinions in a published format. What I do not believe - and I have never met the guy - is that Brettler would dismiss an entire field of scholarship a worthless, just as you have done on this forum.

== There really is a big difference between a true biblical scholar and an Evangelic/Catholic biblicist

Of course there is. There is also a difference between a true biblical scholar and a liberal blow hard that likes to pretend to be one. But you won't see me twisting this fact to argue for the universal worthlessness of Liberal scholarship as a whole.

== The FAIR board regularly receives posts from Evangelic and Catholic participants who know a lot about the Bible.

But we both know your rant is not an intended knock against the casual Bible thumper. You have attacked Catholic and Evangelical scholars for being less than true scholars. They are less than objective, you say. Their commentary series are pretty much worthless, you say. The masterpiece has been painted, and we see that conservative scholarship cannot hold a candle to Liberals like Brettler, who, unlike those laughable amatuers, have the courage and integrity to admit when a text conflicts with their own theology. Of course, I have already demonstrated this to be wishful thinking, but that seems to be the gist of your argument.

== But I’m not shocked to know this fact--not at all.

That doesn't explain your statement: "A true Bible scholar approaches the text objectively, even when it contradicts his or her personal beliefs."

So you believe no scholar is objective, and at the same time you believe only a true Bible scholar approached the text objectively.

Mr. Bokovoy is right, because in real scholarship, it's not about what you think is "true" from a theological standpoint. It's about what you can infer from the text and historical/political environment surrounding it.

To coin a phrase from Denzel Washington in Training Day, "It's not what you know, it's what you prove."

Why aren't you guys able to get it?

I never said it is "about what you think is true from a theological standpoint." That is something David added at the tail end, after the original argument.

Nobody has presented an example of a scholar arguing something they do not believe to be true. The tselem example doesn't work.

==That is something David added at the tail end, after the original argument.

This is simply not true Kevin. This has been my point all along. I quote now from my third post in this thread before you entered the discussion.

I said:

"A true Bible scholar approaches the text objectively, even when it contradicts his or her personal beliefs."

I trust that I've made my views concerning biblical scholarship clear for anyone who may be interested, but I really see no reason for me to continue this discussion.

== This is simply not true Kevin. This has been my point all along.

Your point was that Dale was wrong by simply stating the obvious.

Here is how the relevant exchanges took place.

Dale: LDS Bible scholars will argue for the viewpoint they hold

David B: This is simply not true.

Kevin: Of course it is. Are you actually saying that scholars, no matter what their religious background, do not argue for the viewpoints they hold? They're arguing for viewpoints they don't hold?

David B: Yes. A good biblical scholar will quite frequently argue for the attestation of a theological view in the Bible that he or she does not personally accept...

Your last comment took a strange twist from the original claim that Dale was wrong. Dale says nothing about a "theological view in the Bible that is personally accepted." And these strange responses are what precipitated my comments.

==Your last comment took a strange twist from the original claim that Dale was wrong. Dale says nothing about a "theological view in the Bible that is personally accepted." And these strange responses are what precipitated my comments.

One last effort in the hopes that you might actually come to understanding-- even though you continue to display a preference towards ceaseless bickering (if read in context, my points should not be that difficult to comprehend which is why I suspect that your goal is to simply quibble).

My post that you have striped from its original context was a response directed towards Dale’s assertions that when it comes to understanding the Bible, credentials don’t matter and that LDS, Catholic, and Evangelical scholars simply argue that the Bible supports their specific views.

With the terms LDS, Catholic, and Evangelical modifying the subject "scholars," I interpreted Dale’s comment to mean that every Bible scholar simply argues that the Bible supports his or her own doctrine, be it LDS, Catholic, and/or Evangelical.

This description of biblical scholarship is not true. For example, I contend that the author of Deuteronomy 5 did not believe in an anthropomorphic deity and that the text states that God is non-corporeal even though I believe as a Latter-day Saint that God possesses a physical body.

Credentials do matter and good biblical scholars admit when the Bible does not agree with their own theological beliefs. They are willing to recognize that the Bible represents an amalgamation of separate and often conflicting perspectives regarding God, man, and the universe.

Not all biblical scholars take this approach; not all biblical scholars are trained appropriately. Hence, not all biblical scholars are equal.

I hope this information and my repeated attempts to explain myself in some way helps.

== One last effort in the hopes that you might actually come to understanding-- even though you continue to display a preference towards ceaseless bickering (if read in context, my points should not be that difficult to comprehend which is why I suspect that your goal is to simply quibble).

The only preference I see being displayed here is an unfortunate tendency towards ceaseless denial; a theme that is becoming as common in LDS apologetics as in anti-Mormon polemic. You came here and stated flat out that I was wrong. You can't just walk into forums like these, start making the charges that anyone who dares to disagree is simply wrong, and then prefer to act offended when that person asks you to demonstrate the error. To do this is so Richard Abanesesque. If it seems like we're "bickering," it certainly isn't because of anything I have said. I have been as polite and cordial as possible, while you have expressed disappointment and frustration with me because I disagree. All I have done is hold to an argument I have made on this forum for years, long before you came on to the scene. Forgive me if I don't abandon my senses and humbly submit to the conclusions of LDS apologia's latest zealot.

