Historically, scripture commentaries are like the red-headed
stepchildren among texts in the church. Elder Bruce R. McConkie has written that on a scale of one
to ten, (with ten being “most useful”), scripture commentaries rate about a one
or two. (1)
Still, it is worth noting that he included the use of
commentaries and dictionaries as part of a list of twelve keys for
understanding the Bible. This
shows that even though he rated their value low, he did use them.
Let me quote the part of his talk that relates to
commentaries:
Anything to be said under this
heading [of commentaries and dictionaries] is more of a warning than an
endorsement. On historical and geographical matters, these uninspired writings
rate as one or two; on doctrinal matters they drop off the scale to a minus
ten, a minus one hundred, a minus one thousand, depending on the doctrine.
The wise and the learned know so
infinitesimally little about doctrine that it is almost a waste of time to read
them. All their creeds are an abomination in the Lord’s sight. They teach for
doctrines the commandments of men. They twist and pervert the scriptures to
conform to their traditions; and if they get anything right, it is an accident.
One says Jesus did not walk on the
water, for that is impossible; rather, he waded in the surf.
Another says He did not feed the
five thousand by multiplying loaves and fishes, for that is contrary to all
nature; rather, many in the congregation carried food in their knapsacks but
were afraid to take it out lest they would have to share it with others. Jesus
merely taught them to share.
Yet another says we need not look
for the Second Coming in the literal sense, for surely Christ is no longer a
man who can dwell again among men; rather the Second Coming takes place
wherever Christ dwells in the heart of a man.
What can the commentaries of the
world teach us about the personal nature of God; about the premortal existence,
the war in heaven, and the eternal plan of salvation; abut the fall of man with
its temporal and spiritual death; about the paradisiacal creation that is to be
restored during the Millennium; about the Melchizedek Priesthood and its
various offices; about the literal gathering of Israel and the restoration of
the ten tribes upon the mountains of Israel; about the preaching to the spirits
in prison and the doctrine of salvation for the dead; about temples and
celestial marriage and the continuation of the family unit in eternity; about
gifts and signs and miracles; about a universal apostasy, a glorious day of
restoration, and the coming forth of the Book of Mormon; about the atonement of
Christ, which makes salvation available on conditions of obedience; about the
three degrees of glory; about exaltation in the highest heaven of the celestial
world where men will be joint heirs with Christ; about almost every basic
doctrine of salvation?
My fellow teachers, all these
things, and ten thousand more, have come from God in heaven to us in this final
dispensation of grace by direct revelation. They are the truths that make
salvation available, and they are not to be found in the tomes of the scholars
of the world. (ibid, pp127-128)
It may seem like McConkie completely discourages use of
commentaries, but actually if we carefully parse what he says, it becomes clear
that he gives a qualified endorsement.
If he discouraged them, he would not include them in the list of keys at
all.
What he is disgusted with is those sectarian commentaries that try to
give naturalistic explanations of miracles and that deny the future Second
Coming of Christ. He gives
those as the most blatant examples of what an uninspired commentary does, so
that we can be warned not to swallow those views, or others that are dismissive
of important principles, miracles, or prophecies. McConkie called them "almost a waste time," which means that they weren't completely a waste of time, but they were close because their doctrine was off.
While he asks, “What can the commentaries of the world teach
us about [big list of LDS doctrines]?” this implies that good commentaries
(which would necessarily have to be LDS or LDS-friendly) would be ones that throw
additional light on those doctrines or reveal them in the Bible where they were
not noticed before.
Also, it is worth noting that he appreciates the historical
and geographical matters that are explained in commentaries, even if he rated
them low.
Since scripture commentaries can be well-done or badly-done,
the church understandably prefers to privilege study of the scriptures far over
study of derivative works.
This is about going to the source, rather than going downstream for
water.
However, we must also think about what resources exist for
enabling people to learn more about the scriptures. Everyone has access to the same spiritual resort of prayer
and fasting to learn more. (“If
any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God”)
There are more ways of learning than just this, though. Let’s not forget the great potential
for good teachers to influence and mold our perceptions of scripture texts, to
draw out meaning for us to see and to help us find personal application. (“Teach ye diligently and my grace
shall attend you”) Books help us gain access to good teachers when we can’t be
personally with them. ("Seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom")
Sometimes we don’t understand a text because we don’t know how to understand it. We need guidance. In this situation, commentaries can
become very helpful because they create a frame of reference from which to
interpret the text. Of course,
they can’t be considered unbiased—all frames of reference have some sort of
bias—but they can be considered at least a starting point for acquiring a better
understanding.
There are some texts that are traditionally difficult for us
as members to get our minds around.
