Jump to content

Historicity of the Book of Mormon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Deaddebate (talk | contribs) at 20:39, 3 December 2016 (→Limited Geography Model). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Part of a series on the
Book of Mormon
Origin
Peoples
Persons
Books
Geography
Analysis
Objects
Adaptations
Other

The question of the historical authenticity of the Book of Mormon has long been a source of contention between most members of the Latter Day Saint movement and non-members. Most, but not all, Mormons hold the book's connection to ancient American history as an article of their faith. However, this view finds no acceptance outside of Mormonism.[1] The theory that the Book of Mormon is an ancient American history is considered to fall outside academic credibility.[1]

Contents of the book

The Book of Mormon gives an account of two civilizations formed by families who migrated to the Americas. One group of families came from Jerusalem in 600 B.C. and afterward separated into two nations, known as the Nephites and the Lamanites. Another group came much earlier, when God confounded the tongues at the Tower of Babel; that group is known as the Jaredites. After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites. Latter Day Saints claim that these Lamanites are among the ancestors of the American Indians.

Latter Day Saint views

The dominant and widely accepted view among Latter Day Saints is that the Book of Mormon is a true and accurate account of these ancient American civilizations whose religious history it documents. Joseph Smith, whom most Latter Day Saints believe to have translated the work, stated, "I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book."[2] Unresolved issues of the book's historicity and the lack of supporting archaeological evidence have led some adherents to adopt the position that the Book of Mormon may have been the creation of Smith, but that it was nevertheless divinely inspired.[3][4] Between these two views is the view stated by some Latter Day Saints that the Book of Mormon is a divine work of a spiritual nature, written in ancient America, but that its purpose is to teach of Christ and not to be used as a guide for history, geology, archaeology, or anthropology.[5]

Archaeology

Main article: Archaeology and the Book of Mormon

Discussion regarding the historicity of the Book of Mormon often focuses on archaeological issues, some of which relate to the large size and the long time span of the civilizations mentioned in the book. A contemporary Mormon view is that these civilizations rose and fell in Mesoamerica.[6] Civilizations of their magnitude and duration would be expected to leave extensive archaeological records.[7] Several Mesoamerican civilizations did exist in the time period covered by the Book of Mormon, including the Olmec, Zapotec and Maya. The Olmec and Zapotec civilizations developed a writing system that may have served as the model for the later Mayan writing system, which became highly developed. The Maya developed a complex calendar and were advanced in astronomy and mathematics.[8][9]

The Book of Mormon mentions several animals, plants, and technologies for which there is no evidence in pre-Columbian America. These include asses, cattle, milk, horses,[10] oxen, sheep, swine, goats, elephants,[11] wheat,[12] barley,[13][14][15][16] figs,[17] silk,[18] steel,[19] bellows, brass, breast plates, chains, iron working,[20] plows, swords, scimitars, and chariots.[21] The Smithsonian Institution has stated that "none of the principal food plants and domestic animals of the Old World (except the dog) were present in the New World before Columbus."[22][23]

Adherents of the Latter Day Saint movement give varied responses to these criticisms. Some point to what they claim is evidence for the presence of these items and locations.[clarification needed][24] Others invoke the limited geography model, regarding the events of the Book of Mormon as taking place in such a geographically limited area that no evidence should be expected. Some counter that the words used in the Book of Mormon refer not to the animals, plants and technologies that they do presently but to other similar items that did exist at the time.[25][26] These views are not directly supported by the LDS Church, but they do motivate archaeological efforts to further understand these situations, including research being performed by Brigham Young University (BYU) professors.[26]

LDS-funded archaeology

In 1955, Thomas Ferguson, a Latter Day Saint and the founder of the New World Archaeological Foundation (NWAF), with five years of funding from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church), began to dig throughout Mesoamerica for evidence of the veracity of the Book of Mormon claims. In a 1961 newsletter, Ferguson predicted that although nothing had been found, the Book of Mormon cities would be found within ten years.[citation needed] In 1972, Christian scholar Hal Hougey wrote to Ferguson questioning the progress given the stated timetable in which the cities would be found.[27] Replying to Hougey as well as secular and non-secular requests, Ferguson wrote in a letter dated June 5, 1972: "Ten years have passed .... I had sincerely hoped that Book-of-Mormon cities would be positively identified within 10 years—and time has proved me wrong in my anticipation."[27]

