Why Not Engage the Evidence for Historicity?

[kllindley]

15 minutes ago, Gray said:

I'm suggesting she's on the fringes of critical scholarship. I'm not suggesting that none of her work has value, but she doesn't represent a school of thought or a movement. She's out on her own.

But it is a hallmark of apologetics to hone in narrowly on some scholarship (including fringe scholarship) that can be used to support one's religious views, at the exclusion of mainstream scholarship which does not support one's religious views.

 

Ok. I understand what you are saying better. 

Any luck with the citation?

[jkwilliams]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

If remains of horses were found during the right time period, is that evidence tied to the BoM?  Or does it just count as removal of an anachronism?

Just curious of how it would be seen.

I suppose it depends on what the remains tell us about the culture. At the least, yes, it would count as removal of an anachronism. I remember reading about horse teeth being found in a cenote in Guatemala among items dated to pre-Columbian Mayans. Pretty exciting stuff, until I read that the teeth were fossilized, meaning they were much older than the surrounding material and dated to the pleistocene era, when horses were known to have lived in the Americas.

[Gray]

17 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

That is an understandable surface impression frequently mentioned by those who cannot read Hebrew and Greek, and who do not realize the very tight relationship between the OT and the NT, without even considering intertestmental literature.  What, for example, do you make of this KJV direct quote?  Is it an anachronism?

Psalm 2:2.....................................................................................Acts 4:26

The kings of the earth set themselves,....................................The kings of the earth stood up,

and the rulers take counsel together,.......................................and the rulers were gathered together

against the LORD,......................................................................against the Lord,

and against his anointed,..........................................................and against his Christ.

The NT frequently quotes the OT. In fact where information about Jesus is lacking, material is often taken from the OT to make up for it. No mystery there. This is quotation, not anachronism.

 

Quote

When prophecy in Scripture becomes too exact, some scholars dismiss it as “prophecy ex eventu,” i.e., prophecy written after the event, or wrongly interpreted so as to apply to some later event.  When, for example, Jesus and his disciples claim that the Bible (Old Testament) is filled with specific predictions of Jesus’ coming, many scholars dismiss that as wishful thinking on a par with Talmudic interpretation of the Old Testament by the Rabbis, or that made in Pesharim by Essene/ Qumran sectarians. The Book of Mormon itself is even conscious of the seeming anachronism:

Prophesy can be interpreted any theological way you wish. From a close reading of the original messianic prophesies, however, Jesus is not a fit. Jesus is a different kind of Messiah - a spiritual messiah. So the Christians interpreted messianic prophesy in a different way. No anachronism there.

 

Quote

    “Behold, you marvel why these things should be known so long beforehand” (Alma 39:17).

 Micah 5:2-4 is interpreted in Matthew 2:6 and John 7:40-43 to be a prediction of the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem as King of Judah – and that was over 700 years before the fact!!  Micah is also known for his prediction in 3:12 of the fall of Jerusalem (Jeremiah 26:18), along with the eventual restoration of Judah in 4:1 - 5:15.  Prophecies which came true.

Jesus was born in Nazareth. Theology places him in Bethlehem, but history places him in Nazareth.

 

Quote

 When I Kings 13:2 predicts the reign of righteous King Josiah by name, or when Isaiah (44:28, 45:1) predicts the name of a ruler far into the future (Cyrus), are these examples of prophecy ex eventu?

Yes, of course.

 

Quote

 Is it possible to name kings so far in advance?  Thus, when Jesus is named by an angel many months before his birth (Matthew 1:21, Luke 1:31,69, 2:21,30, 3:6 – including the puns on his name), and when John the Baptizer is likewise specifically named by an angel before his birth (Luke 1:13), what is the reader to conclude?

A reader informed by critical scholarship would conclude that the birth narratives are theological, not historical.

 

Quote

 Moreover, when just such predictions are based on texts at least 600 years prior and well-established, in which the very name of Jesus is repeatedly used, what is one to conclude?  For example, the pun on Jesus’ name at Luke 2:30 and 3:6 is a direct quote from Isaiah 52:10 – in which Salvation is easily capitalized as the translation of the name of Jesus.  The same applies to Isaiah 12:2-3 (quoted at II Nephi 22:2-3), 25:9, Psalm 35:9, 38:23, and numerous other such Scriptures.  Indeed, Jesus himself said that we should “search the Scriptures; . . and they are they which testify of me” (John 5:39), and that “Moses . . . wrote of me” (5:46): “And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself” (Luke 24:27; cf. Acts 3:18, 28:23).

Unless you master these biblical features, Gray, everything will seem like an "anachronism" to you.

I think you've rather made my point for me. You're approaching scripture from a theological perspective. Nothing wrong with that. That's the right way to look at it when it's actually being used for its intended purpose. But I am talking about history, not theology.

Edited June 29, 2018 by Gray

[Nevo]

11 hours ago, kllindley said:

Can you cute any critical scholarship that asserts there was no Christianity in the BC?

There is a strong consensus among critical scholars that Christianity originated in the first century AD, after Christ. It's a very widely held view.

[Gray]

11 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

It appears her work may be a bit more frequently cited than you've presumed.

