Books with Questionable Historicity

[LifeOnaPlate]

The OP asked about books which are of questionable historicity. I gave an example, the work of Edgar Cayce which included alleged historical information from Cayce's 'readings' where he claims he connected with the universe to gain unknown information. A small group of individuals take Cayce's writings seriously but the vast majority of scholars don't even consider reading them. Why? Because Cayce's methods are considered absurd and unreliable, just as Joseph Smith's seerstones in a hat and alleged angels are considered unreliable.

I see some important differences in Cayce's claims as opposed to Joseph Smith's, which probably doesn't surprise you. Still, Smith's real, tangible, physical golden plates as verified by witnesses are different from Cayce's "scientific" techniques and claims, imo. Cayce and Smith have interesting parallels, but there are also interesting differences (from specific claims to the general milieu in which they made those claims).

[Hermes]

Jonh Larsen and Luigi: By making little jokes and declaring "all prophets are frauds" you've made yourselves eligible for our MAD board bonus prize of the week: a free vacation in the form of a suspension if the lameness continues. we wait with baited breath to see who wins the award. good luck! ~hermes

[Daniel Peterson]

All prophets are frauds.

It's touching to see that even those who believe that they lack faith still, after all is said and done, have faith.

[Luigi]

It's touching to see that even those who believe that they lack faith still, after all is said and done, have faith.

Admittedly I should pick my words more carefully at times. I don't want to reach the point where confidence of my position is replaced by rigid unquestioned dogma (or make statements which suggest I have reached such a point). My statement was excessively inflammatory and dogmatic. My bad.

[Luigi]

I see some important differences in Cayce's claims as opposed to Joseph Smith's, which probably doesn't surprise you. Still, Smith's real, tangible, physical golden plates as verified by witnesses are different from Cayce's "scientific" techniques and claims, imo. Cayce and Smith have interesting parallels, but there are also interesting differences (from specific claims to the general milieu in which they made those claims).

Even if we assume Joseph Smith had gold plates with ancient writing (a considerable assumption) we have nothing which would suggest he was capable of gleaning historical information from them by any means that a scholar would consider reliable. In essence both the claims of Cayce and Smith lack credibility according to most scholars because both require placing confidence in an untested, unverifiable supernatural method. To accept their claims would, by logical extension, require us to place credibility in all such claims both past, present, and future which if nothing else is ridiculously impractical.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Your empiricist lens through which you interpret reality and history is fascinating in its consistency, imo.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Jason writes:

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.

Actually, I don't think I have changed anything. Perhaps you would care to point out the difference, because it reads just the same way to me in context.

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.

In what sense is it an invalid reading (a serious question)?

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.

Why on earth would his account have to be taken as historical rather than fictional? He certainly wasn't referring to person X when he wrote about person Y, even if person X and Y seem to have identical characteristics. If you asked the author if it was fictional, he would tell you that it was, that he wasn't really referring to person X when he wrote about person Y. Isn't that the point of the disclaimers that we read all the time: any resemblance to actual persons is purely coincidental?

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.

And this, of course, has little relevance to the question of how we look at book with questionable historicity.

Ben M.

[David Bokovoy]

So before I attempt to address some of the specific issues raised recently in this thread (and I probably wonâ??t be able to do so until tomorrow), just a quick statement to summarize my position.

Notwithstanding the lighthearted manner in which this discussion has unfolded (which has been entirely Billâ??s fault rather than mine), the topic at hand really is a serious issue in my mind.

Since the original post, weâ??ve intermixed two issues concerning historicity, which is why I stated early on that the OP had not asked the right question. As far as I know, all serious believing students of the Book of Mormon maintain that the book lacks historicity in the sense that Mormon et. al. were not modern historians who approached their record keeping efforts in a scientific manner.

For example, the Book of Mormon fails to present detailed information regarding the "othersâ? that surely existed along side of the Nephite and Lamanite civilizations and the numbers for populations and wars appear greatly inflated. For the believer, this lack of historicity actually works in the Book of Mormonâ??s favor, for we would expect the book, if ancient, to have been written like ancient records were, namely lacking historicity.

Bill has of course moved the discussion towards the right question that the OP appears to have wanted to address, namely the bookâ??s claims to represent a translation of an authentic ancient source.

