Alma 5 vs. Psalm 24

[David Bokovoy]

Maybe what you mean is that, whatever model you choose, one component will be the translator's goal to reflect a certain King James-esque style and that's why you expect anachronisms to appear (I think that's what you mean from the underlined part below).

Yep.

One could say that Joseph put the anachronisms there because he was trying to reflect King James English. In fact, that's a position the critics share. Didn't know we had so much in common with you.

[Matt Andrews]

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?

I try my best not to assume either way. Since my interest is in deciding between the two alternatives, it would be silly to only look at it in one way. If I was merely interested in keeping whatever position I currently held, I guess I would approach it differently.

In my scholarly work (non-religious) I also try to consider alternative/competing hypotheses. If I just assumed what I already thought was true, I'd have missed out on numerous insights.

Similarly, while I find your comments interesting, I would find them much more so if I thought that they represented an attempt to answer the question of translation/original, instead of just assuming an answer to that question.

But I do understand that some are simply interested in different questions than I am, and that is okay. If you have spiritual evidence that lets you move beyond that question, then I will not begrudge you your decision to move on to other questions you find more interesting.

---------------------------

As an aside, your first sentence seems to imply that all scientific inquiry must begin with a (single) hypothesis. Is that what you meant?

[Jerubaal]

I remembered our last discussion on this, so I dug up the thread it was in.

I'll pull up some of the relevant points from the Mormon side of the topic in a minute (El Duderino, you can feel free to pull up anything you want from the countermo side, of course)

http://www.fairboards.org/index.php?showtopic=16290

[Jerubaal]

Here are a few things from myself on the matter, postulating an unknown, shared, ancient source:

I don't claim to be an expert on the subject, but I would like to point out the possibility, and yes, it is only that (though it's a little more plausible than Quakers on the moon), that there is/are an unknown ancient source(s) that the New Testament quotes from, and the "errors" in the KJV may not be errors at all.

I realize the entire above is based almost entirely on probabilities, but given the other strong evidences in favor of the Book of Mormon, I feel inclined to accept the scenario I have just presented.

I also later mentioned Zenos, Zenock, and Neum and likely candidates for the shared ancient sourses.

And you gave a decent counter to me:

I don't think it's the concepts that have to be accounted for. It's the words and phrases themselves. You would have us think that Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and all the writings of Paul contain unattributed quotations from the lost books of Zenos, Zenock and Neum.

Here's a long one from Ben MacGuire that I think sheds a whole lot of light on the matter.

I have a few comments to make.

I have certainly given the Book of Mormon translation process a good deal of thought. And I would respond to Don's issues in the following way. I understand of course, that a larger issue is the question of what it means to be a divinely inspired translation, and this is a philosophical question (which I would enjoy discussing), but it doesn't seem too relevant to the issues which Don lists, which tend not to deal with this aspect of it.

1) The use of the KJV text. Don wrote:

The use of large blocks of material from the King James Version in the Book of Mormon poses substantial problems for the latter's claimed antiquity.

I don't think this is the case. Take, for example, the following two translations (and get your KJV out so that you can follow along) - the text is from Isaiah 7:

Thus saith the Lord Jehovah,

It shall not stand, neither shall it come to pass.

For the head of Syria is Damascus,

and the head of Damascus is Rezin;

and within threescore and five years

shall Ephraim be broken in pieces so that it shall not be a people:

And the head of Ephraim is Samaria,

and the head of Samaria is Remaliah

[Bill Hamblin]

So, consistently using the methods the critics wish to apply to the BOM, what is the necessary date of the following passage:

"[He] is my eldest son ... he is my beloved, with whom I am well pleased."

[Jerubaal]

So, consistently using the methods the critics wish to apply to the BOM, what is the necessary date of the following passage:

"[He] is my eldest son ... he is my beloved, with whom I am well pleased."

Not quite sure about that one, but I googled it and came up with ancient Egyptian pyramid texts.

[Beowulf]

But according to Caudicus, on yet another thread, this quote from the Pyramid Texts would PROVE that Christianity itself is a fraud, because it plagiarized older texts...

He was not dissuaded when I pointed out that ALL such stories are available everywhere in the ancient world, and would seem to me to point to God as the author of ALL of them, telling everybody the story whenever He could get someone to listen...

Joseph Smith, et al, being merely the latest in a long line of people who listened...

