How an Ahistorical Book of Mormon Can Still Be Scripture

[Gray]

14 hours ago, Meerkat said:

You may be right on that.  They may have just believed the people who told them.  As humans, we do the best we can, and I'm okay with that. Jesus was historical.  I know because He transformed by life and I am a different person than I once was.  Moroni appeared to Joseph Smith and the three witnesses.  So I know he was an historical figure.  I believe the last battle was historic as was Mormon because the same Spirit that changed my life testifies to me that the Book of Mormon is true to my satisfaction.  

It seems as if you are satisfied to embrace good principles from a fictional source.  I am also.  Good literature, Les Mis, Pilgrims Progress, good books of all sorts.  And that is your right.  I don't participate in this discussion to diminish your joy because of your views.  There is a difference between fiction and sacred scriptures.  When it comes to Salvation, proper ordinances and authority are essential to me.  A fiction will not do.  God has answered my prayers clearly and to my satisfaction.  In doing that, he left room for faith.  He could have made us a DVD of Moroni and the three witnesses, the eight witnesses and Joseph Smith's first vision.  But he didn't. He gave us witnesses, the Scriptures and the Holy Ghost instead.  Its better than a DVD for me.  I'm glad you like the principles taught in the scriptures, and am glad your approach is working for you.

Salvation is a way of life - no authority is required. An internal transformation is required. At least that's my view.

I'm also glad your approach works for you!

[Gray]

12 hours ago, hagoth7 said:

So, if something is believed/taught prior to your preferred timeline for such teachings...*they* are the ones in error?

Um...ever thought that *your* thinking might be the facet needing a wee bit of upgrading?

How do you think we can ever know something is anachronistic? Compare it against current evidence. If I show you a document purporting to be ancient that quotes lines from The Brady Bunch, that's good evidence that the document is not ancient. It's not evidence that the  Brady Bunch is older than we thought.

 

Quote

As a historian, and as one who loves the scriptures, on your last assertion, we'll simply have to agree to disagree.

I'm coming from the perspective of higher criticism, although I don't claim to be an expert. I don't know of any ancient book of scripture that is an accurate history. Indeed, they didn't have the tools to write accurate history (for a given value of "accurate")

Edited August 29, 2017 by Gray

[Gray]

12 hours ago, hagoth7 said:

Wow. Is that assertion ever 180-degrees wrong.

I've read many heavily-footnoted histories that get things dreadfully wrong.

 

Methinks you think much too highly of modern written tradition, and not enough of surprisingly-accurate oral traditions.

Human beings don't have the capacity to accurately transmit things like that from memory. It's like expecting a sloth to sprint.

[Gray]

8 hours ago, deli_llama said:

That simply isn't factual. People in modern and/or western societies might not be well equipped to transmit an oral history accurately, but there are still many groups of people through the world, generally among indigenous populations, who absolutely can recount oral histories with an astonishing degree of accuracy. Some of these histories, geneologies and epics might take several days to recount because of their lengths.

eta-I need to hit refresh more often, especially when it takes me hours to actually it submit. So, yeah, what this say:

"Methinks you think much too highly of modern written tradition, and not enough of surprisingly-accurate oral traditions."

 

 

Peruse this when you have the time:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/logical-take/201604/book-review-bart-ehrman-s-jesus-the-gospels

 

Quote

Objection 2: Oral Tradition Doesn’t Reliably Preserve Stories

Now this latter fact doesn’t bother some because they imagine that since the communities persevering Jesus’ stories were illiterate (and thus purely oral), they would have had a special ability (above and beyond modern literate culture’s ability) to preserve the stories accurately. But as Ehrman makes clear, there is no evidence that this was the case. It’s just an assumption that conservative Christian Biblical scholars make—an assumption they have to make. Otherwise they have no reason to think the Gospels are in any way historically accurate.

Now “assumption” is my word. Ehrman does point to a few scholars who have argued that the oral tradition of the early Christians was accurate (that, as I might put it, it wasn’t equivalent to rumor-mongering). The problem is, these arguments don’t hold any weight.