As a believer in the authenticity of the Book of Mormon, this question presents a serious challenge for me personally. On the one hand, as a serious student of the text, I can identify profound links between the Book of Mormon and the Bible/Ancient Near East in every single verse. In my mind, I would have a hard time explaining these connections if the book was nothing more than a 19th century production.

On the other hand, however, I cannot deny that the Book of Mormon contains a variety of textual markers that would lead me via my academic training to deny the authenticity of its claims.

When I first began my graduate work, I was warned by an LDS Professor not to pursue biblical studies over the fear that if I did, that I would eventually loose my testimony of the Church/Book of Mormon. Being the na

[Benjamin McGuire]

Bill Hamblin writes:

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

Actually, I agree with you completely. I think we are talking about two different sides of the same topic. Clearly if Moroni appears to Joseph Smith and directs him to the plates which he in part authored and buried, then there is no doubt that this is a claim for historicity. My point is that when we get subject headings like this one - "Books with Questionable Historicity", we aren't usually actually talking about historicity, and I suggest that the same kinds of critical tools used to evaluate these claims for other texts are also appropriate for use with the Book of Mormon (and by extension, the inclusion of various kinds of texts - parables, historical records, even fictional accounts within the Book of Mormon itself do not exclude the Book of Mormon as a historical text).

Ben M.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Nomad writes:

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.

I disagree with this. I don't think you get to priviledge some texts because of what you believe about the process of production. Which rules of textual analysis do you think don't apply to this fundamentally different Book of Mormon?

Ben M.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Bill Hamblin writes:

Right, but that's not the question. The question of historicity of the BOM is: were there were Nephites, etc, or not? It is not about the accuracy of every alleged historical event in the BOM. Some of the BOM, the allegory of the Olive Tree for example, is obviously fiction. But is it 19th century fiction, or ancient fiction?

And as you point out the issues involved with claiming that it is inspired fiction (historicity), I am also fascinated with the problem of verisimilitude - which is to say that the critic who claims that it is fiction also has to deal with problems of production and content as it relates to a seemingly ancient text. You can't simply dismiss the angel in either case ...

Ben M.

[m29173]

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"?

it certainly matters if that group of believers try to impose their belief as non plus ultra truth and the only way etc etc.......

as long as the believer is contend with his belief and doesnt impose on others, everything is peachy- and you guessed it - meaningless to others.. but as soon as he tries to sell his belief to others then everything claimed, matters big time.

[e=mc2]

David Bokovoy:

When I first began my graduate work, I was warned by an LDS Professor not to pursue biblical studies over the fear that if I did, that I would eventually loose my testimony of the Church/Book of Mormon. Being the na

[Nomad]

Nomad writes:I disagree with this. I don't think you get to priviledge some texts because of what you believe about the process of production. Which rules of textual analysis do you think don't apply to this fundamentally different Book of Mormon?

Ben M.

My reply is ostensibly to Ben, but I think it also an apropos response to David's very interesting -- and, admittedly, somewhat troubling -- "statement of faith."

I will thank you, Ben, for at least acknowledging my presence in this thread. I'm flattered.

=========================

I wrote:

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.

To which Ben replies:

I disagree with this.

Letâ??s define terms more precisely before I respond further:

• Do you disagree that, according to the text itself, that â??it appears that the records from which it was drawn were somehow maintained in an integral archive down through the centuries.â?? Consider your answer in light of the numerous Book of Mormon verses that reference the nature and relative quantity of the religious and historical source material from which Mormon was able to draw in the preparation of his â??abridgement.â? Are we to understand the phrase â??not even a hundredth partâ? in some less-than-literal fashion? If so, was it really a â??tenthâ? or maybe only â??halfâ?? Which is it to be, and on what basis can you justify your conclusion?
  
  
• Do you disagree that, if Mormon and others are to be believed concerning the nature of its source material, that there is a substantial likelihood that the record, in all material respects, would have been able to maintain a much greater continuity and reliability, in reference to the more ancient accounts, than could ever be claimed for the Bible?
  
  
• Or, do you disagree simply from the standpoint that the anachronisms you perceive in the Book of Mormon are
  prima facie
  evidence that the former (its claimed ancient production, its claimed quasi-continual ancient sources, and its implied historical continuity and reliability) could not possibly be true?
  
