what parts of scripture "must" be historical

[MrShorty]

This has probably been a long time building, but the other night while reading my scriptures, the thought/question came to me, "What parts of scripture must be historical, or the whole thing falls apart?"

Years ago, I became aware of the scholarly belief that the book of Job was a work of fiction. At the time, I recall someone in LDS circles who claimed that this was false, and the LDS have revealed proof that Job was historical. Scholarly consensus today is that Job is a work of fiction that has been incorporated into the Christian Bible. If this is truth, then there is precedence for canonizing fiction as scripture.

We often talk about whether the creation accounts in Genesis are scientifically accurate or allegorical in nature.

Occasionally, questions around whether the Book of Mormon is a historical document or a fictional story come up. I think this is what triggered this post -- wondering if I felt compelled to believe that the BoM must be history or Mormonism dies. Can I accept the BoM as scripture if it proves to be more fiction than history?

Which led to the broader question -- what parts of the scripture canon must be historical? Is it necessary for the Exodus narrative to be historical? Jonah? Elijah?

Some thoughts so far:

The four gospels don't have to be historical in every detail, but it seems that some of the history around Christ's life and ministry must be historical. In particular, the crucifixion and resurrection parts of His story must be based on a historical event (even if the details don't match exactly what is in the gospels).

While I am quite willing to accept the creation accounts as allegorical, something about the narrative around the Fall must have actually happened. I suspect that historical details could differ from the Genesis account, but the Fall is big part, theologically, of what sets up the redemption through Christ. These two kind of go together in that, if one must be historical, the other must be, too.

That's about as far as I have gotten. Any thoughts from the community?

[omegaseamaster75]

Can anyone say Pearl of Great Price? The allegorical nature of our cannon does not make it false. I don't think anything falls on it's face if we can accept that God works through his prophets.  Specifically Joseph Smith as the restorer. It all hinges on that.

[NeuroTypical]

If Jesus is just an allegorical story, and no, speaking strictly literally, the Son of God didn't really walk among us working miracles and being resurrected, then yeah, I'm guessing the belief system of a sizable portion of the Christian world falls on it's face.  LDS especially, since so many of our prophets God has worked through, has testified to the reality of Christ and His earthly mission.

Edited June 2, 2016 by NeuroTypical

[omegaseamaster75]

22 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

If Jesus is just an allegorical story, and no, speaking strictly literally, the Son of God didn't really walk among us working miracles and being resurrected, then yeah, I'm guessing the belief system of a sizable portion of the Christian world falls on it's face.  LDS especially, since so many of our prophets God has worked through, has testified to the reality of Christ and His earthly mission.

Well of this I do not think that you have to worry.  There is to much evidence of Christ's existence to cast any doubt as to whether or not he walked among us.

[MrShorty]

44 minutes ago, omegaseamaster75 said:

Can anyone say Pearl of Great Price? The allegorical nature of our cannon does not make it false. I don't think anything falls on it's face if we can accept that God works through his prophets.  Specifically Joseph Smith as the restorer. It all hinges on that.

I had not, yet, really thought through Church history aspects. Probably because, since they are more contemporary, there is less said about whether or not the events of Church history actually occurred. Clearly, Joseph Smith as restorer is clearly central to Mormonism. What parts of his narrative are essential to his message?  the first vision? The finding and translating the BoM? Can any of Joseph Smith's story be "fictionalized" without damaging the message of Mormonism? Is this a higher standard than what we apply to ancient scripture?

[MrShorty]

23 minutes ago, omegaseamaster75 said:

Well of this I do not think that you have to worry.  There is to much evidence of Christ's existence to cast any doubt as to whether or not he walked among us.

True, but, as far as I know, none of the evidence that a man named Jesus walked among the Jews can show that he was born of a virgin, that his death provided a substitutiary atonement for all of mankind, and that he was resurrected never to die again. Just showing that there is a historical figure named Jesus does not tell us whether or not the Gospel narratives are historical or fictional.

[MrShorty]

34 minutes ago, zomarah said:

For me, none of it MUST be historical. To me the scriptures are sacred narratives, their historicity is irrelevant. The truths found in their scriptures come from their applicability, not their historicity.

