Books with Questionable Historicity

[Bill Hamblin]

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.

It's so nice to agree. (I think the current program is better at dealing with these issues.)

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.

I certainly don't reject these issues. I'm confident the Bible was edited, and reflects numerous factions, periods, theologies, etc. The BOM itself says as much. However, this doesn't mean buying secular ideological assumptions hook, line and sinker.

[mfbukowski]

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!

I agree. I want to know all I can too, but ultimately knowing is only important insofar as it helps you make that difference you are talking about. That's where the "rubber meets the road"! If you knew everything there was to know, but never made a difference in someone else's life, what good would it be?

[mfbukowski]

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.

I think what I was trying to say is that one need not reject it, but merely hold it as unknowable, just as it is intellectually unknowable that Jesus is the Christ. Do you think its historicity is "provable"? And if it is not, does that imply that Jesus is not the Christ? I am having trouble seeing the distinction.

[Bill Hamblin]

I think what I was trying to say is that one need not reject it, but merely hold it as unknowable, just as it is intellectually unknowable that Jesus is the Christ. Do you think its historicity is "provable"? And if it is not, does that imply that Jesus is not the Christ? I am having trouble seeing the distinction.

"Provable" is not a word I generally employ when trying to understand ancient history. One must first understand that the study of ancient history is not the study of the past, but of the textual and artifactual remains of the past. We cannot in any way directly encounter past events. What we encounter are the artifacts and recorded human perceptions of the past. This is a crucial distinction.

Ancient events happened or they did not happen. The vast majority of all ancient events left absolutely no discernible trace that they occurred, yet they still happened. The resurrection of Christ occurred or it did not occur regardless of the survival or belief in the New Testament. If the NT had been completely lost it would not change the fact that the resurrection really occurred. On the other hand, if we had two or three times as many forged or hallucinatory accounts of the resurrection as we do, it wouldn't make the resurrection real if it in fact did not occur.

I have been talking about the logical implications of the occurrence or non-occurrence of the resurrection and Nephite Christophany, not whether we can prove or disprove it.

In reality, if Christ appeared to the atheists on this board and told them the BOM is historical, they would not believe it, because they would attribute it to hallucinations, and up their dose of lithium. But no matter how many people believe it or reject it, it did or did not occur. The reality of a past event transcends our knowledge, belief, or rejection of it.

[Benjamin McGuire]

What an interesting discussion this has become as it has strayed so very far off topic. So a number of things to adress, not in any particular order.

First, Bill Hamblin writes this:

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.

I have always appreciated a comment made by Larry Hurtado a few years back in one of his books on Jesus (which isn't to say that I agree with much of his conclusions with regards to the book):

Wishing to preserve the religious and theological validity of traditional Christological claims, the anticritical view attempted to deny or minimize as far as possible the historically conditioned nature of early Christ-devotion. On the other hand, the history-of-religions scholars were convinced that their demonstration of the historically conditioned nature of early Christ-devotion proved that it was no longer to be treated as theologically valid or binding for modern Christians. In both views the assumption is the same: if something can be shown to have arisen through a historical process, then it cannot be divine "revelation" or have continuing theological validity.

I think that Dr. Hamblin makes an important point here. And I throw in the caveat that they can all be wrong together. If I were to hazard a suggestion along this lines, its that LDS scholars don't get to just draw conclusions, they must also evaluate methodologies as they treat the scriptures (so my essay coming out next month).

Nomad writes:

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?

First, I would tend to say that your statement overstates the evidence somewhat (which is to say that by the time of Mormon, we have a thousand years of history, and Mormon has no idea what the status of the archive has been for a thousand years - certainly the small plates, for example, are not kept in an archive at least until Mosiah). At the same time, we talk about an archive which consists mostly of secular documents - which are occaisionally (it seems) quoted from time to time, and that the inclusion of these documents in such an archive does not guarantee their accuracy or reliability.

This doesn't deal with the more fundamental issue which is, "according to the text" - in which you have already priviledged the text.

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?

