Gospel Writers, Muhammad, and Joseph Smith

[Hamilton Porter]

By the quality of information we have on these people, we can arrange them in increasing order:

1. Gospel writers
2. Muhammad
3. Joseph Smith

Muslims claim Muhammad was illiterate so he couldn't have produced such beautiful poetry in the Quran. Critics recognize that that's impossible, and add that he also must have had a sophisticated understanding of the Bible and post-Biblical Christian and Jewish works. One of them, Tom Holland, argues that he must've been from the Levant; we now know that this is unnecessary because Arabia was mostly monotheistic on the eve of Islam's advent. They say that we don't have anything written by non-Muslims from that period. I lean towards believing Muslims on this one, because the volume of records they have is significant. (How that fits into my existing belief system as an LDS is beyond my concerns at the moment). I'm not saying all the hadiths are historical, but to say they made up that much crap borders on the conspiratorial.

If we go back further in time, to Jesus, many people are now also doubting that the Gospels could've been written by Galilean peasants. Hardly anyone was literate during that time. Robyn Walsh, for instance, argues they were written by Greco-Roman elites with an "interest in the Hebrew scriptures" who "may or may not be Christian." Since records back then were fuzzy, I won't and don't have to adjudicate this one. But if you look at Muhammad as a reference, it becomes clear unbelievers say the same thing: "No way he wrote it, blah blah blah."

Fast forward to Joseph Smith. We know he was a farmboy, we know exactly how much schooling he had, we have a good idea of which ideas were available and unavailable to him. As for the Book of Mormon's grandeur, it took a while, but the secular academy is finally starting to recognize its literary merits. Its antiquity will soon follow. I'm waiting with anticipation what secularists will say.

 

Edited April 14, 2023 by Hamilton Porter

[CA Steve]

39 minutes ago, Hamilton Porter said:

As for the Book of Mormon's grandeur, it took a while, but the secular academy is finally starting to recognize its literary merits.

What secular academy is finally starting to recognize its literary merits?

[Hamilton Porter]

15 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

What secular academy is finally starting to recognize its literary merits?

Academia in general.

https://www.deseret.com/2017/5/30/20613211/grant-shreve-i-fell-hard-for-the-book-of-mormon-but-did-not-convert-to-the-lds-church

[Islander]

12 hours ago, Hamilton Porter said:

By the quality of information we have on these people, we can arrange them in increasing order:

1. Gospel writers
2. Muhammad
3. Joseph Smith

Muslims claim Muhammad was illiterate so he couldn't have produced such beautiful and poetry in the Quran. Critics recognize that that's impossible, and add that he also must have had a sophisticated understanding of the Bible and post-Biblical Christian and Jewish works. One of them, Tom Holland, argues that he must've been from the Levant; we now know that this is unnecessary because Arabia was mostly monotheistic on the even of Islam's advent. They say that we don't have anything written by non-Muslims from that period. I lean towards believing Muslims on this one, because the volume of records they have is significant. (How that fits into my existing belief system as an LDS is beyond my concerns at the moment). I'm not saying all the hadiths are historical, but to say they made up that much crap borders on the conspiratorial.

If we go back further in time, to Jesus, many people are now also doubting that the Gospels could've been written by Galilean peasants. Hardly anyone was literate during that time. Robyn Walsh, for instance, argues they were written by Greco-Roman elites with an "interest in the Hebrew scriptures" who "may or may not be Christian." Since records back then were fuzzy, I won't and don't have to adjudicate this one.

Fast forward to Joseph Smith. We know he was a farmboy, we know exactly how much schooling he had, we have a good idea of which ideas were available and unavailable to him. As for the Book of Mormon's grandeur, it took a while, but the secular academy is finally starting to recognize its literary merits. Its antiquity will soon follow. I'm waiting with anticipation what secularists will say.

