“You may wish to rethink accepting this offer to pursue your graduate work at Brandies,” said my professor, “because you’ll have to take courses from David Wright, and though he would never be unkind to you because you’re LDS, the fact that he teaches at Brandeis signifies the type of critical approach to the Bible you’ll be forced to explore that as a ‘believer,’ you won’t feel comfortable with.”

To be honest, I was shocked, and really quite disappointed. Brandeis was the only graduate school I had applied to!! In my estimation, the school’s reputation for serious Old Testament/Hebrew Bible scholarship made Brandeis the only program I was at all interested in, and the fact that I had been accepted was incredibly exciting, to say the least!

“Well,” I responded, “I’m a bit concerned about it, but I really want to understand how scholars understand these issues.” “But don’t worry,” I assured him, “I’ll never buy into an idea like the Documentary Hypothesis!” Famous last words. Despite my religious convictions, it took less than just a couple of weeks of actually reading the Hebrew Bible carefully in my graduate classes to realize that there were serious inconsistencies in the biblical laws and narratives and that as an interpreter of the text, I somehow needed to explain these issues. Despite my initial resistance, source criticism was really the only way I could make any sense of these issues.

I’m not going to sugarcoat the experience. This was all very difficult for me personally, to say the least. Yet at the same time, I couldn’t help but feel excited by my newfound observations. For the first time ever, complicated books like Isaiah, not to mention Deuteronomy and Genesis, really, really made sense!

Today, I strongly believe that Latter-day Saints (and other Bible believers) should not fear to explore the academic approach to biblical studies known as “Higher Criticism.” Higher Criticism refers to a scholarly attempt to explain inconsistencies in the Bible by identifying its original sources. As an interpretive tool, Higher Criticism is an important part of what scholars today refer to as the “historical-critical method.” This expression refers to an approach to biblical interpretation that seeks to read the text “historically,” meaning in accordance with its original historic setting, and “critically,” meaning independent from any contemporary theological perspective or agenda. It does not mean that we are criticizing the Bible!

In terms of this approach, Latter-day Saints can actually turn directly to Joseph Smith as a guide. Joseph Smith loved the Bible. He believed that it was the inspired word of God. But Joseph’s testimony did not keep the prophet from recognizing that there were at times serious inconsistencies in the text. In spite of his religious convictions, the prophet taught that in the creation of the Bible, “ignorant translators, careless transcribers, or designing and corrupt priests… committed many errors.”[1] Throughout his efforts to understand and explain the text, we find in Joseph’s sermons a variety of references to alternate translations from the KJV (including the German), as well as allusions to the original Hebrew of the Old Testament. Joseph was a critical reader. “There are many things in the Bible,” he declared, “which do not, as they now stand, accord with the revelations of the Holy Ghost to me.”[3] And the prophet wasn’t afraid to point them out!

One LDS leader to recognize this point was Elder John A. Widtsoe of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. Regarding Higher Criticism and the Latter-day Saints, Elder Widtsoe wrote:

“In the field of modern thought the so-called higher criticism of the Bible has played an important part. The careful examination of the Bible in the light of our best knowledge of history, languages and literary form, has brought to light many facts not sensed by the ordinary reader of the Scriptures. Based upon the facts thus gathered, scholars have in the usual manner of science proceeded to make inferences, some of considerable, others of low probability of truth…

“To Latter-day Saints there can be no objection to the careful and critical study of the scriptures, ancient or modern, provided only that it be an honest study—a search for truth. The Prophet Joseph Smith voiced the attitude of the Church at a time when modern higher criticism was in its infancy. ‘We believe the Bible to be the Word of God as far as it is translated correctly.’ This article of our faith is really a challenge to search the scriptures critically. Moreover, the Church had just been established, when Joseph Smith under divine direction, set about to revise or explain the incorrect and obscure passages of the Bible. The work then done is a powerful evidence of the inspiration that guided the Prophet.

“WHETHER UNDER A SPECIAL CALL OF GOD, OR IMPELLED BY PERSONAL DESIRE, THERE CAN BE NO OBJECTION TO THE CRITICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE… The results of all sound scholarship are welcomed by Latter-day Saints. Higher criticism is not excluded.” John A. Widtsoe, In Search of Truth: Comments on the Gospel and Modern Thought (1930), 81-83.

Note that in his assessment of Higher Criticism, Elder Widtsoe went so far as to identify Joseph Smith as a critical reader of the Bible. Speaking personally, I agree with Elder Widtsoe. There can be no objection to studying the Bible critically. Admittedly, such an approach will prove challenging, and as “believers,” there may be some traditional understandings of the way scriptural texts were produced that we will as a result of this process have to abandon. But reading the Bible carefully and critically can be a deeply rewarding intellectual and spiritual journey.

