John Gee's book review and thoughts:

[_Trevor]

Thanks to all for an enlightening exhibition of the current state of the apologist/critic bloodbath. Unfortunately, or luckily, as the case may be, I have not had time to follow all of this.

I will say, with all due respect to the intelligence of the critics, many of whom I have followed with pleasure in months past, and Kevin Graham, whereever he stands these days (I do not know), that this whole Dan Peterson frenzy is getting a little old. I am not sure why it persists. Whatever it is you hope he will say, it does not appear to me that he is going to cooperate. Maybe there is a real need to repeatedly point out his refusal to cooperate, I don't know.

It would be nice to see a return to the issues at hand replace all of this phallus brandishing and gang warfare. I really have a great deal of fondness for all of you guys and gals. Although I am now using my own name, I have been on Mormon Discussions, FAIR, and ZLMB for a long time (a.r.m. once upon a time too). In other words, I am not an inexperienced newbie who is suddenly joining the conversation to bag on everyone.

Once again, Enuma Elish, thanks for the clarification. I look forward to reading what Wright is encouraging you to pursue and other things. Please direct your efforts to what I hope will be a rewarding career in research and writing instead of this. Which reminds me of that article I need to submit by the end of this month.

Final note: by basic currency, I do not intend to say that peer-reviewed articles are the only, or always the highest currency. My school wants me to publish a book, first and foremost, but they really want something done through a top press, like Oxford or Cambridge (top in my field, at least).

See you all on other threads!

[_LifeOnaPlate]

Any and all of them. ("Harumph!" responds the illustrious Guy Sajer, mightily offended at an unprecedented act of lèse majesté from one of the peasantry.) You've trumpeted them as if they ranked right up there with Newton's Principia or Darwin's Origin of Species -- or, at least, with Thorstein Veblen or Peter Drucker -- but you're really just talking about some pieces in periodicals that relatively few people read back when they were published and that even fewer people know or remember now. Pebbles tossed into a big pond. The ripples stopped a long time ago.

Hey, I know one guy who keeps those periodicals dusted and laid out on the coffee table. Like the High School football player years after graduation still wearing his letterman's jacket.

[_dartagnan]

Kevin: 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.

David: 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.

Kevin: 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.

David: 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: 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.

David: 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.

Kevin: 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.

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

Kevin: 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.

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

David: 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?

Kevin: 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.

David: There really is a big difference between a true biblical scholar and an Evangelic/Catholic Biblicist

Kevin: 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.

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

Kevin: 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.

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

Kevin: 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.

David: 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).

Kevin: 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."

David: 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.

Kevin: 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.

David: 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.

Kevin: 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.

David: 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.

Kevin: 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.

Bokovoy provided a short response indicating he was not offended by anything I have said. I wrote a short response that was immediately deleted by the moderators, which came with this explanation:

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.

I responded:

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.

And that was the end of that thread..

So tell me guys, does it look like David Bokovoy intended to make distinctions between Evangelical scholarship and real Bible scholarship? A year later he would start another post attacking Robert Ritner for bias. This guy doesn’t seem to grasp the basic axiom that there is no such thing as objectivity in scholarship, especially biblical scholarship. If real scholars are objective, then he is implying he is objective, in which case he is insulting our intelligence.

[_beastie]

In my opinion, the likelihood of serious interactions diminished dramatically when believers decided they needed a biased moderating team like FAIR, and thereby abandoned ZLMB, which was dedicated (at that time) to nonpartisan moderating. The moderating tactics of FAIR has created a lot of negative subtexts, particularly with the heavy handed treatment of critics, who then often come here. The few believers who venture here vary quite a bit in ability to deal with substantial issues, and some refuse to do so at all. (like Daniel)

At any rate, the celestial forum is more conducive to serious conversations about the actual issues, rather than all this back and forth about who said what to whom, for those who still are hopeful that serious dialogue can be had on the internet between believers and exbelievers.

Personally, I gave up on that some time ago, and view this all as a diversionary form of entertainment. I no longer am willing to invest serious energy or effort into any of it. There was no point.

[_Mister Scratch]

Enuma, where did I ever say such a thing/make such a suggestion?

Scratch: "I'm not sure why Prof. P. seems to think that a mere listing of the universities Gee and Bokovoy attended somehow salvages their crummy Mopologetic work."

Ah! Okay. Well, I guess I had forgotten that since my principle point was in noting Prof. P.'s rather dubious rhetorical tactic. In other words, my main intention was not to deride your "crummy Mopologetic work." ; )

Did you criticize it as "worthless crap" for some other reason?

