Which quasi credible source did Talmage cite in Jesus the Christ?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by All-American

1. Lingo: that was precisely the point that was being made. Latter-Day saints rely on the book as though it were the definitive work on the life and times of Christ, when the fact of the matter is, it is sadly out of date. The professor I mentioned was actually very careful not to mention Talmage until a student point blank asked him about Jesus the Christ.

I think it is a good read, and a monumental work. It's just out of date.

Well, it IS about 100 years old, after all.

I'm curious: what exactly do you mean by out-of-date? Obviously Jesus the Christ doesn't (and wouldn't) contain the latest historical/archeological research, so are you suggesting the doctrine has evolved since then? Can you clarify?

[All-American]

Originally Posted by Tex

Well, it IS about 100 years old, after all.

I'm curious: what exactly do you mean by out-of-date? Obviously Jesus the Christ doesn't (and wouldn't) contain the latest historical/archeological research, so are you suggesting the doctrine has evolved since then? Can you clarify?

I don't know that there was ever anything wrong with the doctrine, per se. But as you point out, a 100 year old text is not going to contain the latest on history and archeology (which it does use quite heavily).

[Tex]

Originally Posted by All-American

I don't know that there was ever anything wrong with the doctrine, per se. But as you point out, a 100 year old text is not going to contain the latest on history and archeology (which it does use quite heavily).

As such, I have no problem with a professor teaching a secular topic being reluctant to reference the text.

But I don't see why it's a big deal that Mormons put a great deal of weight on it, from a theological point of view. The book is still quite sound in that regard, no matter its age.

[All-American]

Originally Posted by Tex

As such, I have no problem with a professor teaching a secular topic being reluctant to reference the text.

But I don't see why it's a big deal that Mormons put a great deal of weight on it, from a theological point of view. The book is still quite sound in that regard, no matter its age.

I'll give you that. The doctrine is just fine. But the history which buttresses the presentation of the doctrine needs to be brought up to speed.

You've heard, I'm sure, the old anecdote regarding the camel going through the eye of the needle, how Jesus actually said "yarn" instead of "camel" (not likely), or that the "eye of the needle" was actually a entry in the wall of Jerusalem, et cetera. And I'm sure you've heard either used in faith-promoting speeches and talks. Accuracy in non-theological matters does affect our understanding of the doctrine, too.

But I think we agree, by and large.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by All-American

I'll give you that. The doctrine is just fine. But the history which buttresses the presentation of the doctrine needs to be brought up to speed.

You've heard, I'm sure, the old anecdote regarding the camel going through the eye of the needle, how Jesus actually said "yarn" instead of "camel" (not likely), or that the "eye of the needle" was actually a entry in the wall of Jerusalem, et cetera. And I'm sure you've heard either used in faith-promoting speeches and talks. Accuracy in non-theological matters does affect our understanding of the doctrine, too.

But I think we agree, by and large.

Yeah, I can agree with that. True, the camel/needle analogy is one of the more badly mangled in modern times. As is the use of John 5:39 and probably others.

I don't know that this really pollutes the doctrine that much, however. A bad analogy that still teaches truth doesn't necessarily detract from the truth. It just means the teaching vehicle is flawed.

[exUte]

Originally Posted by Adam

He admits rewriting them, he cites them over and over again throughout.

If you open Farrar and Endersheim and Talmage and go through page by page it is very interesting. I have actually done this.

You can actually watch how Talmage takes the viewpoint from them he likes the best and rewrites it to avoid plagiarism and adds the appropriate Mormon scriptures. Page after page after page.

It isn't dishonest or misleading as he cites them often enough. It just isn't original scholarship. And he never claimed his book was original scholarship. So I have no problem with it.

Sounds like one of my neighbors who now believes he's smarter since he left the church. Unfortunately, he took his family with him.

[exUte]

Originally Posted by All-American

1. Lingo: that was precisely the point that was being made. Latter-Day saints rely on the book as though it were the definitive work on the life and times of Christ, when the fact of the matter is, it is sadly out of date. The professor I mentioned was actually very careful not to mention Talmage until a student point blank asked him about Jesus the Christ.

I think it is a good read, and a monumental work. It's just out of date.

2. Arch: Josephus? Quasi-credible?

as well?

[All-American]

Originally Posted by exUte

as well?

The Book of Mormon isn't a history. To a large extent, Jesus the Christ is-- or at least a biography.

Besides, the Book of Mormon is a primary source. A primary document is never out of date. Jesus the Christ is a secondary document, heavily dependent upon secondary sources itself. Any good historian knows better than to rely upon a 100 year old secondary source when a 10 or a 1 year old secondary source is also available.