But what is your basis for this belief? We have issues in comparing this with the Bible, of course, because for the Bible we have an external historical record. So this isn't a question which is easily answered (and shouldn't be answered on the exclusive basis of what the text tells us).

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?

The Book of Mormon is a modern production. I don't think there is anyone who disagrees with this. It was translated/produced by Joseph Smith. I would rather that you rephrase the question because what you are asking is going to cause problems when trying to answer the question. We have to separate the Book of Mormon (along with any anachronisms that we see) from the underlying source(s). Then we have the problem with the question about the Book of Mormon being true. Book's aren't true. Assertions can be true. But books are simply artifacts. We can talk about the asserions made in the book being true. And then of course, there are lots of them, and we can distinguish between assertions which we believe are likely to be true, and those which we believe are not. Does this make sense to you?

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

No, actually, I don't believe this is true at all. I believe that all texts are equal in this regard. Texts function in the same ways. They have authors, they have readers. They use language. And so on. In what way is the Book of Mormon not a text like any other text?

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.

I don't recognize any text as "sacred". Text's may contain things that we define as sacred, but texts are merely artifacts. Marks on paper so to speak. They still have to be read - and we don't read them differently. We still have to go through a process of reading and comprehending (and perhaps miscomprehending).

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?

No. Perhaps you could be more specific.

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?

Yes, but this doesn't have much to do with literary analysis. David Bokovoy interprets the Book of Mormon text just as he would any other text. The same rules apply. I think you may not be understanding my position.

Ben M.

[Jason]

In what sense is it an invalid reading (a serious question)?Why on earth would his account have to be taken as historical rather than fictional?

Because in my example the author is accurately describing events that really occurred, and accurately describing the people who actually performed them, despite the fact that he had no intention to do so in the first place.

It is, admittedly, an impossible (or at least highly improbable) coincidence.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Jason writes:

Because in my example the author is accurately describing events that really occurred, and accurately describing the people who actually performed them, despite the fact that he had no intention to do so in the first place.

No, actually, he's not accurately describing events that really occured or people who actually existed. He is describing fictional events and fictional people which coincidentally happen to resemble real people and real events. There is a difference.

Ben M.

[Jason]

Jason writes:No, actually, he's not accurately describing events that really occured or people who actually existed. He is describing fictional events and fictional people which coincidentally happen to resemble real people and real events. There is a difference.

Ben M.

In the example they don't just resemble the real people, they exactly match them. That means the author is describing historical events, despite not having realized the fact. That makes his text a historical work - a work describing history.

[mfbukowski]

In reality, if Christ appeared to the atheists on this board and told them the BOM is historical, they would not believe it, because they would attribute it to hallucinations, and up their dose of lithium. But no matter how many people believe it or reject it, it did or did not occur. The reality of a past event transcends our knowledge, belief, or rejection of it.

Thanks for the clarification of your position, and I agree. My point was more about the epistemology of how we can "know" whether or not a past event with little to no "discernable trace" historically, actually happened, when in fact the implications of whether or not it happened are so important. It is more of a question of testimony vs evidence and where the tipping point is in each person's weighing of the evidence.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Jason writes:

In the example they don't just resemble the real people, they exactly match them. That means the author is describing historical events, despite not having realized the fact. That makes his text a historical work - a work describing history.

No it doesn't mean this at all. In fact, I don't think you can refer accidentally to something or someone. Reference just doesn't work this way. Since you too exception to the word resemble, let me rephrase my comments:

No, actually, he's not accurately describing events that really occured or people who actually existed. He is describing fictional events and fictional people which coincidentally happen to exactly match real people and real events. There is a difference.

And the author of course has no idea who these real people are, nor was he inclined to write about them. The only way that you could assume that the author was writing about them is to misinterpret the intentions of the author (as easy as that might have been in this particular instance).

Ben M.

[Kevin Christensen]

David said this:

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.

