Books with Questionable Historicity

[MichaelW]

There are very smart people who believe the Book of Mormon was written anciently, and very smart people who believe it was written in the 19th century. I'm wondering whether there are any other such books in existence, where its historicity is debated by people who study it.

And I don't mean who the author was (i.e. was Shakespeare really a pen name for the Earl of Oxford) , or whether a particular text is a forgery of an ancient document, but whether the book itself was written during a particular time frame.

I've wondered this on occasion lately, and would appreciate any responses people have.

[David Bokovoy]

There are very smart people who believe the Book of Mormon was written anciently, and very smart people who believe it was written in the 19th century. I'm wondering whether there are any other such books in existence, where its historicity is debated by people who study it.

Yes. The Bible.

[Joseph Antley]

The Secret Gospel of Mark, I think.

[The Nehor]

Being as it is the only book I know of in history that is claimed to have been delivered by an angel with no source text provided it is bound to generate controversy.

[MichaelW]

Yes. The Bible.

I suppose I should have been more specific--I'm wondering if there are secular books or texts where historicity is debated.

[MichaelW]

Being as it is the only book I know of in history that is claimed to have been delivered by an angel with no source text provided it is bound to generate controversy.

It's certainly not the only book in history where the author claims to be divinely inspired, although that may be beside the point you're making.

And what do you mean by "source text"?

[Joseph Antley]

It's certainly not the only book in history where the author claims to be divinely inspired, although that may be beside the point you're making.

And what do you mean by "source text"?

The Book of Mormon doesn't just claim to be inspired, it claims to be an ancient record revealed by an angel without necessarily using any ancient records.

I'm not sure any other books are like that.

[lostindc]

Being as it is the only book I know of in history that is claimed to have been delivered by an angel with no source text provided it is bound to generate controversy.

True, but I would like to draw a parallel between the plates and the stone tablets that contained the 10 commandments. Moses climbed a mountain drew on some rocks with the inscriptions of the ten commandments which he said was given to him by God and then brought these said tablets back down the mountain and told everybody to follow them....

[Duncan]

I heard about the Margaret Mead Controversy with her doctoral dissertation that she published. I think the name Freeman another anthropologist springs to mind who attacked her work.

[David Bokovoy]

I suppose I should have been more specific--I'm wondering if there are secular books or texts where historicity is debated.

Well, of course there are secular books or texts where historicity is debated. The Book of Mormon, however, is not a secular book or text.

So when looking for "any other such books in existence, where its historicity is debated by people who study it," it's no doubt best to compare apples with apples.

The Book of Mormon is a religious work whose historicity is debated and there are many other such books/texts that would fall into the same category, including the Bible.

[MichaelW]

Well, of course there are secular books or texts where historicity is debated.

Educate me, please.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Aren't the Federalist Papers involved in some sort of controversy over authorship? Also, George Harrison was successfully sued for plagiarizing (though perhaps unconsciously) the Chiffons' "He's So Fine" for the melody of his own "My Sweet Lord".

[David Bokovoy]

Educate me, please.

Ok, Michael. But first, you have to ask the right question concerning historicity:

"The biblical appeal to remember... has little to do with curiosity about the past. Israel is told that it must be a kingdom of priests and a holy people; nowhere is it suggested that it become a nation of historians.â? Yosef Hayim Yerushalmi, Zakhor: Jewish History and Jewish Memory (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1982), 10.

[lostindc]

Educate me, please.

Origins of Man

Plato/Socrates works

Darkness in El Dorado

A New Kind of Science

The Bell Curve

[The Nehor]

It's certainly not the only book in history where the author claims to be divinely inspired, although that may be beside the point you're making.

And what do you mean by "source text"?

No, other books have claimed inspiration but they rarely claim to be historical documents from over a millenium ago. The closest claim would be the story of Ezra rewriting the entire lost Torah by inspiration but even that is very different.

We don't have the gold plates to date and the way the manuscript appeared is, as far as I know, unique in history.

[John Larsen]

There are many Hindu and Buddhist writings that proport to be ancient or contemporary to key historical events that are debated among scholars and believers.

I don't know of any document that hangs as much credibility on the question as the BoM. If the BoM is not ancient, it is very difficult to find a way to make it true in any recognizable sense.

