Continuation of historicity argument with friend.

[Archaea]

> Are you arguing that it is important that the Book of Mormon in some sense
> accurately reflects the history of the Lehite colony? (Note, our arguments are here, and his are darker)!!!

Important? No. I'm arguing that if you accept the Book of Mormon as being written by the people it claims to be written by (Moroni, Mormon, Nephi, et al), there's no compelling reason to assume that it DOESN'T accurately reflect the history of the colony. It's the only historical source we have, so the default position should be to assume its historical statements are correct--it's not likely we have any way of disproving it anyway.

Now, is it likely that there are absolutely, in fact, no historical errors in at all? Not at all, even though it was written by the very best of men. Even the title page admits the possibility of errors. But I believe EVERY ancient document, religious or not, is going to have errors, just from men being involved. Modern documents too. I've certainly made my share of errors in my writings. I don't think you could go a single page in Cougarboard without finding statements that are untrue, perhaps even provably untrue.

But the very real possibility of errors hardly means that we should regard all historical content in the Book of Mormon as being suspect and unreliable. Why reject the lone eyewitness? Is it important? In the grand of scheme of things, not really. I do not believe a knowledge of history is a requirement for exaltation. But I personally find historical context somewhat useful in understanding the writings better, and I find the history interesting in its own right.

> For example, are you
> arguing the it is not only important that the Lehite's ran into the
> Mulekites, but that the Mulekites actually were descended from Mulek? Is it
> okay if in reality that was total BS to impress the Nephites? Would the
> Book of Mormon lose value as scripture if that claim was a lie?

Actually, it WOULD rather detract from Nephi, son of Helaman's speech in Chapter 8, if the Mulekites were just natives who made up the stuff about Mulek (and emigrating after the fall of Jerusalem) to impress the Nephites. Nephi uses the (claimed) identity of the Mulekites as proof of a fulfilled prophecy, and that would be a pretty lame argument if it turns it wasn't true.

It'd REALLY detract from Nephi's credibility as a prophet if he made up the part at the end of Chapter 8 about the chief judge and his brother, don't you think? Do you have a problem with accepting that as historically true?

Still, the Mulekites, viewed strictly from a historical perspective, are an example of information in the Book of Mormon that is primarily of historic value, not of scriptural value. It's also a bit of historical information that has no direct witnesses. Nephi is merely repeating a Mulekite oral tradition, not something he has personal knowledge of. For that matter, Mulekite isn't even a scriptural term.

.

[Archaea]

Continued,

Still, if you are interested in Mulekite history at all, for any reason, Omni, Mosiah, and Helaman *are* the relevant historical documents.

> Is it important that the Lehite exodus is somehow an accurate reflection of what
> happened? Is it okay if it is embellished or largely rewritten to make a
> theological point?
>
Is it important that Paul H. Dunn's stories are somehow an accurate reflection of what actually happened? Is it OK if his stories are embellished, or even exaggerated to the point of falsity, to make a theological point?

Yes and no. Paul H. Dunn taking liberties does not remove the truthless of his theological points. But it *does* detract from his theological point. If we can't trust him to tell the truth about things that aren't important, it becomes harder to believe he is telling the truth about things that ARE important.

With Paul H. Dunn, we can check the Baseball Encyclopedia and easily determine that he never played in the major leagues after all. We don't have that sort of check on Nephi, and so we're not in a position to rule out that he may have "embellished" the events in his life. And given that he has written his books sometime after they occurred, for a specific religious purpose, we can safely assume that he left out any material that would distract from his main point.

Still, Paul H. Dunn is a bit of an exception. I believe (and I've seen nothing to contradict this) that the vast majority of modern prophets or general authorities tell stories that they genuinely believe to be true. Why should we assume Nephi is an exception? Given that Nephi is the sole source for the events, and that Nephi is an eyewitness and an actor for nearly every event he reports, he is certainly in a position to give an accurate history, should he choose to do so. In the absence of any other accounts, why should we not treat it as accurate?

