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

[tagriffy]

There are very few things in life that I believe we can know in absolute terms, especially if they deal with relationships. History and other 'soft' sciences don't work well in absolutes either, imo.

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that at least sometimes convergence is the best we can hope for. So far, so agreed.

Kevin's statement seems to imply (I'll have to let him speak for himself on that point) that convergence is superior to what he called "coercive certainty." Do you agree with this? Why or why not?

[tagriffy]

As another example, our Joseph Smith--History seems to be dependent on Orson Pratt's An Interesting Account of Several Remarkable Visions and of the Late Discovery of Ancient American Records.

I erred here. Joseph Smith--History is the 1838 account. Pratt's pamphlet was published in 1840. Therefore the former is not dependent on the latter. I was relying on memory and remembered the wrong accounts.

I apologize for this error.

[Kevin Christensen]

Thanks. I was looking for this last night, but obviously couldn't find the right combination of words to Google.

You're welcome. I knew where to look.

So we do have some scholars who have put aside the angel and plates thing enough to look at it, and even treat it with appreciation. Do you think they would accept BoM Isaiah as an independent witness to the biblical text? Why or why not?

I think most of those who look at the Book of Mormon never manage to put aside the angel and the plates. But it is nice that some do treat it with appreciation. Up until Barker, Charlesworth did it best. But she's the only one of these group to to really test it. Most simply describe what they see using the lenses they are most comfortable with.

If the simple establishment of a fact makes me a positivist, then so be it.

The postitivist/empiricist view started coming apart when it was realized, as N. R. Hanson pointed out, that "All data are theory-laden." Theory influences observation. Think of Poe's detective story, The Purloined Letter. Think how Agatha Christie made waves with novels like The Murder of Roger Akroyd, and Murder on the Orient Express, by setting up situations that violated reader expectations for Who Done it?

Falsification has limits because networks of assumptions are involved in dealing with what we know. In practice, scientists have no qualms about making adjustments when they think they need to preserve a valuable paradigm. And we don't know what will show up tomorrow. And in practice there are no rules for choosing between paradigms. We can give our personal reasons, what Alma calls "cause to believe," but the opposition can always say, "So what?"

Either the Nephites existed or they didn't.

The issue for us is, would we recognize evidence for their existence when we saw it?

And I'm not asking for anything historicists wouldn't use to rightly declare a clear-cut victory in the debate. Point in case is how the NHM inscriptions are being used--don't forget, you used it yourself in this thread. Nail the case down by, for example, finding Ishmael's grave, and Latter-day Saints everywhere will be bragging about it--again, rightly so.

How would we know it was our Ishmael, and not someone of the same name? How do we know it's not just a clever fake or a misinterpretation? That is why I like Kuhn and Barbour especially.

Thanks again for Brant's quote. I was looking for it last night, but I was obviously looking in the wrong place. That was one of the reasons I could appreciate the approach. To a certain extent, it sidesteps the debate and gets on with the work of interpreting the Book of Mormon.

I'd been very impressed by Brant's statement when I first saw it, and quoted him at length, with is permission in my essay my response to Vogel in FARMS Review 16/1.

The rather interesting discovery made just a few years back was that I, and many other Mesoamericanists, had simply made some incorrect assumptions about the [book of Mormon] text. The attempts of LDS archaeological apologetics was for years focused on finding the Christian or the Hebrew—or who knows what—in Mesoamerican archaeology.

The difference came when I started looking for Mesoamerica in the Book of Mormon instead of the Book of Mormon in Mesoamerica. Oddly enough, there is a huge difference, and the nature and the quality of the correlations has changed with that single shift in perspective.¹⁰⁴

One might read the Bible and assume that Hebrew culture was reasonably important or powerful at times and that the monotheistic religion kept all others at bay. Of course archaeology tells us otherwise. So does the text, when we know how to correlate the remarks about groves and high places to the surrounding religions. When one realizes that we get so much of the religion of Yahweh in the Old Testament because it is combating other religions, we can understand that the text took place in a context. Knowing the context helps explicate the text.

The same is holding true for the Book of Mormon. It is the context that is interesting. Would I ever suggest that this means I think the Nephites were influential in the great flow of Mesoamerican religion? Heavens no—no more so than the Hebrews [were in the Old World]. Perhaps even less.¹⁰⁵

http://maxwellinstit...16&num=1&id=534

He also expresses the same notion in introducing his Second Witness commentaries.

Obviously if Sidon is found in a place like Chile, the work becomes obsolete overnight, but that is a risk worth taking in service of the more important goal.

That's why I think what Larry Poulson did is so important.

http://poulsenll.org...jalvasidon.html

The river Sidon , however, occurs

37 times in 28 different verses with accompanying directional and geographic information related to at least

six different geographical locations. Using satellite maps, a 3D satellite mapping program and the text of the

Book of Mormon, the geography of the Americas was analyzed in an attempt to find unique areas that

correlate with the textual descriptions of the river Sidon. The following comparison with the Grijalva River is

the result of that investigation.

Basically, Larry searched the entire Western Hemisphere for candidates that match the characteristics given in the text and found only one candidate. That may not yet be "Welcome to Zarahemla," but it does mean that if you want to find it, this is the place to look. That kind of specificity makes a difference. And it turns out that reading the text in light of that specificity also makes a difference.

Please elaborate.

Barbour points out that in practice paradigms are neither verified, nor falsified, but assessed by a range of criteria. One of the reasons paradigms resist falsification is that paradigms consist of networks of interconnected assumptions. For paradigms of great generality, it is usually possible to make adjustments in auxilliary assumptions. Say going from the notion of Darwins gradual imperceptable change to Gould's "punctuated equilibrium," periods of very rapid variation and speciation. That is an adjustment of auxiliary assumptions that strengthens a paradigm. When we do it, we're "so called 'apologists,' and never mind that D&C 1 allows for all sorts of adjustments of LDS understanding to come.

Many years back, I noticed a bumper sticker that said, "God said it, I believe it, that settles it." Of course, that leaves out the notion of misinterpretation. Postivism asserts that (1) science starts from publically observable data which can be described in a pure observation language independent of any theoretical assumptions, (2) Theories can be verified or falsified in comparison with this fixed environmental data. (3) The choice between theories is rational, objective, and in accordance with this fixed experimental data. In simpler language, the Data said it, Experiments proved it, that settles it. Again, interpretation as a variable is ignored. Specifically, the influence of theory not only results but on data selection and the design of experiments in the first place. There is the problem of circularity.

Fortunately, there are ways to get around that, as Kuhn points out, but it takes competition between two or more paradigms. It makes perfectly good sense to argue which paradigm is better, though that always involves a decision regarding which problems are more significant to have solved. There are constraints on interpretation. But there are always issues of selectivity, contextualization, subjective valuations, and our temporal horizons.

Alma 32 contrasts those who want to simply and finally "know" things with absolute certainty, and those willing to settle for "cause to believe" while engaged in an ongoing, self-correcting process of experiment, evaluation, expanded understanding, fruitfulness, and future promise.

Take Isaiah in the Book of Mormon. The simple answer is that Joseph Smith just copied the KJV, making occasional changes when he came to italics. David Wright says that the translation could have been done without word for word correspondence, and offers his own idependent translation as contrast, as what God should have done if he'd followed Wright's advice. But of course, the KJV depended heavily on Tyndale, rather than a newly independent translation, and there are advantages in following an existing popular translation that for the general reading public in that it makes their use of the Bible that much easier due to retained familiarity.

And there is the issue of Isaiah authorship, particularly the presence of what has been called Second Isaiah in the Book of Mormon, where, according to the theory and the Book of Mormon timeline, it should not be there.

So, what is my "cause to believe" in the face of such straight forward evidence? I looked the situation over when I was writing Paradigms Regained back in 2000. One of the things that impressed me was John Thompson's essay in Isaiah in the Book of Mormon.

