Books with Questionable Historicity

[David Bokovoy]

These types of questions are often framed incorrectly. The issue is not if a fictional narrative can be revealed or "true." It can. The question is not if there are historical errors and distortions in the BOM, the Bible, or any other historical book. There are.

The question of historicity resolves around two issues.

First, if there were no Nephites, there were no golden plates, and there was no angel Moroni. Therefore, JS was either delusional or a liar (or a delusional liar) about foundational events in the Restoration. Whereas prophets can be mistaken or even lie about various issues on occasion, for a prophet to lie about the fundamental claim that he is receiving revelation makes him, necessarily, a non-prophet.

Second, if there were no Nephites, then Jesus did not appear to them. This means the BOM is no more a testimony of Christ than is Ben Hur.

I have never heard anyone advocating the "insprired fiction" theory engage these two issues. Never. The BOM as inspired fiction theory inevitably implodes under critical scrutiny.

Of course, Bill, I appreciate and respect your view.

For me, however, the issue is simply not that black and white. Whether or not the Book of Mormon was produced in the exact manner that we as believers maintain does not negate the fact that book itself is not ancient.

It is a 19th century religious work.

My spiritual conviction regarding the truthfulness of the book remains independent from the issue of how Joseph produced the record.

He may have translated the entire record by carefully examining the plates, character by character; he may have translated the entire record while looking into his hat; he may have translated portions of it while looking into his hat and then incorporating portions of the King James Bible; he may have dictated the entire account from his own active religious intellect. And for me, any one of these possibilities, or a combination of the whole, provides an interesting historical inquiry, but does nothing to change my testimony of the bookâ??s spiritual/religious legitimacy.

With every fiber of my intellectual being, I am convinced that the book of Deuteronomy is a piece of religious pseudopigraphy produced by a school of pious frauds. Yet, speaking personally, I still view most of the book as inspired (I don't like the anti-anthropomorphic portion).

I am convinced that the story of Eden portrayed in the book of Genesis is not a literal historical account. Still, the view of Adam as a divine king sent forth as a terrestrial member of the council to perform the work of a God holds great meaning for me in my life.

When all is said and done, the Book of Mormon is a 19th century work. If, therefore, someone comes to the intellectual conclusion that portions of our orthodox understanding regarding its origins, or even the entire picture for that matter, is incorrect, I do not believe that that perspective would alter the bookâ??s spiritual authenticity.

God works in mysterious ways.

Personally, I believe that religious truth is entirely relative and independent to the sphere God places it (see D&C 93:30). Hence, the issue of historicity, while fascinating to me intellectually, remains separate from my spiritual convictions regarding God, man, and the universe.

best,

--DB

[HiJolly]

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.

Joseph Antley:

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.

David Bokovoy:

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.

I think the Zohar would fall into this category. For those who take it seriously, it has stood the test of time.

I believe that my expectation that the book should be taken at face value is shared by 99% of the membership, and they would find your nuanced view to be very foreign.

There are those who can only value things on their surface. Those who can see more deeply, gain treasures untold.

HiJolly

[Jason]

But the parables of Jesus can be said to be fictional, but that doesn't make them false. They are *historical* in that he delivered them, not that they actually had to happen as he taught them. It is irrelevant whether we know the name ofthe good Smaritan, and equally irrelevant whether he ever lived in actual history or a geographical place. The TRUTH has still been taught.

The parables are fictional. The account of their having been delivered is historical, but the parables themselves are not - they do not describe events that really happened.The fact that the parables contain wisdom merely proves that fictional accounts can contain wisdom, which no one is arguing with.The difference between the parables and the Book of Mormon, of course, is that Jesus was not making any claim that the parables were historical. Mormon does make the claim that the Book of Mormon is historical.

Although the part about the inconsistency still holds.

I don't see any real inconsistency in these two quotes, especially when read in context with my further explanations.

[David Bokovoy]

The parables are fictional. The account of their having been delivered is historical, but the parables themselves are not - they do not describe events that really happened.The fact that the parables contain wisdom merely proves that fictional accounts can contain wisdom, which no one is arguing with.The difference between the parables and the Book of Mormon, of course, is that Jesus was not making any claim that the parables were historical. Mormon does make the claim that the Book of Mormon is historical.I don't see any real inconsistency in these two quotes, especially when read in context with my further explanations.