Were I in your place, I wouldn't have used this as evidence for her place in mainstream critical scholarship. Did you look closely at the citing documents? Again, not to say her work doesn't have some value. It's certainly unique and imaginative.

I realize I've stepped in it now. Barker is something of a sacred cow of this forum.

[Gray]

12 hours ago, kllindley said:

Are you seriously suggesting that Margaret Barker is not a critical scholar but an apologist? 

Can you cute any critical scholarship that asserts there was no Christianity in the BC?

She's not an apologist per se, but she's on the fringes.

What you've asked me for is something like asking for scholarship that asserts that George Washington was not alive during the fifteenth century. To believe such a thing would be incoherent. Better to turn it around. Can you cite any critical scholarship saying there was Christianity before the first century CE?

Edit: Sorry, I appear to have answered this twice - sort of.

Edited June 29, 2018 by Gray

[kllindley]

Just now, Nevo said:

There is a strong consensus among critical scholars that Christianity originated in the first century AD, after Christ. It's a very widely held view.

I'm not arguing that. I'm skeptical that it is a view without theological presumptions, i.e that it would not be possible to know on Christ before then. That is a theological commitment. I am asking for a specific reference so that I can personally read the types of evidence and logic that inform that consensus, rather than simply accept anonymous claims on the internet about consensus. 

[jkwilliams]

15 hours ago, CA Steve said:

This has been a most enlightening thread.

For some reason, the more I read this thread them more I am reminded of the Anthon transcript story.

I sometimes think the Book of Mormon is kind of a Rorschach test in book form.

[Gray]

Just now, kllindley said:

I'm not arguing that. I'm skeptical that it is a view without theological presumptions, i.e that it would not be possible to know on Christ before then. That is a theological commitment. I am asking for a specific reference so that I can personally read the types of evidence and logic that inform that consensus, rather than simply accept anonymous claims on the internet about consensus. 

Put it this way. Messianic expectations predate Christianity by many centuries. But Christianity is more than just messianic expectations.

[kllindley]

Just now, Gray said:

She's not an apologist per se, but she's on the fringes.

What you've asked me for is something like asking for scholarship that asserts that George Washington was not alive during the fifteenth century. To believe such a thing would be incoherent. Better to turn it around. Can you cite any critical scholarship saying there was Christianity before the first century CE?

I didn't make the claim. No. I can't. 

You're being dishonest in your comparison to George Washington in the fifteenth century. Millions of Christians believe (possibly incorrectly) that God's people knew about Christ before hand and see the OT as evidence. Surely someone had taken the time to actually address this rather than dismiss it. Can you name anyone who believes George Washington was alive in the 15th century?

[Gray]

8 minutes ago, Nevo said:

There is a strong consensus among critical scholars that Christianity originated in the first century AD, after Christ. It's a very widely held view.

And even then, it was a slow evolution. Jesus was not in any recognizable sense a Christian. Christian theology doesn't really derive from the teachings of the historical Jesus.

[kllindley]

2 minutes ago, Gray said:

But Christianity is more than just messianic expectations.

So, another anonymous claim on the internet I'm supposed to believe, because to do otherwise is incoherent?

[Gray]

Just now, kllindley said:

I didn't make the claim. No. I can't. 

You're being dishonest in your comparison to George Washington in the fifteenth century. Millions of Christians believe (possibly incorrectly) that God's people knew about Christ before hand and see the OT as evidence. Surely someone had taken the time to actually address this rather than dismiss it. Can you name anyone who believes George Washington was alive in the 15th century?

You're talking about messianic expectations. Those predate Christianity. There were many individuals who were identified as the Messiah. But that doesn't mean Christianity predates the first century. Christianity is more than just messianic expectations. It's a whole set of doctrines and theology.

[Gray]

Just now, kllindley said:

So, another anonymous claim on the internet I'm supposed to believe, because to do otherwise is incoherent?

Do you really think Christianity begins and ends with the idea that someday an anointed King would rescue Israel from its oppressors?

[Kevin Christensen]

15 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

It seems I looked at it once when Kevin recommended it to me, so I'll have to check it out again.  

It seems to me that Kevin is also arguing that its unfair that apologetic arguments aren't taken more seriously by broader Mormon studies audiences.  I don't know if its unfair as much its caused by the way apologists write which caters to a particular audience, but doesn't work for broader scholarly audiences.  They are called the old guard for a reason.  The Maxwell Institute has pivoted away from this style of writing for a reason.  These reasons aren't unfair, they are just reality, either adjust to the reality, or feel picked on and complain about it.  

I don't think that it is unfair, but rather obvious, and that Kuhn's explanations of how paradigms operate explains why, and shows the implications.  The way to appeal to broader scholarly audiences is simply to tell them what they want to hear on the questions they think suitable for public discussion, using the methods and protocols they prefer, and to reach the conclusions that they collectively accept.  All that is necessary to please the larger audience is to defer in all things to what they consider as orthodox, and not rock the boat by seeking further light and knowledge.  And it always helps to mischaracterize the old guard (not a rhetorically innocent label), typically with sweeping generalizations, occasionally supported by non-representative examples.