In Isaiah in the Book of Mormon, John Thompson has an article called "Isaiah 50–51, the Israelite Autumn Festivals, and the Covenant Speech of Jacob in 2 Nephi 6–10." He writes that "from the structure and themes of 2 Nephi 6–10, one may conclude that Jacob's speech was given in connection with a covenant-renewal celebration that was most likely performed as part of the traditional Israelite autumn festivals required by the law of Moses."¹⁶

Recent studies like Thompson's make it plain that it is not just a matter of Isaiah scholarship raising issues for the Book of Mormon, but that the Book of Mormon should be recognized as raising issues for Isaiah scholarship. Remember that Barker cites authorities that believe that these Isaiah passages were based on the liturgy of a preexilic festival, and here we find that the Book of Mormon quotes them in that context. Why should that be so if the passages were entirely exilic?

Then there was Barker's argument that it was the Second Isaiah that declared that El Elyon was Yahweh. None of the Isaiah passages that made that argument appeared in the Book of Mormon, which also takes us back into First Temple Judaism. Interesting, I think. Subsequent to doing my essay, I noticed Barker's article on "The Original Context of the Fourth Servant Song" in which she makes the case that Isaiah 53 was originally inspired by King Hezekiah's bout with the plague, as interpreted in light of the role of the high priest on the Day of Atonement which also suggests that that particular chapter was composed by Isaiah of Jerusalem. If so, then that chapter, at least, should be available on the Brass Plates. (Barker does accept multiple authorship of Isaiah in general.)

These sorts of things strike me as not only interesting with reference to my own "cause to believe" but also as not at all the kind of thing I would expect to learn from anyone who presumes that the Book of Mormon is a nineteenth century production of Joseph Smith, inspired or not. Kuhn refers to the criterion of "fruitfulness", of seeing things that would not be imagined or explored under the old theories. It's the unexpectedness that adds to their impact.

And of course, when ever I do run across something I didn't expect, I also ask myself what I should have expected, and re-examine my own assumptions.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

Edited June 6, 2013 by Kevin Christensen

[tagriffy]

I think most of those who look at the Book of Mormon never manage to put aside the angel and the plates. But it is nice that some do treat it with appreciation. Up until Barker, Charlesworth did it best. But she's the only one of these group to to really test it. Most simply describe what they see using the lenses they are most comfortable with.

I noticed you didn't answer my question. Do you think even Charlesworth and Barker would accept BoM Isaiah as an independent witness to the biblical text? Why or why not?

The postitivist/empiricist view started coming apart when it was realized, as N. R. Hanson pointed out, that "All data are theory-laden." Theory influences observation. Think of Poe's detective story, The Purloined Letter. Think how Agatha Christie made waves with novels like The Murder of Roger Akroyd, and Murder on the Orient Express, by setting up situations that violated reader expectations for Who Done it?

Falsification has limits because networks of assumptions are involved in dealing with what we know. In practice, scientists have no qualms about making adjustments when they think they need to preserve a valuable paradigm. And we don't know what will show up tomorrow. And in practice there are no rules for choosing between paradigms. We can give our personal reasons, what Alma calls "cause to believe," but the opposition can always say, "So what?"

I am aware of the limitations of positivism. Nevertheless, if you are saying that paradigms are chosen willy-nilly without any regard for evidence (and I don't think you are), then I would strongly disagree. While so-called Galileo events are rare, sooner or later enough evidence builds up that allows one to choose one paradigm over another and allows us to rightly regard holdouts as crackpots. No, we don't know what will show up tomorrow, and it would be wise not to totally foreclose possibilities. On the other hand, I don't think either one of us will take a flat-earther seriously.

The issue for us is, would we recognize evidence for their existence when we saw it?

I think if we dug up a place, identified as "Zarahemla" through its inscriptions, populated by a people who called themselves Nephites, who wrote (and probably spoke) in a language that resembles either Hebrew or Egyptian, and whose legends resemble stories that we find in the Book of Mormon, we'd be idiots for not recognizing the evidence. I wouldn't expect everything will line up with the Book of Mormon. Indeed, if Sorenson is right that the BoM is a lineage history, that would predict that there will probably be some Jericho moments in the work. Nevertheless, such a find would establish the fundamental fact the Nephites existed.

How would we know it was our Ishmael, and not someone of the same name? How do we know it's not just a clever fake or a misinterpretation? That is why I like Kuhn and Barbour especially.

At the risk of beating a dead horse, we would determine that through the evidence. Let's not get stuck on this point though. I only threw out finding the grave of Ishmael as an example of something that could nail down the NHM hypothesis.

I'd been very impressed by Brant's statement when I first saw it, and quoted him at length, with is permission in my essay my response to Vogel in FARMS Review 16/1.

And I read that essay too, dang it! I'm pretty sure he had said something similar during the conversations we had, and that was where I looked for it. I really, really miss my old library.

That's why I think what Larry Poulson did is so important.

http://poulsenll.org...jalvasidon.html

Basically, Larry searched the entire Western Hemisphere for candidates that match the characteristics given in the text and found only one candidate. That may not yet be "Welcome to Zarahemla," but it does mean that if you want to find it, this is the place to look. That kind of specificity makes a difference. And it turns out that reading the text in light of that specificity also makes a difference.

This is pretty cool! Has anyone followed up by actually looking yet?

Fortunately, there are ways to get around that, as Kuhn points out, but it takes competiton between one or more paradigms. It makes perfectly good sense to argue which paradigm is better, though that always involves a decision regarding which problems are more significant to have solved. There are constraints on interpretation. But there are always issues of selectivity, contextualization, subjective valuations, and our temporal horizons.

Alma 32 contrasts those who want to simply and finally "know" things with absolute certainty, and those willing to settle for "cause to believe" while engaged in an ongoing, self-correcting process of experiment, evaluation, expanded understanding, fruitfulness, and future promise.

Note: Please don't think I'm ignoring the other points you have made. I'll respond to them later if you wish. But this is where you answered the question I was really asking.

I think I have an idea what you are saying. I used Alma 32 in what I think is a similar manner. See "Things Old." Are we on the right track even if we are applying them differently?

[Robert F. Smith]

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

When non-LDs scholars actually read the Book of Mormon, which a few do now and then, it's interesting to note how they read it. Robert Price, in American Apocrypha begins by establishing the metaphor of pious fraud.

I especially like the description of Robert Price in Wikipedia, "He is known in particular for his skepticism about the existence of Jesus as an historical figure, arguing in 2009 that Jesus may have existed but 'unless someone discovers his diary or his skeleton, we'll never know'. "^[8] Which is pretty much what we get from Thomas Griffy on the Book of Mormon. Such extreme positions are not only unrealistic, but even ignore what is in fact known. In Jesus case, for instance, no serious historian denies his existence, but rather question whether he was more than just a controversial rabbi.

[8] Jacoby, David A. Compelling Evidence For God and the Bible: Finding Truth in an Age of Doubt. Harvest House Publishers, 2010, p. 97.

On the other hand, when Margaret Barker read it, she asked whether it fit the context of Jerusalem 600 BCE. The stance they take on approaching the text had a profound influence on what their investigations subsequently uncover. It's also interesting to compare the essays in Madsen's collection of essays, "Reflections on Mormonism." Stendahl puts the Book of Mormon in a pseudopigragha category somewhat like Price. He says some interesting things, makes some useful observations, but not as useful or perceptive as we get from John Welch and Richard L. Anderson. Charlesworth's essay does offer some interesting comparisons and suggestions, if gingerly and tentatively. Barker is the only one who really takes the plunge and asks whether it fits Jerusalem 600 BCE. Coe spends far more time interacting with 50s pop scholarship than exploring the actual text.

All true, and I know of other non-Mormon scholars who have actually read the Book of Mormon and had sober, serious comments to make on the details. The really dumb question which I frequently get is, Well why didn't they convert? Real scholars are capable of deep insights into literature they might consider little more than pseudepigraphic. Some of us take Judaica seriously, for example, without desiring to convert to Judaism. As to the conversion of Rainey and Dever to Judaism (I have known both of them), I think it was because they each married Jewish women more than anything else.

