Historicity

[_Doctor Steuss]

[...]
Jeremiah has a bit to say about this topic as well, though would you say that Jeremiah simply followed what was written before him?

My uneducated opinion is that each of the Biblical writers were influenced by the preceding authors.

Though determining what they actually said can be difficult at times, I'd have to agree.

As an interesting (and worthless) sidenote... there was no symbol for quotations marks in ancient Hebrew or Greek.

[Guest]

As an interesting (and worthless) sidenote... there was no symbol for quotations marks in ancient Hebrew or Greek.

Heh - nor reformed Egyptian, as it were - just kiddin'. Or even English apparently, when it comes to Joseph and what he actually said.

So is no one else even remotely interested in this?

Runtu? Liz, Blixa? Mr. The Dude? Sethbag? Kevin? Dare I say, Charity?

[_bcspace]

Actual proof of the nonhistoricity of the Book of Mormon would cancel the historicity of all things Jesus did and said in the Book of Mormon.

BC, I'm sorry, but you're going to have to help me out with this one.

What is "actual proof of nonhistoricity," of either the Book of Mormon or the Bible?

I'll know it when I see it.

How does a person provide proof that something never happened?

How does one know something never happened when there is no evidence against it.

You are forgetting basic history and science. People thought the city of Troy was mythological for centuries...until it was actually found.

[_cosmo junction]

I'll know it when I see it.

Could you provide an example?

How does one know something never happened when there is no evidence against it.

You are forgetting basic history and science. People thought the city of Troy was mythological for centuries...until it was actually found.

So are you holding out for evidence in spite of the idea that part of the whole deal is that we'll likely never see any evidence of proof because God planned it this way as a test of faith?

Do you think there will ever be any proof - that is, before the end of all these things - that Zarahemla actually existed?

[_Sethbag]

The historicity of the Book of Mormon and the historicity of the Bible are two separate questions.

That said, I believe the Bible and the Book of Mormon both fail, but they fail their own individual tests; it's not the same thing.

For example, the Bible records some things which actually happened, some places that actually exist, and some people for whom there is at least some non-Biblical evidence that they actually existed. In that sense, the Bible isn't pure fiction. If I were to label it, I'd say it's the doctrines of man, mingled with some historical events, places, and people. It's a mythologized view of Jewish/Israelite history, if you will, with a Christian addendum.

The Book of Mormon, on the other hand, I believe to be pure fiction. Ok, Jerusalem existed, but that's about it. I don't believe that really any of the main characters in the Book of Mormon actually existed. I don't believe that Lehi, Nephi, Laman, Lemuel, Sam, etc. ever existed. I don't believe they moved to the American continent, spawned two different and competing nations of people who fought the wars recorded in the Book of Mormon, etc. I don't believe that a resurrected Jesus Christ ever visited these people, that there were no golden plates, no angel Moroni, etc. I believe that's all pure fiction.

The problem with holding the Bible and the Book of Mormon to the same historicity standard is that most Bible believers outside the LDS church criticize the Book of Mormon mainly on theological and scriptural grounds, not factual or historical grounds. Hence, it's hard to say they're holding to a double standard, because they'd be happy to support the Bible based on Biblical scriptural and theological grounds. I think the main problem is that most of the EVs and other Book of Mormon critics don't regard questions of religion and theology with an eye to facts and historicity nearly enough. If anything, rather than assuming the Book of Mormon comes from man, they'll ascribe it to a supernatural being - Satan.

If they were to critically examine the Bible with an eye to scientific evidence, it must fail on a lot of the same kinds of grounds as the Book of Mormon, ie: it contains a lot of demonstrable mythology (the Creation, the Flood, etc.) and there's no proof that its more esoteric, theological claims have any basis in reality.

As to the question of Jesus Christ, since the belief in Jesus Christ is based primarily (with non-LDS anyhow) on the Bible and not on the Book of Mormon at all, it's possible for Jesus Christ to be believed in even if the Book of Mormon is accepted to be fiction.

