David Wright on Historical Criticism.

[_Abinadi's Fire]

All of which allows us to propose a way in which mainstream biblical scholars and students of the Book of Mormon may come closer together. Biblical scholars ought to realize (as many no doubt do) that the Book of Mormon is much the same sort of thing as the Bible they so love and ought to be accorded the same sort of respect. It is no more a hoax than Deuteronomy.

Presumably no less a hoax as well?

Mormons ought to be more open to the possibility of the Book of Mormon having originated as a modern pseudepigraph, the work of Joseph Smith himself. As we have seen, this would only serve to enhance his prophetic dignity, not to debunk it as literal-minded critics of Mormonism have always jeered. The most important boon thus gained would be the quantum leap in interpretative possibilities. With the aid of tools like redaction and literary criticism, we may disclose theological riches in the text that, on the presupposition of literalism, have remained as buried in the text as the Golden Plates themselves were in the earth until Joseph Smith disclosed them according to the foundation myth of Mormonism.

Interesting choice of words.

[_Ray A]

Presumably no less a hoax as well?

Mormons ought to be more open to the possibility of the Book of Mormon having originated as a modern pseudepigraph, the work of Joseph Smith himself. As we have seen, this would only serve to enhance his prophetic dignity, not to debunk it as literal-minded critics of Mormonism have always jeered. The most important boon thus gained would be the quantum leap in interpretative possibilities. With the aid of tools like redaction and literary criticism, we may disclose theological riches in the text that, on the presupposition of literalism, have remained as buried in the text as the Golden Plates themselves were in the earth until Joseph Smith disclosed them according to the foundation myth of Mormonism.

Interesting choice of words.

Here is what Price wrote, part of which was criticised by Bill Hamblin:

It is that same sense in which a fiction writer is a liar and a deceiver. That is, even though the book jacket be labeled "Fiction," the writer strives to woo the reader into that state of "temporary willing suspension of disbelief" that Coleridge called "poetic faith." For the time being, the reader of a novel, the viewer of a play, allows himself or herself to be drawn into the events of a fiction, to be moved by the fortunes and misfortunes of the characters, etc. One enters a fictive world, a narrative world, in order to feel and experience things one would never otherwise experience. We now recognize, as Aristotle did, the wholesome and edifying function of temporarily suspending disbelief. But it has not always been so. Shakespeare and others were obliged to reassure their audiences that what they were about to see or read was "The True History of Richard III," or whomever. Some were not able to understand the difference between fiction and lying. The problem was that of "bifurcation," the reduction of a complex choice to an over-simple one. One's alternatives are not either "fact or deception," "hoax or history." Were the parables of Jesus either factual or deceptive? Did he intend anyone to think he was talking about the case of a real prodigal son of whose improbable homecoming he had yesterday read in The Galilee Gazette? Of course not; he knew that his audience knew he was making it up as he went, as an illustration. And this is pretty much the same kind of "deception" practiced by the scriptural pseudepigraphist, whether ancient or modern.

Along with Hamblin, I think the analogy to Jesus' parables is not the best choice. I would extend the analogy to all of the gospels, which were written to "enhance faith", "that you might believe". The gospels themselves are not always consistent, and John is not a "synoptic" gospel because it clearly contains additions (and speculation?) not in the others. It's an expansion, like the Book of Mormon is an expansion. So if John is a "Book of Mormon-like expansion", then it to must be a "fraud". This is the point Price makes, that "prophetic writers" enlarged or enhanced the understanding of their contemporaries through redaction and extended commentary. They applied old concepts to new situations, and if they did this through fiction it only becomes a fraud to those who take it literally, and cannot see "the meaning behind the parable".

If no solid archaeological evidence fits the Book of Mormon story, then we have to look at other understandings and interpretations. Wright's 1992 article was what first impelled me to reconsider my literal view of the Book of Mormon (his arguments about how the Old Testament was understood in regard to sacrifice and offerings is particularly persuasive). Four years later I had some of that on paper, which was presented to the Australian Mormon Studies Association (not received with clapping hands, I can say), so from my perspective I don't see it as a fraud, because I stopped taking it literally then (though I did, and still continue to study arguments in favour of internal evidences), and saw it more as a "prophetic voice":

More from Price:

It may seem a great irony that a religion whose leaders claim the authority of the prophetic word as their charter of authority will at the same time be so opposed to receiving any new prophecy! But it is no irony at all, for the very notion of a canon of scripture denotes that the living voice of prophecy has been choked off and replaced with scribal authority, exercised by the official exegetes who will make the old oracles ring, not with God's voice, but with their own. "I have no word from the Lord, but I give my opinion as one who by the grace of the Lord has been found trustworthy" (1 Corinthians 7:25; cf., 2 Timothy 1:2-3). Jesus "taught them as one who had authority, and not as the scribes" (Mark 1:22)--which is, of course, why the scribal establishment decided they had to be rid of him! It is well depicted in Dostoyevski's Parable of the Grand Inquisitor in The Brothers Karamazov. Jesus reappears on earth--and the first thing the church does is to arrest him and condemn him to the stake! It has taken the Church long enough to consolidate its absolute power over the minds and consciences of the faithful, and they are not about to allow Jesus' living voice return to stir things up! These are the battle lines: canon versus prophecy. The guardians of the canon use the fossil-prophecy of the past in order to turn back the challenge of living prophets by using their own weapon against them. "We know that God has spoken to Moses, but, as for this man, we do not even know where he comes from!" (John 9:29).

The title of the book, American Apocrypha is probably fitting. This is basically what James Charlesworth said of the Book of Mormon, adding:

In Conclusion, as I send this forth from my study, let me loose the constrictions imposed upon the critical historian and speak as a person. God did continue speaking after sixty-six books were collected and called the Bible...

("Messianism in the Pseudepigrapha and in the Book of Mormon", in Reflections on Mormonism: Judaeo- Christian Parallels, Edited by Truman G. Madsen, Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, pp.99-137)

[_Abinadi's Fire]

That is, even though the book jacket be labeled "Fiction," the writer strives to woo the reader into that state of "temporary willing suspension of disbelief" that Coleridge called "poetic faith."

...snip...

Along with Hamblin, I think the analogy to Jesus' parables is not the best choice. I would extend the analogy to all of the gospels, which were written to "enhance faith", "that you might believe".

...snip...

If no solid archaeological evidence fits the Book of Mormon story, then we have to look at other understandings and interpretations. Wright's 1992 article was what first impelled me to reconsider my literal view of the Book of Mormon (his arguments about how the Old Testament was understood in regard to sacrifice and offerings is particularly persuasive). Four years later I had some of that on paper, which was presented to the Australian Mormon Studies Association (not received with clapping hands, I can say), so from my perspective I don't see it as a fraud, because I stopped taking it literally then (though I did, and still continue to study arguments in favour of internal evidences), and saw it more as a "prophetic voice":

Let me ask, by way of clarification: are you saying that you believe in something that you consider fiction?

[_Ray A]

Let me ask, by way of clarification: are you saying that you believe in something that you consider fiction?

No. You get a better understanding of scripture if you have an accurate historical picture. From Wright [added emphasis]:

These are the traditionalist and historical critical modes. They have different ideological proclivities and tend to generate different conclusions and are thus components of discrete research paradigms if not of larger world views. As a consequence of this, movement from one mode to the other is not a simple choice of research strategy. Transition can only really come from a "conversion experience" in which an individual, upon perceiving the deficiencies of one framework and the overwhelming strengths of the other, is catapulted into the perceived stronger mode of thinking.

The traditionalist mode looks at scripture's historical aspects [29] --its composition, date, accuracy of events, and chronological placement of ideas and practices-in terms of what a particular religious tradition has determined or come to believe to be the case about these matters. The scriptural text is read uncritically: what the work claims on the surface with respect to historical aspects is accepted for the most part as the historical reality. Moreover, in this mode there is little review of what qualifies for evidence in historical study.

This leads to a second defining element of the critical mode: a willingness on the part of the researcher to acknowledge the possibility that historical matters may be different from what is claimed by a text and the tradition surrounding it.

Put in my own words, as I understand this: The "text and the tradition" (which has "expansions", in any given time) is not limited to the Book of Mormon, but the Bible as well (Old Testament and New Testament). To use an example on another thread, the "flood story". It's probably an expansion of The Epic of Gilgamesh, but within that story is a "message from God", which is usually the same timeless message. If you are wicked, you will be destroyed. If you kill, you too will be killed (until Jesus reformed this). In the Old Testament we have the basic Ten Commandments, in the New we find "higher teachings" (Love your enemies, it's not good enough to kill them, turn the other cheek, etc, so the priest of his day decide to do away with him). The real history of Jesus is that he might indeed have been a "great teacher", greater than any before his time (yes, I know, I'm on dangerous ground here, but I'm factoring in other studies I have done, and at the same time not discounting the possibility of "heaven-to-earth" communication, or an afterlife, or Jesus being a significant figure in this, which is understood differently by different religions, with some similar underlying messages). It's often said that "the historical Jesus" is different to "the Jesus of faith", and that's true. Getting to understand the historical Jesus (if that's possible, and that's what generations of scholars have been trying to do, including The Jesus Seminar), doesn't discount his life and teachings, nor his importance. Again I use the example of Albert Schweitzer, who became convinced Jesus was a "failed Messiah", but maintained a lifelong conviction in living what Jesus taught.