  

You continue:

I don't think you get to priviledge some texts because of what you believe about the process of production.

Thatâ??s fine and well, all things considered equal between two particular texts.

But the parameters of the discussion are necessarily altered if there is good and apparent reason to privilege one text over another. It may be that our judgment as to the relative equality of the texts is fundamentally different â?? that will be manifest on the basis of your answers to my set of questions above. If that is the case, I would expect you to support an argument of essential equivalency, textually speaking, between the Bible (or any other widely-accepted â??sacredâ? text) and the Book of Mormon. I see very portentous fundamental differences. Iâ??ve mentioned some of them already.

You continue:

Which rules of textual analysis do you think don't apply to this fundamentally different Book of Mormon?

Any which, by their very nature, reject the possibility of there being many things we do not know about the production of any given text. Would you disagree?

Even Bokovoy would consent (and has written about) possibilities concerning Deutero-Isaiah that could explain its non-anachronistic availability to the Nephites. Are there other possibilities, not yet â??formallyâ? considered and/or defended in circles you frequent, to explain other seemingly anomalous elements in the text? Have you really considered all the possibilities at this stage of the game?

From year to year we learn that the reach of ancient civilizations was much, much greater than previously believed. What can we conclusively say, therefore, about the ability of the ancient world, with or without divine inspiration and assistance, to disseminate its sacred texts around the globe? Indeed, you yourself could probably cite numerous pieces of evidence to support the notion that even the most ancient societies somehow managed to disseminate their cosmology with â??an outstretched arm.â?

Of course, â??miracleâ? is a term given to describe a disparate set of phenomena. It has been my experience that we can often discern both the hand of man as well as the hand of God in anything we are inclined to term a â??miracle.â? And given that weâ??re dealing with a book for which a major premise is that we ought to believe in miracles and the God who is the author of them (and it presents many evidences for its argument) would we not be ill-advised, perhaps even rash, to so quickly dismiss seemingly inexplicable possibilities, whether we are attempting to justify belief or its opposite?

I am personally of the opinion that if we yield to that temptation, we will ultimately lose our capacity to believe in miracles altogether. Surely not all at once. But failing to find a way to believe in the greater miracles will, over the course of a long enough life, inevitably erode belief in all of them.

Iâ??ve seen it happen. And, from what I've seen, no one is immune.

[David Bokovoy]

Then we are being taught wrong in the church about the Bible and what it is supposed to mean. If our own professors fear for our testimonies in learning the scriptures, just what in the hell have we been bineg taught *IN* church?! I hope that absolutely *everyone* goes through the process you have gone through. I am taking myself through it without the university courses, but I most definitely am using the scholarly materials, manuals, grammars, and exegesis. Joseph Smith gave us the EXAMPLE. We are *SUPPOSED* to study the Bible in its languages, unless of course, we really don't think much of the Prophet, after all. Is he a mere icon merely? What a sham and shame if this is so.

Our problem in the church is that we are being spoon fed pablum, fluff, and kindergarten learning of God's Holy Word. For whatever reason, we are impressed with the thinking that we aren't smart enough, or good enough to learn it. We Mormons are the ones who should be at the forefront of Biblical studies, and instead, we embarrass ourselves with our lack of comprehension. We have hired doubters into BYU's teaching curriculum apparently. I just truly disagree with that LDS professor. I can almost bet I can actually guess it was either Millet, Jackson, or McConkie.

I so love you Kerry! You are my hero! When I wrote about the process I went through, I was not talking about learning to use the scholarly materials, manuals, grammars, etc. I agree that everyone should follow in the Prophet Joseph's footsteps and seek knowledge out of the best books.

I would take it so far as to say that everyone ought to follow in the Prophet's footsteps and learn at least a little bit about Hebrew.

I simply meant that no one should feel like he or she is alone trying to make sense of critical biblical scholarship and it's implications in light of religious convictions. I feel like I'm on somewhat of a personal mission these days to ensure that no one need feel that once he or she accepts the legitimacy of higher criticism that the Bible/Book of Mormon is not true because everyone who knows about these issues and who believes in the Book of Mormon denies their legitimacy.