Birger Gerhardsson, for example, argues that Jesus was a rabbi who forced his students to memorize his teachings word for word, a practice known from the Mishnah and the Talmud. Unfortunately, there is no evidence that this was the case, and pretty good evidence that it wasn’t. First, at best this practice started after the destruction of the Jewish temple in 70 CE (long after Jesus’ life). Second, the earliest records of such practices (in the Mishnah and Talmud) date to about 200 CE  (extra-long after Jesus’ life). Last, the basic discrepancies between stories of the gospels make it very clear Jesus did not make his disciplines memorize his teachings—a fact for which defenders of Gerhardsson’s view can only make ad hoc excuses.[12]

What about the early church’s ability to reliably pass on stories? Kenneth Bailey has argued that early Christians probably passed on the stories accurately because there are places in the Middle East today that do. He speaks specifically of the haflat samar village meetings where stories are recited and the community strictly monitors and corrects those reciting it; even catching one word out of place is cause for correction and shame.

The problems with this argument however, as Ehramn points out, are twofold. First, we again have no evidence at all that the early Christian communities participated in such a strict system; in fact the New Testament is pretty clear about how word of Jesus spread, and it didn’t include such practices. Second, Bailey’s reports of these meetings (and the stories’ accuracy) are based completely on his own personal experience. Follow up study on the haflat samar (by Theodore Weeden) showed that, even with these strict controls, the stories they told changed drastically over the years. For example, stories of the missionary John Hogg, which were supposedly preserved by the community, changed drastically between 1914 and the 1960s—so much so that “it is hard to believe they were actually the same story.”[13] (Interestingly this is roughly the same amount of time the stories of Jesus would have been retold before being written down.)

So instead of proving that the gospels are accurate, the haflat samar example actually proves the opposite; even when you try to preserve memories and stories accurately through oral tradition, you can’t do it. How much more must the stories of the gospels changed given that no such controls were likely implemented, and eyewitnesses were unavailable for “fact-checking”?

Objection 3: Oral Cultures Aren’t Even Concerned about Accuracy

None of this should be surprising, however, because it aligns with the evidence we already have (and that Ehrman cites) about the reliability of group memories. It turns out, they are even more frail and faulty than individual memories. Put people in a group and they are less likely to be careful in trying to get things right; they are even more likely to edit their own memories to align with the recollection of others. As Ehrman goes on to point out in Chapter 5, not only does (a) the idea that the early Christians had a “super group memory” defy biology (first century Palestinians were biologically indistinguishable from us, and our memories are unreliable), and not only (b) did they lack a way to correct any errors in persevering the stories (like the ability to look it up in a book), but (c) strictly oral cultures don’t even have a concept of what it means for “two stories to be same”—at least, not as we understand it.

For us, two stories being the same means that their sequence of events match; they include the same facts, details and events—and if they are really the same, they match word for word. But since purely oral cultures have no way to check to make sure that two stories are the same in this sense, they don’t even have a concept for it. And that means they change their stories readily as they retell them. Asking them whether the story they are telling is accurate—whether it represents what “really happened”—may not even make sense to them. As Ehrman summarizes the work of Milman Parry and Albert Lord and their study of Yugoslavian singers who preserve epic poems as long as the Iliad and Odyssey,

“Those passing along traditions in oral cultures are not interested in preserving exactly the same thing. They are interested in making the same thing relevant for the new context. That necessarily involves changing it. Every time. For that reason, when someone in an oral culture claims that the current version of the tradition…is “the same” as an earlier one, they do not mean what we mean…the “gist” remains pretty much the same…but the details get changed. Often they get changed massively.

Parry saw that a singers’ retelling of a story would differ by thousands of lines from a previous telling—even when they were retelling their own story. Yet they still maintained it was “the same song.” And the findings of Parry and Lord have been replicated many times since. Interestingly enough, it turns out that the more the stories are recited, the more they get changed. As another researcher, Jan Vansina, put it, “It is…not surprising to find that very often the original testimony has disappeared altogether.”

 

[Rajah Manchou]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

How do you think we can ever know something is anachronistic? Compare it against current evidence. If I show you a document purporting to be ancient that quotes lines from The Brady Bunch, that's good evidence that the document is not ancient. It's not evidence that the  Brady Bunch is older than we thought.

But doesn't the document in this case show elements that are also anachronistic to 19th century New York?