Of course, I personally believe that Jesus Christ should not be believed in as Son of God, Savior of all mankind, etc. completely separate from whether the Book of Mormon is historical or not. I believe that the Christian religion of the early centuries AD is largely a post-Christ construct made by human beings. Jesus may well have existed, been a teacher or mystical leader who gathered some followers, etc. and it just grew from there, and the original cult of personality grew and grew until Jesus was the Son of God, and all the rest.

[_cosmo junction]

The Book of Mormon, on the other hand, I believe to be pure fiction. Ok, Jerusalem existed, but that's about it. I don't believe that really any of the main characters in the Book of Mormon actually existed. I don't believe that Lehi, Nephi, Laman, Lemuel, Sam, etc. ever existed. I don't believe they moved to the American continent, spawned two different and competing nations of people who fought the wars recorded in the Book of Mormon, etc. I don't believe that a resurrected Jesus Christ ever visited these people, that there were no golden plates, no angel Moroni, etc. I believe that's all pure fiction.

This is something we might be able to expand upon - I happen to believe that there were such things, and such people, though from an extremely different point of view, historically speaking.

The problem with holding the Bible and the Book of Mormon to the same historicity standard is that most Bible believers outside the LDS church criticize the Book of Mormon mainly on theological and scriptural grounds, not factual or historical grounds. Hence, it's hard to say they're holding to a double standard, because they'd be happy to support the Bible based on Biblical scriptural and theological grounds. I think the main problem is that most of the EVs and other Book of Mormon critics don't regard questions of religion and theology with an eye to facts and historicity at all. If they were to do so, I would say they would have to fail the Bible on a lot of the same kinds of grounds as the Book of Mormon, ie: it contains a lot of demonstrable mythology (the Creation, the Flood, etc.) and there's no proof that it's more esoteric, theological claims have any basis in reality.

Emphasis on the word "most." Some, well, ok, one, of us have a different view of the historicity of such things, particularly with regard to the Book of Mormon, though I'll grant the theological differences as well.

I can certainly agree with the demonstrably historical difficulties associated with a global flood and a literal Adam and Eve, and to me it is demonstable, through the Epic of Gilgamesh and other ancient texts which share these mythological foreshadowings. The question, to me, is from where did these myths originate? Did the Epic of Gilgamesh predate the story of Noah?

I think the Book of Mormon's mythology, in the form of the persons and places associated as characters within the book can be provided a clearer historical source--one that originated in the 19th century--associated with it's mythology than that of the Bible, if that makes any sense.

I admit that there can be shown to be what we think of as mythological, or perhaps more accurately, metaphorical, events in the Bible, those events that are metaphorical differ from the Book of Mormon in that I believe the events in the Book of Mormon can be shown to have originated in the 19th century, and the metaphors therein derived from events that happened to those who brought about the Book of Mormon, and have little metaphorical value in the long run on the state of our existance.

As to the question of Jesus Christ, since the belief in Jesus Christ is based primarily (with non-LDS anyhow) on the Bible and not on the Book of Mormon at all, it's possible for Jesus Christ to be believed in even if the Book of Mormon is accepted to be fiction.

Sethbag, my friend, this is the reason I asked my question, and I am glad to hear you say this, being the EV-type that I am...

Of course, I personally believe that Jesus Christ should not be believed in as Son of God, Savior of all mankind, etc. completely separate from whether the Book of Mormon is historical or not. I believe that the Christian religion of the early centuries AD is largely a post-Christ construct made by human beings. Jesus may well have existed, been a teacher or mystical leader who gathered some followers, etc. and it just grew from there, and the original cult of personality grew and grew until Jesus was the Son of God, and all the rest.

I can understand - believe me, through my own "trials of faith" - how you come to this conclusion, though I think it would be very difficult for the post-Christ followers to "make" Jesus fit prophecies about a Messiah - though I guess we could argue the evidence of pre-dated manuscript evidence predicting such a Messiah.

[_Sethbag]

Cosmo, a couple of points.