That's what I meant, Brother.

I really doesn't matter if that learning takes place in our outside of an official classroom, Latter-day Saints who begin to adopt academic perspectives regarding restored scripture should recognize that while paradigms may shift concerning the details of these religious works, they need not come to the conclusion that if their understanding fails to square with orthodoxy that the Church is not true.

[David Bokovoy]

Now time for so more fun with Bill:

That's better, duffus!

So if the question of a historical resurrection of Christ matters in the NT, why does the question of an historical Christophany of Christ in the New World not matter? If the BOM is inspired fiction, then was no New World Christophany, right?

Of course the question of a historical resurrection of Christ matters. It matters in the NT, it matters in the New World, it matters today and it will matter tomorrow.

It matters in the sense that if true, it is the single greatest event that has ever occurred in the history of the world.

A man who walked, talked, and breathed on this very planet died and came forth out of the grave with a perfect physical body.

Jesus matters.

A perfect being who loves each of us unconditionally, who possesses the power to help us in our individual needs matters.

In my mind, there is nothing that matters more.

Even if this fact wasn't true, it's such a beautiful concept that it should be true.

I believe from personal experience that it is true and I am not claiming that the BofM is inspired fiction.

I'm saying that even if it is pure religious fantasy that stems wholly from the conscience of Joseph Smith that it's status as inspired would be an absolute fact in my life. And that given my view of scripture that that perspective although admittedly unorthodox is really quite logical.

[Bill Hamblin]

I so love you Kerry! You are my hero! When I wrote about the process I went through, I was not talking about learning to use the scholarly materials, manuals, grammars, etc. I agree that everyone should follow in the Prophet Joseph's footsteps and seek knowledge out of the best books.

I would take it so far as to say that everyone ought to follow in the Prophet's footsteps and learn at least a little bit about Hebrew.

I simply meant that no one should feel like he or she is alone trying to make sense of critical biblical scholarship and it's implications in light of religious convictions. I feel like I'm on somewhat of a personal mission these days to ensure that no one need feel that once he or she accepts the legitimacy of higher criticism that the Bible/Book of Mormon is not true because everyone who knows about these issues and who believes in the Book of Mormon denies their legitimacy.

That's what I meant, Brother.

I really doesn't matter if that learning takes place in our outside of an official classroom, Latter-day Saints who begin to adopt academic perspectives regarding restored scripture should recognize that while paradigms may shift concerning the details of these religious works, they need not come to the conclusion that if their understanding fails to square with orthodoxy that the Church is not true.

I basically agree. However, I think we need to be just as skeptical of many of the assumptions of critical scholarship. For example, secular scholars of date prophetic texts on the assumption that there is no prophecy, and that therefore if a text accurately prophesies of an event, it must have been written after that event occurred.

The main reason consistently given for dating the Gospels to after AD 70 is that Jesus prophesies of the destruction of the temple of Jerusalem. (Matt 23:37-39, 24:1-2, 24:15-22; Mark 13:1-2, 13:14-20; Luke 13:34-35, 21:5-6, 21:20-24) Since Jesus predicts the destruction of the templeâ??and, as secular scholars assure us, since there is no such thing as real prophecyâ??the Gospels must have been written after that destruction occurred, in other words, after AD 70. Of course, all of this assumes that Jesus was not the real Messiah, who could make a real prophecy.

Now if a Gospel had said, â??Jesus truly prophesied of the destruction of the Temple, and anyone can go to Jerusalem and see its ruins today,â? we would definitively know the text was written after the destruction of the temple. For example, when John mentions a saying of Jesus to Peter that was â??said to show by what death [Peter] was to glorify Godâ? (John 21:19), it is reasonable to assume that John is writing to an audience that already knows about the death of Peter. That is to say, John must have been written after the death of Peter (traditionally late in the reign of Nero, perhaps AD 64.). But the Gospels present the passages on the destruction of the temple as a prophetic warning to believers, never claiming that Christâ??s prophecies had been fulfilledâ??which would have been a natural response if the prophecy had indeed been fulfilled when the Gospels were written, just as John mentions the fulfillment of Christâ??s prophecy of the death of Peter.

