Scriptural Historicity

[creekster]

Well said.

I think the craziest OT story is when the kids were teasing a prophet about his bald head and he cursed them and caused a bear to come out and kill twenty or so of them. But I guess the take-away is that we should be nice to bald people!

I love the old testament. It is full of wisdom and knowledge and hope and humanity. Apart from whether it is historically accurate or not, it is more 'real' to me than any other book of scripture. When reading it you can just hear the voices from the past as this group of people try to hang onto something in their hardscrabble existence, to explain the perils they face and to justify some of the actions they had to take. And it never flinches from a plot point when it is im0portant to the story. It is earthy and honest. I love it.

[creekster]

I'll stop being so mean to Dallin H Oaks.

If you don't, watch out for she-bears.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I love the old testament. It is full of wisdom and knowledge and hope and humanity. Apart from whether it is historically accurate or not, it is more 'real' to me than any other book of scripture. When reading it you can just hear the voices from the past as this group of people try to hang onto something in their hardscrabble existence, to explain the perils they face and to justify some of the actions they had to take. And it never flinches from a plot point when it is im0portant to the story. It is earthy and honest. I love it.

I agree.

[TripletDaddy]

I do think most orthodox members think the scriptures are literally accurate.

I agree but I also wonder what percentage of those who think the scriptures are literally accurate reach that conclusion after having thought about it, as opposed to simply starting from that premise as children and never really considering the alternative? As you mentioned in your previous post, it doesn't take a whole lot of contemplation to come to the conclusion that Jonah probably wasn't living in a whale's belly for a period of time.

[taekwondave]

I read a book recently related to this topic that is getting a fair amount of buzz in LDS academic circles. The book is called Authoring the Old Testament: Genesis-Deueronomy by David Bokovoy.

http://www.amazon.com/Authoring-Test...+old+testament

Bokovoy teaches at the University of Utah. PhD from Brandeis University in 2012.

https://faculty.utah.edu/u0339845-Da...hing/index.hml

He is also active LDS.

This is a rather unique book. It is written as an introduction to the documentary hypothesis (DH) and textual criticism for an LDS audience. It is extremely accessible and is a pleasure to read. Here are some of the highlights/main points from the book.

1 - Basic overview of DH. Religious tradition has Moses as the author of the first five books of the OT (the pentateuch). However, there many, many reasons that this is not the case (more than I can adequately cover in a review). Rather, the books appear to have been authored primarily by four different sources, labeled J, P, E, and D. This can be seen in the language/verbiage used (J always used Yahweh and P always used Elohim in reference to God), the parts of the story that were emphasized, etc. Furthermore, for many of the main stories (creation, flood, deliverance from egypt) a careful reading of the text shows that multiple accounts of the same story are woven into one. This is most obvious in the creation account, which clearly has two stories embedded in one. At some point, someone took multiple accounts written by the different sources and combined them into a single account. It is really fascinating to look at this in detail and read the main stories where the different threads have been separated. Each tells the story with a consistent theme and theological viewpoint. Furthermore, the P (priestly) account tends to downplay Moses’s role and emphasize Aaron’s role, because Aaron was from the priestly class.

2 - Dating the text. Scholars can examine ancient texts and fairly accurately pinpoint when they were written based on the words that are used (it is possible to track when certain words came into usage) and by reference (either explicit or implicit) to historical events. Using this analysis, it appears that the Pentateuch was written around 800 BC. There are other reasons this makes sense. This corresponds to the rise of the Assyrian empire. The Assyrians used writing to track information and issue documents to govern conquered territories. Prior to this time, there was no written form of Hebrew; everything was transmitted orally. This is one reason you never see a reference to a written record in the early part of the OT. The Assyrians exposed them to a scribal tradition so they came up with a written version of Hebrew and then started writing down their oral traditions. Most likely there were various oral narratives (J-P-E-D) that were written down and then combined into a single record.