 

Throwing Muhammad in the mix is rather arbitrary. There is absolutely no historicity for the emergence of the Q'ran. Al-Sīrah al-Nabawiyyah, by Ibn Ishaq, 'The Life of the Prophet' was written approximately by 750AD, who lived in Iraq, almost 1000 miles away from Mecca and more than a century later. There are no fragments or copies of the Q'ran from the 7th century. The earliest are from the late 8th and early 9th century or later, and there are thousands of variances between them. One of the claims that Muslims make is that the Q'ran is eternal and unchanged. Well, that does not hold true by any stretch of the imagination. There are no witness accounts of contemporaries to Muhammad and, within the historical records of the period, there is absolutely no mention of anyone named Muhammad or people called Muslims. No 7th or even 8th century map lists a city in SW Arabia named Mecca.

 

The BoM has a significantly stronger and verifiable history in terms of production, where and when it was first printed and the religious history associated with the it. Without a doubt, the story of the LDS people is clearly abundantly documented.

[mfbukowski]

12 hours ago, Hamilton Porter said:

Academia in general.

https://www.deseret.com/2017/5/30/20613211/grant-shreve-i-fell-hard-for-the-book-of-mormon-but-did-not-convert-to-the-lds-church

This is what I have been saying for 10 years hereabouts.

[Hamilton Porter]

3 hours ago, Islander said:

There are no fragments or copies of the Q'ran from the 7th century.

Ahem...645 CE.

Edited April 14, 2023 by Hamilton Porter

[Hamilton Porter]

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

This is what I have been saying for 10 years hereabouts.

That's a long article. Which point are you referencing?

[mfbukowski]

7 hours ago, Hamilton Porter said:

That's a long article. Which point are you referencing?

We are so stupid.  Here we are talking about horses to verify the truth of the BOM when what we need to concentrate on the intellectual potential of the book as scholars see it so we CAN make it "grow in esteem"

Then we will see better results.

We need to grow our own intellectual esteem instead of fighting the Anti's stupid historical arguments, which are totally irrelevant to what is important.

Again, it's like attacking Beethoven's music because he made mistakes in his life.

No academic would try to make a case against Beethoven for such a stupid reason, but we argue about horses because of the stupid arguments our opposition makes.

We need to latch on to the intellectual esteem the world could see instead of fighting in the mud with the groundlings.

We don't know what we have!! We need to SEE what the author of the article sees!

This is why I argue against historical arguments: they are irrelevant to the philosophical richness we have staring us in the face, we just have to SEE it!

We need to "radically alter the context" to show the intellectual richness in the BOM.

Our own historical obsession can make us a historical failure, a blip in history.

Time to grow up, people!

https://www.deseret.com/2017/5/30/20613211/grant-shreve-i-fell-hard-for-the-book-of-mormon-but-did-not-convert-to-the-lds-church

Article quote:

"For someone like me, whose interest in the Book of Mormon is entirely removed from any church affiliation, these reappropriations and novel interpretations of the book seem all for the good. But I also recognize that the recent embrace of the book by literature scholars radically alters the context in which many are encountering it. For nearly two centuries, the LDS Church has set the terms for the Book of Mormon’s reception and interpretation. But in the 21st-century literature classroom, the book’s spectacular origins and the questions surrounding its veracity are often altogether absent from the conversation. Instead, its narrative structure, its historical context, its textual history and its rhetorical power, have taken center stage. Under such conditions, the book is likely to grow in esteem but is unlikely to swell membership rolls."

Edited April 14, 2023 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Re:

Above post

"

noun

plural noun: groundlings

1. 1.

   a spectator or reader of inferior taste, such as a member of a theater audience who traditionally stood in the pit below the stage.

   "Dante is not for groundlings"

[The Nehor]

12 hours ago, Islander said:

Throwing Muhammad in the mix is rather arbitrary. There is absolutely no historicity for the emergence of the Q'ran. Al-Sīrah al-Nabawiyyah, by Ibn Ishaq, 'The Life of the Prophet' was written approximately by 750AD, who lived in Iraq, almost 1000 miles away from Mecca and more than a century later. There are no fragments or copies of the Q'ran from the 7th century. The earliest are from the late 8th and early 9th century or later, and there are thousands of variances between them. One of the claims that Muslims make is that the Q'ran is eternal and unchanged. Well, that does not hold true by any stretch of the imagination. There are no witness accounts of contemporaries to Muhammad and, within the historical records of the period, there is absolutely no mention of anyone named Muhammad or people called Muslims. No 7th or even 8th century map lists a city in SW Arabia named Mecca.

