Ad Verecundiam Irony

The ad verecundiam fallacy is the appeal to authority. When an position is brought forth and the position is said to be correct simply because an authority has stated it without regard to evidence or analysis, then it is a logical fallacy.

A variation on this logical fallacy is saying that because an individual is not an authority, they have no right to talk about a subject regardless of their evidence and arguments. This tactic is used to dismiss individuals without considering their argument or evidence.

I have recently come across two instances of this logical fallacy that were rather amusing. Both of them took the following form:

Person A took Person B to task because of something that Person B published dealing with Subject X. Person C took umbrage because Person A is not considered an expert on Subject X and Person C knows of no training that Person A has in Subject X. What Person C ironically ignored is that Person B is not an expert on Subject X and has no training in Subject X either.

What this usually means is that Person C agrees with the position of Person B and not with the position of Person A. Arguments and evidence is irrelevant, as in this case are training and qualifications of the authority (because both lack expertise). The ad verecundiam fallacy is merely invoked as a way of dismissing an argument without considering it. But it remains a logical fallacy. Its use in such circumstances is amusingly ironic.

The Idea of a University

In 1386 the ruler of Heidelberg, Ruprecht I, founded the university in Heidelberg. It was the third university in the Holy Roman Empire, following after Prague (founded in 1348) and Wien (founded in 1365). It was modeled after the Sorbonne in Paris. It was inaugurated on 18 October 1386 with a mass in the chapel at the Marktplatz in Heidelberg. The first classes were held the next day, covering Paul’s epistle to Titus, Aristotle’s Physics, and Logic. The university had three faculty members, led by the Dutch scholar, Marsilius von Inghen. It was not unusual for students to be as young as twelve.

The founding documents of the university called for four faculties: theology, law (both civil and canonical), medicine, and the arts. What distinguished the university from other institutions of learning is that students were expected to study in all the subjects and to be universal in their knowledge rather than specialists in one narrow subject. Echoes of both the subjects and the approach can be seen in the opening lines of Faust in Goethe’s play by that name:

Habe nun, ach! Philosophie,
Juristerei und Medizin,
Und leider auch Theologie!
Durchaus studiert, mit heißem Bemühn.
Da steh ich nun, ich armer Tor!
Und bin so klug als wie zuvor!
(Goethe, Faust, 354-359) 

Modern universities have strayed rather far from the original intent of a university. It is typical to emphasize the students becoming specialists rather than generalists. That narrowness of vision is exactly the kind of thing that a university was originally designed (and designated) to combat.

Academia

From the New York Times:

Viewed in the least charitable terms, academia is a small fraternity of ambitious backbiters engaged in the production of work so dense that only other members of the order can hope to understand it.

 The writer then goes on to praise those who reject this idea.

Today's Quote

From Russell M. Nelson, "Protect the Spiritual Power Line" (October 1984):

"Learning can be misused! A sharp mind, misdirected, can cut into that line of spiritual power. Some 'learned' souls delight in leading others astray, all in the so-called name of learning. Years later their victims may realize that they have climbed their ladder of learning, only to find it leaning against the wrong wall."

Today's Quote

I witnessed something yesterday that reminded me of a quote by Peter Novick:

"There is nothing more tedious than the spectacle of disgruntled authors complaining that they have been misrepresented or, even worse, whimpering that they have been misunderstood. Academic authors, above all others, should be immunized from such concerns, after years of seeing the versions of our lectures we get back in blue books at the end of the term."

(Peter Novick, "My Correct Views on Everything," American Historical Review 96/3 (1991): 699.)

I have often thought I have been misunderstood. Sometimes I have even felt deliberately misunderstood. When that occurs I often remember this quote.

Alas, authors who pretend to be academic but never teach classes have no such immunization. Such immunization also avails nothing to narcissists.

A Lutheran on the Trinity

Hans Fiene is a Lutheran pastor in Illinois. I am disappointed with his anti-Mormon tendencies but I appreciate his thoughtfulness. In this video, however, he makes a point that I have often heard my friend, Lou Midgley, make:

You cannot make a popular explanation of the Christian Trinity of the creeds without falling into heresy. 

From my perspective, the formulations of the creeds tend to be incoherent gibberish, and I appreciate a good Lutheran pastor being able to articulate this. Perhaps there is some common ground we can build on.

How Many Books in a Preexilic Israelite Personal Library?

So how many books did the typical preexilic Israelite own? By books, we mean literary works or works of knowledge, not things like tax receipts and property deeds.

If I had to guess, I think that it would be pretty safe to say that the mode was zero. That means that a majority of ancient Israelites could not read and did not personally own any books. But some percentage of ancient Israelites could read. Some percentage of them did own literary texts or works of knowledge. Again, the absolute percentage need not be large, but chances are that if you were privileged enough to read, you probably wanted to possess something to read.