As to the Perry Scheme:

Quote

I was cleaning up my email and wondered if I ever sent this to you.

 Whatever....here goes.

Veda

 

PERRY SCHEME OF COGNITIVE AND ETHICAL GROWTH

TABLE OF TRAITS BY POSITION AND TRANSITION

POSITION 1 - Basic Duality.  (Garden of Eden Position: All will be well.)

The person perceives meaning divided into two realms-Good/Bad, Right/wrong, We/They, Success/Failure, etc. They believe that knowledge and goodness are quantitative, that there are absolute answers for every problem and authorities know them and will teach them to those who will work hard and memorize them.

Agency is "Out there". The person is so embedded here that there is no place from which to observe themselves, yet they have a dim sense of there being a boundary to Otherness somewhere that gives their Eden-like world view boundary.

 

Transition 1-2 - Dualism modified.  (Snake whispers.) The person starts to be aware of others and of differing opinions, even among authorities. This started the feeling of uncertainty.  But they decide it is part of the authority's job to pose problems.  It takes hard work to deny the legitimacy of diversity and to keep the belief in the simplicity of truth.

 

(It should be kept in mind that in any of the transition states it is easy for the person to become depressed.  It takes time for the "guts to catch up with leaps of mind."  When a sense of loss is accorded the honor of acknowledgement, movement is more rapid and the risk of getting stuck in apathy, alienation, or depression is reduced.  When one steps into new perceptions he is unlikely to take another until he comes to terms with the losses attendant on the first.)

 

POSITION 2 - Multiplicity Prelegitimate.  (Resisting snake)

 

Now the person moves to accept that there is diversity, but they still think there are TRUE authorities who are right, that the others are confused by complexities or are just frauds.  They think they are with the true authorities and are right while all others are wrong.  They accept that their good authorities present problems so they can learn to reach right answers independently. 

 

TRANSITION: 2-3 - Dualism modified

 

Now the person admits that good authorities can admit to not knowing all the answers yet, but they will teach what they know now and teach the rest when they have it.  They accept that disciplines are divided into the definite and the vague, but that in the end even science fails. Though they have given up dividing meaning into just two realms, they still feel knowledge and goodness are quantitative and that agency is "out there".

 

POSITION 3 - Multiplicity Legitimate but Subordinate. (Snake's logic considered)

 

The person still feels that the nature of things naturally produces differing opinions, but it's as it should be, because the Authorities will figure it all out and hand on their conclusions eventually.

 

ALL OF THE POSITIONS ABOVE FEEL ABANDONMENT IN UNSTRUCTURED LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS. WHEN CHANGES IN THINKING START TO HAPPEN, IT CAN BE A DANGEROUS TIME.  (The forbidden fruit has been partaken and one is out of the Garden of Eden.)

 

There are seven ways a person can go.       

 

Transition 1.  The person can make the transition by modifying dualism  drastically to where one no longer trusts authority to have any answers, and they think it will be a long, long time before they will; therefore, there is really no way to be judged by them.  Bitterness sets in, as it seems as if rewards don't come by hard work and rightness, but by good expression and arbitrary factors.  With an inability to distinguish between abstract thought and "bull", disillusion settles and blinds the person to where they become dangerously cynical and take advantage of any opportunity to get gain.

 

Transition 2.  The person could decide that, if there are so many different answers a depending on individual perspective, that it is impossible for any true judgment; therefore anything goes.  All is of equal value.  To have an opinion makes it right.

 

Transition 3.  Same as above, except it dawns that there are some facts that, if known, can make for a better choice among the many.

 

Transition 4.  Anger and frustration win out. Instead of becoming cynical and opportunistic, person acts out negatively.

 

Transition 5.  The person is moving closer to accepting relativity.  He trusts authorities to have valid grounds for evaluations.  To get along, one needs to accept that authorities are using reasonable information in making their answers.  So the person tries to discover what it is authorities think and want.

 

Transition 6.  Person realizes that on some matters, reasonable people reasonably disagree, that knowledge is qualitative and is context-dependent.  They begin weighing factors and approaches in ways that force comparison of patterns of thought, they think about thinking and this occupies the foreground.  But they still tend to want to conform so much that they have trouble thinking independently.

 

Transition 7.  This position between multiplicity and relativity is now closer to relativity.  The person sees that thinking relatively isn't just what the authorities he has been dealing have reasoned out and want him to accept, it is the way the world works, in most cases.

 

NOW UNCERTAINTIES OR DIVERSITIES MULTIPLY UNTIL THEY TIP THE BALANCE AGAINST CERTAINTY AND HOMOGENEITY, PRECIPITATING A CRISIS THAT FORCES THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW VISION OF THE WORLD, BE IT ONE MARKED BY CYNICISM, ANXIETY, OR A NEW SENSE OF FREEDOM.

 

POSITION 5  Relativism discovered.

 

The person accepts that all thinking is relative for everyone and are much taken with this new perspective.  It could be a time of profound anxiety as the person struggles to understand how to make right choices.  They decide they can and must do something about this new world view, but they may spend a long time before sensing a need for commitment.  They can take responsibility for a task at hand, but don't yet realize they have a responsibility to choose commitments.

