Historicity of BoM, valuable or secondary.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by minn_stat

So using his logic, I guess christianity wasn't true 200 years ago, when most of the archealogical evidence for the Bible hadn't been discovered?

Oh, and with the Bible, you have the additional advantage that you have references to places that still exist with the same name, which makes it much easier to start trying to locate and confirm biblical information. We don't even know where to begin with the BOM - Delaware? Guatemala? Peru? It sure is easier to go to Jericho and look for buried layers of the city when you know where there is a current village of the same name.

What are you talking about? Places and peoples referenced in the Bible have a continuous presence from antiquity to modern times. They didn't need to be "discovered."

Originally Posted by minn_stat

Oh, and with the Bible, you have the additional advantage that you have references to places that still exist with the same name, which makes it much easier to start trying to locate and confirm biblical information. We don't even know where to begin with the BOM - Delaware? Guatemala? Peru? It sure is easier to go to Jericho and look for buried layers of the city when you know where there is a current village of the same name.

Isn't that the whole point?

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Give me a mustard seed.

Would it do any good?

[Solon]

Originally Posted by Archaea

On CB, a discussion that was buried and ignored generated an interesting boardmail, which I will post but not identify. I thought his response was cogent, even though I'm not in complete agreement.

"I certainly agree that the Book of Mormon's primary purpose is religious. As it says on Moroni's title page, it is written "to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that JESUS is the CHRIST, the ETERNAL God, manifesting himself unto all nations." Nephi, Mormon, and Moroni, the primary writers/editors, have a religious agenda and they aren't shy about saying it.

This is no way disqualifies it as a historical text. As the title page ALSO says, it is an abridgement of a record of the people of Nephi, and also an abridgement of the record of the people of Jared. As the only extant record of those people, it has immense historical value. Further, the abridgements are taken from writers (with the exception of the first half of Ether) who are contemporary to the events described, even eyewitnesses. Historicity refers to historical accuracy, not whether the author has (or pretends to have) an objective, unbiased approach to his subject.

Compare, for example, the Book of Acts to Plutarch's Lives. Luke has a definite religious objective in his account. Plutarch does not have a religious objective, but he does have an agenda -- to illustrate the role of character in the lives of the men he chronicles. 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.

You are certainly correct that the Book of Mormon (or Bible)'s primary value is apart from its history. You can ignore the history and the book would still be of sublime worth. If you ignore the history in a strictly historical work, there's really not much left to consider (the quality of the prose? Random editorials that slip in?). However, IF you ignore the religious content of scripture to look at the historical value, the value of the history compares well to straight historical documents. For some historical aspects (the life of Christ, much of Jewish history, all of Nephite/Jaredite history) it is the best and pretty much the ONLY historical documents of any value. Ignoring the straight historical value of scripture, just because it has much more important value in the religious sense, is like claiming that a passover dinner has no nutritional value, simply because its religious purpose is so much more important.

I would also argue that understanding the religious content of any scripture is easier when you understand the historical context in which it is given. At least I find the history helpful to me when reading, whether in the Bible, the Book of Mormon, or the Doctrine & Covenants. In fact, in terms of third-party commentaries and supplements to the scriptures, it is precisely those that present historical information (whether from written records, archeological/anthropological research, or questions of translation) that I find the most useful. Commentaries telling me what the scriptures MEAN religiously I find fairly useless -- I can read the scriptures for myself, and compared to non-LDS commentators I also have the advantage of a large additional body of scritpure and inspired teachings to draw upon. But additional information to give me a better idea of the context, or a better idea of the usual meaning of the words themselves are something I can use directly in forming my own conclusions."

One of my personal gripes is when LDS try to shove the BoM from the religious sphere into the historical one. There are serious problems with trying to situate the BoM into a historiographical tradition that don't have anything to do with American archaeology and DNA. I'm not saying whether or not the BoM is true - that's for religious and philosophical folks to hammer out. I am saying it's probably not historical.

Let me put it this way. If the BoM, especially the book of 1 Nephi, is what it says it is, it is the most innovative historical work ever written. Ever. Nephi (really, most likely Lehi if you read 1 Ne. 1.17) is the first to write personal, biographical history in the first person and is the first to separate secular and sacred history (1 Ne. 9) - by hundreds of years. Furthermore, for some unfathomable reason, Nephi writes in Egyptian, hardly a culture with a strong historiographic tradition. (The most important Egyptian historian was Manetho, who wrote in Greek, and lived 200 years after Nephi.) While there was some historical writing in the time of ancient Israel and Judah, these texts (called J and E sources for Hebrew Bible) recorded events long after they had transpired (e.g. the creation of the world). There is no evidence that these texts recorded contemporary events. Also, the idea that the Hebrew history, genealogy, and prophecies were all neatly compiled into one work made of brass plates is highly unlikely as well. The drive to compile and codify the Torah didn't occur until the Babylonian captivity.

