The Value Of The Book Of Mormon As An Independent Textual Witness

[tagriffy]

In the thread "New Testament and Book of Mormon Parallels (Mark 16:Mormon 9)," cdowis wrote:

How do you account for the differences in Isaiah, including at least one from the septuagent. I forget the percent, but it is significant number.

That would indicate to me, and perhaps to "reasonable scholars", that these are two independent transmissions of the same material. If you are going with "JS simply copied the KJV passages", when you also include other questions, you have a very high hill to climb.

I initially responded:

Yes and no. The differences between KJV Isaiah and BoM Isaiah could indicate independent transmissions of the same text, but only if the BoM could be shown to be authentically ancient. Hence the importance of that proverbial "Welcome to Zarahemla" sign. As it stands, the contention the differences between the two points to different textual traditions has to be taken pretty much on faith.

Minutes after I made that post, I realized I egregiously overstepped a boundary I set for myself in that thread. I therefore edited that post to delete everything I said. Unfortunately, I was not quick enough, because cdowis was able to quote my original post and respond

Ah, yes. It comes down to that "book delivered by an angel" thing, does it not.

After further berating myself for my error, I suggested this topic be taken to another thread. cdowis (more or less) agreed, so now I am going to respond.

Yes, cdowis, it comes down to that "book delivered by an angel" thing. I realize both Elder B. H. Roberts and Sidney Sperry made similar arguments. I have to wonder whether people who make this argument really expect scholars in general to accept it without that proverbial "Welcome to Zarahemla" sign.

[Glenn101]

Yes, cdowis, it comes down to that "book delivered by an angel" thing. I realize both Elder B. H. Roberts and Sidney Sperry made similar arguments. I have to wonder whether people who make this argument really expect scholars in general to accept it without that proverbial "Welcome to Zarahemla" sign.

The various scholarly debates, and some not so scholarly are interesting, but will never be a conversion maker. The witness of the Holy Ghost is the real key, always was, and always will be.

Glenn

[volgadon]

While I am a strong believer in BoM historicity, I am hesitant to use it as an independent witness in such matters as Isaiah variants that have better, alternative explanations.

[tagriffy]

The various scholarly debates, and some not so scholarly are interesting, but will never be a conversion maker. The witness of the Holy Ghost is the real key, always was, and always will be.

Glenn

I'm not talking about making conversions.

[volgadon]

While I am a strong believer in BoM historicity, I am hesitant to use it as an independent witness in such matters as Isaiah variants that have better, alternative explanations.

What I guess that I am trying to say is that even if one accepts that the BoM was delivered by angel and translated through the gift and power of God, we still have to deal with the filter posed by Joseph Smith in accounting for textual differences. This is especially true of cases like the ships of Tarshish, where one needn't look further than the KJV. Issues like the lack of Isaiah 1 in 2 Nephi are far more interesting.

[tagriffy]

What I guess that I am trying to say is that even if one accepts that the BoM was delivered by angel and translated through the gift and power of God, we still have to deal with the filter posed by Joseph Smith in accounting for textual differences. This is especially true of cases like the ships of Tarshish, where one needn't look further than the KJV. Issues like the lack of Isaiah 1 in 2 Nephi are far more interesting.

This is basically what I am saying. If we expect BoM Isaiah to be accepted as an independent textual witness, it needs some means of outside verification. At this point, independent verification is impossible.

[Robert F. Smith]

This is basically what I am saying. If we expect BoM Isaiah to be accepted as an independent textual witness, it needs some means of outside verification. At this point, independent verification is impossible.

It may indeed come down to your demand for a "Welcome to Zarahemla" sign, or it may be that cdowis is right about "It comes down to that 'book delivered by an angel' thing, does it not," the lack of an independent textual witness for Isaiah something of a coup de grace for you.

However, before we go into the many other ways of substantiating the Book of Mormon through internal analysis as compared to the realia of ancient America and the Old World,, we ought to at least explore what actual textual analysis of the Book of Mormon demonstrates. A lot of published work is already available, and you ought to first respond in some reasonable way to that.