I think there is something in your attitude. It seems that many LDS (and more fundamentalist Christians, too) grow up thinking that all or almost all of scripture is absolutely historical, then abandon their faith completely when they "discover" that the historicity of at least some scripture is difficult to prove. I think there is real value in recognizing that scripture's value is more in what it teaches us about God and man and the relationships between them, which can be a different question from whether these events actually occurred exactly as outlined in scripture.

[omegaseamaster75]

16 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

True, but, as far as I know, none of the evidence that a man named Jesus walked among the Jews can show that he was born of a virgin, that his death provided a substitutiary atonement for all of mankind, and that he was resurrected never to die again. Just showing that there is a historical figure named Jesus does not tell us whether or not the Gospel narratives are historical or fictional.

No, none of the evidence shows any miracle only that he lived and died. If we get caught up trying to "prove" things we just set ourselves up for disappointment.

[Guest]

Generally speaking their historicity is there, but not necessarily accurate in every detail.  Example, I believe God created an Adam and an Eve who were indeed the first man and woman on the earth.  But how that happened and when and where and what the deal is with the Garden of Eden, there is a lot of room for allegory.  And I'm not even sure if they were the only ones of that generation.  It is entirely possible that he made "siblings" at the same time.  But it was simply not expedient for us to know about them.  So, we have no record of them.

Similarly, there is much historicity in all the accounts of the Bible and BoM.  But that is on the periphery.  And as many items on the periphery, there isn't enough detail to know what parts are accurate historically and what parts aren't.

We know we've had general authorities in our day say some things that they thought were historically correct because it was the common wisdom.  But we later found out that the common wisdom of the time was inaccurate.  Likewise, ancient prophets were also subject to this same errancy.  How many times have you heard a common myth and because it just made so much sense, you just repeated it?  Although some of us try, we simply can't check on every single fact before we repeat it.  We just repeat it because it sounded right at the time. Did you ever notice the instance where Mormon refers to Benjamin as Mosiah?  (or was it the other way around?)  I forget because it doesn't really matter.

This is why we don't look at scriptures as a history book.  We read them for their spiritual message.  This is possible as fact, fiction, parable, or history with a lot of errors.

But what MUST be historically accurate?  I'd say that none of scripture NEEDS to be historically accurate on the order of Herodot or modern historical standards.  But there are some things that "the general narrative" must have actually occurred in some way shape or form.

1) Jesus must have been born as a God on Earth.
2) He must have lived a sinless life.
3) He must have undergone "something" which was an atonement for all mankind.
4) He must have died a voluntary death.
5) He must have risen from the dead of his own power.
6) Somehow all of this means something to us and affects us in eternity.

We can argue about the details and what narratives have metaphorical elements as opposed to literal ones, yadda yadda.  But that's really not as important as the overall effect of the atonement.

1) Joseph Smith must have had a vision of the Father and the Son wherein he was given specific guidance on the spiritual future of this dispensation.  It was obviously incomplete and we have to depend on the memory of a 14 y.o. farmboy to relay any and all words which were spoken.  Were those 100% accurate?  I bet not.  But the overall message was true.
2) The Book of Mormon must have been translated by the gift and power of God.  Who knows what exactly that entailed?  We have varying accounts. Do they matter?  The fact that the BoM is the word of God is the important thing.
3) The BoM is a spiritual record of some group of people who lived on the American Continent a long time ago.  Much of their "history" in the BoM may be in error or it may be correct.  As long as such errors don't change the spiritual events, then it doesn't matter.  Example: they go into a verse or two about the system of money that the Nephites used.  What does that matter if it is accurate historically or not?  There was a spiritual message in the passage.  Did we get it?

Edited June 2, 2016 by Guest

[MrShorty]

Interestingly and coincidentally, I came across this from Ben Spackman today: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/benjaminthescribe/2016/06/scripture-context-and-genres-scattered-reading/ that talks about some of these same issues.

The bulk of the blog entry is quoting from Catholic scholar Raymond Brown's 101 Questions and Answers on the Bible. A couple of Brown's statements (taken out of context to preserve forum space, so be sure to read the rest to get these in context)

 

Quote

Often it is thought that inspiration makes everything history. It does not; there can be inspired poetry, drama, legend, fiction, etc.

then goes on to talk about how this might apply to the book of Jonah or the creation accounts in Genesis.

 

Quote

Sooner or later, those who hear the preacher treating Jonah as if it were history, or the first chapters of Genesis as if they were science, will come to realize the falsity of that presentation and, as a consequence, may reject the inspired divine truth contained in those chapters.

