Historical Criticism: Questions and Answers

Although some Latter-day Saints might feel concerned by the process of applying Higher Criticism to the Book of Mormon, some of the critical perspectives scholars hold can be comfortably reconciled with the text. This fact was illustrated in the first chapter of the present study, which compared the Documentary Hypothesis to the way the Book of Mormon presents itself as a redacted religious work. To choose another illustration, even though the Book of Mormon’s views on the Devil or Satan seem historically anachronistic form the perspective of Historical Criticism, a careful reading shows that they reflect critical paradigms.

Throughout the Book of Mormon, Satan appears as a character who personified evil, a fallen angel who “leads away” human hearts “to do all manner if iniquity” (3 Ne. 6:16). This notion is central to traditional Jewish and Christian beliefs. However, the Devil, as such, does not appear in the Old Testament. Historically, the idea of a devil or Satan began to emerge in Judaism during the Hellenistic period (323 to 30 BC). Critical scholars maintain that Judaism eventually adopted the idea as a result of Persian influence. Thus, one of the earliest historical references connecting the snake in Eden with Satan is the apocryphal book the Wisdom of Solomon, ca. 200 BC.

In the King James Bible, the term “Satan” only appears in 1 Chronicles 21:1; Job 1:6-9, 12; 2:1-4, 6-7; Psalm 109:6, and Zechariah 3:1-2 (the term “devil” in the singular never occurs). However, the word satan in Hebrew means simply “the accuser” or the “adversary.” Texts such as Job 1, which refer to “satan” indicate that this figure is one of the divine beings in Yahweh’s court. The fact that he is referred to with the definite article “the” (ha- in Hebrew) means that the text does not refer to a proper noun “Satan,” the later Devil of Judean-Christian thought, but rather the “adversary” who represents the side of justice. The adversary or “opponent” opposing Yahweh’s desire to bless Job on the grounds that his righteousness may simply reflect the fact that Job had never experienced anything difficult in his life. The divine being in this story does not personify evil. He is one of the “sons of God” or divine council deities who in this story personifies justice. Even the snake or serpent in J’s creation story is never depicted as a devil figure. He is simply a literal serpent who talks with the woman in Eden.

This historical approach to the concept of Satan as an evolutionary theological development in Judaism raises the question of whether the Book of Mormon’s reference to the Devil should be seen as anachronistic. A careful reading of the Book of Mormon, however, shows that in this instance, the Book of Mormon seems to reflect the way biblical scholars who read the Hebrew Bible critically understand this issue.

One of the key texts for understanding the Book of Mormon’s view of Satan is 2 Nephi 2:17. This passage derives from Lehi’s final sermons to his sons. The text reads:

And I, Lehi, according to the things which I have read, must needs suppose that an angel of God, according to that which is written, had fallen from heaven; wherefore, he became a devil, having sought that which was evil before God.

According to this passage, it was through the things he had read that Lehi learned about a fallen angel of God who became a devil. The notion of a Satan figure was something that Lehi was not taught before leaving Jerusalem around 600 BC. Moreover, the text even goes so far as to suggest that it was a doctrine that Lehi “supposed” to be true, a term in Joseph Smith’s day meant:

To lay down or state as a position or fact that may exist or be true, though not known or believed to be true or to exist; or to imagine or admit to exist, for the sake of argument or illustration.

This passage, then, presents Lehi proposing his own interpretations that was otherwise not known or believed to be true.