But letâ??s assume for the sake of argument that in fact Jesus was an ordinary mortal, who merely believed that he was a prophet. It is nonetheless quite possible that he could have simply looked at the social unrest and rebellion brewing in Judea and correctly guessed that there would eventually be a revolt against Rome that would culminate in Roman victory the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple. Indeed, there is ample evidence that prophecies of the destruction of the temple were rather commonplace around the time of Christ. (Y. Eliav, â??Prediction of the Destruction of the Herodian Temple in the Pseudepigrapha, Qumran Scrolls, and Related Texts,â? Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha, 10 (1992): 89-147; see also C. Evans, â??Opposition to the Temple: Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls,â? in J. Charlesworth (ed.) Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls, (Doubleday, 1995), 235-53.) Political pundits today do this type of thing all the time on TV, occasionally accurately predicting (or guessing?) elections, wars, future economic activity, etc. Many are wrong in their predictions, but some, perhaps only by chance, get it right. Are we to assume that those pundits who correctly guess the winner of an election must have made their guess after the election was over? In an ancient context, Jesusâ?? correct prediction of the destruction of the temple would have been viewed by his followers as a true prophecy. When Jerusalem was indeed destroyed, its destruction would have been seen by Christians as proof that Jesus was truly the Messiah. Properly understood in its ancient context, the presence of a prophecy of the destruction of the temple is insufficient grounds for dating the Gospels to after AD 70, even if one believes that Jesus was an ordinary mortal.

At any rate, by an a priori assumption that there is no real prophecy/revelation, secular scholars inherently undermine the authenticity and historicity of nearly all biblical texts. Certainly the BOM can't pass that test. So, if one applies the secular methodology of rejecting authentic prophecy to Joseph Smith, guess what--there's no way he could possibly be a prophet.

So, my fundamental methodological assumption is that one must be just as skeptical of the assumptions of secular scholars as they are of the assumptions of believers.

[Bill Hamblin]

I'm saying that even if it is pure religious fantasy that stems wholly from the conscience of Joseph Smith that it's status as inspired would be an absolute fact in my life. And that given my view of scripture that that perspective although admittedly unorthodox is really quite logical.

But the overt point of the BOM is to show that Jesus is the Christ. But if its fiction, even inspired fiction, then it in fact tells us precisely nothing about whether Jesus is the Christ. And furthermore, it inherently undermines the credibility of JS's claims to have had Christophanies. That is, if JS is fabricating the BOM, he could much more easily fabricate a claimed Christophany.

"If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable." (1 Cor 15:19)

[ebeddoulos]

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.

I think that Minuscule 61 (in the Gregory-Aland numbering) may be avery good example of of a document with questionable historicity. Minuscule 61 was originally known as Codex Britannicus but is now called Codex Montfortianus. This is the first Greek text ever found which contained the Comma Johanneum.

It is said that Minuscule 61 was copied at Lincoln College, Oxford, from a 10th century manuscript that did not have the Comma. Minuscule 61 was touted as an ancient manuscript and presented to Erasmus for his examination. It is Minuscule 61 which was used by Erasmus to â??correctâ? 1 John 5:7-8 in his third edition of Novum Testamentum by inserting the Comma Johanneum. This third edition of the Novum Testamentum in turn formed the basis of the Textus Receptus from which the King James Version was born.

In the King James version, 1 John 5:7-8 reads:

"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one." (1 John 5:7-8 â?? KJV)

â??οτι τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες εν τω ουρανω ο πατηρ ο λογος και το αγιον πνευμα και ουτοι οι τρεις εν εισιν και τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες εν τη γη το πνευμα και το υδωρ και το αιμα και οι τρεις εις το εν εισινâ? (1 John 5:7-8 â?? Textus Receptus)

The Textus Receptus is no longer accorded the respect in which it was once held. Many modern versions have substantially abbreviated 1 John 5:7-8:

â??So there are three that testify, the Spirit, the water, and the blood, and the three are of one accord.â? (1 John 5:7-8 â?? NAB)

â??For there are three that testify: the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.â? (1 John 5:7-8 â?? NIV)

â??For there are three witness bearers, the spirit and the water and the blood, and the three are in agreement.â? (1 John 5:7-8 â?? NWT)

â??ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες, τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα, καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν.â? (1 John 5:7-8 â?? NA26)

As you can see from what is missing, Minuscule 61 has been a subject of contention right from its purported "discovery" but especially so in the 20th century. Can you say "King James Only" or "Trinity Theory"?