I don't think it matters whether the Epic of Gilgamesh predates the Israelite version of the Flood with Noah and whatnot. It really doesn't matter, except as a matter of interesting cultural history. What matters, to me, is whether the Flood happened. That is, whether the entire world was ever flooded with water resulting in the deaths of every man, woman, child, dog, cat, chicken, and elephant that wasn't on the Ark. In other words, the question of whether the Flood happened or not is a question of objective physical reality, and not a question of whether Israelites believed in Noah prior to, or after others believed in Gilgamesh.

As far as Jesus fitting the ancient messiah prophecies, the problem is that the two aren't independent. The Jesus cult of personality grew up in an environment where the ancient scriptures and Messiah prophecies were already in existence, and known. It stands to reason that those who created the theology of the Jesus cult would mould their theology to fit the existing scriptures and prophecies.

In other words, rather than Jesus just being some local guru who was executed by the Romans for something he did, his death is moulded to fit the Messiah prophecies and suddenly he's being sacrificed as the Lamb of God. An evolution in this direction would be perfectly natural in a Jewish/Israelite religious milieu with its emphasis on animal sacrifice as propitiation for sins, the Messiah prophecies, etc. Are you able to see where I'm going with this? The entire theology of the Jesus cult evolved over time after Jesus' death, but did so in an environment where a pre-existing theology already existed, a theology into which the Jesus theology could be welded and combined.

And this isn't entirely without other examples. Just look at other cults of personality that exist nowadays. Ok, you have the L. Ron Hubbard cult where his theology was just his own pure fiction. But take others like the Rev. Moon, or David Koresh, or probably a few others. These guys' theology didn't just come out of thin air. They developed within a background of a pre-existing Biblical theology into which their own stories could be welded and combined. Thus the Rev. Moon is not the Xxactonic Space Emperor come to conquer and rule Earth, but rather a new Messiah in the Christian or Biblical sense. His theology came out of, and expanded upon, the Biblical theology.

And thus did the theology of the Jesus cult grow out of, and expand upon, the Old Testament theology. There is no mystery at all about how Jesus came to so thoroughly embody so much of the Old Testament prophecies - the scriptural accounts and history of Jesus were tailor-made, in the decades after his actual demise (assuming he really existed), to do so!

[_cosmo junction]

I don't think it matters whether the Epic of Gilgamesh predates the Israelite version of the Flood with Noah and whatnot. It really doesn't matter, except as a matter of interesting cultural history. What matters, to me, is whether the Flood happened. That is, whether the entire world was ever flooded with water resulting in the deaths of every man, woman, child, dog, cat, chicken, and elephant that wasn't on the Ark. In other words, the question of whether the Flood happened or not is a question of objective physical reality, and not a question of whether Israelites believed in Noah prior to, or after others believed in Gilgamesh.

If it is myth to explain the human condition, than it matters little whether the objective physical reality of a flood happened or not, what matters is the myth says that the entire earth was guilty of sin and worthy of death, yet God chose to save some, in this case Noah and his family who believed God to be saved from their condition.

And, whether myth or not, this makes sense to me, as one who knows he isn't perfect and has "sinned" in the sense, if nothing more, than I have done things to hurt other people at times, to my chagrin. Fortunately, and yes, admittedly, I look for mercy for having done so, to some higher power, because for some reason I have been endowed with the blessing of what perhaps ought to be called conscience. Though I'm not sure it's conscience that has called me to look for mercy, I just happen to do so because I do want to love and do want to do well towards my fellow human beings, those who are like me.

As far as Jesus fitting the ancient messiah prophecies, the problem is that the two aren't independent. The Jesus cult of personality grew up in an environment where the ancient scriptures and Messiah prophecies were already in existence, and known. It stands to reason that those who created the theology of the Jesus cult would mould their theology to fit the existing scriptures and prophecies.

It would be pretty hard to mold Jesus to the prophecies of a suffering servant, though I suppose it is possible, given circumstances. The Old Testament spells out what was to happen to the Branch, to the Seed, from the very beginning, even.