It is therefore practically impossible to assign Nephi to any sort of historiographical tradition. People don't write in vacuums - he had to have models to work from - models that can be attested other than the mysterious Brass Plates of Laban. [let alone whatever model Ether followed] Yet no plausible models for Nephi's work have ever been identified.

On another note, to equate Luke with Plutarch is apples to oranges, and borders on ridiculous. Plutarch, a Greek, was a priest at Delphi, a Roman citizen, and an official in the Roman government. He had access to huge archives and libraries. To assert that he was relying upon oral tradition is insane. Plutarch often names his written sources and there are several modern investigations into his historical and biographical methods. Furthermore, Plutarch didn't write history in the modern sense. He wrote biography and various essays (collectively called his Moralia). So, to trumpet Luke as the writer of "outstanding, accurate history" and Plutarch as a chump relying on word-of-mouth is inaccurate and stupid. I have no doubt Luke was capable of writing his own travels down, but he couldn't hold Plutarch's jock in a writing contest.

So, believe or disbelieve the truthfulness of the BoM. That's up to you. But don't tell me it's historical.

[Solon]

Originally Posted by minn_stat

We don't even know where to begin with the BOM - Delaware? Guatemala? Peru? It sure is easier to go to Jericho and look for buried layers of the city when you know where there is a current village of the same name.

I know where I'd start.

All of the modern names are places within 500 miles of Palmyra, New York:

Modern-------Book of Mormon

St. Agathe-------Ogath
Alma-------Alma
Angola-------Angola
Boaz-------Boaz
Conner-------Comner
St. Ephrem-------Ephraim
Jacobsburg-------Jacobugath
Jordan-------Jordan
Jerusalem-------Jerusalem
Kish-kiminetas-------Kishkumen
Lehigh-------Lehi
Mantua-------Manti
Monroe-------Moroni
Oneida-------Onidah
Omer-------Omner
Rama-------Ramah
Sodom-------Sidom
Shiloh-------Shilom
Tenecum-------Teancum

I'm not trying to prove or disprove the book's truth. I think it's a bad idea to try to prove anything related to religion.

[minn_stat]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

What are you talking about? Places and peoples referenced in the Bible have a continuous presence from antiquity to modern times. They didn't need to be "discovered."

Ummm, yes, they did. Jerusalem didn't need to be discovered, and same with many other places. However, that didn't stop scholars from doubting the Bible, did it? They simply pointed out the absurdities and inconsistencies. Such as that silly story about the walls of Jericho tumbling down when the Jews yelled and blew on some horns.

In the late eighteenth century, an Arab village named Ariha, which translates to Jericho, was located at about the right spot. But it was just a small village; no evidence was around to indicate that it once was a a city with walls. Except a short distance from Ariha was a very visible mound. In 1907, two German archeaologists conducted a dig on this mound. The remains of a great wall was found -- no archeaologist could have missed it. And the Germans indicated that it dated to about 1400 BC, which dovetails nicely with the Bible. Viola! We have extra-biblical evidence of Joshua's silly story.

Except the story doesn't end there. In 1926, one of those archeaologists, Watzinger by name, published a repudiation of the original conclusions regarding the age of the level of the city with the famous walls (they found three distinct levels in their excavations). He now claimed it dated to about 2200 BC, correlating with Egypt's Middle Kingdom, long before Joshua was around. This change was primarily based on the fact that they had found hundreds of scarabs from the Middle Kingdom on that level. According to Watzinger, at the time of Joshua, Jericho consisted of a few houses situated on a heap of ruins.

John Garstang, using the Bible as a primary guide to his work, was the next to conduct digs at Jericho. Surprisingly enough, he found that the evidence corroborated the Bible, and the timeline shifted accordingly. But after WW II, Kathleen Kenyon took on the formidable task of clarifying Jericho's history from the beginning of the Neolithic Age. She relied neither on the Bible, nor on Garstang's work. She conducted several extensive digs, and in the end, she concluded that the walls of Jericho pre-date Joshua. At the time the Exodus and Joshua are traditionally thought to have occurred, she concluded, no trace of any wall could be found.

She wrote, “It is a sad fact that of the town walls of the Late Bronze Age, within which period the attack by the Israelites must fall by any dating, not a trace remains. . . . As concerns the date of the destruction of Jericho by the Israelites, all that can be said is that the latest Bronze Age occupation should, in my view, be dated to the third quarter of the fourteenth century B.C. This is a date which suits neither the school of scholars which would date the entry of the Israelites into Palestine to c. 1400 B.C. nor the school which prefers a date of c. 1260 B.C.”