 

THIS POSITION COULD MAKE FOR A PERSON WHOSE AGENCY FOR MAKING SENSE HAS VANISHED ENTIRELY.  THEY COULD ALSO REACT BY POSTPONING DECISIONS, FALLING INTO APATHY OR GOING INTO A RAGE.  IT COULD GET SO BAD IT COULD APPEAR THE PERSON NEEDS CLINICAL HELP.  THE POTENTIAL FOR CYNICISM COULD BECOME EQUALLY ALARMING EDUCATIONALLY.

 

If the person RETREATS, rage takes over and he loses agency to make sense. He survives by avoiding complexity and ambivalence and regresses to Dualism, position 2, (multiplicity prelegitimate).  He becomes moralistic righteous and has "righteous" hatred for otherness.  He complains childlike and demands of authority figures to just tell him what they want.

 

If the person at this point doesn't retreat, he may go into a state of TEMPORIZING.  His agency for making sense has vanished, but he postpones any movement.  He may reconsign agency to some possible event.  If so, Guilt and shame accompany the uneasiness about a failure of responsibility they feel hopeless to cope with.

 

Or if not either of the above then the person may try to ESCAPE.  He becomes apathetic.  His agency for making sense has also vanished, but in his feeling of being alienated, he abandons responsibility and uses his understanding of multiplicity and relativism as a way to avoid commitment. He is drifting and has some sense that later he will find himself to be living a hollow life.  This drifting with insecurity about "goodness" of his position can make for such a detachment that precludes any meaningful involvement.  He starts to rely on impulse.  THIS CAN BECOME A SETTLED CONDITION.  "For the students reporting their recovery of care,...their period of alienation appears as a time of transition.  In this time the self is lost through the very effort to hold onto it in the face of inexorable change in the world's appearance.  It is a space of meaninglessness between received belief and creative faith.  In their rebirth they experience in themselves the origin or meanings, which they had previously expected to come to them from outside." (page 92 of the Perry Scheme.)

 

POSITION 6. Commitment Foreseen.

 

FROM HERE ON THE PERSON WILL FEEL FRUSTRATION IN TOO-STRUCTURED OF AN ENVIRONMENT.

 

Now the person thinks he is alone in an uncertain world, making his own decisions, with no one to say he is right.  He makes choices aware of relativism and accepts that the agency to do so is within the individual. He sees that to move forward he must make commitments coming from within. He foresees the challenge of responsibility and feels he needs to get on with it.  He also senses that the first steps require arbitrary faith or willing suspension of disbelief.  He knows he needs to narrow his focus, center himself and become aware of internal, what could be called, spiritual strength.

 

He starts to see how he must be embracing and transcending of: certainty/doubt, focus/breadth, idealism/realism, tolerance/contempt, stability/flexibility. He senses need for affirmation and incorporation of existential or logical polarities. He senses need to hold polarities in tension in the interest of Truth.

 

He begins to maintain meaning, coherence, and value while conscious of their partial, limited, and contradictable nature. He begins to understand symbol as symbols and acknowledges the time-place relativity of them. He begins to affirm and hold absolutes in symbols while still acknowledging them to be relativistic. He begins to embrace viewpoints in conflict with his own. Now the person has a field-independent learning style, has learned to scan for information, accepts that hierarchical and analytic notes are evidence of sharpening of cognition.  He is willing to take risks, is flexible, perceptive, broad, strategy-minded, and analytical.

 

The TRANSITION position between Position 6, "Commitment Foreseen", and position 7, "Commitments in Relativism developed" is as follows:

 

Besides the above, the person feels he is lost if he doesn't decide, that if he can once make one decision, everything else will be OK.

 

POSITION 7.  Commitments in Relativism developed.

 

The person makes first commitment while being aware of Relativism, and has a vivid sense of CLAIMING AND POWER. He now more fully feels that agency is within him and foresees responsibility with excitement and anticipates more empowering as he makes more commitments and choices. The TRANSITION between Position 7 and Position 8, sees the person having made his first commitment but feeling that everything else is still in limbo and he is foreseeing problems coming from trying to juggle responsibility. He senses need to be: wholehearted--but tentative, to be able to fight for his own values--yet respect others. Now, besides the other ways of studying, the person begins to read not to conciliate Authority, but to learn on his own initiative.

 

POSITION 8.  Commitments in Relativism developed continues.

 

The person makes several more Commitments while realizing he must find balance and establish painful priorities of energy, action and time. He starts to experience periodically serenity and well-being in the midst of complexity.  He has a sense of living with trust in the midst of heightened awareness of risk. He accepts fact that order and disorder are fluctuations in experience. He searches for models of knowledgeability and courage to affirm commitment in full awareness of uncertainty. HE STILL NEEDS TO RECOGNIZE THAT EVEN

 THE MODEL MUST BE TRANSCENDED, AND HE SENSES HE NEEDS TO DEVELOP IRONY. The TRANSITION between Position 8 and 9 brings trauma.  The person feels everything is contradictory and he just can't make sense out of life's dilemmas.  But he begins to develop sense of irony and sees he must embrace viewpoints in conflict with his own, not in the old multiplistic way of "separate but equal" or "live and let live" but truly embrace them with what might as well be called "love".