The real question is whether the Book of Mormon contains details that are best explained as coming from eye-witnesses. And the only way to test that proposition to make the effort to "stand where they stood in order to see what they saw" which just happens to describe Margaret Barker's approach to the Bible. That means taking the accounts seriously enough to be able to make the test. McMurrin never bothered to read it through, let alone carefully. Nor did Harold Bloom, as is evident from the inaccuracy of the few things he says, and his admission to a student that he had not read it.

I noticed the word "verifiable" being tossed about, which strikes me as indicating positivism, rather than a more viable critical realism approach.

Brant Gardner famously describes his approach as "looking for the Mesoamerica in the Book of Mormon, rather than the Book of Mormon in Mesoamerica." That is, instead of deciding beforehand what one should be able to find, and quickly announcing that there is "no evidence for the Book of Mormon," one gets a grasp of the context, and then considers how that context sheds light on the text. The dangers of the former approach are evidenced in the recent Coe interview, in which Dehlin and Coe talk about the lack of evidence for brass helmets and iron arrowheads, neither of which are mentioned in the text. If a person is looking for something on the basis of misreading, or misunderstanding, they are not likely to find anything meaningful. If an investigator puts the most weight on finding something small, and mentioned only rarely, and only a few locations (horse bones, say), they are less likely find it than if they are looking for something larger, much more important, and easier to find like an appropriate Sidon candidate, or how a specific geographical correlation casts light on specific details in the narrative (See Poulson's website and recent FAIR presentation, for instance). Looking for a Zarahemla sign is a much dicier proposition than looking for civilizations in the right place and time. (See John Clark on correlations in general trends, and trends in correlation over time.) And if it happens that a small group of migrants moved into a already populated area, it's likely that the everyday language would change by the second generation. (The branches from scattered Israel are grafted on pre-existing wild plants). And if the written language was based on concepts rather than sounds, the verbal language could shift underneath the written. ..................................................

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

The trend should be of increasing convergence, increasing "cause to believe," not instant coercive certainty, absolute "knowing."

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

I prefer systems analysis myself, as in asking whether the Mesoamerican game Patolli is the same as Hindu Parcheesi. If the games existed in pre-Columbian times in both places, and if the complex rules are nearly identical, it is hard to ignore the strong possibility that the game was transmitted from place to place. Multiply such detailed systems in a variety of areas, and you may have a case of preponderance of evidence -- proof is not needed in cases of Bayesian probability estimates. That is why Smithsonian anthropologists such as Dennis Stanford and the late Betty Meggars opted for pre-Columbian diffusion in some noteworthy instances.

[tagriffy]

I especially like the description of Robert Price in Wikipedia, "He is known in particular for his skepticism about the existence of Jesus as an historical figure, arguing in 2009 that Jesus may have existed but 'unless someone discovers his diary or his skeleton, we'll never know'. "^[8] Which is pretty much what we get from Thomas Griffy on the Book of Mormon. Such extreme positions are not only unrealistic, but even ignore what is in fact known. In Jesus case, for instance, no serious historian denies his existence, but rather question whether he was more than just a controversial rabbi.

Thomas? If you are talking about me, the name is Timothy. Feel free to call me Tim.

[Robert F. Smith]

I noticed you didn't answer my question. Do you think even Charlesworth and Barker would accept BoM Isaiah as an independent witness to the biblical text? Why or why not?

One would have to demonstrate to them that this is a productive area for consideration -- via a well-argued case in a formal article submitted to either of them for publication. That's how I might approach it. LDS friends of each might jawbone the idea to them, and each of them has published LDS scholars on other subjects in volumes they have edited. However, the burden of proof would be on the LDS author owing to the angel and gold plates factor.

Krister Stendahl of Harvard Divinity School did, however, actually do a text-critical article on the Book of Mormon (III Nephi) which was edited by Truman Madsen: https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/reflections-mormonism-judaeo-christian-parallels/8-sermon-mount-and-third-nephi .

A Jesuit recently commented on his experience with the Book of Mormon in a three part article: Francis X. Clooney, S.J., “Reading the Book of Mormon (I),” America: The National Catholic Weekly, Sept 14, 2012, online at http://www.americamagazine.org/blog/entry.cfm?blog_id=2&entry_id=5355 .

I am aware of the limitations of positivism. Nevertheless, if you are saying that paradigms are chosen willy-nilly without any regard for evidence (and I don't think you are), then I would strongly disagree. While so-called Galileo events are rare, sooner or later enough evidence builds up that allows one to choose one paradigm over another and allows us to rightly regard holdouts as crackpots. No, we don't know what will show up tomorrow, and it would be wise not to totally foreclose possibilities. On the other hand, I don't think either one of us will take a flat-earther seriously.

I am interested in this building up of evidence. Are you aware of any evidence in favor of the Book of Mormon? Or are believers in the Book of Mormon in the same category with flat-earthers?

I think if we dug up a place, identified as "Zarahemla" through its inscriptions, populated by a people who called themselves Nephites, who wrote (and probably spoke) in a language that resembles either Hebrew or Egyptian, and whose legends resemble stories that we find in the Book of Mormon, we'd be idiots for not recognizing the evidence. I wouldn't expect everything will line up with the Book of Mormon. Indeed, if Sorenson is right that the BoM is a lineage history, that would predict that there will probably be some Jericho moments in the work. Nevertheless, such a find would establish the fundamental fact the Nephites existed.

,

That is not the approach of biblical archeologists, who seldom find a sign declaring the identity of a questionable location, and likewise must do without direct evidence of language. Perhaps pottery and other mundane artifacts, some carbonized and hence datable via C-14, trade items, and even osteo- and paleoethobotanical evidence telling us what the people there ate, and their skeletal remains perhaps providing some DNA. What sort of buildings, settlement patterns, and lifeways can we reconstruct? Do this with enough villages and cities and we have a culture or civilization. Add inscriptions and a whole new world is open to us.

At the risk of beating a dead horse, we would determine that through the evidence. Let's not get stuck on this point though. I only threw out finding the grave of Ishmael as an example of something that could nail down the NHM hypothesis.

Most of us have been on a "snipe" hunt, and most of us have seen the ridiculous Hollywood version of Egyptian archeology, and I'm sure that you know very well that what you are suggesting is tantamount to chasing a chimaera.

[Robert F. Smith]

Thomas? If you are talking about me, the name is Timothy. Feel free to call me Tim.

Sorry, Tim, my short term memory is going . . .

Bob

[tagriffy]

One would have to demonstrate to them that this is a productive area for consideration -- via a well-argued case in a formal article submitted to either of them for publication. That's how I might approach it. LDS friends of each might jawbone the idea to them, and each of them has published LDS scholars on other subjects in volumes they have edited. However, the burden of proof would be on the LDS author owing to the angel and gold plates factor.

Funny, I would think the burden of proof would be on the LDS author because he or she is making the argument. Has the angel and gold plates factor become a form of special pleading that requires switching the normal rules about who has the burden of proof?

Regardless, I think we have start here. Let's take a proposition, "2 Nephi chapters 12-24 represent an independent textual witness of Isaiah chapters 2-14." How would we go about demonstrating this would be a productive area of consideration? What kind of arguments would we make?

Krister Stendahl of Harvard Divinity School did, however, actually do a text-critical article on the Book of Mormon (III Nephi) which was edited by Truman Madsen: https://rsc.byu.edu/...and-third-nephi .

A Jesuit recently commented on his experience with the Book of Mormon in a three part article: Francis X. Clooney, S.J., “Reading the Book of Mormon (I),” America: The National Catholic Weekly, Sept 14, 2012, online at http://www.americama...2&entry_id=5355 .

