Krister Stendahl's exegesis of 3 Nephi

[ChinoCoug]

Now that the dust has settled on whether legitimate scholars believe the BoM is worth examining, let’s move on to the substance of their examinations. First with Krister Stendahl of Harvard Divinity School and his talk at BYU entitled "The Sermon on the Mount and Third Nephi."

The reference can be found on his Harvard vita:
http://www.hds.harvard.edu/library/b...1stendahl.html

I found the essay's value in helping the reader understand 3 Nephi even greater than its apologetic usefulness. Some excerpts:

Summary (if you don’t want to read anything else)

I have spoken out of the kind of perspective with which biblical scholars look at biblical texts. I have applied standard methods of historical critics, redaction criticism, and genre criticism. From such perspectives it seems very clear that the Book of Mormon belongs to and shows many of the typical signs of the Targums and the pseudepigraphic recasting of biblical material. The targumic tendencies are those of clarifying and actualizing translations, usually by expansion and more specific application to the need and situation of the community. The pseudepigraphic, both apocalyptic and didactic, tend to fill out the gaps in our knowledge about sacred events, truths, and predictions.

Purpose of his talk:

This is the first attempt on my part toward an exegesis of the Book of Mormon.

Similarities to Old Testament Pseudepigrapha:

And this is referring especially to chapters 11 through 26. It seems important to me that in various ways these chapters are a conscious edition not only of the teaching but of the ministry of Jesus. This revelation, which is, so to say, the New Testament part in the Book of Mormon, places much emphasis on the commission to the Twelve, and a very strong emphasis indeed on baptism and the function of baptism in the community. It begins with a revelation of the risen Lord, wherein the Thomas-text from the Bible, “put your finger here, and see my hands, and put your hand and place it in my side,” is extended — as is often the case in apocryphal and pseudepigraphic material – into a text for which a larger group, in this case the multitude, are invited to participate.”

3 Nephi’s Johanninism

All these features by which 3 Nephi differs from Matthew point in the direction toward that which we shall call a Johannine Jesus, the revealed revealer who points to himself and to faith in and obedience to him as the message. In the Matthean Sermon on the Mount, Jesus is pictured rather as a teacher of righteousness, basing his teaching on the law and the prophets, scolding the superficiality and foibles of the religionists of his time, proclaiming the will of God and the not the glories of himself. Nor does the Sermon on the Mount specifically speak of “being saved.”

As I try to cover a few more of the distinct differences, let me point to another feature that must strike us all. It is one of style. I refer to the abundance of the introductory words “verily” and “verily, verily,” the Greek and Hebrew “amen.” There are nineteen “verily” and twenty-five “verily, verily” in 3 Nephi 11-27 (there are very few in the rest of the Book of Mormon). By this stylistic device the teaching of Jesus is actually changed from moral and religious teaching into proclamation and explicit revelation of divine truth. The whole speech has thereby changed its character.

Raises a good question

Why the prayer for bread is missing in the 3 Nephi version is not easy to explain, except that there is a marked tendency away from material things. In 3 Nephi 18 and 20 we have substantial elements of two whole chapters which deal with questions of bread (and wine) in miraculous and sacramental terms.

It could, of course, be argued that the original meaning of the Greek arton ton epiousion and its Aramaic base, which KJV renders by “daily bread,” actually refers to the “day of the future,” i.e., the Messianic Banquet, and this is miraculous, sacramental and eschatological. But that is another question, since the biblical material behind the Book of Mormon strikes me as being in the form of the KJV.

After summarizing 3 Nephi 17-19:

Now, I want to ask myself and you: What is the picture of Jesus and his ministry that emerges out of all this—out of the Sermon on the Mount particularly, but also out of this whole section in 3 Nephi, and out of the whole of 3 Nephi?

There can be no doubt about some of the answers. The most striking feature that I discern when I compare 3 Nephi with Matthew or with the three synoptic Gospels is the transposition into Johannine style. The Gospel of John, as you know, is famous for the fact that to a large extent it consists of revelatory speeches or revelatory discourses.

