Back to Mormonism Researched Page

Why Can't you Mormons Simply Prove the Book of Mormon True?

Research by Kerry A. Shirts

Just as a good question is half an answer, however, a good answer raises yet further questions. .. The most that a scientific approach can do in this realm, as in any other, is to achieve probability.[1] It is precisely the same thing with the Bible. P.R.S. Moorey has noted that John Bright, a premier Bible scholar showed "that in spite of all the amazing evidence that archaeology has brought, not one single item in the entire Hexateuch tradition has been proved true in the strict sense of that word. Archaeology cannot bring that sort of proof...the question is not: does archaeology 'prove' the biblical tradition? but: where is the balance of probability in the matter? That is indeed the area in which the historian usually labours. He weighs the evidence, and does not brush aside the more probable for the less probable."[2] Klaus Berger, a Dead Sea Scroll scholar, has noted that "No scholar of literature or history would ever claim to have ascertained the ultimate truth...but in the discussion one may expect arguments that make something at least probable and plausible."[3]

Most reasonable scholars accept the same criteria for the Book of Mormon. THe idea of proving something is a challenging one to be sure, but with the Book of Mormon we have to wonder. "Proving" the Book of Mormon is another matter. You cannot prove the genuineness of any document to one who has decided not to accept it. The scribes and Pharisees of old constantly asked Jesus for proof, and when it was set before them in overwhelming abundance they continued to disbelieve: "O ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky; but can ye not discern the signs of the times?" (Matthew 16:3). When a man asks for proof we can be pretty sure that proof is the last thing in the world he really wants. His request is thrown out as a challenge, and the chances are that he has no intention of being shown up. After all these years the Bible itself is still not proven to those who do not choose to believe it, and the eminent Harry Torczyner now declares that the main problem of Bible study today is to determine whether or not "the Biblical speeches, songs and laws are forgeries."[Harry Torczyner, "Das literarische Problem der Bibel," ZDMG 10 (1931): 287-88.[4]

Jacoby, the foremost authority on Greek historical writing, observes that no great historical writing was ever produced "sine ira et studio"—in other words, without partiality—one must take a stand on something if one is to lift or move anything. [Felix Jacoby, Atthis: The Local Chronicles of Ancient Athens (Oxford: Clarendon, 1949), 131.] An open mind is not a mind devoid of opinions, but one that is willing to change opinions in the face of new evidence. If we must assume something about the authenticity of the Book of Mormon at the outset, why not assume that it is false, as its critics regularly do? Because, says Friedrich Blass, once you assume that a document is a fake, no arguments and no evidence to the end of time can ever vindicate it, even if it is absolutely genuine. Why is that? Because "there can be no such thing as an absolutely positive proof." [Blass, "Hermeneutik und Kritik," 268.] The only possible certainty lies in the negative; for example, if we know for sure that a crime has been committed by a woman, the negative fact that a suspect is not a woman completely exonerates him; but on the other hand the fact that one is a woman proves neither guilt nor innocence. Thus, while we can never prove absolutely that the Book of Mormon is what it claims to be, we are justified at the outset in assuming that it is what it claims to be. If one assumes that it is true, its features at least become testable.[5]

The same is true of translating and reading ancient discovered writings. "But how can we know if we are understanding a text correctly? Zeitlin admits loudly and often that the scrolls make no sense to him, they are not in his language; yet he heaps scorn on "all the scholars who deal with the scrolls with the aid of a dictionary." [Zeitlin, "The Dead Sea Scrolls," 390.] Since nobody alive speaks the language of the scrolls, it is hard to see how anyone can get very far without a dictionary. The same is true of any ancient language—yet ancient languages are read! The first rule of exegesis is that if a text means something it means something! That is to say, if a writing conveys a consistent message to a reader there is a good chance that that text is being at least partly understood correctly. The longer the text is that continues thus to give forth consistent and connected meaning, the greater the probability that it is being read rightly; and the greater the number of people who derive the same meaning from a text independently, the greater the probability that that meaning is the right one. It should never be forgotten, however, that the interpretation of an ancient text never rises above the level of a high plausibility—there is no final certainty. The history of scholarship is the story of one man who dares to rebuke and correct all the other scholars in the world on a point in which they have been in perfect agreement for hundreds of years—and proves them wrong! That is one reason why an inspired translation of the Book of Mormon is infinitely to be preferred to the original text, for if we had the original all the scholars could very easily be wrong in their reading of any passages. None the less, in the long run the statistical argument is the one we must appeal to in cases of doubt.[6] The reasons are rather obvious. Proof is not what we are after.

