I am once again going to draw on Alex Douglas’s book The Old Testament for Latter-day Saints for a short quotation and discussion. The context is (if you aren’t a regular church-goer) this year’s LDS Come Follow Me curriculum on the Old Testament. My earlier posts using the book are here and here.
Chapters in the book are topical. Chapter Nine is “The Old Testament as Advice,” looking at what is generally called the Wisdom Literature in the Old Testament. These books are “a repository of advice for living a good life.” The approach in these books differs from the Torah (aka the five books of Moses) and from the prophetic books. The advice offered draws heavily on similar wisdom texts from other Near East cultures. A lot of it sounds rather dated for a modern reader. And the advice and counsel offered is not particularly consistent. It’s all over the place. So what’s a modern reader, an LDS reader, to do?
Here is what Douglas proposes:
Reading the Old Testament as advice entails taking what it offers and weighing it, deciding what is useful and what is not, what is universal and what is bound to Israel’s particular culture and time. For believers, this approach locates the source of inspiration not in the Old Testament, but in the Spirit as it guides modern readers. (p.141)
I would add that it is more likely a reader’s conscience, our basic sense of right and wrong that we have developed through experience and reflection, that guides us deciding “what is useful and what it not.” The Book of Mormon links our moral conscience, our sense of right and wrong, with “the Light of Christ.” So for an LDS believer that is still a source of inspiration.
I would go further and suggest that’s an approach most of us take, and should take, not just for the Wisdom literature in the Old Testament but for the material in the Torah and the Prophets as well. There might be a few modern readers/believers who come home from an LDS Old Testament lesson and say, “Okay, that’s it, no more shellfish! That’s what the Old Testament says.” No, most of us just file that and many other pieces of advice, prophetic counsel, or commandment of the Law in the “that was then, this is now” bucket. Of course we read the Old Testament selectively. Just about everyone does.
So would you agree that this is a good practical approach for reading and evaluating Old Testament (and for that matter New Testament) passages of scripture? Namely: Take what it offers, weigh and evaluate it, decide what is useful and what is not, decide what has universal or moral relevance today and what does not. Likely result (and this is from me, not the author): a lot of what you read in the Old Testament has little or no value for a modern reader.
Does that work for you? Or do you take a different approach to the Old Testament in particular and to scripture in general?
.
Wheat & Tares 
Will we be taking advice from a talking donkey this time around? Asking for a friend.
In my opinion and observation, nobody takes pure 𝘴𝘰𝘭𝘢 𝘴𝘤𝘳𝘪𝘱𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘢 approach. That’s not a thing. There’s always somebody’s interpretation, somebody’s rationalization, somebody’s harmonization. If there’s a debate, it’s about whether to take a church leader’s interpretation, or some kind of traditional interpretation, or our individual moral conscience, ethics, sense of right and wrong, or the Light of Christ/Holy Ghost (acknowledging a conceptual overlap between moral conscience and the Light of Christ). Too often that discussion ends up in an either/or debate. Text plus authority vs text plus individual hopefully inspired interpretation.
Motivated by (but not strictly adhering to) the Catholic Church’s three sources of authority (scripture, tradition, and magisterium), and the Jewish approach which focuses on the internal consistency of the text, its historical context, and legal and ethical guidelines established by rabbinic tradition, I advocate for a multi-part approach. Text. History and Scholarship. Authority (church leaders). Personal ethics and moral conscience. And Debate and Discussion. What this entails is NOT giving final authority to any part. Not to the text. Not to church leaders. Not to my individual preference or judgment. Not to group discussion and debate. Multi-part is hard. It’s work. But in my opinion there is no other way. I don’t trust myself to do it all alone. Nor do I trust the ancient text or modern leaders. Not 100%.
So I put the question back to friend Dave B: what is your opinion of Alex Douglas’ book? It sounds like it’s not trying to add weight to my Authority leg, or History and scholarship. Does it contribute to my Debate and Discussion leg? Does it solely weigh in on the Individual preference and Judgment leg, as the quoted language suggests?
Josh h, as talking donkeys go, I counsel you to seek out Bottom in Shakespeare’s A Midsummer Night’s Dream. I’m not saying you’ll come away with wisdom, but you’ll definitely have fun.
I like your approach Dave B. By my 40s I’d mostly given up on the Bible. That attitude stemmed in no small part from rereading the 5 books of Moses in my 30s. They left me feeling much of the OT is outlandish. Some of it–sanctioned by God–is simply horrifying. And Biblical Moses is a terrifying leader I would never want to live under. I’ll take Val Kilmer’s family-friendly Moses in The Prince of Egypt any day.
In recent years, sparked by enjoying Catholic and Episcopal liturgy, I’ve jumpstarted my relationship with the Bible. Rarely a day goes by I don’t read at least a few verses. What’s the change? I no longer take it all literally, and I no longer filter it through any church’s rigid proof-texted interpretation. The Bible is filled with food for thought. It’s also super-dated and comes with quite the learning curve (like the aforementioned Shakespeare.) Still, the great thing about reading for contemplation is the book one chooses need not be perfect or make perfect sense. It just has to get you thinking.