This is an amazing claim. Could you please provide proof that the account(s) of Jesus delivering the parables are historical. For that matter, could you please provide proof that the parables themselves are not historical.

Thanks.

--DB

[Jason]

This is an amazing claim. Could you please provide proof that the account(s) of Jesus delivering the parables are historical. For that matter, could you please provide proof that the parables themselves are not historical.

Why should I bother? You already said you don't care about the answer.

[Bill Hamblin]

Of course, Bill, I appreciate and respect your view.

For me, however, the issue is simply not that black and white. Whether or not the Book of Mormon was produced in the exact manner that we as believers maintain does not negate the fact that book itself is not ancient.

It is a 19th century religious work.

My spiritual conviction regarding the truthfulness of the book remains independent from the issue of how Joseph produced the record.

He may have translated the entire record by carefully examining the plates, character by character; he may have translated the entire record while looking into his hat; he may have translated portions of it while looking into his hat and then incorporating portions of the King James Bible; he may have dictated the entire account from his own active religious intellect. And for me, any one of these possibilities, or a combination of the whole, provides an interesting historical inquiry, but does nothing to change my testimony of the bookâ??s spiritual/religious legitimacy.

With every fiber of my intellectual being, I am convinced that the book of Deuteronomy is a piece of religious pseudopigraphy produced by a school of pious frauds. Yet, speaking personally, I still view most of the book as inspired (I don't like the anti-anthropomorphic portion).

I am convinced that the story of Eden portrayed in the book of Genesis is not a literal historical account. Still, the view of Adam as a divine king sent forth as a terrestrial member of the council to perform the work of a God holds great meaning for me in my life.

When all is said and done, the Book of Mormon is a 19th century work. If, therefore, someone comes to the intellectual conclusion that portions of our orthodox understanding regarding its origins, or even the entire picture for that matter, is incorrect, I do not believe that that perspective would alter the bookâ??s spiritual authenticity.

God works in mysterious ways.

Personally, I believe that religious truth is entirely relative and independent to the sphere God places it (see D&C 93:30). Hence, the issue of historicity, while fascinating to me intellectually, remains separate from my spiritual convictions regarding God, man, and the universe.

best,

--DB

What about the resurrection of Christ? Does it matter if it is historical or merely an esoteric symbol?

You're being too nice claiming you appreciate and respect my view. It's just too, well .... nice! Get down, dude!

[Benjamin McGuire]

John writes:

I believe that my expectation that the book should be taken at face value is shared by 99% of the membership, and they would find your nuanced view to be very foreign.

And thus my point. The book isn't being taken at face value by 99% of the membership. As I said, the book makes very specific claims about its own errancy, about appropriate modes of interpretation, and about texts and authors in general. And these things in the text are generally completely ignored by most members of the church.

As far as the rest of it goes, 99% of the membership of the church have also never actually spent any time working with ancient texts (the Book of Mormon is not an ancient text, it is a rather modern translation of an ancient text). And so these issues aren't really issues that they feel a need to deal with or be concerned with. So I don't find this kind of speculative data to be of much value here. The kinds of issues I am interested in are often very different from what you will find in a Sunday School lesson. But they impact my reading every day.

My position (so everyone knows) is that the Book of Mormon is an authentic translation of a historical text. But, I refuse to give the Book of Mormon a special status such that the critical tools I have and use with texts cannot be made to apply to it. While I think my old friend Bill Hamblin makes some significant observations, they are external to the text.

Ben M.

[David Bokovoy]

What about the resurrection of Christ? Does it matter if it is historical or merely an esoteric symbol?

You're being too nice claiming you appreciate and respect my view. It's just too, well .... nice! Get down, dude!

Ok, Jerk! Of course the issue of whether or not the resurrection of Christ was historical or merely an esoteric symbol matters.

Likewise, I believe that the issue of the Book of Mormon's production matters.

I want the Book of Mormon story to be an authentic retelling of the past, but the issue of whether or not Joseph translated the entire record character by character, or ignored the plates and looked into his hat while incorporating portions of the King James Bible; or perhaps dictated the entire account from his own active religious intellect could never change the fact that I have felt a deep spiritual connection with deity when studying its pages.

