8 ms·
> literacy may have been far more widespread than previously known in the Holy Land around 600 B.C., toward the end of the First Temple period. Interesting cor
by mholt 11y ago
> literacy may have been far more widespread than previously known in the Holy Land around 600 B.C., toward the end of the First Temple period.
Interesting correlation to the Book of Mormon, which originates ~600 BC in Jerusalem. In fact, page 1, verse 2 says:
> 2 Yea, I make a record in the language of my father, which consists of the learning of the Jews and the language of the Egyptians.
And further discusses how Lehi "hath written many things which he saw in visions and in dreams; and he also hath written many things which he prophesied." Lehi was of a priestly order, of which there were at least hundreds, if not thousands, of members, which also correlates well to this finding:
> But if the literacy rates in the Arad fortress were repeated across the kingdom of Judah, which had about 100,000 people, there would have been hundreds of literate people, the Tel Aviv research team suggests.
So anyway, the linked article and this source seem to corroborate each other.
Edit: Okay, lots of down votes. How does this comment not contribute to the discussion?
- jeena 11y agoIt's not clear to me if you're a joking or not but the book of mormon was published in March 1830 AD.
- mholt 11y agoI'm not joking. You know there are academics who study this for a living, right? http://mi.byu.edu/ http://mi.byu.edu/ - see especially the works of Terryl Givens, John Sorenson, Hugh Nibley, Richard Bushman, Grant Hardy... I never said it was published 600 BC. It was indeed published in 1830, but story within it originates ~600 BC. Very different things.
- freyr 11y agoAny scholars who aren't directly affiliated with the Mormon church who would corroborate these claims?
- mholt 11y agoIt depends on which parts of these claims we're talking about, but this article mentions a few of them, summing up their research less technically: http://ldsmag.com/article-1-1634/ http://ldsmag.com/article-1-1634/
- baldfat 11y agoThere isn't any outside collaboration I have ever read at all about the Book of Mormon BUT then again I actually had to read it in college. Never had a good conversation with a Mormon at my house. I get put on the list with the Jehovah Witnesses. My crime (I can read Greek and Hebrew) next time tell a JW that you now Greek and Hebrew and would love to talk with them. They leave nicely and their elders won't send a person to you for three years at least.
- gnaritas 11y agoMormons who study the book of Mormon don't exactly qualify as good sources, nor are Christians who study the Bible, nor are Muslims who study the Koran as all are extremely biased by their beliefs. Such people look for evidence to justify beliefs rather than looking at evidence to decide what should be believed.
- mholt 11y agoWe're not having a religious discussion here. We're talking academics: research, primary sources, etc. When did this become about beliefs?
- gnaritas 11y ago> You know there are academics who study this for a living, right? http://mi.byu.edu/ http://mi.byu.edu/ When you used BYU as a source, it became about beliefs. Religious institutions are not staffed by real academics, they're staffed by believers which disqualifies them as sources.
- mholt 11y ago> Religious institutions are not staffed by real academics, they're staffed by believers How do you explain this then? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Brigham_Young_University_alumni https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Brigham_Young_Universi... - BYU scholars have just as much impact for good in this world as any other accredited university. I've had BYU professors who are not Mormon. How do you explain that?
- gnaritas 11y agoIt doesn't matter if there's a few there, you can't have a few good apples in a bad bunch. If you want to be taken seriously as an academic, you have to be one at a real university, i.e. a non-religious one. Religious universities are oxymoron's.
- nitrogen 11y ago
- sk5t 11y agoIsn't it reasonable to say that adherents to the Mormon faith have a pretty strong motive not to find the Book of Mormon to be a bunch of baloney--in fact, to invent as many arguments as necessary to support the idea that it isn't? Edit: Appealing to the authority of academics seems a poor strategy when those academicians' dinners rely on toeing the party line.
- tymekpavel 11y ago> Interesting correlation to the Book of Mormon, which originates ~600 BC in Jerusalem. The Book of Mormon was written in 1830. Am I missing something here?
- mholt 11y agoIt certainly was published in 1830. The account within it originates ~600 BC.
- krapp 11y agoPlease provide some credible evidence accepted by mainstream archaeologists and scholars backing that up.