Also, I am finally working my way through the Apocrypha. I’m only on the second book, Judith, which is shaping up to be a heist/seduction story. So entertaining! Really entertaining! I’m eager to make it into the Wisdom literature of that deuterocanonical text, which often shows up in Catholic lectionary reading.
Thanks for the post, Dave B!
All LDS scripture should be read in the manner the Jake C approaches the Tanakh and Apocrypha.
Jake – I love your line “What’s the change? I no longer take it all literally, and I no longer filter it through any church’s rigid proof-texted interpretation. The Bible is filled with food for thought. It’s also super-dated and comes with quite the learning curve (like the aforementioned Shakespeare.) Still, the great thing about reading for contemplation is the book one chooses need not be perfect or make perfect sense. It just has to get you thinking.”
If only that were the prevailing approach. The aim would be to cultivate thought rather than deliver conclusions. It’s a deeply Socratic posture. Instead, correlated materials have largely excised critical thought by outsourcing interpretation. The objective too often becomes learning the authorized reading and repeating it until it feels like one’s own. If we’re going to call scripture “revelation,” perhaps we should remember that revelation is a form of discernment, not imposition. It isn’t simply what’s on the page; it’s also what emerges between the words, in the tension, ambiguity, and questions the text provokes. That’s why I like your phrase, “food for thought.” Scripture at its best primes the pump of contemplation rather than shutting it down. It invites us into a conversation instead of ending it.
Todd, like you I no longer read the OT literally and I find the Come follow Me lessons to rather shallow. When I read the OT, I read the texts as a window into a world different from the world I am inhabitating. I can no longer read Jesus’ advent prophesied on the OT. I recently came across a quote from Joseph Campbell that argues that when we read a text literally, the meaning is lost. I am the media speciallist in my ward which gives me an excuse to blow off the Come Follow Me lessons as well as the priesthood lessons,
I think the church does a pretty good job of developing thematic lesson material–a sort of “what do we learn from this” approach. Of course, there are times when lessons are designed to nail down core doctrine–and I think that’s appropriate. But, generally speaking, it seems like the purpose of lessons nowadays are to get people talking–and those conversations tend toward the personal application of principles more than anything else.
Jack,
The Church curriculum authors assume univocality, do not deal well with scholarship, and have produced pablum which is useless in helping students understand the complexities of the actual OT. They essentially read Mormonism into the texts. Many of the “doctrines,” “themes” or “principles” developed do not exist in whole or part inside the texts themselves.
The authors could take a similar approach and discuss how Homer’s Odyssey reveals the life of George Washington.
Thanks for the comments, everyone.
Thanks, Jake C. You point out how different the OT comes across depending on how the reader approaches or frames their reading. Approaching it as “ancient Hebrew literature” (that can be read like we read other literature) rather than “inerrant Christian scripture” produces a much different experience. Interestingly, Church material generally stresses the inerrant scripture framing, but then asks “what does this mean to you?” and “how does this improve your life?” kinds of questions that are more in line with how we read and respond to literature. The Church sort of wants it both ways, calling it scripture but using it like motivational literature.
christiankimball, thanks for the comment. I’m not sure I have thought as hard about a proper framework or method of interpretation as you have. The Catholic approach is a good example for discussion, for two reasons. First, it is the Evangelical inerrancy claim, paired with literal interpretation, that is the usual target for criticism that argues for a more historical/critical reading. The Catholic approach is broader and more reasonable. And second because with scripture, tradition, and teaching authority (magisterium) it explicitly states what LDS discussion often uses without explicitly discussing criteria of authority. When an LDS speaker cites Joseph Smith or Brigham Young for saying this or that thing, that’s LDS tradition. When an LDS speaker cites something a GA said in Conference, that’s magisterium (GA’s have or claim to have the mandate and authority to teach the doctrine).
The Alex Douglas book uses the consensus scholarly view of authorship and dating of OT texts to give a more informed reading of various OT books and events. It is short, accessible for the average reader, and tailored for an LDS audience. A person can learn more about the Old Testament spending three hours reading this book than spending three decades attending LDS Gospel Doctrine. So an LDS person who actually wants to learn about the Hebrew Bible on its own terms definitely ought to read it.
On the other hand, I’m sure it’s on the “books that should be burned” list that some bureaucrat in the COB compiles, because the scholarly reading of the Old Testament used in the book does not support wacky LDS readings that are part of LDS doctrine and curriculum. Douglas includes a full chapter on Isaiah and an afterword on “the Old Testament and the Book of Mormon” that are honest and candid, but not supportive of LDS claims. At the same time, the author provides some alternative interpretive frames that an orthodox LDS reader will appreciate, softening the difficulties an informed OT reading raises for such a reader.