Jump to content

Alma 5 vs. Psalm 24


David Bokovoy

Recommended Posts

Very interesting David. I trust that you'll try this as a FARMS Insights essay.

Aslo, consider John Tvedtnes' essay in The Most Correct Book on "Jeremiah's Prophecies of Christ". It's interesting that the non-BIblical prophesies attributed to Jeremiah by Iraeneus and Justin (I think) fits this kind of scenario.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Link to comment

YH8

David offers the Psalm inversion as evidence to support authenticity. We are therefore speaking in an arena where authenticity is in doubt, and we are applying the tools of scholarship to that question. In reply I offer evidence that questions authenticity, and I ask that tools of scholarship be applied to my evidence.

I realize that you have a different point of view that leaps right over the tools of scholarship because such tools are not helpful to resolve the Alma-Matthew quotations in a faith promoting manner. David may well end up taking the same route. (He may also decide not to address this because it is off his topic).

Is it intellectually honest to use the tools of scholarship to support authenticity, but retreat from them when they lead to uncomfortable questions? Maybe it is as you said, "Whatever it takes."

Link to comment
YH8

David offers the Psalm inversion as evidence to support authenticity. We are therefore speaking in an arena where authenticity is in doubt, and we are applying the tools of scholarship to that question. In reply I offer evidence that questions authenticity, and I ask that tools of scholarship be applied to my evidence.

I realize that you have a different point of view that leaps right over the tools of scholarship because such tools are not helpful to resolve the Alma-Matthew quotations in a faith promoting manner. David may well end up taking the same route. (He may also decide not to address this because it is off his topic).

Is it intellectually honest to use the tools of scholarship to support authenticity, but retreat from them when they lead to uncomfortable questions? Maybe it is as you said, "Whatever it takes."

Oh, I see.

Your charge that Alma 5 quotes from Matthew was a scholarly fact? Where was that established with scholarly tools?

I'm responding to the gist of your arguement - Joseph Smith quoted from the Bible. And you apparently assume that a true God-Prophet relationship precludes sharing the same message more than once.

Are you sure sholarly tools are not conducive to LDS faith promotion? Or is that another one of your assumptions that you would like to deny?

Link to comment

Are you avoiding telling me where the scholarly fact based on scholarly tools is that concluded that Joseph Smith quoted Matthew for Alma 5?

The Book of Mormon quotes Matthew for Alma 5, just as plain as the words on the page. By the tools of Daniel Bokovoy's profession, following the type of reasoning he applied to the Psalm inversion, I wonder if this data counts as evidence against authenticity.

Link to comment
I wonder what Seidel would have thought of the Matthew quotations, and if they outweigh the inverted reference to Psalms as far as evidence of an ancient origin. What do you think?

Just to answer this question, I think that no matter how many parallels may exist, many critical scholars would only need a single anachronism in a disputed text to label the document a

Link to comment

Are you avoiding telling me where the scholarly fact based on scholarly tools is that concluded that Joseph Smith quoted Matthew for Alma 5?

The Book of Mormon quotes Matthew for Alma 5, just as plain as the words on the page. By the tools of Daniel Bokovoy's profession, following the type of reasoning he applied to the Psalm inversion, I wonder if this data counts as evidence against authenticity.

Are you referencing somebody when you say this or is it an opinion? GASP!

Are you preparing a manscript submission of your own scholarly endeavor on the matter (to be submitted to a reasonable journal, of course. Not the Journal of Anti-Mormonism)?

Link to comment
I wonder what Seidel would have thought of the Matthew quotations, and if they outweigh the inverted reference to Psalms as far as evidence of an ancient origin. What do you think?

Just to answer this question, I think that no matter how many parallels may exist, many critical scholars would only need a single anachronism in a disputed text to label the document a

Link to comment
With a big friendly smile,  I think your posture of finding evidence is a sham

But of course you do and I take no offense.

I would simply point out that my approach is no different than the one taken by scholars with other ancient texts that exist only in translation. I maintain that the same critical tools employed by specialists to decipher the text

Link to comment
I would simply point out that my approach is no different than the one taken by scholars with other ancient texts that exist only in translation.

But we do not know if the BoM exists only in translation. The 1830 version may be the original text.

To treat it as a book that only exists in translation is to assume the assertion you are trying to support. It would seem the "scholarly" thing to do would be to approach it both ways, (as a translation AND as an original) and collect and present the evidence for both sides.

Link to comment

Hello Matt,

To treat it as a book that only exists in translation is to assume the assertion you are trying to support. It would seem the "scholarly" thing to do would be to approach it both ways, (as a translation AND as an original) and collect and present the evidence for both sides.

Yet of course, any scientific inquiry begins with a hypothesis. I freely admit that as a result of my own spiritual convictions, my inquiry commences assuming the antiquity of the Book of Mormon.

What assumption does your investigation commence with?

Link to comment
To equate with your posture, R.H.Charles would have to say two things: that portions of the book are of origin X based on textual analysis, and other portions of the book that appear to be of origin Y are merely reflective of God's design and should not be used to infer origin.

I don

Link to comment
If the Book of Mormon did not possess a plethora of ancient links like the one that prompted this thread, then we would have no choice but to conclude that the book was simply of 19th century origin due to your King James links.

Okay, here it sounds like you reach your conclusion by weighing the evidence just like I suggested as a "what if" for Seidel:

I wonder what Seidel would have thought of the Matthew quotations, and if they outweigh the inverted reference to Psalms as far as evidence of an ancient origin.

And for you, the plethora of ancient links that you see simply outweighs the anachronisms. So how to explain the anachronisms? God put them there or they are translation artifacts.

For me, the anachronisms outweigh the ancient links. So how to explain the ancient links? They are illusory or they are coincidental. (I guess an EV could just as easily say that Satan put them there. :P )

As I said, your response "sounds like" you reach your conclusion by weighing the evience, but you already said that weighing the evidence is not your approach. Earlier you said,

In my opinion, however, the problem with applying this standard [weighing the evidence] to the Book of Mormon is that if the book is truly what it claims to be, then we don
Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...