Reading the Bible (and the Book of Mormon) literarily

[drumdude]

Bravo to Dan McClellan for the clever title. Most readers won’t see the subtle spelling- Dan is saying literarily as in literature, not literal.

I think this strikes to the heart of what Dan is so good at. Even the most seasoned religious scholars often fall into a trap of forgetting the literary context of scripture.

Here’s the video:

https://youtu.be/av0bCHwKmqk

It really cuts like a knife through the meat of most Mormon apologetics. They’re constantly spending their time focused on the literal words, and taking those words at face value. Completely oblivious to the literary context of how they were produced.

“Nephi sailed here, then went here, and over here.” The historicity of that journey isn’t the point, it’s Joseph beginning his story with a tale of adventure. Just like the stories he had read as a child. The lost pages would likely have had different place names, because they really didn’t matter to the plot. Of course he couldn’t recreate them, they weren’t material to the main idea he was trying to convey.

This kind of literary approach to reading any scripture is immensely powerful to prevent one getting stuck in the weeds wondering how all these impossible contradictions fit together. And it makes perfect sense of all the 18th century anachronisms inside the Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham. Anyone trying to read these texts literally is on a fool’s errand.

[bbbbbbb]

What about the 19th century anachronisms?

[Physics Guy]

Authorship doesn’t much matter in literature. No matter who wrote Shakespeare’s plays, people will still want to see them.

Authorship matters a lot in a tax code. If it’s the actual law of the land then you’d better obey it no matter how badly it’s written, and if it’s a fake produced by a crooked accountant to dupe clients and conceal embezzlement then it doesn’t matter how nicely it reads.

Authorship matters in a purported autobiography of a famous person. If they really wrote it themselves then you might want to read it even if they write badly, but if it turns out to be a fake then you’d only read it if it were somehow fantastic as literature.

Some Scripture can make it as literature, but a lot of it only commands interest because of its supposed source. With the Bible, the source is at least something ancient, even if it’s not Matthew or Moses or God. That’s worth something. The Book of Mormon is an authentic text from early 19th century New England, and that’s maybe worth something as well, though probably not so much, because we have a lot more other texts from that era.

[drumdude]

Authorship doesn’t much matter in literature. No matter who wrote Shakespeare’s plays, people will still want to see them.

Authorship matters a lot in a tax code. If it’s the actual law of the land then you’d better obey it no matter how badly it’s written, and if it’s a fake produced by a crooked accountant to dupe clients and conceal embezzlement then it doesn’t matter how nicely it reads.

Authorship matters in a purported autobiography of a famous person. If they really wrote it themselves then you might want to read it even if they write badly, but if it turns out to be a fake then you’d only read it if it were somehow fantastic as literature.

Some Scripture can make it as literature, but a lot of it only commands interest because of its supposed source. With the Bible, the source is at least something ancient, even if it’s not Matthew or Moses or God. That’s worth something. The Book of Mormon is an authentic text from early 19th century New England, and that’s maybe worth something as well, though probably not so much, because we have a lot more other texts from that era.

I’m not sure I agree. A major theme of modern biblical criticism is trying to figure out who wrote and/or edited specific parts of the new and Old Testament, and what their beliefs, agenda, and worldview were. We don’t usually know their names, or their reputation, but we can still try to trace their specific literary fingerprints in the texts.

Knowing which author likely wrote which section opens up a world of more accurate interpretations of the text. And helps us read it as those who wrote it intended.

[drumdude]

What about the 19th century anachronisms?

I always make that mistake lol.

[huckelberry]

Authorship doesn’t much matter in literature. No matter who wrote Shakespeare’s plays, people will still want to see them.

Authorship matters a lot in a tax code. If it’s the actual law of the land then you’d better obey it no matter how badly it’s written, and if it’s a fake produced by a crooked accountant to dupe clients and conceal embezzlement then it doesn’t matter how nicely it reads.

Authorship matters in a purported autobiography of a famous person. If they really wrote it themselves then you might want to read it even if they write badly, but if it turns out to be a fake then you’d only read it if it were somehow fantastic as literature.

Some Scripture can make it as literature, but a lot of it only commands interest because of its supposed source. With the Bible, the source is at least something ancient, even if it’s not Matthew or Moses or God. That’s worth something. The Book of Mormon is an authentic text from early 19th century New England, and that’s maybe worth something as well, though probably not so much, because we have a lot more other texts from that era.

I’m not sure I agree. A major theme of modern biblical criticism is trying to figure out who wrote and/or edited specific parts of the new and Old Testament, and what their beliefs, agenda, and worldview were. We don’t usually know their names, or their reputation, but we can still try to trace their specific literary fingerprints in the texts.

Knowing which author likely wrote which section opens up a world of more accurate interpretations of the text. And helps us read it as those who wrote it intended.

I find myself wondering a couple simple questions. Are we ever able to know for sure specifically what an author intended if considering something other than simple instructions? I might also wonder if perhaps an author may not completely understand that most important meaning of his observations.

i am not thinking of rejecting the project you mention but I do find myself thinking of Dan's thought that we all must negotiate meaning or value from the text.
At least I think Dan is saying we cannot find a most true meaning but must negotiate the limitations.

