By oudenos
So a few weeks ago I was reviewing some recent, secondary literature on the famous scene of Peter’s rebuke in Mk 8:33 (“Get behind me, Satan!”). My own interests were in the language of interscholastic (as in Hellenistic philosophical schools) rebuke and frank criticism. However, during this survey, I quite unexpectedly came upon a passage which caught my interest as a Mormon. The source is Hans F. Bayer’s Das Evangelium des Markus (Witten: Brockhaus, 2008), a volume in the Historisch-Theologische Auslegung series for the NT. The context of the passage is the exegesis of Peter’s rebuke and his misunderstanding of the concept of a messiah. Bayer first points out that Peter’s political messianic expectations clouded his own rebuke of Jesus’ assertion that he must suffer and die. He then discusses the theological implications of such misguided messianic hopes.
“Above all, this notion at the same time unwarily and perfunctorily flouts the fundamental problem of alienation from God. Furthermore this expectation underestimates the power of Satan. The divine way goes to the root of this problem.
Every religion or philosophy of life which over-plays or makes light of these root issues of the fundamental alienation from God and the power of Satan (e.g. Palestinian Judaism, the Koran, the Book of Mormon, Buddhism, the doctrine of Confucius, Hinduism; cf. also for example the Stoic philosophy of life), ultimately defies the sovereignty of God and his will, as in the case of Peter. Here also there is fundamental fact that the individual, from his own idealistic perspective, does not require a vicariously suffering Messiah. Only from the revealed perspective of God does the individual recognize his grave alienation and enmity toward God (the burden of sin) as well as the power of Satan. From this he realizes that he is existentially reliant upon the vicariously suffering and, moreover, ruling Messiah.”
I am no specialist in German translation so this rendering is a bit slavish and rough. Also I am not a theologian so I may have botched some technical terms. That being said, what is Bayer suggesting here? Why would Bayer include the Book of Mormon in the list of works, disciplines, or philosophies which either over- or under-play humankind’s alienation from God and the power of Satan? Does the BOM over- or under-play these two issues? Does it over-play the one and under-play the other?
I suppose that the statement surprised me because I think of the BOM as pretty heavy handed when it comes to the notion of humankind’s alienation and dependence upon divinity and the influence/power of Satan. Maybe Bayer is confusing some other Mormon theological developments or ideas bandied about from time to time (humans as divine entities, spirits as co-eternal with God, abolition from the concept of hell, Satan and Jesus as bros, etc.) with what the BOM itself offers.
By TT
From what I understand from teachers and students there, it is not an understatement to say that student evaluations are the most important factor in hiring at BYU’s religious education. Degrees and scholarship are nice, but student evaluations are king. Many a qualified young scholar has seen their hopes of teaching at BYU religion dashed by the low marks received in teaching. The overvaluation of the student evaluation leads to easier curriculum, rewards form over content, and encourages grade inflation. Stanley Fish, an influential scholar and NYT contributor on education, offers another important reason to be suspicious of student evaluations. In today’s Times, he makes the case that education, unlike a meal served in a restaurant, has a different time horizon that cannot be fully assessed at the end of a course:
Read more »
By g.wesley
The Church Audiovisual Department Casting Office is looking to fill 30 plus roles for a new NT film (hat tip to c-bones). I’m going to apply as the “Possessed Man.”
By TT
The opening for the Howard W. Hunter Chair in Mormon Studies at Claremont was posted today at the American Academy of Religion (members only). Sadly, Richard L. Bushman’s temporary appointment soon comes to an end. I don’t know if it is posted at other professional organizations’ job sites, but the posting at the AAR is significant.
Let this be the place for official speculation, insider information, and discussion of the flagship Mormon Studies chair!
By g.wesley
The Bloggernacle has featured no shortage of posts on the Curse of Ham. At the risk of leaving some out, I’ll mention these two posts by David G. of JI with a link to this post by Stirling of BCC, all of which take note of important non-Mormon scholarship. As may be recalled from these posts, book-length studies of the reception history of the curse are Haynes (2002), Goldenberg (2003), and Davis (2008).
Now there is another to add to the list:
Read more »
By Secco
Short answer: No one to read it, no one to write it. So, sadly: no.
Read more »
By g.wesley
In my last post I wondered aloud whether Nephi Sails the Ship of State. Since the Republic itself has a sequel, I hope it won’t be too much if I offer another Platonic reading of some of our Judeo-Christian scripture.
References to ‘intelligence’ and ‘intelligences’ in the D&C, Book of Abraham, and King Follett discourse have attracted and continue to attract a fair amount of attention. In the 19th and 20th centuries, not a few Mormons got themselves into trouble for attempting to explain what these esoteric terms mean. With its general paucity of information about pre-mortal existence, the Bible is not much help in answering the question.
Platonic tradition, on the other hand, whether of the Greco-Roman, Hermetic, Jewish, Gnostic, Christian, or Islamic variety, is quite rich in this area. For instance, in the writings of Plato himself, the soul is divided into different parts, the highest being the rational part (logistikon, logos) or mind/intellect (nous), and the soul is associated with the stars.
Read more »
By TT
Mormon Scholars Testify is a new website sponsored by the folks at the Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research (FAIR). It solicits and posts the “views and feelings about the Gospel” from LDS scholars, including graduate students. The goal of the website is to “dispel the myth” that “people of education and learning can’t be religious.” Each page is devoted to the relatively brief testimony of a LDS scholar, and features their credentials at the bottom of the page. One of the strengths is that it brings together a nice cross-section of scholars representing diverse ideological positions within Mormonism, from Armand Mauss to Jeff Lindsay.
The goals of this website are certainly laudable, and it is a pleasure to read the testimonies of so many LDS academics in one place. I found many that were very interesting to read, and was of course extremely impressed by some of the academic careers of those featured there. While I am familiar with a certain subset of LDS scholars, I was introduced to many more. Yet, I was not entirely happy with my experience navigating around the site.
While admittedly this website is still in early stages, my initial take is that many of the testimonies featured do little to seriously treat the intellectual issues at stake. The premise of the site seems to rest on the assumption that if you can simply show that “smart people” happen to believe in the teachings of the Church, that the serious intellectual issues that people face don’t need to be dealt with directly. The solution offered to the intellectual issues is the “testimony” of the scholar, not the intellectual and philosophical work to address those issues. In my view, the “testimonies” could be strengthened by reference to further reading or discussion of some other scholars who have helped to shape the testimony that is being born (though C.S. Lewis is mentioned in eight of the testimonies!).
Read more »