Allow me to illustrate my point through a personal experience. Many years ago, while taking courses for my Master’s Degree in Near Eastern and Judaic Studies, I had an opportunity to take a class on the New Testament from E.P. Sanders, author of the book The Historical Figure of Jesus. In light of my own religious views, this class, which explored the New Testament from a historical-critical perspective, was both exciting and spiritually challenging at the same time.

Despite my love for the New Testament, I left with an interest and appreciation for scholarship that directly challenged my religious convictions regarding the text. So even though my own academic focus has been the Old Testament, I have always enjoyed reading a variety of critical assessments of the New Testament and have tried to keep up on scholarly research.

One day, while reading the book Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography by John Dominic Crossan, I came across for the first time Crossan’s argument that the New Testament figure Barabbas was a made-up figure by the author of Mark, and that the subsequent Gospel writers simply picked up on this fictitious account from Mark’s writings. As a Latter-day Saint Christian, my initial reaction to reading Crossan’s arguments was to simply give up on the book, since to be honest, I really didn’t like the idea that Barabbas was not an historical person. If I questioned this point, what about the validity of the other New Testament stories? But I couldn’t help it. I was intrigued. So I kept reading.

By the time I completed the section, I could see Crossan’s points. They made a lot of sense. Yet even today, I don’t know whether or not Crossan is correct (and he is certainly not the only scholar to have made this argument), but I do understand his logic. And it’s OK. More importantly, as a believer, I actually gained a fascinating insight into the story of Barabbas by not giving up on Crossan simply because I found his arguments uncomfortable. Crossan went on to explain a literary concept that over the years, I have found really quite enlightening. Mark identifies Barabbas as a lestes, a Greek term that contextually refers to a social bandit, a revolutionary, a zealot. Here are Crossan’s own words regarding this New Testament figure and his place in the Gospels:

“[Social bandits] increasing presence always indicates that the oppressed classes are being forced into armed resistance, however sporadic, ineffective, or desperate. In Greek the technical term for such a rebel bandit is lestes, and that is exactly what Barabbas is called. He was a bandit, a rebel, an insurgent, a freedom fighter–depending always, of course, on your point of view… [Jerusalem] chose Barabbas over Jesus, an armed rebel over an unarmed savior. [The] narrative about Barabbas was, in other words, a symbolic dramatization of Jerusalem’s fate.”[4]

In other words, the story of Barabbas serves as a type of foreshadowing, typifying the fact that in the Gospels, Jerusalem chose a violent man over the Prince of Peace. Jerusalem could have followed Jesus’ concept of kingdom, but instead chose the type of kingdom offered by the zealot, the lestes, and Jerusalem eventually suffered violence as a result. We see this very concept expressed by Jesus in his statement to the disciple who attempted to protect his Lord the night Jesus was arrested: “Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword” (Matt 26:52).

I’ve always loved this insight, and have referred to it often when teaching the New Testament in a Church setting. But if I had followed my initial instinct and given up on the book because the overall argument made me feel uncomfortable, I would have missed it.

In fact, whether we’re talking Old or New Testament, many of the most exciting ideas that I’ve come across throughout the years in terms of biblical interpretation have come directly from critical scholars.

I share this personal experience because I recognize that some scholarly theories on the development of the Bible will no doubt cause some Latter-day Saint readers to feel a bit uncomfortable. In my own life, however, I have found that this is not a bad thing. Speaking personally, I believe that it is healthy for each of us to question our assumptions and to continually use the incredible gift God has given us to search for truth: our brain. I do not believe that we should be afraid to ask questions and entertain challenging religious issues. In fact, I can honestly say that I believe that as children of God, we’re supposed to!

LDS Church leader Elder B.H. Roberts recognized the importance of this concept. And I’ll simply conclude this post by citing his words. Concerning the Book of Mormon and Higher Criticism, Elder Roberts wrote:

“The Book of Mormon of necessity must submit to every test, to literary criticism, as well as to every other class of criticism; for our age is above all things critical, and especially critical of sacred literature, and we may not hope that the Book of Mormon will escape closest scrutiny; neither, indeed, is it desirable that it should escape. It is given to the world as a revelation from God. It is a volume of American scripture. Men have a right to test it by the keenest criticism, and to pass severest judgment upon it, and we who accept it as a revelation from God have every reason to believe that it will endure every test; and the more thoroughly it is investigated, the greater shall be its ultimate triumph. Here it is in the world; let the world make the most of it, or the least of it. It is and will remain true. But it will not do for those who believe it to suppose that they can dismiss objections to this American volume of scripture by the assumption of a lofty air of superiority, and a declaration as to what is enough for us or anybody else to know. The Book of Mormon is presented to the world for its acceptance; and the Latter-day Saints are anxious that their fellow men should believe it. If objections are made to it, to the manner of its translation, with the rest, these objections should be patiently investigated, and the most reasonable explanations possible, given.”[5]