Sidney B. Sperry, “Book of Mormon and Textual Criticism,” Book of Mormon Institute, Dec 5, 1959.

Sperry, Answers to Book of Mormon Questions (SLC: Bookcraft, 1967), 92-93.

Robert F. Smith, “Textual Criticism of the Book of Mormon,” FARMS Update, Sept 1984, also available in J. W. Welch, ed., Reexploring the Book of Mormon (Provo: FARMS, 1992), 77-79, available online at http://maxwellinstit...d=71&chapid=786 .

As an example, standard Isaiah 10:29, the place-name Ramah reads instead at 2 Nephi 20:29 Ramath, thus exhibiting an earlier reading with an archaic Hebrew ending in -at.¹ This is all the more clear when looking at the many place-names with -at endings in Hebrew elsewhere in the Bible (esp. Joshua 19). Additionally, we can see from the Hebrew text itself at Isaiah 10:29 that Ramath is actually part of a couplet and in parallel with another word which has an -at ending not visible in English "Gibeah of Saul" (Hebrew Gibˁat-Šāʼûl). Moreover, even if the Brass Plates (from which such a quotation had to have been taken) were in Egyptian, the transliteration of the place-names would no doubt have followed standard Egyptian practice of inserting the -at endings, even though they were no longer pronounced.²

¹ Cf. P. Bennett, Comparative Semitic Linguistics (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1998), 35; S. Moscati, Introduction to the Comparative Grammar of the Semitic Languages (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1964), § 12.32-33; R. Holmstedt, “The Phonology of Classical Hebrew: A Linguistic Study of Long Vowels and Syllable Structure,” Zeitschrift für Althebraistik, 13/2 (2000):147 n. 14.

² A. Gardiner, Egyptian Grammar, 3^rd ed., 34 n.1a, “In status absolutus the t had probably fallen as early as O.K.,” citing ZÄS, 44:80 n. 2.

Edited June 3, 2013 by Robert F. Smith

[tagriffy]

It may indeed come down to your demand for a "Welcome to Zarahemla" sign, or it may be that cdowis is right about "It comes down to that 'book delivered by an angel' thing, does it not," the lack of an independent textual witness for Isaiah something of a coup de grace for you.

I'm not sure exactly what you are trying to say here. I guess you could say that the lack of an independent textual witness to BoM Isaiah is something of a coup de grace. Why shouldn't it be? If an authentic text matching BoM Isaiah were dug up somewhere, wouldn't it be a coup de grace for you? Are you saying that such a text wouldn't revolutionize Isaian studies? No, I think you and every other Book of Mormon advocate would proclaim victory--and rightly so.

So, back to cdowis' reasonable scholars. What do you really if you, say, went to a meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature and argued the BoM Isaiah represents an independent textual witness without producing a "Welcome to Zarahemla" sign? If you're lucky, you'd simply be laughed out of the room. Give them authentic independent verification, then the "book delivered by an angel" thing recedes into irrelvance.

However, before we go into the many other ways of substantiating the Book of Mormon through internal analysis as compared to the realia of ancient America and the Old World,, we ought to at least explore what actual textual analysis of the Book of Mormon demonstrates. A lot of published work is already available, and you ought to first respond in some reasonable way to that.

Sidney B. Sperry, “Book of Mormon and Textual Criticism,” Book of Mormon Institute, Dec 5, 1959.

Sperry, Answers to Book of Mormon Questions (SLC: Bookcraft, 1967), 92-93.

Robert F. Smith, “Textual Criticism of the Book of Mormon,” FARMS Update, Sept 1984, also available in J. W. Welch, ed., Reexploring the Book of Mormon (Provo: FARMS, 1992), 77-79, available online at http://maxwellinstit...d=71&chapid=786 .

It really is not my intention to debate Book of Mormon historicity as such. I think we both know that we can argue about it until we a blue in the face and at best we'd just come to an impasse. If you want to change my mind about Book of Mormon historicity, show me the "Welcome to Zerahemla" sign. It really is that simple.