If you showed me a document that was supposedly written by Marsha Brady, but it contained language and grammar and other elements that would not have been known to her, is that not evidence that Marsha Brady did not write the document?

Edited August 29, 2017 by Rajah Manchou

[hagoth7]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

Human beings don't have the capacity to accurately transmit things like that from memory. It's like expecting a sloth to sprint.

I suggest you go back and purchase a ticket to musical theater. It may surprise you how much people can memorize....word perfect.

 

7-year-old kids memorize the entire Koran.

Etc., etc.

 

Are you for real, or are you an intentional foil just to make discussions a bit more playful?

Edited August 29, 2017 by hagoth7

[hagoth7]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

How do you think we can ever know something is anachronistic? Compare it against current evidence.

That's not always a valid test...being that it's based on a number of assumptions.

If I show you a document purporting to be ancient that quotes lines from The Brady Bunch, that's good evidence that the document is not ancient. It's not evidence that the  Brady Bunch is older than we thought.

In such an instance, there would be several other possible explanations for such an outcome...other than the single explanation you've offered.

I'm coming from the perspective of higher criticism, although I don't claim to be an expert.

*Higher* criticism? Higher than what?

I don't know of any ancient book of scripture that is an accurate history.

I hear that a lot from critics.

Yet I repeatedly find nugget after nugget of historical gold in scripture. Historical details with uncanny degrees of precision that pan out to be true...corroborated from other sources.

Indeed, they didn't have the tools to write accurate history (for a given value of "accurate")

On the contrary.

Stylus....meet soft/thin metal.

[Gray]

3 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

But doesn't the document in this case show elements that are also anachronistic to 19th century New York?

If you showed me a document that was supposedly written by Marsha Brady, but it contained language and grammar and other elements that would not have been known to her, is that not evidence that Marsha Brady did not write the document?

Well, if the anachronism is in the past, there are multiple ways to explain it. If the anachronism is in the future, then you run out of options very quickly. For instance, if Marsha seems to have access to obscure elements from ancient texts, those would need to be explained, but it's not impossible for Marsha to have access to the past.

But if someone says they've found a document from 1812 that mirrors the plot of the Brady Bunch pilot, that's much more difficult to explain other than by dating it to no earlier than the Brady Bunch pilot.

[Gray]

2 hours ago, hagoth7 said:

That's not always a valid test...being that it's based on a number of assumptions.

In such an instance, there would be several other possible explanations for such an outcome...other than the single explanation you've offered.

 

Ideas have a genesis in a time and place, just like people do. The language used about Jesus is culturally conditioned. It makes no sense to find it among an ancient group of Hebrew travelers totally outside of that time and place. 

It's strange to find a fully developed God/Satan dualism so early among the Nephites as well. In early Hebrew thought Satan had a much different role. These kinds of problems are all over the Book of Mormon.

I think these kinds of anachronisms are much more significant than horses or steel swords, but perhaps they're not as easy to understand, so people stick to arguing about physical artifacts. 

Quote

*Higher* criticism? Higher than what?

Higher than lower criticism, of course.

 

Quote

I hear that a lot from critics.

Yet I repeatedly find nugget after nugget of historical gold in scripture. Historical details with uncanny degrees of precision that pan out to be true...corroborated from other sources.

On the contrary.

Stylus....meet soft/thin metal.

You seem to have your own unique way of looking at history. 

Edited August 29, 2017 by Gray

[Gray]

3 hours ago, hagoth7 said:

I suggest you go back and purchase a ticket to musical theater. It may surprise you how much people can memorize....word perfect.

 

7-year-old kids memorize the entire Koran.

Etc., etc.

 

Are you for real, or are you an intentional foil just to make discussions a bit more playful?

Oral cultures were not concerned with accuracy of transmission, and with an oral tradition there is nothing to compare against in any case. When cultural anthropologists actually record existing oral cultures, they find that the stories change with each retelling. The concern about accuracy is a hallmark of cultures with written language, and even they can't maintain accuracy. 

[Rajah Manchou]

13 minutes ago, Gray said:

Well, if the anachronism is in the past, there are multiple ways to explain it. If the anachronism is in the future, then you run out of options very quickly. For instance, if Marsha seems to have access to obscure elements from ancient texts, those would need to be explained, but it's not impossible for Marsha to have access to the past.