No.

I'm not sure what your point is. Are you not implying that these "Evangelic/Catholic Biblicist[s]" are unobjective, and therefore "theologically driven"? If not, then why should the work of these people be dismissed?

I’m not really interested in participating in a long exchange on this board, nor do I have the time. I’m satisfied that objective thinkers will now recognize the problematic nature of Kevin’s statements regarding my work. That’s really all I was interested in establishing.

I'm afraid that I don't think you've established that. Kevin, so far as I know, has simply compared you with Gee, and has identified your underlying motive as being Mopologetic in nature. I'm not sure what about that is "problematic". Did you not say yourself that your beliefs color your work, so to speak?

Many Evangelical/Catholic and even Jewish scholars approach their work on the Bible with a critical perspective. I have little appreciation and/or interest for any work (even when produced by Latter-day Saints) that simply tries to interpret the Bible to support one’s own theological bias.

Do you limit this only to biblical studies? Or do you also disapprove of the attack pieces, ala Gee's article?

In my opinion, many Latter-day Saint publications on the Old Testament are just as guilty of adopting this non-critical objective as their Evangelical/Catholic counterparts.

Huh. I'd like to take a look. What are some of those publications?

[_dartagnan]

If my position on the sexuality of the biblical God was simply “crummy Mopologist work,” abandoning all reason in an effort to prove the validity of LDS theology, I suspect that my excommunicated academic mentor who is himself familiar with both LDS theology and biblical scholarship would have a few concerns.

More half-truths mixed with a ton of illicit presumption. David P. Wright is excommunicated, true, but he did not reject LDS theology as far as I am aware – the Church left him. In fact, he seemed confused and upset that he would be considered a candidate for excommunication to begin with. So using him as evidence that your “God had sex” agenda is not a reflection of Mormon bias, is frivolous to say the least

Interesting that at that time, Kevin criticized my approach for not entirely squaring with LDS views, whereas now he presents me as simply a mopologist driven entirely by my desire to prove the validity of LDS theology.

No link again?

It also illustrates how badly Kevin has skewed the representation of our exchanges and my posts when he states

This was a play on your previous comment about conservative Christian scholars, who you say show interest in biblical languages briefly just so they can run back to their congregations as authorities. I guess it is only an “attack” when you’re the recipient of your own criticisms.

In his efforts, Kevin has also misrepresented my alleged criticisms of Evangelical scholarship through the following statement:

As I have already illustrated above, I have not misrepresented you.

[_Mister Scratch]

It would be nice to see a return to the issues at hand replace all of this phallus brandishing and gang warfare. I really have a great deal of fondness for all of you guys and gals. Although I am now using my own name, I have been on Mormon Discussions, FAIR, and ZLMB for a long time (a.r.m. once upon a time too). In other words, I am not an inexperienced newbie who is suddenly joining the conversation to bag on everyone.

Really? What was your nom de guerre?

[_Enuma Elish]

More half-truths mixed with a ton of illicit presumption. David P. Wright is excommunicated, true, but he did not reject LDS theology as far as I am aware – the Church left him. In fact, he seemed confused and upset that he would be considered a candidate for excommunication to begin with.

Out of respect for both my Church and my friend/mentor, I refuse to enter into a discussion concerning the details of David Wright’s excommunication other than to say that I think very highly of David Wright both as a scholar and as an individual.

So using him as evidence that your “God had sex” agenda is not a reflection of Mormon bias, is frivolous to say the least.

Surely if David Wright was not capable of approaching topics pertaining to Latter-day Saints and the Bible critically, he would not have faced the situations he encountered. In addition, as I have mentioned, David Wright himself has published an important article that assumes the exact opposite position that I take when arguing for my views.

Clearly, in light of this evidence, David Wright is extremely capable of approaching a text critically rather than simply allowing his own bias to influence his interpretation in the manner you suggest.

As I have already illustrated above, I have not misrepresented you.

Indeed.

Tchau

[_Trevor]

"Really? What was your nom de guerre?"

Put up, or shut up, right?

On a.r.m. I think I was Neo... short for Neoptolemus, sometimes Bellerophon or Aristaios (I think).

On ZLMB and FAIR I was both Julian Apostate and Hyrum/Hiram Page.

Here I was Hiram Page, I think, which was shortly before I took a break.

I have done and said plenty of silly things in my time, some of which seem to have gotten my IP address blocked at MA&D. I hope you guys will allow me a fresh start.

[_Bond...James Bond]

Who is David Wright?

(I won't even ask how this thread got to the topic of him)