Thank you for the provided resources. I no longer have my copy of Sperry's book, but I'm sure I will be able to find it again. The link as I clicked it here didn't work for some reason, but I was able to find your article anyway. If and when I'm able to get into serious work on BoM Isaiah, I will certainly take these resources into account.

[tagriffy]

Speaking of serious work on BoM Isaiah, has anyone prepared synoptic text of KJV Isaiah, BoM Isaiah, and JST Isaiah? If so, where can I find it?

[Glenn101]

Glenn101, on 02 June 2013 - 11:26 PM, said:

The various scholarly debates, and some not so scholarly are interesting, but will never be a conversion maker. The witness of the Holy Ghost is the real key, always was, and always will be.

Glenn

I'm not talking about making conversions.

So, you are talking about a purely scholarly and then only textual analysis of the Book of Mormon? Is this to somehow prove or disprove the Book of Mormon? I am not sure what position you are taking from the first post you made. I have not been back to the other thread to see what was going there.

Do you know of any non-LDS scholars who have done any serious textual work on the Book of Mormon or responded to the work of LDS scholars?

Glenn

Edited June 3, 2013 by Glenn101

[Kevin Christensen]

Why should we expect secular scholars to anymore impressed by a 'Welcome to Zarahemla' sign than they have been with the Nahom inscriptions that date to the right place and right time? After all, "Some things they may have guessed right, among so many" gambit works well, as Helaman 16:9 observes.

It's also always possible to insist on some abstractly perfect and independent notion of translation, and to ignore the implications of passages like this, from one placed to have more realistic expectations of the process:

"I might have rendered a plainer translation to this, but it is sufficiently plain to suit my purpose as it stands." Joseph Smith, D&C 128:18.

God's purposes an involvement do not seem to me to rule out the human factors in either translation or transmission. "Good enough" for the job, good enough to answer the demands of expedient purpose.

Nibley's discussion remains relevant.

http://maxwellinstit...d=73&chapid=890

I notice that David Wright's complaints about the Isaiah quotations in American Apocrypha amount to Wright basically saying, "It's not how I would have done it if I were God."

That, I notice, is actually a rather large and conspicuously dubious if. I don't think that the historical record provides any direct evidence that God ever does things differently than we see in Joseph Smith's case, which means that all arguments based on theoretical notions of what God would do or should have done are hypotheses unsupported by any real world examples.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

Edited June 3, 2013 by Kevin Christensen

[tagriffy]

So, you are talking about a purely scholarly and then only textual analysis of the Book of Mormon? Is this to somehow prove or disprove the Book of Mormon? I am not sure what position you are taking from the first post you made. I have not been back to the other thread to see what was going there.

Do you know of any non-LDS scholars who have done any serious textual work on the Book of Mormon or responded to the work of LDS scholars?

Glenn

I am arguing that so long as the Book of Mormon's provenance has not been proven, it cannot be used as an independent witness to biblical texts. Isaiah is a prime example, but not the only one. Technically speaking, this argument does not address the issue of BoM historicity.

I'm not sure what would count as a "non-LDS" scholar. David P. Wright, who was excommunicated? Someone in the Community of Christ? Someone totally disconnected from the Mormon movement? The answer could be "Yes" or "No" depending on what counts. So far as I know, there are no scholars totally disconnected from the Mormon movement that have done serious textual work on the BoM. I would guess Michael D. Coe would be an example of a non-LDS scholar who has responded to the work of LDS scholars, but his area is archaeology, not textual studies of the BoM.

[tagriffy]

Why should we expect secular scholars to anymore impressed by a 'Welcome to Zarahemla' sign than they have been with the Nahom inscriptions that date to the right place and right time? After all, "Some things they may have guessed right, among so many" gambit works well, as Helaman 16:9 observes.