But if someone says they've found a document from 1812 that mirrors the plot of the Brady Bunch pilot, that's much more difficult to explain other than by dating it to no earlier than the Brady Bunch pilot.

Apart from KJV passages found in the Book of Mormon, what would you consider to be anachronistic to the time period of the Book of Mormon, let's say 600 BC to 420 AD?

[Gray]

15 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Apart from KJV passages found in the Book of Mormon, what would you consider to be anachronistic to the time period of the Book of Mormon, let's say 600 BC to 420 AD?

Posted these earlier, but adding a couple more to the list:

 

• Jesus delivers the Sermon on the Mount (or a version of it) 50 years before it was put together by Matthew. While the Sermon likely contains some authentic teachings of Jesus, it almost certainly was never delivered by Jesus in that format. 
• It is said that Jesus will sweat great drops of blood in Mosiah 3 (~124 BCE) - an allusion to a late addition to the Luke manuscript, more than two centuries later. 
• Atonement theology took many decades to develop in the first century of the Christian movement, and continued to develop beyond that time. But it appears more or less fully developed among the Nephites many centuries before even the birth of Jesus.
• The early Christian use of the term Savior and Son of God to describe Jesus is a clear rejection of Roman authority. These were the terms the Romans used to describe Caesar - the Christians deliberately used them to say, no, not Caesar, but Jesus. But somehow the Nephites use these terms centuries earlier and another continent, completely divorced from the historical context that brought them about.
• Fully developed God/Satan dualism very early in on Nephite history - something that really didn't start to develop until the second century BCE in Judaism. 
• A Christology among the Nephites that seems to be influenced by the  Gospel of John - that is to say, a Jesus who was Son of God from before his birth, as opposed to a Jesus who was adopted as God's son at his birth or baptism as an adult, as is taught in the earlier gospels. 

[deli_llama]

6 hours ago, Gray said:

 

 

Peruse this when you have the time:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/logical-take/201604/book-review-bart-ehrman-s-jesus-the-gospels

 

 

Thank you. I was aware of it. My experiences while working with oral cultures disagrees. 

[hagoth7]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

You seem to have your own unique way of looking at history. 

Yep. 🤗

[hagoth7]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

Oral cultures were not concerned with accuracy of transmission, and with an oral tradition there is nothing to compare against in any case...

The lawspeaker at the annual Althing of the medieval Icelandic assembly had to recite from memory 1/3 of their law each year. That individual had to compete with the memory of others assembled.

Similar with Jewish and Muslim youth who still memorize extensive tracts of scripture. 

The Druids likewise committed their teachings to memory. 

Things aren't as complex as you prefer to make them. The brain is much more capable than our society opts to believe.

Edited August 29, 2017 by hagoth7

[hagoth7]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

Ideas have a genesis in a time and place, just like people do. The language used about Jesus is culturally conditioned. It makes no sense to find it among an ancient group of Hebrew travelers totally outside of that time and place. 

It makes sense only if one is willing to concede that early Judaic society was not the homogenzed brand some prefer to shoehorn things into. It was and still is a much more diverse community of competing ideas. 

Those who opt for the former, paint themselves into an unfortunate corner.

[Gray]

31 minutes ago, deli_llama said:

Thank you. I was aware of it. My experiences while working with oral cultures disagrees. 

How do oral cultures verify that the oral history has remained the same? There is literally nothing to compare it to to verify that. And when these oral histories get recorded, apparently we see that they do change. The more they are repeated, the more they change, apparently. 

[Gray]

21 minutes ago, hagoth7 said:

The lawspeaker at the annual Althing of the medieval Icelandic assembly had to recite from memory 1/3 of their law each year. That individual had to compete with the memory of others assembled.

Similar with Jewish and Muslim youth who still memorize extensive tracts of scripture. 

The Druids likewise committed their teachings to memory. 

Things aren't as complex as you prefer to make them. The brain is much more capable than our society opts to believe.

If you're memorizing tracts of scripture or other written transcripts, you're not talking about an oral culture. 

[Gray]

16 minutes ago, hagoth7 said:

It makes sense only if one is willing to concede that early Judaic society was not the homogenzed brand some prefer to shoehorn things into. It was and still is a much more diverse community of competing ideas. 

