107 replies to this topic

[Bill Hamblin]

Rob Bowman, on 09 May 2011 - 08:17 PM, said:

Bill,

Actually, the explanation I offered is a Jewish explanation. Oops. Sorry to burst your simplistic bubble.

Quite right.  But it is a late harmonizing ad hoc, post facto explanation none the less.  The Chronicler was disturbed by an Ephraimite priest just as you are.  He changed the meaning of the text to harmonize it with his pre-conceptions just like you do.

[Rob Bowman]

Bill,

You wrote:

Bill Hamblin, on 09 May 2011 - 08:20 PM, said:

Quite right. But it is a late harmonizing ad hoc, post facto explanation none the less.

Nevertheless, your characterization of it as borne of a particularly evangelical approach to the Bible has been shown to be false.

Do you claim that LDS theology does not also take what you are here calling a "harmonizing ad hoc, post hoc" approach to explaining apparent discrepancies in Joseph Smith's revelations? Just curious.

You wrote:

Quote

The Chronicler was disturbed by an Ephraimite priest just as you are.  He changed the meaning of the text to harmonize it with his pre-conceptions just like you do.

No, that simply is not so, and a few minutes of comparing the two books will quickly show you why that isn't so.

[Bill Hamblin]

Rob Bowman, on 09 May 2011 - 08:27 PM, said:

Nevertheless, your characterization of it as borne of a particularly evangelical approach to the Bible has been shown to be false.

Come on Rob.  You're doing it because you are an Evangelical.  You're doing the same thing the Chronicler did for other reasons.

[Bill Hamblin]

Rob Bowman, on 09 May 2011 - 08:27 PM, said:

Bill,

You wrote:



Nevertheless, your characterization of it as borne of a particularly evangelical approach to the Bible has been shown to be false.

Do you claim that LDS theology does not also take what you are here calling a "harmonizing ad hoc, post hoc" approach to explaining apparent discrepancies in Joseph Smith's revelations? Just curious.

You wrote:



No, that simply is not so, and a few minutes of comparing the two books will quickly show you why that isn't so.

Now we're down to mere assertions.  

Everybody harmonizes.  So?  Does that mean you don't?  

The question is whether Samuel the Ephraimite was a priest.  You at last have agreed that he was, but now change your position and insist he wasn't an Ephraimite.

There is simply no logical way to explain why an early source, 1 Samuel, would mistakenly call Samuel an Ephraimite when he was really a Levite.
There is a logical way to explain why a very late source, Chronicles, would mistakenly call Samuel a Levite when he was really an Ephraimite (You do agree that Samuel is an earlier source than Chronicles, don't you?).  It is because of the crisis of Levitical genealogies and intermarriage during the return from Exile, when proving you had a correct Levitical genealogy determined if you could serve in the temple or be cast out (Ezra 9-10; Neh. 12-13).

[Bill Hamblin]

Rob Bowman, on 09 May 2011 - 08:27 PM, said:

No, that simply is not so, and a few minutes of comparing the two books will quickly show you why that isn't so.

The first thing to note is that Samuel is inserted into the 1 Chr 6 genealogy lists with no father.  Look at 6:13.  Whereas everyone else on the list has an ancestor listed, Samuel does not.  

Elkanah in 6:10 is the son of Kohath (6:7), the son of Levi (6:1).  So far, all present and accounted for.
Then 6:10-12 list the descendants of Elkanah:

Levi (6:1)
Kohath (6:1, 7)
Amminadab (6:7)
Korah (6:7)
Assir (6:7)
Elkanah (2nd line) (6:10)
Amasai &Ahimoth
Elkanah
Zophai
Nahath
Eliab
Jeroham
Elkanah

Each listed name is explicitly said to be the son of the former name.

Then, in 6:13 it starts a new list: Sons of Samuel: Vashni and Abijah.  But Samuel is nowhere listed here as the son of any other Levite in this list.  Note also his son is said to be Vashni and Abijah, not Joel and Abijah as in 1 Sam 8:1.  

Then 6:14 starts with Merari son of Levi and a different lineage.

Then in 6:18-23 it lists the genealogy of Heman the singer as follow.  I'll reverse the order from oldest to youngest (Heman).

Levi
Kohath
Izhar
Korah
Ebiasaph
Assir
Tahath
Zephaniah
Azariah
Joel
Elkanah
Amasai
Mahath
Elkanah
Zuph
Toah
Eliel
Jeroham
Elkanah
Samuel
Joel
Heman

Here is Samuel's genealogy from 1 Sam 1:1, oldest to youngest

Zuph
Tohu
Elihu
Jeroham
Elkanah
Samuel

Now let's compare these three lists:


Zophai         Zuph Zuph
Naḥath        Toah Tohu
Eliab        Eliel          Elihu
Jeroham        Jeroham Jeroham
Elkanah        Elkanah Elkanah
??Samuel??   Samuel Samuel
Vashni     Joel         Joel
               Heman

We can see that the lists have a number of differences in terms of names and spellings of both ancestors and descendants (and textual variants).  Furthermore,  the 1 Chr 6:1-12 list does not explicitly say Samuel is the son of Elkanah.  Whatever is going on here, it is clear the Samuel genealogies are garbled.

Edited by Bill Hamblin, 09 May 2011 - 10:07 PM.