In other words, rather than Jesus just being some local guru who was executed by the Romans for something he did, his death is moulded to fit the Messiah prophecies and suddenly he's being sacrificed as the Lamb of God. An evolution in this direction would be perfectly natural in a Jewish/Israelite religious milieu with its emphasis on animal sacrifice as propitiation for sins, the Messiah prophecies, etc. Are you able to see where I'm going with this? The entire theology of the Jesus cult evolved over time after Jesus' death, but did so in an environment where a pre-existing theology already existed, a theology into which the Jesus theology could be welded and combined.

Yeah, I can see where you are going with this. But what is the "something he did?"

And this isn't entirely without other examples. Just look at other cults of personality that exist nowadays. Ok, you have the L. Ron Hubbard cult where his theology was just his own pure fiction. But take others like the Rev. Moon, or David Koresh, or probably a few others. These guys' theology didn't just come out of thin air. They developed within a background of a pre-existing Biblical theology into which their own stories could be welded and combined. Thus the Rev. Moon is not the Xxactonic Space Emperor come to conquer and rule Earth, but rather a new Messiah in the Christian or Biblical sense. His theology came out of, and expanded upon, the Biblical theology.

I'm sorry, man, but reading the things reportedly said by Jesus in the Bible are so far removed from anything that L. Ron Hubbard and Jim Jones said are so completely removed that I don't really get this point.

I mean, I could get it, but what are recorded as the words of Jesus are so significant that I can't see the similarities to these other guys.

Though I will admit that I can see where people might think the same of Joseph Smith Jr and even David Koresh, I simply find their words to pale in comparison. And that isn't even from a "oh God I worship Jesus" perspective. They're just some remarkable things that he said. They aren't even spectacular - they just say things that I already know, like "it is the inside of the cup that matters." Those words speak to my heart, though I won't deny that others have other words that speak to their hearts.

And thus did the theology of the Jesus cult grow out of, and expand upon, the Old Testament theology. There is no mystery at all about how Jesus came to so thoroughly embody so much of the Old Testament prophecies - the scriptural accounts and history of Jesus were tailor-made, in the decades after his actual demise (assuming he really existed), to do so!

I'd have to have some examples of Jesus fulfilling these tailor-made prophecies to concur with this hypothesis.

[_SatanWasSetUp]

The problem is the current paradigm of the LDS truth claims requires a literal, historical Book of Mormon.

The truth (which transcends any paradigm) is that the Book of Mormon makes historical claims that are critical to doctrine. Therefore, it will always be that one cannot be a believing LDS and not accept the historicity of the Book of Mormon.

If the Brethren ever get together in a strategy session and decide to announce the Book of Mormon is not literal history, and can be considered inspired fiction or whatever, they will have to provide a new paradigm for the members. I personally don't think it would be that difficult.

I would renounce them if they did that. Of course I am quite certain they will be doing no such thing.

The members will believe anything the Brethren say. Sure, they'll have a few of the "rebellious" fall away, but who cares?[

So am I rebellious?

If the brethren issued a statement, and you renounced it, then yes you would be rebellious. Is there any possibility that renouncing the brethren would NOT make you rebellious?

[_Sethbag]

If it is myth to explain the human condition, than it matters little whether the objective physical reality of a flood happened or not, what matters is the myth says that the entire earth was guilty of sin and worthy of death, yet God chose to save some, in this case Noah and his family who believed God to be saved from their condition.

I suppose this matters not if you're OK with your holy scriptures just being myth. Most Christians I've run into, and Mormons, aren't OK with that notion.

And, whether myth or not, this makes sense to me....

Aesop's Fables make sense to me too. That doesn't stop them being made-up by a man, however, and not the revealed word of God.

As far as Jesus fitting the ancient messiah prophecies, the problem is that the two aren't independent. The Jesus cult of personality grew up in an environment where the ancient scriptures and Messiah prophecies were already in existence, and known. It stands to reason that those who created the theology of the Jesus cult would mould their theology to fit the existing scriptures and prophecies.