Because for one thing, the Nahom issue isn't settled. Being able to definitively place Zarahemla on the map would be much harder to deny. That would be especially true if that discovery included the texts that served as Mormon's sources. And then could be used as a starting point to discover other Nephite/Lamanite sites. Some things may be guessed right, but at some point it would become irrational to continue holding out.

It's also always possible to insist on some abstractly perfect and independent notion of translation, and to ignore the implications of passages like this, from one placed to have more realistic expectations of the process:

"I might have rendered a plainer translation to this, but it is sufficiently plain to suit my purpose as it stands." Joseph Smith, D&C 128:18.

God's purposes an involvement do not seem to me to rule out the human factors in either translation or transmission. "Good enough" for the job, good enough to answer the demands of expedient purpose.

Nibley's discussion remains relevant.

http://maxwellinstit...d=73&chapid=890

Oh, the translation wouldn't have to be perfect. Our hypothetical text would only have to be, as you say good enough for the job of verifying BoM Isaiah is an independent transmission of the same material.

I notice that David Wright's complaints about the Isaiah quotations in American Apocrypha amount to Wright basically saying, "It's not how I would have done it if I were God."

That, I notice, is actually a rather large and conspicuously dubious if. I don't think that the historical record provides any direct evidence that God ever does things differently that we see in Joseph Smith's case, which means that all arguments based on theoretical notions of what God would do or should have done are hypotheses unsupported by any real world examples.

I rather think that Wright's are more substantial than complaining "That's not the way I'd do it." But since Wright's essay is irrelevant to the issue at hand, I see no point in arguing the difference of opinion here.

[cdowis]

I am arguing that so long as the Book of Mormon's provenance has not been proven, it cannot be used as an independent witness to biblical texts. Isaiah is a prime example, but not the only one. Technically speaking, this argument does not address the issue of BoM historicity.

I'm not sure what would count as a "non-LDS" scholar. David P. Wright, who was excommunicated? Someone in the Community of Christ? Someone totally disconnected from the Mormon movement? The answer could be "Yes" or "No" depending on what counts. So far as I know, there are no scholars totally disconnected from the Mormon movement that have done serious textual work on the BoM. I would guess Michael D. Coe would be an example of a non-LDS scholar who has responded to the work of LDS scholars, but his area is archaeology, not textual studies of the BoM.

That is the meaning behind the "book delivered by an angel." I find it rather interesting that demand for "Welcome to Zarhemla" -- assuming that we did find it, who would be willing to discuss this with us? Where is that invitation coming from? What group will look at it when the Smithsonian officially declares that it is a religious text, not for historical research.

Which scholasic organization would admit the possibility that angels exist and seriously look at the BOM, even with the existence of such a sign?

[cdowis]

Because for one thing, the Nahom issue isn't settled.

Of course not. Other texts have been authenticated with far less evidence, but that "angel thing" ....

Being able to definitively place Zarahemla on the map would be much harder to deny.

You are very naive if you think that any specific evidence is "harder to deny". Just watch Jay Carney in his press briefings.

That would be especially true if that discovery included the texts that served as Mormon's sources. And then could be used as a starting point to discover other Nephite/Lamanite sites. Some things may be guessed right, but at some point it would become irrational to continue holding out.

Who would really care among secular scholars

[Darren10]

Because for one thing, the Nahom issue isn't settled.

How is it not settled and what exactly needs to be done to settle the issue? I think this goes to the very heart of your wanting to know if the Book of Mormon may be used as an independent source for Isaiah and whether or not scholars will accept the settlement.

[tagriffy]

That is the meaning behind the "book delivered by an angel." I find it rather interesting that demand for "Welcome to Zarhemla" -- assuming that we did find it, who would be willing to discuss this with us? Where is that invitation coming from? What group will look at it when the Smithsonian officially declares that it is a religious text, not for historical research.

Which scholasic organization would admit the possibility that angels exist and seriously look at the BOM, even with the existence of such a sign?

The "Welcome to Zarahemla" sign would be of most interest to archaeologists of the American continents, of course. If evidence authenticating the existence of the Nephite/Lamanites turned up, it wouldn't be hard to get the Smithsonian to retract their message.

