Biblical scholarship vs the Book of Mormon

[jfro18]

Biblical scholarship (literary criticism) proves that the historicity of the Book of Mormon is not in question. Since the book is literarily dependent on the King James Bible (with italics) there is zero chance that it is anything other than a modern text. I explain the issue here:

https://www.mormonstories.org/podcast/j ... -creation/

I second Hagoth's endorsement of this podcast, and I hope you continue your series with Dehlin as was mentioned at the end.

Do you have any thoughts on the long ending of Mark? I believe from previous podcasts you believe it was added on later, but I've been reading some writings that claim the long ending was original and was spoken of by people before it was added on by scholars.

I tend to think the long ending was a late addition, but it's definitely an area where apologetics work overtime to give plausibility to it having been an original ending that ended up in the Book of Mormon.

[græy]

The back and forth between you and Mike Tannehill, by the way, is fascinating....

To which episode are you referring Hagoth? I'm sure I've listened to the MS podcast before, but it has been quite a while. Or are you talking about the IoT episode you mentioned? I have not listend to IoT and maybe now is a good time to start.

[Hagoth]

The back and forth between you and Mike Tannehill, by the way, is fascinating....

To which episode are you referring Hagoth? I'm sure I've listened to the MS podcast before, but it has been quite a while. Or are you talking about the IoT episode you mentioned? I have not listend to IoT and maybe now is a good time to start.

I'm talking about Infants on Thrones episodes 629-633. Fun stuff.

[jfro18]

I'm talking about Infants on Thrones episodes 629-633. Fun stuff.

I listened to the first two episodes while working today, and was fascinated by John Hamer going over Adam and Eve.

Before today I had NO idea that Adam and Eve was a late addition to the Bible. I always assumed it was more of a myth, but just didn't know that the early Bible prophets never even mentioned it because they had no idea of it.

How is that not a bigger problem for the BoM when Joseph Smith mentions it 26 times in the BoM?

[Hagoth]

Some people date parts of Genesis to just before the Babylonian exile, so I suppose it's a possibility that the Nephites gave it special attention because it was the new doctrine that Lehi grabbed on his way out the door, just like Mormons give higher priority to conference talks than Bible scriptures.

[jfro18]

I suppose that would be the apologetics, right? Of course that apologetic would be complicated by the fact that saying that means Moses couldn't have written it. Another area where taking a stand on one area hurts you in another.

It is amazing how much biblical scholarship just kills any chance of Mormonism being true even before you get to the story of the plates, reformed Egyptian, etc, etc.

I had no idea that Adam and Eve were effectively backdated into the Bible and that Genesis was compiled so late.

[dogbite]

This is the crux of my apostasy.

The book of mormon requires things of the bible that the bible simply isn't. Most revolve around biblical literalness that can only be handwaved away with a claim for a trickster god; an equally untenable position.

[jfro18]

This is the crux of my apostasy.

The book of mormon requires things of the bible that the bible simply isn't. Most revolve around biblical literalness that can only be handwaved away with a claim for a trickster god; an equally untenable position.

As I started looking into it, I hit two problems along this line:

1. The literalness of the Book of Mormon is crushed by biblical scholarship

- There was no global flood
- There was no tower of Babel
- (now I know) there was no Adam and Eve
- Moses didn't write the first five books

But then beyond that, the idea that BoM people could know of the New Testament stories, Jesus, etc before the actual Biblical prophets did is just absurd. That includes other issues like Deutero-Isaiah and the 'long ending of Luke.' It reads like someone who read the Bible and wanted to write some fan fiction, and you can use textual criticism to show how the Book of Mormon author was pulling sources that couldn't be known.

There are of course other problems, but this is what got me more tied into biblical scholarship - now looking at how New Testament books retrofit prophecy in shows you exactly how Joseph did it.

[Hagoth]

1. The literalness of the Book of Mormon is crushed by biblical scholarship

- There was no global flood
- There was no tower of Babel
- (now I know) there was no Adam and Eve
- Moses didn't write the first five books

If I were a BoM apologist I would say that Lehi and his descendants didn't know any of that, and they just naively assumed that everything in the Brass Plates was literally true, as so many people do with the Bible today. Of course, that leads us to another 6-pack of canned worms waiting to be opened.

[John Hamer]

If I were a BoM apologist I would say that Lehi and his descendants didn't know any of that, and they just naively assumed that everything in the Brass Plates was literally true, as so many people do with the Bible today. Of course, that leads us to another 6-pack of canned worms waiting to be opened.

For your Mormon-apologist-whisperer: it's not relevant whether the children of Lehi wrongly assumed the Tower of Babel was history due to reading it on the brass plates. The Jaredites (an actual people if the BoM is literal) emerge from the Babel story, which is definitely not history.

[John Hamer]

Do you have any thoughts on the long ending of Mark? I believe from previous podcasts you believe it was added on later, but I've been reading some writings that claim the long ending was original and was spoken of by people before it was added on by scholars.

I tend to think the long ending was a late addition, but it's definitely an area where apologetics work overtime to give plausibility to it having been an original ending that ended up in the Book of Mormon.

I think it's added later by Christians who are dissatisfied with Mark's theology, but excited by Mark's invention of a life-narrative for Jesus. In my view, Mark is an apocalypticist who believed the world was ending within a year or two (thus, a failed prophet). He was aware of all sorts of visions of the risen Christ (i.e., that many Christians understood that Jesus had already returned), but he tried to eliminate that idea by retrojecting visions of the risen Christ walking on water or visions of the risen Christ transfigured back into the lifetime of Jesus.

I think Christians found his (invented) narrative compelling --- they wanted a story of Jesus' life and didn't have one --- but they didn't agree with him about the idea that Christ hadn't yet come back and was about to. And so they added endings and/or reworked his narrative (Matthew, Luke) to correct him.

[deacon blues]

That's a fascinating perspective John. About what year would you think that Mark was written?

[Apologeticsislying]

This is the crux of my apostasy.

The book of mormon requires things of the bible that the bible simply isn't. Most revolve around biblical literalness that can only be handwaved away with a claim for a trickster god; an equally untenable position.

One of the real testimony killers to me also. Yes, Margaret Barker is powerful about Adam and Eve being the later addition to the Bible. Her book "The Older Testament is shattering to literalists, especially the Mormon ones.

[John Hamer]

That's a fascinating perspective John. About what year would you think that Mark was written?

Probably after the Romans destroyed the Temple in Jerusalem (70 ad) but before the first Jewish-Roman War finally ended (73 ad). The author of Mark is aware of the temple's destruction, but thinks the signs are present that the war is triggering the end of the world, so it seems to be written while it's still ongoing. Probably the disaster of Jerusalem's fall triggered the author to write the text to popularize his (false) apocalyptic prophecy.