I was recently reading through various commentaries on Isaiah and what experts had to say.
While the two disagree about Jeremiah 16:16 et alli, what struck me more is that the author of the one commentary is a principal contributor to the other commentary.
In a very real sense, not only do the commentaries disagree with each other, it isn’t much of a stretch to see the expert disagreeing with himself in these two excerpts.
If I go with one version President Nelson is spot on in how he uses the verses. Using the other makes it look like President Nelson’s use in the latest Sunday School lesson is the worst of proof texting.
If I go to the larger context in the Bible it gets more interesting as the authors of the Bible engaged in proof texting as what often looks like a primary tool of interpretation. So instead of proof texting looking like a failure, it looks like fidelity to how the Bible treats itself.
A definition of proof texting (I don’t want to be too redundant but don’t want to be too terse so I’m providing a link to a neutral discussion of what proof texting is).
So while I tend to look at proof texting as building a house on sand, I often have to step back and acknowledge that it has an authoritative history.
Reading the commentaries and thinking about then left me realizing that the experts did not agree on what looked pretty straightforward. As an attorney who used experts for almost forty years that happened from time to time at work.
So, it wasn’t a surprise so much as a reminder that while experts in some areas have strong science and methods, often expertise is not as firm.
At Church and with scripture I used to think that the experts ought to agree more often on what scripture meant. As I have grown older I have realized that any place there is an expert, there is room for disagreement.
In many ways this is a feature rather than a bug.
- It allows for a scripture to have multiple applications. In the example above, the same scripture can be used to discuss the scattering of Israel and the gathering of Israel.
- This means I can liken scripture to myself and not treat it as locked to one use in the far past.
- Disagreements are a good reminder that you should not just turn off your ability to think and rely on an expert.
- At the same time, it is a caution that some things do move from disagreement to consensus. Sometimes as we learn more, expertise moves from opinion to something more solid.
- There is a great deal that is firmly established. You can’t just ignore experts.
- It makes our understanding of scripture something we can be more humble of rather than certain about. The reminder we should be humble fits with the scriptural message that God expects trust and faith from us rather than certainty.
What do you take away from experts and their disagreements?
Wheat & Tares 
It would be helpful if you identified the two commentaries, since not all commentaries are created equal. Thanks.
A very thoughtful and enlightening post, thanks.
A bit of confusion here. I think we’re talking about Jeremiah 16:16, not Isaiah 16:16. Aren’t we?
Kurt. You are right and I’ve corrected that
Like. You are right and I’ve updated that.
Since we are all cafeteria Mormons (particularly at this blog), we all cherry pick our favorite scriptures and perhaps have our own unique interpretation. There doesn’t have to be a correct interpretation. All Christian churches proof-text scriptures and make questionable interpretations. And Mormons are no exception. Think of the missionary lessons. If religions have strange interpretations, why not members. I’m for scriptural relativism.
If re
Two comments…
First, I really wish the Church would incorporate some of the excellent expert commentaries from Bible scholars in their lesson materials. As things stand today, lesson manuals typically contain only quotes directly from the scriptures or from Church leaders, most of whom were not Bible scholars at all. There has been so much excellent Bible scholarship done, but heaven forbid the Church use any of it since it didn’t come from a prophet/apostle. Church members look really dumb when engaging with other Christians on Bible topics by not being aware of this Bible scholarship. There are many cases where Bible scholarship has long moved on from disagreement to consensus, yet the Church is still teaching an understanding of the Bible that is really out of date because a Church leader echoed an older understanding of the Bible decades ago.
Second, I’m not sure I agree with the fact that the writers of the Bible engaged in proof texting justifies proof texting today. It just seems to me that proof texting in ancient times is just as problematic as it is now. I’m not a Bible expert, so I don’t know how the practice of proof texting was viewed in biblical times. If it was more acceptable back then, then I can cut the Bible writers some slack. That said, I personally really dislike proof texting of scripture, so even if it was more acceptable in ancient times, I still think it should be avoided today.
Scholarly interpretations change over time, and it’s significant when they trend toward consensus. The quotation from the Jewish Study Bible in the OP is from the first edition. The second edition (OUP, 2014) says this about Jer. 16:16-17: “A judgment prophecy, possibly against Israel, portrays the enemy forces as many fishermen and many hunters that God spreads around with the mission to capture them; note that the addressees are not explicitly identified. 17: God’s role is to locate those to be punished, for He is omniscient; see 32.19.” By contrast, Pres. Nelson was using a common LDS interpretation of the “fishers” and “hunters” as LDS missionaries that was popularized by LeGrand Richards in his Marvelous Work and a Wonder (Deseret Book, 1950). It appears that Pres. Nelson came across this interpretation in the 1950s and has not given Jer. 16:16 another thought since then. In his 2006 Conference talk, cited in the Come Follow Me manual, he was simply prooftexting, in ways that do not show much respect for either scripture or scholarship.
Thanks for the update Luke.
The church believes the scriptures as long as they are translated correctly. This opens up a huge place for people to have discussions and is one of the reasons we have so many Christian Sects. The thing we don’t do as LDS people is look at ourselves and see if we are doing the same thing. Maybe the words don’t change that often (there are lots of articles about changes in LDS scriptures but I won’t go into that) but interpretations often do change. Comparing the words of modern LDS prophets shows disagreements or particular emphasis on one point or another at the expense of another point. So looking to expert’s words just adds to the problems when even the prophets can’t seem to agree let alone the apostles and hundreds of scholars over the years. We’ve become ourselves what we so easily pointed out in are article of faith, as long as they are translated correctly.