This was a disappointment to Kathleen. She also wrote, “At just that stage when archaeology should have linked with the written record, archaeology fails us. This is regrettable. There is no question of the archaeology being needed to prove that the Bible is true but it is needed as a help in interpretation to those older parts of the Old Testament which from the nature of their sources . . . cannot be read as a straight-forward record.”

Carbon-dating generally confirms the fall of the walls to about 1550 BC, which is pretty hard to reconcile with the Biblical timeline, if we are to assume Biblical historicity. According to Wikipedia, "The current opinion of many archaeologists is in stark contradiction to the biblical account."

Of course, christians focus on the supporting evidence, and those hostile to christianity focus on the contradicitons. But even when we know the location of the place to begin digging, we have at best, only partial corroboration with Biblical historicity.

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Isn't that the whole point?

Again, no. In Palestine, western civilization has had pretty much continual contact with the area, and the area has been continuously occupied, and these ties give us a pretty specific geographical framework to begin our attempts to "prove" or "disprove" specific biblical references. To the critic, the mention of Jerusalem in the Bible does virtually nothing to prove its validity. The writers of the "fairy tale", they would assert, obviously used as much factual information as was at their disposal to make it convincing. To the believer, it is all factual. So the test is to find the evidences that independently corroborate or contradict the book, based on the internal evidences and the writers ability to include already known factual information in the book.

So in the case of the Book of Mormon, the critic says none of these cities have been found. The believer simply indicates you are probably looking in the wrong place. We simply don't have a proper reference point to start with. The critic says this is because the reference point doesn't exist. Perhaps, but that is a statement of belief, not of fact. The believer says it exists, it just hasn't yet been found. Again, a statement of belief, not fact. But we certainly are not in a position to conclude definitively one way or the other, based on evidence. But don't take the lack of evidence as proof of its falsity (is that a word?) My point is that that perspective would have led an individual to reject the Bible 150 years ago or so (no evidence of Hittites, no sign of Moses or the Exodus in Egyptian history, no external evidence of the kingdom of David, no walls around Ariha, etc.) when subsequent discoveries have often corroborated the Bible - although, as I point out above, some discoveries are not as friendly. The Hittites are now known to have existed; still no sign of Moses or any archeaological evidence of the camps of the Exodus; David's kingdom is still thought to be an exaggeration by some scholars, if it existed at all; and the Jericho situation is summarized above.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Solon

I know where I'd start.

All of the modern names are places within 500 miles of Palmyra, New York:

Modern-------Book of Mormon

St. Agathe-------Ogath
Alma-------Alma
Angola-------Angola
Boaz-------Boaz
Conner-------Comner
St. Ephrem-------Ephraim
Jacobsburg-------Jacobugath
Jordan-------Jordan
Jerusalem-------Jerusalem
Kish-kiminetas-------Kishkumen
Lehigh-------Lehi
Mantua-------Manti
Monroe-------Moroni
Oneida-------Onidah
Omer-------Omner
Rama-------Ramah
Sodom-------Sidom
Shiloh-------Shilom
Tenecum-------Teancum

I'm not trying to prove or disprove the book's truth. I think it's a bad idea to try to prove anything related to religion.

HOw interesting. I never appreciated this before. You learn something everyday. Now I understand what Fusnik was demonstrating with his aerial photograph and map.

[All-American]

Originally Posted by Solon

One of my personal gripes is when LDS try to shove the BoM from the religious sphere into the historical one. There are serious problems with trying to situate the BoM into a historiographical tradition that don't have anything to do with American archaeology and DNA. I'm not saying whether or not the BoM is true - that's for religious and philosophical folks to hammer out. I am saying it's probably not historical.

Let me put it this way. If the BoM, especially the book of 1 Nephi, is what it says it is, it is the most innovative historical work ever written. Ever. Nephi (really, most likely Lehi if you read 1 Ne. 1.17) is the first to write personal, biographical history in the first person and is the first to separate secular and sacred history (1 Ne. 9) - by hundreds of years. Furthermore, for some unfathomable reason, Nephi writes in Egyptian, hardly a culture with a strong historiographic tradition. (The most important Egyptian historian was Manetho, who wrote in Greek, and lived 200 years after Nephi.) While there was some historical writing in the time of ancient Israel and Judah, these texts (called J and E sources for Hebrew Bible) recorded events long after they had transpired (e.g. the creation of the world). There is no evidence that these texts recorded contemporary events. Also, the idea that the Hebrew history, genealogy, and prophecies were all neatly compiled into one work made of brass plates is highly unlikely as well. The drive to compile and codify the Torah didn't occur until the Babylonian captivity.

It is therefore practically impossible to assign Nephi to any sort of historiographical tradition. People don't write in vacuums - he had to have models to work from - models that can be attested other than the mysterious Brass Plates of Laban. [let alone whatever model Ether followed] Yet no plausible models for Nephi's work have ever been identified.