[Rob Bowman]

Bill,

A little review for the train-of-argument impaired:

• You originally claimed that the explanation I suggested of Samuel's tribal affiliation is an example of "why people  think Evangelicals read scripture with their special blinders" (post #78).
• When I pointed out that my suggestion was actually a Jewish explanation (#79), you replied: "Quite right.  But it is a late harmonizing ad hoc, post facto explanation none the less" (#81).
• Well then, it doesn't require evangelicals to have their own "special blinders" to accept that explanation, does it? As I put it, "Nevertheless, your characterization of it as borne of a particularly  evangelical approach to the Bible has been shown to be false." To further reinforce this point, I then asked: "Do you claim that LDS theology does not also take what you are here  calling a 'harmonizing ad hoc, post hoc' approach to explaining apparent  discrepancies in Joseph Smith's revelations?" (#82).
• In response, you insisted, "Come on Rob.  You're doing it because you are an Evangelical" (#83), even though you admitted that I might have taken the same view if I were Jewish. And to my question about LDS harmonizing of Joseph's revelations, you replied, "Everybody harmonizes.  So?  Does that mean you don't?" (#84).

As should be obvious, I was not suggesting that I don't engage in harmonization. As you admitted, everybody does it. So that doesn't mean I don't; it means that my doing so does not involve the use of special evangelical blinders, or that I do it because I'm evangelical.

Now to the substantive issue. You had written:

Quote

The Chronicler was disturbed by an Ephraimite priest just as you are.   He changed the meaning of the text to harmonize it with his  pre-conceptions just like you do.

I replied: "No, that simply is not so, and a few minutes of comparing the two books will quickly show you why that isn't so."

You dismissed what I said as "mere assertion," which is fine, but I was encouraging you to discover the reason for yourself. Since you didn't, I'll explain it to you. Ironically, you practically stepped in it even while you were arguing for the Chronicler's harmonizing by altering the text.

The Chronicler did not "change the meaning of the text" because Chronicles does not include a passage or text parallel to 1 Samuel 1. Chronicles opens with genealogies and then begins its narrative with the death of Saul (1 Chron. 10), thus skipping entirely over the narrative of 1 Samuel 1-30. The genealogy of Samuel in 1 Chronicles corresponds more or less to what we find in 1 Samuel 1:1 but identifies Samuel's line as Levitical. This is contrary to 1 Samuel only if we accept the MT (the LXX differs) and if we assume that the Hebrew Ephrathi means "of the tribe of Ephraim." But this assumption seems as unnecessary as assuming that a "Judahite" was always a physical descendant of Judah. I agree that we shouldn't gloss over real discrepancies when we are faced with them, but there's no reason to manufacture one. Furthermore, if the Chronicler's intention was to harmonize 1 Samuel 1:1 with his religious position that only Levites could be priests, he went about it in a strange way. Chronicles does not reproduce the names of 1 Samuel 1:1 exactly but then place them in the Levitical genealogy, which is what we would expect a harmonizer to do. The Chronicler seems to have his own information about the exact names and offers nothing to explain how his genealogy should harmonize with the supposed earlier idea that Samuel was of the tribe of Ephraim.

Edited by Rob Bowman, 12 May 2011 - 12:37 PM.

[Bill Hamblin]

Rob Bowman, on 12 May 2011 - 12:36 PM, said:

I replied: "No, that simply is not so, and a few minutes of comparing the two books will quickly show you why that isn't so."

You dismissed what I said as "mere assertion," which is fine, but I was encouraging you to discover the reason for yourself. Since you didn't, I'll explain it to you. Ironically, you practically stepped in it even while you were arguing for the Chronicler's harmonizing by altering the text.

The Chronicler did not "change the meaning of the text" because Chronicles does not include a passage or text parallel to 1 Samuel 1. Chronicles opens with genealogies and then begins its narrative with the death of Saul (1 Chron. 10), thus skipping entirely over the narrative of 1 Samuel 1-30. The genealogy of Samuel in 1 Chronicles corresponds more or less to what we find in 1 Samuel 1:1 but identifies Samuel's line as Levitical. This is contrary to 1 Samuel only if we accept the MT (the LXX differs) and if we assume that the Hebrew Ephrathi means "of the tribe of Ephraim." But this assumption seems as unnecessary as assuming that a "Judahite" was always a physical descendant of Judah. I agree that we shouldn't gloss over real discrepancies when we are faced with them, but there's no reason to manufacture one. Furthermore, if the Chronicler's intention was to harmonize 1 Samuel 1:1 with his religious position that only Levites could be priests, he went about it in a strange way. Chronicles does not reproduce the names of 1 Samuel 1:1 exactly but then place them in the Levitical genealogy, which is what we would expect a harmonizer to do. The Chronicler seems to have his own information about the exact names and offers nothing to explain how his genealogy should harmonize with the supposed earlier idea that Samuel was of the tribe of Ephraim.

It is clear that you interpret the text with Evangelical presuppositions of inerrancy.  Your need to reconcile these supposed discrepancies would not exist if you didn't.  You would simply say, as I do, that the texts are contradictory.  