Those who opt for the former, paint themselves into an unfortunate corner.

I don't think diversity has anything to do with. It's the culturally conditioned language of first century Jewish Christians. It makes no sense outside of its time and place. 

[clarkgoble]

5 hours ago, Gray said:

Posted these earlier, but adding a couple more to the list:

 

• Jesus delivers the Sermon on the Mount (or a version of it) 50 years before it was put together by Matthew. While the Sermon likely contains some authentic teachings of Jesus, it almost certainly was never delivered by Jesus in that format. 
• It is said that Jesus will sweat great drops of blood in Mosiah 3 (~124 BCE) - an allusion to a late addition to the Luke manuscript, more than two centuries later. 
• Atonement theology took many decades to develop in the first century of the Christian movement, and continued to develop beyond that time. But it appears more or less fully developed among the Nephites many centuries before even the birth of Jesus.
• The early Christian use of the term Savior and Son of God to describe Jesus is a clear rejection of Roman authority. These were the terms the Romans used to describe Caesar - the Christians deliberately used them to say, no, not Caesar, but Jesus. But somehow the Nephites use these terms centuries earlier and another continent, completely divorced from the historical context that brought them about.
• Fully developed God/Satan dualism very early in on Nephite history - something that really didn't start to develop until the second century BCE in Judaism. 
• A Christology among the Nephites that seems to be influenced by the  Gospel of John - that is to say, a Jesus who was Son of God from before his birth, as opposed to a Jesus who was adopted as God's son at his birth or baptism as an adult, as is taught in the earlier gospels. 

If Joseph translated using KJV phrases then many of these achronisms are actually artifacts of the translation method. Further we can deconstruct such passages.

The translation in the Book of Mormon of the Sermon on the Mount clearly makes use of the NT text (with some changes). But also note that this is written by Mormon hundreds of years after the events. It may be problematic but it's not an anachronism.

Mosiah 3:7 is a bit more complex. It's not a quotation there, but an allusion. Luke says he sweated like drops of blood, not that he was bleeding. (And the verse is missing in many manuscripts) Benjamin says "he shall suffer temptations, and pain of body, hunger, thirst, and fatigue, even more than man can suffer, except it be unto death; for behold, blood cometh from every pore, so great shall be his anguish for the wickedness and the abominations of his people." So it may not be an allusion at all as there are differences. The blood echoes sacrifice imagery quite a bit, unlike Luke which is more a metaphor of bleeding → sweat. Interestingly Luke 22:44 is seen by some non-Mormon scholars as a midrash on Jacob's wrestling. However what's more interesting is just how different Mosiah 3 is from the KJV of Luke 22. There we don't have a metaphor but actual bleeding. Many suggest that Benjamin's comments has much more in common with Numbers 19 than Luke 22. 

Given the fairly significant differences from Luke 22 I'm not sure we can say it's an anachronism. What's so interesting is that unlike so many other passages that quote the NT, this one doesn't.

Atonement theology in the Book of Mormon is quite a bit different from NT theology though. It also evolves in the text. Further it appears much more wrapped up in the deuteronomistic controversy around the the time of the exile. So I think that's much more complex than it appears. To me I don't see the Book of Mormon actually adopting the main theories of atonement by the Apostolic Fathers, although I'm willing to discuss it in more detail if you disagree.

The terms savior and son of God were Jewish terms not explicitly tied to Rome. Savior comes out of Isaiah and its initial use follows Isaiah typology in terms of how the theology of savior is developed. The later developments come centuries later. While it's easy to read the NT use into the Book of Mormon what's much more interesting is how they differ - especially in key texts such as say Abinadi's speeches. Son of God also has a use well before Roman conquest of Palestine such as in Ps 82 among other passages such as Gen 6, Job 1,2,38, Deut 32:8. For those arguing about the form of Judaism prior to the Josiah reforms and Deuteronomist transformation of Judaism it's worth noting that most assuming Jewish religion was more similar to Canaanite practice especially in terms of the pantheon. Many elements of that can be found in Nephi's writings including his vision. Others have also noted similarities to Merkabah literature of many passages such as Mosiah 15. Merkabah literature is later and post-exilic, but it's quite conceivable that elements were pre-exilic. There's also the mysterious Melchezedek texts at Qumran. We don't know how old those traditions are although similar traditions pop up in the Book of Mormon in Alma 14. This also ignores Egyptian influence as well as how the common treatment of Israel as the Son of God and Firstborn.  So I think this is much more complicated at best.

