{"id":32645,"date":"2015-01-26T10:55:06","date_gmt":"2015-01-26T15:55:06","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/?p=32645"},"modified":"2015-01-26T14:31:16","modified_gmt":"2015-01-26T19:31:16","slug":"messianicity-historicity","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/2015\/01\/messianicity-historicity\/","title":{"rendered":"Messianicity &#038; Historicity"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>The Book of Mormon is a messianic text. As messianic, it means to\u00a0interrupt and overwrite our normal experience of time. When this overwriting occurs at the level of the individual, it&#8217;s called repentance. When this overwriting occurs collectively, it&#8217;s called gathering. Both kinds of overwriting implicate the other.<!--more--><\/p>\n<p>One basic question to ask about this messianicity is its relationship to historicity.<\/p>\n<p>Some people want to make the Book of Mormon&#8217;s messianicity a function of its historicity. &#8220;If it is historical, then it can be messianic.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>Secular critics of the Book of Mormon take\u00a0this position. They say, &#8220;the Book of Mormon can only be messianic <em>if<\/em> it is historical.&#8221; Then they can dismiss the book&#8217;s messianicity\u00a0on the basis of its thin historicity.<\/p>\n<p>Assuming that messianicity is a function of historicity is, in many ways, the secular move par excellence.<\/p>\n<p>I don&#8217;t recommend doing this. It seems like a bad idea. And it seems to miss the messianic point. If messianicity were a function of historicity then it wouldn&#8217;t be messianic!<\/p>\n<p>I&#8217;m not saying that the Book of Mormon isn&#8217;t historical, but I&#8217;m happy to say that it&#8217;s not historical in any ordinary way. Why? Because I&#8217;m willing to go to the mat for the claim that the Book of Mormon is a messianic text and things that are messianic are never historical in an ordinary way.<\/p>\n<p>The following seems to me to be the case: that the Book of Mormon&#8217;s historicity is, rather, a function of its messianicity.<\/p>\n<p>Not vice versa.<\/p>\n<p>Again, the Book of Mormon&#8217;s historicity (and it certainly has a variety of irreducible historical vectors of various strengths\u00a0in play) is\u00a0a<em> function\u00a0<\/em>of its messianicity.<\/p>\n<p>Still, it&#8217;s true, I think, that you never get the messianic <em>apart from<\/em> the historical. But this isn&#8217;t because the messianic is something that comes\u00a0<em>out\u00a0<\/em>of the historical (if so, it would be a function of the historical).<\/p>\n<p>Rather, the messianic can&#8217;t be thought apart from the historical because the messianic is, by definition, that which is working its way <em>into\u00a0<\/em>the historical\u2014interrupting it, questioning it, overwriting it, reshaping it. More, the messianic is that which\u00a0<em>gives\u00a0<\/em>historicity itself. Our normal experience of time and history is a subset of messianic time.<\/p>\n<p>With respect to the material of history, there\u00a0is a messianic in-working on display. The Book of Mormon isn&#8217;t a product of history. It&#8217;s not something that comes out of history.\u00a0The Book of Mormon, as a messianic text, is something that&#8217;s working its way\u00a0<em>into\u00a0<\/em>history.<\/p>\n<p>This is the thing to be investigated and accounted for.<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The Book of Mormon is a messianic text. As messianic, it means to\u00a0interrupt and overwrite our normal experience of time. When this overwriting occurs at the level of the individual, it&#8217;s called repentance. When this overwriting occurs collectively, it&#8217;s called gathering. Both kinds of overwriting implicate the other.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":135,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[55],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-32645","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-news-politics"],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/32645","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/135"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=32645"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/32645\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":32648,"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/32645\/revisions\/32648"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=32645"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=32645"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=32645"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}