In fact, the rather famous Biblical Archaeologist said it best, "Archaeology can prove very little about anything without minds stored with a wide-ranging variety of information..."[7] And this is precisely the issue in all the major historical disciplines from the recently touted "Jesus Research" to Atlantis, the Indo-European issues, to King Arthur. Serious, informed historians and scholars seldom deal with proof nor do they feel this is the correct approach. R.G. Collingwood notes that historical reconstruction is simply an historian infers information based on what the authorities have told about, and the historian "is never depending on his authorities in the sense of repeating what they tell him; he is relying on his own powers and constituting himself his own authority; while his so-called authorities are now not authorities at all but only evidence."[8]Interestingly Barbara Tuchman also, after demonstrating the evidence for one of her discussions noted that "All or some of this may or may not be valid."[9] The reason for plausibility rather than proof is honestly quite simple. In discussing the new information of ancient Greece, for instance, we find out that what we thought we knew, isn't necessarily so. "But much other archaeological materials is new, for our knowledge of the early history of this area...has changed dramatically within the last few years, and is still changing with a speed that defies any ambition to offer definitive statements.[10]

In presenting their theory and ideas on the Book of J, Bloom and Rosenberg note that there is simply no way to know the circumstance upon which the work was composed, or even the purposes of the composition, so what we are left with is our own experience as readers, i.e. our own interpretations of the situation, "but our moral imaginations can claculate the passage or possibilities into probabilities..."[11] Erich Auerbach notes that the biblical stories were written as the writers believed them to be, which was based in historic reality, our issue is concerned with how we understand the ancient stories. "To write history is so difficult that most historians are forced to make concessions to the techniques of legend."[12]

In dealing with King Arthur, Norma Lorre Goodrich notes that statements of ancient writers "are probably true," and she deals in probabilities throughout her reconstruction of the very serious historical King Arthur.[13] Barbara Tuchman notes the same preponderance in her own research of the Black Plague, only 600 years ago. "With all this wealth, empty spaces nevertheless exist where the problem is not contradictory information but no information. To bridge the gap, one must make use of what seems the likely and natural explanation, which accounts for the proliferation of 'probably' and 'presumably' in my text - annoying but, in the absence of documented certainty, unavoidable."[14] The historian Marc Bloch noted that "reality offers us a nearly infinite number of lines of force which all converge together upon the same phenomenon."[15] We also read that "the historian... must discover at least with some probability the general connectedness of events,"[16] And how is this done except by inferences? Thus, lamentably, we also learn that "inferences remain incapable of final proof, and thus evidence and its evaluation remain inexact for the historian...because historians deals with the inexact, they have developed certain common-sense rules for evaluating evidence in terms of its reliability, its relevance, its significance, and its singularity."[17] The historian were are informed "is both discoverer and creator. To the uniqueness of his role we have a clue in the very word 'history,' which means both the course of the past and the legible account of the past. The historian is always trying to reduce, or remove, that ambiguity."[18] Coupled with the glib reality that "there is no absolute reality but only subjective and often contradictory conceptions of reality," we are humbled at the prospect of trying to figure out historical reality, whether of the Book of Mormon, Book of Abraham or other ancient subjects.[19] The past is simply uncertain, unknown, and unknowable, without interpretation, but it is our interpretation! "We can never be certain that we have recaptured it as it really is. But the least we can do is to stay within the evidence...selection is what determines the ultimate product," [of whatever the historian is writing of].[20] THe stark fact is "no historian goes far in his work without realizing that he must select some events, from the inexhaustible supply of them, because these are for some reason more important; then he must order these according to some scheme of relationship."[21]