 

The BoM has a significantly stronger and verifiable history in terms of production, where and when it was first printed and the religious history associated with the it. Without a doubt, the story of the LDS people is clearly abundantly documented.

Whoever told you all this was either incredibly ignorant or they were deliberately lying. Don’t trust them in the future.

[Islander]

On 4/14/2023 at 2:59 AM, Hamilton Porter said:

Ahem...645 CE.

Not so fast...

 

Fragments of an ancient Quran discovered in Birmingham University in July may predate the prophet Muhammad, thus undermining core beliefs of Islam, UK researchers told The Times on Monday.

Scientists at the University of Oxford carbon dated the artifact and found it to have been created between 568 CE and 645 CE. Muhammad is believed to have lived between 570 CE and 632 CE. So while the dating process does not necessarily contradict Islamic tradition, it does raise the possibility that the book, or parts of it, was written before the prophet was even born, or during his infancy.

“It destabilizes, to put it mildly, the idea that we can know anything with certainty about how the Quran emerged,” historian Tom Holland told The Times. “And that in turn has implications for the historicity of Muhammad and [his followers].”

 

Oxford’s Keith Small added: “This gives more ground to what have been peripheral views of the Quran’s genesis, like that Muhammad and his early followers used a text that was already in existence and shaped it to fit their own political and theological agenda, rather than Muhammad receiving a revelation from heaven.”

 

Here is an article that details why one, the carbon dating points to a different date and second, that the text itself predates the life of Muhammad.

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/fragments-of-world-s-oldest-koran-unlikely-to-predate-prophet-mohamed-says-expert-10481728.html

[Calm]

11 minutes ago, Islander said:

Fragments of an ancient Quran discovered in Birmingham University in July may predate the prophet Muhammad, thus undermining core beliefs of Islam, UK researchers told The Times on Monday.

 

Did you look at the url?  “Unlikely to predate”…?
 

Why ignore this part?

Quote

A manuscript of the Koran found buried away in a Birmingham library is more likely than not the oldest known direct record of the Prophet Mohamed's teachings, according to an expert at the university where it was discovered.

Amid claims the fragments could throw the traditional view of the origins of Islam into question, a member of the team involved in the discovery said further analysis of the ancient artefact threw up a "problem" with this theory.

Quote

Yet Professor Thomas believes that the opposite is in fact more likely. He said there is a telling clue that suggests the Koran actually comes from the later part of the date range, and that it would therefore “seem to support a traditional view”.

“There is a big problem with that earlier date range,” he said.

“As it turns out, on one of the four surfaces of our fragments we have a chapter division, which would seem to suggest that what we have was once a fully-formed Koran, possibly as early as the sixth century.

 

Edited April 19, 2023 by Calm

[Islander]

On 4/14/2023 at 1:13 PM, The Nehor said:

Whoever told you all this was either incredibly ignorant or they were deliberately lying. Don’t trust them in the future.

I don't need to listed to any one. If I want to know something I just go and research the subject. What I stated about the Q'ran orgins is factual and historically verifiable. if you think you can prove otherwise, just bring them up. 

 

If you don't have elements to refute my assertion just save your opinion. It is really not worth much otherwise. 

[Islander]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

Did you look at the url?  “Unlikely to predate”…?

Yeah, well read the article. 

Edited April 19, 2023 by Islander

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, Islander said:

Yeah, well read the article. 

I did.  You left out the most important part of the article.

[Hamilton Porter]

1 hour ago, Islander said:

Not so fast...

 

Fragments of an ancient Quran discovered in Birmingham University in July may predate the prophet Muhammad, thus undermining core beliefs of Islam, UK researchers told The Times on Monday.

Scientists at the University of Oxford carbon dated the artifact and found it to have been created between 568 CE and 645 CE. Muhammad is believed to have lived between 570 CE and 632 CE. So while the dating process does not necessarily contradict Islamic tradition, it does raise the possibility that the book, or parts of it, was written before the prophet was even born, or during his infancy.