Do you agree that 1 Sam is much earlier than 1 Chron?  Do you agree that we should at least give presumed preference to older texts, closer to the events they describe?
Do you agree that when discrepancies occur, the more difficult reading is to be preferred, all things being equal?  Do you agree that there are numerous discrepancies between the 1 Sam and the two 1 Chr. genealogies?  The names of the ancestors and sons of Samuel are inconsistent.  That being so, there is every reason to believe the genealogies are garbled at best, and perhaps modified.  Do you agree the 1 Chr 6:28 does not say that Samuel is a son of any of the other Levites in the genealogy.  Every other name on this list can expressly identifies his father, but not Samuel.  Samuel is listed as the father of two sons (different from the 1 Sam story), but is not said to be the son of anyone on the list.  Why is that?  Why is Samuel the only person in the 1 Chr 6 genealogy whose father is not identified?  Can you give any reason why 1 Sam would change the text to Ephraimite?  

I think if this text were from the first centuries BCE, there might be reason to think that tribe and land might be intermixed.  Being that this text describes things before the foundation of the kingdom of Israel, tribal identities were still strong and were preferred to geographical identities.  The identification of Judah and Ephraim as national markers as opposed to tribal markers really begins in the divided kingdom period.

While your explanation may be possible, it fails to explain lots of issues.  The idea that the author of 1 Chr. modified the genealogies to make them consistent with Levitical genealogical ideology of his day explains all the data.  

I'm off on vacation for 10 days to see my lovely new granddaughter, so I probably won't be posting more on this issue.

[ebeddoulos]

Rob,

I suspect that you are missing the point.  Everyone mentioned in the 1 Chronicles 6 genealogy (except Samuel) has a father listed; thus proving their priesthood lineage back to Levi.  Samuel is miraculously inserted into the genealogy at 1 Chronicles 6:28; apparently without benefit of a father and thus his relationship to Levi.  It lists only his sons and even here, the verse is materially defective.

Quote

“It appears that the Joel is here lost out of the text; and that washni, which signifies "and the second," and which refers to Abiah, is made into a proper name.” (Canne, Browne, Blayney, Scott, et al, “Treasury of Scriptural Knowledge - reprint”, Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, [1982], pg. 279)

“Vashni - The true name of Samuel’s first-born, which was “Joel” (see the margin and references), has here dropped out; and the word properly meaning “and his second (son)” has been taken as the name of the first.” (Albert Barnes Notes on the Bible)

As illustrated the Biblical record at 1 Chronicles 6:28 is, at best, suspect.  On the other hand, the Biblical record at 1 Samuel 1:1 is quite plain, unambiguous and consistent with other similar verses.
  

Quote

“Now there was a certain man of Ramathaimzophim, of mount Ephraim, and his name was Elkanah, the son of Jeroham, the son of Elihu, the son of Tohu, the son of Zuph, an Ephrathite:" Samuel 1:1)

For the Hebrew אפרתי most Bibles either translate it as Ephraimite or the functional synonym, Ephrathite.  Based on the original Hebrew and current translations, it is clear that Samuel was an Ephraimite for that is how the NIV, CEV, ASV, DRB, HCSB, NKJV, NASB, RV, RSV, NRSV, NJB, and even the NWT translate אפרתי.  I know you are desperately trying to employ a special pleadings fallacy by under the guise of a "They did it, too!" argument. You are grasping at straws hoping that someone, anyone will believe you when you say Samuel was just from the land of Ephraim and really a Levite.  However, that is not what the Hebrew says, Rob. As illustrated below you must come up with a better argument.

NOTE: For those unfamiliar with Hebrew I provide the following interlinear.  Hebrew reads from right to left and then top to bottom. EDIT: Or it is supposed to anyway.  No matter what I do the site just does not like it that way so it rearranges it to read left to right (snazlefruugs!) I leave it that way in the hopes that someone gets something out of it anyway. I am also providing a Strong’s definition.

Quote

H673
אפרתי
'ephrâthı̂y
ef-rawth-ee'
Patrial from H672; an Ephrathite or an Ephraimite: - Ephraimite, Ephrathite.
(James Strong, “Strong’s Dictionary of the Hebrew Bible”, Nashville: Crusade Bible Publishers, Inc., [no date], pg.  16)


1Sa_1:1   ויהיH1961 Now there was  אישׁH376 man  אחדH259 a certain  מןH4480 of  הרמתים  צופיםH7436  Ramathaim-zophim,  מהרH2022 of mount  אפריםH669 Ephraim,  ושׁמוH8034 and his name  אלקנהH511 Elkanah,  בןH1121 the son  ירחםH3395 of Jeroham,  בןH1121 the son  אליהואH453 of Elihu,  בןH1121 the son  תחוH8459 of Tohu,  בןH1121 the son  צוףH6689 of Zuph,  אפרתי׃H673 an Ephrathite.

1Sa_17:12   ודודH1732 Now David  בןH1121 the son  אישׁH376 and the man  אפרתיH673 Ephrathite  הזהH2088 of that  מבית  לחםH1035  יהודהH3063  ושׁמוH8034 whose name  ישׁיH3448 Jesse;  ולו  שׁמנהH8083 and he had eight  בניםH1121 sons:  והאישׁH376 among men  בימיH3117 man in the days  שׁאולH7586 of Saul.  זקןH2204 an old  באH935 went  באנשׁים׃H376

1Ki_11:26   וירבעםH3379 And Jeroboam  בןH1121 the son  נבטH5028 of Nebat,  אפרתיH673 an Ephrathite  מןH4480 of  הצרדהH6868 Zereda,  ושׁםH8034 name  אמוH517 whose mother's  צרועהH6871 Zeruah,  אשׁהH802 woman,  אלמנהH490 a widow  עבדH5650 servant,  לשׁלמהH8010 Solomon's  וירםH7311 even he lifted up  ידH3027 hand  במלך׃H4428 against the king.