Both Charles Pellegrino and Eberhard Zangger have interesting, scholarly, and very informative ideas concerning the serious historical aspects of Atlantis, though their themes are as divergent as can be, while both are aware that it is the realm of possibility and probability that the argument takes place.[22]

On the invader problem in the Indo-European discussions, from 1200 B.C. - 800 B.C. "the archaeological evidence for these invaders is not yet secure, especially since there is an embarrassing gap between their occupation of Troy VIIb in the twelfth century and the earliest emergence of distinctive Phyrgian pottery in central Anatolia during the eighth century B.C."[23]

On Jesus research we are overwhelmed with incredibly interesting and enlightening discussions as historians, archaeologists, and scholars attempt to understand the history behind the events in the Bible. Helmut Koester notes that scholars have presented "carefully argued essay[s]" and there have been proposed further elaborations, etc., of various ideas on the Gospels themselves. In fact, "it is not evident why the term 'Gospel' - once the technical term for the early Christian missionary preaching - became the title for a particular type of literature."[24] Mysteries of contextual relationships and dependency abound in New Testament studies as "Q challenges the New Testament account of Christian origins by offering another, more plausible account of the first forty years."[25] There it is again! Plausibility is the determining factor in historical scriptural studies. Raymond Brown notes "the plausible relationships between Qumran and the New Testament are indirect," yet acknowledges that other scholars see possible connections. "We shall confine ourselves to those parallels which seem to have plausibility, leaving aside more ingenious suggestions which are unfortunately incapable of proof."[26] Oscar Cullman feels probability is all that is needed for serious discussion of the Dead Sea Scrolls and their relationship to Christianity, as does Bo Reicke.[27]Jane Schaberg in her feminist interpretation of Jesus acknowledges that her evidence "is a series of interlocking arguments, suggestions, hypotheses, possibilities, probabilities, and open questions."[28] The very idea that Gnosticism itself was born outside of Christianity "is far from being resolved. Even when we are able to say that certain texts... show absolutely no trace of Christianity - and a lot of research is still needed before we can be near to being sure - it would not be proof that Gnosticism was born outside of Christianity."[29] Finding the actual Jesus in all the historical and theological problems is a daunting task. "Consequently, results can never claim more than probability; but probability, as Bishop Butler said, is the very guide of life."[30] The scholarly concensus on this is quite adamant in fact, with the best probability of coming closest to what Jesus actually said and meant by focusing on the New Testament.[31]

As far as that goes, even today, with all our vast resources, thousands of Bible manuscripts, thousands of newly found texts from ancient Gnosticism, Christianity, Judaism, etc., nay "for over one hundred years to prove otherwise... we still have no evidence that Jews during the time of Jesus considered that God's Messiah would come and suffer...research on such issues leads not to easy answers but to perplexing questions."[32] Further to the point, the biblical Messiah idea "at best, [is] a kaleidosopic picture which lacks consistency."[33] And, especially on this issue of who Jesus was and who he thought himself to be we find the main goal is "what we are after is probability."[34] John P. Meier's fascinating historical analysis of Jesus "does enjoy a certain plausibility...all this makes for a plausible argument..." and he notes with certain aspects of John the Baptist that there are "tantalizing possibilities...both hypotheses are possible, neither provable."[35] Lawrence Schiffman declares "It was once thought that a history of the messianic idea at Qumran could be constructed that would go hand in hand with the archaeological reconstructio of the site's history of occupation. However, it has proven impossible to stratify the sect's messianic beliefs historically... we will never be able to construct an exact historical sequence for the messianic ideas and texts found at Qumran. The best we can do is to understand them within the framework just proposed."[36] Indeed, the very idea of an Urtext of an original Bible is merely a proposition.[37]

Robert Eisenman opens up his Magnum Opus on James as a brother of Jesus, with the idea that dominating scholarly preconceptions of the Dead Sea Scrolls would give way to new ideas since so much of the historical materials have been ignored![38] In research dealing with Messianism and the Scrolls, John J. Collins indicates that possibilities is what scholars have to deal with, not proofs.[39]

The relevance of all this for research and historical inquity into the LDS scriptures, whether the Book of Mormon or the Book of Abraham is seriously important. We Mormons are asked to present proven facts, and proof for the scriptures before critics will take them seriously. But the standard scholarly method for which we LDS scholars are also in line with, is dealing with possibilities and probabilities. Nothing is final, all research has not been done, much that is done, needs to be redone and changed, etc. If it is O.K. for the world's scholars to work within these parameters with other sacred texts, it is not too much to ask to also deal in these parameters with the Mormon scriptures.