Unfortunately, we cannot answer that question, but we can get some idea by looking at ownership of literary works in the Neo-Assyrian empire. SAA VII 49-51 are three lists of tablets owned by various individuals in the Neo-Assyrian empire. The texts are somewhat fragmentary, but they typically list the works and how many tablets in the work, and a summary of the number of tablets accompanied by the name of the individual. Taking the entries where the total number of tablets owned is more or less intact in all of the texts, we get the following list (in ascending order by tablet):

• Aplaya owned 1 tablet


• Mushezib-Nabu owned 1 tablet


• Tabni owned 2 tablets


• Nabu-balassu-iqbi owned [x]+2 tablets


• Nabu-shum-[. . .] owned [1]5 tablets


• Assur-mukin-pale'a owned [1]8 tablets


• Shamash-eriba owned 28 tablets


• Nabu-shakin-shulmi owned [x]+37 tablets


• [...] owned 100+[x] tablets


• Arraba owned 185 tablets


• Nabu-nadin-apli owned 188 tablets


• Nabu-[. . .] owned 435 tablets

What is interesting about this list is the spread. About a third of those who owned tablets owned only one or two. About a third of them more than dozen tablets. About a third owned more than a hundred tablets. Remember these are literary texts or works of knowledge (the ancient equivalent of scientific literature). The average of those whose numbers are completely intact is 120 tablets.

I would expect ancient Israelite personal libraries to show a similar spread. Some would only own a work or two. Some would have several. What is somewhat surprising is that multiple individuals had extensive libraries, the equivalent of dozens of scrolls. We should suppose that ancient Israel would be the same.

It would be nicer to have a larger sample size. It would be nice if we had equivalent lists from Israel. But based on the information we do have, highly literate individuals with large libraries are known from pre-exilic Israelite times.

Ancient Israelites More Literate Than We Thought

This news item in the New York Times argues that ancient Israelites were more literate than previously thought. We went through this all last year. I pointed out that:

• the Hebrew Bible notes its historical sources, 


• when those sources survive, they end up being accurately represented as sources,


• epigraphic sources indicate that Israelite scribes kept annals, 


• the epipgraphic finds from ancient Israel indicates widespread Israelite scribes (with a number now noted for the eleventh century)


• the epigraphic finds indicate a professional and literate scribal class,


• the epigraphic finds enable a rough calculation of the amount of literary material in the country,

This all serves to indicate that scribes and scribal activity in ancient Israel was greater than some biblical scholars would like it to be, and all this while not requiring literacy to be as widespread as the New York Times claims. Will some people believe it now that the New York Times says it?

Types of Evidence

People who do not work across disciplines can sometimes be confused about various categories of evidence and how they are used to reconstruct the past.

Historical evidence is written evidence about the past.

Archaeological evidence is material evidence about the past.

These categories of evidence are not necessarily mutually exclusive. An inscription found in situ (in place) on an archaeological dig is both archaeological evidence and historical evidence.

We attempt to reconstruct the past from various types of evidence. Generally, historians have no training in or competence with archaeological evidence, and archaeologists generally have no training in or competence with historical evidence. There are some very notable exceptions to those generalizations; a number of scholars successfully work with both types of evidence and certain disciplines routinely work with both types of evidence.

Archaeological evidence and historical evidence provide different pictures about what happened in the past. These viewpoints might be complementary or contradictory. In both cases we can only deal with the evidence we have.

For example, the inscriptions from Til Barsip (modern Tell Ahmar) indicate that the dynastic succession at Masuwari was complicated; they do not, however, give us the names of all the rulers involved. So we can only work with inadequate evidence.

To show how the archaeological and historical record give different pictures, consider Nicaea. From historical sources we know that Nicaea was near Constantine's summer residence. We have no archaeological evidence that he was ever there or ever paid any attention to the place. The lack of archaeological evidence does not prove Constantine was never there. On the other hand archaeological evidence tells us that the theater seated 15,000. I know of no historical evidence that provides us that information. The lack of historical evidence does not mean there was no theater.

Sometimes historical and archaeological evidence overlap. Sometimes they conflict. Most of the time they do neither. Each provides its own sort of evidence. One cannot just expect the two types of evidence to corroborate each other. Much of the material in the Bible, for example, is not and cannot be corroborated archaeologically. There are points at which the archaeological record does corroborate the Bible. But archaeology does not necessarily corroborate every point one might like.

Historians not used to dealing with archaeology have a tendency to overestimate the extent to which the archaeological evidence can be expected to corroborate the historical evidence.

Some Other "Pseudo-Sciences"

Lets consider some other subject areas that fit in a recent commentator's definition of pseudo-sciences. These are areas of study without departments, majors, or even classes:

• Elamite


• Kassite


• Urartian


• Hurrian


• Luwian

There are no Elamite departments, no Kassite departments, no Urartian departments, no Hurrian departments, and no Luwian departments in North America.

There are no classes in Elamite, Kassite, Urartian, Hurrian, or Luwian. Now I actually took a class in Hurrian but it was listed in the course catalog as Akkadian, so according to our opinionated critic, that does not count. I also took some Luwian but it was as a part of a Hittite course; so therefore by the same reasoning that does not count either.

Hittite almost fits in this situation. It used to be that Hittite was taught at four universities in the United States. Now there is only one. If Hittite ceases to be taught will it cease to be a legitimate academic discipline?

Hurrian is a particularly interesting case study. Not only can one not major in Hurrian or take classes in Hurrian but:

1. We do not know where the capital of the Mitanni empire was.


2. Although we know that the Hurrians used Khabur ware, so did the Assyrians, and it has been found in Iran. So there is no distinctive Hurrian pottery. We cannot tell the difference between the material culture of the Hurrians and several other cultures in the area.