I can speak from experience that the Atonement of Christ carries amazing efficacy and is a very real power in my life and that I have accessed that power by means of the Book of Mormon and doctrines/theology professed in the Church of Jesus Christ in a way that blesses my life and increases my happiness.

For me personally, the details of Mormonism beyond that connection while interesting, really don't effect my spirituality and, from my perspective, need not effect the spirituality of others.

Much love,

--DB

[David Bokovoy]

Why should I bother? You already said you don't care about the answer.

I'm sorry. When did I say that I don't care about the answer regarding the Bible's historicity or lack thereof? I've devoted quite a bit of effort to studying the issue in an academic context and am deeply interested in the issue of historicity. In fact, as a undergraduate majoring in History, I even suffered through a few History classes taught by William Hamblin (talk about torture).

You really did make an astonishing claim and I would like to see the evidence that supports your view.

Thanks,

--DB

[mfbukowski]

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.

Since none of these points are provable, they are irrelevant. It is like the old saw "if a tree falls in a forest and no one hears it, does it make a sound?". The real question is "does it matter"? The tree question becomes a semantic question - what do you mean by "sound". And here, the operative word is "fiction". Fictional works can make a huge impact in a person's life. So if something is in principle not able to be proven historical, is it "fiction"? Large portions or perhaps all of the bible is in this category. So at a point one must ask "does it matter"?

[Benjamin McGuire]

Jason writes:

I don't see any real inconsistency in these two quotes, especially when read in context with my further explanations.

I will try to explain (with the expectation that I very well may fail in the endeavor). Your first comment of the two was this:

Again - the intent of the author and the undertanding of the reader are irrelevent as to whether an account is fictional.

Let me rephrase this. What this suggests is that it doesn't matter what the author was trying to convey, nor does it matter how the reader understood it, neither of these elements affects whether or not an account is fictional.

This is a very interesting perspective, and one which I have significant doubts that you have really thought through. What is the meaning of a text?

There is a classic example which has been used from time to time to talk about this particular problem. Suppose that an author writes the following sentance: "Smith's murderer is mad". Used referentially, this description is indended to indicate a specific person (Smith), presumably know to both the author and the reader; used attributively (assessing the brutality of a crime - the murder), and it means to say that whoever has the property of being Smith's muderer also has the property of being mad. Of course, it isn't quite this simple. And the following list (which is obviously incomplete) is a list of situations from which the sentance could be written:

(i) The author refers to Jones, who was caught as he was killing Smith with a power saw.

(ii) The author means to refer to whoever murdered Smith with a power saw.

(iii) The author means (ii), but he does not know that in reality Smith is not dead (he was saved in the extremis by Doctor Jekyll). In fact, there should not be a referent for the expression Smith's murderer, but the principle of charity prompts one to imagine that the speaker means to refer to the unsuccessful murderer (who would still be mad, and incompetent into the bargain).

(iv) The author means (ii), but the speaker is probably mad, because no one has made an attempt on Smith's life. The reader understand that the speaker is making a hallucinatory reference to an individual or a situation from the possible world of his beliefs.

(v) The author believes (mistakenly) that Smith has been murdered, that the murderer is Jones, and that everybody knows this. If the readers do not know that the speaker harbors these strange beliefs, we are in situation (iv). If the author goes on to make his beliefs explicit, the readers will understand that he is referring to Jones. Now it will be necessary to decide whether the author thought Jones was made because Jones was Smith's murderer or for other reasons (with the result that the author will still think Jones mad, even though Jones did not murder Smith).

(vi) Smith really has been murdered, and the author believes that the murderer is Jones (while everybody knows it was Donnellan). The interlocutors do not know the author's beliefs and think he means to say Donnellan is mad (which is clearly false, because Donnellan has murdered Smith for scientific reasons, so as to be able to work on the difference between attributive and referential use). I imagine that, if the discussion went on for a little, it might be possible to clear up the misunderstanding but - as in (v) - extra information will be required to establish whether the author means to refer to Jones, though Jones is innocent, as a madman.