David is emphasizing the Hebrew Bible, of course, when he discusses contexualizing methods, evidences, and conclusions. A few years ago, I chanced upon an essay by John McDade that has this about how contextualizing works in New Testament studies:

Christian faith, of course, refers to and interprets Jesus, but in what sense does it depend upon, build upon and accurately convey the actuality of Jesus in ways that are not morally flawed by a disproportion between what it says about Jesus and how Jesus saw himself? There are considerable implications for Christian faith if the charge is proved that the canonical Jesus is radically discontinuous with the pre-canonical Jesus and that post-resurrection faith embellishes the significance of Jesus in ways which exceed and even disregard what he thought of himself. It is not uncommon to find that the actuality of Jesus, recovered by historical reconstruction, is meant to stand in sharp contrast with the faith-dreams projected by the post-resurrection Church.

Jesus In Recent Research Dr John McDade SJ at the Catholic Theological Association Conference 1998, published in The Month (December 1998), 495-505

McDade follows this with a provocative survey of various approaches to contextualizing Jesus:

I point you to Telfordâ??s summary of how Jesus emerges as a social type if he is considered in the light of â??foreground dataâ?? (the narrative tradition, especially the miracles, sayings and the traditions surrounding his death) and â??background dataâ?? (the elements of general context posited as appropriate to understanding him in his first century setting). Here, weighting is all and what should strike us about this helpful taxonomy is the selective and constructed character of the images of Jesus offered by historians, depending on their choice of emphasis, what counts as primary data, which heuristic models are used, etc. Telford speaks of a consensus today â??that a combination of teacher, prophet, healer best captures historically his social identity or roleâ?? (Telford, p.55).

Foreground data

â?¢ If weight is given to the miracle tradition, then Jesus emerges as an ancient magician (Morton Smith) or as a Jewish charismatic healer and exorcist (Vermes).

â?¢ If the weight is given to the sayings tradition, then a range of images of Jesus is adduced.

â?¢ If the wisdom sayings (proverbs, parables, aphorisms etc.) are given prominence, then Jesus emerges as a sage (Vermes, Flusser) or even an itinerant subversive sage (Borg, Robinson, Funk).

â?¢ If an emphasis on the authenticity of the prophetic and apocalyptic sayings is retained, then Jesus emerges as an eschatological prophet (Meyer, Sanders, Charlesworth).

â?¢ If his Kingdom saying are interpreted apocalyptically (following Schweitzer), and linked with the Son of Man sayings, then Jesus is an other-worldly figure, expecting cosmic catastrophe and relatively indifferent to social concerns.

â?¢ If the Kingdom sayings are not interpreted apocalyptically, and the Son of Man sayings are viewed as secondary, then Jesus emerges as a this-worldly figure, a social prophet, with a social programme (Borg, Horsley, Hollenbach).

â?¢ If the emphasis is placed on the opposition to him and his death at the hands of the Romans, then Jesus emerges as a para-Zealot revolutionary (Brandon) or the pacifist victim of oppression.

Background data

The choice of context in which to place Jesus affects the estimate given of him:

â?¢ When emphasis is placed on the Palestinian Jewish context and within that on the Rabbinic tradition (although that did not flourish till after 70AD), then Jesus can be seen as the inspired Rabbi (Flusser, Chilton) or the Pharisee (Falk).

â?¢ If the choice is made to place him in the context of apocalyptic Judaism, then he can be seen as the â??humane apocalyptistâ?? (Charlesworth) or the â??reasonable visionaryâ?? (Sanders).

â?¢ If his Galilean provenance is emphasised, then he becomes a charismatic holy man or hasid in the same tradition as Honi the Circle-Drawer or Hanina ben Dosa (Vermes).

â?¢ If Hellenistic influences in Galilee are emphasised, then he can be seen as a Cynic teacher (Mack, Crossan)

â?¢ If it is judged that he conforms to no particular social type, he cannot be placed in one of these categories (Hengel)

The Jesus who is envisaged in these accounts is the pre-canonical Jesus, arrived at through certain judgements about the nature of the Gospel traditions (both canonical and extra-canonical -- the Gospel of Thomas is now a controversial card in the game), and set in the dynamics of the religious, social and economic life of Palestine. There is then a radical dependence between the reconstructed Jesus and the reconstructed context/model: how the context and social model are understood determines how Jesus is understood. â??Determinesâ?? is not too strong a word, for one of the problems with this approach is that the grid of social and economic context is such a strong factor it can inhibit responsible handling of the actual textual evidence we have for Jesus.