The God/Satan dualism is part and parcel of broader dualism. As you note the reification of Satan is post-exilic. However again that problem of Josiah and the Deuteronomists raises its head. First you already have the opposition between YHWH and Baal or Moloch. (With YHWH being seen as one God among many rather than the ontological monotheism of later Judaism)  So the dualism isn't necessarily as alien as you suggest. Likewise there are myths amongst the Canaanites where there's a more robust pantheon with Satan-like characters. Egypt, which we know was a big influence on the Nephites, had Set fulfilling a Satan like role at this time.

The main problem is actually Genesis 2 and Satan which Lehi appears to know of in some form in 2 Nephi 2. Then there's Nephi's use of Satan as a type for death and also the "evil influence" as it was called in later Judaism. However notice how well this parallels the Canaanite character of Mot the God of death. Mot actually parallels the Book of Mormon use quite a bit. The translation of this as Satan would make a ton of sense given the later Jewish transformation of Satan (adversary or opposition) Again this use isn't unusual. Most scholars see Habakkuk 2:5 and Job 18:13 as remnants of a Jewish form of this figure in the Canaanite pantheon. There are also parallels to the figure of Yam in Canaanite myths.

The Christology is also complicated. Pre-existence of course predates John. It's a common belief among many groups. Of course the main source of influence on John is the Phaedrus which post-dates Nephi. So I'll grant you this one although I think the nature in the Book of Mormon is complicated in that Jesus as a pre-mortal individual isn't that common. The main famous place is Ether 3. That is so different from John though that I have a hard time seeing that as an achronism.

[deli_llama]

4 hours ago, Gray said:

How do oral cultures verify that the oral history has remained the same? There is literally nothing to compare it to to verify that. And when these oral histories get recorded, apparently we see that they do change. The more they are repeated, the more they change, apparently. 

You see, this is where your modern western conditioned mind will always struggle. It is something outside of our day to day experiences.  You can't even perceive, experience and think in the manner they do. There is also an unfortunate bias written into our modern cultures that expresses itself as sense of superiority to what we call primitive.

This also isn't a new discussion or disagreement.  Plato, speaking of the introduction and influence of writing, says in Phaedrus: "If men learn this, it will implant forgetfulness in their souls; they will cease to exercise memory because they rely on that which is written, calling things to remembrance no longer from within themselves, but by means of external marks." Here, using the voice of Socrates in relating a legend to Phaedrus, he tells of the god Thoth offering the Egyptian king Thamus his divine gift of writing. The king continues with his response to this gift: "And it is no true wisdom that you offer your disciples, but only its semblance, for by telling them of many things without teaching them you will make them seem to know much, while for the most part they know nothing, and as men filled, not with wisdom, but with the conceit of wisdom, they will be a burden to their fellows."

I am sure that we could exchange papers and research until the moon falls from the sky. Just like this. 

http://research.usc.edu.au/vital/access/manager/Repository/usc:14264

Would prefer not to however because I suspect it isn't going to move either of us from our places. I included the link though so you can see that there are other examples of sound research being done within oral cultures and traditions that draw different conclusions from what you offered. 

There are other reasons an oral history might be suspect or inaccurate. I will let you in on a little secret that isn't really acknowledged warmly in the field. Some of the discrepancies found in the different recordings of oral histories (or any cultural subject really) complied by ethnographers and anthropologists can also be deliberate. Many (most?) indigenous peoples aren't very honest and forthright when western scientists come calling. It is all about respect and the guest-host relationship. One or two seasons in the field isn't enough to build the relationships of trust required to make and accurate study of the people, nor do they really try to learn the language. Without that as a solid foundation, and a good long term relationship, all data is suspect. It is a big middle-finger to us and our arragance. And that is straight from the mouth of those that have had to deal western anthropologists. I said it more politely though.