(vii) Smith really has been murdered, and the author believes that the murderer is Jones (while everybody knows it is Donnellan). But the readers know that the author is biased against Jones and has repeatedly stated that he believes him to be Smith's murderer, and therefore they understand that the author means to refer to Jones.

and so on. If we look at this example - and remove from it, as you suggest, the intentions of the author, and the unterpretation of the reader, what is left to tell us whether this is fictional or not? So we get to your second comment:

You are quite right that what readers think they see in the text is what they generally attack, and that what they see is not neccessarily what is there, but that again has little bearing on whether some version of the events described actually occurred.

But how do we come to the "some version"? Texts are merely artifacts until they are read. They don't have some kind of determinate meaning - they don't have some fixed single meaning which is the only valid reading of the text. So a text can represent many different versions of events. If only one of them is descriptive of what really happened and the rest are fictional, yet the version that is descriptive of reality was never intended by the author or recognized by the reader, do we still say that it is not fictional? If we can find "some version" that describes what we believe reality was, can we call something non-fiction?

Ben

[mfbukowski]

If it should turn out that this was merely a tradition among the Mulekites, would it make the Book of Mormon fictional?

But the "if it should turn out" is never going to happen. We will probably never know "historically", whatever that means, that the Mulekites themselves ever existed. What would "prove" that the Jardeites for example were the Olmecs? What is the standard of evidence?

We will never "know" if the BOM is historical in that sense. So how is it relevant that it is "fiction" or not? It has changed my life; for me that makes it "true", and nothing else matters really.

[mfbukowski]

Yet his Timon of Athens may not have really existed, but the *truth* taught there IS history. Shakespeare wrote it, and it is true. History is not the only verity of truth.

And really what is "his story"?

[USU78]

But the "if it should turn out" is never going to happen. We will probably never know "historically", whatever that means, that the Mulekites themselves ever existed. What would "prove" that the Jardeites for example were the Olmecs? What is the standard of evidence?

We will never "know" if the BOM is historical in that sense. So how is it relevant that it is "fiction" or not? It has changed my life; for me that makes it "true", and nothing else matters really.

I can easily envision a non-peaceful takeover of the Zarahemlites by the displaced Nephite minority (it's happened many, many times throughout history), but a useful ficton being created where the non-Israelite Zarahemlites have "brother" status conferred upon them via creation of this fiction. It doesn't do any harm in placating the aristocracy if they suddenly become Judahite kingly types, giving the conquest the trappings of merger with an "agreed-to" subordination of the Zarahemlite kings to the Nephite ones.

Gives a whole 'nother layer of meaning to the form of government change when all the close Nephite heirs are unwilling or unable to rule a coupla generations later, and the judaized Zarahemlite royals suddenly wanting to step into what they naturally perceived to be a power vacuum.

[Jason]

I'm sorry. When did I say that I don't care about the answer regarding the Bible's historicity or lack thereof?

"[T]he issue of historicity, while fascinating to me intellectually, remains separate from my spiritual convictions regarding God, man, and the universe."

If the issue of the historicity of scripture has no bearing on your spritual convictions then I read that as "I don't really care if it is or not."

[mfbukowski]

I think there are epistemological problems with any "correspondence" theory of truth, where we cannot directly experience what the assertions are to "correspond to". And we can never experience history. We can look at evidence as dispassionately as possible. But who can really honestly be dispassionate? We all have an ax to grind. So for me, the only approach is totally pragmatic. If we will never know the "facts", we have to go with what has meaning for us individually in our lives. That is what I mean when I say the BOM is "true". Maybe it's historical, maybe it's not. I think we will never know. But in the meantime, I've got kids to raise and people to help spiritually. And there is no question that it has deep meaning in my life.

[Jason]

I will try to explain (with the expectation that I very well may fail in the endeavor). Your first comment of the two was this:Let me rephrase this.

Which is the problem. You are rephrasing my comments in order to find an inconsistancy that isn't there if you read them in context.I'm not upset, just pointing it out.

But how do we come to the "some version"? Texts are merely artifacts until they are read. They don't have some kind of determinate meaning - they don't have some fixed single meaning which is the only valid reading of the text.

True, but some readings obviously are invalid. If I read the text "Smith's murderer was mad" as "The quick brown fox jumps over the fat, lazy dog," obviously I am giving an invalid reading.

So a text can represent many different versions of events. If only one of them is descriptive of what really happened and the rest are fictional, yet the version that is descriptive of reality was never intended by the author or recognized by the reader, do we still say that it is not fictional? If we can find "some version" that describes what we believe reality was, can we call something non-fiction?