Endnotes

1. Foreward to John Sorenson's An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon, Deseret/FARMS, 1986, p. xi.

2. P.R.S. Moorey, A Century of Biblical Archaeology, John Knox Press, 1991, p. 106. Cf. Sorenson, Ibid., p. 188.

3. Klaus Berger, Qumran und Jesus: Wahrheit unter Verschluss? Translated as Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls, The Truth Under Lock and Key?" Westminster John Knox Press, 1995, p. 12.

4. Hugh Nibley, An Approach to the Book of Mormon, Deseret Books, 1957, Introduction, p. 4.

5. Hugh Nibley, The Prophetic Book of Mormon "New Approaches to Book of Mormon Study", Page 56

6. Hugh Nibley, An Approach to the Book of Mormon, p. 179.

7. G. Ernest Wright, "What Archaeology Can and Cannot Do," in John Maier, Vincent Tollers, eds., The Bible in its Literary Milieu, William B. Eerdman's Publishing, 1979, p. 169.

8. R.G. Collingwood, The Idea of History, Oxford University Press, reprint, 1967, p. 237.

9. Barbara Tuchman, The March of Folly: From Troy to Vietnam, Ballantine Books, 1984, p. 49.

10. Michael Grant, The Visible Past, Charles Scribner's Sons, 1990, p. 15. He had also noted "these excavations have revealed how wrong we were to regard this age following the Mycenaean collapse as wholly 'Dark.'" (p. 7).

11. Harold Bloom, David Rosenberg, The Book of J, Grove Weidenfeld, 1990, pp. 9f.

12. Erich Auerbach, Mimesis, Doubleday, 1957, pp. 12-17.

13. Norma Lorre Goodrich, King Arthur, Harper & Row, 1986, pp. 44f. In her book on Merlin, dealing with his prophecy she notes that "there is evidence," and "there is confirmation," yet never proof of the historical materials, Merlin, Harper & Row, 1988, p. 177. Cf. Nicolai Tolstoy, The Quest For Merlin, Little Brown and Co., 1985, p. 57 where he also deals with possibilities, and probabilities.

14. Barbara Tuchman, A Distant Mirror: The Calamitous 14th Century, Knopf, 1978, p. xviii. Cf. her Bible and Sword, Ballantine Books, 1984, p. 2, "When the truth - that is, verifiable fact - is unobtainable, then tradition must substitute."

15. Marc Bloch, The Historian's Craft, Vintage Books, 1953, p. 193.

16. B.G. Niebuhr, "The Critical Method," in Fritz Stern, ed., The Varieties of History, Meridian Books, 1956, p.48.

17. Robin W. Winks, ed., The Historian as Detective, Harper Torchbooks, 1969, p. xvi. "much the greater parts of these events we can know nothing about, nor even that they occurred; many of them we can know only imperfectly; and even the few events that we think we know for sure we can never be absolutely certain of, since we can never revive them, never observe or test them directly." (p. 6). The everyday person who wants to know what happened in history has to reconstruct "this more remote and far-flung pattern of remembered things...the history which he imaginatively recreates as an artificial extension of his personal experience will inevitably be an engaging blend of fact and fancy, a mythical adaptation of that which actually happened. In part it will be true, in part false; as a whole perhaps neither true nor false." (p. 15).

18. Daniel J. Boorstin, Hidden History, Vintage Books, 1989, p. 3.

19. Paul Watzlawick, How Real is Real?, Vintage books, 1977, p. 140.

20. Barbara Tuchman, Practicing History, Ballantine Books, 1981, p. 18.

21. Paul Conklin and Roland N. Stromberg, The Heritage and Challenge of History, Dodd Mead & Co., 1971, p. 8.

22. Charles Pellegrino, Unearthing Atlantis: An Archaeological Odyssey, Vintage Books, 1991, p. 287 - "according to that one possible viewpoint..."; Eberhard Zangger, The Flood From Heaven, William Morrow and Co., 1992, pp. 11 - "The answer is probably..." p. 203 - "Therefore, the possibility of a quite different environmental evolution from the one suggested recently cannot be completely dismissed." etc.