McDade goes on to compare Crossan's approach to Ben Meyer, N.T. Wright, and then Margaret Barker, whose methods and sources for contextualizing he finds very promising. Without getting into that, I've been impressed by the observation of "a radical dependence" between the ways scholars contextualize, and the models they present, whether of the Bible, Jesus, or the Book of Mormon. Given competing models, and different methods of working with the same source materials, and contextual information, the trick is finding which is better? Which is why I like Kuhn and Alma 32.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[Jason]

No, actually, he's not accurately describing events that really occured or people who actually existed. He is describing fictional events and fictional people which coincidentally happen to exactly match real people and real events. There is a difference.

Legally perhaps. But I think there would be no practical difference in such a case. The actual historical content of the author's text - the accurate description of real people and events - would be independent of any intent on the author's part.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Legally perhaps. But I think there would be no practical difference in such a case. The actual historical content of the author's text - the accurate description of real people and events - would be independent of any intent on the author's part.

Probably this has gone as far as its going to go, and I remain as unconvinced as ever ... so we can agree to disagree and let it drop.

[Jason]

Probably this has gone as far as its going to go, and I remain as unconvinced as ever ... so we can agree to disagree and let it drop.

It is admittedly an unrealistic scenario.

[Bill Hamblin]

McDade follows this with a provocative survey of various approaches to contextualizing Jesus:

McDade goes on to compare Crossan's approach to Ben Meyer, N.T. Wright, and then Margaret Barker, whose methods and sources for contextualizing he finds very promising. Without getting into that, I've been impressed by the observation of "a radical dependence" between the ways scholars contextualize, and the models they present, whether of the Bible, Jesus, or the Book of Mormon. Given competing models, and different methods of working with the same source materials, and contextual information, the trick is finding which is better? Which is why I like Kuhn and Alma 32.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

This is exactly right. The assumptions and paradigms control the data.

[Mars]

David,

I'm genuinely encouraged by this thread.

I too, have come to rely on "where else would I go?" when I'm faced with difficult questions of faith.

I'm glad you shared it.

[Bill Hamblin]

I agree with much of what Ben has to say. However, there is one caveat that needs to be emphasized. The past consists of a sequence of Actual Past Events (APEs) which really existed despite our inability to perceive or understand them.

The only way contemporary historians can engage these APEs is through the the reflections in the mirrors of surviving texts and artifacts. As Paul put it, we see "through a glass darkly" (1 Cor 13:12), or, to put it in more modern terms, "obscurely (ainigmati, hence our enigma) through a mirror," or "through a distorting mirror." Our ability to perceive APEs is always distorted and warped by the mirror of the perceptions of the authors of the texts we are reading. Not only that, but we are actually perceive a reflection of a reflection, because we each have our own distorting mirror (our own assumptions, paradigms, etc.) through which we further distort the already original distorted perception of the past.

The distinction between history and fiction (even fiction with historical verisimilitude) is whether the mirror into which we gaze is reflecting APEs through the imaginal mirror of the past author, or reflecting only the imaginal mirror of the past author.

Thus I believe the distinction between history and fiction is a crucial one. If the "imaginal mirror" of the BOM reflects APEs (ie real Nephites, a real Nephite Christophany) it is history, no matter how obscure or distorted. With a book like the BOM we actually are seeing APEs reflected through at least four distorting imaginal mirrors--the original Nephite authors, Mormon's abridgment, Joseph's translation, and our own imaginal mirror. What we see is a reflection of a reflection of a reflection of a reflection. If, at the end of these multiple reflections we see the light of the real Nephite Christophany, then the BOM is historical. If, on the other hand, all we see at the end is the imagination of Joseph, then the BOM is fiction. That, to me, makes all the difference, and that's why this issue is becomes the razor's edge.

[Jason]

That was my basic point, but phrased somewhat more elegantly.