Reading through the Old Testament texts cited by Lehi and Nephi shows which sources Lehi most likely used to put together his supposition concerning Satan. His same sermon indicates that one of the texts Lehi used to create his understanding of Satan was J’s Garden of Eden account. Lehi refers to this fallen angel as

that old serpent, who is the devil, who is the father of all lies, wherefore he said: Partake of the forbidden fruit, and ye shall not die, but ye shall be as God, knowing good and evil. (2 Ne. 2:18)

However, given the fact that J’s myth simply presents a serpent similar to the view of the serpent in the Epic of Gilgamesh (i.e., as a literal snake), it would take more for Lehi to come to this interpretation. He would need to have a text that described a fallen angel. Such a view appears in Isaiah 14. This biblical passage is a lament, mocking the death of an Assyrian king from the time of Isaiah. Many scholars assume that the fallen figure in this text is Sargon II who was killed in battle in 705 BC. The text reads:

How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mountains of the congregations, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit. They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms. (vv. 12-16)

Even though this text refers directly to an Assyrian monarch who tried to make himself a divine being like the most High God, the taunt is based upon an ancient Canaanite motif of a literal divinity who tried to ascend to the throne of El, the highest god in the divine assembly. Moreover, despite the lack of an explicit Satan figure, Israelite traditions concerning a divine being falling from heaven appear in a variety of biblical texts, including psalms 82; Genesis 6:1-4; Ezekiel 28; Isaiah 14;12; 24:21; and Zechariah 3:1-2. It is significant, however, that Lehi’s son Nephi cites the Isaiah 14 taunt in 2 Nephi 24. Lehi’s statement that he gained a “supposition” concerning a fallen angel form the things he had read suggests that Lehi put texts such as Genesis 2-3 and Isaiah 14 together in a way to understand the theological notion of Satan before it later developed in Jewish history.

Historical Criticism presents some challenges to the Book of Mormon’s claims for ancient authenticity. However, oftentimes these issues can be resolved through a careful, critical reading of the text. This is certainly true, for example, with the Book of Mormon’s anachronistic understanding of Satan as a fallen angel who opposes God’s work. However, one of the challenges Higher Criticism raises that cannot be resolved through a careful reading of the text is actually its greatest religious strength.

Relate to the issue of the Book of Mormon’s historically anachronistic view of Satan is the text’s understanding of Jesus as the Christ. In terms of its theology, the Bok of Mormon possesses what scholars would refer to as an advanced or “higher” Christology. Book of Mormon prophets had an awareness of not only Jesus’ name, but that he was God’s divine son. We see this view, for example, in Book of Mormon texts such as Mosiah 15, which presents a prophet by the name of Abinadi teaching:

God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people. And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Son—The Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and the Son. (vv. 1-3)

Book of Mormon prophet’s show a familiarity with Jesus’ mission as a Messiah who will come to earth and suffer and die. Critical scholars believe, however, that this understanding of Christ did not develop amongst Jesus’ followers until after his death.

LDS scholar Robert Millet points to this dissonance when he writes: ”the Old Testament prophecies of Christ are often veiled, [whereas] the prophets of the plates of brass [i.e,. Israelite prophets cited in the Book of Mormon but not the Bible] are bold in testifying of the coming of Jesus Christ and are specific as to his ministry.” Thus, from an historical-critical perspective, the Book of Mormon’s greatest religious message (i.e., that Jesus is the Christ, the Savior of the human race) is also a sign of its modern influences.

However, given the book’s extraordinary origins, the Book of Mormon’s high Christology need not indicate that the book lacks an authentic ancient core. This point was acknowledged by non-LDS scholar James Charlesworth, a scholar famous for his work with second-temple Jewish sources. Regarding this issue, Charlesworth observed:

Mormons acknowledge that the Book of Mormon could have been edited and expanded on at least two occasions that postdate the life of Jesus of Nazareth. It is claimed that the prophet Mormon abridged some parts of the Book of Mormon in the fourth century A.D. And likewise it is evident that Joseph Smith in the nineteenth century had the opportunity to redact the traditions that he claimed to have received.

Charlesworth recognized that by its own claims, the Book of Mormon comes to us as a heavily redacted document. Historical anachronisms, therefore, such as the text’s advanced Christology, must be interpreted in accordance with the book’s intrinsic claim to be an ancient document produced as modern revelation.