Testing Biblical Historicity Using Secular Methodologies

[Mike Reed]

He obviously is ignoring the hundreds of articles written by FARMS, FAIR, and many others (including Wade and me) regarding such things.

Or maybe he hasn't ignored them. Maybe he's just not impressed by them. What impressive articles have you written that you think Bowman has overlooked?

That the BoM contains Hebraisms (such as chiasmus), which date back to the proper time period, is evidence that at least some of the writing is ancient.

Surely you aren't insinuating 19th century texts with Hebraisms and Chiastic structures would be anachronistic, are you?

That the BoM contains dozens of names (NHM, Pahoran, Paanchi, etc) that date back thousands of years to the right time period, shows that at least that portion of the text is not a 19th century add on, should be considered.

What makes you think they haven't been considered? I am not sure about Paanchi... but NHM and Pahoran have been debated several times on this forum.

To pull up a few anachronistic phrases and condemn the whole book simply because Joseph Smith would or could easily write things in the vernacular of his day in order to describe the real ancient meaning is silly.

The case made against the BoM has be more than a "few anachronistic phrases."

For instance, using the French word "adieu" was because Joseph knew the term and what it meant. It does not mean that ancient Nephites spoke French, but that the word best described the meaning.

You can pick low hanging fruit, I see.

Strange, though... nobody mentioned "adieu" in this thread.

Edited February 23, 2012 by Mike Reed

[Storm Rider]

As a general rule, and unlike good folks such as Rob Bowman, we LDS aren't in the business of pro-actively challenging the origins of non-LDS scripture.

And, as a general rule, and unlike good folks such as Rob Bowman, we LDS test the verity of our own scriptures by putting our trust in God, rather than man. We prefer spiritual methodologies when testing spiritual things, whereas good folks like Rob seem to prefer secular methodologies.

These two things seem to work in our favor since, unlike with good folks such as Rob, our spiritual methodologies tend not to come back to bite our own faith; whereas. as may be demonstrated in this thread, the use of certain secular methodologies by religionists may come back to bite their faith.

Since this principle seem lost on certain good people, this thread is devoted to putting the Bible to the same or similar secular tests as those employed by the Rob Bomans of the world in relation to LDS scriptures.

Make no mistake, this exercise shouldn't be interpreted as LDS bashing the Bible. We believe the Bible to be the word of God, and have had this confirmed to us by God. Rather, the intent here is to give other Christians good reason to minimize their reliance on secular methodologies in spiritual matters, and maximize their reliance on divinely instituted spiritual means for testing spiritual things.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Just a small point, but a very important one. Lest a problem be created unnecessarily, the Bible is LDS scripture. I appreciate your last paragraph, but I felt we needed to underline this point again.

[robuchan]

Your logic doesn't work.

The proposition

"Killing babies for fun is wrong"

Has absolutely no logical entailment nor is it in any way "tied to"- whatever that is supposed to mean- the proposition

"God visitied robuchon at time t"

If you cannot see that, there really isn't much more to discuss.

Here's the difference. If you were to stand up in testimony meeting and testify of the following, these two statements would be very different. One is a true spiritual truth, one is not.

a. I know killing babies is wrong.

b. I know God told Robuchan in a visit on Aug 1 that killing babies is wrong.

Likewise

a. God exists and loves

b. God visited Joseph Smith in the sacred grove.

or

a. Wickedness never was happiness

b. An ancient American prophet Alma wrote "wickedness never was happiness" on gold plates which were given to Joseph Smith and translated.

See the difference? If you're calling only the a items spiritual truths, then we can agree. If you're calling the b items also spiritual truths, then we do not because the b items can potentially be proven false given certain historical facts (hypothetically--i'm not trying to overstate my case using Joseph Smith--the point is that a historical assertion can be proven false if certain pieces of evidence were to come forward to disprove it).

[volgadon]

Let's begin with the creation and garden accounts in the Book of Genesis.

According to my research, the earliest extant manuscript for the Book of Genesis is from Tanakh at Qumran (1Q1), written in Hebrew script, dated to the second century BCE. (See HERE).

