值得再看:经典从过去:摩门经,历史性,和信仰

R. Millet
{"title":"值得再看:经典从过去:摩门经,历史性,和信仰","authors":"R. Millet","doi":"10.5406/jbookmormotheres.18.2.0070","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"A well-defined trend over the past two hundred years in secular biblical scholarship has been to sunder spiritual from historical, relegating events such as miracles and the resurrection to the category of “sacred stories.” This trend has also crept into some circles of LDS Book of Mormon scholarship, with adherents claiming an “expansionist” view of the Book of Mormon. They contend that the core of the text is historical but that so-called anachronisms in the text—references to the fall, atonement, resurrection, or new birth prior to the time of Christ—are due to Joseph Smith’s own interpolations. Because Book of Mormon writers and Joseph Smith himself clearly state that the text is entirely historical, this logically leaves expansionist advocates in the precarious position of claiming either that Joseph did not know the truth or that he lied. In contrast to this view, certain well-defined truths such as the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon, the reality of the First Vision, and the atonement and resurrection of Christ must stand as the foundation of the LDS faith.","PeriodicalId":337717,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Book of Mormon and Other Restoration Scripture","volume":"107 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2009-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Worthy of Another Look: Classics from the Past: The Book of Mormon, Historicity, & Faith\",\"authors\":\"R. Millet\",\"doi\":\"10.5406/jbookmormotheres.18.2.0070\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"A well-defined trend over the past two hundred years in secular biblical scholarship has been to sunder spiritual from historical, relegating events such as miracles and the resurrection to the category of “sacred stories.” This trend has also crept into some circles of LDS Book of Mormon scholarship, with adherents claiming an “expansionist” view of the Book of Mormon. They contend that the core of the text is historical but that so-called anachronisms in the text—references to the fall, atonement, resurrection, or new birth prior to the time of Christ—are due to Joseph Smith’s own interpolations. Because Book of Mormon writers and Joseph Smith himself clearly state that the text is entirely historical, this logically leaves expansionist advocates in the precarious position of claiming either that Joseph did not know the truth or that he lied. In contrast to this view, certain well-defined truths such as the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon, the reality of the First Vision, and the atonement and resurrection of Christ must stand as the foundation of the LDS faith.\",\"PeriodicalId\":337717,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of the Book of Mormon and Other Restoration Scripture\",\"volume\":\"107 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2009-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of the Book of Mormon and Other Restoration Scripture\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5406/jbookmormotheres.18.2.0070\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the Book of Mormon and Other Restoration Scripture","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5406/jbookmormotheres.18.2.0070","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在过去的200年里,世俗的圣经研究有一个明确的趋势,那就是将精神与历史分开,将奇迹和复活等事件归入“神圣故事”的范畴。这一趋势也悄悄进入了摩门教徒《摩门经》学术的一些圈子,追随者声称这是对《摩门经》的“扩张主义”观点。他们认为,经文的核心是历史的,但所谓的时代错误——指的是基督之前的堕落、赎罪、复活或重生——是约瑟·斯密自己的插入。因为《摩门经》的作者和约瑟·斯密自己都清楚地声明,经文完全是历史的,这在逻辑上让扩张主义的支持者处于危险的境地,要么声称约瑟不知道真相,要么他撒谎。与这种观点相反,某些明确的真理,如摩尔门经的真实性,第一异象的真实性,以及基督的赎罪和复活,必须作为摩门教信仰的基础。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Worthy of Another Look: Classics from the Past: The Book of Mormon, Historicity, & Faith
A well-defined trend over the past two hundred years in secular biblical scholarship has been to sunder spiritual from historical, relegating events such as miracles and the resurrection to the category of “sacred stories.” This trend has also crept into some circles of LDS Book of Mormon scholarship, with adherents claiming an “expansionist” view of the Book of Mormon. They contend that the core of the text is historical but that so-called anachronisms in the text—references to the fall, atonement, resurrection, or new birth prior to the time of Christ—are due to Joseph Smith’s own interpolations. Because Book of Mormon writers and Joseph Smith himself clearly state that the text is entirely historical, this logically leaves expansionist advocates in the precarious position of claiming either that Joseph did not know the truth or that he lied. In contrast to this view, certain well-defined truths such as the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon, the reality of the First Vision, and the atonement and resurrection of Christ must stand as the foundation of the LDS faith.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Evaluating the Sources of 2 Nephi 1:13–15: Shakespeare and the Book of Mormon Sealing and Mercies: Moroni’s Final Exhortations in Moroni 10 Abraham and Idrimi Memory and Identity in the Book of Mormon How Much Weight Can a Single Source Bear? The Case of Samuel D. Tyler’s Journal Entry
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1