During the period of 1959–61, NWAF colleague Dee Green was editor of the BYU Archaeological Society Newsletter and had an article from it published in the summer of 1969 edition of Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, pp 76–78 in which he acknowledged that the NWAF findings did not back up the veracity of the Book of Mormon claims. After this article and another six years of fruitless search, Ferguson published a 29-page paper in 1975 entitled, "Written Symposium on Book-of-Mormon Geography: Response of Thomas S. Ferguson to the Norman & Sorenson Papers" in which he concluded, "I'm afraid that up to this point, I must agree with Dee Green, who has told us that to date there is no Book-of-Mormon geography".[28] In referring to his own paper, Ferguson wrote a 1976 letter in which he stated: "The real implication of the paper is that you can't set the Book-of-Mormon geography down anywhere—because it is fictional and will never meet the requirements of the dirt-archeology. I should say—what is in the ground will never conform to what is in the book."[27]

The archaeological investigations of NWAF-sponsored projects have contributed towards the documentation and understanding of pre-Columbian societies, particularly in Mesoamerica. Currently, BYU maintains 86 documents on the work of the NWAF at the BYU NWAF website and these documents are used outside both BYU and the LDS Church by researchers.

Linguistics

Main article: Linguistics and the Book of Mormon

An additional criticism of the historical authenticity of the Book of Mormon concerns linguistics. According to the text, the Nephites and the Lamanites initially spoke Hebrew (600 B.C.) and might have spoken a modified Semitic language until at least 400 A.D., when the Book of Mormon ends.[citation needed] The non-canonized introductory paragraph to the LDS Church 1981 edition of the Book of Mormon stated that the Lamanites were the "principal ancestors of the American Indians".[29] However, no Semitic language is spoken natively in the Americas today and there is no evidence that any Native American language has been influenced by any Semitic language at any point in its history. Historical linguists who specialize in the languages of Native America are in agreement that the languages of Native America cannot be proven to be related to each other within the last eight to ten thousand years, let alone within the last thousand.[30] A common counterargument is that the Book of Mormon mentions contact with other civilizations[31] that might have had their own non-Semitic languages which influenced or supplanted any Semitic language being spoken. Apologists[which?] point out that the introduction merely stated that the peoples mentioned in the Book of Mormon are the primary ancestors of the Native Americans; it did not claim that they are the sole ancestors.[29]

Historical anachronisms

See also: Book of Mormon anachronisms

Jeremiah in prison

In the opening chapters of the Book of Mormon, Nephi laments that the prophet Jeremiah has been cast into prison[32] sometime before the eighth year of the reign of Zedekiah.[33] However, the Bible does not mention Jeremiah being imprisoned before the tenth year of the reign of Zedekiah.[34]

Quoting Isaiah

See also: Book of Isaiah § Authorship

Book of Mormon prophets in the Americas quote the Book of Isaiah chapters 40–66 after having left the Jerusalem area around 600 B.C. However, modern scholars[35] believe these chapters were written during the Babylonian captivity sometime between 586 B.C. and 538 B.C. (between 14 and 82 years after Lehi and his family left Jerusalem), since they refer to events that transpired during that time. Mormon scholars[who?] conform to the traditional Christian belief that these passages were authored by Isaiah, who lived some 150 years earlier. Mormon apologist Hugh Nibley, however, casts doubt on the specific dating of chapters in question and suggests that the specific means by which the Book of Isaiah has reached us (and Nephi) closely parallels the author-editor relationships in the Book of Mormon and other contemporary sacred writings,[36] (a pattern described by Douglas Jones).[37]

Anthon Transcript

Main article: Anthon Transcript

The "Anthon Transcript" (also known as the "Caractors" document) is a small piece of paper on which Joseph Smith wrote several lines of characters. According to Smith, these characters were from the golden plates (the ancient record from which Smith claims to have translated the Book of Mormon) and represent the reformed Egyptian writing that was on the plates. This paper was then delivered to professor Charles Anthon, a well-known classical scholar of Columbia College, Columbia University, for an expert opinion on the authenticity of the characters and the translation. Adherents to the Book of Mormon claim that Anthon attested to the characters' authenticity in writing to Martin Harris but then ripped up his certification after hearing the story of Smith and the plates.[38] Critics, and Anthon himself, claim that Anthon believed any idea of reformed Egyptian was a hoax all along and that Harris was being duped.[39][40]