 

POSITION 9.  Commitments in Relativism further developed.

 

The person now has a developed sense of irony and can more easily embrace  other's viewpoints. He can accept life as just that "life", just the way IT is! Now he holds the commitments he makes in a condition of "PROVISIONAL ULTIMACY", meaning that for him what he chooses to be truth IS his truth, and he acts as if it is ultimate truth, but there is still a "provision" for change. He has no illusions about having "arrived" permanently on top of some heap, he is ready and knows he will have to retrace his journey over and over, but he has hope that he will do it each time more wisely. He is aware that he is developing his IDENTITY through Commitment. He can affirm the inseparable nature of the knower and the known--meaning he knows he as knower contributes to what he calls known. He helps weld a community by sharing realization of aloneness and gains  strength and intimacy through this shared vulnerability. He has discarded obedience in favor of his own agency, and he continues to select, judge, and build.

veda

For the record, I made the case in Sophic Box and Mantic Vista that Joseph Smith and the scriptures deliberately strive to lead the LDS to position 9.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[kllindley]

1 minute ago, Gray said:

Do you really think Christianity begins and ends with the idea that someday an anointed King would rescue Israel from its oppressors?

So, the answer is no. You can't point out any critical scholarship arguing that Christianity could not have predated Christ. 

2 minutes ago, Gray said:

You're talking about messianic expectations. Those predate Christianity. There were many individuals who were identified as the Messiah. But that doesn't mean Christianity predates the first century. Christianity is more than just messianic expectations. It's a whole set of doctrines and theology.

Yes. Christianity is more. And no. I'm not talking about Messianic expectations. I'm talking about doctrines and theology found in the OT. Your condescending dismissal is a sad substitute for evidence. 

[Robert F. Smith]

45 minutes ago, Gray said:

The NT frequently quotes the OT. In fact where information about Jesus is lacking, material is often taken from the OT to make up for it. No mystery there. This is quotation, not anachronism.

The anachronism which you are blind to is the direct equation of KJV "anointed" with KJV "Christ."  You don't see it because you object to it theologically and willfully.  The OT is filled with these equivalencies which you can't see because you don't know Hebrew & Greek.  You are basing your judgments on total ignorance and apriori assumptions -- a powerful and deleterious combination.

Quote

Prophesy [prophecy] can be interpreted any theological way you wish. From a close reading of the original messianic prophesies, however, Jesus is not a fit. Jesus is a different kind of Messiah - a spiritual messiah. So the Christians interpreted messianic prophesy [prophecy] in a different way. No anachronism there.

Both Essenes and early followers of Jesus had the same interpretation of the coming Messiah as the Isaianic Suffering Servant, and Jewish scholars see them as the same.  You are about 50 years behind on research.

Quote

Jesus was born in Nazareth. Theology places him in Bethlehem, but history places him in Nazareth...........................................................

A reader informed by critical scholarship would conclude that the birth narratives are theological, not historical.

Since you are not a critical scholar and are completely unaware of the facts, you simply make the automatic assumption that Jesus was really born in Nazareth, but you know no such historical fact.  It is an assumption not supported by history.  We can even take the view that the Gospels are so late that they tell us nothing about Jesus, a minimalist and even nihilistic position.  Make your theological judgments, but don't try to dignify them as "historical."

What is clearly true is that (as in the equation of "anointed" and "Christ") the explicit  etymology of the name Jesus (Yeshua) in the NT makes nearly every reference to the Salvation (Yeshua) of God in the OT a prophecy of Jesus by name.  You don't see it because you are blind to the Hebrew & Greek text.

Quote

I think you've rather made my point for me. You're approaching scripture from a theological perspective. Nothing wrong with that. But I am talking about history, not theology.

I  think rather that the shoe is on the other foot, Gray.  You willfully ignore the plain meaning of texts, and certainly do not understand what constitutes history.  You do this by classifying anything you don't like as "theological," and anything you do like as "historical."  A critical scholar allows the texts to speak for themselves, and in context.

Edited June 29, 2018 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

19 minutes ago, Gray said:

28 minutes ago, Nevo said:

There is a strong consensus among critical scholars that Christianity originated in the first century AD, after Christ. It's a very widely held view.

And even then, it was a slow evolution. Jesus was not in any recognizable sense a Christian. Christian theology doesn't really derive from the teachings of the historical Jesus.

It is quite true that it is commonly assumed that normative Christian theology does not derive from Jesus, and that is the position of the LDS Church, i.e. that there was an apostasy of the church.  What began as a Jewish sect did develop into a very different, Hellenistic institution.  The question of how that specifically took place is at issue, some claiming that Paul himself is the author of Christianity, and that Jesus never claimed that he was a messiah.  The problem with that is that Paul writes so soon after the death of Jesus that he would be immediately opposed by the many personal witnesses and disciples of Jesus.  Indeed, we know from his own writings and the Acts of the Apostles that he and the Jerusalem leaders had disputes, but those were not disputes over Jesus being the Messiah, but over other ancillary matters.