Beowulf

BTW, Bill, that avatar of yours is about 51 years out of date for your present mug.... (heh)

[David Bokovoy]

So, consistently using the methods the critics wish to apply to the BOM, what is the necessary date of the following passage:

A great question Bill. It really is fascinating how this imagery appears in so many ancient sources. My personal favorite Book of Mormon anachronism happens to be the Land of no Return (2 Nephi 1:14).

When Ishtar reached the gate of the Land of no Return,

She said (these) words to the gatekeeper:

[Bill Hamblin]

When Ishtar reached the gate of the Land of no Return,

She said (these) words to the gatekeeper:

[The Dude]

I would still like the critics to explain why their methodology, if used consistently, does not demonstrate that this Pyramid Text (from c. 2300 BC) is quoting from Matthew, and is therefore must not be an authentic ancient text.

"[He] is my eldest son ... he is my beloved, with whom I am well pleased." (Pyramid Texts 1)

"This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased" (Mt 3:17)

Bill,

I already explained it to David:

Yeah, I don't know if a single anachronism is enough myself. But there are many anachronisms to discuss [between the NT and the BoM], in fact. Many 

From my first post in this thread, Alma 5 has five borrowings from Matthew 8. David has already agreed with me that, "we would have to say that Joseph Smith wasn't just trying to reflect King James English in general, but he was specifically trying to reflect Matthew chapter 8. He had specific passages on his mind when he dictated or wrote Alma 5." The only kink in the methodology as applied to the BoM is something that David and I agree on. That is, Joseph Smith produced the BoM in such a way that he was able to interpolate direct quotes from the New Testament, as part of his goal to transmit a believable scripture to 19th century readers. Whether he did so with God's backing is a matter of faith.

Are you willing to sign off on this, or is there some part where you disagree?

[phaedrus ut]

Alma

[David Bokovoy]

Hello Phaedrus ut,

===Are you suggesting that both Alma and the author of the Gospel of Nicodemus both developed the same views based on Psalm 24 just independently?

The Gospel of Nicodemus includes an expansion of Psalm 24. However, like Alan Cooper in the JBL article I cited, I believe that the Gospel of Nicodemus reflects the Psalmist's original, somewhat obscured intent to portray a descent myth.

I believe that both the author of Nicodemus and the author of Alma 5 were sensitive to the fact that Psalm 24 contains a descent myth in which the King of Glory delivers captives from death.

I find the fact that Alma 5 reflects this ancient tradition as evidence for its authenticity.

===Have you seen the article in FARMS Insights that attempts to connect 1 Corinthians 15:55, Alma 22:14, & The Gospel of Nicodemus?

I hadn't. Thanks for the link.

--David

[Bill Hamblin]

From my first post in this thread, Alma 5 has five borrowings from Matthew 8. David has already agreed with me that, "we would have to say that Joseph Smith wasn't just trying to reflect King James English in general, but he was specifically trying to reflect Matthew chapter 8. He had specific passages on his mind when he dictated or wrote Alma 5." The only kink in the methodology as applied to the BoM is something that David and I agree on. That is, Joseph Smith produced the BoM in such a way that he was able to interpolate direct quotes from the New Testament, as part of his goal to transmit a believable scripture to 19th century readers. Whether he did so with God's backing is a matter of faith.

Before I answer your question, let me get a little clarification.

1- Are we agreed that claiming that quotations from the KJV represent anachronisms in the BOM is an inadequete method, since the BOM we now have was translated/written in a culture where the KJV was considered the authoritative version of scripture?

2- Are you agreed that, at a minimum, we have a Christian editor (Mormon) and a Christian translator (JS), and Christian interpolations of the text could occur at either editorial level (ignoring, of course, the possiblity of inspired Christianizing interpretations by an original BOM author)?

3- You never explained how you would deal with the Pyramid Text I presented using the same methodology with which you approach the BOM.

[The Dude]

You never explained how you would deal with the Pyramid Text I presented using the same methodology with which you approach the BOM.

I did. The BoM and the NT share a lot more than the Pyramid Text case, so I don't think your example is a good candidate for the methodology. It is a good example of how a small sample size could lead one astray.

1- Are we agreed that claiming that quotations from the KJV represent anachronisms in the BOM is an inadequete method, since the BOM we now have was translated/written in a culture where the KJV was considered the authoritative version of scripture? 