“It destabilizes, to put it mildly, the idea that we can know anything with certainty about how the Quran emerged,” historian Tom Holland told The Times. “And that in turn has implications for the historicity of Muhammad and [his followers].”

 

Oxford’s Keith Small added: “This gives more ground to what have been peripheral views of the Quran’s genesis, like that Muhammad and his early followers used a text that was already in existence and shaped it to fit their own political and theological agenda, rather than Muhammad receiving a revelation from heaven.”

 

Here is an article that details why one, the carbon dating points to a different date and second, that the text itself predates the life of Muhammad.

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/fragments-of-world-s-oldest-koran-unlikely-to-predate-prophet-mohamed-says-expert-10481728.html

Did you even read the headline? "Unlikely."

"Peripheral" means not mainstream. Most scholars don't buy it. Tom Holland is some wacko who thinks Muhammad isn't from Arabia.

 Rebecca Watson said some of the headlines are "designed to make atheists jizz in their pants."

 

[Hamilton Porter]

1 hour ago, Islander said:

So while the dating process does not necessarily contradict Islamic tradition, it does raise the possibility that the book, or parts of it, was written before the prophet was even born, or during his infancy.

That's just dumb. It's most likely to be spot on as Muslims claimed. 

Because the dating shows Muslim tradition to be a bulls eye, he's saying "Oh!!! Just a little earlier and it'll all be wrong!" Shameless redneck bait you bit into.

 

 

Edited April 20, 2023 by Hamilton Porter

[The Nehor]

5 hours ago, Islander said:

I don't need to listed to any one. If I want to know something I just go and research the subject. What I stated about the Q'ran orgins is factual and historically verifiable. if you think you can prove otherwise, just bring them up. 

 

If you don't have elements to refute my assertion just save your opinion. It is really not worth much otherwise. 

Refutation:

The Codex Parisino-petropolitanus
The Birmingham Quran Manuscript
The Sana’a Manuscript

All dated to the 7th century or earlier.

[Hamilton Porter]

14 hours ago, Islander said:

Yeah, well read the article. 

You're attitude is disturbing, especially since you seem like a good person. The Plains too, but you're LDS; you should know better. We are a historically persecuted religious group. We don't want people maligning our religion, attacking it, we shouldn't do it to others. Elders Gong and Bednar have stated explicitly that members have said things about Muslims we need to repent for, especially because they will be our partners in fighting for religious freedom. We were expelled from Missouri. To be fair, a lot of LDS have views like you, influenced by conservative politics.

DC LDS don't seem to have this problem. They were helping Ukrainian refugees with lots of energy, and they helped Afghan refugees with no less energy.

[Hamilton Porter]

On 4/14/2023 at 1:18 PM, mfbukowski said:

We need to grow our own intellectual esteem instead of fighting the Anti's stupid historical arguments, which are totally irrelevant to what is important.

OK, just to be clear, since you don't believe the BOM is historical. Do you believe it's "ancient"? Understanding the Old Testament/Ancient Near Eastern background to the Book of Mormon is necessary to appreciate its full grandeur.

In the Oxford book, Americanist Approaches to the Book of Mormon, which sets the BOM in antebellum America, one of the non-LDS contributors said that once of her students called the BOM "Old Testament fan fiction." Exploring its OT background provides a gateway to get non-LDS people to explore other aspects of its antiquity.

[mfbukowski]

14 minutes ago, Hamilton Porter said:

OK, just to be clear, since you don't believe the BOM is historical. Do you believe it's "ancient"? Understanding the Old Testament/Ancient Near Eastern background to the Book of Mormon is necessary to appreciate its full grandeur.

In the Oxford book, Americanist Approaches to the Book of Mormon, which sets the BOM in antebellum America, one of the non-LDS contributors said that once of her students called the BOM "Old Testament fan fiction." Exploring its OT background provides a gateway to get non-LDS people to explore other aspects of its antiquity.

Wrong wrong wrong.

I do NOT believe that the BOM is is NOT historical.