As I said before, "book delivered by an angel" thing would recede to irrelevance in light of undeniable evidence such as the proverbial "Welcome to Zarahemla" sign. The "book delivered by an angel" thing is just a particularly derisive way of dismissing the Book of Mormon because of the lack of evidence. The point is that if the evidence were such that it would be irrational to not look at the Book of Mormon as an independent textual witness of, say Isaiah, it would be taken seriously. Until such a time, scholars are justified in not accepting BoM Isaiah as such an independent witness.

[Storm Rider]

The "Welcome to Zarahemla" sign would be of most interest to archaeologists of the American continents, of course. If evidence authenticating the existence of the Nephite/Lamanites turned up, it wouldn't be hard to get the Smithsonian to retract their message.

As I said before, "book delivered by an angel" thing would recede to irrelevance in light of undeniable evidence such as the proverbial "Welcome to Zarahemla" sign. The "book delivered by an angel" thing is just a particularly derisive way of dismissing the Book of Mormon because of the lack of evidence. The point is that if the evidence were such that it would be irrational to not look at the Book of Mormon as an independent textual witness of, say Isaiah, it would be taken seriously. Until such a time, scholars are justified in not accepting BoM Isaiah as such an independent witness.

So if the historicity of the Book of Mormon were proved where does faith fit in? The only purpose of the Book of Mormon is to bear witness to the reality of Jesus Christ. Would historicity make Jesus more real to people? No, I don't think it would. The reality of Jesus still falls on faith, the witness of the Spirit as portrayed in Jesus' response to Peter in Matthew. Historicity is a nice hat to hang things on for all books of faith, but it still does nothing to prove what is the most important objective; to have faith in God.

[cdowis]

The "Welcome to Zarahemla" sign would be of most interest to archaeologists of the American continents, of course. If evidence authenticating the existence of the Nephite/Lamanites turned up, it wouldn't be hard to get the Smithsonian to retract their message.

Of course this is highly theoretical, since, with few exceptions, we still do not know the ancient names of the cities and geographic features in mesoamerica. Even the word mayan is modern.

Edited June 3, 2013 by cdowis

[tagriffy]

Of course not. Other texts have been authenticated with far less evidence, but that "angel thing" ....

Actually, it has nothing to do with that "angel thing."

You are very naive if you think that any specific evidence is "harder to deny". Just watch Jay Carney in his press briefings.

Sigh. Fine. Modify to harder to deny rationally if that is any more helpful.

How is it not settled and what exactly needs to be done to settle the issue? I think this goes to the very heart of your wanting to know if the Book of Mormon may be used as an independent source for Isaiah and whether or not scholars will accept the settlement.

As S. Kent Brown points out, the NHM inscription is in reference to a tribal name, not a spatial reference. While it is not unreasonable to suppose the NHMites named their home after their tribe, there is, so far as I know, no indication that the place the inscription was found is within that home. Suppose we dug around the Jewish temple and found an inscription saying something was donated by so-and-so, "a Zebulonite." We would not automatically conclude the temple is located in Zebulonite territory. If LDS scholars want to identify the location of the inscription as "the place which was called Nahom," they need to nail it down.

Identifying any location as the "right place" (I've seen some enthusiasts say "exactly where Joseph Smith said it would be") is itself problematic. The only definitive markers in Lehi's journey are Jerusalem and the Red Sea (and even then ...). The rest of the descriptions consists of X many days travel this way, Y many days travel that. As a result, even a cursory review of the Maxwell Institute's online library of articles reveal that there are a number of plausible models for Lehi's route. To resolve that issue, something would have to be discovered that definitively places the Lehite party at a given place. Given that the party was relatively small, such a find would be very unlikely. I don't expect anything to happen on that front.