Since both Paul and Jesus were Pharisaic rabbis of Beth Hillel, it seems unlikely that they disagreed on much at all, and it is quite possible that Paul's theology is entirely faithful to Jesus.  Of course, a secular scholar is not going to believe that Paul had a vision of Jesus since such things are impossible anyhow -- plainly a theological judgment.

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

Were I in your place, I wouldn't have used this as evidence for her place in mainstream critical scholarship.

Oh no, you're absolutely right. New Testament Studies (published by the ever-obscure Cambridge University Press), Routledge Publishing (located in a place called Oxford, which I'm certain most people have never even heard of) and McMaster University (rumoured to have some standing in Canada ... as if that should mean anything) are all so far out of the academic mainstream that I should be positively embarrassed to have brought them up. I'm just glad I chose not to include all the citations from the Flat Earth Society. Mea maxima culpa!

Edited June 29, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[hope_for_things]

25 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

I don't think that it is unfair, but rather obvious, and that Kuhn's explanations of how paradigms operate explains why, and shows the implications.  The way to appeal to broader scholarly audiences is simply to tell them what they want to hear on the questions they think suitable for public discussion, using the methods and protocols they prefer, and to reach the conclusions that they collectively accept.  All that is necessary to please the larger audience is to defer in all things to what they consider as orthodox, and not rock the boat by seeking further light and knowledge.  And it always helps to mischaracterize the old guard (not a rhetorically innocent label), typically with sweeping generalizations, occasionally supported by non-representative examples.

I would agree that there are different paradigms at play, but that doesn't mean every paradigm is of equal value to society.  Different religions operate the same way.  Even conspiracy or alternative medicine proponents all operate using differing paradigms.  The question is whether these different paradigms are worthy of consideration by the more mainstream scholarship.  

30 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

As to the Perry Scheme:

For the record, I made the case in Sophic Box and Mantic Vista that Joseph Smith and the scriptures deliberately strive to lead the LDS to position 9.

Thanks for that Perry Scheme summary, I hadn't read through it before and its interesting.  I've familiar with a few different psychological human development models, I've read Fowler's Stages of Faith book, and read some articles about other models like the Enneagram, and others.  I think they are interesting, but I also think they are too reductionist.  From my observations of people and of myself, I think people not only possess attributes across multiple categories and stages at one time, but that also exhibit behaviors that are contradictory at times and are much more complex.  

The other thing that I don't like about the models is in creating a hierarchy there is a perception that people in certain stages along that path are less developed, less sophisticated, less mature.  I can also see how Mormonism has elements within it that can help people along the development path.  This is true for pretty much all religions from my vantage point.  Mormonism has its pros and cons and there are so many different ideas that fall under the Mormon umbrella, I'm sure that people can develop and find ideas that get them thinking in new ways and exploring different perspectives.  

[Gray]

48 minutes ago, kllindley said:

So, the answer is no. You can't point out any critical scholarship arguing that Christianity could not have predated Christ. 

You're asking me to prove a negative. No one has to point it out because the idea is absurd. Can you point out any critical scholarship saying that Christianity predates the first century?

 

48 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Yes. Christianity is more. And no. I'm not talking about Messianic expectations. I'm talking about doctrines and theology found in the OT. Your condescending dismissal is a sad substitute for evidence. 

Christian theology, to the extent that it differs from Jewish theology, is not found in the OT. Theological eisegesis notwithstanding.

[Gray]

30 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

It is quite true that it is commonly assumed that normative Christian theology does not derive from Jesus, and that is the position of the LDS Church, i.e. that there was an apostasy of the church.  What began as a Jewish sect did develop into a very different, Hellenistic institution.  The question of how that specifically took place is at issue, some claiming that Paul himself is the author of Christianity, and that Jesus never claimed that he was a messiah.  The problem with that is that Paul writes so soon after the death of Jesus that he would be immediately opposed by the many personal witnesses and disciples of Jesus.  Indeed, we know from his own writings and the Acts of the Apostles that he and the Jerusalem leaders had disputes, but those were not disputes over Jesus being the Messiah, but over other ancillary matters. 

Since both Paul and Jesus were Pharisaic rabbis of Beth Hillel, it seems unlikely that they disagreed on much at all, and it is quite possible that Paul's theology is entirely faithful to Jesus.  Of course, a secular scholar is not going to believe that Paul had a vision of Jesus since such things are impossible anyhow -- plainly a theological judgment.

I wouldn't even say that Paul is the author of normative Christian theology. Paul and Jesus are of course used as sources. Mormonism is heavily dependent upon Christian orthodoxy from the so-called apostasy, however.

It's not clear whether or not Jesus himself thought of himself as a messiah or as merely a prophet. No one thought until much later that Jesus was God in the capital G sense. Not even Paul believed that. Jesus was a small-g god for Paul.

I think Paul and Jesus had some points in common, I don't think they're all that different (not to say there aren't some important differences). But Paul's views on Jesus were mostly informed by his own revelations, not  by anything Jesus said about himself in life.

I don't think secular scholars have any trouble with visions at all, in one sense at least.