On a related note, I am unsure if the following is accurate but it is interesting:

â??Today no Greek manuscript dating from before the sixteenth century is known to contain the comma Johanneum.â? (Roger Aubrey Baskerville Mynors, et al, â??The Correspondence of Erasmusâ?, Toronto, CA: University of Toronto Press, [1988], pg. 427)

[e=mc2]

David Bokovoy:

I really doesn't matter if that learning takes place in our outside of an official classroom, Latter-day Saints who begin to adopt academic perspectives regarding restored scripture should recognize that while paradigms may shift concerning the details of these religious works, they need not come to the conclusion that if their understanding fails to square with orthodoxy that the Church is not true.

Oh. Well, I certainly agree. I also agree wholeheartedly with the post Brer Hamblin made after this one of yours that we also have to be critical if not down right skeptical of scholarly assumptions. I am just saying that with examples of folk like you and Dr. Hamblin, Dr. Peterson, Maklelan, etc., and other LDS students here, it is just truly encouraging and inspiring for me to get on with it, even if I have to learn on my own for now, and get the Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek languages, and begin learning the scrips from those angles also. Glad we are all on the same page, for the most part.

[David Bokovoy]

I basically agree. However, I think we need to be just as skeptical of many of the assumptions of critical scholarship. For example, secular scholars of date prophetic texts on the assumption that there is no prophecy, and that therefore if a text accurately prophesies of an event, it must have been written after that event occurred.

I couldnâ??t agree with you more, Bill, on this point and I believe that rather than being swept under the intellectual rug that these are the types of issues that BYU students preparing for graduate work in biblical studies should have an exposure to.

You bring up an extremely valid point.

Historical criticism denies the supernatural to the extent that the only prophecies we can accept as legitimate are those that did not come to pass (see for example 2 Kings 22:20, etc.). Clearly this is a problematic approach.

However, this does not deny the fact that many religious texts, including those found within the Bible, appear as pseudopigraphic prophecies in an effort to add legitimacy to the work. In my mind, Daniel would clearly fall into this category. So recognizing this trend can be helpful in attempting to provide a relative date for specific texts.

Other issues include the way in which a text interacts with an earlier source. This is especially evident when comparing the legal collections in the Hebrew Bible. Another issue would be the use of language and vocabulary consistent with books whose relative dates are not in question, i.e. Ezra, Nehemiah, Chronicles, etc.

And fundamentally, in this in my mind was the major point that John Geeâ??s presentation neglected is the issue of theological inconsistencies. Johnâ??s answer to my observation was to simply state that various religious communities who view the Bible as authoritative have different ways of interpreting these texts, so that a discrepancy is simply in the eye of the religious beholder, but that is not the way contemporary scholars approach the text.

The contemporary Biblicist attempts to read the text in its original historical context, rather than through the lenses of a contemporary theological perspective. This effort allows the inconsistencies to exist, rather than to approach the Bible as a privileged text, so that words, which always mean one thing, donâ??t mean that thing when used in a biblical passage.

Unlike religious communities who attempt to reconcile texts that derive from divergent places and times, biblical scholars allow for contradictions. For example, a slave law in Exodus 21:6 states that in certain circumstances, a Hebrew slave will serve his master "forever," however, another tradition, i.e. Leviticus 25:40 states that masters must release all such slaves on the jubilee year.

In an attempt to harmonize this inconsistency, Jewish Rabbis went to great lengths to explain that in Exodus 21, the word â??foreverâ? doesnâ??t really mean â??forever,â? but only practically forever, that is until the jubilee year.

Contemporary scholars reject this sort of approach for â??special pleadingâ? and allow the text to mean what it says, even if it contradicts another section of the Bible. Johnâ??s effort to deconstruct source criticism failed to take this into consideration.

Then, when we add up all of these issues, a pattern emerges, so that every time a section of the Bible presents a distinct and oftentimes contradictory perspective, uses a specific name for deity, presents a specific way of divine communication, deals with cultic issues, mentions specific characters, etc. etc. that all of the puzzle pieces match up perfectly.