I am not wrong about tselem, nor am I wrong in my arguments about scholarship. I wasn't wrong last year and I am not wrong now; if it can be demonstrated that I am, I would concede the point. There is nothing in the rules of Hebrew grammar that requires a physical understanding of the word, anymore than "image" in English demands a physical understanding.

I asked you to demonstrate my error, but you chose a route of condescending lecture. You then started this thread as a response, arbitrarily slamming an entire field of scholarship while citing various sources for support that don't even come close to making you're argument. Now you're apparently upset because I don't let you have the last word while continuing a fallacious argument and declaring everyone in your path "wrong."

== My post that you have striped from its original context was a response directed towards Dale’s assertions that when it comes to understanding the Bible, credentials don’t matter and that LDS, Catholic, and Evangelical scholars simply argue that the Bible supports their specific views.

Nonsense. There is nothing in the context that changes the fact that I was responding to a specific point you made in response to a specific point of Dale's. The problem is that you read into Dale's comments something he didn't say, so you proceeded to attack a straw man. I am simply pointing it out that Dale was not wrong in what he said.

== With the terms LDS, Catholic, and Evangelical modifying the subject "scholars," I interpreted Dale’s comment to mean that every Bible scholar simply argues that the Bible supports his or her own doctrine, be it LDS, Catholic, and/or Evangelical.

And the penny drops. You interpreted something from Dale's comments that he didn't really say. You prematurely called him in error before asking for clarification. Dale simply said that scholars, no matter what their religion, will argue for points that they hold. You interpreted this to mean (somehow) that scholars will argue only for their personal theological beliefs, and never anything else; that if something seems to stand in the way of their religious beliefs, then they will dogmatically fight against it no matter how illogical or irrational that may be. But Dale didn't say that, so to jump in and say "wrong" was an illicit leap to judgment. I empathized with Dale because that seems to be what you do with others you've misunderstood.

== Credentials do matter and good biblical scholars admit when the Bible does not agree with their own theological beliefs. They are willing to recognize that the Bible represents an amalgamation of separate and often conflicting perspectives regarding God, man, and the universe.

I seriosuly doubt you are telling us anything we don't already know. Indeed, I find 99% of your commentary interesting, and pretty much a confirmation of what I studied years ago; that is, until you make it come across as if is somehow a refutation of what I have said. I agree with it. I just don't agree with your conclusion on two points. 1) The backhanded dismissal of the majority of scholars (that even your own mentor refuses to categorize in convenient cubbyholes) and 2) your incessant claim that the real Hebrew experts understand God to be physical in Gen 1:26.

== I hope this information and my repeated attempts to explain myself in some way helps.

Compare these comments with this. Never wrong, but eternally misunderstood.

==You can't just walk into forums like these, start making the charges that anyone who dares to disagree is simply wrong, and then prefer to act offended when that person asks you to demonstrate the error.

But I’m really not offended Kevin. Not at all.

I’m not offended by the fact that whether the topic is tselem, biblical scholarship, or Islam, you continually demonstrate a desire to bicker;

I’m not offended by the fact that you continually try to misconstrue my arguments;

I’m not offended that you do not accept my points as valid;

I’m not offended that you called me “LDS apologia's latest zealot”;

==Now you're apparently upset because I don't let you have the last word while continuing a fallacious argument and declaring everyone in your path "wrong."

I'm really not upset. But I’m done here; so you may certainly have the last word.

I wish you well.

Dunamis: post deleted by moderator. You are wearing out your welcome here. When a scholar produces references and sources it is not adequate to tell him he is wrong when you produce nothing but rudeness. Take the brawling somewhere else.

== When a scholar produces references and sources it is not adequate to tell him he is wrong when you produce nothing but rudeness. Take the brawling somewhere else.

This is interesting since this is precisely what David has done. I produced far more scholars than he did. Haven't you been paying attention? Everyone in his path is "wrong." I have only said he is "wrong" when he wrongly accused me of being wrong. Actually, I am not even sure I said that much. I just request he demonstrate error before declaring it to be so "obvious." I kindly asked him to demonstrate where I made a mistake. He hasn't been able to do so. But he insists I am wrong nonetheless. He pretends to understand the difference between inductive and deductive arguments in scholarship. But how can one be declared "wrong" on an argument of probabilities? He didn't say we were probably wrong. We said we were wrong, period.

I have pretty much agreed with everything else. He provides no sources to demonstrate error on mine or Dale's part. None. The scholar he cites does not make the argument he does about conservative scholarship. Why is it "rude" to point this out? It isn't. Things haven't worked out the way you were hoping in these discussions, so you come in with another dramatic gauntlet slam, pretending I am the bad guy.

Maybe you should be more interested in reading what is actually being said, seeing who is actually being offensive, than you are in taking sides. Nothing in my post deserved censorship.