Thank you for the links. Stendahl's could prove especially useful for our discussion.

I am interested in this building up of evidence. Are you aware of any evidence in favor of the Book of Mormon? Or are believers in the Book of Mormon in the same category with flat-earthers?

I am not aware of any archaelogical reports detailing a new dig of a place, identified as "Zarahemla" through its inscriptions, populated by a people who called themselves Nephites, who wrote (and probably spoke) in a language that resembles either Hebrew or Egyptian, and whose legends resemble stories that we find in the Book of Mormon. So as far as "hard" evidence goes, there does not seem to be any evidence favoring Book of Mormon historicity. If the NHM case is nailed down, then that would be the first piece of archaeological evidence we have supporting BoM historicity.

Are Book of Mormon historicists in the same category as flat-earthers? Not quite. After all, environmentalists don't really possess a smoking gun either. If either side could produce a once-for-all piece of evidence, then the debate for all intents would be over, with the holdouts being classed with flat-earthers.

That is not the approach of biblical archeologists, who seldom find a sign declaring the identity of a questionable location, and likewise must do without direct evidence of language. Perhaps pottery and other mundane artifacts, some carbonized and hence datable via C-14, trade items, and even osteo- and paleoethobotanical evidence telling us what the people there ate, and their skeletal remains perhaps providing some DNA. What sort of buildings, settlement patterns, and lifeways can we reconstruct? Do this with enough villages and cities and we have a culture or civilization. Add inscriptions and a whole new world is open to us.

I know that. Change the exact details however you want. The exact details don't matter, which is why I refer to the proverbial "Welcome to Zarahemla" sign.

Most of us have been on a "snipe" hunt, and most of us have seen the ridiculous Hollywood version of Egyptian archeology, and I'm sure that you know very well that what you are suggesting is tantamount to chasing a chimaera.

Trying to find Ishmael's grave or searching for a graffito saying "Nephi was here" would be chasing a chimaera. The odds of finding something like that are so astronomical that it would be a miracle if we did find that sort of evidence. The Lehite party was far to small and spent far too little time in Arabia to make an archaelogical quest for their trek feasible.

[cdowis]

Let me give a very practical example of the point I have been making. I was watching an episode of Time Team, a group of professional archeologists, as they were doing a study of Gateholm (see their website http://www.timeteamd...ter-holm?page=3

A survey from the air showed possible archeological structures, and, based on their analysis of the survey, their consensus was that this was an early Christian site. There were small cells where the monks resided, etc. This survey fit that pattern.

Later, the on the ground research showed that analysis completely wrong. Iron Age and Roman site with no indication of early Christian era. They had misinterpreted the survey results and additional findings lead them to a compeletly different conclusion.

The point is that additional discoveries can invalidate consensus opinion.

Edited June 6, 2013 by cdowis

[Kevin Christensen]

I noticed you didn't answer my question. Do you think even Charlesworth and Barker would accept BoM Isaiah as an independent witness to the biblical text? Why or why not?

Since the Book of Mormon translation obviously depends heavily on the KJV, I'd question just how to apply "independent" witness. But with caveats, for Charlesworth, I don't think so, though his essay allows for the possibility of translation on a hypothetical level. He's impressed but lets any mystery stand at arm's length. Barker, maybe, She's more impressed, and more willing to say why. Neither of them do much with Isaiah in the Book of Mormon. Barker is more an Isaiah scholar than Charlesworth. We'll see what develops as more time goes by. I don't answer the question because it's not mine to answer. I don't get involved in highly speculative threads or questions.

I am aware of the limitations of positivism. Nevertheless, if you are saying that paradigms are chosen willy-nilly without any regard for evidence (and I don't think you are), then I would strongly disagree.

I'm far from saying paradigms are chosen willy-nilly. The important values are problem definition and solution (testability), accuracy of key predictions (and I have referred to how one goes about deciding what is key), comprehensiveness and coherence (breadth of explanation and how well the paradigm fits with everything else), fruitfulness (what shows up when you trying working inside the paradigm), simplicity and aesthetics, and future promise. I'm less impressed by appeals to authority, consensus, or opposing orthodoxy, since they have less to do with what is real. Rejecting one paradigm by the standards of another is not the same thing as paradigm testing, which requires competition to be better according the standards of what makes one better. That takes a conscious effort. Simply saying, "not us" is not paradigm debate. That is paradigm huddling.

While so-called Galileo events are rare, sooner or later enough evidence builds up that allows one to choose one paradigm over another and allows us to rightly regard holdouts as crackpots. No, we don't know what will show up tomorrow, and it would be wise not to totally foreclose possibilities. On the other hand, I don't think either one of us will take a flat-earther seriously.

True.

I think if we dug up a place, identified as "Zarahemla" through its inscriptions, populated by a people who called themselves Nephites, who wrote (and probably spoke) in a language that resembles either Hebrew or Egyptian, and whose legends resemble stories that we find in the Book of Mormon, we'd be idiots for not recognizing the evidence.

Paradigms are defined by standard examples of scientific work that embody a set of assumptions, methods, and standards of solution. This point is actually a good place to look at the difference in paradigm. In the Book of Mormon, Zarahelma first appears a Mulekite city. The Mulekites themselves had migrated in from the North, bringing some Jaredite influence, which had, among other things, changed their langauge. When the Nephites arrive, they are a minority, and speak a different language. (Brant points out that Sorenson's Zarahemla candidate is located on the boundary of two different language groups.) Speaking of language, Benjamin causes that his sons be taught to read the plates. Eggington's essay on Oral and Literate Cultures in the Book of Mormon leads me to believe that the language of the plates was the province of specialists, and permanent records like the plates, something rare rather than commonplace. The ruling class changes, but many of the later social conflicts suggest that not everyone was pleased with new state of affairs. This is when Jaredite names begin to appear in the story. Later, the Lamanites push the Nephites out. All of that complicates the cultural picture for me, and leads me to question whether the stated methods and standards of solution are built on appropriate assumptions. And of course, we have to also consider what sort of things show up in the actual digging done in Mesoamerica. The easiest way to overlook something important is to be focused on finding something else entirely.

Sorenson talks about how when they were excavating at Santa Rosa, (Sorenson's Zarahemla candidate), Ferguson was only interested in talking to locals about horse bones and such, and not at all interested in doing real archeology.

I wouldn't expect everything will line up with the Book of Mormon. Indeed, if Sorenson is right that the BoM is a lineage history, that would predict that there will probably be some Jericho moments in the work. Nevertheless, such a find would establish the fundamental fact the Nephites existed.

The way to test the paradigm is to get a clear picture of what the Book of Mormon says and implies, and what it does not say or imply. And keep in mind how much changed for Brant when he stopped looking for the Book of Mormon in Mesoamerica (our minds locked into place by Friberg's imaginative illustrations), and start looking for Mesoamerica in the Book of Mormon.

At the risk of beating a dead horse, we would determine that through the evidence. Let's not get stuck on this point though. I only threw out finding the grave of Ishmael as an example of something that could nail down the NHM hypothesis.

A number of things converge with the NHM hypothesis. The convergence. The aptness of Lehi's qasida, of the details of the journey to NHM, and the location and details at the Bountiful candidate. What happens to a search for a purloined letter if you assume that what you are looking for must be hidden? Nibley directed our attention to general patterns, larger things that get repeated over and over. A culture, rather than a tomb, a civilization rather than a house, a ritual rather than a specific temple.

And I read that essay too, dang it! I'm pretty sure he had said something similar during the conversations we had, and that was where I looked for it. I really, really miss my old library.

It's on line at the Maxwell Institute website.

This is pretty cool! Has anyone followed up by actually looking yet?

Poulson also gave an important presentation at FAIR, exploring in more detail how the geographic correlation casts light on several of the narratives.

http://www.fairlds.o...rry-Poulsen.pdf

I'm impressed. Larry's comment about "seeing the dog" points back to one of Brant's earlier FAIR presentations.

http://www.fairlds.o...ant-Gardner.pdf

Note: Please don't think I'm ignoring the other points you have made. I'll respond to them later if you wish. But this is where you answered the question I was really asking.