This puts at least approximately 4000 years between the events in question and the earliest extant manuscripts;

The language, both vocabulary and syntax, is not that of Qumran, but is a lot more archaic.

[Robert F. Smith]

"Tanakh at Qumran" is not a specific manuscript. Tanakh is simply the Hebrew name for what Christians call the Old Testament.

Tanakh is actually a modern Hebrew acronym for Torah (Law/Pentateuch), Neviim (Prophets), and Ktuvim (Writings/Hagiographa), the three traditional constituents of the Hebrew Bible. Jews use the term like non-Jews use "Bible," although they exclude the Christian components of that latter term. Anyhow, the acronym may have come into use first in Medieval times.

[altersteve]

But all the important LDS truth claims are tied to actual events, so history and science come into play.

As are "all the important ... truth claims" of traditional Christianity, as well as just about every other religion on the planet. So what exactly are you trying to argue here?

[robuchan]

As are "all the important ... truth claims" of traditional Christianity, as well as just about every other religion on the planet. So what exactly are you trying to argue here?

The idea I'm trying to get across...

I have heard many people claim that spiritual truths can not be proven or disproven. That's fine. I agree. For example, the following statement can not be proven or disproven.

The spirit whispered to me that God exists and loves me.

But the problem is when people want to extend this concept to historical or scientific statements. Such as the following.

Yesterday 2/23/2012 at 1:00 pm I was eating a burger at the McDonald's on 700 E and 400 S with three friends Jane Doe, John Smith, Zane Jones in Salt Lake City and during this lunch the spirit whispered to me that God exists and loves me.

This now combines a spiritual truth with a historical/scientific truth and can be evaluated with evidence and potentially proven false.

I use this argument against people who say the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith, or the LDS church's status as the true church of God can not be proven true or false, because they are spiritual concepts. I say they are all tied to historical and scientific concepts which can be potentially proven false, given certain evidence.

There's no point here about comparing Mormonism to other religions for better or worse on this concept.

[mfbukowski]

Here's the difference. If you were to stand up in testimony meeting and testify of the following, these two statements would be very different. One is a true spiritual truth, one is not.

a. I know killing babies is wrong.

b. I know God told Robuchan in a visit on Aug 1 that killing babies is wrong.

Likewise

a. God exists and loves

b. God visited Joseph Smith in the sacred grove.

or

a. Wickedness never was happiness

b. An ancient American prophet Alma wrote "wickedness never was happiness" on gold plates which were given to Joseph Smith and translated.

See the difference? If you're calling only the a items spiritual truths, then we can agree. If you're calling the b items also spiritual truths, then we do not because the b items can potentially be proven false given certain historical facts (hypothetically--i'm not trying to overstate my case using Joseph Smith--the point is that a historical assertion can be proven false if certain pieces of evidence were to come forward to disprove it).

Of course I see the difference.

That's the difference I have been trying to get you to see. The historical statements have nothing to do with the spiritual ones.

[mfbukowski]

I say they are all tied to historical and scientific concepts which can be potentially proven false, given certain evidence.

Tied with what?

Certainly not logic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fideism

Edited February 24, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Robert F. Smith]

You said nothing about what God told you. What God told me has nothing to do with what God told you. We need to have individual testimonies of all the principles of the church- not just that "Joseph saw God"

Spiritual beliefs are logically justifiable in the same way that moral beliefs are- and they have nothing to do with history. Can you prove through history that it is wrong to kill babies for fun? Good luck with that one. Both moral and spiritual beliefs are justified because they work for us- morals work for society and religious beliefs work for the individual- giving meaning to their lives, and allowing them to create a comprehensive world view.

Society could not exist without morals.

Which morals? There are many systems of morals. What happens which such systems come into conflict?

You cannot prove for example that Jesus was the Christ with historical evidence. It is tenuous to even prove that the person Jesus of Nazareth even existed on historical evidence- but I think it is probably likely (using only historical evidence) that he did exist. Of course on a spiritual level, I am certain that he not only existed, but was indeed the son of God and the annointed savior of the world. But certainly history does not show that at all.