If you are interested, David Abram's The Spell of the Sensuous: Perception and Language in a More-Than-Human World offers a source for a pretty solid glimpse into the mind and understandings of indigenous and animistic peoples. It also has some interesting reflections on the changes caused by literacy, including our memories and abilities to communicate with the environment and those other beings around us. 

Edited August 29, 2017 by deli_llama
Who types well on a mobile device?

[deli_llama]

3 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Phaedrus

Twice for the win. 

[Rajah Manchou]

8 hours ago, Gray said:

Posted these earlier, but adding a couple more to the list:

• Jesus delivers the Sermon on the Mount (or a version of it) 50 years before it was put together by Matthew. While the Sermon likely contains some authentic teachings of Jesus, it almost certainly was never delivered by Jesus in that format. 
• It is said that Jesus will sweat great drops of blood in Mosiah 3 (~124 BCE) - an allusion to a late addition to the Luke manuscript, more than two centuries later. 
• Atonement theology took many decades to develop in the first century of the Christian movement, and continued to develop beyond that time. But it appears more or less fully developed among the Nephites many centuries before even the birth of Jesus.
• The early Christian use of the term Savior and Son of God to describe Jesus is a clear rejection of Roman authority. These were the terms the Romans used to describe Caesar - the Christians deliberately used them to say, no, not Caesar, but Jesus. But somehow the Nephites use these terms centuries earlier and another continent, completely divorced from the historical context that brought them about.
• Fully developed God/Satan dualism very early in on Nephite history - something that really didn't start to develop until the second century BCE in Judaism. 
• A Christology among the Nephites that seems to be influenced by the  Gospel of John - that is to say, a Jesus who was Son of God from before his birth, as opposed to a Jesus who was adopted as God's son at his birth or baptism as an adult, as is taught in the earlier gospels. 

Interesting, Hadn't heard some of these before. Will take a closer look.

But at first glance, these don't jump out as anachronisms to me. The Book of Mormon was sealed around 420 AD, and anything abridged by Mormon's hand would have been written after many of these. 

The closing books of the Book of Mormon hint at an increase of trade and an influx of new religions and ideas. It seems possible to me that some of these early Christian themes and ideas could have been introduced in the 1st to 5th centuries AD. We do find Greek/Roman names such as Timothy and Lachoneus in the Book of Mormon, so it does seem likely that there was interaction between the Mediterranean and Bountiful, and we do know from historical sources that Greek and Roman traders and missionaries from the Eastern Church were venturing far into the east during the early Christian era. In particular, the Narrative of Zosimus and the History of the Rechabites hints at Old World Christians briefly interacting with Biblical clans that had been removed from the Old World around the same time as the Jaredite and Nephite civilizations. These accounts may have been based on historical events.

Of course we must come up with an explanation for how Old World ideas would have been known to Mormon, but it is important to clarify that these anachronisms are not anachronisms in a book that is dated to the early 5th century of the Christian era.

Edited August 30, 2017 by Rajah Manchou

[clarkgoble]

16 hours ago, deli_llama said:

Twice for the win. 

We should note that Plato likely got the doctrine from the Pythagoreans. They were somewhat mysterious and largely known about only indirectly. There's lots of reasons to think that these elements of Greek philosophy likely came over from India and ultimately the Vedas though. In particular the other major pre-Socratic, Heraclitus, is regularly thought to have been influenced by Indian thought. (Although by its nature it's rather hard to prove)  Of course these Indian notions of pre-existence predate Nephi by a great deal.

[Rajah Manchou]

2 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

We should note that Plato likely got the doctrine from the Pythagoreans. They were somewhat mysterious and largely known about only indirectly. There's lots of reasons to think that these elements of Greek philosophy likely came over from India and ultimately the Vedas though. In particular the other major pre-Socratic, Heraclitus, is regularly thought to have been influenced by Indian thought. (Although by its nature it's rather hard to prove)  Of course these Indian notions of pre-existence predate Nephi by a great deal.

The speculation is that Pythagorus had visited India and had studied with the gymnosophists, who are usually presented in Judeo-Christian texts as pious men who dwelled in the Land of the Blessed in the islands beyond India.

It is the Island of the Blessed that was home to the Biblical clans I mentioned in the comment above yours. Zosimus was said to have visited these gymnosophists, but referred to them as Rechabites. 

Edited August 30, 2017 by Rajah Manchou