I think I have an idea what you are saying. I used Alma 32 in what I think is a similar manner. See "Things Old." Are we on the right track even if we are applying them differently?

Yes. A lovely essay. Faith comes via process most of the time. I've also compared Alma 32 with Thomas Kuhn, and find they converge quite nicely.

Best,

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

Edited June 7, 2013 by Kevin Christensen

[cdowis]

Kevin,

Some interesting comments. You have clearly given this some thought.

[tagriffy]

Since the Book of Mormon translation obviously depends heavily on the KJV, I'd question just how to apply "independent" witness. But with caveats, for Charlesworth, I don't think so, though his essay allows for the possibility of translation on a hypothetical level. He's impressed but lets any mystery stand at arm's length. Barker, maybe, She's more impressed, and more willing to say why. Neither of them do much with Isaiah in the Book of Mormon. Barker is more an Isaiah scholar than Charlesworth. We'll see what develops as more time goes by. I don't answer the question because it's not mine to answer. I don't get involved in highly speculative threads or questions.

Thank you. The question of what it would mean for BoM Isaiah to be an independent witness does require consideration in itself. In the original post, I quoted cdowis saying the differences between BoM Isaiah and KJV Isaiah represent different transmissions of the same material. That is, the differences are explained by different ur-texts. This could mean there were two different recensions were floating around in Lehi's time, or it could mean simply the brass plates version is the different recension. We know from the Dead Sea Scrolls there were two different editions of Jeremiah in circulation perhaps as late as 100 CE, so this is not an implausible hypothesis.

What could we do to work out the hypothesis? Our first instinct would be to try to recreate the ur-text, i.e., by translating back to Hebrew. But the apparent dependency on the KJV presents us with a difficulty. What is the English text presenting? Does it represent an independent translation of the underlying material in a way that just happens to mostly agree with the KJV? Or does it represent Joseph Smith using the KJV while only making appropriate changes?

Is there any way to resolve those questions with our present knowledge? What say you, Kevin? Bob?

I'm going to cut things short here. I really would like to continue a conversation of the topic of paradigms, but if I'm right, we are on track to resolving the problem presented in the OP. I want to see where this line of thought leads and then start a new thread about paradigms. Will that be acceptable for you?

[Robert F. Smith]

Funny, I would think the burden of proof would be on the LDS author because he or she is making the argument. Has the angel and gold plates factor become a form of special pleading that requires switching the normal rules about who has the burden of proof?

I was thinking more of the extra effort which must be made by minorities, such as women and blacks, in proving themselves despite already extant prejudice, i.e., for Mormons the ridiculous angel and gold plates thing. The same rules should apply to everybody, but often don't. Thus, the Mormon author carries more of a burden. Who said "life is fair"?

Regardless, I think we have start here. Let's take a proposition, "2 Nephi chapters 12-24 represent an independent textual witness of Isaiah chapters 2-14." How would we go about demonstrating this would be a productive area of consideration? What kind of arguments would we make?

A good place to start is with Royal Skousen, "Textual Variants in the Isaiah Quotations in the Book of Mormon," in D. W. Parry & J. W. Welch, eds., Isaiah in the Book of Mormon (Provo: FARMS, 1998), 369-390. online at http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/display/pdf.php?table=bookchapters&id=1631 . It is a straightforward and accurate presentation of the data, from which 8 major findings are reported. Much more can, of course, be said, as I indicated with Ramath, but the limitations as well as expectations of the meaning of "independent textual witness" come to the fore.

Thank you for the links. Stendahl's could prove especially useful for our discussion.

I am not aware of any archaelogical reports detailing a new dig of a place, identified as "Zarahemla" through its inscriptions, populated by a people who called themselves Nephites, who wrote (and probably spoke) in a language that resembles either Hebrew or Egyptian, and whose legends resemble stories that we find in the Book of Mormon. So as far as "hard" evidence goes, there does not seem to be any evidence favoring Book of Mormon historicity. If the NHM case is nailed down, then that would be the first piece of archaeological evidence we have supporting BoM historicity.

Which is why I have been so adamant about your not understanding what archeology is all about, and thus missing the point about how one goes about doing a real-world analysis of a text such as the Book of Mormon. The notion that there should be an easy one-to-one correspondence of archeology with the text is one thing which Bill Dever ridiculed so harshly 25 years ago, specifically disallowing the term "biblical archeology" as meaningless. I recall attending one of his lectures at BYU at that time in which he made it very clear where he stood. He told me privately on another occasion (in Long Beach) that his own Mentor, the late William F. Albright, had been guilty of drawing conclusions which were too facile. It was Dever, by the way, who signed me up for my first excavation (at the Biblical & Archaeological School of Hebrew Union College, Jerusalem), which was at Tell Gezer in the Spring of 1970.

As Craig Evans has pointed out, "the importance of archaeology lies primarily in the clarification and contextualization that it provides for biblical literature itself and the assistance it offers interpreters of this literature," i.e., "exegetical contextuality." (Evans, "Excavating Caiaphas, Pilate, and Simon of Cyrene: Assessing the Literary and Archaeological Evidence," in J. H. Charlesworth, ed., Jesus and Archaeology [Eerdmans, 2006], 340)

Are Book of Mormon historicists in the same category as flat-earthers? Not quite. After all, environmentalists don't really possess a smoking gun either. If either side could produce a once-for-all piece of evidence, then the debate for all intents would be over, with the holdouts being classed with flat-earthers.

I know that. Change the exact details however you want. The exact details don't matter, which is why I refer to the proverbial "Welcome to Zarahemla" sign.

Trying to find Ishmael's grave or searching for a graffito saying "Nephi was here" would be chasing a chimaera. The odds of finding something like that are so astronomical that it would be a miracle if we did find that sort of evidence. The Lehite party was far to small and spent far too little time in Arabia to make an archaelogical quest for their trek feasible.

Some of what you say here seems quite reasonable and holds great promise. However, I wonder whether you feel the same way about the BofM depiction of very large Jaredite and Nephite civilizations in the Americas, spanning time there from about 3,000 B.C. to about 400 A.D.? Should show major impact, right? In fact John Sorenson's forthcoming magnum opus, Mormon's codex, will deal with that, and it is not a repeat of his classic Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon.

[tagriffy]

I was thinking more of the extra effort which must be made by minorities, such as women and blacks, in proving themselves despite already extant prejudice, i.e., for Mormons the ridiculous angel and gold plates thing. The same rules should apply to everybody, but often don't. Thus, the Mormon author carries more of a burden. Who said "life is fair"?

Okay. I see what you are saying now. Thank you for clarifying.

A good place to start is with Royal Skousen, "Textual Variants in the Isaiah Quotations in the Book of Mormon," in D. W. Parry & J. W. Welch, eds., Isaiah in the Book of Mormon (Provo: FARMS, 1998), 369-390. online at http://maxwellinstit...hapters&id=1631 . It is a straightforward and accurate presentation of the data, from which 8 major findings are reported. Much more can, of course, be said, as I indicated with Ramath, but the limitations as well as expectations of the meaning of "independent textual witness" come to the fore.

It seems to me that only Skousen's first and fourth findings are clearly relevant to the proposition "2 Nephi chapters 12-24 represent an independent textual witness of Isaiah chapters 2-14." The first finding is that BoM Isaiah is based on KJV Isaiah. The fourth finding is that the original text is even closer to the KJV; many of the differences are actually attributable to the scribe. Skousen's seventh finding passages quoted more than once may help establish the original reading of the non-extant text may also be relevant. Off the top of my head, I'm not sure how it would be relevant, but I don't want to dismiss anything that could be potentially useful. Have I overlooked anything important here?