The signs, the seven signs, are often more miraculous than they are in the synoptic…

He then gives examples of how John always amplifies things.

It may be of interest to compare the synoptics and 3 Nephi on this point also. Perhaps also here 3 Nephi is akin to John. “When God is at work, you can never understate the case” seems to be the theological principle at work to the greater glory of God.

On 3 Nephi’s Johannine style of discourse

Another feature we isolated was the transposition into revelatory speech style, which also is that of John’s including the “verily, verily” and “behold, behold” – all part of the revelatory speech style. The emphasis on faith in Jesus is not a theme in the synoptics and especially not in the Sermon on the Mount. In the synoptic Gospels one believes in God and trusts in the coming of his kingdom.

This transposition is in keeping with the whole image of Jesus’ ministry in 3 Nephi. It is not only a matter of the genre of revelatory speech. It is the very absorbing of Jesus into the image of a Redeemer and lifting him out of history into a more timeless space as the Revealed Revealer.

I love this guy.

[Chapel-Hill-Coug]

Originally Posted by ChinoCoug

Now that the dust has settled on whether legitimate scholars believe the BoM is worth examining, let’s move on to the substance of their examinations. First with Krister Stendahl of Harvard Divinity School and his talk at BYU entitled "The Sermon on the Mount and Third Nephi."

The reference can be found on his Harvard vita:
http://www.hds.harvard.edu/library/b...1stendahl.html

I found the essay's value in helping the reader understand 3 Nephi even greater than its apologetic usefulness. Some excerpts:

Summary (if you don’t want to read anything else)


Purpose of his talk:


Similarities to Old Testament Pseudepigrapha:


3 Nephi’s Johanninism




Raises a good question


After summarizing 3 Nephi 17-19:





He then gives examples of how John always amplifies things.



On 3 Nephi’s Johannine style of discourse


I love this guy.

Now you aren't saying Stendahl sees the BOM as an *ancient* targum are you? He is clear in an article related to this talk that he sees the KJV version of the bible as the source of this targumic expansion (a chapter in one of Truman Madsen's books that I can't remember off hand). He therefore sees the BOM as a 19th century document worthy of exegesis. If this was already assumed in your post then forgive me. I just wanted to clarify that in no way does Stendahl see the BOM as an ancient document.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by ChinoCoug

I love this guy.

Stendahl is great. I won't pretend I've read a lot of his stuff, but I've seen him interviewed a couple of different times and he's always left me impressed.

And he's been very kind to the church, which doesn't hurt.

Originally Posted by Chapel-Hill-Coug

Now you aren't saying Stendahl sees the BOM as an *ancient* targum are you? He is clear in an article related to this talk that he sees the KJV version of the bible as the source of this targumic expansion (a chapter in one of Truman Madsen's books that I can't remember off hand). He therefore sees the BOM as a 19th century document worthy of exegesis. If this was already assumed in your post then forgive me. I just wanted to clarify that in no way does Stendahl see the BOM as an ancient document.

Is there a reason a Harvard Divinity School theologian would consider the BoM an ancient document?

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

Is there a reason a Harvard Divinity School theologian would consider the BoM an ancient document?

Suicidal tendencies?

[Chapel-Hill-Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

Stendahl is great. I won't pretend I've read a lot of his stuff, but I've seen him interviewed a couple of different times and he's always left me impressed.

And he's been very kind to the church, which doesn't hurt.



Is there a reason a Harvard Divinity School theologian would consider the BoM an ancient document?