Fortigurn wrote:What's very telling to me about Bokovoy's use of scholarship is that he's so selective in his appeal to it. He'll take the bits which he thinks he can use to support LDS beliefs, and drop the rest. He'll appeal repeatedly to scholarship which can be interpreted favourably to the Book of Mormon, but ignore scholarship which is unfavourable.

David Bokovoy is one of my favorite posters on MA&D and one of the few people in LDS apologetics that I really respect. I've yet to see him reach for questionable apologetics to try to salvage difficult problems with the church.

While I don't agree with 100% of his conclusions I respect his perspective as a believer.

Phaedrus

Kevin] Your comments remind me of Tradd Button, who seems to believe truth about his preferred religion could be guaranteed by relying on the most prestigious scholars in the field- even those who are not adherents of his faith.

[Me] That’s ridiculous. I happen to think David Wright is one of the best biblical scholars in the United States. David obviously does not believe that critical scholarship sustains the tenets of Mormonism.

I feel strongly enough about the importance of admitting when critical studies do not sustain one’s own religious views that I emphasized the point at the conclusion of my recent review of the Bible vs. the Book of Mormon currently posted on the FARMS web site.

I even acknowledged the fact that many critical views espoused by contemporary scholars create challenges for accepting the Book of Mormon as an ancient text.

With the terms LDS, Catholic, and Evangelical modifying the subject "scholars," I interpreted Dale’s comment to mean that every Bible scholar simply argues that the Bible supports his or her own doctrine, be it LDS, Catholic, and/or Evangelical.

This description of biblical scholarship is not true. For example, I contend that the author of Deuteronomy 5 did not believe in an anthropomorphic deity and that the text states that God is non-corporeal even though I believe as a Latter-day Saint that God possesses a physical body.

Credentials do matter and good biblical scholars admit when the Bible does not agree with their own theological beliefs. They are willing to recognize that the Bible represents an amalgamation of separate and often conflicting perspectives regarding God, man, and the universe.

What's very telling to me about Bokovoy's use of scholarship is that he's so selective in his appeal to it. He'll take the bits which he thinks he can use to support LDS beliefs, and drop the rest. He'll appeal repeatedly to scholarship which can be interpreted favourably to the Book of Mormon, but ignore scholarship which is unfavourable.

Enuma Elish wrote:

Fortigurn wrote:What's very telling to me about Bokovoy's use of scholarship is that he's so selective in his appeal to it. He'll take the bits which he thinks he can use to support LDS beliefs, and drop the rest. He'll appeal repeatedly to scholarship which can be interpreted favourably to the Book of Mormon, but ignore scholarship which is unfavourable.

This claim is simply not true.

Please recall Phaedrus’ comments posted on Kevin’s other attack thread:

I would also draw your attention to the following exchanges on this thread (all of which I still stand by and am quite pleased that Kevin saw fit to hold on to):

I even acknowledged the fact that many critical views espoused by contemporary scholars create challenges for accepting the Book of Mormon as an ancient text.

You will also be happy to know that I’m in fact speaking at this year’s FAIR Conference on the importance of accepting Joseph Smith’s use of the KJV to produce the Isaiah passages in the Book of Mormon and the attestation of Deutero-Isaiah in the work.

dartagnan wrote:

What's very telling to me about Bokovoy's use of scholarship is that he's so selective in his appeal to it. He'll take the bits which he thinks he can use to support LDS beliefs, and drop the rest. He'll appeal repeatedly to scholarship which can be interpreted favourably to the Book of Mormon, but ignore scholarship which is unfavourable.

Pretty much. He is the first from the FAIR/FARMS crowd to come right out and slam the entire field of Evangelical scolarship as though it were all completely worthless, and he has done so while misusing his own professor as support. Brettler didn't even begin to make the dogmatic dismissals expressed by Bokovoy, but David tried to give the impression that he did.

David's mission is one of obfuscation and diversion, but the goal is to build testimonies, which means he automatically becmes a favorite poste at MAD; and all of this is Ok since the end justifies the means. He throws out these long diatribes that clearly only two or three readers understand, but he gets a round of applause from those who need a testimony boost. People like Phaedrus either haven't read all of his posts or they really don't see how fallacious his arguments are. I trust most others do.

Fortigurn wrote:

dartagnan wrote:

What's very telling to me about Bokovoy's use of scholarship is that he's so selective in his appeal to it. He'll take the bits which he thinks he can use to support LDS beliefs, and drop the rest. He'll appeal repeatedly to scholarship which can be interpreted favourably to the Book of Mormon, but ignore scholarship which is unfavourable.

Pretty much. He is the first from the FAIR/FARMS crowd to come right out and slam the entire field of Evangelical scolarship as though it were all completely worthless, and he has done so while misusing his own professor as support. Brettler didn't even begin to make the dogmatic dismissals expressed by Bokovoy, but David tried to give the impression that he did.

Yes, I've noticed that Evangelical scholarship is almost completely dismissed by him, and yet he'll pick up the bits and pieces which do favour his views and exalt them to the skies as authoritative.