Whether or not Joseph saw God or where the Book of Mormon came from is irrelevant to the historical evidence also. I believe both those things based on spiritual evidence because God "told me" personally by revealing it to my heart, that these things are true.

I would laugh at anybody who told me a story like that about the plates and all - and in fact did until I myself investigated it further and in fact received a testimony of it

There is a book by a prominent evangelical professor dealing with just such historical questions and methodologies: Michael R. Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach (Downer's Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2010). Are the principles he employs secular in nature? Does he prove his case? Can his criteria of historical evidence be applied to Joseph Smith's claims and to the Book of Mormon?

[mfbukowski]

Which morals? There are many systems of morals. What happens which such systems come into conflict?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memetics

The bottom line is what works works. Sounds like Alma 32 to me! Both use an organic, biological model to describe which beliefs survive and which do not.

Edited February 24, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Rob Bowman]

Robert,

You wrote:

Tanakh is actually a modern Hebrew acronym for Torah (Law/Pentateuch), Neviim (Prophets), and Ktuvim (Writings/Hagiographa), the three traditional constituents of the Hebrew Bible. Jews use the term like non-Jews use "Bible," although they exclude the Christian components of that latter term. Anyhow, the acronym may have come into use first in Medieval times.

That's probably pretty close. The best information I've seen indicates usage of the term at least as early as the 12th century and possibly earlier.

[Rob Bowman]

Robert,

You wrote:

There is a book by a prominent evangelical professor dealing with just such historical questions and methodologies: Michael R. Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach (Downer's Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2010). Are the principles he employs secular in nature? Does he prove his case? Can his criteria of historical evidence be applied to Joseph Smith's claims and to the Book of Mormon?

I'm glad to see you mention Mike and his book. I'm a close friend of Mike and actually was a colleague of his while he was working on the dissertation that became that book. He and I had lots of discussions about it and he had me go through the manuscript and give him some critical feedback at various stages. It's a superb work of scholarship.

And yes, I think there are some applications of Mike's historical methodology to the subject of the Book of Mormon.

Edited February 25, 2012 by Rob Bowman

[Tepui]

What of Titus Flavius Josephus and his Antiquities of the Jews?

Though it's been questioned his mention of Jesus could be someone else, it's agreed he mentioned John the Baptist, Pontius Pilate, etc.

[Robert F. Smith]

Robert,

You wrote:

I'm glad to see you mention Mike and his book. I'm a close friend of Mike and actually was a colleague of his while he was working on the dissertation that became that book. He and I had lots of discussions about it and he had me go through the manuscript and give him some critical feedback at various stages. It's a superb work of scholarship.

And yes, I think there are some applications of Mike's historical methodology to the subject of the Book of Mormon.

Well, given the criteria applied by your friend, how would you (or he) react to the following notion:

Strangely enough, by the canons of secular historical inquiry, it is the Book of Mormon which is in a more favorable position to be evaluated and proven true or false, i.e., that it has no apparently natural continuity with the past as a transmitted document (no plates, etc.) means that it is highly improbable that it could accurately describe New World civilizations or that it could contain other complex, systematic data which have only been discovered in modern times – and are seen to be accurate. Indeed, it is so absurd and improbable that the Book of Mormon could be true that strong evidence that it is authentic from archeology, literary topoi, and the like, strongly confirm its historical authenticity!! The Bible, on the other hand, has been transmitted by natural, historical means down to our own day so that any historically improbable claims contained within it will have to be defended by faith alone – since the civilizations of the ancient Near East certainly existed and have been closely studied. There is nothing improbable in the transmission of the biblical text, unless we interpose unnecessary claims of miraculous preservation of an inerrant text (a theological preference in some quarters).

