How an Ahistorical Book of Mormon Can Still Be Scripture

[Gray]

10 minutes ago, Meerkat said:

I would do it because its the right thing to do regardless of who said it.  

Exactly! That's why I say the historicity of scripture is really just trivia. The point of scripture is not about its historicity, but its message.

[clarkgoble]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

Exactly! That's why I say the historicity of scripture is really just trivia. The point of scripture is not about its historicity, but its message.

Unless the message is wrapped up in historicity. We've gone through that before in this thread so I'll not repeat it.

[Gray]

11 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Unless the message is wrapped up in historicity. We've gone through that before in this thread so I'll not repeat it.

In which case, it's a history book, not scripture.

[clarkgoble]

4 minutes ago, Gray said:

In which case, it's a history book, not scripture.

Not at all. That only works if to be scriptural is to be ahistorical. But that's what we're trying to establish.

Edited August 28, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Gray]

22 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Not at all. That only works if to be scriptural is to be ahistorical. But that's what we're trying to establish.

Scripture and history are two very different genres, isn't that so? Scripture may contain histories, but it is not written like histories are written. No one went around looking for primary sources for the traditions about Moses. Ancient scribes weren't testing the story using historical criteria, for the same reason they weren't vaccinating or sending men to the moon.

Edited August 28, 2017 by Gray

[clarkgoble]

8 minutes ago, Gray said:

Scripture and history are two very different genres, isn't that so? Scripture may contain histories, but it is not written like histories are written.

History itself is made up of different genres. But history and historicity are two different things. The latter is about events while the former is often generalities along with events. I think there's a lot more complexity on "history" than you suggest since of course something can be history without being an academic history.

Edited August 28, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Gray]

9 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

History itself is made up of different genres. But history and historicity are two different things. The latter is about events while the former is often generalities along with events. I think there's a lot more complexity on "history" than you suggest since of course something can be history without being an academic history.

Do you mean something can be a historical source, without being an academic history? Or are you referring to history in the colloquial sense?

[clarkgoble]

6 minutes ago, Gray said:

Do you mean something can be a historical source, without being an academic history? Or are you referring to history in the colloquial sense?

I'm more just pointing out that the word history has a pretty wide range of meaning.

[smac97]

39 minutes ago, Gray said:

In which case, it's a history book, not scripture.

I've never understood this mindset.  Can you explain why you dichotomize these two attributes?  It seems unreasonable to me.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Gray]

3 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I'm more just pointing out that the word history has a pretty wide range of meaning.

Okay, but it's clear what I mean when I say history, yes?

[Gray]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I've never understood this mindset.  Can you explain why you dichotomize these two attributes?  It seems unreasonable to me.

Thanks,

-Smac

Histories are compiled using historical sources. Historical claims are subjected to historical criteria to try to assess the likelihood of them having happened. Writers of scriptures didn't use the methods of historians with the objective of making probability claims about what "really" happened in the past. They wouldn't have known how to do that, any more than they would have known how to vaccinate for measles. The objective of scripture is to get at profound spiritual truths.

[clarkgoble]

7 minutes ago, Gray said:

Okay, but it's clear what I mean when I say history, yes?

Not really. Sometimes it sounds like you just mean academic history and other times a narrative that involves things really happening.

[smac97]

28 minutes ago, Gray said:

Scripture and history are two very different genres, isn't that so?

"Scripture" may or may not be "historical" (that is, "of, pertaining to, treating, or characteristic of history or past events").

For example, there is some debate about whether Job was a historical figure, or whether the biblical account is purely fictional/allegorical.  If we assume, for the sake of argument, that the latter is the correct assessment, then that portion of the Christian canon is not "historical."

On the other hand, consider Joseph Smith-History, which Latter-day Saints accept as both "scripture" and "history."  That it fits within the parameters of two different genres of literature is irrelevant.  

28 minutes ago, Gray said:

Scripture may contain histories, but it is not written like histories are written.

How are "histories" written?  

What are your thoughts about historical documents (particularly ancient ones) that do not fit modern conventions about how "histories" are "written"?

28 minutes ago, Gray said:

No one went around looking for primary sources for the traditions about Moses.

Agreed.  So the absence of primary sources makes ancient historical documents ahistorical?

28 minutes ago, Gray said:

Ancient scribes weren't testing the story using historical criteria, for the same reason they weren't vaccinating or sending men to the moon.

It seems like many ancient documents of any stripe, both "historical" and "scriptural," fail to adhere to modern conventions about writing "history."  But that would seem to pertain more to their probative value.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[Meerkat]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

Exactly! That's why I say the historicity of scripture is really just trivia. The point of scripture is not about its historicity, but its message.