Population genetics

Main article: Genetics and the Book of Mormon

The Book of Mormon tells of the people of Jared, consisting of several families from the Tower of Babel, who migrated to America from the Old World before Abraham's time; a group including Lehi's family who migrated to America from Jerusalem around 600 B.C.; and another group (the people of Mulek) who migrated to America from Jerusalem about eight years later. Although the Book of Mormon makes no overt assertions regarding the migration or non-migration of other groups to America, an introductory paragraph added to the 1981 edition identifies the Lamanites as the "principal ancestors of the American Indians."[29] In 2007, this statement was changed to "among the ancestors".[2]

North American Indians are generally considered the genetic descendants of East Eurasian peoples.[41] Several authors have published works that suggest that current studies of genetic anthropology using DNA evidence do not provide support for the Book of Mormon. To date there have been no DNA studies which link any Native American group with West Eurasia.[42][43] Some Mormon researchers claim that it is not valid to use genetics to attempt to prove or disprove the historicity of the Book of Mormon, citing a lack of source genes and the improbability of tracing Israelite DNA even if present.[44][45]

Smithsonian Institution statement on the Book of Mormon

The Smithsonian Institution issues a standard reply to requests for their opinion regarding the Book of Mormon as an archaeological or scientific guide.[22] Prior to 1998, the statement denied any evidence for pre-Columbian contact between Old and New Worlds: "Certainly there was no contact with the ancient Egyptians, Hebrews or other peoples of Western Asia or the Near East." In 1998, the Smithsonian began issuing a shorter letter without the detailed response found in the first letter, and limited its comment to briefly deny any use of the Book of Mormon as an archaeological guide by the institution. It was believed that this was in part due to a critique[46] of their statement by John L. Sorenson.[47]

Limited geography model

Map showing the possible lands and sites of the Book of Mormon in Mesoamerica
See also: Limited geography model (Book of Mormon)

Since the time of its publication, most Latter Day Saints have viewed and explained the Book of Mormon as a comprehensive history of all Native Americans;[48] this understanding of the Book of Mormon is referred to as the "hemispheric model." However, other Latter Day Saints believe that the hemispheric model is an assumption not supported by a close reading of the text. B. H. Roberts states the inadequacy of the hemispheric model in Studies of the Book of Mormon:

[C]ould the people of Mulek and of Lehi ... part of the time numbering and occupying the land at least from Yucatan to Cumorah...live and move and have their being in the land of America and not come in contact with other races and tribes of men, if such existed in the New World within Book of Mormon times? To make this seem possible the area occupied by the Nephites and Lamanites would have to be extremely limited, much more limited, I fear, than the Book of Mormon would admit our assuming.[49]

The cities mentioned in the Book of Mormon have not been identified. Several groups of Mormon scholars and apologists, including the Foundation for Apologetic Information & Research (FAIR) and the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (FARMS), have proposed that the city Zarahemla is located somewhere within Central America because of the description given in Alma 22:27 as a narrow neck of land bordering sea on the west and on the east. This approach, often referred to as the "Limited Geography Model," argues for a more limited view of the Book of Mormon, suggesting that the book is a history of only a small group of Native Americans in Central America. This theory has been gaining substantial support among LDS scholars since the mid-1980s because it more accurately represents the descriptions given within the text itself. For instance, the populations and civilizations described in the Book of Mormon were likely too small (only a few million) to fill entire continents; moreover, there is much evidence that one common assumption of the past—that Book of Mormon civilizations were alone in America—is probably incorrect. Most LDS authors hold the belief that the Book of Mormon events took place within a limited region in Mesoamerica, and that others were present on the continent at the time of Lehi's arrival.[50] This geographical and population model was formally published in an official church magazine, Ensign, in a two-part series by John L. Sorenson published in September and October 1984.[51] This was followed by a book on the subject by Sorenson in 1985.[52]

Other defenses of historicity

It should be noted that many other of the arguments above have been addressed in various ways by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and many of its members. For example, in the Gospel Topics essays section of the church's official website, there is currently two essays entitled "Book of Mormon and DNA Studies" as well as another entitled "Book of Mormon Translation." These are some of the only official statements with regard to such historical issues, but they are notable.

