Review
Title: The Old Testament for Latter Day Saints
Author: Alex Douglas
Publisher: Signature Books
Genre: nonfiction
Year Published: 2023
Number of Pages: 193
Binding: paperback
ISBN: 978-1-56085-468-5
Price: $19.95
Reviewed by Dr. Raymond Hurst (dr.raymond.hurst@gmail.com) for the Association for Mormon Letters
The Old Testament for Latter Day Saints by Alex Douglas is a well-written and meticulously researched book about current Biblical scholarship and how it does and does not, connect to Latter Day Saint beliefs. If Latter Day Saints want to understand the current state of Old Testament research, this book is highly recommended.
On the back cover, the author profile states, “His work has focused on bridging the worlds of scholarship and belief.” On page x of the Introduction, Dr. Douglas states, “…this book is academic, not devotional.” In light of that, perhaps a more accurate title might have been Old Testament Scholarship for Latter Day Saints.
At the conclusion of the text, the Resources listed on pp. 187-188 are brief but quite valuable for those wanting to go deeper into study and research. The Bibliography and Index are of high quality.
Each of the ten chapters and Afterword cover specific Old Testament content from Genesis to Malachi, with a full chapter devoted entirely to the Book of Isaiah. Each chapter has a thematic focus. For example, chapter 1 (Genesis 1-11) is titled, “The Old Testament as Myth,” while chapter 6 (1-2 Chronicles) is “The Old Testament as Revisionist History”.
The author begins by looking at the foundational myths of American history. He defines myth not “as a judgement on how factual the story is” but rather a description of the function of the story. This definition frames the entire book. In looking at the Old Testament, he notes, “…if we look at the function these stories serve, at why they were included in an ancient Israelite collection of sacred writings, it is hard to escape the conclusion that these stories work in much the same way that America’s founding myth does” (pp. 1-2). He goes on to explain, “We might say that Genesis and Exodus contain not history, but History with a capital H—the kind of story meant to unite the ancient Israelites, to give them a sense of purpose, and to provide them a way to understand their past.”
Following a cogent explanation of the Creation and Garden of Eden stories/myths, a very interesting section on the Cain and Abel story is provided. Early in this explanation, the author notes, “… but for unknown reasons, God prefers Abel’s offering over Cain’s (p. 5). Yet the reason for God’s rejection of Cain’s offering is explained in the Pearl of Great Price, (Moses 5:21):
21 But unto Cain, and to his offering, he had not respect. Now Satan knew this, and it pleased him. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell.
Cain had made an offering to God, but who was he being obedient to? He was being obedient to Satan. That is why his offering was rejected. And note that God still extended an opportunity to Cain to repent in verses 22 and 23:
22 And the Lord said unto Cain: Why art thou wroth? Why is thy countenance fallen?
23 If thou doest well, thou shalt be accepted. And if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door, and Satan desireth to have thee; and except thou shalt hearken unto my commandments, I will deliver thee up, and it shall be unto thee according to his desire. And thou shalt rule over him;
After further explanation of the Cainite curse, the author states, “The few paragraphs I have included here about the Cain and Abel story are not meant to wave all that interpretation away as if my few paragraphs contain the one true interpretation” (p. 7). But it does seem significant that no mention is made of any modern revelation about this story.
On page 12, the author cites the Enuma Elish (literally, “As Above, So Below”), the Babylonian creation story, and rightly points out that the parallels between it and the creation story in Genesis “are legion”. The same applies to the “Epic of Gilgamesh and many Native American, African, and Chinese flood myths”. He expands on this to state, “Given that Gilgamesh was written hundreds of years before Moses lived, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that the Old Testament’s flood story is patterned after the Gilgamesh story” (p. 18).
The question then arises, what about before Moses lived? Moses no doubt had written source material as well as oral tradition and sacred rites to call upon as he prepared the Hebrew Bible.
But to categorically dismiss the possibility of pre-Gilgamesh written records based on current research findings is accurate but tentative. As Louis Pasteur said, “Science advances through tentative answers to a series of more and more subtle questions which reach deeper and deeper…” It is quite plausible that the writers of the Epic of Gilgamesh drew on earlier, as yet undiscovered, records.
