53 replies to this topic

[Aliwe]

Flyonthewall, on 24 June 2012 - 04:27 PM, said:

So why can't Nephi be paraphrasing Deuteronomy? Nephi would not need the missing versus because of the audience to whom he was speaking. Acts does the same thing, omitting the missing verses because they were directed at a different audience.  Acts only references the important versus to the message being taught.

Yes, it is true that Nephi and Peter could have made precisely the same choices of material, as well as the same linguistic style, and transformation of "I will require it of him" to "cut off from among his people" but to my non-LDS mind it is just FAR more likely that Joseph Smith used the NT version.

[Aliwe]

Robert F. Smith, on 24 June 2012 - 04:22 PM, said:

Joseph certainly follows the KJV style of Acts 3:22-23 in his translation of I Nephi 22:20.  However, in so doing, we should note that the NT Greek typically follows the Septuagint Greek version (LXX), as here, rather than the Massoretic Hebrew text.  This accounts for the different KJV translation committees coming up with somewhat different translations.  Joseph as translator is to be permitted to follow whichever tradition he prefers, providing that the substance of the Vorlage on the Small Plates of Nephi is followed.

The Douay-Rheims version is a translation of the Vulgate, which itself is a translation of the LXX.  In that version, Deuteronomy 18:19 says, "And he that will not hear his words, which he shall speak in my name, I will be the revenger."

[Robert F. Smith]

Aliwe, on 24 June 2012 - 07:48 PM, said:

The Douay-Rheims version is a translation of the Vulgate, which itself is a translation of the LXX.  In that version, Deuteronomy 18:19 says, "And he that will not hear his words, which he shall speak in my name, I will be the revenger."

So?

[Aliwe]

Robert F. Smith, on 24 June 2012 - 10:03 PM, said:

So?

Consider me gone.

[Robert F. Smith]

Aliwe, on 24 June 2012 - 07:43 PM, said:

Yes, it is true that Nephi and Peter could have made precisely the same choices of material, as well as the same linguistic style, and transformation of "I will require it of him" to "cut off from among his people" but to my non-LDS mind it is just FAR more likely that Joseph Smith used the NT version.

The point, gentille Alouette, is that at I Nephi 22:20c, Joseph Smith used the same phrase as Leviticus 23:29b "he shall be cut off from among his people," rather than either Deut 18:19b "I will require it of him," or Acts 3:23b "shall be destroyed from among the people," leaving your NT source theory here in shambles.

As J. K. Elliott has stated in his Preface to his translation of the New Testament Apocrypha (Oxford Univ. Press/ Clarendon Press, 1993), xv,

Allusions to a Biblical text are not noted: the nature of many of these apocryphal documents is such that their authors were so steeped in Biblical or liturgical language that many echoes of scriptural passages occur throughout the writings without being conscious quotations.

[Robert F. Smith]

Aliwe, on 24 June 2012 - 07:28 PM, said:

The contents of what would later be the book of Deuteronomy were "found" in the temple by Hilkiah during the reign of Josiah long before Lehi departed for Yemen. Josiah used the occasion of the "finding" of the book to call the people to renew their covenant to God. And Josiah commanded all the religious items made for Baal, Asherah, and other gods to be burned outside the city. He tore down the apartments of the prostitutes in the cult of Asherah. He also destroyed the altar to the golden calf built in Beth-El by King Rehoboam.

What you say is generally true about the finding of a book of the law or covenant in the temple archives, and the consequent reforms of King Josiah -- including the formal reading of that document before the people, who then renewed their covenant, etc.  Scholars do believe that this document formed the core of the future book of Deuteronomy (which comes into existence in Post-Exilic times), but they also connect this future book with the work of the Deuteronomistic Historian -- who conducts a major revision of the biblical canon.  We simply do not know the contents of the core of that D-work.

What is truly remarkable about the D-work is that it systematically excludes mention of Jeremiah, Amos, Hosea, Micah, Zephaniah, Nahum, and Habakkuk.  The Bible as we have received it does not speak with one voice, but is an anthology of competing traditions: Priestly, Prophetic, Poetic/liturgical, Wisdom, etc.

[Robert F. Smith]

Aliwe, on 24 June 2012 - 07:25 PM, said:

The book of Mormon itself indicates the history on the brass plates only extends to Zedekiah's ascension to the throne.  Obviously there would be nothing about Zedekiah hacking off Nebuchadnezzar and getting Nebuchadnezzar and his whole army advancing against Jerusalem to lay siege to it, nor Zedekiah's attempt to escape the city, his capture in 587 BCE, nor the part where the sons of Zedekiah were slain before his eyes, and then Zedekiah was blinded, bound in chains, and taken to Babylon.  But the Zarahemlans might have filled in some of these details from their oral history.