It also seems to me that before we can deal with things like your Ramath suggestion, we have to deal with the KJV issue. If BoM Isaiah is dependent on the KJV, how does that affect our ability to establish a hypothetical ur-text? Is it an insurmountable problem? Why or why not?

As a side note, I'd like to ask whether focusing on establishing the original text is the best approach. Whether we speak of Joseph as author or translator, shouldn't his final thoughts (as represented, for example, by the 1837 edition) on the text hold priority? Why or why not?

Which is why I have been so adamant about your not understanding what archeology is all about, and thus missing the point about how one goes about doing a real-world analysis of a text such as the Book of Mormon. The notion that there should be an easy one-to-one correspondence of archeology with the text is one thing which Bill Dever ridiculed so harshly 25 years ago, specifically disallowing the term "biblical archeology" as meaningless. I recall attending one of his lectures at BYU at that time in which he made it very clear where he stood. He told me privately on another occasion (in Long Beach) that his own Mentor, the late William F. Albright, had been guilty of drawing conclusions which were too facile. It was Dever, by the way, who signed me up for my first excavation (at the Biblical & Archaeological School of Hebrew Union College, Jerusalem), which was at Tell Gezer in the Spring of 1970.

I think that is because you are focusing to much on things I am throwing out as examples of the types of things which would provide the proverbial "Welcome to Zarahemla" sign. I fully realize that in real life, a finding as dramatic as I described would be a very lucky find indeed. I'm actually not that demanding. In a previous post, you asked whether something like the Israel Stele of Merneptah would do it, and I agreed it would. Just as long as it is verified, authentic evidence the Nephite civilization actually existed (which you conceded is a reasonable demand), I'd be happy.

Some of what you say here seems quite reasonable and holds great promise. However, I wonder whether you feel the same way about the BofM depiction of very large Jaredite and Nephite civilizations in the Americas, spanning time there from about 3,000 B.C. to about 400 A.D.? Should show major impact, right? In fact John Sorenson's forthcoming magnum opus, Mormon's codex, will deal with that, and it is not a repeat of his classic Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon.

I'm not sure I understand your question well enough to answer it. I would say of course it would have a major impact--that is why the lack of verified, authentic evidence for their existence is so disconcerting to begin with. But I suspect I'm answering a question you are not even asking.

[tagriffy]

Of Kevin Christensen's essay "Truth and Method: Reflections on Dan Vogel's Approach to the Book of Mormon," I said:

And I read that essay too, dang it! I'm pretty sure he had said something similar during the conversations we had, and that was where I looked for it. I really, really miss my old library.

What really makes me feel stupid now is that I cited that work in my "Environmental Theory" essay. I really feel like banging my head against a wall.

Edited June 7, 2013 by tagriffy

[Robert F. Smith]

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

It seems to me that only Skousen's first and fourth findings are clearly relevant to the proposition "2 Nephi chapters 12-24 represent an independent textual witness of Isaiah chapters 2-14." The first finding is that BoM Isaiah is based on KJV Isaiah. The fourth finding is that the original text is even closer to the KJV; many of the differences are actually attributable to the scribe. Skousen's seventh finding passages quoted more than once may help establish the original reading of the non-extant text may also be relevant. Off the top of my head, I'm not sure how it would be relevant, but I don't want to dismiss anything that could be potentially useful. Have I overlooked anything important here?

Not really, but my main point in citing Skousen there as a good place to start is that it constitutes the sort of basic research which is essential before one says anything else.

Back in the 70s, John Sorenson told me that we needed to establish the text of the Book of Mormon. I agreed, and I began a project based on Stan Larson's excellent 1974 master's thesis, which later became the FARMS Book of Mormon Critical Text Project -- of which I was editor through 1987, after which Royal Skousen took over the effort.

The thing about basic research is that (whether text-based or archeological) one does not know at the start what one will find.

It also seems to me that before we can deal with things like your Ramath suggestion, we have to deal with the KJV issue. If BoM Isaiah is dependent on the KJV, how does that affect our ability to establish a hypothetical ur-text? Is it an insurmountable problem? Why or why not?

As a side note, I'd like to ask whether focusing on establishing the original text is the best approach. Whether we speak of Joseph as author or translator, shouldn't his final thoughts (as represented, for example, by the 1837 edition) on the text hold priority? Why or why not?

Since only 28% of the Original MS now exists, we will always have to make some hypothetical statements and conjectural emendations. That goes with the territory. Also, I have no serious problem with taking into account Joseph's editing of the 1837 and 1840 eds., though with the understanding that any such readings will naturally not carry the weight of the O & P MSS. Thus, I am very happy to discuss Joseph's insertions of lines (stichs) which complete the poetic couplets of I Ne 20:1-2 (Isa 48:1-2), and III Ne 22:4 (Isa 54:4), but find more compelling the evidence of the Brass Plates use of readings which combine those known to both the Massoretic Hebrew and the no longer extant Hebrew rescension used by the Septuagint translators in 3rd century B.C. Egypt (the Massoretic tradition in Babylonia continued down to recent times), e.g., Skousen discusses (on pp. 376-377, just before the Second Finding) the LXX Greek and MT evidence (originally uncovered by Sperry) for a superior reading at II Ne 12:16 (Isa 2:16) -- both lacking something from an earlier Vorlage. As Albright always said, Losses are more common than glosses.

I think that is because you are focusing to much on things I am throwing out as examples of the types of things which would provide the proverbial "Welcome to Zarahemla" sign. I fully realize that in real life, a finding as dramatic as I described would be a very lucky find indeed. I'm actually not that demanding. In a previous post, you asked whether something like the Israel Stele of Merneptah would do it, and I agreed it would. Just as long as it is verified, authentic evidence the Nephite civilization actually existed (which you conceded is a reasonable demand), I'd be happy.

Verifiable, authentic evidence, yes, but something akin to the Merneptah Stele, not likely. Tom Ferguson's failing was that he was searching for just such zingers, but did not understand why archeology doesn't subsist on such extraordinary finds. There are zingers, but they seldom fit such absurd expectations.

I'm not sure I understand your question well enough to answer it. I would say of course it would have a major impact--that is why the lack of verified, authentic evidence for their existence is so disconcerting to begin with. But I suspect I'm answering a question you are not even asking.

Oh, but their verifiable, authentic existence is rather clear from the evidence. If there were Jaredites, they had to be identified with or part of the great mother culture of Mesoamerica, Las Olmecas -- which is not even the actual name by which they were known in their own time. At this remove, we don't even know that name. The math, calendar, writing system, etc., of the Olmecs informed all succeeding Mesoamerican cultures. As Sorenson demonstrates, the rise and fall of the Olmec and later cultures fits BofM chronology like a glove. So too the warfare, geography, and demography. Some people imagine that the largely circumstantial nature of archeological evidence makes it weak, but that is the reverse of the truth. Circumstantial evidence is usually the most reliable.

Edited June 7, 2013 by Robert F. Smith

[tagriffy]

Not really, but my main point in citing Skousen there as a good place to start is that it constitutes the sort of basic research which is essential before one says anything else.

Back in the 70s, John Sorenson told me that we needed to establish the text of the Book of Mormon. I agreed, and I began a project based on Stan Larson's excellent 1974 master's thesis, which later became the FARMS Book of Mormon Critical Text Project -- of which I was editor through 1987, after which Royal Skousen took over the effort.

The thing about basic research is that (whether text-based or archeological) one does not know at the start what one will find.

I used to have the three-volume FARMS critical text. I thought it was a really valuable tool. Should I consider Skousen's YUP publication to have superseded that text, or do I still need the FARMS text?