Inadequate method...of what? Of calling the whole book a 19th century fraud? That depends on what you claim about the book and what it represents. The "anachronistic" passages are sufficient to judge some claims untrue, for example, a claim of word-for-word translation where JS just mechanically converted symbols on the plates into King James-like English. The cluster of quotes from Matthew 8 shows something more goal-driven occured in Joseph Smith's rendering of Alma 5.

2- Are you agreed that, at a minimum, we have a Christian editor (Mormon) and a Christian translator (JS), and Christian interpolations of the text could occur at either editorial level (ignoring, of course, the possiblity of inspired Christianizing interpretations by an original BOM author)?

I do not agree that Mormon could have borrowed from the King James NT. Only Joseph Smith as author/translator had access to that material.

[Bill Hamblin]

QUOTE (Bill Hamblin)

You never explained how you would deal with the Pyramid Text I presented using the same methodology with which you approach the BOM.

I did. The BoM and the NT share a lot more than the Pyramid Text case, so I don't think your example is a good candidate for the methodology. It is a good example of how a small sample size could lead one astray.

No you didn't. The point is that the translation of the Pyramid Text was done AFTER the writing of the NT and its translation into English. The precise linguistic parallel in the translation of the Pyramid Texts and the NT represents both a parallel of original ideas AND a decision (conscious or not) to translate a similar idea in the Pyramid Text into language that precisely parallels the NT. When this happens in the BOM, critics claim it as an clear-cut anachronism. The Pyramid Text case demonstrates that this is not a clear-cut conclusion that can be drawn. It is methodologically flawed because we are dealing with a translation.

[Bill Hamblin]

I do not agree that Mormon could have borrowed from the King James NT. Only Joseph Smith as author/translator had access to that material.

You've misunderstood. The theory is not that Mormon borrowed King James language. The theory is that Mormon could have inserted Christian interpolations which were later rendered into KJV English in the translation process because that was the authoritative language/version of the Bible in JS's culture. For early 19C America, to render biblical/theological parallels in non-KJV language is to effectively disguise the theological parallel. This theory posits that linguistic latitude is permitted in the literal/philological side of the translation in order to emphasize theological parallels that would otherwise be obscured. It is a theological and cultural translation, not a literal and philological one.

Of course, all such interpretations of the formulation of the English text of the BOM require assumptions about the original text and the nature of the translation process for which we have no conclusive evidence.

[The Dude]

QUOTE (Bill Hamblin)

You never explained how you would deal with the Pyramid Text I presented using the same methodology with which you approach the BOM.

I did. The BoM and the NT share a lot more than the Pyramid Text case, so I don't think your example is a good candidate for the methodology. It is a good example of how a small sample size could lead one astray.

No you didn't. The point is that the translation of the Pyramid Text was done AFTER the writing of the NT and its translation into English. The precise linguistic parallel in the translation of the Pyramid Texts and the NT represents both a parallel of original ideas AND a decision (conscious or not) to translate a similar idea in the Pyramid Text into language that precisely parallels the NT. When this happens in the BOM, critics claim it as an clear-cut anachronism. The Pyramid Text case demonstrates that this is not a clear-cut conclusion that can be drawn. It is methodologically flawed because we are dealing with a translation.

Okay, I misunderstood the order of the Pyramid Text and the NT. I think see your point.

[Bill Hamblin]

So how to explain the ancient links? They are illusory or they are coincidental.

Appeal to coincidence lacks any explanitory power whatsoever. I can, of course, claim that all modern parallels adduced by critics are purely coincidental.

Appeal to illusion is equally inadequete. Complex parallelism of language, motif, ideas, literary forms, etc. demonstrates clear intentionality. A single non-intrinsic parallel could be seen as coincidence. It is highly unlikely that the widespread, complex, and subtle parallels (like those adduced by David) are illusory.

[freakin a man]

Yes, David, that chapter of Alma is quite a sermon. It is amazing to me just how much the sermon quotes from the King James Gospel of Matthew chapter 3.

Matthew 3:2,3 Repent

[The Dude]

So how to explain the ancient links? They are illusory or they are coincidental.

Appeal to coincidence lacks any explanitory power whatsoever.

And yet coincidences happen all the time. The reason we appeal to them is to question the significance of a correlation, not to explain the correlation. Whenever you try to explain a correlation, in the back of your mind you are wondering if it is just a coincidence with no deeper explanation, and if that possibility worries you enough and you are being upfront, you will mention coincidence as an honest qualifier in your analysis. Mentioning it or not is a judgement call, of course.