In Chapter 3, “The Old Testament as Story”, Dr. Douglas correctly points out that “…around the time of the European Enlightenment, careful readers began to notice oddities in the Pentateuch that cast doubt on whether Moses—or any single author—could have written the text.” He then notes the repetitions, inconsistencies, and different distinct voices telling the stories. This leads logically to a thorough exploration of the Documentary Hypothesis, which dramatically changed how scholars view the Old Testament. The ongoing debate as to when and who wrote the Old Testament is because of a lack of consensus among the scholars (p. 51). Later, when discussing cultic religions (p. 63), he carefully explains that the word “cult” is not pejorative, but rather translated as the word “care”, as in agriculture means “care for the land.” His further explanation of law and covenant is nothing short of exemplary.
Chapters 5 (The Old Testament as History) and 6 (The Old Testament as Revisionist History) are profound in their detail and attention to specific scriptural passages. Chapter 6 observes, “If accuracy was not the author’s primary aim, it makes little sense to judge the ‘truthfulness’ of the Old Testament by its history. The writers of the Old Testament used myth, legend, stories, law, and history to tell us a particular story.” The 6th chapter ends by noting that the “New Testament books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John work much in the same way. Where four separated histories are preserved, rather than presenting only one official version of Jesus’ life.” An obvious parallel to this is the different versions of Joseph Smith’s First Vision story. Different accounts, for different audiences, of the same experience.
The profound impact of the Book of Isaiah (chapter 8) on the world in general and Christianity specifically is given a deservedly deep doctrinal treatment. Every aspect is discussed, including modern scholarship’s focus on Isaiah, Deutero-Isaiah, and Trito-Isaiah. Drawing on the two post-exilic versions of the Book of Jeremiah for comparison, Dr. Douglas delves deeply into scholarly concerns about the authorship of Isaiah and issues with its connection to the Book of Mormon.
“The Old Testament as Advice” (chapter 9) reviews a number of intriguing concepts as well as ancient belief systems. Of particular interest is the section on Sheol (p. 146), where anciently it was the standard abode for the dead and certainly not a pleasant place. In conjunction with this is Samuel’s prophecy to Saul after the latter’s consultation with the witch of Endor. The author notes that Latter-Day Saints do not know about the Biblical Sheol due to a translation problem with the King James Version. When the Hebrew word Sheol appeared, the translators replaced it with the word “hell”. Yet the author also correctly notes the passage in Daniel 12:2 where “some shall awake to everlasting life, while others will awake to shame and everlasting contempt.” So, the idea of Sheol as a horrible place where all of the dead go, was, by the time of the Prophet Daniel, being replaced with a more accurate understanding of the next life. So perhaps it is not necessarily a translation problem… perhaps it’s a transmission problem. Of course, the King James Version is replete with translation problems.
The final portion of chapter 9 covers marriage and intermarriage. It is quite thorough in examining the contradictory views of, for example, Daniel and Esther. A statement from Old Testament scholar David Bokovy makes a comparison with contemporary LDS worship services; “In our worship services and Sunday meetings, we listen to fellow members who all experience God in different and varying ways. And while we may not always fully agree with them, we are able to appreciate and even learn from their testimonies” (p. 156). That comes back to the spirit touching our hearts, which Dr. Douglas indicated in the Introduction that this book will not be of that nature. This reviewer isn’t sure the two can be separated.
The Afterword (The Old Testament and the Book of Mormon) deals with some controversial topics, centering around the question, “Can we understand the Book of Mormon to be a history—an accurate account of events that actually took place?” Several responses to this question follow.
On p. 167 the author states, “The Book of Mormon is decidedly anti-Semitic in character.” But it seems to this reviewer that the many negative mentions of “the Jews at Jerusalem” was not referring the Jewish people as a whole, but to the religious leaders, whom Jesus also condemned. Such a blanket statement is a cause for concern, to say the least.
On page 176 metal plates are discussed, stating, “…brass plates could not have existed as Nephi describes them. Even their form is anachronistic. In the ancient world, any text longer than a few lines was written on scrolls that were rolled up” (see the Ketef Hinnom scrolls below). “The idea of writing a text on separate pages and binding them together into a codex did not come about until the Roman period…” and footnote 2 on page 177 indicates that the Copper Scroll was “a scroll, not a codex.”
The Copper Scroll consisted of two individual metal plates (about 1% tin, the rest copper), apparently riveted together and then rolled up into a scroll of about 8 feet in length. (time has destroyed the original copper, leaving only an oxide behind.) Obviously not a codex per se.