Since only 28% of the Original MS now exists, we will always have to make some hypothetical statements and conjectural emendations. That goes with the territory. Also, I have no serious problem with taking into account Joseph's editing of the 1837 and 1840 eds., though with the understanding that any such readings will naturally not carry the weight of the O & P MSS. Thus, I am very happy to discuss Joseph's insertions of lines (stichs) which complete the poetic couplets of I Ne 20:1-2 (Isa 48:1-2), and III Ne 22:4 (Isa 54:4), but find more compelling the evidence of the Brass Plates use of readings which combine those known to both the Massoretic Hebrew and the no longer extant Hebrew rescension used by the Septuagint translators in 3rd century B.C. Egypt (the Massoretic tradition in Babylonia continued down to recent times), e.g., Skousen discusses (on pp. 376-377, just before the Second Finding) the LXX Greek and MT evidence (originally uncovered by Sperry) for a superior reading at II Ne 12:16 (Isa 2:16) -- both lacking something from an earlier Vorlage. As Albright always said, Losses are more common than glosses.

Going by Skousen, it looks like 2 Nephi 12-22 is not extant in O, and chapters 23-24 is fragmentary. This is where Skousen's seventh finding would come into play. Unfortunately, he doesn't say anything about Isaiah 11:4-9 // 2 Nephi 21:4-9 // 2 Nephi 30:9, 11-15. If I am reading him correctly, neither is available in O. So we are forced to rely on P here, correct? Would that be a substantial problem in creating a hypothetical ur-text?

Also, Skousen said there was only one such combined MT/LXX reading, that of 2 Nephi 12:16 // Isaiah 2:16. Are you contending there are more in 2 Nephi 12-24?

Verifiable, authentic evidence, yes, but something akin to the Merneptah Stele, not likely. Tom Ferguson's failing was that he was searching for just such zingers, but did not understand why archeology doesn't subsist on such extraordinary finds. There are zingers, but they seldom fit such absurd expectations.

Oh, but their verifiable, authentic existence is rather clear from the evidence. If there were Jaredites, they had to be identified with or part of the great mother culture of Mesoamerica, Las Olmecas -- which is not even the actual name by which they were known in their own time. At this remove, we don't even know that name. The math, calendar, writing system, etc., of the Olmecs informed all succeeding Mesoamerican cultures. As Sorenson demonstrates, the rise and fall of the Olmec and later cultures fits BofM chronology like a glove. So too the warfare, geography, and demography. Some people imagine that the largely circumstantial nature of archeological evidence makes it weak, but that is the reverse of the truth. Circumstantial evidence is usually the most reliable.

My thought is that circumstantial evidence will only get you so far. Circumstantial evidence, no matter how plausible, is no substitute for hard proof. A zinger akin to the Merneptah Stone is probably beyond expectation, but you have to admit it would certainly be a game-changer. Whether we like it or not, whether it is fair or not, that is the sort of thing it is going to take.

[Robert F. Smith]

I used to have the three-volume FARMS critical text. I thought it was a really valuable tool. Should I consider Skousen's YUP publication to have superseded that text, or do I still need the FARMS text?

It is a valuable tool. That's why I created it. However, the text of Royal's Yale edition is certainly superior. He had excellent photos and more MS frags to work with and has made a powerful and incisive contribution to our understanding of the text. Still, as he himself said recently, there is a need for a text with footnotes -- presumably an apparatus of the sort which accompanied the second edition of the 3-vol FARMS Book of Mormon Critical Text (1986-1987). To that end, the second ed has been digitized and I have nearly finished the 3rd ed of volume one, which will be made available online.

Going by Skousen, it looks like 2 Nephi 12-22 is not extant in O, and chapters 23-24 is fragmentary. This is where Skousen's seventh finding would come into play. Unfortunately, he doesn't say anything about Isaiah 11:4-9 // 2 Nephi 21:4-9 // 2 Nephi 30:9, 11-15. If I am reading him correctly, neither is available in O. So we are forced to rely on P here, correct? Would that be a substantial problem in creating a hypothetical ur-text?

You correctly point to several valid problems which could make creation of a hypothetical ur-text very tough -- esp given the tendency of Oliver to make mistakes during copying. Even more problematic, however, is the tendency during dictation to level the original text on the Brass Plates through direct use of a KJV Bible (probably the 1828 Phinney Bible, which was sold in Grandin's bookstore).

Also, Skousen said there was only one such combined MT/LXX reading, that of 2 Nephi 12:16 // Isaiah 2:16. Are you contending there are more in 2 Nephi 12-24?

No, that combined reading was a freak occurrence. I don't think that we could even pull one of those out of Qumran. That does not lessen the impact of the occurrence. Just makes it sui generis. Besides, there are many other features of the text which can be called upon as cumulative evidence for authenticity.

My thought is that circumstantial evidence will only get you so far. Circumstantial evidence, no matter how plausible, is no substitute for hard proof. A zinger akin to the Merneptah Stone is probably beyond expectation, but you have to admit it would certainly be a game-changer. Whether we like it or not, whether it is fair or not, that is the sort of thing it is going to take.

Such zingers do have popular impact, but are not really necessary from a forensic point of view. Yet juries are skittish about convicting someone for murder when there is no body of the victim -- even when other evidence is adequate for conviction beyond a reasonable doubt. The call to perfection is a fallacy, but a typical elected district attorney prefers just that, for political reasons.

The circumstantial evidence for the authenticity of the BofM is broad and deep, even though hardly anyone is aware of it.

[tagriffy]

It is a valuable tool. That's why I created it. However, the text of Royal's Yale edition is certainly superior. He had excellent photos and more MS frags to work with and has made a powerful and incisive contribution to our understanding of the text. Still, as he himself said recently, there is a need for a text with footnotes -- presumably an apparatus of the sort which accompanied the second edition of the 3-vol FARMS Book of Mormon Critical Text (1986-1987). To that end, the second ed has been digitized and I have nearly finished the 3rd ed of volume one, which will be made available online.

Wonderful! Please let me know when the 3rd ed. is made available online. If I still had my copy of the FARMS critical text, I wouldn't have needed to ask variant spellings for Melek.

You correctly point to several valid problems which could make creation of a hypothetical ur-text very tough -- esp given the tendency of Oliver to make mistakes during copying. Even more problematic, however, is the tendency during dictation to level the original text on the Brass Plates through direct use of a KJV Bible (probably the 1828 Phinney Bible, which was sold in Grandin's bookstore).

No, that combined reading was a freak occurrence. I don't think that we could even pull one of those out of Qumran. That does not lessen the impact of the occurrence. Just makes it sui generis. Besides, there are many other features of the text which can be called upon as cumulative evidence for authenticity.

So, if I were to say that the problems involved constitute enough reason for scholars to be cautious about accepting BoM Isaiah as an independent textual witness of the material, would I still be being too hasty? Or do we still need to follow through with the other features first?

[Robert F. Smith]

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

So, if I were to say that the problems involved constitute enough reason for scholars to be cautious about accepting BoM Isaiah as an independent textual witness of the material, would I still be being too hasty? Or do we still need to follow through with the other features first?

Scholars should always be cautious, Tim, and we all know that fools rush in where angels fear to tread. However, evidence of an early textus receptus of the Old Testament within the Brass Plates as well as upon the Plates of Ether is also shown by examples such as the following:

a) In its reference to the “Great Tower” story (Omni 22, Helaman 6:28, Ether 1:33), the Book of Mormon never refers to “Babel,” which some biblical scholars consider to be an Exilic or post-Exilic editorial insertion^[1] into the text at Genesis 11:9. Instead, the “great tower” and “confusion of tongues” episode in both Genesis 11:1-9 and Ether 1:33-37, recall the much earlier Sumerian “Golden Age” passage in which “the whole universe, the people in unison, to Enlil in one tongue (eme-aš-àm) gave praise,” followed shortly by the struggle between Enlil and Enki, lord of Eridu, who “changed the speech in their mouths, put contention into it, into the speech of man that (until then) had been one.”^[2] The “great tower” thus probably reflects a much earlier Mesopotamian ziggurat / ziqquratu (U₆.NIR), “temple-tower; mountain-summit.”