[David Bokovoy]

Origins of Man

Plato/Socrates works

Darkness in El Dorado

A New Kind of Science

The Bell Curve

Joseph Smith: The Making of a Prophet

[Jason]

Being as it is the only book I know of in history that is claimed to have been delivered by an angel with no source text provided it is bound to generate controversy.

The Koran is also claimed to have been delivered by an angel with no source text provided.

[David Bokovoy]

There are many Hindu and Buddhist writings that proport to be ancient or contemporary to key historical events that are debated among scholars and believers.

I don't know of any document that hangs as much credibility on the question as the BoM. If the BoM is not ancient, it is very difficult to find a way to make it true in any recognizable sense.

Actually, the "truthfulness" of the Book of Mormon has nothing whatsoever to do with either its historicity or lack thereof.

[John Larsen]

Actually, the "truthfulness" of the Book of Mormon has nothing whatsoever to do with either its historicity or lack thereof.

If I said I was in Phoenix last Thursday, the truthfulness of that statement wholly depends on whether or not I was in Phoenix last Thursday.

[Jason]

I agree with John on this one. If the Book of Mormon's history is not what it claims to be (translated from ancient golden plates) then it cannot be termed "true".

[David Bokovoy]

If I said I was in Phoenix last Thursday, the truthfulness of that statement wholly depends on whether or not I was in Phoenix last Thursday.

Of course, John, I assumed that by placing the word "true" in italics that you hoped to apply the standard LDS connotation used in relationship to the Book of Mormon which means that the work contains the word of God.

Even if the Book of Mormon is a translation from an ancient source, it would, like every other ancient text, lack historicity. Biblical authors, for example, had a much more important agenda than a mere recitation of what really happened. History was too important to be left up to chance.

[John Larsen]

Of course, John, I assumed that by placing the word "true" in italics that you hoped to apply the standard LDS connotation used in relationship to the Book of Mormon which means that the work contains the word of God.

Even if the Book of Mormon is a translation from an ancient source, it would, like every other ancient text, lack historicity. Biblical authors, for example, had a much more important agenda than a mere recitation of what really happened. History was too important to be left up to chance.

I don't agree that is the "standard LDS connotation" of true. When people repeat that "the Church is true" they do not simple believe that the Church "contains the world of God".

You second assertion, that truth is sometimes best told through lies, is not my standard of truth.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Too often as I think may be happening here, issues of historicity are also conflated with issues of verisimilitude. There is little argument about the date at which the Book of Mormon appears. It shows up in 1830. It claims to be a translation however. Questions of historicity revolve around whether or not there was really a Nephi or an Alma. But it can be a completely modern production and still be accuarate in its historical claims.

Adele Berlin made a comment I have appreciated in this regard:

On what grounds is a story to be judged fictional? Because it is easier to accept a patently unrealistic story, fictionality was sometimes determined by whether or not the events of the story could have happened or by whether the story seemed realistic. But to judge a story's historicity by its degree of realism is to mistake versimilitude for historicity. Verisimilitude is the literary term for the illusion of reality. Just because a story sounds real does not mean that it is. Realistic fiction is just as fictional as nonrealistic fiction. Among the leading arguments for Esther's historicity are that its setting is authentic and that its knowledge of Persian custom is detailed and accurate. But this realistic background proves nothing about the historicity of the story, as our aforementioned commentators were well aware.

"The Book of Esther and Ancient Storytelling" JBL 120/1 pp. 3-14

Esther is a good example of a book whose historicity is debated, but which has all the earmarks of being a real, historical work from the time it claims to be from. Of course, we tend to make it more complicated for the Book of Mormon, since few can imagine that the text - should it demonstrate verisimilitude - would not also have historicity. But I think the discussions are not the same and should not be conflated.

David B. parses this even more closely.

Ben M.

[Jason]

Too often as I think may be happening here, issues of historicity are also conflated with issues of verisimilitude. There is little argument about the date at which the Book of Mormon appears. It shows up in 1830. It claims to be a translation however. Questions of historicity revolve around whether or not there was really a Nephi or an Alma. But it can be a completely modern production and still be accuarate in its historical claims.

It makes historical claims that people named Nephi and Alma lived in the Americas at specific points in time. If they didn't really live at those times then the book is not accurate in its historical claims. "On what grounds is a story to be judged fictional?"On the grounds of whether the events it describes really occurred and whether the people it describes ever really existed.