3. So archaeologically, the Hurrians are invisible and indistinguishable from other cultures in the area.

Now, we are not talking about some backwater, the Mitanni empire was a major world empire in the Late Bronze Age.

So the idea that there must be an academic program in order to have a legitimate academic discipline is specious and only pushed for ideological reasons.

Is Numismatics an Academic Discipline?

According to some:

the complete lack of recognition for the subject in any and all universities, colleges or like institutions, . . . and the absence of the slightest respect accorded to journals. There may be plenty of journals in the field, but . . . they are ignored or despised . . . . Nor, as I have said, can you take an actual degree of any kind in the subject, not even an undergraduate minor, still less a doctorate.

If it is not an academic discipline, then it is irrelevant to note how many people work in the area, not how many books appear each year. It may well be a thriving area of interest and enthusiasm, but it is in so sense an academic or scholarly discipline.

Let's take the field of numismatics, for example. Numismatics is the study of coins, particularly historical coins. This is an important source for ancient history.

Where can one major in numismatics? No college in America that I can find offers a major in numismatics. (The University of Vienna does have an Institute for numismatics, and there are claims that one can get a bachelors or masters degree in the subject, but reading the materials it appears to be a minor rather than a major). The only classes in numismatics regularly offered in America are not offered at an accredited university. Should we therefore refer to it as the "discredited cranky pseudo-science" of numismatics?

Is it perhaps that no credible academic institution of any kind, . . . views [numismatics] as an authentic or respectable academic discipline?

Tomorrow, I will suggest some other "pseudo-sciences" that fit these criteria.

More on the New Hebrew Inscription

As a follow-up on my post of yesterday, I saw this post by Christopher Rollston where he comes to the same conclusion about what the new inscriptions mean (I cite only the fourth of his six observations):

(4) The script of this inscription is that of a trained scribal professional. There is no doubt about this. The morphology of the letters was executed with precision and deftness. The spacing between words was careful and precise. The word dividers were nicely done and consistent. This inscription constitutes further evidence for the presence of trained scribal professionals in the southern Levant during the late 11th and early 10th centuries BCE (see Rollston 2006 for primary and secondary literature on scribalism and scribal education during the 9th through 6th centuries BCE). Those who wish to argue that there were no trained scribal professionals in ancient Israel and Judah during the 10th and 9th centuries continue to find themselves defending a position that is flying in the face of the epigraphic evidence for the entire southern Levant.

The Latest on Hebrew Inscriptions

Back in January, I listed the various Hebrew inscriptions according to date and in a series of posts (here, here, here, here, and here) discussed some of the implications of them.

The latest issue of BASOR arrived this week. Garfunkel, Golub, Miagav and Ganor mention that there are now six eleventh century inscriptions from the area of Israel.

This demonstrates how the accident of discovery impacts our reconstruction of history. By my count (which is subject to change) there are more eleventh century inscriptions known than there are tenth century ones.

What these new inscriptions mean is that the Israelite scribal apparatus dates about a century earlier than we previously thought.

It also shows that in certain areas it only takes a single find to completely change the subject.

The Archaeology of the Council of Nicaea

Recent, under-informed assertions about the Book of Mormon and archaeology prompt this discussion.

Let's ask a simple question:

What archaeological evidence do we have that the Council of Nicaea ever took place?

Unlike Zarahemla, or the Mitanni capital of Washshukanni, Nicaea is a site whose location is known. It has been excavated. We know what is there.

Archaeologically, Nicaea (modern Iznik) is most famous for its ceramic tiles, but they date from the Ottoman period. On the other end of the time spectrum, some neolithic pottery has been found at Iznik (Machteld J. Mellink, "Archaeology in Anatolia," American Journal of Archaeology 89/4 (1985): 549).

The theater is 1st century, a typical Hadrianic style building that would have seated about 15,000 people. (Marie-Henriette Gates, "Archaeology in Turkey," American Journal of Archaeology 98/2 (1994): 276.)

The city wall is also first century with numerous renovations in later times.

The church at Nicaea is 6th century (William Tabbernee, "Asia Minor and Cyprus," in Early Christianity in Contexts, ed. William Tabbernee [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2014], 307.) The Koimeisis Church dates to the early eighth century (SEG XLI 1099) or late seventh century (SEG XLIV 1007).

So all of the Christian structures date at least two centuries after the Council of Nicaea. This is problematic.

The epigraphic corpus for Nicaea is extensive: Sencer Sahin, Katalog der antiken Inschriften des Museums von Iznik (Nikaia), 4 vols. (Bonn: Rudolf Habelt Verlag, 1979-87). With four volumes of inscriptions plus numerous additions in the SEG (Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum), it is clear that Nicaea has more inscriptions than most Mesoamerican sites.

As far as epigraphic evidence we have:

1st century BC

• a first century BC epitaph (SEG XXIX 1289).