Exactly. I knew I was being captain obvious here, but apologists at FARMS *have* indeed used Stendahl as some kind of validation of the BOM antiquity, which has always boggled my mind. (Chino made a brief reference to the apologetic value of the talk, which is why I was unsure of how he was interpreting it.) Stendahl is nothing if not generous, tolerant of others' beliefs, and dipolomatic. His talk is a great example of these qualities, but even the excerpts quoted by ChinoCoug make it clear (to me at least) what he is really saying. If Stendahl had not made it clear in the book chapter I referred to (at least I'm almost positive that's where the quote comes from), then the only other possibility would be that Mormon as editor is doing the biblical expansion. I read a FARMS article one time that asserted that this could have been what Stendahl meant. But it simply wasn't, since he said elsewhere what he meant. As Stendahl himself wisely said, if you want to know what someone thinks or believes, go to the source itself/himself.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Chapel-Hill-Coug

Exactly. I knew I was being captain obvious here, but apologists at FARMS *have* indeed used Stendahl as some kind of validation of the BOM antiquity, which has always boggled my mind. Stendahl is nothing if not generous, tolerant of others' beliefs, and dipolomatic. His talk is a great example of these qualities, but even the excerpts quoted by ChinoCoug make it clear (to me at least) what he is really saying. If Stendahl had not made it clear in the book chapter I referred to (at least I'm almost positive that's where the quote comes from), then the only other possibility would be that Mormon as editor is doing the biblical expansion. I read a FARMS article one time that asserted that this could have been what Stendahl meant. But it simply wasn't, since he said elsewhere what he meant. As Stendahl himself wisely said, if you want to know what someone thinks or believes, go to the source itself/himself.

FARMS will grasp any morsel of vacuous graciousness from a scholar toward Mormonism and try to turn it into full-blown apologetics from a secular scholar. The clearest example may be how often they quote that dust jacket blurb Bloom gave to Givens about the Book of Mormon's "enigmatic splendors." (See Chino's signature.) But if your read what Bloom really thinks about the Book of Mormon in his writings, he presumes it is Joseph's own work, does not even really go any further than that presumption, and as a work of art (Bloom is a literary critic) he believes it is not very good, in fact not worth reading any more closely than skimming. Bloom loves Joseph in a way but not because of the Book of Mormon. Adam culled his key quotes in a nice post. Frankly, this is a prime example of FARMS's deliberate fraudulence.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Chapel-Hill-Coug

Now you aren't saying Stendahl sees the BOM as an *ancient* targum are you? He is clear in an article related to this talk that he sees the KJV version of the bible as the source of this targumic expansion (a chapter in one of Truman Madsen's books that I can't remember off hand). He therefore sees the BOM as a 19th century document worthy of exegesis. If this was already assumed in your post then forgive me. I just wanted to clarify that in no way does Stendahl see the BOM as an ancient document.

Amen. We may yet save Chino's soul.

[ChinoCoug]

Originally Posted by Chapel-Hill-Coug

Now you aren't saying Stendahl sees the BOM as an *ancient* targum are you? He is clear in an article related to this talk that he sees the KJV version of the bible as the source of this targumic expansion (a chapter in one of Truman Madsen's books that I can't remember off hand). He therefore sees the BOM as a 19th century document worthy of exegesis. If this was already assumed in your post then forgive me. I just wanted to clarify that in no way does Stendahl see the BOM as an ancient document.

You're right, in the chapter he called the BoM the KJV's "daughter." However, as he also noted, the Bible is also the source of the Pseudepigrapha's targum. And no one would deny the Pseudepigrapha's antiquity.

He may have, as you mentioned, just been being nice when not explicitly attributing a modern origin to the BoM. But If you read the chapter in conjunction with Charlesworth's chapter (which I found more compelling), even if there are modern elements in the BoM, it does not vitiate the Smith's claims. The OT Pseudepigrapha was redacted by later Christians, as Charlesworth stated. Mormon's or even JSmith's targums can be considered legitimate.

Stendahl's chapter's apologetic use is minimal and pales in comparison to its devotional use, as I mentioned in my post. It helps the devout LDS appreciate 3 Nephi's beauty and its differences from Matthew. Charlesworth's actually defends the BoM against charges of a modern origin (see other post). I didn't quote Charlesworth's article in entirety, but at the end he takes off his scholar's hat and bears his testimony in support of targum, while Stendahl does the same, with the opposite conclusion.

[ChinoCoug]

Originally Posted by Tex

Stendahl is great. I won't pretend I've read a lot of his stuff, but I've seen him interviewed a couple of different times and he's always left me impressed.

do you know the title to the temple video with the interview?