>
>
> My confusion persists throughout. For example consider your thoughts on
> Luke.
>
> Your quote:
> Luke is recording incidents in the book of Acts that are contemporary to
> him, and a part of which he was a personal witness to. Plutarch is writing
> of people he is not known to have direct contact with, the bulk of which
> died before he was born, sometimes LONG before he was born. It is Plutarch
> who is reliant on oral traditions, and Luke who is position to write an
> outstanding, accurate history. Close quote.
>
> I'm not sure what to make of this paragraph? You seem to be arguing that an
> important criteria of a scriptural text is the it is written by a
> contemporary or a near contemporary of the events.

No, I am comparing Acts *as history* to Plutarch's Lives *as history*. Luke is in a better position to record an accurate history of the events he is writing about than Plutarch is. The fact that Luke's history has religious value doesn't change that.

To the extent that scriptures describe things that happened (as opposed to straight-up sermons or revelations), I do think being a contemporary, an eyewitness, or even a principal actor in the events has SUBSTANTIAL value. To go back to your Book of Mormon example, Nephi telling us about Mulekites being descendants of Zedekiah is evidence of Mulekite tradition, but absent a revelation certainly falls short of proof that they really are descendants of Zedekiah. Nephi wasn't there, and he's making this statement over 500 years after Mulek's birth. Doesn't mean that the Mulekites are wrong, just that as historical evidence goes, it's in the same class as some of Plutarch's Lives. On the other hand, his ancestor Nephi, writing about crossing the sea to America on a boat, has a much better perspective on things. He was ON the boat. He helped BUILD the boat. Unless you assume for some reason that Nephi is a thundering liar, there's no good reason to doubt that Nephi crossed to America on a boat.

Now is it theological important that Nephi crossed on a boat? I can't think of a reason why it would be. But that doesn't mean it has no historical value, for whatever that's worth. The Book of Mormon is chock full of information that is of historical value only.

And sometimes, events are both theologically important and historically significant. The resurrection of Jesus is VERY important, and is also an event. The apostles who spread the word in Acts are doing so as eyewitnesses of the risen Christ.

>The author of scripture
> needs to be relative close to the "action." Or are you arguing that
> sometimes scripture is good history and Luke is a good example of that
> fact?

Yes, I am. Though I think Acts is a better example than the Gospel, as the author is an eyewitness to some of the events in Acts, but not (as far as we know) to any of the events in the Gospel. The events in Acts are also closer in time.

> I suppose many Mormons and Conservative Christians in general would
> agree with the paragraph but very few scholars would and don't think it is
> internal consistent with the preface of Luke (1:1-4):
>
My preference for those who are "close to the action" exhibits itself well when discussing the opinion of modern scholars. They are far removed in time and place from the events which happened, much further than Luke, yet feel free to correct Luke in any manner they see fit. I do not believe the opinions of scholars constitutes evidence.

> Quote:
> 1 Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things
> which have been accomplished among us, 2 just as they were delivered to us
> by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the
> word, 3 it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for
> some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent
> The-oph'ilus, 4 that you may know the truth concerning the things of which
> you have been informed.

> Thus the anonymous author of the gospel that come to be known as Luke never
> makes a claim of direct contact with the main actors of the gospel. Should
> we privilege Irenaeus's late second century identification?

Certainly we should, given that the second century is the earliest we can go back to find someone identifying the book at all. The earliest writers we have referencing Luke, and the earliest manuscripts of Luke, attribute it to Luke. That's not as good as him starting it with "I Luke, having been born of goodly parents", but it is something. We certainly have no attribution of the books to anyone else. Luke is also known to be a companion of Paul, which fits with the account in Acts, and the account in Acts ends at a point where Luke is known to be.

From a gospel standpoint it's not important that Luke was written by Luke, Matthew written by Matthew, Mark by Mark, or John by John. But the attribution of each of those gospels to those authors was done in the earliest documents and earliest contributors that we have any record of, with no one at that time disputing the attribution. Non-religious ancient documents not mentioning the name of author are almost invariably ascribed to their traditional author without comment, yet for some reason even the oldest Christian traditions are discarded whenever possible. I don't get it.

[Archaea]

In short, that Iraneus attributes Luke/Acts to Luke *is* evidence that it was written by Luke. That's not proof, it could be wrong, but there's no contrary evidence to indicate that it was not, in fact, written by Luke.