23. J. P. Mallory, In Search of the Indo-Europeans: Language, Archaeology and Myth, Thames & Hudson, 1989, p. 31.

24. Helmut Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels: Their History and Development, Trinity Press International, 1990, p. 24f.

25. Burton L. Mack, The Lost Gospel: The Book of Q & Christian Origins, HarperSanFrancisco, 1993, p. 238. Cf. Robert J. Miller, ed., The Complete Gospels, Polebridge Press, 1992, p. 178 - "What follows is an attempt to recreate what a Signs Gospel would have looked like."

26. Raymond Brown, "The Dead Sea Scrolls and the New Testament," in James H. Charlesworth, ed., John and the Dead Sea Scrolls, Crossroad Publishing, 1991, p. 2f, also see note 6.

27. Oscar Cullman, "The Significance of the Qumran Texts for Research into the Beginnings of Christianity," in Krister Stendahl, ed., The Scrolls and the New Testament, Crossroads Publishing, 1992, pp. 25, 143 respectively.

28. Jane Schaberg, The Illegitimacy of Jesus, Crossroads Publishing, 1990, p. 195.

29. Simon Petrement, le Dieu separe: les origines du gnosticisme, translated by Carol Harrison, as A Separate God: The Christian Origins of Gnosticism, HarperSanFrancisco, 1990, p. 5.

30. John Dominic Crossan, The Historical Jesus, HarperSanFrancisco, 1991, p. xxvii, quoting Morton Smith.

31. James H. Charlesworth, "The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Historical Jesus, in James H. Charlesworth, ed., Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls,Doubleday, 1992, p. 8. Cf. p. 12, 40, where he notes that his explorations into the theme of Jesus raises more questions than provides answers! Otto Betz, "Jesus and the Temple Scroll," in Ibid., notes that suggestions are made, (p. 76), and some scroll fragments "may be taken as evidence," (p. 84), see also p. 86 where he makes suggestions to problems and also acknowledges that solutions presented do not exhaust what we can learn further. Charlesworth, "Jesus as 'Son' and the Righteous Teacher as 'Gardner,'" in Ibid., shows how scholars on closer discussions and research are changing their minds about what they once thought, (p. 141). Instead of coming outrught and claiming an impossibility, he notes that something is rather "highly improbable," (p. 155). You notice he is not dealing in proofs or refutations as final at all. He notes that rather than what went before in examining Jesus it is time for "a more reliable method for understanding Jesus' perception of sonship..." (p. 160).

32. James H. Charlesworth, The Messiah: Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity, Fortress Press, 1992, p. 8f. Cf. p. 31 where he calls scholars to look again at their assumptions! p. 17, note 39 demonstrates that the scholars, after all these decades of research "are simply too ill-informed."

33. S. Talmon, "The Concepts of Masiah and Messianism in Early Judaism," in Charlesworth, Ibid., p. 85.

34. James H. Charlesworth, Jesus Within Judaism, Doubleday, 1988, p. 137. He notes that "it is quite probable that Jesus appointed twelve disciples," on p. 138.

35. John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, Doubleday, 1994, p. 25, 27.

36. Lawrence Schiffman, Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls, Doubleday, 1995, pp. 326f.

37. Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, Fortress Press, 1992, p. 183.

38. Robert Eisenman, James the Brother of Jesus, Viking Press, 1996, p. xvii. Cf. his new analysis of the scrolls and early Christianity in The Dead Sea Scrolls and the First Christians, Element Books, 1996, p. 331 - "In my view, there is much to recommend an interpretation..." etc., a rather typical scholarly assessment of reanalyzing theories and propositions involving this fascinating subject.

39. John J. Collins, The Sceptre and the Star: The Messiahs of the Dead Sea Scrolls and other Ancient Literature, Doubleday, 1995, p. 107 - "it may possibly refer to the secterian community..." etc. statements like these abound in the scholarly literature.