I agree with HP–it really can’t be any other way. If so, we are truly kidding ourselves about our own biases.

Part of a quote by Kent: “And unlike many of their peers who set the agenda for religious discourse in their denominations . . . ”

No, it shouldn’t be a denominational leader’s opinion that sets the agendas on Sunday mornings or whenever. It should be the message of whichever biblical book that believers are studying. And let there be rigorous discussion every week that flows from engagement with the next verses in the book. And people have the right to flat out disagree with me on my injected interpretation nuances. The ultimate accountability is not to denominational leaders or church distinctives but to the text itself.

Mogget writes, “You can trust the Bible. It’s just that way.”

You got that right.

But I would add this. Unbelieving historical-critical scholars do have assumptions. It is easy to recognize the truth of HP’s last statement of #7 in their writings. Likewise, with many Baptist preachers. So I ask where are the exegetical scholars that are humble in their approach to the Word? Where we submit our hearts to let the words of God carry us where He will?

It is the greatest of adventures.

I suppose that I find David J’s assertion that exegetical approaches are somehow morally superior unhelpful.

Some of what you write is too strong for me. For example, I don’t think it’s accurate to say that what we bring to the text “always plays a determinative role.” I have never, in my entire life, ended an act of exegesis in the same place I started. For me, it’s been a two-way street. That what I bring to the text has an effect on my exegesis is undeniable but it’s simply not always determinative.

For the lay audience, pesher exegesis refers to the habit, in the Dead Sea Scrolls, of the scribes and interpreters there to just grab a section of scripture, assume that it relates to their situation, and write up an interpretation of the passage with that in mind. No justification for the reading is given, aside from the interpreter’s belief that it is accurate.

I stand by my statement. Exegesis is ultimately a very specialized form of eisegesis.

I bet to differ. To me, it makes a mockery of the text, is done with the aim of affirming one’s pre-conceived notions of truth, and cannot be taken seriously outside the home (ie, in the wilds of places like SBL). It’s a neat thing to study, and Mormons do it a lot, but I wouldn’t say there’s nothing inherently wrong with it.

It is what it is. That we have engaged in it makes us, as you rightly note, like everybody else out there.

I didn’t say that everybody engages in it. I said that everybody comes to the text with some sort of influence based on previous denominational experiences.

But whatever. You’d know more about this stuff than I would…

A sidenote:

Some years ago, Elder McConkie stated that these gentlemen were Diaspora Jews (Mortal Messiah, 1:358) rather than gentiles. Whatever their real ethnic status might have been, in Matthew’s story they are gentiles because they do the things that gentiles do.

When I was teaching gospel doctrine last week we had a discussion about the magi and their gentile status (including the Balaam feel to the pericope); a very enjoyable discussion. However, one of the class members opined that he thought the magi were Diaspora Jews. I responded that we couldn’t rule out the possibility but that, “they are gentiles because they do the things that gentiles do.” (maybe not those exact words but reasonably close to that.) After class I wondered where the “Diaspora Jews” comment come from, and now you have solved that little mystery for me (I read that series about 15 years ago so I absolutely didn’t remember that McConkie suggested that).

Do more than 1% of LDS people really believe this? It’s one of the most beautiful things I’ve ever seen an LDS person print but I have no confidence that we as a people really believe this. Sometimes I really hate AoF 8. Forget a crutch, it’s almost a handicap the way that I see people using it.

I agree, but I expect that despite my efforts my denominational background has some affects. (We always teased the Evangelicals about their “fixation on the fourth century,” too.)

Here’s what happens to me. It’s not that I add LDS stuff in, but that I’m more open to ideas that fit LDS doctrines and less open to ideas that don’t. The only thing I ever disagreed with Fr. Fitzmyer on was the matter of the Real Presence in 1Cor 11: 17-34. I just couldn’t go there!

On the other hand, I just read a paper in a professional venue called “The Sovereignty of the Saints in Revelation.” As I wrote it, I found myself more open to a stronger sense of what this idea might entail and not troubled by the idea that it was “unreal” as were some of my peers.

So you know, where you pray does affect what you say… But yeah, denominationally opaque is best unless the purpose and/or audience indicate otherwise.

Mogget, good stuff.