I agree that the point of the scriptures is to convey the principles and values of the Gospel, including honesty (Thou shalt not bear false witness.)   I also agree that some of it needs to be considered in an allegorical sense, such as the creation, the parables of Jesus, etc.  But I believe the overall context, geography, wars, kings, cultures, etc. is as accurate as humanly possible under the circumstances.  They need to reflect God's integrity, in my opinion. 

[smac97]

11 minutes ago, Gray said:

Histories are compiled using historical sources.

Agreed.

Many scriptures in the LDS canon are also derived from "historical sources."

11 minutes ago, Gray said:

Historical claims are subjected to historical criteria to try to assess the likelihood of them having happened.

In some contexts, yes.  But not all.

Religious claims are accepted principally as a matter of faith, not because they have been "subjected to historical criteria."  Nevertheless, historical reality - historicity - is an integral part of such religious claims.  Jesus Christ is, for most Christians, a historical - not figurative or imaginary or fictional - person.  The Gold Plates are claimed to have been actual, tangible, physical objects crafted in antiquity.

11 minutes ago, Gray said:

Writers of scriptures didn't use the methods of historians with the objective of making probability claims about what "really" happened in the past.

Most ancient writers of all stripes "didn't use the methods of historians."

Modern historical scholarship and its conventions are wonderful.  I am glad we have them.  But I think they have limited utility when imputed onto ancient writings.

11 minutes ago, Gray said:

They wouldn't have known how to do that, any more than they would have known how to vaccinate for measles. The objective of scripture is to get at profound spiritual truths.

Agreed.  But those "profound spiritual truths" are grounded in historical events.

Jesus Christ, and his birth and childhood, and ministry and death and resurrection and ascension, are all properly characterized (for Christians) as both "profound spiritual truths" and actual historical events.  These are not mandatory interpretations, of course.  But to strip scripture of the latter characterization (actual historical events) is to strip of them of the former ("profound spiritual truths").  A fictional Jesus Christ is merely an interesting and take-it-or-leave-it role model.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

3 hours ago, Gray said:

Exactly! That's why I say the historicity of scripture is really just trivia. The point of scripture is not about its historicity, but its message.

The historicity of Jesus Christ is "really just trivia?"  That is your position?
 

Thanks,

-Smac

[Gray]

44 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Not really. Sometimes it sounds like you just mean academic history and other times a narrative that involves things really happening.

I'm always referring to the former.

[Gray]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

"Scripture" may or may not be "historical" (that is, "of, pertaining to, treating, or characteristic of history or past events").

For example, there is some debate about whether Job was a historical figure, or whether the biblical account is purely fictional/allegorical.  If we assume, for the sake of argument, that the latter is the correct assessment, then that portion of the Christian canon is not "historical."

Yes, it's unlikely Job was historical. But Jesus was historical, and the gospels are still not histories of the life of the historical Jesus. They're historical sources, but not histories.

 

 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

On the other hand, consider Joseph Smith-History, which Latter-day Saints accept as both "scripture" and "history."  That it fits within the parameters of two different genres of literature is irrelevant.  

That's certainly closer, although of course it's modern - ancient Hebrews didn't know anything about our notions of history, but early Latter-day Saints at least had some inkling.

 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

How are "histories" written?  

History is an academic discipline: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_method

Historians evaluate historical sources and archeological evidence to try to get at history. They evaluate using a number of different criteria. None of it's foolproof, but it's also a process totally alien to writers of ancient scripture.

 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

What are your thoughts about historical documents (particularly ancient ones) that do not fit modern conventions about how "histories" are "written"?

Agreed.  So the absence of primary sources makes ancient historical documents ahistorical?

The books of the Bible are historical sources. They're ancient - they're evidence that historians use to try to reconstruct events of the past. But they themselves are not histories - they're sacred stories. Sometimes the stories have historical validity, sometimes they don't.

For instance, Jesus' teachings against divorce are thought to be historical - Jesus probably really said it. The nativity narratives in Luke and Matthew are not thought to be historical. These are sources and that have to be individually weighed.

 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

It seems like many ancient documents of any stripe, both "historical" and "scriptural," fail to adhere to modern conventions about writing "history."  But that would seem to pertain more to their probative value.  

Thanks,

-Smac

I would go back to genre. Ancient scripture is not written in the "genre" of history. These writers were not familiar with the genre - they were familiar with the genre of scripture, and that's what they wrote. Scripture doesn't require archaeology or primary sources - that's never been the point of it.

[cdowis]

 

2 hours ago, Gray said:

In which case, it's a history book, not scripture.

Of course, there are ONLY two options possible in your mind.

How about == scriptures which contain authentic history.  AMAZING!   