Those three verses beautifully illustrate the weakness of your special pleading argument.  They all say the same thing using pretty much the same terminology/formula.  They name an individual, identify his relationship to another person and then classify the individual as a member of the tribe of Ephraim.

In short, 1 Chronicles 6:28 is crippled and therefore so is your argument for Samuel being a Levite.  That is not the case for 1 Samuel 1:1.  It says what that Samuel was an Ephraimite using the same terminology and formula which is used elsewhere.  Rob, in spite of the inconvenience this causes your little agenda, Samuel was an Ephraimite and not a Levite. This makes him a prophet and a practicing Ephraimite priest and totally outside the Levitical structure.

Edited by ebeddoulos, 12 May 2011 - 10:46 PM.

[Rob Bowman]

Bill (and ebeddoulos),

There are diminishing returns in batting this issue back and forth much further. I think we've stated our respective positions regarding the texts in Samuel and Chronicles and I think we understand each other.

Bill, you pointed out that from the time of the judges until Josiah the Jews had failed to observe the Passover as set forth in the "Book of the Covenant." You argue that this was because there was no Book of the Covenant (which you identify as Deuteronomy) until the time of Josiah. As I see it, the text plainly claims otherwise. The book was found in the temple in the time of Josiah, and he was dismayed at hearing that they had not been doing what it said for so many years:

Quote

And Hilkiah the high priest said to Shaphan the secretary, "I have found the Book of the Law in the house of the LORD." And Hilkiah gave the book to Shaphan, and he read it. And Shaphan the secretary came to the king, and reported to the king, "Your servants have emptied out the money that was found in the house and have delivered it into the hand of the workmen who have the oversight of the house of the LORD." Then Shaphan the secretary told the king, "Hilkiah the priest has given me a book." And Shaphan read it before the king. When the king heard the words of the Book of the Law, he tore his clothes. And the king commanded Hilkiah the priest, and Ahikam the son of Shaphan, and Achbor the son of Micaiah, and Shaphan the secretary, and Asaiah the king's servant, saying, "Go, inquire of the LORD for me, and for the people, and for all Judah, concerning the words of this book that has been found. For great is the wrath of the LORD that is kindled against us, because our fathers have not obeyed the words of this book, to do according to all that is written concerning us." (2 Kings 22:8-13 ESV, emphasis added)

The plain and undeniable meaning of the text (whether one accepts it as historically accurate or not) is that the book had been around for a long time but that the ancestors of Josiah and his contemporaries ("our fathers") had failed to obey what it said. Thus, when the book was "found," and when it was read to Josiah, "he tore his clothes" in repentance and remorse over the failure of his people to obey it for so long. The prophetic revelation that Josiah requested came through a prophetess named Huldah, who told them that the LORD was going to bring disaster on Judah because of its disobedience to the commandments of the book, and in particular its history of worshiping other gods, but because of Josiah's repentant response the disaster would be delayed until after his death (22:14-20). When, therefore, 2 Kings goes on to tell us that the people had failed to observe the Passover since the time of the judges (2 Kings 23:21-22), in context what the text means is that the book predated the whole period from the judges to Josiah during which the nation had failed to observe the Passover as commanded in that book. Thus, according to 2 Kings 22-23, the "book of the covenant" originated no later than the time of the judges and presumably sometime before the judges.

Now, this passage in 2 Kings comes close to the end of the long, continuous narrative of Israel's history that runs from Joshua straight through the end of 2 Kings (Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1-2 Samuel, 1-2 Kings). It is therefore part of the same narrative that includes the account of Samuel's family origins and childhood in 1 Samuel 1-2 that we have discussed. Since Eli and Samuel lived during that period when the nation of Israel was largely neglecting or had even forgotten about the teachings of the "book of the covenant," it would not be surprising if during that period a non-Levite boy were to called upon to serve as a priest. So if (and I still think this is questionable) Samuel was not a Levite, this would not mean that his priestly activity is evidence against the doctrine that the Israelite priesthood properly belonged to the Levites. It would simply be another example of the neglect of the Deuteronomic law that Josiah realized his people had failed to obey for centuries.

[Rob Bowman]

Bill,

You wrote:

Bill Hamblin, on 12 May 2011 - 05:41 PM, said:

I'm off on vacation for 10 days to see my lovely new granddaughter, so I probably won't be posting more on this issue.

Congratulations, grandpa, and enjoy your vacation.

[Rob Bowman]

Brant,

I haven't forgotten this thread.... Actually, I've done a fair amount of reading in your commentary on the Book of Mormon in the past week, and I have found it very interesting. I do plan on finishing my review of your review of the DVD, hopefully soon.

[cdowis]

Perhaps this has already been discussed, but I think this is an important point.

The DVD is based on a false premise, "The Bible vs the Book of Mormon".  And these are two teams playing on the field of archeology.

But let me ask the scorekeeper one simple question:  if we find no archeological evidence for Moses or Israelites living in ancient Egypt, does that make the Bible "less true"?  If the time line of the creation of the universe does not fit what science tells us, is the Bible less true.