[e=mc2]

I agree with much of what Ben has to say. However, there is one caveat that needs to be emphasized. The past consists of a sequence of Actual Past Events (APEs) which really existed despite our inability to perceive or understand them.

The only way contemporary historians can engage these APEs is through the the reflections in the mirrors of surviving texts and artifacts. As Paul put it, we see "through a glass darkly" (1 Cor 13:12), or, to put it in more modern terms, "obscurely (ainigmati, hence our enigma) through a mirror," or "through a distorting mirror." Our ability to perceive APEs is always distorted and warped by the mirror of the perceptions of the authors of the texts we are reading. Not only that, but we are actually perceive a reflection of a reflection, because we each have our own distorting mirror (our own assumptions, paradigms, etc.) through which we further distort the already original distorted perception of the past.

The distinction between history and fiction (even fiction with historical verisimilitude) is whether the mirror into which we gaze is reflecting APEs through the imaginal mirror of the past author, or reflecting only the imaginal mirror of the past author.

Thus I believe the distinction between history and fiction is a crucial one. If the "imaginal mirror" of the BOM reflects APEs (ie real Nephites, a real Nephite Christophany) it is history, no matter how obscure or distorted. With a book like the BOM we actually are seeing APEs reflected through at least four distorting imaginal mirrors--the original Nephite authors, Mormon's abridgment, Joseph's translation, and our own imaginal mirror. What we see is a reflection of a reflection of a reflection of a reflection. If, at the end of these multiple reflections we see the light of the real Nephite Christophany, then the BOM is historical. If, on the other hand, all we see at the end is the imagination of Joseph, then the BOM is fiction. That, to me, makes all the difference, and that's why this issue is becomes the razor's edge.

A very good clarification and development. Thanks Bill...... I too, have thoroughly enjoyed this thread. That's Bokovoy for ya isn't it? Always stirring the pot, and we are all coming out better because of it. Ya gotta love a message board that does this.

[MichaelW]

A very good clarification and development. Thanks Bill...... I too, have thoroughly enjoyed this thread. That's Bokovoy for ya isn't it? Always stirring the pot, and we are all coming out better because of it. Ya gotta love a message board that does this.

Glad I could start it--even though it's not at all what I intended in my original post . . .

David identifies what I was getting at here:

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.

I've recently wondered if there are other texts where there is scholarly debate over the era in which it was written. I'll offer up the example of the Book of Mormon mentioning horses. Some claim that mention proves it is not an ancient text, and some disagree. I've wondered if there are such disagreements elsewhere--where the content or style of the text says "ancient text" to some, but "modern text" to others, and the extent to which the different sides to that debate are willing to go in trying to prove their contentions.

As to where this thread went--it's an interesting topic, but one I don't have the desire energy right now to wrap my mind around. But thought-provoking nonetheless.

[Nomad]

I agree with much of what Ben has to say. However, there is one caveat that needs to be emphasized. The past consists of a sequence of Actual Past Events (APEs) which really existed despite our inability to perceive or understand them.

The only way contemporary historians can engage these APEs is through the the reflections in the mirrors of surviving texts and artifacts. As Paul put it, we see "through a glass darkly" (1 Cor 13:12), or, to put it in more modern terms, "obscurely (ainigmati, hence our enigma) through a mirror," or "through a distorting mirror." Our ability to perceive APEs is always distorted and warped by the mirror of the perceptions of the authors of the texts we are reading. Not only that, but we are actually perceive a reflection of a reflection, because we each have our own distorting mirror (our own assumptions, paradigms, etc.) through which we further distort the already original distorted perception of the past.

The distinction between history and fiction (even fiction with historical verisimilitude) is whether the mirror into which we gaze is reflecting APEs through the imaginal mirror of the past author, or reflecting only the imaginal mirror of the past author.

Thus I believe the distinction between history and fiction is a crucial one. If the "imaginal mirror" of the BOM reflects APEs (ie real Nephites, a real Nephite Christophany) it is history, no matter how obscure or distorted. With a book like the BOM we actually are seeing APEs reflected through at least four distorting imaginal mirrors--the original Nephite authors, Mormon's abridgment, Joseph's translation, and our own imaginal mirror. What we see is a reflection of a reflection of a reflection of a reflection. If, at the end of these multiple reflections we see the light of the real Nephite Christophany, then the BOM is historical. If, on the other hand, all we see at the end is the imagination of Joseph, then the BOM is fiction. That, to me, makes all the difference, and that's why this issue is becomes the razor's edge.