1st century AD

• an inscription of Nero (AD 54-68) regarding street repair (I Iznik I 13 = CIG 3743)
• two first century AD dedications on the city gate to the Flavians (AD 70-79)  (SEG XXVIII 1028-29).
• a building dedication to the Flavians (AD 78) (SEG LI 1709)
• a statue of Domitian (AD 81-96) (SEG LVII 1275)
• three first century inscriptions for Roman officals (SEG XXVIII 1025-27).
• four first century epitaphs (SEG XXVIII 1032-33; XXX 1429; XLVII 1679) 

2nd century AD

• an aquaduct inscription of Hadrian (AD 117-138) (I Iznik I 1)
• an architrave inscription of Hadrian (AD 117-138) (I. Iznik. I 30a = SEG XXIX 1282).
• an altar dedicated to Hadrian (AD 117-138) (I Iznik I 32 = SEG XXIX 1283). 
• a dedicatory inscription from the reign of Hadrian (I Iznik I 56 = SEG XXXVII 1071 = SEG XLVI 1604)
• three second century altars (SEG XXXIV 1263; SEG XLIII 897)
• thirty-one second century epitaphs (SEG XXIX 1290-91; SEG XXX 1430; SEG XXXIV 1264-65; SEG XLIX 1789; SEG LI 1710-11; SEG LV 1346, 1348-56, 1358; SEG LVI 1392-93; SEG LVII 1278, 1281-88; SEG LVIII 1447).

3rd century AD

• an honorary inscription from the reign of Elagabalus (AD 218-222) (I Iznik I 60 = SEG XXIX 1281).
• a milestone of Julius Verus Maximinus (AD 235-38) (I Iznik 21 = CIL III 12226 = 13650)
• two inscriptions of Claudius Gothicus (AD 268-70) regarding the rebuilding of the city wall (I Iznik I 11-12 = CIG 3747-48)
• four third century dedications to Zeus (SEG LV 1337-39; SEG LVII 1276)
• twelve third century epitaphs (SEG XXIX 1293; XXXIII 1080; SEG LI 1712-13; SEG LV 1344, 1357, 1359-63; SEG LVI 1394-95).
• a fragmentary third century epitaph (SEG XXIX 1292). 
• a milestone of Diocletian and Maximian (AD 286-293) (I Iznik I 22) 

4th century AD

• a fourth century epitaph (SEG XXIX 1294).
• a fourth century Jewish inscription quoting Psalm 135:25 (I Iznik II 615 = SEG XLVIII 1499) 

Undated

• an undated dedication to Ti. Claudius Aelianos Sabinos (I Iznik I 35 = SEG XXIX 1284).
• six undated dedications to Zeus (SEG XXX 1428; SEG XL 1144-46; SEG XLVII 1678; SEG LX 1338)
• an undated dedication to Zeus, Hera, and Athena (SEG XXVIII 1030)
• an undated altar dedicated to Apollo (SEG LV 1340)
• an undated altar dedicated to Hermes and Apollo (SEG LV 1341)
• an undated honorary inscription (SEG XLVII 1677)
• an undated altar dedicated to Tadenos and Okkonenos (SEG LX 1339)
• three undated altar inscriptions (I Iznik I 43 = SEG XXIX 1288; SEG LI 1709 bis; SEG LX 1340).
• three undated fragmentary dedications (I Iznik I 36, 42, 66 = SEG XXIX 1285-87; SEG XXXVI 1153).
• two undated fragmentary inscriptions (SEG XXIX 1343-44).
• fifty-nine undated epitaphs (SEG XXVIII 1034; SEG XXIX 1295-1318, 1320-24, 1326-31, 1333-38; XXX 1431-34; XXXIII 1081-82; SEG XLVII 1680-81; SEG LX 1341-49) 
• four undated Christian inscriptions (SEG XXIX 1339-42)
• four undated Christian epitaphs (SEG XXIX 1319, 1325, 1331-32)
• an undated testamentary regulation (SEG XLIX 1790)

There is no epigraphic evidence that Constantine paid the least attention to Nicaea. Furthermore, looking at the epigraphic evidence, we would conclude that fourth century inhabitants of Nicaea had converted from the worship of Zeus to Judaism, not Christianity. There is not a single inscription of Constantine's from the site.

There appears to be no archaeological evidence that Constantine was ever in Nicaea, nor that there was a Christian council held there in the fourth century, and, of course, no archaeological evidence for the content of the Nicaean Creed. Should millions of creedal Christians therefore abandon their faith? They cannot point to a single piece of archaeological or epigraphic evidence that the Council of Nicaea ever took place. No reputable archaeologist has ever produced any. I can find no record of any reputable archaeological journals that have published any archaeological evidence that the Council ever took place or that support the creed that it supposedly produced.


Anyone who has actually worked trying to integrate archaeological with historical data can spot the problems with this sort of analysis easily. Some people, however, want to apply a double standard applying different standards to the Book of Mormon than they do to other historical events.

Faking It

This news report covers another instance of an individual faking data in a widely-publicized study designed to advance a particular narrative. The lead author on the study, Columbia University Political Scientist Donald Green, has done the honorable thing upon finding that his co-author faked his data, and retracted the study. A full report can be found at Retraction Watch.

The upshot is that the individual who allegedly faked the data, Michael LaCour, has allegedly been hired as "an Assistant Professor of Politics and Public Affairs in the Woodrow Wilson School and the Department of Politics at Princeton University."

