Jump to content

Dan McClellan

Members
  • Content Count

    255
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

318 Excellent

2 Followers

About Dan McClellan

  • Rank
    Member: Moves Upon the Waters
  • Birthday July 23

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Herriman, UT
  • Interests
    Scripture Translation Supervisor, PhD in Theology and Religion

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. There's an awful lot in the Medieval commentaries that is attempting to systematize, philosophize, moralize, and harmonize. I don't think that reading fits well within the original context or the new name Jacob is given.
  2. According to the text, Jacob would have been wrestling with El, whom we identify with God the Father. I don't think the systematic distinction of YHWH/Jesus and El/God the Father that we developed in the early 20th century is really tenable for the text of the Hebrew Bible, so I'm wary about drawing strong conclusions about that kind of thing.
  3. The KJV's footnotes aren't the best. "He perseveres (with) God" is one attempt to make sense of it in a way that aligns with the narrative, but the simplest reading is just "God prevails," or "God contends." "Let God Prevail" is a jussive reading of the yiqtol form of the verb, which would be expressing a wish or desire. President Nelson seems to treat it more like an imperative, which isn't an accurate reading. The sense is not "you must let God prevail," it's "may God prevail." In the original text, it was definitely God himself in the fight, but over time it became theologically probl
  4. You're coming back to the argument that Joseph Smith wasn't the author, which is something I've already said I agree with. Also, I've nowhere suggested that "but if" was late modern. All I've done is suggest that it was easily accessible through texts widely available in the early-nineteenth century to anyone with antiquarian interests.
  5. Well, I pointed out that it occurs in many texts published in the nineteenth century, and highlighted a few of them, including Johnson's dictionary. I referred to interest in "archaizing and pseudo-biblical prose," which is not so much a reference to a particular genre or corpus as it is to the practice of evoking the Bible with antiquarian prose. You seem to be suggesting that by using the word "pseudobiblical," I must be referring to adherence to an established set of conventions associated with a specific genre, which I'm definitely not. Well, I did refer to the fact that
  6. Up until the day before the 2020 volume was posted on the JSTOR page, all the issues up through and including 2019 were open access on JSTOR.
  7. I appreciate your thoughts on the article! I probably should have been more careful with salvation/exaltation, but I think their conflation isn't that unusual in broader Church usage. Not that that's much of an excuse. On page 8 I describe the construction as "after all (that) [NOUN/PRONOUN] can do," and in footnote 22 on that page I note that P and the 1830 edition include "that." I agree that the critical text definitely offers a clearer picture, but I don't think the inclusion of "that" alters the findings at all. The example from 1829 and the two examples from 1840 all inc
  8. JSTOR is the journal's main host: https://www.jstor.org/journal/jbookmormstud2
  9. They must have changed it when they added the 2020 volume, because a week ago it was all open access all the way through the 2019 volume.
  10. I don't think I do. I think much of its literary profile can be explained as a somewhat inconsistent pseudobiblical effort, but I don't think a credible argument can be made that the content all originates with Joseph Smith. I think the production of the Book of Mormon is a phenomenally complex issue that we don't do nearly adequate justice to try to reduce to either "God did it" or "Joseph Smith did it." I don't disagree, but I also don't think the argument is convincing that it cannot have been composed in the 19th century. As my paper demonstrates, at least for 2 Nephi 25:23, the 1
  11. They publish the journal through the University of Illinois, it's not strange for a university journal to have a one-year embargo on making articles public. BYU Religious Studies Center's Religious Educator journal is the same.
  12. That would violate the contract I signed with the publisher at the moment. Feel free to message me your email address and I'll be happy to send you a PDF.
  13. Thanks for the kind words! I agree that the text seems to be addressing that tension, and providing its own framework for resolving it. Hopefully more work will be done in the future on the question.
  14. I haven't argued that the late-18th and early-19th centuries are the only periods of usage that are broadly relevant to the semantics of the Book of Mormon, but I think they are the only ones pertinent to this particular construction, and particularly in light of the close correlation between the rhetorical context of 2 Nephi 25:23 and that of the anti-deist/Catholic commentary of the early nineteenth century. I'd be happy to respond to an argument about why this particular construction in this particular rhetorical context should not be considered native to the early-19th century, but I don't
  15. I tried to explain my reasoning in that last thread, but the paper's available now, so you can get a better look at the specific examples I used. I think a 1694 translation of a French treatise was the earliest occurrence I found, but still within the context of Enlightenment debates about grace. I choose representative examples in the paper, though they're certainly not exhaustive.
×
×
  • Create New...