But thatâ??s not all.

And this is where (in my opinion) the world of LDS â??scholarshipâ? is tending, in some quarters, to slip down a perilous slope.

All the things Bill mentions above are valid caveats for one considering the question of the historicity of the Book of Mormon. But they are all things that fall within the realm of the â??natural world,â? as it were. They all necessarily reduce the Book of Mormon to little more than a transmitted text â?? which of course it is â?? but that hardly does the thing justice if the book itself is to be believed.

Consider the veritable obsession that its numerous authors demonstrate in their incessant petitioning of God to â??preserve these thingsâ? for both their posterity and for those to whom the record would come in the last days. Indeed, their very choice of a largely incorruptible metallic medium for these particular records is potent evidence of their concern. In the ancient world, do we have any other examples of a culture going to the trouble of preserving their most precious records on metallic plates? Not that I am aware.

Why is that? Why donâ??t we find volumes of texts inscribed on a metallic medium? Well, obviously itâ??s because itâ??s a huge pain and expense. And yet it was something that these people were committed to do out of their obsessive concern for the preservation of their records. In this respect they are extraordinarily unique.

Ben doubts the possible continuity of the Nephite records â?? but on what basis? Where is the analogue to be found?

Ben, David, and others of their persuasion, seek to overlay a template of traditional textual criticism on the Book of Mormon, but I maintain that the book resists that template on good grounds. I will list some of the more salient factors that I perceive:

• The book claims to be an abridgment of hundreds of years of records, engraved on metallic plates, with the earliest specimen (The Plates of Brass) going back over 1000 years from the time when Mormon first sits down to commence his condensed account. We are given to believe, in many places throughout the book, that these records became considerably voluminous.
  
  
  `
  
  
• The books claims, throughout, to have the benefit of divine guidance for the authors of the records from which it was drawn, as well as divine power for their preservation.
  
  
  `
  
  
• The book was cached by its final author and delivered by that final author directly to its modern-day translator, and that translator was (by his own account) tutored extensively by that final author over the period of several years prior to the actual translation taking place.
  
  
  `
  
  
• The book speaks of a special tool that was used among them for â??interpretingâ? ancient records in unknown languages. The final author includes this device in the cache of the records he assigns to the modern translator, with the ostensible purpose of facilitating the translation.
  
  
  `
  
  
• Text-critical analysis by Professor Skousen reveals an original manuscript produced in such a way as to confirm the several witness accounts of a process that could only be described as a â??tightly controlledâ? translation. (Of course, this is another entire debate in and of itself, but I have yet to see anyone effectively engage Skousenâ??s arguments.)
  
  
  `
  
  
• If we are to believe the account of the â??Three Witnessesâ? to the artifacts I mention above (plates and interpreters), then we must accept that God himself has given His approbative imprimatur to the translation that was effected.
  
  

Now I understand perfectly the aversion that is felt in many quarters for the notion of a tightly-controlled translation. Quite simply, the very testimonies of people like Ostler, Bokovoy, and many others seem to be inextricably tied to the belief that the book could NOT have come about in such a way. Neither can it truly, in the minds of many of these people, be a bona fide â??translationâ? of an actual ancient record. And so we get a variety of suggested explanations that reduce the text of the Book of Mormon to some complex bastardization of hybridized inspiration and automatic writing â?? but not necessarily based upon the â??actual past eventsâ? of an actual ancient people.

I cannot see how one can reconcile such arguments with the large body of evidence that seems to suggest otherwise.

Of course, the only alternative, if we abandon the various post-modernist explanations available to us, is to appeal to some species of unprovable supernatural intercession in order to explain what appear to be â??problemsâ? with the text.

And that is my whole point.