 

 

Quote

The challenge to the teacher or preacher may be to walk a middle line between affirming that all this happened literally and suggesting that it is

just

a story. It is a story in which God’s inspired truth is communicated to us.

I think this is the most significant thing I have learned in this overall process. That, even if something in scripture is not literal history, it is not reduced to "just" a story.

Edited June 3, 2016 by MrShorty

[Traveler]

Symbolism in scripture has always been difficult for many that try to understand thing as literal.  Take for example the woman at the well talking with Jesus.  Jesus said he had living water that if she drank she would never thirst again.  The woman was impressed and asked that Jesus give of some of this "magic water" so she would not have to come every day to get water.  We may chalk this up to ignorance of this unlearned lady - but then there is Nicodemus that when told that man must be born again wondered how a man may come again from their mother's womb?  In all of 4,000 years of revelation was this really the first time the concept of being born again was presented?  If so - it really must not be all that important?

I am convinced that scripture is not as meaningful and many think such things to be - in reality it is much more -- and there is that word "reality" again sticking its nose into everybody religious business.

 

The Traveler

[MrShorty]

@Traveler: I think you are right, we often have difficulty with navigating symbolism in scripture. Perhaps it a question of degree and not really a difference, but what I am seeing in this is not what I typically think of when I think of symbolism. Using your example, what if it is not just about the symbolism of living water, but that the entire story of the woman at the well was "fabricated" by John to say, "If the Savior of the world had met and conversed with a woman at a well, this is how that conversation might have gone" but the story did not actually happen. Maybe more a question of degree than of difference, but what if entire books or stories from these books are "symbolic". This ultimately led me to ask myself how much, if any, of the scriptural narrative must be "actual real life events" in order to have faith in the entire thing.

[Vort]

Re: Job: The LDS belief that Job "must" have been a real historical figure stems entirely (as far as I can tell) from D&C 121:10: "Thou art not yet as Job." To me, this is hardly proof of Job's historicity. I personally believe Job was probably a real person, but clearly the conversation between God and Satan is a rhetorical and mythological device, and is not a faithful account of actual occurrences.

Re: The Pearl of Great Price: Of course it is literally historical, as much as the Book of Mormon. Any reasonable (read: non-Unitarian) understanding of the Restored Church demands that these documents represent literal historical truth, in overall scope if not in every minute detail.

[Just_A_Guy]

I don't think there's a universal answer to the question in the OP--various books of the canon need to be approached with varying sets of expectations.

I think the Book of Mormon gives us the least amount of wiggle room:  We accept that it was translated from real plates, which were delivered to Joseph Smith by a real person who happened to be the source for the title page of that book.  We can certainly point to the weaknesses, limited perceptions, etc. of the BoM's authors and take various anecdotes or conclusions with a few grains of salt; but I think fundamentally we need to accept that the Book of Mormon is what Moroni said it is:  A record of real people, events, and places during a specific historical period.

I think you have to take the rest of the books of the Bible and PoGP on a case-by-case basis.  The D&C forms a litmus test of sorts, in some regards--if Joseph Smith says he saw Abraham, or Adam, or Eve, or Elijah, or Moses in vision; then I think it's safe to assume that those individuals are historical, not allegorical figures.  But generally speaking, I think most of the Bible is relating history in the manner that its authors' cultures were used to relating history, and needs to be read accordingly. 

In Job's case, as I understand it the scholarly evidence is pretty overwhelming that the book was almost entirely cribbed from a much older ancient Babylonian or Sumerian tale.  But I'm still inclined to think that the book and its philosophical meanderings grew up around a true story of a man--maybe even a pagan--whose faith and devotion to his preferred deity in the face of overwhelming tribulation and suffering was so absolute and so sincere, that the heavens were moved and God came down to give that man further light and knowledge.  To me, the power of the story (as traditionally utilized in LDS teaching) is that it really happen--someone really did go through trials more or less in line with what the book describes, and managed to hold on to their faith, and later had that faith validated by a supernal spiritual experience followed by the restoration of all that was lost.  If it's not true, then it becomes far less persuasive.  (Yes, the book of Job has some deep meditations on suffering, theodicy, etc; but as Mormons we are typically more interested in Job's patience rather than his philosophical prowess.)