But does the BOM pass the test, "By their fruits ye shall know them." Does it bring one closer to Christ, a  second witness of His resurrection and the Gospel as proclaimed by Christ.

The producers present archeology as the model for judging spriritual matters, as if to say that we should use physics and astronomy to judge the Bible.  

Are we going to place our salvation into the hands of science and archeology, either for the Bible or the BOM?

Edited by cdowis, 23 May 2011 - 09:00 AM.

[Rob Bowman]

The Various Conclusions

  Critique: Murphy’s comment about the Smithsonian not using the Book of Mormon in archaeological research is technically true but neglects the fact that the New World Archaeological Foundation has used the Book of Mormon in that way.

  Response: And Brant neglects to mention that the NWAF is a Mormon organization. What does this prove, except that some Mormons have looked for archaeological support for the Book of Mormon? Besides, later the film explicitly mentions the NWAF and its efforts to find archaeological support for the Book of Mormon.

  ----------

  Critique: Brant counters the testimony of Gabriel Barkay, who denies that the Book of Mormon has any substantive connection to the Israelite culture ca. 600 BC, with the testimony of Margaret Barker, who drew a connection between a passage in the Book of Mormon and preexilic Wisdom symbolism.

  Response: Barkay is representative of biblical archaeologists and scholars generally; Barker, with all due respect, is not.

  ----------

  Critique: Murphy asserts that the Book of Mormon makes a mistake in saying that Jesus would be born “at Bethlehem,” ignoring LDS arguments that defend this statement.

  Response: Maybe Murphy didn’t think much of the defense.

  ----------

  Critique: Murphy claims that Dan Peterson was “lying” when he said about the Book of Mormon that “There is very little in it apart from the explicitly religious events (the miracles, the visitations, and so on) that a secular historian would find at all troublesome.” But Peterson was not lying about “the specific data” that he was discussing in context, and Brant has found “several ways in which the Book of Mormon reflects secular history quite accurately.”

  Response: What Murphy said was a lie was Peterson’s claim that there is very little in the Book of Mormon other than its miraculous elements that a secular historian would find troublesome. Pardon me, but do you know of any secular historians who find the non-miraculous elements of the Book of Mormon story historically plausible?

  ----------

  Critique: Wilson ridicules LDS defenses of the Book of Mormon references to horses on the erroneous basis that the Book of Mormon supposedly speaks of men riding the horses in battle.

  Response: I have already acknowledged that this was a bad mistake. Still, there are other problems with the suggestion that the horses in the Book of Mormon were deer or tapirs.

  ----------

  Critique: The film quotes Gordon B. Hinckley’s acknowledgment that the LDS Church does not believe in the traditional Christ of Christianity, and Wilson comments that Hinckley “has stated that he does not believe in the Christian Christ.” But in context Hinckley is simply denying that the LDS Church accepts the understanding of Christ found in the traditions and creeds. “That certainly does not sound like a denial of Christ or the worship of someone other than Jesus of Nazareth….”

  Response: In context, Wilson is simply making the point that Hinckley has acknowledged that the LDS Church’s view of Christ is different from ours. Wilson does not claim that the LDS Church denies that Jesus of Nazareth is the object of their faith. But it would have been better had the film quoted Hinckley’s statement more fully.

[Rob Bowman]

My Closing Thoughts

  There is an interesting thread in the general discussions section of this forum on Rod Meldrum’s DVD Lost Civilizations of North America. The opening post points out that a group of scholars interviewed for the film objected that their views had been misrepresented and that the producers had even misled them about the subject matter of the film, omitting any reference to the Book of Mormon and claiming the film would be about “appreciating First Nations’ achievements.”

  In that thread, Brant opined that Meldrum’s film “participates in the same practices” as the Living Hope film and that the one film is no better than the other. Yet he has provided no evidence in the Living Hope film of the same kinds of shenanigans that the scholars charged Meldrum’s organization of pulling. Brant has not shown that any of the scholars interviewed for the film were misrepresented or that the filmmakers lied to the interviewees about the subject matter of the film. Indeed, we know this is not the case because all of the major interviewees are shown expressly commenting on the Book of Mormon.

  The major theme of Brant’s review of The Bible vs. The Book of Mormon is that it does not bring contrary scholarly opinion and arguments to the attention of its audience. With the exception of Barker’s comment on one theological element in the Book of Mormon, the scholarly opinion that Brant is complaining was ignored is LDS opinion. In the case of the Bible, one need not ask evangelical or even other Christian scholars to find academic scholarship supportive of a great deal of what the Bible says about ancient history, peoples, geography, and cultures. The Living Hope film includes interviews with Jewish and Christian scholars, and they could have found agnostic and atheist scholars who would agree that numerous biblical locations, people, animals, materials, objects, and events are known with certainty from information outside the Bible. Even outright skeptics have to acknowledge this much. With regard to the Book of Mormon, the situation is very different. No non-Mormon scholar, to my knowledge, thinks that the Book of Mormon has a plausible geographical, historical, and cultural setting in ancient Mesoamerica, or anywhere else in the Americas. The film appears to be correct in its general representation that scholarship outside the LDS movement regards the Book of Mormon as entirely fictional and that it is only LDS scholar-apologists who argue otherwise.