Even if the Hebrew Bible had been found in an old archive somewhere 300 years ago and then translated from its original language, and then the original disappeared (as the Secret Gospel of Mark “disappeared” from the monastery where it was supposedly found), we could at least evaluate the translation of it based on its correspondence to archeological and historical reality as discovered since that disappearance. However, we would probably not credit any miracles in that biblical account, any more than we credit miracles in the Iliad or Odyssey, even though we know now that there were literate Mycenean and Achaian Greeks in the 2nd millennium B.C. (the Heroic Age)

If, on the other hand, Joe Schmo had been led several hundred years ago by an angel to discover biblical documents on vellum in clay pots in some desert caves, and he had dutifully translated them (with the assistance of his faithful companion “The Mugwump”), but subsequently the angel took the vellum back up into the sky, who would believe him? The whole question in such a case could easily turn (for the skeptic) on whether archeology and history subsequently discovered facts verifying the existence of the strange Near Eastern civilizations described in the translation texts. The only other epistemology open to inquirers would be the spiritually experiental path.

The absurd origin of the Book of Mormon is thus a relative advantage when set over against the evaluation of the authenticity of the Bible.

[mfbukowski]

Well, given the criteria applied by your friend, how would you (or he) react to the following notion:

Strangely enough, by the canons of secular historical inquiry, it is the Book of Mormon which is in a more favorable position to be evaluated and proven true or false, i.e., that it has no apparently natural continuity with the past as a transmitted document (no plates, etc.) means that it is highly improbable that it could accurately describe New World civilizations or that it could contain other complex, systematic data which have only been discovered in modern times – and are seen to be accurate. Indeed, it is so absurd and improbable that the Book of Mormon could be true that strong evidence that it is authentic from archeology, literary topoi, and the like, strongly confirm its historical authenticity!! The Bible, on the other hand, has been transmitted by natural, historical means down to our own day so that any historically improbable claims contained within it will have to be defended by faith alone – since the civilizations of the ancient Near East certainly existed and have been closely studied. There is nothing improbable in the transmission of the biblical text, unless we interpose unnecessary claims of miraculous preservation of an inerrant text (a theological preference in some quarters).

Even if the Hebrew Bible had been found in an old archive somewhere 300 years ago and then translated from its original language, and then the original disappeared (as the Secret Gospel of Mark “disappeared” from the monastery where it was supposedly found), we could at least evaluate the translation of it based on its correspondence to archeological and historical reality as discovered since that disappearance. However, we would probably not credit any miracles in that biblical account, any more than we credit miracles in the Iliad or Odyssey, even though we know now that there were literate Mycenean and Achaian Greeks in the 2nd millennium B.C. (the Heroic Age)

If, on the other hand, Joe Schmo had been led several hundred years ago by an angel to discover biblical documents on vellum in clay pots in some desert caves, and he had dutifully translated them (with the assistance of his faithful companion “The Mugwump”), but subsequently the angel took the vellum back up into the sky, who would believe him? The whole question in such a case could easily turn (for the skeptic) on whether archeology and history subsequently discovered facts verifying the existence of the strange Near Eastern civilizations described in the translation texts. The only other epistemology open to inquirers would be the spiritually experiental path.

The absurd origin of the Book of Mormon is thus a relative advantage when set over against the evaluation of the authenticity of the Bible.

Excellent points!

[ERayR]

I think given the curious origins of LDS Scriptures (thinking mostly about the BoM, but also the PoGP), this is likely a very prudent course.

My friend I think you have the wrong idea. It has nothing to do with origins but everything to do with the reverence to which scripture is held by the LDS community.

[wenglund]

I think Robert F. Smith's comments from another thread (A Hebraism in the Book of Mormon) are pertinent here as well:

Rhetorical analysis of the poetic structure is always helpful, but I would say that form criticism may be equally useful since it discloses the formulaic nature and purpose of various texts. But, yes, you and Bill have got a good handle on the problem with the core of Deuteronomy not being available in its original language -- not to mention the lack of certainty as to its original content. Documentary analysis (higher criticism) can take us only so far. After that, faith and spiritual experience enter the picture.

As evangelical scholar William Lane Craig has said of his own personal epistemology: "I still think this experiential approach to the resurrection is a perfectly valid way to knowing that Christ has risen. It’s the way that most Christians today know that Jesus is risen and alive."

--http://www.bartdehrm...tion_debate.pdf

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited March 9, 2012 by wenglund