Edited June 3, 2016 by Just_A_Guy

[MrShorty]

@Vort: That verse from the D&C Re: Job sounds right. As you say, now that I am older, it does not seem very compelling.

@Just_A_Guy: Your probably right that there isn't a universal answer to the hypothetical question I was asking. I am certainly not advocating for some kind of "it's all myth" position. It was mostly a hypothetical, worst case scenario thought experiment for me. What if, at worst, it is all fiction -- can I still say it is true? If not, what parts really change my mind, and what parts are more easily accepted as fiction?

[Traveler]

15 hours ago, Vort said:

Re: Job:... but clearly the conversation between God and Satan is a rhetorical and mythological device, and is not a faithful account of actual occurrences.

Really?  In light of exactly who is the "G-d of the Old Testament” + the fact that all mankind fell from the Kingdom of Heaven (the Father’s Kingdom) to a lessor Kingdom + the truth that following the Fall of Man that Jesus (Jehovah) mas made the one and only mediator G-d over that fallen Kingdom or world – and that the fallen rheum was also the place or kingdom to which Satan fell and currently resides as a “g-d of this world” or kingdom.

Also the possibility that the epochs of such characters as Adam and Job are wrapped around the scriptural use of types and shadows (that can only truly be understood through the power of the Holy Ghost) that such character references are not intended to be historical events of individual persons but are prophetic in nature and thus have as much relevance to our individual “path” or “way” through this mortal moment of our eternal self.

Your interpretation of what is mythological in scripture – is to me and according to my understanding, perhaps one of the more accurate reflection of historical reality and depiction of real events in the scripture as provided to us as the epoch of Job.

 

The Traveler

Edited June 4, 2016 by Traveler

[Vort]

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

Really?

Yes.

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

Also the possibility that the epochs of such characters as Adam and Job are wrapped around the scriptural use of types and shadows (that can only truly be understood through the power of the Holy Ghost) that such character references are not intended to be historical events of individual persons

I.e. mythological.

[Traveler]

3 hours ago, Vort said:

Yes.

I.e. mythological.

Hmmmmmm can you explain - clearly - how it is that you know clearly, without any reservation, that the conversation between Jehovah and Satan, as recorded in the book of Job is not given by divine revelation (thus actual and accurate) but rather based entirely in mythology - and therefor should be understood to be fantastically misleading or in other words false and not possible to have ever actually taken place.  Not that I disagree - yet - but I would like a little more explanation (other then the word - yes) why you are so absolutely, 100% sure - without any reservations what-so-ever - that Satan and Jehovah could not possibly have such interactions?

 

The Traveler

[Vort]

2 hours ago, Traveler said:

Hmmmmmm can you explain - clearly - how it is that you know clearly, without any reservation, that the conversation between Jehovah and Satan, as recorded in the book of Job is not given by divine revelation (thus actual and accurate) but rather based entirely in mythology - and therefor should be understood to be fantastically misleading or in other words false and not possible to have ever actually taken place.  Not that I disagree - yet - but I would like a little more explanation (other then the word - yes) why you are so absolutely, 100% sure - without any reservations what-so-ever - that Satan and Jehovah could not possibly have such interactions?

Because it is absurd to think that the Father and Satan would engage in the following conversations:

God: Hey, there, Satan, whatcha been doing?
Satan: Oh, you know, walking around, here and there.
G: Have you seen Job? He's, like, a totally cool dude. He doesn't do anything except follow me.
S: Well, duh. It's because you have given him such a cushy life. Take that away, and he'll follow me in a second.
G: Oh, yeah? Well, then, be my guest. Go ahead and take away his cushy life, and we'll see who's right.

[later]

God: Hey, there, Satan, whatcha been doing?
Satan: Oh, you know, walking around, here and there.
G: Have you seen Job? Still faithful. In your face.
S: Sure, because he still has his health. If you have your health, you have everything. Take that away, and he's as good as mine.
G: Oh, yeah? Well, then, be my guest. Just don't kill him. We'll see who's right.

You may believe what you like, Traveler. But until I have strong reason to believe the literalness of the above-mentioned conversations, which violate everything I know about God, Satan, and their interactions, I will name them what they very obviously are, at least in my eyes: A highly stylized confrontation between deities, probably ported over to a Hebrew setting in the book of Job.