- mholt 11y ago> Please provide some credible evidence accepted by mainstream archaeologists and scholars backing that up. Backing up that it was published in 1830? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Mormon#/media/File:The.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Mormon#/media/File:The.... And that the account within it originates ~600 BC? See page 1 of the text.
- krapp 11y ago>Backing up that it was published in 1830? Of course not, that isn't even remotely controversial. >And that the account within it originates ~600 BC? See page 1 of the text. Page 1 of what text? Surely you're not suggesting people take the Book of Mormon's own text as evidence, that would be ludicrous. Page 1 of the wikipedia article wouldn't be credible either, so I don't know what text you're referring to. Although Wikipedia does point to a lot of pages questioning the Book of Mormon's authenticity as having an ancient origin, I haven't found any which actually validate it. Of course I'm not going to look very hard, since I already know that evidence doesn't exist and I strongly suspect you're trolling. No, I'm asking that you point to actual manuscripts which were incorporated into the the Book of Mormon which originated from ~600 BC, tell us where they were excavated from and by whom, and in what museum or university those documents currently reside. Independently verified evidence as to its antiquity. And don't cite any sources actually connected to the Mormon church.
- bduerst 11y agohttps://twitter.com/mholt6/status/720086233754370048 https://twitter.com/mholt6/status/720086233754370048 https://twitter.com/mholt6/status/720104906724663296 https://twitter.com/mholt6/status/720104906724663296 Stay classy, Matt.
- mholt 11y agoNobody was commenting with reasons for the down votes. What's classy about that?
- menssen 11y agoUpvoting this. It's at least as well reasoned as the original article. BUT it doesn't matter because it wasn't actually written down (and/or "revealed") until the 1800s, right? Is there a good academic treatment of the origin of the stories in the BoM?
- mholt 11y agoThanks, for distinguishing academics from religion. Trying to keep this academic but people keep turning it into a religious debate about beliefs. > BUT it doesn't matter because it wasn't actually written down (and/or "revealed") until the 1800s, right? Right, but that's still 186 years before this article was published. A text that's almost 200 years old still has historic value, whether or not one believes its contents. So there is an interesting link between this article and the book, regardless of personal beliefs. > Is there a good academic treatment of the origin of the stories in the BoM? There are some excellent resources at http://publications.mi.byu.edu/periodicals/jbms/ http://publications.mi.byu.edu/periodicals/jbms/. Yes, it's a religious university, but these topics are treated from a scholarly perspective. Also, https://bookofmormoncentral.org/ https://bookofmormoncentral.org/ has some great resources -- it's a fairly new resource with less technical articles but scholarly citations, and its faculty is made of scholars in near-eastern studies and related fields.
- menssen 11y agoOkay but the argument is pretty strong that since it was completely written based on divine revelation 2000+ years after the events it describes, the historical claims are difficult to corroborate. Is there scholarship on the legitimacy of the Lehi story, and, can you provide a link to the 101 version instead of a database? (I know, lazy, but you're probably used to the burden of proof being on you on this topic.)
- delecti 11y ago> So there is an interesting link between this article and the book, regardless of personal beliefs. This article is interesting specifically because of the evidence it presents about when the original texts of the bible were written. The historic value of the BoM is only linked to this article if it has a similarly distant origin. If the BoM is only 200 years old (i.e. the 600 BC origin is incorrect), then it's irrelevant to the discussion. It is only with personal belief that the BoM is 2600 years old that there is an interesting link between the article and the BoM.
- nitrogen 11y agoI don't think HN is the place to discuss religion except in a completely dispassionate intellectual way, which this article suggests isn't possible with the current HN community. But if we're going to accept religious discussions on HN we have to accept all of them. It is entirely unfair to give credence to one sect while demeaning another. --- Edit: Okay, lots of down votes. How does this comment not contribute to the discussion? Like many other comments in religious discussions, you are assuming facts not in evidence. But it is unfair to single you out. However, it would also be inappropriate for you to interpret the opposition you are seeing as confirmation of your position.
- gaur 11y ago> the Book of Mormon, which originates ~600 BC in Jerusalem. That's delusional bullshit.