[drumdude]

I’m not sure I agree. A major theme of modern biblical criticism is trying to figure out who wrote and/or edited specific parts of the new and Old Testament, and what their beliefs, agenda, and worldview were. We don’t usually know their names, or their reputation, but we can still try to trace their specific literary fingerprints in the texts.

Knowing which author likely wrote which section opens up a world of more accurate interpretations of the text. And helps us read it as those who wrote it intended.

I find myself wondering a couple simple questions. Are we ever able to know for sure specifically what an author intended if considering something other than simple instructions? I might also wonder if perhaps an author may not completely understand that most important meaning of his observations.

i am not thinking of rejecting the project you mention but I do find myself thinking of Dan's thought that we all must negotiate meaning or value from the text.
At least I think Dan is saying we cannot find a most true meaning but must negotiate the limitations.

I think that’s correct. He’s not saying there is one correct interpretation, but there are many incorrect interpretations. Often the literal interpretation is incorrect based on context, authorial intent, history, etc.

It’s an interesting double standard that that Mormon apologists are perfectly capable of taking the creation account and Noah’s ark un-literally, but insist on taking Nephi’s journey and the rest of the Book of Mormon literally.

[Fence Sitter]

It’s an interesting double standard that that Mormon apologists are perfectly capable of taking the creation account and Noah’s ark un-literally, but insist on taking Nephi’s journey and the rest of the Book of Mormon literally.

I agree that is what some LDS apologists do but I don't see it as a double standard, at least not for the two Biblical examples you give. In my view, the value of the Bible is not dependent on the historicity of either of those two stores, while the entirety of Mormonism fails if Nephi is mythical. No historical Book of Mormon means Joseph Smith lied, that or God played the biggest joke ever on a 14 year-old boy. If Smith lied about the origin of the Book of Mormon all subsequent claims by him to divine authority are also illegitimate.
Mormonism functions quite well with a Bible that is part mythical and part historical, though I will grant that what Smith envisioned for Mormonism was a restoration of church that considered the Bible as history.

[drumdude]

It’s an interesting double standard that that Mormon apologists are perfectly capable of taking the creation account and Noah’s ark un-literally, but insist on taking Nephi’s journey and the rest of the Book of Mormon literally.

I agree that is what some LDS apologists do but I don't see it as a double standard, at least not for the two Biblical examples you give. In my view, the value of the Bible is not dependent on the historicity of either of those two stores, while the entirety of Mormonism fails if Nephi is mythical. No historical Book of Mormon means Joseph Smith lied, that or God played the biggest joke ever on a 14 year-old boy. If Smith lied about the origin of the Book of Mormon all subsequent claims by him to divine authority are also illegitimate.
Mormonism functions quite well with a Bible that is part mythical and part historical, though I will grant that what Smith envisioned for Mormonism was a restoration of church that considered the Bible as history.

I think McClellan is speaking mostly to evangelicals who take the Bible very literally, and think that it doesn’t have value (or at least, less value) if the things they take literally aren’t true. The way many of them reject evolution, for example, depends on a literal interpretation of Genesis.

I have long hoped that Mormonism would find a path towards a figurative interpretation of the Book of Mormon. I know many apologists think it’s going to absolutely destroy the religion but I’m really skeptical of that. They’ve found plenty of nuanced arguments to retroactively fix errors in their religion, and I think they’re plenty creative enough to do the same with a less literal interpretation of the Book of Mormon.

It seems some of the more liberal Mopologists are doing just that, and taking a lot of flack from the old guard. I think history will look favorably on apologists like Givens who are blazing that trail, bringing Mormon belief closer to reality.

[huckelberry]

I agree that is what some LDS apologists do but I don't see it as a double standard, at least not for the two Biblical examples you give. In my view, the value of the Bible is not dependent on the historicity of either of those two stores, while the entirety of Mormonism fails if Nephi is mythical. No historical Book of Mormon means Joseph Smith lied, that or God played the biggest joke ever on a 14 year-old boy. If Smith lied about the origin of the Book of Mormon all subsequent claims by him to divine authority are also illegitimate.

Mormonism functions quite well with a Bible that is part mythical and part historical, though I will grant that what Smith envisioned for Mormonism was a restoration of church that considered the Bible as history.

I think McClellan is speaking mostly to evangelicals who take the Bible very literally, and think that it doesn’t have value (or at least, less value) if the things they take literally aren’t true. The way many of them reject evolution, for example, depends on a literal interpretation of Genesis.

I have long hoped that Mormonism would find a path towards a figurative interpretation of the Book of Mormon. I know many apologists think it’s going to absolutely destroy the religion but I’m really skeptical of that. They’ve found plenty of nuanced arguments to retroactively fix errors in their religion, and I think they’re plenty creative enough to do the same with a less literal interpretation of the Book of Mormon.

It seems some of the more liberal Mopologists are doing just that, and taking a lot of flack from the old guard. I think history will look favorably on apologists like Givens who are blazing that trail, bringing Mormon belief closer to reality.

I've been puzzling for a little bit about this and I really cannot find in my mind an idea for what a figurative interpretation of the Book of Mormon would be.