FairMormon, specializes in Mormon apologetics and responds to criticism of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church). It has no official connection to the church.

See also

Notes

  1. ^ a b Duffy 2004, p. 37
  2. ^ a b Lua error: Book <bm/introduction> not found in Standard Works., Book of Mormon, LDS Church (2013)
  3. ^ Palmer, Grant H. (2002), An Insider's View of Mormon Origins, Salt Lake City: Signature Books, ISBN 1560851570, OCLC 50285328[page needed]
  4. ^ Metcalfe, Brent Lee, ed. (1993), New Approaches to the Book of Mormon: Explorations in Critical Methodology, Salt Lake City: Signature Books, ISBN 1560850175, OCLC 25788077[page needed]
  5. ^ See, for example, James E. Faust, "The Keystone of Our Religion," Ensign, January 2004, p. 3.
  6. ^ Allen, Joseph L. (2003), Sacred Sites: Searching for Book of Mormon Lands, American Fork, Utah: Covenant Communications, ISBN 1591562724, OCLC 54031905[page needed]
  7. ^ http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00438240600963528?journalCode=rwar20
  8. ^ Macri, Martha J. (1996), "Maya and Other Mesoamerican Scripts", in Daniels, Peter T.; Bright, William (eds.), The World's Writing Systems, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 172–182, ISBN 0195079930, OCLC 31969720
  9. ^ Rogers, Henry (2005), Writing Systems: A Linguistic Approach, Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, ISBN 0631234632, OCLC 53831495.[page needed]
  10. ^ "The Evolution of the Horse: In The Beginning", Equiworld.net
  11. ^ Handbook of North American Indians, pp. 208–18 (Donald K. Grayson, "Late Plestocene Faunal Extinctions") lists horses, elephants and related mammals as extinct
  12. ^ GC.ca Archived July 6, 2011, at the Wayback Machine
  13. ^ Mosiah 7:22.
  14. ^ "All about barley". Minnesota's World Port: Magazine of the Port Authority of Duluth. Duluthport.com, Duluth Seaway Port Authority. Spring 1998. Archived from the original on 2008-07-25. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)[unreliable source?]
  15. ^ Weaver, John C. (January 1943), "Barley in the United States: A Historical Sketch", Geographical Review, 33 (1): 56–73, JSTOR 210618
  16. ^ AACCnet.org Archived October 16, 2007, at the Wayback Machine
  17. ^ 3 Nephi 14:16
  18. ^ 1 Nephi 14:7
  19. ^ 1 Nephi 4:9
  20. ^ While iron ores such as haematite were mined (rather rarely), they were used as coloring. The metal was not extracted. See: Choi, Charles Q. (January 30, 2008), "Mining Site Predates Incan Empire", LiveScience. Also: Journal of the Minerals, Metals & Materials Society, December 2007.[full citation needed]
  21. ^ Alma 18:9
  22. ^ a b Anon (September 28, 1997), Smithsonian Institution statement on the Book of Mormon, Institute for Religious Research
  23. ^ "Historical Timeline — Crops & Livestock", Growing a Nation: the Story of American Agriculture, AGclassroom.org, Agriculture in the Classroom
  24. ^ Welch, John W., ed. (1992), Reexploring the Book of Mormon, Provo, Utah: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, ISBN 0875796001, OCLC 25131320[page needed]
  25. ^ "AllAboutMormons.Com Webmaster" (January 19, 2008), "Questions: The Book of Mormon mentions...", AllAboutMormons.com, "El Santo Gringo"[unreliable source?]
  26. ^ a b Bennett, Robert R. (2000), "Naming by Analogy", Horses in the Book of Mormon, FARMS/Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship
  27. ^ a b c Larson, Stan (Spring 1990), "The Odyssey of Thomas Stuart Ferguson", Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought: 76, 79
  28. ^ "Written Symposium on Book-of-Mormon Geography: Response of Thomas S. Ferguson to the Norman & Sorenson Papers", p. 29