I think we would have to say that it isn't fictional.If an author made up a fictional account, and then later discovered that through some extraordinary circumstance that the characters and events that he had thought he made up actually existed and did the things he described, then his account would in fact have to be taken as historical rather than fictional.

Maybe it's historical, maybe it's not. I think we will never know. But in the meantime, I've got kids to raise and people to help spiritually. And there is no question that it has deep meaning in my life.

I think when we die and come face to face with Mormon, Nephi and the others at the judgement bar we'll have some pretty good evidence at that point that it is in fact historical.

[mfbukowski]

"[T]he issue of historicity, while fascinating to me intellectually, remains separate from my spiritual convictions regarding God, man, and the universe."

If the issue of the historicity of scripture has no bearing on your spritual convictions then I read that as "I don't really care if it is or not."

From my perspective, I wouldn't say that I don't care. I would say it's historicity is unprovable and irrelevant.

[mfbukowski]

I think when we die and come face to face with Mormon, Nephi and the others at the judgement bar we'll have some pretty good evidence at that point that it is in fact historical.

I totally agree and am looking forward to it!

[David Bokovoy]

"[T]he issue of historicity, while fascinating to me intellectually, remains separate from my spiritual convictions regarding God, man, and the universe."

If the issue of the historicity of scripture has no bearing on your spritual convictions then I read that as "I don't really care if it is or not."

Well then, since that is what you read, it appears that I have simply written a piece of fiction, since I really do care if the Book of Mormon and or Bible possess and/or lack historicity, even though the issue will not have a direct bearing on my use of the texts as spiritual guides.

best

[Bill Hamblin]

I agree.

So, now John Larsen agrees with me, but David B and Ben M disagree with me?!? What's wrong with this picture?

[Nomad]

So, now John Larsen agrees with me, but David B and Ben M disagree with me?!? What's wrong with this picture?

If it makes you feel any better, I agree with you, too.

I understand and, on a certain level, I can even agree with the general thrust of David's (and Ben's) argument concerning questions of historicity, verisimilitude, and the essentially liquid meaning those terms have in reference to works such as the Bible, and on some level, perhaps even the Book of Mormon.

However, I think that Biblical scholars also tend to become tainted by its inherent uncertainties and obvious corruptions, and therefore they are more apt to cast, "through a glass darkly," a certain glare upon the Book of Mormon, justifying themselves on the basis of their largely correct understanding of the origins and evolution of the Bible.

But the Book of Mormon is fundamentally different. In the first place, it appears that the records from which it was drawn were somehow maintained in an integral archive down through the centuries. For that reason alone, there is a likely continuity and reliability to the record that could never be claimed for the Bible.

Now, don't get me wrong, I can certainly see how a story like the one about Ammon whacking off arms might have been embellished over the centuries, and perhaps even intentionally so by well-meaning prophet-like characters through the generations of Nephite history.

But Bill is correct: historicity in terms of the Book of Mormon means that there really must have been Jaredites, Nephites, metallic records buried in a stone box, two transparent stones in the rims of a bow, etc.

Indeed, as the Book of Mormon so eloquently informs us: truth is the knowledge of things as they really were, are, and shall be.

[David Bokovoy]

So, now John Larsen agrees with me, but David B and Ben M disagree with me?!? What's wrong with this picture?

So Bill. Even though you agree with apostate views and I called you a "jerk," can I still stay with you in Jerusalem?

Nomad,

However, I think that Biblical scholars also tend to become tainted

I couldn't agree more. However, personally I would broaden the spectrum considerably by removing the adjective "Biblical."

best,

--DB

[e=mc2]

So, now John Larsen agrees with me, but David B and Ben M disagree with me?!? What's wrong with this picture?

This is a fascinating conundrum, I must admit.

And really what is "his story"?

The truth of what money does and how it inverts societal values and morals. At least, I think it was Timon of Athens. It's been a bit since I have read in my Shakespeare. Used to everyday, but the scriptures stole my time.

[Bill Hamblin]

So Bill. Even though you agree with apostate views and I called you a "jerk," can I still stay with you in Jerusalem?

Yes, but you have to pay more for the privilege.