Nephi is recorded to have written, on plates that were recorded to have been actually included with Mormon's abridgment, the following words:

... that I might more fully persuade them to believe in the Lord their Redeemer I did read unto them that which was written by the prophet Isaiah; for I did liken all scriptures unto us, that it might be for our profit and learning.

Wherefore I spake unto them, saying: Hear ye the words of the prophet, ye who are a remnant of the house of Israel, a branch who have been broken off; hear ye the words of the prophet, which were written unto all the house of Israel, and liken them unto yourselves, that ye may have hope as well as your brethren from whom ye have been broken off; for after this manner has the prophet written.

After which he reads from what we now know as Isaiah chapter 48, part of the so-called "Deutero-Isaiah" that we are told could not have been available to someone like Nephi.

But I maintain that if one cannot find a way to believe that a historical Nephi, living somewhere in America circa 570 B.C., really did possess the text of Isaiah 48, then I am convinced that, eventually, everything else in the house of cards they call their faith will come tumbling down.

I, for one, am convinced that there was a historical Nephi and that he really did hold the text of Isaiah 48 in his hands, and really did read it to his people. Indeed, if he didnâ??t, then the only other possible explanation, as I see it, is that the Book of Mormon is a complete fraud, and should be repudiated.

[mfbukowski]

Thus I believe the distinction between history and fiction is a crucial one. If the "imaginal mirror" of the BOM reflects APEs (ie real Nephites, a real Nephite Christophany) it is history, no matter how obscure or distorted. With a book like the BOM we actually are seeing APEs reflected through at least four distorting imaginal mirrors--the original Nephite authors, Mormon's abridgment, Joseph's translation, and our own imaginal mirror. What we see is a reflection of a reflection of a reflection of a reflection. If, at the end of these multiple reflections we see the light of the real Nephite Christophany, then the BOM is historical. If, on the other hand, all we see at the end is the imagination of Joseph, then the BOM is fiction. That, to me, makes all the difference, and that's why this issue is becomes the razor's edge.

(Emphasis Added)

I agree, but those are three very big "ifs", and the question becomes one of choice, doesn't it, since we will never know which is correct. So I base my conclusions on other evidence. Even IF the BOM is fiction, it has changed my life, and I could live with that if I had to. But I think it's life-changing power in itself is evidence of that original light you mention.

I, for one, am convinced that there was a historical Nephi and that he really did hold the text of Isaiah 48 in his hands, and really did read it to his people. Indeed, if he didn’t, then the only other possible explanation, as I see it, is that the Book of Mormon is a complete fraud, and should be repudiated.

How will we ever know which of these hypotheses is correct?

[Nomad]

mfbukowski:

How will we ever know which of these hypotheses is correct?

In the immortal words of Curly the Trail Boss: â??Thatâ??s what you gotta figure out.â?

I will unequivocally claim that I know one can know.

And whoso receiveth this record, and shall not condemn it because of the imperfections which are in it, the same shall know of greater things than these.

[mfbukowski]

In the immortal words of Curly the Trail Boss: “That’s what you gotta figure out.”

I will unequivocally claim that I know one can know.

I totally agree. My point was that testimony is the only way we CAN know. So the intellectual side of it becomes almost (note I said almost) irrelevant.

[Nevo]

But I maintain that if one cannot find a way to believe that a historical Nephi, living somewhere in America circa 570 B.C., really did possess the text of Isaiah 48, then I am convinced that, eventually, everything else in the house of cards they call their faith will come tumbling down.

I, for one, am convinced that there was a historical Nephi and that he really did hold the text of Isaiah 48 in his hands, and really did read it to his people. Indeed, if he didnâ??t, then the only other possible explanation, as I see it, is that the Book of Mormon is a complete fraud, and should be repudiated.

Well, that settles it then. If those are the only two options, then I don't believe the Book of Mormon is historical. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

But I don't think I'll take up your invitation to repudiate it.

"Every thing which inviteth and enticeth to do good, and to love God, and to serve him, is inspired of God. Wherefore, take heed, my beloved brethren, that ye do not judge . . . that which is good and of God to be of the devil." - Moroni 7:13-14