The anthropologist Jonathan Marks makes some apposite remarks:

Incompetence is not a defense, and the end does not justify the means. . . . After all, once you have established that your colleague's work is not reliable, it really doesn't matter why. If some scientists don't do good research, it is difficult to maintain that they should nevertheless still be employed and receiving grants, much less that you want to continue collaborating with them!

The problem with the "incompetence defense," then, is that it implicitly raises a question about the rest of their work and about your own judgment in standing by incompetent work. To say someone is a sloppy researcher whose work is riddled with mistakes is not a compliment, and it immediately raises the questions of why you are associated with such a person, how competent the rest of their research has been, and why they should remain at work. I can think of no other profession in which that would be tolerated.

(Jonathan Marks, Why I am Not a Scientist (Berkeley: University of Californian Press, 2009), 189.)

Kudos to Professor Green for doing the right thing and to UC Berkeley graduate students, David Broockman and Joshua Kalla, and Yale professor, Peter Aronow, for bringing this fraudulence to light. As Marks notes: "it is not in anyone's interests to find fraud, and they will go to odd lengths to avoid it." (ibid.)

[Update: Apparently Michael LaCour made up information on his CV including funding sources, and awards. Here, is an interview with Donald Green about the whole affair. Green's comments about the role of faith in scholarship are worth quoting:

On the one hand, there’s obviously the potential for abuse in that sort of situation. On the other hand, in any professional settings, if we didn’t have certain baseline assumptions that our colleagues are acting honestly, or not making stuff, everything would grind to a halt. There’s no way to not have some degree of trust baked into the research process, right?

I agree. I think that one wants to be skeptical and build in checks, but without some degree of trust one would have to build in so many checks and so much redundancy into the system that nothing would be feasible except at very high cost. So there’s a cost of ratcheting up the level of mistrust.

Scholarship rests on a certain amount of faith in the trustworthiness of your colleagues.]

Some Thoughts from Some Authorities

The following counsel is older and most comes from a time when the "New Mormon History" was the intellectual fad of the day. The name of the fad may have changed but the sagacity of the counsel has not.

In the April 1989 General Conference, Elder Dallin H. Oaks mapped the terrain of those who spoke about Mormon things:

My remarks will refer to those voices that speak of God, of his commandments, and of the doctrines, ordinances, and practices of his church. Some of those who speak on these subjects have been called and given divine authority to do so. Others, whom I choose to call alternate voices, speak on these subjects without calling or authority.

In the five years since I was called as a General Authority, I have seen many instances where Church leaders and members have been troubled by things said by these alternate voices. I am convinced that some members are confused about the Church’s relationship to the alternate voices. As a result, members can be misled in their personal choices, and the work of the Lord can suffer.

Some alternate voices are those of well-motivated men and women who are merely trying to serve their brothers and sisters and further the cause of Zion. Their efforts fit within the Lord’s teaching that his servants should not have to be commanded in all things, but “should be anxiously engaged in a good cause, and do many things of their own free will, and bring to pass much righteousness.” (D&C 58:27.)

Other alternate voices are pursuing selfish personal interests, such as property, pride, prominence, or power. Other voices are the bleatings of lost souls who cannot hear the voice of the Shepherd and trot about trying to find their way without his guidance. Some of these voices call out guidance for others—the lost leading the lost.

Some alternate voices are of those whose avowed or secret object is to deceive and devour the flock. The Good Shepherd warned, “Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.” (Matt. 7:15; see also 3 Ne. 14:15.) In both the Bible and the Book of Mormon the Savior charged his shepherds to watch over and protect the flock from such wolves. (See Acts 20:28–29; Alma 5:59.)

There have always been alternate voices whose purpose or effect is to deceive. Their existence is part of the Plan. The prophet Lehi taught that there “must needs be … an opposition in all things.” (2 Ne. 2:11; italics added.) And there have always been other alternate voices whose purpose or effect is unselfish and wholesome.

(Dallin H. Oaks, "Alternate Voices," Ensign [May 1989] .)

Some eight year earlier, in August of 1981, Elder Boyd K. Packer addressed the Church Education Symposium:

I have come to believe that it is the tendency for many members of the Church who spend a great deal of time in academic research to begin to judge the Church, its doctrine, organization, and leadership, present and past, by the principles of their own profession. Ofttimes this is done unwittingly, and some of it, perhaps, is not harmful.

It is an easy thing for a man with extensive academic training to measure the Church using the principles he has been taught in his professional training as his standard. In my mind it ought to be the other way around. A member of the Church ought always, particularly if he is pursuing extensive academic studies, to judge the professions of man against the revealed word of the Lord.

Many disciplines are subject to this danger. Over the years I have seen many members of the church lose their testimonies and yield their faith as the price for academic achievement. Many others have been sorely tested.

(Boyd K. Packer, "The Mantle Is Far, Far Greater Than the Intellect," BYU Studies 21/3 [Summer 1981]: 259.)

Elder Oaks seconded this:

I have seen some persons attempt to understand or undertake to criticize the gospel or the Church by the method of reason alone, unaccompanied by the use or recognition of revelation. When reason is adopted as the only—or even the principal—method of judging the gospel, the outcome is predetermined. One cannot find God or understand his doctrines and ordinances by closing the door on the means He has prescribed for receiving the truths of his gospel. That is why gospel truths have been corrupted and gospel ordinances have been lost when left to the interpretation and sponsorship of scholars who lack the authority and reject the revelations of God.