The fiction is the myth that surrounds historical figures, and some traditional scriptural understanding not based in historical reality (see Wright above). This is why I believe both Wright and Price both say that when you understand the historical realities better, you get a better appreciation of the meaning of scripture.

So there is both fiction and truth in scripture. The only ones who can't accept this are those who insist that it must all be literal, and if it isn't, then it's a fraud. They too have extremist views, on the other end of the "true believer" spectrum.

[_Abinadi's Fire]

The fiction is the myth that surrounds historical figures

What is your methodology for determining who was and who was not a historical figure? Do you see a difference between a historical figure that is clouded by surrounding mythology and a mythological figure that is ahistorical?

[_Ray A]

What is your methodology for determining who was and who was not a historical figure? Do you see a difference between a historical figure that is clouded by surrounding mythology and a mythological figure that is ahistorical?

Christian apologists won't agree with me, but I don't find solid evidence for the existence of the Jesus from extra-biblical sources, though most scholars apparently accept this. That doesn't mean to say I think he didn't exist, or someone of comparable stature who hugely influenced people and myths developed around him, and I do think there's much myth surrounding him. (F.F Bruce in particular made some very shoddy arguments for his existence which even I as an amateur could dismantle, because he made a fatal comparison to Julius Caesar). Incidentally, it wasn't Jesus the miracle-worker who first attracted me to Christianity - at all - but his teachings. I can't emphasise that too much. That focus on miracles became more intense when I became a Mormon, but before that it meant next to nothing!

In the case of Jesus the methodology I used was to examine every non-biblical source on Jesus I could find, ignoring what the gospels said. Looking at this from a purely "objective" perspective, I felt the case was rather weak, but the absence of evidence isn't evidence. The indirect allusions (after his time) could have substance. So I can't say he didn't exist. In the case of Book of Mormon figures, we have nothing. Not even indirect allusions, unless you want to stretch it and say that a city named "Laman" in Central America "proves" that Laman existed. Like anyone else I can only go on written texts, so I have limitations. I look for sources external to the faith.

To answer the second part of your question, you have to weed out the myth. I don't find Nephi to be a convincing historical figure, and a modern Christian persona is imposed on Nephi, who is supposed to have lived in c.600BC. I have addressed this elsewhere, including on FAIR. I recently recovered this through beastie's links to old debates:

I find the whole of 1 and 2 Nephi occurring in around 590BC to be anachronistic. Filled with basic Christian teachings we never see until the time of Christ. Not even the DSS is a good comparison, because you don't see the Christian terminology and beliefs there that you do in the Book of Mormon. Need I really go through them? Baptism, the HG, faith, repentance, "exegesis" of a Bible that would not exist until well after the time of Christ. Explanations of such prophecies that could not have been known to Jews in 590BC, Nephi seeing events over 2,000 years into the future and commenting on them from what's obviously a 19th century perspective. He sees and comments on Columbus from a perspective not known to historians until Book of Mormon times, and in some cases not even commented on until after 1830. That the Book of Mormon contains sharp insight is beyond doubt, but those sharp insigts, as perspicacious as they are, do not solve the anachronism problem. As I've said before, most historians would be startled to find a record, even an aprocryphal one, that might find George Washington talking about getting the latest edition of Windows. And that's only a three hundred year difference. That might put some perspective on the anachronism problem. What did the Bible writers forsee? Apart from highly debatable prophecies in Revelation? Paul didn't even know when the second coming would occur, but talked as if it would be in their lifetime. Don't buy, sell, marry or bother going into long term business, "the time is at hand". Yet Nephi sees 2,000 years ahead.

And most anachronistic of all - Jews practising Christianity and the Law of Moses at the same time. They know exactly who Christ is, all of his teachings regarding salvation, practise baptism by immersion "for the remission of sins", but they keep the Law of Moses to "fulfill the law". According to Nephi, they live and breathe Christ. This makes no sense from any historical perspective. Not even Barker's. Commentary on the second temple might have some interest, but it doesn't explain these far more problematic points. Using Barker is skimming by comparison.

This is why I find the technical discussions about metallurgy, barley, etc, almost irrelevant to the far deeper issues.

Posted on FAIR, April 9, 2006.

Maybe that will help. That doesn't mean I see no worth in Nephi - far from it.

[_Abinadi's Fire]

Maybe that will help. That doesn't mean I see no worth in Nephi - far from it.