(It took me at least a couple of milliseconds of deep, heavy meditation to figure that out)

Edited August 28, 2017 by cdowis

[Gray]

1 hour ago, Meerkat said:

I agree that the point of the scriptures is to convey the principles and values of the Gospel, including honesty (Thou shalt not bear false witness.)   I also agree that some of it needs to be considered in an allegorical sense, such as the creation, the parables of Jesus, etc.  But I believe the overall context, geography, wars, kings, cultures, etc. is as accurate as humanly possible under the circumstances.  They need to reflect God's integrity, in my opinion. 

"As accurate as humanly possible" actually isn't very accurate at all, for the time. People were passing on stories that they had no way of knowing ever happened. There was no way to evaluate them. And it's unlikely they held our modern dichotomous views about parable vs fact.

[Gray]

28 minutes ago, cdowis said:

Of course, there are ONLY two options possible in your mind.

How about == scriptures which contain authentic history.  AMAZING!

Some Many of them contain accurate historical nuggets, but I don't know of any book of scripture that is an accurate history.

Edited August 28, 2017 by Gray

[smac97]

1 minute ago, Gray said:

Yes, it's unlikely Job was historical. But Jesus was historical, and the gospels are still not histories of the life of the historical Jesus. They're historical sources, but not histories.

Okay.  I can accept this.

1 minute ago, Gray said:

Quote

On the other hand, consider Joseph Smith-History, which Latter-day Saints accept as both "scripture" and "history."  That it fits within the parameters of two different genres of literature is irrelevant.  

That's certainly closer, although of course it's modern - ancient Hebrews didn't know anything about our notions of history, but early Latter-day Saints at least had some inkling.

Okay.

1 minute ago, Gray said:

The books of the Bible are historical sources. They're ancient - they're evidence that historians use to try to reconstruct events of the past. But they themselves are not histories - they're sacred stories. Sometimes the stories have historical validity, sometimes they don't.

Okay.

1 minute ago, Gray said:

For instance, Jesus' teachings against divorce are thought to be historical - Jesus probably really said it. The nativity narratives in Luke and Matthew are not thought to be historical. These are sources and that have to be individually weighed.

Hmm.  How are these differentiated?

1 minute ago, Gray said:

Quote

It seems like many ancient documents of any stripe, both "historical" and "scriptural," fail to adhere to modern conventions about writing "history."  But that would seem to pertain more to their probative value.  

I would go back to genre. Ancient scripture is not written in the "genre" of history.

So ancient scripture can describe actual historical events and people (with varying degrees of accuracy), and therefore be "historical," but not "history"?

I appreciate your insights.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, Gray said:

Some of them contain accurate historical nuggets, but I don't know of any book of scripture that is an accurate history.

What about Joseph Smith-History?

Thanks,

-Smac

[cdowis]

11 minutes ago, Gray said:

Some of them contain accurate historical nuggets, but I don't know of any book of scripture that is an accurate history.

Your personal knowledge of such things is obviously deep and profound.  "I don't know it, so it did not happen" is an interesting point of view.

We need to remember that when we read your posts.

PS I was not talking about "any book of scripture" but specifically the Book of Mormon.

Edited August 28, 2017 by cdowis

[Gray]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Religious claims are accepted principally as a matter of faith, not because they have been "subjected to historical criteria."  

Indeed. Morality cannot be verified by scientific study. It can be shown to be useful, but not wrong or right.

 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Nevertheless, historical reality - historicity - is an integral part of such religious claims.  Jesus Christ is, for most Christians, a historical - not figurative or imaginary or fictional - person.  The Gold Plates are claimed to have been actual, tangible, physical objects crafted in antiquity.

Jesus is a historical figure to historians as well. The gold plates, on the other hand, are a question mark.

 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Most ancient writers of all stripes "didn't use the methods of historians."

Modern historical scholarship and its conventions are wonderful.  I am glad we have them.  But I think they have limited utility when imputed onto ancient writings.

These methods are very useful if you want to get close to events as they happened. But they may be of limited use in using scriptures for their intended purpose - getting spiritual meaning from them.

 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Agreed.  But those "profound spiritual truths" are grounded in historical events.

Profound spiritual truths are usually grounded in stories. We convey meaning through stories. I maintain that the meaning remains even if the stories are not based on physical events in history.

 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Jesus Christ, and his birth and childhood, and ministry and death and resurrection and ascension, are all properly characterized (for Christians) as both "profound spiritual truths" and actual historical events.  These are not mandatory interpretations, of course.  But to strip scripture of the latter characterization (actual historical events) is to strip of them of the former ("profound spiritual truths").  A fictional Jesus Christ is merely an interesting and take-it-or-leave-it role model.

Thanks,

-Smac

Yes, I understand this perspective, and I sympathize. But my perspective is that I think meaning is the interpretation of the story, whether historical or not. The deep-down spiritual meaning doesn't change if the story isn't "factual". But for me the deep down spiritual message is never about gifts that we think God is going to give us in the hereafter. The meaning for me is transformative principles that make life worthwhile.