(Dallin H. Oaks, "Alternate Voices.")

Elder Packer told the story of the struggle one young Latter-day Saint scholar had getting a doctorate and doing a dissertation on a Mormon topic, whose non-Mormon professors insisted could not address the topic taking into account the Latter-day Saint point of view.

I must not be too critical of those professors. They do not know of the things of the Spirit. One can understand their position. It is another thing, however, when we consider members of the Church, particularly those who hold the priesthood and have made covenants in the temple. Many . . . capitulate, cross over the line, and forsake the things of the Spirit. Thereafter they judge the Church, the doctrine, and the leadership by the standards of their academic profession.

This problem has affected some of those who have taught and have written about the history of the Church. These professors say of themselves that religious faith has little influence on Mormon scholars. They say this because, obviously, they are not simply Latter-day Saints but are also intellectuals trained, for the most part, in secular institutions. They would that some historians who are Latter-day Saints write history as they were taught in graduate school, rather than as Mormons.

If we are not careful, very careful, and if we are not wise, very wise, we first leave out of our professional study the things of the Spirit. The next step soon follows: we leave the spiritual things out of our lives.

(Packer, "The Mantle Is Far, Far Greater Than the Intellect," 261.)

As a result he gave this piece of advice:

If we do not keep this constantly in mind--that the Lord directs this Church--we may lose our way in the world of intellectual and scholarly research.

(Packer, "The Mantle Is Far, Far Greater Than the Intellect," 261.)

Elder Packer warned that the problems were more prevalent in some disciplines than in others:

Those of us who are extensively engaged in researching the wisdom of man, including those who write and those who teach Church history, are not immune from these dangers. I have walked that road of scholarly research and study and know something of the dangers. If anything, we are more vulnerable than those in some of the other disciplines. Church history can be so interesting and so inspiring as to be a very powerful tool indeed for building faith. If not properly written or properly taught it may be a faith destroyer.

 (Packer, "The Mantle Is Far, Far Greater Than the Intellect," 261-62.)

There is always a temptation to write for a worldly audience.

If we who research, write, and teach the history of the Church ignore the spiritual on the pretext that the world may not understand it, our work will not be objective. And if, for the same reason, we keep it quite secular, we will produce a history that is not accurate and not scholarly--this, in spite of the extent of research or the nature of the individual statements or the incidents which are included as part of it, and notwithstanding the training or scholarly reputation of the one who writes or teaches it. We would end up with a history with the one most essential ingredient left out.

Those who have the spirit can recognize very quickly whether something is missing in a written Church history--this in spite of the fact that the author may be a highly trained historian and the reader is not.

 (Packer, "The Mantle Is Far, Far Greater Than the Intellect," 263.)

But what about addressing an audience of scholars?

Some historians write and speak as though the only ones to read or listen are mature, experienced historians. They write and speak to a very narrow audience. Unfortunately, many of the things they tell one another are not uplifting, go far beyond the audience they may have intended, and destroy faith.

(Packer, "The Mantle Is Far, Far Greater Than the Intellect," 263.)

Elder Packer gives this warning:

A destroyer of faith--particularly one within the Church, and more particularly one who is employed specifically to build faith--places himself in great spiritual jeopardy. He is serving the wrong master, and unless he repents, he will not be among the faithful in the eternities.

One who chooses to follow the tenets of his profession, regardless of how they may injure the Church or destroy the faith of those not ready for "advanced history," is himself in spiritual jeopardy. If that one is a member of the Church he has broken his covenants and will be accountable.

(Packer, "The Mantle Is Far, Far Greater Than the Intellect," 266.)

Can't we be neutral?

The idea that we must be neutral and argue quite as much in favor of the adversary as we do in favor of righteousness is neither reasonable nor safe.

In the Church we are not neutral. We are one-sided. There is a war going on and we are engaged in it. It is the war between good and evil, and we are belligerents defending the good. We are therefore obliged to give preference to and protect all that is represented in the gospel of Jesus Christ and we have made covenants to do it.

Some of our scholars establish for themselves a posture of neutrality. They call it "sympathetic detachment." Historians are particularly wont to do that. If they make a complimentary statement about the Church, they seem to have to counter it with something that is uncomplimentary.

Some of them, since they are members of the Church, are quite embarrassed with the thought that they might be accused of being partial. They care very much what the world thinks and are very careful to include in their writings criticism of the Church leaders of the past.

They particularly strive to be acclaimed as historians as measured by the worlds standard.

. . .

And I want to say in all seriousness that there is a limit to the patience of the Lord with respect to those who are under covenant to bless and protect His Church and kingdom upon the earth but do not do it.

Particularly are we in danger if we are out to make a name for ourselves.

(Packer, "The Mantle Is Far, Far Greater Than the Intellect," 267-68.)

In a 1993 talk to the BYU faculty, Elder Maxwell reminded the faculty that,

There will be no puffed vitas circulating in the next world. They stay here—in the files.
(Neal A. Maxwell, "Out of the Best Faculty")

There are those who are interested in the Mormon things that are not Mormons. So what do we do about those of other faiths? Elder Maxwell answers that question:

What, however, of our responsibilities to those beyond our communities of Saints? Church members should be good neighbors to all, cooperating with others regarding shared concerns in larger communities. This can be done, if we are thoughtful, without subordinating gospel principles or our spiritual integrity.