Anyway, back to "Luke's" historical approach. Whether you believe it's Luke or not, look at what he's essentially saying in the preface (writing to a fellow Christian):

1) Many people have made an account of the early history
2) As far as we have received from the people who were there
3) And I can write an even more accurate history
4) So you can know the truth

Do you think I go too far in that paraphrase? He acknowledges that what he's about to do has been done before, and is received from those who were eyewitnesses (autoptai), yet he goes ahead with another one because he knows enough (akribos kathezes, which my dictionary gives as exact or precise retention) to do it better.

It could be, as some suggest, that this is just some blowhard in AD 100 who cribs Mark and Q and is lucky enough to get a genuine early Christian's name appended to it. Or it could be that the writer's preface is honest and accurate, and he really DOES have an exact knowledge of the early events in the church history--as he claimed.

Note that in verse two, he claims the earlier accounts were received by "us" from those who were eyewitnesses and ministers from the beginning. Is that not a claim to contact with main actors? He also seems to have accompanied Paul to Jerusalem, where it would be easy to be in contact with eyewitnesses.

> That strike me
> as slightly ironic given the contrast with Plutarch's reliance on oral
> history. So I am just not sure we can conclude that the author of Luke was
> anymore a contemporary eyewitness than Plutarch (no I don't find the "we"
> sections of Acts compelling),

I find the "we" sections of Acts compelling. To what point does he use we, if scholars two millenia later feel free to disregard anything he writes? But even the least charitable scholar doesn't place the writing of Acts later than A.D. 100. The traditional dating (which fits with the rather abrupt end to Acts) puts it at 60, less than 30 years after Christ's ministry and nearly immediately after the end of the events described in Acts. The author of Luke, as regarding the book of Acts, certainly MAY have been a contemporary, and if taken literally, was written by an eyewitness of parts of Acts.

Plutarch's Greek Lives were written about figures who were dead for a minimum of 200 years, stretching back to a mythical figure dated 1300 years earlier. Some of the Romans are closer to him in years, but none were contemporaries. Even if they had been, Plutarch lived at Delphi, not in Rome. There is no possibility of contact with anyone in his Lives. Unlike the author of Luke, he doesn't claim any special ability or accuracy.

We can conclude, then, that Plutarch was absolutely not a contemporary witness. You can't say that about the author of Luke, even if you decide to disregard the we sections, ignore his claims to exact knowledge, and decide to reject the attribution given in the earliest available references just so you can push the date of authorship back forty years.

> and I don't think this is an important
> criteria for scripture in general.
>
I think there are many things in the scripture, include the really vital doctrines that comprise most of scripture's real worth, that are not at all affected by the historicity of the scriptures. So I have no problem with you considering the historicity unimportant.

I do object to rejecting the historicity outright, when as far as I can see, compared to other ancient (non-scriptural) documents, their claims to historicity are easily as good. In the case of the Book of Mormon, the ancient text has some HUGE boosts to historicity that most ancient documents don't have -- a divinely inspired translation, clearly identifiable writers who were principal actors in the vast majority of the action described, and a document that had not passed through many generations of copying and retransmission. In the case of the New Testament, the bulk of the writings are attributed to direct witnesses of the risen Christ, transmission of the documents was a major priority through much of the intervening history, and copies within five centuries of the original date are fairly numerous. Euripides should be so lucky. Heck, Plutarch should be so lucky.

To be clear, I'm not saying that you reject the historicity, or that you're wrong in considering the historicity to be an unimportant side show to the doctrinal value of scripture. I consider the scriptures to be pretty good history, but I also consider history in general to be something inexact and unverifiable. I'm also inclined to accept history contained in the scripture as true, in the absence of any compelling evidence otherwise

[pelagius]

Well, at least I understand his/her point now: the default position should be that the Book of Mormon and New Testament are "accurate" historical sources. However, I think he/she assumes a very modern view of what it means to be accurate, and it strikes me as a manifestation of the presentist bias. I think if we really take the Book of Mormon seriously as an ancient document we should assume or at least be open to the possibility that it has many of the same issues as other pre-modern documents.

P.S.

I do disagree with a lot of what he/she said about Luke and the New Testament. However, I think the preceding paragraph points to a gulf that is wide enough that it is not worth worrying about.