Skip to main content

The Convergence Challenge

My first exposure to the idea or concept of “convergence” between text and history was in Brant Gardner’s 6-volume commentary Second Witness: Analytical and Contextual Commentary on the Book of Mormon (Kofford, 2007–2008). Gardner, in turn, had borrowed the concept from William Dever, a prominent Syro-Palestinian archaeologist who studied the relationship between the biblical texts and archaeology. I decided that, in order to fully understand how the concept worked, I ought to pursue Dever’s work myself, and so I have since read his What Did the Biblical Writers Know & When Did They Know It? (Eerdmans, 2001) and Who Were the Early Israelites and Where Did They Come From? (Eerdmans, 2003). Both are excellent books, though I do disagree with some conclusions in each one. I certainly learned much more about his method reading them, and although I would make some adjustments (based on the different nuances I have seen used by other, equally reputable scholars who come to somewhat different conclusions than Dever), I am nonetheless just as impressed as Gardner is with Dever’s concept of “convergences” as a means for determining historicity, and have made it a central element in my own method to examining the historicity of the Book of Mormon.

Just what is a convergence, you ask? Dever explains, “These convergences are points at which the two lines of evidence [the text + external data], when pursued independently and as objectively as possible, appear to point in the same direction and can be projected eventually to meet” (2003, p. 227). When a convergence can be demonstrated, Dever says it is all but proof of historicity.
Whenever the two sources or “witnesses” happen to converge in their testimony, a historical “datum” (or given) may be said to have been established beyond reasonable doubt. To ignore or to deny the implications of such convergent testimony is irresponsible scholarship, since it impeaches the testimony of one witness without reasonable cause by suppressing other vital evidence. (2001, p. 107)
Of course, it isn’t quite proof, but Dever goes on to explain what it would take to overturn such convergent testimony.
This may not offer ultimate proof of what happened in history; but to overturn that would require a more likely scenario, replete with new and superior independent witnesses. In the absence of that, skepticism is not warranted, and indeed is suspect. The skeptic may remain a “hostile witness,” but such a witness is overruled, and the case may be considered sufficiently established by all reasonable historical requirements. (2001, p. 108)
So a convergence is a powerful form of evidence in favor of the historicity of the text. In order to dismiss it, one must have a more likely explanation of the same data set, including new, better evidence. What is important to realize about this standard is it is not merely a matter of finding another explanation of the data—it requires a better, more likely explanation. And, it is not simply the date in the text which must be better accounted for, either. It is the convergence that must be explained in some more plausible way than assuming historicity. That is, why the data in the text and the external data point toward the same conclusion must be explained.

What does this mean for the Book of Mormon? It means that, when there is a convergence between the putative historical and cultural contexts (and there are lots, but I’m not going to get into that here) then it requires more than merely finding an alternative parallel from the 19th century than can explain the textual data. The would-be objector must explain why the text fits its historical context, and that explanation must be more plausible than simply assuming the text is historical. Hence, counter-explanations for, say, the NHM/Nahom convergence that merely focus on 19th century ways of explaining the data in the text are misguided and naïve. As is any other effort which assumes that if any 19th century parallels can be demonstrated, the case is settled; or that ancient convergences are only valid if it can be proven that it is impossible for Joseph Smith to have thought up such an idea within his own environment. Such methods are exactly backwards—whether there is some arbitrary way of explaining the text through any number of 19th century parallels does not explain why that item converges with its ancient historical context. In short, it simply does not account for all the data.


  1. Great concept! I may just add Dever's books to my to-read list.


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The 15 “Best Books” to Read BEFORE Having a Faith Crisis

Elder M. Russell Ballard recently stressed that it is important for Gospel educators to be well-informed on controversial topics, not only by studying the scriptures and Church materials, but also by reading “the best LDS scholarship available.” I personally think it is imperative in today’s world for every Latter-day Saint—not just Gospel educators—to make an effort to be informed on both controversial issues as well as knowing reliable faith-building information as well.
(Given that Elder Ballard’s CES address was published to general Church membership in the Ensign, I think it’s safe to say that Church leadership also feels this way.)
An important step in the process of getting informed is reading the 11 Gospel Topic essays and getting familiar with their contents. But what’s next? How can a person learn more about these and other topics? What are the “best books” (D&C 88:118) or “the best LDS scholarship available”?
Here are 15 suggestions.
1. Michael R. Ash, Shaken Faith S…

Responding to the New Video on Nahom as Archaeological Evidence for the Book of Mormon

Many of my (few) readers have probably already seen the new video by Book of Mormon Central on Nahom as archaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon, starring my good friend (and co-author on a related paper) Stephen Smoot. If you haven’t, check it out:

As usual, comments sections wherever this video is shared have been flooded by Internet ex-Mormons insisting this not evidence for the Book of Mormon. I’ve actually had a few productive conversations with some reasonable people who don’t think Nahom is, by itself, compelling evidence—and I can understand that. But the insistence that Nahom is not evidence at all is just, frankly, absurd. So I’ll just go ahead and preempt about 90% of future responses to this post by responding to the most common arguments against Nahom/NHM now:
1. The Book of Mormon is false, therefore there can be no evidence, therefore this is not evidence. First, this is circular reasoning. It assumes the conclusion (Book of Mormon is false) which the evidence pre…

“The Dominant Narrative is Not True”: Some Thoughts on Recent Remarks by Richard Bushman

The following is making its rounds on Facebook (from this video): Questioner: In your view do you see room in Mormonism for several narratives of a religious experience or do you think that in order for the Church to remain strong they would have to hold to that dominant narrative?
Richard Bushman: I think that for the Church to remain strong it has to reconstruct its narrative. The dominant narrative is not true; it can’t be sustained. The Church has to absorb all this new information or it will be on very shaky grounds and that's what it is trying to do and it will be a strain for a lot of people, older people especially. But I think it has to change. As I have seen this quote flash across my Facebook news feed and thought about how to make sense of it, I have been reminded of the short essay response questions I would often have on tests or assignments in college or even high school. It would not be uncommon for these questions to be built around a quote from an important schola…