  29. ^ a b c The original 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon does not make this claim. In 2007, the introduction to the Book of Mormon was changed to state that the Lamanites are "among the ancestors of the American Indians."
  30. ^ Lyle Campbell. 1997. American Indian Languages: The Historical Linguistics of Native America. Oxford University Press.; Ives Goddard. 1996. "Introduction," Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 17, Languages. Ed. Ives Goddard. Washington: Smithsonian Institution; Marianne Mithun. 1999. The Languages of Native North America. Cambridge University Press.
  31. ^ Mosiah 24:1–4
  32. ^ 1 Nephi 7:14.
  33. ^ Editors of the Book of Mormon have dated this comment to between 600 B.C. and 592 B.C. (see the heading to 1 Nephi chapter 7), with the first year of the reign of Zedekiah being dated to 600 B.C.
  34. ^ Jeremiah 32:1-2
  35. ^ Bart D. Erhman, God's Problem: How the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important Question-Why We Suffer (New York: Harper Collins, 2008), 77
  36. ^ Hugh W. Nibley, "The Isaiah Question" in Chapter 5 of Since Cumorah (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1988) ISBN 978-0875791395
  37. ^ Jones, Douglas. "The Traditio of the Oracles of Isaiah of Jerusalem" Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, 67.1 (2009): 226-246. Retrieved 13 Dec. 2013, from doi:10.1515/zatw.1955.67.1.226
  38. ^ Smith, Joseph. Joseph Smith–History. LDS Church. Retrieved 2009-11-29. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help) See also: Joseph Smith–History.
  39. ^ Eber D. Howe (1834). "Chapter XVIII". Mormonism Unvailed. Painesville, Ohio: Telegraph Press. pp. 269–273. {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)
  40. ^ Richard L. Bushman, Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling (New York: Knopf, 2005), 65-66.
  41. ^ Handbook of North American Indians, D. Andrew Merriwether, "Mitochondrial DNA," pages 817–30
  42. ^ One of the more vocal challengers to the DNA vs. The Book of Mormon issue is Dr. Thomas W. Murphy.
  43. ^ Southerton 2004[page needed]
  44. ^ Geneticists have noted the difficulties in using genetics in this area for a variety of reasons. Some of these are our lack of knowledge concerning Sariah's descent (or others' in Lehi's party), have access to DNA from this period (600 BC Israel), or know what other groups would have intermarried with these groups (or in what numbers). For more information see Whiting, Michael F (2003). "DNA and the Book of Mormon: A Phylogenetic Perspective". Journal of Book of Mormon Studies. 12 (1). Maxwell Institute: 24–35. Retrieved 2007-01-19.
  45. ^ Not having the ancient Israelite gene for comparison and the inability for DNA testing to link some Jewish groups that are known to be related, see Butler, John M (2006). "Addressing Questions surrounding the Book of Mormon and DNA Research". FARMS Review. 18 (1). Maxwell Institute: 101–108. Retrieved 2007-01-19..
  46. ^ Sorenson, John L. (1995), A New Evaluation of the Smithsonian Institution 'Statement regarding the Book of Mormon', Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies
  47. ^ "New Light: Smithsonian Statement on the Book of Mormon Revised". Journal of Book of Mormon Studies. 7 (1): 77–78. 1998.
  48. ^ Mauss 2003[page needed]
  49. ^ Roberts 1985, p. 93
  50. ^ Smith 1997, p. 264
  51. ^ Sorenson, John L (September 1984). "Digging into the Book of Mormon: Our Changing Understanding of Ancient America and Its Scripture (Part 1)". Ensign. LDS Church: 27. Retrieved 2011-10-19. Sorenson, John L (October 1984). "Digging into the Book of Mormon: Our Changing Understanding of Ancient America and Its Scripture, Part 2". Ensign. LDS Church. Retrieved 2011-10-19.
  52. ^ Sorenson 1985[page needed]

References

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Historicity_of_the_Book_of_Mormon&oldid=752863016"