Methodology

Richard Elliot Friedman writes that methodology is "in largest part, about the handling of evidence." He explains that the purpose of evaluating evidence is to determine the facts in order to construct a case, as opposed to staking out a position first and then looking for evidence and arguments to back it up, which he argues is "exactly backwards."1 At some level though, this discussion is rhetorical. Everybody employs some type of preconceived methodology in their scripture reading, or at least they develop a methodology in the process. Even if that methodology lacks definition, focus, or user awareness, is utterly simplistic, or intersects with other methodologies, still, readers approach the scriptures through some type of lens with the anticipation of drawing some interpretations or conclusions therefrom. Similarly, an exclusively forward-looking approach, in practice, is theoretical only. Everybody approaches the scriptures colored by their own preconceived notions.2 Even if the individual is largely aware of their own biases and they attempt to approach the scriptures impartially, their objectivity will always be impaired to some extent through prejudicial interference. Thus, all are guilty at some level of putting the cart before the horse, so to speak.

An example from Richard Elliot Friedman's own writings may illustrate the reality of this difficulty. Friedman introduced the novel idea that Moses' Tabernacle came to reside in Solomon's temple within the holy of holies.3 Since this notion is not obvious nor alluded to in the scriptures, Friedman's a priori presumption evidently preceded the materialization of evidence and argumentation. While he provides appealing and stimulating arguments, his interpretation and conclusions seem deliberately contrived to some scholars. Victor Avigdor Hurowitz observed that "Friedman has proposed a radical rearrangement of the Tabernacle's components, thereby shrinking its measurements in comparison to standard reconstructions....Detailed scrutiny of Friedman's argumentation shows that his innovative plan is based on numerous incorrect and impossible interpretations of crucial passages in the biblical text. The Tabernacle proposed by Friedman is, consequently, completely without textual support." Accordingly, Hurowitz "rejects absolutely every aspect of Friedman's proposal."4 Whether or not there is merit to Friedman's intriguing hypothesis is tangential to the point that a tendentious interpretation of the text is required to support his hypothesis.

This isn't to say that proving a hypothesis is antithetical, after all, the very purpose of a hypothesis is to prove out the supposition; rather, it illustrates that the theoretical approach remains mostly abstract in terms of practicality. Nonetheless, a defined methodology serves a very meaningful purpose, and regardless of unintentional bias permeation, a properly scoped methodology can generate new insights, provide a shift in paradigm, yield greater appreciation for depth and complexity, and/or introduce new vistas for exploration. Primarily, it serves to furnish an understanding of the approach employed in order to assess the merits of professed results; in short, it obliges critical analysis. D.A. Carson wrote that the essence of critical thought, "in the best sense of that abused expression," is the "justification of opinions." He explains: "A critical interpretation of Scripture is one that has adequate justification--lexical, grammatical, cultural, theological, historical, geographical, or other justification. In other words, critical exegesis in this sense is exegesis that provides sound reasons for the choices it makes and the positions it adopts."5

Personal opinions, appeals to blind authority, arbitrary interpretations, and speculation are in opposition to critical exegesis, according to Carson. Adding qualification to the subject, however, he admits that "this is not to deny that spiritual things are spiritually discerned, or to argue that piety is irrelevant; it is to say rather that not even piety and the gift of the Holy Spirit guarantee infallible interpretations."6 This is an important point, since the idea of preconceptions influencing interpretations is just as real, and perhaps more pervasive, for individuals who extrapolate their own personal spiritual experiences. For example, an individual who accepts the Bible in faith as God's word based on private spiritual assurances may inadvertently assume that every word is divinely chosen, every contradiction reconcilable, every story literal, and every edited text as the original composition; it may not always occur to such individuals that the Lord could possibly sanction an imperfect text. These impositions will likely result in the assumption that one's private interpretation is reliable and accurate, being anchored in unintended spiritual extrapolation. Therefore, it is especially important to be cautious and aware of personal bias in order to heighten objectivity.