  Brant is correct that the film is not itself a work of scholarship. But it does not claim to be. It claims to be a documentary produced by a church to present its views on the Book of Mormon in the interest of evangelizing Mormons. The end of the film makes this explicit. Interviewing scholars critical of the Book of Mormon does not obligate the filmmakers to give Mormon scholars’ opinions a full airing. Would I like to see such a film? Yes, I would, although it would have to be at least four hours long. Does the film commit some mistakes? Yes, and their handling of one issue (horses) was seriously flawed. But I don’t agree with Brant’s assessment that the film’s producers were “pretending” that Mormon scholars had no answers to their criticisms or that “the only reasonable conclusion is that they intended to deceive.

Edited by Rob Bowman, 25 May 2011 - 08:15 PM.

[Brant Gardner]

Rob Bowman, on 25 May 2011 - 06:21 PM, said:

The Various Conclusions

  Critique: Murphy’s comment about the Smithsonian not using the Book of Mormon in archaeological research is technically true but neglects the fact that the New World Archaeological Foundation has used the Book of Mormon in that way.

  Response: And Brant neglects to mention that the NWAF is a Mormon organization. What does this prove, except that some Mormons have looked for archaeological support for the Book of Mormon? Besides, later the film explicitly mentions the NWAF and its efforts to find archaeological support for the Book of Mormon.

And you forgot to mention that the charter of the NWAF expressly prohibits it from making connections to the Book of Mormon in their work . The NWAF simply does archaeology, and is well respected for the work it does. The extent of its Book of Mormon connection was a prediction that in a particular region they would find pre-Classic sites, which turned out to be correct. Surely you are not suggesting that any organization with a tie to a Christian funding source inherently cannot do good work in the Holy Land?

The point was whether or not there is a correlation between archaeology and the Book of Mormon. As usual, the film makes its point by obfuscation.

Quote

  Critique: Brant counters the testimony of Gabriel Barkay, who denies that the Book of Mormon has any substantive connection to the Israelite culture ca. 600 BC, with the testimony of Margaret Barker, who drew a connection between a passage in the Book of Mormon and preexilic Wisdom symbolism.

  Response: Barkay is representative of biblical archaeologists and scholars generally; Barker, with all due respect, is not.

Understood. However, we have no indication of how much Barkay actually knows about the Book of Mormon or whether he has read it. Barker, on the other hand, has. If you read her article noting the comparisons, you might find that it is the data that are important and that attempting to "kill the messenger" is not the appropriate method to distance yourself from the conclusion.

If you are suggesting that there is a bias against the Book of Mormon among archaeologists who know little about it save what they are told, I would agree. I respect Dr. Barkay when he talks of fields that he knows, but not when giving opinions about a topic he does not know much about.

Quote

  Critique: Murphy asserts that the Book of Mormon makes a mistake in saying that Jesus would be born “at Bethlehem,” ignoring LDS arguments that defend this statement.

  Response: Maybe Murphy didn’t think much of the defense.

Perhaps neither he nor you understand the argument. If you did, this would not have been your response. The argument is facile and countered not by argument, but by textual evidence that actually makes the Book of Mormon statement (in full context) an authentic period description.

Quote

Critique: Murphy claims that Dan Peterson was “lying” when he said about the Book of Mormon that “There is very little in it apart from the explicitly religious events (the miracles, the visitations, and so on) that a secular historian would find at all troublesome.” But Peterson was not lying about “the specific data” that he was discussing in context, and Brant has found “several ways in which the Book of Mormon reflects secular history quite accurately.”

  Response: What Murphy said was a lie was Peterson’s claim that there is very little in the Book of Mormon other than its miraculous elements that a secular historian would find troublesome. Pardon me, but do you know of any secular historians who find the non-miraculous elements of the Book of Mormon story historically plausible?

Pardon me, but your response ignores the egregious assertion that Dr. Peterson is "lying." That is a serious accusation, and one that ought not be made without evidence. A difference of opinion does not constitute evidence that one of the opiners is lying. Dr. Peterson would be lying if he said there was evidence and there was nothing. That isn't the case.

Now, your response is that secular historians don't accept the non-miraculous elements of the Book of Mormon. I am only aware of one who actually read the book. Most give their opinion based on what they think the argument is. In many cases, they are responding to some LDS writers who, frankly, haven't done a very good job of representing history. That doesn't impugn the text, but rather the interpreters.

The issue with Murphy is his assertion of lying, which is stronger language that a scholar ought to use without making a strong case. We don't have Murphy's case, and his known bias tells us that the language likely stems from bias, not scholarship. Having the statement in the film is intentional editing revealing the intent of the film--which obviously is not to present the kind of comparison that the film pretends to do.

Quote

  Critique: Wilson ridicules LDS defenses of the Book of Mormon references to horses on the erroneous basis that the Book of Mormon supposedly speaks of men riding the horses in battle.

  Response: I have already acknowledged that this was a bad mistake. Still, there are other problems with the suggestion that the horses in the Book of Mormon were deer or tapirs.

I notice that it is really hard for you to agree, even when you do.

Quote

  Critique: The film quotes Gordon B. Hinckley’s acknowledgment that the LDS Church does not believe in the traditional Christ of Christianity, and Wilson comments that Hinckley “has stated that he does not believe in the Christian Christ.” But in context Hinckley is simply denying that the LDS Church accepts the understanding of Christ found in the traditions and creeds. “That certainly does not sound like a denial of Christ or the worship of someone other than Jesus of Nazareth….”