 

Edited June 4, 2016 by Vort

[Just_A_Guy]

This notion of God and Satan meeting for a friendly discussion on theology--perhaps over a game of chess, like Professor Xavier and the imprisoned Magneto--has a certain philosophical charm about it.  But if we take seriously D&C 76's suggestion that even the Terrestrial are eternally denied the direct ministrations of the Father, it would seem very curious for Him to make an exception and continue to directly "minister" to Perdition himself.

[LeSellers]

On 6/3/2016 at 5:43 PM, Just_A_Guy said:

In Job's case, as I understand it the scholarly evidence is pretty overwhelming that the book was almost entirely cribbed from a much older ancient Babylonian or Sumerian tale.

Scholarly evidence is not revelation. And, while I agree with some of it, it is not "true" because it is not from God: even if part is accurate, that does not mean it is all correct.

Let's say (and I do not accept this, whatever scholars say), that Job, as we have it was "cribbed" from an older source. That does not mean that this assumed source was not, in its turn, copied from an even more ancient text/myth (which does not mean "false") of real events.

Job is very old: it tells of a man who lived at least 190 years (the penultimate verse ways he lived 140 years after the event in the book, and he was a fairly old man in chapter 1). The people who lived for two centuries were the second generation before Abraham.

Quote

22 And Serug lived thirty years, and begat Nahor: 23 And Serug lived after he begat Nahor two hundred years, and begat sons and daughters. 24 And Nahor lived nine and twenty years, and begat Terah: 25 And Nahor lived after he begat Terah an hundred and nineteen years, and begat sons and daughters.  26 And Terah lived seventy years, and begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran.

So, by this evidence, however slight one may assume it to be, Job was a contemporary of Terah, and, perhaps, of Abram, too. That would make Job the oldest book in the Bible, since Moses wasn't born for at least another 500 years. It would also mean, most likely, that Job lived under the reign of Melchizedek*/Shem in Salem, "Peace" (later Jerusalem, the city of peace), given his righteousness and Shem's own longevity.
* Melchizedek means "king of righteousness", Shem means "name", and Melchizedek was the king of Salem, or the king of peace.

That was earlier than the Babylonians. So, why couldn't they have cribbed Job first, and the Jews, assuming they copied it at all, and I, personally, do not accept this, just taken back their own tale? Irrespective, however, of whether the Jews took Job into their canon at a later date and in a different form from the original, that does not stop Job's being an account of a real man and his family with their troubles, and the hand of God working in their lives.

It is also interesting to me that Job is the first place that Satan shows up in the Scriptures. But, if we take this view of the book itself, it is very early on in the canon, centuries before Moses wrote Genesis.

Lehi

Edited June 5, 2016 by LeSellers

[Just_A_Guy]

1 hour ago, LeSellers said:

That was earlier than the Babylonians. So, why couldn't they have cribbed Job first, and the Jews, assuming they copied it at all, and I, personally, do not accept this, just taken back their own tale? Irrespective, however, of whether the Jews took Job into their canon at a later date and in a different form from the original, that does not stop Job's being an account of a real man and his family with their troubles, and the hand of God working in their lives.

If by "Jews" you mean "Jehovah worshippers", I'm inclined to think that that's more or less what happened.  The Book of Job might be a sort of "Joseph Smith Translation" of a much older tale that originated as a Yahwist historical account, was preserved in corrupted form by the Sumerians or Old Babylonians, and then partially (but not fully) restored by an inspired Jewish scribe writing, perhaps around the time of the Diaspora.

[Traveler]

7 hours ago, Vort said:

Because it is absurd to think that the Father and Satan would engage in the following conversations:
 

Vort - I am quite disappointed -- A conversation between The Father and Satan?????  Obviously you "clearly" did not read my post before formatting a comment.  You may also wish to read Luke Chapter 4.

 

The Traveler

[Vort]

2 minutes ago, Traveler said:

Vort - I am quite disappointed

Can't express how awful I feel for having disappointed you.

[Traveler]

2 minutes ago, Vort said:

Can't express how awful I feel for having disappointed you.

You do understand the difference between Jehovah and the Father?  - Why did you think I said The Father.  I tried to make that part very clear that the conversation was not with the Father.  My concern is that you misquoted me.  May I ask if you did so on purpose to make our exchange difficult? - you still do not seem to understand that Jesus is Jehovah?????

 

The Traveler