I can, of course, claim that all modern parallels adduced by critics are purely coincidental. 

But you don't. You know very well there's more to some modern parallels than mere coincidence and so instead we discuss the different explanations as we are doing in this thread. About David's subtle parallels, I'm not so sure.

Appeal to illusion is equally inadequete.  Complex parallelism of language, motif, ideas, literary forms, etc. demonstrates clear intentionality.  A single non-intrinsic parallel could be seen as coincidence.  It is highly unlikely that the widespread, complex, and subtle parallels (like those adduced by David) are illusory.

I've said before that I think some of David's parallels occur intentionally or unintentionally as a result of JS trying to imitate a culture based on ancient Hebrews. The more subtle the are, the more I would tend to call them unintentional... and illusory.

[Bill Hamblin]

So, Dude, let me see if I

[Beowulf]

Let me add one more explanation of how this allusion would work.

Dude asserts that Joseph Smith consciously tried to imitate Hebraisms in his work. (Actually, I have no doubt of this...)

But whether he consciously tried or not, he would UTTERLY FAIL to imitate true Hebraisms, because he would have no idea what they would be like.

Don't believe me? Read ANY historical novel of ancient times (or even more recent times), and the pages literally scream out the author's own time period, rather than the one he is trying to mimic. The author simply cannot help himself. He is a product of his times.

But if it is a TRANSLATION of an ancient document, a different thing happens. We still get the modern interpolations, because the translator perceives things through his own time. But we ALSO get ancient ideas filtering through, because they are there in the text.

This is exactly what happens in the Book of Mormon, and in Bill's little Pyramid Text. An ancient idea, but filtered through more recent terminology. Sometimes, in the BofM case, by several generations of translators/editors.

This same methodology can be applied to the Old Testament, btw, which has to be read in terms of the final redactor (probably Ezra), the Deuteronomists (in Josiah's time), the Psalmist (David? or someone else in his generation?), the Law-giver (Moses, or someone near his time), and back and back, etc.

Very interesting thread David. Thanks.

Beowulf

[The Dude]

Dude asserts that Joseph Smith consciously tried to imitate Hebraisms in his work. (Actually, I have no doubt of this...)

I don't really think Joseph Smith tried to imitate loosely defined "Hebraisms." I think he tried to make his work appear to be based on an ancient Hebrew culture, filtered through his knowledge of the King James Bible, and by chance a few things fell into place that David cherry-picks and calls evidence.

But whether he consciously tried or not, he would UTTERLY FAIL to imitate true Hebraisms, because he would have no idea what they would be like.

Please define a "true" Hebraism, and I would love to see some examples of "false" ones.

[The Dude]

So, Dude, let me see if I

[Bill Hamblin]

We both agree that the King Jamesisms are meaningful and intentional, don't we? You don't seriously think they just happened by chance, or that the parallels are illusory.

Well, yes and no. All writing is obviously intentional. That, in and of itself is rather meaningless however. The question is what is the intention, and here I'm sure we disagree extensively. At any rate, the things we agree about is not the question. The question is what are the criteria by which we can establish intentionality. You haven't provided any. You claim that X is intentional and Y is not. I'm asking you for the criteria by which you can determine this. Saying that we both agree about X and disagree about Y is not a methodology.

Not because they do not support my presuppositions, but because of their subtle and inexact nature, I think there is justification for doubt.  ... David's Hebraisms are incredibly subtle, but the King Jamesisms cannot be missed. If the Hebraisms were as clear-cut as the King Jamesisms, then it would make sense to talk about the ancient model's superiority for accomodating both types of data.

Subtle is not the same as inexact. Something can be very precise and yet subtle. At any rate, are you saying that subtlety is your criteria? If so, you would be dismissing half of biblical studies, where complex methodologies are used to regularly examine very subtle issues. Furthermore, not all ancient evidence is subtle. Have you read, for example,

Isaiah and the Book of Mormon

King Benjamin's Speech

Warfare in the Book of Mormon

Allegory of the Olive Tree

etc. etc.

I have NEVER seen any substantive response to these and many other books. The knee-jerk responses are: 1- ignore the books, 2- CLAIM they are mere coincidence or illusion. Asserting something is, of course, a far cry from arguing something.

Why don't you start with Dan Peterson's "Nephi and his Asherah" article. Explain (don't ignore or assert) how the characteristics Peterson describes could have occurred by coincidence, or that his analysis is illusory.