(Neal A. Maxwell, If Thou Endure It Well, )

So we cooperate if there are shared concerns. These might be issues of religious freedom, morality, the integrity of the family, and many others. In another talk, he illustrated these concerns:

Teaching about history’s major apostasies has long been one of the restored gospel’s “givens,” but it is not always given much attention. My aim, therefore, is internal instruction, not external persuasion, since we fully understand that certain of our beliefs are not shared by others and vice versa. But goodwill can still prevail. In fact, with you, brothers and sisters, I rejoice in the good works and the voices of faith of many in other religions. For instance, recent papal pronouncements on chastity are both appropriate and courageous, and I applaud them. So many honorable individuals in the world do so much without what we, as members, call gospel fulness, while some of us, unfortunately, do so little with so much!

(‎Neal A. Maxwell, “From the Beginning,” Ensign [November 1993])

On some issues, however, there are clear lines drawn:

I feel sorry for the few who seek to redefine the Book of Mormon in order to believe in it. But we do not invite these few to rewrite the Church’s curriculum.
(Neal A. Maxwell, "Out of the Best Faculty")

There are many good people of other faiths or no faith who are honest and fair-minded, but not all are so. Elder Packer spells out our obligations:

There is much in the scriptures and in our church literature to convince us that we are at war with the adversary. We are not obliged as a church, nor are we as members obliged, to accommodate the enemy in this battle.

(Packer, "The Mantle Is Far, Far Greater Than the Intellect," 268.)

Elder Packer cites, as an analogy, an attorney hired to protect a business firm.

Can you imagine that attorney, under contract to protect the company having fixed in his mind that he must not really take sides, that he must be impartial.

. . .

Do you not recognize a breach of ethics, or integrity, or morality?

I think you can see the point I am making. Those of you who are employed by the church have a special responsibility to build faith, not destroy it. If you do not do that, but in fact accommodate the enemy, who is the destroyer of faith, you become in that sense a traitor to the cause you have made covenants to protect.

Those who have carefully purged their work of any religious faith in the name of academic freedom or so-called honesty ought not expect to be accommodated in their researches or to be paid by the Church to do it.

(Packer, "The Mantle Is Far, Far Greater Than the Intellect," 269.)

Elder Packer is not the only one to view such matters in such a light. Hugh Nibley observed two decades before that:

When books and articles against the Church and its teachings have come out in the past, no matter how patently false and unfair they have been, none of the Church's army of professional scholars has shown any inclination to rush to the defense of the faith, though even a mercenary should show some measure of loyalty to his employer.

(Hugh Nibley, "Nobody to Blame," CWHN 17:131.)

Things may have improved slightly in the intervening half century, but proportionately they have not improved that much.

Elder Packer gives some practical advice:

I would not contribute to publications, nor would I belong to organizations that by spirit or inclination are faith destroying. There are plenty of scholars in the world determined to find all secular truth. There are so few of us, relatively speaking, striving to convey the spiritual truths, who are protecting the Church. We cannot safely be neutral.

(Packer, "The Mantle Is Far, Far Greater Than the Intellect," 270.)

When it comes to publishing and publicizing the ideas of critics of the Church, Elder Packer was blunt:

Do not spread disease germs!

(Packer, "The Mantle Is Far, Far Greater Than the Intellect," 271.)

Elder Oaks also noted where the Church stood on this:

Of course, the Church does have a responsibility to point out what is the voice of the Church and what is not. This is especially necessary when some alternate voice, deliberately or inadvertently, communicates a message in a way that implies Church sponsorship or acquiescence. . . .

Leaders must do all they can to avoid expressed or implied Church endorsement for teachings that are not orthodox or for teachers who will use their Church position or prominence to promote something other than gospel truth.

Scholarship that supports the Church may come at a price, and Elder Packer realized that:

It may be that you will lay your scholarly reputation and the acclaim of your colleagues in the world as a sacrifice upon the altar of service.

(Packer, "The Mantle Is Far, Far Greater Than the Intellect," 275-76.)

Nevertheless, he counseled:

Do not yield your faith in payment for an advanced degree or for the recognition and acclaim of the world.

(Packer, "The Mantle Is Far, Far Greater Than the Intellect," 275.)

There are hidden costs associated with hopping on the latest scholarly fad. Elder Maxwell pointed out that

A real university does not oscillate in response to all the political, social, and educational trends and fashions of a particular time. Six decades ago, though there were a few notable exceptions, German universities failed as providers of perspective. They were too concerned with becoming “politically correct.”

(Neal A. Maxwell, "Out of the Best Faculty")

Elder Oaks concluded his analysis with the following promise and warning:

In an inspired utterance, the Prophet Joseph Smith described the Lord’s “pouring down knowledge from heaven upon the heads of the Latter-day Saints.” (D&C 121:33.) This will not happen for those whose “hearts are set so much upon the things of this world, and aspire to the honors of men.” (D&C 121:35.) Those who fail to learn and use “principles of righteousness” (D&C 121:36) will be left to themselves to kick against those in authority, “to persecute the saints, and to fight against God” (D&C 121:38).