Yes, Alouette,
Lehi & clan left Jerusalem ca. 597-596 B.C., so that any further details would have to be filled in by the descendants of Mulek, the son of Zedekiah who survived the slaughter you describe.  I place that latter event in concrete historical context at http://maxwellinstit...d=71&chapid=806 , demonstrating that Joseph Smith could not have known of such surprisingly accurate circumstances in his day.  Only relatively recent archeology has enabled us to take the measure of the Book of Mormon text, and to show time and again that the facts fit ancient history.  It is far easier to believe that the Book of Mormon is an ancient document than to believe that it is fiction -- by your own standards.

[zerinus]

Robert F. Smith, on 24 June 2012 - 05:35 PM, said:

In fact, many prominent LDS scholars have convincingly argued that Joseph Smith utilized a copy of the King James Bible whenever he came to lengthy biblical parallel passages. Among them B. H. Roberts, Sidney B. Sperry, Daniel H. Ludlow, and Royal Skousen. Seems the logical and practical thing to do.

Aliwe, on 24 June 2012 - 07:18 PM, said:

Thank you very much, Robert. I'd like to preserve your informative reply.

And of course, they were all wrong!

[volgadon]

zerinus, on 25 June 2012 - 04:06 AM, said:

And of course, they were all wrong!

Quoting for posterity, sort of. Really a classic response.

[SamIam]

volgadon, on 25 June 2012 - 05:03 PM, said:

Quoting for posterity, sort of. Really a classic response.

Volgadon,

I noted that as of the posting you are at 7777 total posts.  Surely 4 - 7's has some significance.

[calmoriah]

But if he responds to your comment he will break the perfection....

What to do, what to do....

[volgadon]

SamIam, on 25 June 2012 - 06:39 PM, said:

Volgadon,

I noted that as of the posting you are at 7777 total posts.  Surely 4 - 7's has some significance.

Fourfold perfection? I have exceeded fourfold perfection, that is an accomplishment. =)

[zerinus]

SamIam, on 25 June 2012 - 06:39 PM, said:

I noted that as of the posting you are at 7777 total posts.  Surely 4 - 7's has some significance.

I am just glad that it wasn't a 666!

Edited by zerinus, 25 June 2012 - 11:03 PM.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Just my thoughts -

First, I think we can reasonably assume that the language in 1 Nephi 22:20 is borrowed to some extent from the New Testament. However, there is something else to consider along with it. Nephi's Brass Plates probably did not contain Deuteronomy 18:16-17. Those two verses are almost universally considered to be part of a fairly late redaction of Deuteronomy. Verses 15 and 18 though, are viewed as highly likely coming from an earlier proto-Deuteronomy, which would be more reasonably read in terms of Nephi's text.

This theory was discussed in Catholic Biblical Quarterly by William L. Holliday in his article "Elusive Deuteronomists, Jeremiah, and Proto-Deuteronomy" (CBQ, Vol. 66 [2004], 55-77.)

The Book of Mormon uses this text (either as a quotation or a paraphrase) in three places:

1 Nephi 22:20 (already mentioned)

3 Nephi 20:23 "Behold, I am he of whom Moses spake, saying: A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you. And it shall come to pass that every soul who will not hear that prophet shall be cut off from among the people."
1 Nephi 10:4
Yea, even six hundred years from the time that my father left Jerusalem, a prophet would the Lord God raise up among the Jews—even a Messiah, or, in other words, a Savior of the world.

It is also alluded to in Jacob 2:5,30 and 3:11 (but see also 5:2). It seems to be alluded to in 2 Nephi 5:19-20:

"And behold, the words of the Lord had been fulfilled unto my brethren, which he spake concerning them, that I should be their ruler and their teacher. Wherefore, I had been their ruler and their teacher, according to the commandments of the Lord, until the time they sought to take away my life. Wherefore, the word of the Lord was fulfilled which he spake unto me, saying that: Inasmuch as they will not hearken unto thy words they shall be cut off from the presence of the Lord. And behold, they were cut off from his presence."

There is also the potential bit about Joseph Smith (but, that's perhaps a harder case to make).

Also, the Book of Mormon uses the parallel text in Deuteronomy 17 in several places (it is quoted or alluded to in Jacob 2:24 for example). At any rate, the whole issue of being "cut off" seems to be used consistently in the Book of Mormon (not just as a substitute within a New Testament text), and while sometimes the notion of Deuteronomy 18 is used in reference to the Messiah, it is also used more generally of prophets and their calling (which seems more in line with a reading of the Old Testament than with a reading of the New Testament). Further, we have the use of the parallel text in Deuteronomy 17, which is not used in the New Testament (meaning that the authors of the Book of Mormon were probably at least familiar with the Old Testament reading of Deuteronomy 18). It seems as one of the two sort of proof texts used of prophets (the other being Numbers 12:6). And all of these issues lead me to personally conclude that its probably using the Old Testament (even if it borrows from the familiar language of the New).

Ben M.