It would be pretty hard to mold Jesus to the prophecies of a suffering servant, though I suppose it is possible, given circumstances. The Old Testament spells out what was to happen to the Branch, to the Seed, from the very beginning, even.

It isn't hard at all. You don't have to mold Jesus. You just have to mold his history. As far as I know, every history we have in the Bible says almost nothing about Jesus between his infancy and the time he turned 30, other than that thing with him teaching in the temple when he was a lad. And then, to top it off, every history we have in the Bible was actually written decades after his death, by people who weren't even there. Basically, the Gospels writers had almost a carte blanche to write whatever they wanted about Jesus. Their target audience would have had little way of verifying any of it.

Given how the history writers were able to write whatever they want, it's the history of Jesus, not Jesus himself, that could be molded to fit the Old Testament teachings and prophecies. For each and every thing you read in the New Testament, which you claim Jesus did in fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy, I can counter that we don't even know if Jesus did that thing at all, except that some guy decades later, who wasn't even there, says he did.

In other words, rather than Jesus just being some local guru who was executed by the Romans for something he did, his death is moulded to fit the Messiah prophecies and suddenly he's being sacrificed as the Lamb of God. An evolution in this direction would be perfectly natural in a Jewish/Israelite religious milieu with its emphasis on animal sacrifice as propitiation for sins, the Messiah prophecies, etc. Are you able to see where I'm going with this? The entire theology of the Jesus cult evolved over time after Jesus' death, but did so in an environment where a pre-existing theology already existed, a theology into which the Jesus theology could be welded and combined.

Yeah, I can see where you are going with this. But what is the "something he did?"

It's irrelevant in my hypothesis. Jesus doesn't even have to have existed at all, much less really have been executed by the Romans for whatever reason, and still a "history" of him could have been written, decades after the alleged incident is to have taken place, and that history can claim anything it wants to.

And this isn't entirely without other examples. Just look at other cults of personality that exist nowadays. Ok, you have the L. Ron Hubbard cult where his theology was just his own pure fiction. But take others like the Rev. Moon, or David Koresh, or probably a few others. These guys' theology didn't just come out of thin air. They developed within a background of a pre-existing Biblical theology into which their own stories could be welded and combined. Thus the Rev. Moon is not the Xxactonic Space Emperor come to conquer and rule Earth, but rather a new Messiah in the Christian or Biblical sense. His theology came out of, and expanded upon, the Biblical theology.

I'm sorry, man, but reading the things reportedly said by Jesus in the Bible are so far removed from anything that L. Ron Hubbard and Jim Jones said are so completely removed that I don't really get this point.

The point is that the theology and "history" of Jesus could have been invented after the fact by people who knew of, and were able to fit it into the theology and prophecies of the Old Testament. In a similar vein, the theology of the Rev. Sun Myung Moon is written and invented in such a way that it dovetails nicely into the Biblical theology, including the New Testament. In other words, Rev. Moon's theology isn't some brand new, unique concept, but rather a fitting of his own ideas into a Biblical framework.

In that same way, the theology and "history" of Jesus could have been invented by the founders of the Christ cult to dovetail nicely with the existing scripture of the time, the Old Testament. They certainly would have known the prophecies, and could have invented the bits about Jesus specifically to mesh with them and "fulfill" them.

And thus did the theology of the Jesus cult grow out of, and expand upon, the Old Testament theology. There is no mystery at all about how Jesus came to so thoroughly embody so much of the Old Testament prophecies - the scriptural accounts and history of Jesus were tailor-made, in the decades after his actual demise (assuming he really existed), to do so!

I'd have to have some examples of Jesus fulfilling these tailor-made prophecies to concur with this hypothesis.

Ok, Jesus as the lamb of God. No bone being broken. His executioners casting lots for his raiment. Just look up any number of things which Christians and Mormons alike hold out as ways in which the description of Jesus in the New Testament fulfills some Old Testament prophecy or other, and then remember that all of those things could be pure inventions of the early Christians, designed to enhance and grow the Jesus story and theology, and give it more credibility.