Historicity of BoM, valuable or secondary.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Come now. You're being disingenuous. We have reed boats on Lake Titikaka. Both Egyptians and Bolivian aborigines had reed boats.

I would be surprised if the Old World did not contribute to the New World, in addition from China and Russia. The question is when and how often.

[Solon]

Originally Posted by All-American

What about the colophon?

Nibley points out that the Bremner-Rhind papyrus scrolls contain the colophon that he claims is "highly characteristic" of Egyptian compositions:

I've tried to look into the Egyptian colophon somewhat to verify the above quote, and I can't find the text of the cited papyrus online, but several commentaries on the Egyptian colophon do point out that the purpose of the colophon is to identify the writer. Others verify some aspects, especially the curse. One writer takes issue with the designated colophon of the Bremner-Rhind papyrus, because "since it does not actually date the production of the manuscript or identify the person who wrote it, as a colophon, by definition, is intended to" (http://www.geocities.com/ankhenmut/Nesminfinal.htm).

One strike against the colophon argument is that a colophon is typically found at the end of the work. "Colophon" comes from the greek word κολοφων (meaning "summit", "top", or "finishing"). Again, I can't find any egyptian texts, so I can't say whether or not this is especially important.

Regarding the historical value of Egyptian texts, here's another interesting paragraph, from the previously referenced website:



Maybe relevant, maybe not.

I don't know much about colophon (colon, yes; colophon, no). Throughout the ancient world, over vast amounts of time it was not uncommon for scribes to identify themselves, originally perhaps as a means of guaranteeing they actually wrote what was dictated, but eventually as a convention (See, for instance, Romans 16.22, where Tertius identifies himself as the scribe).

I suppose you could make an argument for some closer ties between Nephi and Near Eastern Annalistic and Scribal traditions. I did some reading in Assyrian texts last night and they are, in fact, 1st person narratives, usually the king talking about all the people he killed. While the Assyrian annals are in 1st person, they aren't autobiographical in a narrative sense; they're mainly just lists. While I don't know all that much about colophon, Nephi's introduction of himself as author in the first couple of words seems to me to be closer to the practices of (later) Greek historians, such as Herodotus and Thucydides.

However, even if some closer ties are established, it would take a whole lot to change my overall opinion of the BoM as a non-historical text. Nephi's straightforward style, the autobiographical details (including internalized thoughts), the separation of secular and religious components, and the mysterious plates of Laban as a source are still a lot for me to swallow when someone argues that this book is historical. It may be chock-full of religious "truth" - I'm not in a position to say - but it seems a stretch to claim historical "truth."

I'm not claiming that Joseph Smith made it all up. To be honest, I doubt he possessed the sophistication or the resources to put all this together. Nothing against him personally, I just think the BoM is a hell of a complicated story to conjure up with a rudimentary education. I have no idea where it came from, but I don't believe the author of 1 Nephi wrote when he said he wrote.

I don't think the BoM can stand up to scrutiny once it leaves the safe realm of religious texts and enters the historical sphere. As long as LDS seem convinced that the religious teachings in the book are dependent on the "historical" narrative being "true" or factual, there's going to be friction between those who possess secular knowledge and those who possess religious knowledge. Ask Thomas Stuart Ferguson, the LDS archaeologist who spent a lot of his life and a lot of church money looking for BoM lands.

[All-American]

I agree with what you said about the king-lists and the histories of Herodotus and Thucydides, having read parts of all of them myself. I might have to do some research on this one. I'd be interested to see to what extent the book of First Nephi correlates with what a writer of 600 BC might be expected to do, and to what extent it, if true, would be innovative.

[Solon]

Originally Posted by All-American

I agree with what you said about the king-lists and the histories of Herodotus and Thucydides, having read parts of all of them myself. I might have to do some research on this one. I'd be interested to see to what extent the book of First Nephi correlates with what a writer of 600 BC might be expected to do, and to what extent it, if true, would be innovative.

It's a really interesting topic. Let me know what you find. I've been rummaging around in Egyptian stuff and discreetly quizzing the Egyptologists in my department for a few months on this tack. I'm always open to new evidence.