As far as other metal plates being used for writing in pre-Roman times, The Pyrgi Tablets (dated c. 500 BCE) are three golden plates inscribed with a bilingual Phoenician–Etruscan dedicatory text. From the late 7th or early 6th century BCE, the Ketef Hinnom scrolls, also known as the Ketef Hinnom amulets, contain a priestly blessing based on Numbers 6:24-26 in Paleo Hebrew script, inscribed onto small silver scrolls.
Similarly, Dr. Douglas notes on p. 179, “Synagogues themselves do not appear in either the archaeological or the literary record until shortly before the time of Christ.”
However, Encyclopedia Britannica points out, “And yet, the oldest dated evidence of a synagogue is from the 3rd century BCE, but synagogues doubtless have an older history. Some scholars think that the destruction of Solomon’s Temple of Jerusalem in 586 BCE gave rise to synagogues after private homes were temporarily used for public worship and religious instruction (https://www.britannica.com/topic/synagogue”).
The Jewish Encyclopedia states, “The origin of the synagogue, in which the congregation gathered to worship and to receive the religious instruction connected therewith, is wrapped in obscurity. By the time it had become the central institution of Judaism (no period of the history of Israel is conceivable without it), it was already regarded as of ancient origin, dating back to the time of Moses (see Yer. Targ., Ex. xviii. 20 and I Chron. xvi. 39; Pesiḳ. 129b; Philo, “De Vita Mosis,” iii. 27; Josephus, “Contra Ap.” ii., § 17; Acts xv. 21). The “house of the people” (Jer. xxxix. 8 [Hebr.]) is interpreted, in a midrash cited by Rashi and Ḳimḥi (ad loc.), as referring to the synagogue, and “bet ‘amma,” the Aramaic form of this phrase, was the popular designation in the second century for the synagogue (Simeon b. Eleazar, in Shab. 32a)” (https://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/14160).
On page 179, the author states “…baptism did not emerge until the end of the Old Testament period.” Yet there are numerous older documents attesting to the baptism of, of all people, pharaoh!
No less an authority than Sir Alan Gardiner specifically titled his 1950 article in the Journal of Egyptian Archaeology “The Baptism of Pharaoh” (vol. 36, Dec 1950, pp. 3-12) in describing what others had previously called “purification rites”. This article centers on the 18th Dynasty, well before the end of the Old Testament period (URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3855089).
In an article from the American Research Center in Egypt (ARCE), the 13th Dynasty’s “Amenemhat III’s “Baptism of the Pharaoh” scene at his Madinet Madi Temple in Fayum. This scene, the earliest of its kind, depicts Sobek and Anubis anointing Amenemhat III with ankh signs of life. The anointment marks the king’s initiation into eternal kingship and was usually related to the state god’s divine procreation of the king” (https://arce.org/resource/rise-sobek-middle-kingdom/)
On p. 186, Dr. Douglas concludes the book with this statement; “Maybe the value of our religion lies in not how many facts we have about God, but in how much good it prompts us to do in the world. Or maybe it lies in the comfort that the Plan of Salvation can bring to those who mourn, or in the way it brings us closer to God, or in the strength of the community we build together. In the King James Version of the New Testament, James described ‘pure religion’ as “to visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted before the world.” (James 1:27).
This reviewer could not agree more. How we treat others is the hallmark of Christianity, and Dr. Douglas has deftly outlined the ways in which we can serve God by serving his children.
He then concludes by saying, “I may be in the minority of Latter-Day Saints by holding this opinion, but I wonder if letting go of the historicity of the Book of Mormon may be exactly what is needed to more closely approach the ‘pure religion’ spoken of by James.” The Old Testament for Latter Day Saints by Alex Douglas has certainly expanded the reviewer’s understanding of historicity, but letting go of that historicity is not a prerequisite for approaching James’ pure religion.
Here are a couple of suggestions:
In the Introduction, p. viii it says, “This book” (the Old Testament) “is often referred to as the Tanak or Torah…” but these are not synonymous terms. The Tanak contains the Torah, as well as the Nevi’im (prophets) and the Ketuvim (writings). The author corrects this on pp. 164-165.
It is puzzling why no mention is made of the work of a man who is arguably the greatest LDS scholar of the 20th century, Hugh Nibley. Not even a footnote on his voluminous body of work in ancient scripture, and specifically the Old Testament, is given.