On another note, to equate Luke with Plutarch is apples to oranges, and borders on ridiculous. Plutarch, a Greek, was a priest at Delphi, a Roman citizen, and an official in the Roman government. He had access to huge archives and libraries. To assert that he was relying upon oral tradition is insane. Plutarch often names his written sources and there are several modern investigations into his historical and biographical methods. Furthermore, Plutarch didn't write history in the modern sense. He wrote biography and various essays (collectively called his Moralia). So, to trumpet Luke as the writer of "outstanding, accurate history" and Plutarch as a chump relying on word-of-mouth is inaccurate and stupid. I have no doubt Luke was capable of writing his own travels down, but he couldn't hold Plutarch's jock in a writing contest.

So, believe or disbelieve the truthfulness of the BoM. That's up to you. But don't tell me it's historical.

What about the colophon?

Nibley points out that the Bremner-Rhind papyrus scrolls contain the colophon that he claims is "highly characteristic" of Egyptian compositions:

Typical is the famous Bremner-Rhind papyrus, which opens with a colophon containing (1) the date, (2) the titles of Nasim, the author, (3) the names of his parents and a word in praise of their virtues, (4), a curse against anyone who might "take the book away," probably "due to fear lest a sacred book should get into impure hands." Compare this with Nephi's colophon: (1) his name, (2) the merits of his parents, with special attention to the learnign of his father, (3) a solemn avowal (corresponding to Nasim's curse) that the record is true, and the assertion, "I make it with mine own hand"-- an indispensable condition of every true colophon, since the purpose of a colophon is to establish the identity of hte actual writer-down (not merely the ultimate author) of the text.

Nibley, Lehi in the Desert (Deseret Book: Salt Lake City, 1988, 17).

I've tried to look into the Egyptian colophon somewhat to verify the above quote, and I can't find the text of the cited papyrus online, but several commentaries on the Egyptian colophon do point out that the purpose of the colophon is to identify the writer. Others verify some aspects, especially the curse. One writer takes issue with the designated colophon of the Bremner-Rhind papyrus, because "since it does not actually date the production of the manuscript or identify the person who wrote it, as a colophon, by definition, is intended to" (http://www.geocities.com/ankhenmut/Nesminfinal.htm).

One strike against the colophon argument is that a colophon is typically found at the end of the work. "Colophon" comes from the greek word κολοφων (meaning "summit", "top", or "finishing"). Again, I can't find any egyptian texts, so I can't say whether or not this is especially important.

Regarding the historical value of Egyptian texts, here's another interesting paragraph, from the previously referenced website:

The Egyptians left countless written records in the form of inscription on temple walls and in tombs, which are far more familiar today because they are so often illustrated. In contrast to these monuments, it is to the papyri of ancient Egypt, as to the clay tablets of Mesopotamia, that we must turn to witness the earliest stages of the recording of human thought and memory in a portable form. The acquisition of such an important example of the Book of the Dead for the collection of the Detroit Institute of Arts has added a major and early demonstration of the draftsman’s art but has also provided us with a remarkable specimen of a religious document illustrating the craft of calligraphy and the scroll form as one of the earliest stages in the history of the book.

Maybe relevant, maybe not.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Cite?

Here's some real basic stuff here. Note the construct of reed boats in Egypt and Lake Titicaca.

http://www.plu.edu/~ryandp/RAX.html

[Archaea]

The historicity argument fails for a couple of reasons in my opinion. First, if the BoM is what it purports to be, some sort of translation, we are lacking the source material, i.e., the original document.

So unlike many works including Plutarch, Thucydides or Herodotus, we don't even have the original.

In the old world, we have some of the original texts, some triangulating evidence with crossover documents, some actual archeological evidence and the existence of cities built upon cities.

In the BoM, we have not one shred of evidence. We don't have the source document, we don't have the archeological evidence and we don't have cities built upon the cities of which our document speaks. For that reason, the BoM has invaluable religious instruction which if put to the test works, but its value as a historical work is not much, until and if corroborating evidence is discovered.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Archaea

The historicity argument fails for a couple of reasons in my opinion. First, if the BoM is what it purports to be, some sort of translation, we are lacking the source material, i.e., the original document.

So unlike many works including Plutarch, Thucydides or Herodotus, we don't even have the original.

In the old world, we have some of the original texts, some triangulating evidence with crossover documents, some actual archeological evidence and the existence of cities built upon cities.

In the BoM, we have not one shred of evidence. We don't have the source document, we don't have the archeological evidence and we don't have cities built upon the cities of which our document speaks. For that reason, the BoM has invaluable religious instruction which if put to the test works, but its value as a historical work is not much, until and if corroborating evidence is discovered.

Come now. You're being disingenuous. We have reed boats on Lake Titikaka. Both Egyptians and Bolivian aborigines had reed boats.