Historicity of BoM, valuable or secondary.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

Sacred texts best serve as history when examined as primary source material for the time period in which they were composed. Their usefulness is limited as an actual historical record of the persons or events discussed within the work. I can't tell whether your correspondent understands this or not.

Well stated.

[Indy Coug]

Who thinks the Book of Mormon is a gigantic allegory and that

1. There was no such person as Nephi or Lehi that came from Jerusalem to somewhere in the Western Hemisphere

2. There were no such peoples as the Nephites, Lamanites, Mulekites and Jaredites that interacted one with another; some of these groups suffered war-caused extinction.

3. Jesus Christ didn't visit one or more group of peoples in the Western Hemisphere

[pelagius]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

Pelag, that's exactly how I felt. On the Acts matter, do we even have a solid date for the account, let alone evidence that the author actually was an "eyewitness" to the events recorded?

Here is a summary of the scholarly mainstream on authorship from the Oxford Companion to the Bible:

Authorship.
Unlike the Pauline letters, which bear the Apostle's name, the third gospel is anonymous, as are the other gospels. Ancient church tradition attributed the third gospel to the Luke who appears in Philemon 24 as Paul's “fellow worker” and is called “the beloved physician” in Collossians 4.14 (cf. 2 Tim. 4.11).

Most modern commentators on the Lucan gospel, however, are skeptical about the validity of this traditional attribution. They regard the tradition as based largely on inferences from the text of the New Testament made when people were first beginning to wonder who had written the Gospels. They further call in question Irenaeus's description of Luke as Paul's “inseparable” collaborator (Adv. haer. 3.14,1), which he inferred from the “we” sections of Acts (esp. 16.10; 20.6). The nature of these “we” sections has since been questioned. Are they fragments of a diary or notebook that the author of Acts kept as he journeyed with Paul? Or are they, rather, a literary form used by the author to enhance his narrative of sea journeys? A still larger part of the problem is the relationship of the author of Acts to Paul. In recent decades it has become evident that only with considerable difficulty can one reconcile much of the depiction of Paul in Acts with that which emerges from Paul's own letters. Hence, was the author of Luke-Acts really the “inseparable” collaborator of Paul? The difference between the Lucan Paul and the Pauline Paul is not minor; even though it is largely an issue of Acts and the Pauline letters, it bears on the authorship of the Lucan gospel. The result is that many modern commentators are uncertain about the authorship of Luke-Acts.

And here is a discussion of the date (also from the Oxford Companion to the Bible):

If the Marcan gospel is rightly included among the sources used by Luke in composing his gospel, then the latter is to be dated after Mark. The Marcan gospel is commonly dated ca. 65–70 CE. How much later is the Lucan gospel? One cannot say for certain. Luke 1.1 refers to “many” others who had previously tried to write the Jesus story; even if Mark is included among the “many,” more time must be allowed for the others to whom Luke alludes. Again, since the Lucan Jesus refers to Jerusalem as an “abandoned” house (13.35), this and other references to Jerusalem (21.20, “surrounded by camps”; 19.43–44, with earthworks erected against it) would suggest a date for Luke after the fall of Jerusalem in 70 CE. Some have sought to interpret these references as merely literary imitations of biblical descriptions of the fall of Jerusalem under Nebuchadrezzar, hence lacking in historical references to the Roman destruction. But this interpretation is not without its problems. In any case, it is widely held that the Lucan gospel was composed ca. 80–85 CE, even though one cannot maintain this dating with certainty.

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

The more I read the letter, the more confused I became as to what the author was trying to convey. Perhaps he can further explain himself.

The confusion is mutual.

[BarbaraGordon]

Originally Posted by pelagius

Here is a summary of the scholarly mainstream on authorship from the Oxford Companion to the Bible:

Thanks! I really should plunk down a bunch of money and purchase several of the Oxford materials.

[pelagius]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

Thanks! I really should plunk down a bunch of money and purchase several of the Oxford materials.

I like the Oxford stuff and own the Oxford Companion to the Bible, Oxford Bible Commentary, and some other stuff. But more importantly, my university library subscribes to, http://oxfordreference.com. One of the best things about being an academic is cool library access.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Who thinks the Book of Mormon is a gigantic allegory and that

1. There was no such person as Nephi or Lehi that came from Jerusalem to somewhere in the Western Hemisphere

2. There were no such peoples as the Nephites, Lamanites, Mulekites and Jaredites that interacted one with another; some of these groups suffered war-caused extinction.

3. Jesus Christ didn't visit one or more group of peoples in the Western Hemisphere

Most of us believe these statements, but in my mind, the BoM still acts as scripture even if they are grossly misstated.

It makes no difference in my mind, if these people existed or if they did not. And whether the facts are misstated? In the final battles were there really tens of thousands, or was that a Nephite expression for a lot?

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Most of us believe these statement, but in my mind, the BoM still acts as scripture even if they are grossly misstated.

It makes no difference in my mind, if these people existed or if they did not. And whether the facts are misstated? In the final battles were there really tens of thousands, or was that a Nephite expression for a lot?

I guess what I'm curious about is how many people here completely dismiss even the most basic historical outline of the Book of Mormon (exodus from the Old World, scattering from Babel, warring factions that killed off a major portion of the population, the appearance of Christ, etc., regardless of the more detailed items included like 240,000 Nephites killed at Cumorah.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

I guess what I'm curious about is how many people here completely dismiss even the most basic historical outline of the Book of Mormon (exodus from the Old World, scattering from Babel, warring factions that killed off a major portion of the population, the appearance of Christ, etc., regardless of the more detailed items included like 240,000 Nephites killed at Cumorah.

The complete lack of archeaological evidence verifying the claims makes the historical record of little value. Its the religious artifacts that are significant.

[jay santos]

The way I interpreted the original boardmail was that:

Book of Mormon is like Acts in that people are writing about first hand experience. Maybe Acts was a bad example, though.

Book of Mormon is not like Plutarch's Lives where the story is about a different people, recalling an oral tradition.

If the BoM was written like Plutarch's Lives then it might be OK to be inaccurate as a history because the prophets could plausibly assume the stories they write were accurate though they really weren't.

But the BoM is written like Acts (or maybe to be more accurate switch it to something like Corinthians), where the prophet/author is writing a first hand account of a story he was involved in.

Therefore, if you could definitely prove there was no such person as Nephi, that Jesus never visited the western hemisphere, and there were never a civilication existing of Nephites and Lamanites, it would definitely affect my testimony/view of the BoM. That's not to say I would crumble into apostacy, as you might come up with a plausible "Plutarch Lives" angle like Archaea apparently believes, and still fit it into your testimony of the restored gospel. But it would take some pondering to adjust my testimony that way, and it would be an adjustment.

That said, I have no problem with embellishments, like Pelagius' Mulekite example. It's common knowledge people lie about being a Mulekite. We used to do it all the time back in high school to get chicks.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

The complete lack of archeaological evidence verifying the claims makes the historical record of little value. Its the religious artifacts that are significant.

I'll agree the spiritual aspects of the Book of Mormon are more important, but to deny the historical events chronicled as a whole seriously undermines the credibility of the book and its translator who clearly did not view it as some epic allegory.

To give just one example, I think to deny the historical occurrence of Christ visiting Americas is not an insignificant statement and it has serious spiritual implications, IMO.