  Response: In context, Wilson is simply making the point that Hinckley has acknowledged that the LDS Church’s view of Christ is different from ours. Wilson does not claim that the LDS Church denies that Jesus of Nazareth is the object of their faith. But it would have been better had the film quoted Hinckley’s statement more fully.

There is a problem with out of context quotations--they may be made to seem like they say something that wasn't intended. That happens here. The way the statement is edited again tells us of how the film is edited--no particular consideration for actual data, the appearance that they want to portray is sufficient.

[Brant Gardner]

Rob Bowman, on 25 May 2011 - 08:14 PM, said:

In that thread, Brant opined that Meldrum’s film “participates in the same practices” as the Living Hope film and that the one film is no better than the other. Yet he has provided no evidence in the Living Hope film of the same kinds of shenanigans that the scholars charged Meldrum’s organization of pulling. Brant has not shown that any of the scholars interviewed for the film were misrepresented or that the filmmakers lied to the interviewees about the subject matter of the film. Indeed, we know this is not the case because all of the major interviewees are shown expressly commenting on the Book of Mormon.

You don't see a parallel between misrepresenting a person's opinions and misrepresenting LDS scholarship on the Book of Mormon? Are you really suggesting that misrepresentation is acceptable as long as it accurately represents the person who is doing the misrepresenting? My standards are higher.

Misrepresentation in order to make a point does not make the point, and it tells us a lot about the nature of the editors who created the film (in both cases).

Quote

  The major theme of Brant’s review of The Bible vs. The Book of Mormon is that it does not bring contrary scholarly opinion and arguments to the attention of its audience.

Not quite. The point of the review is that the film creates an illusion that they are making a coherent argument, and that image is created only by selectively ignoring any contrary information and carefully controlling the way in which the information is presented. Eric von Daniken made a lot of money with a book arguing that ancient astronauts had been behind major civilizations. The book was persuasive, and spawned an industry (still seen in episodes on the History channel). He made his case only be selectively presenting evidence and by ignoring actual contexts. I would have a hard time defending that book by saying that it didn't intend to be scholarly and that therefore we should allow people to believe it without question because it quotes some people that believed what he did, or whose comments he could use.

That book misrepresented data, the film misrepresents. The review was exposing that tactics of the film, and your review of the review hasn't managed to change my mind either about their intent, or the content of what they present. The film either ignorantly or intentionally misrepresents the subject matter it discusses, and does so in a way that is obviously designed to support a pre-existing opinion. Do you know any other definition for such than propaganda?

Quote

With the exception of Barker’s comment on one theological element in the Book of Mormon, the scholarly opinion that Brant is complaining was ignored is LDS opinion. In the case of the Bible, one need not ask evangelical or even other Christian scholars to find academic scholarship supportive of a great deal of what the Bible says about ancient history, peoples, geography, and cultures.

And before we accept that statement as useful, let's find out what they actually know and on what basis they make such an opinion. I have an opinion about a lot of LDS publications about the Book of Mormon and it is no more favorable than theirs. The existence of bad scholarship does not preclude the existence of good scholarship. Responses to bad scholarship do not indicate that it is also a response to the good (and there is very little evidence that it is, and a fair amount that tells us that scholars can be just as prejudiced in their opinions as other mortals).

Quote

The Living Hope film includes interviews with Jewish and Christian scholars, and they could have found agnostic and atheist scholars who would agree that numerous biblical locations, people, animals, materials, objects, and events are known with certainty from information outside the Bible.

Even your argument supporting those scholars presumes an argument that LDS scholars don't make. That is part of the problem in these discussions. If you set out to argue a position that you create for your oponent, it is much easier to defeat than what they actually say. The term is straw man.

Quote

Even outright skeptics have to acknowledge this much. With regard to the Book of Mormon, the situation is very different. No non-Mormon scholar, to my knowledge, thinks that the Book of Mormon has a plausible geographical, historical, and cultural setting in ancient Mesoamerica, or anywhere else in the Americas. The film appears to be correct in its general representation that scholarship outside the LDS movement regards the Book of Mormon as entirely fictional and that it is only LDS scholar-apologists who argue otherwise.

Here is the difference and therefore the basis of their illusion. The comparison is made to archaeology of the Bible. While I am quite aware that there is a lot that correlates the Bible to archaeology of the Holy Land, I am also aware of the issues in many cases. The film points out that many don't believe the Book of Mormon versus archaeology, but not only neglects to mention that the Bible still has archaeological issues, but presents that Bible's archaeology as firmly established. That statement in itself clouds the issue and ignores all of the problems archaeologists have with matching any text to any archaeology.

Once again, the film makes its case only by selectively presenting information in a way that establishes a biased view of the topic. That is the problem with the film. It makes pretense of being a reasonable and scholarly comparison, supports that image by quoting scholars, and makes its case only by ignoring anything contrary to the point it wants to make.

Now, was it ignorance or intent? Not knowing the editors, we might graciously offer ignorance. However, the evidence of the editing and selections process points to intent. I cannot support any film which establishes its main point through deception and intentional cutting of the evidence to build a case against evidence that the editors know, but choose not to include. In this case, do we know that they knew? Some of the scholars probably do not. I understand Dr. Barkay's position and don't believe he was misrepresenting his opinion. I know Dr. Murphy's position, and know some of what he ought to know because I know some of the studies he has done. He knew better. The editors reference LDS scholarship in books they display and the kind of arguments they present against, so it is clear that they also knew.