It might be, or it might not be historical.  In fact. I see many ways it  COULD be historical.

My point is that history in general can NEVER make religious statements true or false.

You can't research whether or not murder is "wrong", the STATEMENT "Murder is wrong" and the actual history of every murder that ever happened, every gruesome fact, cannot tell you that " murder is wrong".

In fact the BOM could be exactly historical in every fact, the lives of every historical person perfectly presented,and inerrant in every possible way historically and STILL NOT be from God! God could not exist and yet the historical events COULD be a perfect account of the Nephites HISTORICAL BELIEFS in beings that don't exist.

It could be as historically correct as Josephus is, but yet be as spiritually "wrong" as Josephus was.

Can we see the difference?

[mfbukowski]

33 minutes ago, Hamilton Porter said:

In the Oxford book, Americanist Approaches to the Book of Mormon, which sets the BOM in antebellum America, one of the non-LDS contributors said that once of her students called the BOM "Old Testament fan fiction." Exploring its OT background provides a gateway to get non-LDS people to explore other aspects of its antiquity.

Only if they believe the fallacy that history is about religion.

History gives us no purpose in life, religion is completely about purpose in life .

[Hamilton Porter]

24 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Can we see the difference?

Let me rephrase. 

Setting aside whether it's historical or not, there are elements in the Book of Mormon that contribute to its beauty and grandeur.

1. As a message to antebellum America

2. As an ancient Near Eastern document

3. As a literary work

Would you accept all three in, using your words, making the book more prestigious?

[mfbukowski]

29 minutes ago, Hamilton Porter said:

Let me rephrase. 

Setting aside whether it's historical or not, there are elements in the Book of Mormon that contribute to its beauty and grandeur.

1. As a message to antebellum America

2. As an ancient Near Eastern document

3. As a literary work

Would you accept all three in, using your words, making the book more prestigious?

Sure! All of them!

And as a book for our times in so many ways, which include Pragmatist philosophy ( see Paulsen's "God of Abraham...and William James") McMurrin, and Process philosophy as taught at BYU and Claremont...Theology.

Moroni 10 and Alma32 and James 1 teach us, imo, to find our our own "truth", virtually endorsing Postmodernism 200 years before anyone knew the term

"Your truth" is your testimony. Same concept.

Parley P Pratt was writing Postmodernism 50 years before Pragmatism was invented.  Theology IS most important because it teaches us spheres of knowledge and how all paradigms work for their purposes ( DC 93)

References? Hundreds.

I'm working on it.

When I first started learning about Mormonism, working on getting thru a phd program I wondered how some uneducated farmers in Utah could possibly know anything about philosophy.

Boy was I wrong!

The problem is, for the most part  they STILL have no clue what they have.

They're still Mormons.

We need to become The Church of Jesus Christ.

Edited April 20, 2023 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

13 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Sure! All of them!

And as a book for our times in so many ways, which include Pragmatist philosophy ( see Paulsen's "God of Abraham...and William James") McMurrin, and Process philosophy as taught at BYU and Claremont...Theology.

Moroni 10 and Alma32 and James 1 teach us, imo, to find our our own "truth", virtually endorsing Postmodernism 200 years before anyone knew the term

"Your truth" is your testimony. Same concept.

Parley P Pratt was writing Postmodernism 50 years before Pragmatism was invented.  Theology IS most important because it teaches us spheres of knowledge and how all paradigms work for their purposes ( DC 93)

References? Hundreds.

I'm working on it.

When I first started learning about Mormonism, working on getting thru a phd program I wondered how some uneducated farmers in Utah could possibly know anything about philosophy.

Boy was I wrong!

The problem is, for the most part  they STILL have no clue what they have.

They're still Mormons.

We need to become The Church of Jesus Christ.

President Kimball on "Absolute Truth"

“Experience in one field does not automatically create expertise in another field. Expertise in religion comes from personal righteousness and from revelation. The Lord told the Prophet Joseph Smith: ‘All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it.’ (D&C 93:30.) A geologist who has discovered truths about the structure of the earth may be oblivious to the truths God has given us about the eternal nature of the family."