3 - Babylonian/external Influence. As these oral traditions were being recorded, it appears that stories/myths from other cultures were adapted and woven into the narrative. For example, there are stories about the creation, the flood, tower of babel, a great prophet placed in a reed basket and floated in a river as a baby, etc that are from other cultures in the region (the story of Gilgamesh for example) that are nearly identical to the Genesis accounts but pre-date 800 BC.

4 - Implications for Mormonism. The second half of the book explores the implications of the DH, dating, and textual criticism on Mormonism. For example, the creation account in the PoGP includes both the J and P versions woven into one. And of course, they both appear to be derived from earlier creation myths. A challenging topic but the author does a fine job. His analysis is far too detailed to cover adequately in this review and I need to get back to work, so I will won’t cover that in detail.

All in all, a fascinating book. I can’t recommend it highly enough. This is a challenging topic to explore for faithful LDS but Bokovoy strikes a nice balance.

I took "The Bible as Literature" my last semester at BYU and most, if not all of that was covered. The professor was extremely careful about how he approached the topic and by the end of the semester it was very fun to see how some real hard-line literalists had taken a step back and were looking at things much differently. It was very encouraging and the class was very, very well done. For our final presentation he even let my group study and present on a couple of my favorite pseudepigraphal texts. The class really seemed intrigued by them, which was also cool for me.

[TripletDaddy]

If you don't, watch out for she-bears.

[creekster]

I agree but I also wonder what percentage of those who think the scriptures are literally accurate reach that conclusion after having thought about it, as opposed to simply starting from that premise as children and never really considering the alternative? As you mentioned in your previous post, it doesn't take a whole lot of contemplation to come to the conclusion that Jonah probably wasn't living in a whale's belly for a period of time.

Jonah was another one my friend mentioned. I think that many members tend to compartmentalize these issues. They consider the truth that they are interested in but don't think about the overall story. A proof-texting approach to the gospel. I cannot be critical of them, as life is short and hard and whatever works. But it doesn't work for me.

[Clark Addison]

Well said.

I think the craziest OT story is when the kids were teasing a prophet about his bald head and he cursed them and caused a bear to come out and kill twenty or so of them. But I guess the take-away is that we should be nice to bald people!

That is the awesomest, and truest, and most literally-happenedest story in all the scriptures.

[SeattleUte]

Haha.

I effing love science!

It's incredible you take that statement at face value and not for the purpose for which it was intended even though I hinted strongly at the intent in the statement itself.

[SeattleUte]

I agree.

After the Pentateuch it's all downhill except for some magnificent passages that Paul or a Paul pretender wrote.

[creekster]

It's incredible you take that statement at face value and not for the purpose for which it was intended even though I hinted strongly at the intent in the statement itself.

I knew that was coming. You're pretty easy to predict anymore. DO you know what purpose I intend in making that statement?

[Jeff Lebowski]

It's incredible you take that statement at face value and not for the purpose for which it was intended even though I hinted strongly at the intent in the statement itself.

Aw crap. Twice in two days.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I knew that was coming. You're pretty easy to predict anymore. DO you know what purpose I intend in making that statement?

There are only four people in my stake that are meaner than SeattleUte. And three of them are deacons.

[SeattleUte]

I knew that was coming. You're pretty easy to predict anymore. DO you know what purpose I intend in making that statement?

My use of that phrase here is more apt that its use by the author who originally penned it. Of course you saw it coming. We love Jeff, but he's, well, kind of literal about what he reads.

[ERCougar]

Everybody's religious origin/scripture is bunk and myth. Except my own. Right?

I know somebody for whom the Noah essay was the last straw. For years she had hung around, dealing with everything on a metaphorical level (and openly so). But then she read what she perceived as a doubling down on historicity and then was, "nope, I'm gone." Not a reason in and of itself but it was the catalyst.

I know another family that adopted the Harry Potter series as an informal scriptural canon of sorts. Not that they believed it literally, or though all the principles were correct, but they saw the origin as just as valid as traditional scripture, the lessons good, and it much more interesting to read.

Not necessarily mainstream examples but I think they anecdotally show the power of myth and the problems with historicity.

What Noah essay?