(Dallin H. Oaks, "Alternate Voices," Ensign [May 1989] .)

I have been studying apostasy for at least thirty-five years and been able to watch it at close hand in academic settings for at least thirty years. I have seen first-hand over and over that everything these apostles have said is true. Their warnings should be strictly heeded.

A Battle of the Big Boys

Academic disagreements can get quite sharp at times. When important values are called into question, the discussion gets sharper. Here is a recent example of a clash between two heavy-weights in the archaeology of ancient Israel (Israel Finkelstein and William Dever) with a medium-weight thrown in (Aaron Burke). These scholars are big boys and do not necessarily pull their punches. (I actually think Dever is being very restrained in this exchange.) At the bottom of the page is the comments section where anonymous ignorati pretend that they are able to mix it up with the big boys.

Those who have seen some recent squabbling by some Latter-day Saints (who are feather-weights by comparison) over issues in biblical scholarship might be reminded that when it comes to biblical scholarship, there is seldom consensus. Appeals to consensus are merely a way of signaling to those in the know which side an individual is actually on.

A Telling Juxtiposition

The following two quotes come from adjacent articles from the Anchor Bible Dictionary. Both deal with the topic of source criticism:

While an appreciation of stylistic difference is often to some extent subjective, the variations within books such as these are wide enough to make it unlikely that a single author is responsible for all the material.

(John Barton, "Source Criticism (OT)," ABD 6:163.)

Compare this with:

No definite evidence, however, can be drawn from differences of vocabulary and style, as any author is able to remold a written text (although not all NT writers do this), or, on the other hand, to adopt the style and vocabulary of a source in passages which he is going to write himself. Therefore, observations on different style and language can only have subsidiary importance.

 (Dietrich-Alex Koch, "Source Criticism (NT)," ABD 6:166.)

So stylistic differences are both crucial and largely meaningless for source criticism.

On Historical Discrepancies

One of the disciplinary leitmotifs of biblical studies is the search for discrepancies or inconsistencies or contradictions in the text. Supposedly discrepancies or inconsistencies indicate different sources since we all know that human beings in general and source critics in particular are entirely free from inconsistencies. Supposedly inconsistencies with historical or archaeological evidence indicates that the account is not historical.

Unfortunately, inconsistency is a staple with ancient history. Take for example the history of Til-Barsip (modern Tell Ahmar). A poetical account from Assyria tell us that in 856 BC. the Assyrians under Shalmaneser III conquered the Aramaean forces of Bit-Adini under the ruler, Ahuni, at Til-Barsip, resettled Assyrians in the city, reorganized it as a royal residence, and renamed it Kar-Shalmaneser.

We know Aramaeans were in the city because tablets bearing Aramaic inscriptions were found there. The Assyrians also left a provincial palace which is attested archaeologically, as is an expansion of the town to cover 50 hectares. Assyrian statuary, murals, and mosaics have been found.

So from Assyrian sources we know that the Assyrians conquered the Aramaic speaking nation of Bit-Adini in Til-Barsip in 856 BC. These seem to be supported archaeologically.

Now, as it so happens, a number of inscriptions from the ninth century BC. were also discovered at Tell Ahmar. From these inscriptions, in Hieroglyphic Luwian, we learn that Tell Ahmar was the home of a pair of dynasties of Luwian speakers throughout the entire ninth century. The kingship seems to have passed from Hapatilas to Ariyahinas to Hamiyatas's father (whose name is missing) to Hamiyatas to Hamiyatas's son (whose name is also missing) and back to Ariyahinas's son. These Luwian speaking rulers ruled a country called Masuwari.

The Hittite style architecture and the statuary is also attested archaeologically at the site.

So the contradictions here are huge. They include the name of the country (Bit-Adini vs. Masuwari), the names of the rulers (Ahuni vs. Hamiyatas or Ariyahinas), and whether or not there was an Assyrian invasion. There have been a variety of attempts to make sense of the historical and archaeological record but the inconsistencies are plainly there. None of those who have dealt with the evidence (Lipinski, Hawkins, Akkermans and Schwartz) seem to deny that any of the evidence that they work with was not historical or accurate; none of them deny the Assyrian conquest or the account left in poetic form.

Tell Ahmar is now on a island in a lake created by the Tishrin dam on the Euphrates and part of the tell has washed away. It is also located in the Kobane province of Syria and so not an ideal place to excavate at the moment. So it is unlikely that there will be any additional help from archaeology for a resolution of the contradictions at the moment.

Inconsistencies and discrepancies are a standard part of the historical and archaeological record. The existence of inconsistencies does not mean that the events did not take place or were not historical, nor does the fact that the historical accounts were couched in poetic form, despite what some biblical scholars might think. Navigating through such discrepancies is what historians do. Different historians will propose different theories to resolve the discrepancies in the historical evidence. The usual method of deciding which historical theory is to determine which theory best accounts for the available evidence.

On the Importance of Historical Accuracy

From the thoughtful Craig Blomberg:

Christians may not be able to prove beyond a shadow of doubt that the Gospels are historically accurate, but they must attempt to show that there is a strong likelihood of their historicity.

( Craig L. Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels, 2nd ed. [Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP Academic, 2007], 36.)

Christianity is a historical faith. If Jesus did not actually rise from the dead, then there is not much point to it.