(Cough. Isaiah. Cough.) Part of the difficulty is that
our formal discussions of them are hurried because of time constraints in
Sunday school classes. When
there isn’t much discussion, it is easy to think that there must not be
anything important there if the topic isn’t given much time or space to be
covered.
When I first started reading commentaries, I started with
the seminary and institute manuals and I considered them to be authoritative
and complete. I thought everything
that I might ever need to know would be in them. I also thought that anything that disagreed with them had to
be automatically wrong.
As I continued to study the scriptures and deepen my
understanding, I began to have questions about parts of the texts, and when I
went to the seminary and institute manuals I couldn’t find anything. That’s when I discovered they were not
as complete as I had initially thought.
Also, I began to see things in the scriptures that I hadn’t
seen before and which I hadn’t seen any hints of in scripture
commentaries. I started to look in
other commentaries to see if I could find anyone who had written something that
noticed what I saw and came to the same conclusions. (I was seeking validation, you see.) I couldn’t find one who
had. Sometimes I felt they got
close, but not close enough. This
meant one of two things—either no one had written about the things I learned
because they were wrong and I was totally off base, or no one had written them
because they hadn’t thought of them.
(And now I know there was a third possibility too—that what I wrote perhaps
was too speculative to be put in a commentary or had too narrow of an
application.)
Well, I chose to believe that the things I found hadn’t been
written because no one had thought of them. So I started writing them, hoping I could make a
contribution to interpretive thought about the scriptures. (I learned in time that people may have
had the same thoughts, but they hadn’t written them down, or they hadn’t
published them.)
Another thing I noticed was that outside of LDS thought, the
sectarian Christian world had oodles and oodles of commentaries about the Bible and that
they had quite a variety of thoughts on the same things. (Not much has changed since Joseph
Smith’s day that different religionists understand the same passages of
scriptures very differently almost to the point of destroying confidence in
settling question or debate with the Bible.) There was contradiction. There was sloppy interpretation. There was denial of restored principles. But there was also little flecks of
gold. At first this puzzled me,
but it didn’t bother me.
Eventually I learned that even the wild variety could actually help me
refine my thoughts, much like one is challenged to perform one’s best in order
to make up for a bad job someone else has done. The mind exposed to moral error tends to recoil, and often
it recoils toward the truth. (This may have been how McConkie derived benefit as well.)
What is the LDS mind to do when it has questions about the
scriptures? First, I believe we should pray to have our eyes opened. Second, I think we should seek out the
words of the prophets. Then seek
out trustworthy commentaries by LDS scholars. And then.. maybe read other outside commentaries.
We are instructed to seek learning by study and also by
faith. If we are to seek learning
by study, then there must be sources to study, and we are told to seek learning
out of the best books words of wisdom.
For this to happen, words of wisdom must be made accessible for
study. And of course, it is hoped
that members of the church will be able to write some of those best books.
Just keep in mind that in order for there to be books for us
to study, there must be people willing to buy them, in order to make it
worthwhile for LDS-market publishers to sell them. (Books of scripture commentary are notoriously low-profit
enterprises.)
When I first started reading commentaries I would dream
about this ideal book that would be THE COMMENTARY TO END ALL COMMENTARIES,
which would have everything in it that could ever possibly be said about a
particular passage.
Eventually I realized that simply isn’t possible because it
would have to be endlessly large and incorporate every possible perspective in
it. That would be prohibitively
expensive to print and to own.
Instead, a commentary takes a particular perspective or approach and uses
that to interpret the scriptures.
And even though it might attempt to be exhaustive, it never will be.
There are also different types of commentaries, each of
which have their function.
--Restatements or summaries the scriptures in modern language
to make meaning more accessible.
--Presentations of historical background of cultural
practices. This helps us
understand how people in those days would have made meaning out of the events
as they happened.
--Translations of words and descriptions of their range of
meanings. This helps us get beyond
the current connotations of the words themselves and what they mean today so
that we can better see what meaning was intended by the writer.
--And of course there are a range of commentaries that use all
or some of the above or incorporate the author’s personal experiences, or
similar scriptural incidents to compare and contrast.
The main value I find in commentaries right now is as a
jump-start for new avenues of thought about passages I have read often. A phrase I have passed over may be
invested with new significance I never considered. An alternate meaning might be suggested that opens new
dimensions suggesting new applications.
Do you use commentaries? Do you have a particular favorite scripture commentary that
you like to use? What does it do
that helps you? In what ways
have you found commentaries to be limiting or expanding to your thought about
the scriptures?
Notes
(1) “The Bible, A Sealed Book”, address by Bruce R.
McConkie, from A Symposium on the New Testament in 1984, as quoted by “Teaching
Seminary: Preservice Readings”, Church Educational System, pp123-132.