It does help - I understand from where you are coming from a little more clearly, thanks for taking the time to explain.

[_Addictio]

Ray:

Thanks much for your contibutions, including the links and quotes. Is the Charlesworh article from the Madsen book on the net? If so, would you mind linking to it? If not, do you know if the book is still in print?

I agree competely that Price's analogies to scriptural parables and to fictional works, novels like Moby Dick, are not useful and I'd say are misleading. They weaken his argument. The book of Deuteronomy, for example, doesn't present itself as a non-historical, teaching "parable," much less as what we moderns call a novel. Neither does the Book of Mormon. (The closest thing to a "novel" in the Hebrew Bible I'd say is the story of Joseph and his brothers. But even that artful story, appearing as it does in the context of the preceding narratives, doesn't present itself or function as some sort of parable or "novel.")

As others have noted, one of the key features of pseudepigrahic texts is that the ostensible audience -- in Deuteronomy the tribes of Israel assembled on the plains of Moab -- isn't the real, intended audience. In the case of the core of Deut (chapters 12-26) the actual audience is probably the community of Israel as it existed at the time of king Josiah. The later "framing" material surrounding it is directed at the post-exilic community. Similarly, the actual audience for Nephi's repetitive, didactic preaching to his brothers is not them, but the modern-era Protestants whom Nephi even addresses and criticizes directly: as in the "a Bible a Bible we have and need no more Bible" polemic.

by the way, seems to me that that when we pay attention to what Nephi, Moroni and Mormon actually say about when and especially why the plates Joseph Smith would receive are being composed and compiled, it's clear that the material on those plates was never even intended for an ancient Nephite/Lamanite audience. Instead, the express, declared purpose of both Mormon's abridgement of the "plates of Nephi" and of Nephi's and Moroni's contibutions, is to teach and warn future Christians, Jews and "Lamanites" who will read Joseph Smith's miraculous translation. Among other things, I think this underscores the weakness of the oft-repeated LDS apologetic that the Book of Mormon, like much of the Hebrew Bible, was composed as, and anciently functioned as, a narrowly-focused "lineage history" of the Lehites. To the contrary, everything that ended up on the plates Joseph Smith would translate has a modern-era purpose and audience. So unlike typical pseudepigraphic texts, the Book of Mormon does not even have an ostensible ancient audience; that is, one that would be contemporaneous with the supposed (ostensible) ancient authors of the work.

[_Ray A]

Is the Charlesworh article from the Madsen book on the net? If so, would you mind linking to it? If not, do you know if the book is still in print?

Addictio,

I haven't been able to find the article on the net (I tried in the past too), and it's out of print, but you can browse online bookstores, including Deseret (who I believe have one copy left). Other options:

Here and Here

Similarly, the actual audience for Nephi's repetitive, didactic preaching to his brothers is not them, but the modern-era Protestants whom Nephi even addresses and criticizes directly: as in the "a Bible a Bible we have and need no more Bible" polemic.

by the way, seems to me that that when we pay attention to what Nephi, Moroni and Mormon actually say about when and especially why the plates Joseph Smith would receive are being composed and compiled, it's clear that the material on those plates was never even intended for an ancient Nephite/Lamanite audience. Instead, the express, declared purpose of both Mormon's abridgement of the "plates of Nephi" and of Nephi's and Moroni's contibutions, is to teach and warn future Christians, Jews and "Lamanites" who will read Joseph Smith's miraculous translation. Among other things, I think this underscores the weakness of the oft-repeated LDS apologetic that the Book of Mormon, like much of the Hebrew Bible, was composed as, and anciently functioned as, a narrowly-focused "lineage history" of the Lehites. To the contrary, everything that ended up on the plates Joseph Smith would translate has a modern-era purpose and audience. So unlike typical pseudepigraphic texts, the Book of Mormon does not even have an ostensible ancient audience; that is, one that would be contemporaneous with the supposed (ostensible) ancient authors of the work.

Agreed. Hence the modern attraction to the Book of Mormon, because it makes sense to us, and is directed to us, not ancients. Nothing came from the plates during the "translation". I've often thought that all the criticism, or most of it, against Mormonism, is actually directed at post-Book of Mormon issues, especially polygamy. Quite ironic, that if Joseph had heeded the Book of Mormon, which condemns polygamy as "an abomination", he would have spared the Church so much trouble.

[_harmony]

Quite ironic, that if Joseph had heeded the Book of Mormon, which condemns polygamy as "an abomination", he would have spared the Church so much trouble.

Which points me in the direction that Joseph knew exactly where the Book of Mormon came from, and he had no fear of the manmade source.