[jkwilliams]

1 hour ago, Kevin Christensen said:

I don't think that it is unfair, but rather obvious, and that Kuhn's explanations of how paradigms operate explains why, and shows the implications.  The way to appeal to broader scholarly audiences is simply to tell them what they want to hear on the questions they think suitable for public discussion, using the methods and protocols they prefer, and to reach the conclusions that they collectively accept.  All that is necessary to please the larger audience is to defer in all things to what they consider as orthodox, and not rock the boat by seeking further light and knowledge.  And it always helps to mischaracterize the old guard (not a rhetorically innocent label), typically with sweeping generalizations, occasionally supported by non-representative examples.

As to the Perry Scheme:

For the record, I made the case in Sophic Box and Mantic Vista that Joseph Smith and the scriptures deliberately strive to lead the LDS to position 9.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Great summary of the phases of faith. If I could only get past stage 1 ...

[Kevin Christensen]

Hope for things said:

Quote

I would agree that there are different paradigms at play, but that doesn't mean every paradigm is of equal value to society.  Different religions operate the same way.  Even conspiracy or alternative medicine proponents all operate using differing paradigms.  The question is whether these different paradigms are worthy of consideration by the more mainstream scholarship. 

So it is important to understand the nature of paradigm choice, and whether that choice is made ideologically or based on criteria that are not ideologically based.  Notice that the sentence "even conspiracy or alternative medicine proponents all operate using differing paradigms" is both accurate on the surface and rhetorically loaded because the contextual implication is that Mormonism or "old guard" Maxwell institute can be understood through that lens of conspiracy theory lunatics or alternative medicine nut jobs and snake oil sellers.   Think Alex Jones of InfoWars who embodies the worst aspects of both in a single body, pushing out shameless conspiracies that not coincidentally provide lead-ins to his sales pitches for his "health" products.  He creates anxieties that he then offers to solve where the solution happens to enrich him.  And remember that Kuhn explains that paradigms are defined by "standard examples of scientific work."  Does the implicit comparison of LDS scholars to conspiracy nuts and alternative medicine work as a viable framework in which to understand and view them?

Is that paradigm apt for the work of John Sorenson and Hugh Nibley and Jack Welch?  It is testable?  Are its key predictions accurate?  (Remembering that part of what makes any issue key involves the particular door we want to open, whether that happens to be an entrance or an exit.)  Is it comprehensive and coherent, offering breadth, depth, and internal and external consistency?   Is fruitful?  That is, if we follow up, will we discover important things about top LDS scholars and scholarship that we would not have seen otherwise?  Is it aesthetically pleasing and beautiful and simple and consistent?  Does it provide the best future promise as a framework to explore any unsolved issues?  Does it solve the problems that are most important to have solved?  Is it better than any available alternatives what we can find?

Just saying, to clarify how all this works in practice.

I very much prefer the Perry Scheme to Fowler because the focus is on how a person processes information, rather than the conclusions that a person reaches.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[Ryan Dahle]

16 hours ago, cinepro said:

As for the list of evidences, it still has the same problems so many "evidences" do.  First, if something ties The Book of Mormon back to the ancient Middle East, that's interesting, but it's not evidence for it taking place in ancient America.  At best, it's an inferential argument.   I wouldn't fault a scholar of Ancient America for being unimpressed.

Second, most of those are "what are the odds?" arguments.  And so in order to actually make the argument, you need to tell us what the odds are.  Otherwise, you're simply saying "Wow, this appears to be really unlikely, therefore it is evidence of an angel and all the other claims of the book being true.  Why don't they present this at academic conferences?"

Because if you actually work out the odds and then factor in the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy, you may find that many of the "evidences" really aren't that unexpected, and may even be expected in a 19th century creation.

I think we have already been through this. Yes, I get that absence of evidence arguments work both ways. I get that what seem to be great parallels may actually not be and that sound methodologies must be used in order to reach conclusions based on shared or similar features. These issues are fundamental to essentially all discussions of what was in the past and when.

However, it's not like you can just wave the "Texas Sharpshooter fallacy" wand at whatever claim you want and easily prove that it has no merit. Your approach would basically undermine all historical and archaeological methods of dating except for the scientific dating of physical remains (like radiocarbon dating). It's not about proving that something comes from a certain time period. Absence of evidence arguments will always leave room for doubt. It's about making the most reasonable inferences possible, based on the available data. And these inferences are all about similarities and dissimilarities of content--in other words about parallels or the lack thereof. 

There is actually some fundamental reasons that absence of evidence arguments generally play into the apologists' favor. We know far more about what was in the 19th century than we do about what was in the ancient world. This is because the number of available historical documents, and the ability to digitally search them, is way larger for the 19th century. When critics bring up anachronisms, such as horses or the lack of Nephite remains in Mesoamerica, it doesn't mean a whole lot. Why? Because that time and place creates significant sampling problems. Most evidence disintegrates over time, especially in Mesoamerican jungles. This, in turn, makes it very difficult to prove a negative--meaning to prove something didn't exist in this setting. The Middle East is actually a different ball game. You don't hardly see critics attacking the Book of Mormon on that front any more (they mostly try to defend on that front). Part of it is because only a small portion of the text takes place there, but part of it is also because we have made a number of significant finds which make the Book of Mormon very believable in this setting--it has better strengths and essentially none of the weaknesses of the Mesoamerican setting.  

