Thursday, September 3, 2020

Sidney B. Sperry on James Talmage Requesting His Scholarly Expertise to Interpret Scripture

 

In an article on Latter-day Saints and the Bible, LDS scholar Sidney B. Sperry recounted the following event which shows how Church leaders have always sought out the best scholarly opinions of the time to help with their own interpretation of Scripture as well as that of general Church membership:

 

Many years ago Dr. James E. Talmage of the Twelve called me into his office and asked what I thought of this common interpretation given by our elders to the Genesis passage. I frankly told him that I disagreed with it, giving my reasons why. In the first place, the whole of Genesis 18 has provided difficulties to Hebrew scholars and should be interpreted with caution. As an illustration of this fact let me quote a recent commentator:

 

The relation of the three men to the Lord (v. 1) is difficult. All three angels (19.1) may represent the Lord (see 16.7n.); thus the plurality becomes a single person in w. 10, 13. On the other hand, v. 22 and 19 suggest that the Lord is one of the three, the other two being his attendants.

 

In the second place, the Hebrew word for Lord in Genesis 18:1 is different from that for "lord" in verse 3, which may simply be a sign of greeting equivalent to "Sir"; and, interestingly, Joseph Smith in his "Inspired" revision has Abraham say to the three men "My brethren" instead of "My lord" as given in our modern translations. A Hebrew scholar can readily understand how an original "My brethren" might be changed by careless writing to "My lord."

 

And in the third place, the Jehovah or Lord of Gen. 18:1 who spoke to Abraham was most likely the pre-existent Savior. He it was who spoke to Moses, gave the law, and covenanted with his people Israel (see III Nephi 15:4,5). A pre-existent Savior would not partake of veal and cakes, and as for Elohim the Father, his name is not even mentioned in the Hebrew of Genesis 18. And the "lord" of Gen. 18:3 was probably a mortal being sent with authority from God. So our elders were undoubtedly wrong in their interpretation of the passage in Genesis. It was not right, therefore, to use it in their attempts to prove that God was a being of flesh and bones.

 

Dr. Talmage told me that he agreed with my reasoning and said that he was going to take what steps he could to discourage our elders in using the passage in the way I have described. My experience has been that our Church Authorities are always looking for solid, sensible, and reasonable interpretations of scripture, interpretations that are compatible with the basic principles of the Gospel. (Sidney B. Sperry, "Scholars and Prophets," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought Vol. 2, No. 1 [Spring 1967]:81-82)