Lest there be any ambiguity regarding our purpose here, it is important to identify some points of unabashed bias. First, this colloquy recognizes The Book of Mormon and the Bible as being divinely inspired and sanctioned. Second, hermeneutics and exegesis constitute supplemental efforts in understanding scriptural texts that are secondary to divine revelation. Elder D. Todd Christofferson explained that some individuals, "place primary emphasis on the reasoning of post-apostolic theologians or on biblical hermeneutics and exegesis," in order to determine a proper interpretation of scripture. "We value scholarship that enhances understanding," Elder Christofferson continues, "but in the Church today, just as anciently, establishing the doctrine of Christ or correcting doctrinal deviations is a matter of divine revelation to those the Lord endows with apostolic authority."7 Accordingly, the purpose of our efforts here, then, are not to pretend to authoritative interpretation, rather, it is to specifically explore The Book of Mormon text by employing various methodologies in an attempt to enhance understanding. In doing so, acknowledgement is made that pure objectivity is an impossible reality, but a necessary and worthy goal.

In connection with our subtitle, "Literary Studies in Hermeneutics and Exegesis," and with the above discussion, a proper definition of hermeneutics and exegesis (since they are frequently used interchangeably) seems necessary. D.A. Carson provides a concise definition that describes The Book of Mormon studies agenda as follows:

...exegesis is concerned with actually interpreting the text, whereas hermeneutics is concerned with the nature of the interpretive process. Exegesis concludes by saying, "This passage means such and such"; hermeneutics ends by saying, "This interpretive process is constituted by the following techniques and preunderstandings." The two are obviously related. But although hermeneutics is an important discipline in its own right, ideally it is never an end in itself: it serves exegesis.8

The posts that appear in this blog may not explicitly identify when hermeneutics or exegesis is being employed since they are, at times, implicitly utilized. However, the intent is to at least identify the hermeneutical methodology when exegesis is posited, thus, the reader can more readily understand the context of proposed interpretations.


_____________________________
1 Richard Elliot Friedman, "An Essay On Method," in Le-David Maskil: A Birthday Tribute for David Noel Freedman, Biblical and Judaic Studies, Volume 9, ed. Richard Elliot Friedman and William Henry Propp (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2004), 3
2 Johanna Steibert writes, "Whilst exegesis sometimes claims to be objective and to let the text speak for itself, it is important to admit that no reader is truly neutral, or without bias. Instead, who we are, what we have experienced and what we value (e. g whether we are male/female, rich/impoverished, healthy/suffering from illness, etc.) will influence our choice of reading and how we interpret a text. Many modern methods of interpretation acknowledge such subjectivity. Such interpretations, which are often profoundly insightful, should admit to eisegesis, or "leading into" a text." Steibert is pointing out that eisegesis precedes exegesis. The former describes what is brought into the text, whereas, exegesis is what is brought out of the text. The reality is that the latter does not exist without the former in any commentary and interpretation. See Johanna Steibert, "The Bible: A History of Interpretation and Methods," in Biblical Studies, Theology, Religion, and Philosophy: An Introduction for African Universities, ed. James N. Amanze (Eldoret, Kenya: Zapf Chancery Research Consultants and Publishers, 2010), 13-14 
3 Richard Elliot Friedman, "The Tabernacle in the Temple," The Biblical Archaeologist 43/4 (Autumn 1980):241-248; Richard Elliot Friedman, Who Wrote the Bible? (New York: Harper, 1987), 173-188
4 Victor Avigdor Hurowitz, "The Form and Fate of the Tabernacle: Reflections on a Recent Proposal," The Jewish Quarterly Review 86/1-2 (Jul-Oct 1995):127-151 (especially 127); for additional discussion on the Tabernacle, see Victor Avigdor Hurowitz, "The Priestly Account of Building the Tabernacle," Journal of the American Oriental Society 105/1 (Jan-Mar 1985):21-30
5 D.A. Carson, Exegetical Fallacies, 2nd Ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 1996), 16
6 Carson, Exegetical Fallacies, 16
7 Elder D. Todd Christofferson, "The Doctrine of Christ," Ensign (May 2012), 86
8 Carson, Exegetical Fallacies, 25