Itâ??s not simply a matter of circular reasoning.

There are simply too many points to the puzzle that would pull the entire project apart if it was simply a matter of every time a text uses the name YHWH and is anthropomorphic it is the J source. Itâ??s that every time a biblical text uses the divine name YWHWH it presents a different view of deity from the other sources and contradicts their narratives and/or theological perspectives.

Latter-day Saints should be the last ones to reject this sort of understanding. In many ways, this is precisely what Joseph Smith was teaching all along concerning the Bible and we have a model for an editorial amalgamation of religious texts via Mormon working with the Nephite records.

[mfbukowski]

As I have passed through these challenges, I have often times connected with Peter who, when faced with a religious challenge to his spiritual convictions was forced to simply rely upon the Savior with the understanding, “where else can I go?”

After my academic training in philosophical deconstruction in an environment which was about as secular and materialistic as is possible, I received a strong spiritual, and undeniable witness that the Book of Mormon was true. It was actually my nihilism which made it possible for me to put aside my need for rational "proofs" and accept the church whole heartedly. After all, it is a question of faith, isn't it? I think I understand your question of "where else can I go?"

[e=mc2]

After my academic training in philosophical deconstruction in an environment which was about as secular and materialistic as is possible, I received a strong spiritual, and undeniable witness that the Book of Mormon was true. It was actually my nihilism which made it possible for me to put aside my need for rational "proofs" and accept the church whole heartedly. After all, it is a question of faith, isn't it? I think I understand your question of "where else can I go?"

This is very interesting actually. I have no formal training as all the rest of you have. What I have learned, I have had to pretty much on my own simply get in and dig like crazy for the knowledge. That being said, I have truly and seriously learned something very important that reflects what you two have said here...... The more I learn and know, without doubt, the more I realize I don't know anything. True knowledge and learning is simply a mere smidgin of a sliver here for this what, paltry and all too flippin fast 75-80 years we are going to live? Just going to the BYU library makes me cry for I see the absolutely astonishing ***VAST*** amounts of knowledge in that one singular library alone will never be mine to even read. In the meantime, it seriously is important to read as mush as possible, but with the faith and belief that we really don't know a lot, nor are we even able to learn a lot in this life, so we have absolutely *no* choice, but to live by faith. Not blind faith, but faith as a principle of power, which propels us to believe that our scant learning here can make a difference. GREAT topic this!

[mfbukowski]

But the overt point of the BOM is to show that Jesus is the Christ. But if its fiction, even inspired fiction, then it in fact tells us precisely nothing about whether Jesus is the Christ. And furthermore, it inherently undermines the credibility of JS's claims to have had Christophanies. That is, if JS is fabricating the BOM, he could much more easily fabricate a claimed Christophany.

"If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable." (1 Cor 15:19)

But I think that if you are looking at history to "prove" a testimony of Jesus Christ, you are barking up the wrong tree.

[Bill Hamblin]

This is very interesting actually. I have no formal training as all the rest of you have. What I have learned, I have had to pretty much on my own simply get in and dig like crazy for the knowledge. That being said, I have truly and seriously learned something very important that reflects what you two have said here...... The more I learn and know, without doubt, the more I realize I don't know anything. True knowledge and learning is simply a mere smidgin of a sliver here for this what, paltry and all too flippin fast 75-80 years we are going to live? Just going to the BYU library makes me cry for I see the absolutely astonishing ***VAST*** amounts of knowledge in that one singular library alone will never be mine to even read. In the meantime, it seriously is important to read as mush as possible, but with the faith and belief that we really don't know a lot, nor are we even able to learn a lot in this life, so we have absolutely *no* choice, but to live by faith. Not blind faith, but faith as a principle of power, which propels us to believe that our scant learning here can make a difference. GREAT topic this!

"Only that man is truly wise, who, like Socrates, knows that God alone is wise, and human wisdom is nothing." Plato, Apology of Socrates.

But I think that if you are looking at history to "prove" a testimony of Jesus Christ, you are barking up the wrong tree.

I didn't say a thing about "proving a testimony." Rather, I looked at the logical implications of rejection of the historicity of the BOM.