[tagriffy]

So if the historicity of the Book of Mormon were proved where does faith fit in? The only purpose of the Book of Mormon is to bear witness to the reality of Jesus Christ. Would historicity make Jesus more real to people? No, I don't think it would. The reality of Jesus still falls on faith, the witness of the Spirit as portrayed in Jesus' response to Peter in Matthew. Historicity is a nice hat to hang things on for all books of faith, but it still does nothing to prove what is the most important objective; to have faith in God.

First, let me point out that this argument has no bearing on whether the Book of Mormon can be used as an independent witness for biblical texts. I already pointed out that without verifying evidence the BoM is authentically ancient, any attempt to assert the text is such an independent witness can only be taken on faith.

To a certain extent, I agree with you. To me, Book of Mormon historicity as such, doesn't matter. Show me that proverbial "Welcome to Zarahemla" sign and I will gladly eat everything (or almost everything) I've said about it being a modern work. The only relevance historicity has is interpreting the text.

Where I disagree with you is the implication that "faith" means "blind faith that ignores any sort of evidence." Even if Book of Mormon historicity were proven, there would still be issues for which we have to exercise faith, not the least of which would be the BoM gets God right.

[canard78]

That is the meaning behind the "book delivered by an angel." I find it rather interesting that demand for "Welcome to Zarhemla" -- assuming that we did find it, who would be willing to discuss this with us? Where is that invitation coming from? What group will look at it when the Smithsonian officially declares that it is a religious text, not for historical research.

Which scholasic organization would admit the possibility that angels exist and seriously look at the BOM, even with the existence of such a sign?

Finding a cave full of Mormon's library and sources that could independently translated would be pretty convincing.

[canard78]

So if the historicity of the Book of Mormon were proved where does faith fit in? The only purpose of the Book of Mormon is to bear witness to the reality of Jesus Christ. Would historicity make Jesus more real to people? No, I don't think it would. The reality of Jesus still falls on faith, the witness of the Spirit as portrayed in Jesus' response to Peter in Matthew. Historicity is a nice hat to hang things on for all books of faith, but it still does nothing to prove what is the most important objective; to have faith in God.

I always find this line of argument odd. Did a cave of Dead Sea scrolls remove the need for faith in the Atonement and the Bible?

[volgadon]

I always find this line of argument odd. Did a cave of Dead Sea scrolls remove the need for faith in the Atonement and the Bible?

None of the biblical DSS, though, are more than copies of copies of copies. In other words, they are ancient, but not ancient enough.

[Robert F. Smith]

..................................

It really is not my intention to debate Book of Mormon historicity as such. I think we both know that we can argue about it until we a blue in the face and at best we'd just come to an impasse. If you want to change my mind about Book of Mormon historicity, show me the "Welcome to Zerahemla" sign. It really is that simple.

Simple indeed. As simple as the demand that the Exodus will be taken seriously when one finds a graffito saying "Moses was here," which can be verified.

That simply paints a false picture of what biblical scholarship is all about, and that approach would tend to get you laughed out of the room at SBL and at any other learned society. If you want a picture of how real Book of Mormon scholarship proceeds, see the entry on "Textual Criticism of the Book of Mormon" on Wikipedia at section 8.2 online at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textual_criticism . Or read anthropologist Brant Gardner's 6-volume commentary on the Book of Mormon.

The same applies to the Resurrection of Jesus. While one cannot verify the Resurrection via logic or archeology, a great many other things can be said about the world in which Jesus lived and what he may have meant by what he said and did. An excellent example is James H. Charlesworth, ed., Jesus and Archaeology (Eerdmans, 2006). Understanding the context goes far toward helping us see what may have been the real thrust of Jesus' efforts.

The upshot is that, precisely due to that thing with the angel and gold plates, the Book of Mormon is so improbable that the "impossible" evidence adduced from its internal contents as compared to external realities can only argue its authentic historicity. So much so that it ends up buttressing the Bible, which has no angels and gold plates as an albatross to drag it down, but also has no evidence of the Resurrection or of the Exodus. Each one has something the other does not. Of course you don't want to discuss the historicity of the BofM with someone serious. You prefer to keep it simple, tidy, and unscholarly. Only then can you be safe, tagriffy.