(b) At 3 Nephi 12:22, the Book of Mormon text follows the earliest and best manuscript evidence for the New Testament parallel text at Matthew 5:22 by leaving out the later addition of "without a cause" (Greek eikē),^[3] i.e., it is absent from the earliest and most reliable texts and related documents.^[4]

( c ) The Zeniffite food plant name sheum found in Mosiah 9:9 suggests that the Old Babylonian (Akkadian) nominative case ending -um on the virtually identical Akkadian word, sheʼum (šeʼum),^[5] meaning “barley; grain; cereal; pine nut (pignolia); grain-measure,” in Mesopotamia^[6] may have been maintained as a “frozen” ideogram or spelling^[7] either on the Plates of Ether, or by a succession of speakers and scribes from the Jaredite through Mulekite, Zeniffite, and Nephite times. Doubts about the correct reading and meaning of the word šeʼum are allayed by observing that Akkadian šeʼu “grain” appears in parallel with uṭṭatu “barley,”^[8] and that Miguel Civil reads Neo-Babylonian or Seleucid Tablet VII/4, line 33 as ú meaning u-um, while he reads the Sumerogram ŠE in line 36 as še-um.^[9] The Jaredites and Zeniffites likely applied the term to some local New World food plant, such as amaranth.

[1] L. E. Pearce, “Babylon,” in P. Achtemeier, ed., Harper’s Bible Dictionary (Society of Biblical Literature /HarperSanFrancisco, 1985), 88.

[2] S. N. Kramer, Sumerian Mythology, rev. ed. (Harper & Row, 1961/reprint Univ. of Penn. Press, 1972), xiv,107 n. 2; S. N. Kramer, “The ‘Babel of Tongues’: A Sumerian Version,” in W. W. Hallo, ed., Essays in Memory of E. A. Speiser, AOS 53 (New Haven, 1968):108-111 = JAOS, 88 (1968).

[3] J. W. Welch in Echoes and Evidences of the Book of Mormon, D. W. Parry, D. C. Peterson, and J. W. Welch, eds. (Provo: FARMS, 2002), 333-335; Welch in FARMS Review of Books on the Book of Mormon, 6/1 (1994):164-167 B observing, on p. 166, that Stan Larson agrees that it was absent in the original. Bruce Metzger and the UBS⁴ Committee have it as a glosse no earlier than the 2^nd century A.D. (part of the so-called “Antiochian-Koine rescension”), A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2^nd ed. (United Bible Societies, 1994), 11.

[4] “Without a cause” is absent from codices Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, p64+67, minuscule manuscripts 1292, 1424, 2174, Ptolemy, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Origen, Jerome, Basil, Augustine, Cassian, most Vulgate, and Ethiopic, and is also absent from similar phrasing in the Gospel of the Nazarenes 4, as well as rabbinic texts: Talmud Babli Kalla Rabbati 54b (8, Gemara on Baraita), Yoma 9b (1:1), ’Abot 2:16; Midrash Sifre Deuteronomy sections 186-187; cf. Leviticus 19:17, Deuteronomy 19:11, Psalm 19:13 (MT 19:14), 1 John 2:9, 3:14-15; 2 Enoch 44:2-3.

[5] R. F. Smith, “Some ‘Neologisms’ from the Mormon Canon,” in Conference on the Language of the Mormons, 1973 (Provo: BYU Language Research Center, 1973), 66, cited by J. L. Sorenson in D. Parry, D. Peterson, and J. Welch, eds., Echoes and Evidences (Provo: FARMS, 2002), 288.

[6] René Labat, Manuel d’épigraphie akkadienne, rev. ed. (Paris: Libraire Orientaliste Paul Geuthner, 1976), 367; Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the Univ. of Chicago (Chicago: Oriental Institute/Glückstadt: J. J. Augustin, 1956-2010) = CAD, “Š₂” 17/2:345-355.

[7] The mimation in each case possibly unpronounced and simply a matter of “habitual spellings” by the scribes, as was the case among Egyptian scribes using Akkadian cuneiform, as noted by Zipora Cochavi-Rainey, The Akkadian Dialect of Egyptian Scribes (Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2011), 37, 74.

[8] Tawil, Akkadian Lexical Companion, 104, citing CAD “Š₂” 350a b’-c’.

[9] Civil, ed., Materialien zum sumerischen Lexikon, MSL IV (Rome: PBI, 1979), 14:466 for Aa Tablets; Rykle Borger, Mesopotamisches Zeichenlexikon, AOAT 305 (Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2004), 158 #579.

Edited June 10, 2013 by Robert F. Smith

[tagriffy]

Scholars should always be cautious, Tim, and we all know that fools rush in where angels fear to tread. However, evidence of an early textus receptus of the Old Testament within the Brass Plates as well as upon the Plates of Ether is also shown by examples such as the following:

I'm already granting an early textus receptus on the Brass Plates for the sake of argument if nothing else. It's kind of hard trying to build an argument favoring the proposition "2 Nephi chapters 12-24 represent an independent textual witness of Isaiah chapters 2-14" without that kind of assumption. The question is whether, given what we now have, the textus receptus can be recovered. Is that possible, or are the problems we face insurmountable?

[Robert F. Smith]

I'm already granting an early textus receptus on the Brass Plates for the sake of argument if nothing else. It's kind of hard trying to build an argument favoring the proposition "2 Nephi chapters 12-24 represent an independent textual witness of Isaiah chapters 2-14" without that kind of assumption. The question is whether, given what we now have, the textus receptus can be recovered. Is that possible, or are the problems we face insurmountable?

The problems are considerable, tantamount to trying to recover the Gospels in Aramaic -- despite amazing work by Matthew Black and Joseph Fitzmyer, that project will probably have to await the Millennium for completion.

I have contributed just a smidgen to attempting to establish the Vorlage of the Book of Mormon plates via a long, unpublished piece on "Egyptianisms in the Book of Mormon," while others have been approaching it by establishing sound etymologies for nouns of foreign origin in the book. Still others are looking at deciphering the so-called "Anthon Transcript." The effort is multi-pronged and interdisciplinary.

[tagriffy]

Okay, then. I'm going to move back to the contentions of the original post and attempt a new summary statement.

"Reasonable scholars" have good cause to not accept BoM Isaiah as an independent transmission of the biblical text. Originally, cdowis contended it boiled down the unacceptability of the book delivered by an angel. In essence, I agreed, saying that without a proverbial "Welcome to Zarahemla" sign, scholars cannot be expected to accept BoM Isaiah as an independent textual witness.

However, setting those issues aside, there are still considerable problems. These problems include the use of the KJV as a template and a tendency for the scribes to make the text even closer to the KJV. The problems make it very difficult, if not impossible, to create a text for which we can start considering BoM Isaiah an independent textual witness to biblical Isaiah.

[Robert F. Smith]

Okay, then. I'm going to move back to the contentions of the original post and attempt a new summary statement.

"Reasonable scholars" have good cause to not accept BoM Isaiah as an independent transmission of the biblical text. Originally, cdowis contended it boiled down the unacceptability of the book delivered by an angel. In essence, I agreed, saying that without a proverbial "Welcome to Zarahemla" sign, scholars cannot be expected to accept BoM Isaiah as an independent textual witness.

However, setting those issues aside, there are still considerable problems. These problems include the use of the KJV as a template and a tendency for the scribes to make the text even closer to the KJV. The problems make it very difficult, if not impossible, to create a text for which we can start considering BoM Isaiah an independent textual witness to biblical Isaiah.

Well, just between you, me, and the gate post, serious non-Mormon scholars seldom give the Book of Mormon a second look (as per cdowis), much less consider any sort of textual criticism of the book. They are completely unaware of the problematic features of the text, so could not be expected to weigh in on any of the few interesting text-critical issues (such as we have discussed). Thus, Mormon text critics are left to themselves, doing analyses based on the broader world of textual criticism, and offering up the results of their inquiries and basic research.

With that proviso, I consider your general statement reasonable enough.