They intentionally avoided anything counter to their opinion and created a film that makes its point by selection and editing, not actual engagement with the issues presented. This is propaganda. This is an illusion.

Quote

Brant is correct that the film is not itself a work of scholarship.

Quote

But it does not claim to be. It claims to be a documentary produced by a church to present its views on the Book of Mormon in the interest of evangelizing Mormons.

There are two parts of the sentence. The second is clearly correct. It is a propaganda piece directed at evangelizing Mormons by misrepresenting scholarship on the Book of Mormon in such a way that it might weaken the faith of Mormons who don't know enough to know that the film is blowing hot air.

Is evangelizing really so important that deceiving people is the right way to do it?

As for the documentary part, the film presents itself as a documentary, carrying with that title a presumption that it might be discussing reality. It presents scholars, providing the illusion that intelligent people who know believe only in a certain way. It creates that message only by ignoring anything contrary to its evangelizing intent. The intent is to evangelize, and to do so by open deception. I don't like that approach when it is used against the Book of Mormon, and I don't like it when (as in the other film in the other thread) it is used to support the Book of Mormon. I don't think any Christian work should be promoted through open deception.

Quote

But I don’t agree with Brant’s assessment that the film’s producers were “pretending” that Mormon scholars had no answers to their criticisms or that “the only reasonable conclusion is that they intended to deceive.

On that we share differing opinions, and I suspect that neither of us has actual knowledge. However, we have the film and it supplies its own evidence of the nature of its creation. Because we know some of the subject matter and, in the case of Dr. Murphy, some of his work, we can know what kinds of information was available to the editors and what they elected to leave out. We must necessarily believe that they had control over the final output--that is what editors do. Therefore, the nature of the selection of statements the presentation, the juxtaposition of statements and visuals, the way quotations were cut (in the case where we have the full text, as in President Hinckley's statement) all tell us that the editors were not ignorantly assembling information that they knew nothing about. The editors clearly had an agenda, obviously selected both the people to be interviewed and the statements used, and created the combinations of statement and visuals. All of that is intent. Their message is intentional. There is evidence in the film and the arguments presented that they were targeting some of the better LDS scholarship, but they did so by making the illusion that they were engaging in it and then carefully avoided it.

The review wasn't a defense of the Book of Mormon. It was an examination of the way the film was crafted to create its message. Behind the final message lies the way that message was presented. It is an illusion. No doubt some found it an effective illusion. That doesn't change the nature of the film. It makes its point only by selective presentation and selective omission. In what is now a long thread, I haven't seen anything that alters that opinion of the film. In fact the nature of the discussions only supports the fact that there are two sides to be told, and highlights the absence of one of those sides in the film.

[Rob Bowman]

Brant,

Thanks for having this discussion with me. We could probably go back and forth on a lot of points but I think we have probably gotten most of the value from the exchange that we are likely to get. If there is any point that you would like me to address, feel free to ask.

I think you make a fair point when you suggest that most secular historians and archaeologists who reject the Book of Mormon have probably not read it or at least have not acquainted themselves with LDS apologetic literature on the Book of Mormon.

On one point we are clearly agreed: the film is not a work of scholarship and is not up to academic standards. I have no vested interest in the film or in defending the film, and it doesn't bother me to acknowledge many of your concerns.

It is my intention to address LDS scholarship on the Book of Mormon in a very serious, academically responsible and even rigorous manner. I have now read quite a bit of your commentary on the Book of Mormon and find it to be by far the most sophisticated commentary of its kind I have seen (and I think I've seen all of the significant commentaries). I may approach you at some point about specific issues in the interest of clarification or ensuring that I am understanding the issues as accurately as possible.

Thanks again.

[bookofmormontruth]

Rob Bowman, on 26 May 2011 - 07:02 AM, said:

On one point we are clearly agreed: the film is not a work of scholarship and is not up to academic standards. I have no vested interest in the film or in defending the film, and it doesn't bother me to acknowledge many of your concerns.

Great! So when can we expect it as a "recommendation" to be removed from your website?

Excellent discussion on both sides!

[cdowis]

I have sent an email invitation to Living Hope Ministries, encouraging them to join our discussion.  Quite frankly, Rob seems to be losing ground, and they really need to share their ideas with us.

[email protected]

Edited by cdowis, 27 May 2011 - 04:45 PM.

[Brant Gardner]

Rob Bowman, on 26 May 2011 - 07:02 AM, said:

Brant,

Thanks for having this discussion with me.

Thank you. Although we obviously disagree, I think we managed to do it without being disagreeable. Here's to more such conversations.

Quote

It is my intention to address LDS scholarship on the Book of Mormon in a very serious, academically responsible and even rigorous manner. I have now read quite a bit of your commentary on the Book of Mormon and find it to be by far the most sophisticated commentary of its kind I have seen (and I think I've seen all of the significant commentaries). I may approach you at some point about specific issues in the interest of clarification or ensuring that I am understanding the issues as accurately as possible.

Thank you for the kind words. I will be happy to answer any questions you might have, either in open forum or privately, at your preference.