When significant, genuine parallels show up in the Book of Mormon, potentially linking it to these two ancient settings, then the tables are turned and the critics are the ones who are forced to rely on absence of evidence arguments in order to defend their position. However, their arguments necessarily rely on what is known in the 19th century. If a parallel in the text seems to be far beyond mere guesswork and to be underivable from the available scholarship of the day, (such as Lehi's throne theophany, or King Mosiah's coronation ceremony, or Lehi's poetic couplet at the Valley of Lemuel, etc.), then critics are compelled to find some other way Joseph Smith could have had access to this material in the 19th century (or of course just write it off as a very lucky coincidence).

Yet because we have far more data about the 19th century, the critic's reliance on absence of evidence arguments is significantly disadvantaged. As data bases have grown and our ability to digitally search documents has significantly increased,  it gets harder and harder to suggest that Joseph Smith got an idea that was just floating around. We have a very good idea about what was floating around, when it was floating around, and often times even where. We don't know absolutely. There is always the chance that Joseph received some arcane text from a book trader traveling along the Eire Canal, but, generally speaking, we know far more about what was and wasn't in Joseph Smith's immediate environment than we know about what was or wasn't present in ancient Mesoamerica or the ancient Near East. 

There is another very fundamental problem facing the critics. The Book of Mormon may have been written in the ancient world, but it was written for a modern audience and even directly addressed to a modern audience. Its prophetic authors claimed to have seen our day in vision and that God specifically inspired them about what content they should include. In other words, if it was written for us and God specifically selected the content for us, then there is a good chance that God selected the content that would be the most relevant to us, and have the most resonance with us.

There is also another fundamental problem facing the critics. The Book of Mormon is a translated text, and many translations are functional to one degree or another. As opposed to a literal translation, a functional translations caters to the language and idiom of the target audience. Critics, to my knowledge, simply cannot provide any evidence proving that much of translation wasn't functional in nature. There is virtually know way to discount a dynamic translation--with a large degree of functionality in it--as a viable possibility. 

The above two factors--(1) the fact that the text claims to be divinely crafted for a modern audience and (2) the uncontestable possibility that much of it could have been functionally translated --negates the significance of many 19th century parallels. In other words, thematic and linguistic parallels with the 19th century are essentially meaningless, because the nature of the text arguably predicts they should be there. And this creates a significant disparity in the overall argument. The only types of 19th century parallels with any degree of significance are things that seem to be arbitrary or obscure--like Captain Kid stuff (which has serious problems with it, by the way). General themes like 19th century patriotism and democracy, and specific word-level arguments like the use of "secret combinations" don't have any real evidentiary value. And lots of arguments for 19th century origins rely on these types of irrelevant evidences.

Therefore, you can't meaningfully argue that the Book of Mormon doesn't fit its claimed ancient contexts because absences of evidences in the ancient world makes proving a negative nigh to impossible. And, for the most part, you can't argue that the Book of Mormon belongs exclusively to the 19th century because the text itself leads us to expect that it would be oriented toward 19th century themes and that it would be understandable to a modern audience. Much to the critics' dismay, I am sure, this situation makes it so that the only evidence that really counts very much is positive evidence for its ancient context. Either it has sufficient positive evidence to be believable in its claimed ancient contexts or it doesn't. And, unfortunately for the critics, it has loads of it.

In my view here is what we have:

1. A text that is filled with parallels to ancient Near Eastern content, much of it underivable in Joseph's day and not likely to be guessed.

2. A text that is at least consistent with many features of a Mesoamerican setting, and which has a few parallels that were unlikely to be guessed and which are virtually certain to be unknown in Joseph's day. 

3. A text which is very long, extremely complex and consistent, and well beyond anything we should expect from the 23-year-old Joseph Smith. 

4. A text which, according to the best historical data available, was dictated in the presence of scribes in no more than 74 days, without any reference materials or substantive revisions.

5. A text which employs a lot of EModE features that Joseph Smith should not have known about, should not have been able to implement, and were very unlikely to be present in his environment--hence giving credence to the idea that the English text of the Book of Mormon was revealed to him in a supernatural way.

So, on lots of fronts we have a text that seems to be authentically ancient, supernaturally dictated, and which seems to defy the assumption that Joseph just made it up on the fly. There are lots of evidences that critics don't have good answers for (none of which we have discussed yet in any depth), and as discussed before, there are major obstacles that the critics face when trying to prove 19th century origin or the when making arguments based on a mere lack of data from the ancient world. 

At least that's how I see the general evidence for historicity/divine translation stacking up. I am actually interested in testing some of the ancient Near Easter evidences as case studies. They don't get engaged much by critics (I'm not using this term pejoratively by the way), and so I don't know what reasons are typically used for dismissing them. I would be interested in some feedback from members of this board about a few of them (probably only two or three), just to see how it plays out. I would post them, probably just one at a time, on another thread, if anyone is interested to engage. And then you, Cinepro, can explain how your sharpshooter fallacy works in specific situations and why none of the parallels I find to be valid are really valid.😉

 

 

 

 

 

Edited June 29, 2018 by Ryan Dahle