Astonishing Corroboration Of The Book Of Mormon

[cksalmon]

Bible rewrites. The evidence is there for such now that the biblical writings amongst the scrolls have been examined (the latest and greatest theory is the so-called multiple literary editions theory). A few carefully placed rewrites of texts here, a little addition and reinterpretation there, and such could happen--easily.

Some would continue to preserve and try to return to the old ways. This continuance would be reflected in the Qumran community and others as time would progress.

I understand the theory. But, I've neither seen nor heard of the textual evidence. Yes, perhaps it could happen "easily." But, where is the textual evidence that it, in fact, did happen?

The theory you propose (a version of the scribal corruption theory) is certainly possible, but, alas, it remains merely theoretical in the absence of observable textual data. Otherwise, I don't know what impact or relevance the "so-called multiple literary editions theory" has in this regard. Can you correlate this theory with a context-specific example, backed by textual evidence?

I suspect that Dr. Hamblin has in mind something more concrete than theoretical textual corruption.

But, again, very specific textual examples would be useful at this point, so that we're not just presuppositionally talking past one another.

The evidence is there for such [bible rewrites, presumably] now that the biblical writings amongst the scrolls have been examined

Such as?

Chris

[soren]

But, again, very specific textual examples would be useful at this point, so that we're not just presuppositionally talking past one another.

Such as?

Chris

The biggest example is the book of Jeremiah. The LXX has a shorter version than the Masoretic text. It had long been thought that the LXX translators refrained from translating the whole book for some reason, but the Scrolls include a Hebrew version of Jeremiah that matches the LXX, proving that the shortening of the text was not caused by the translators but represents a genuine, distinct Hebrew tradition. The general view is that the shorter Jeremiah is earlier in origin than the long one. This raises a question of how textual development can fit with belief in inspiration. My own answer is that the Holy Spirit works through the organism of individual human personalities and societies, and textual development is part of that process, as the scriptures do have a genuine human authorship.

[MormonMason]

Consig,

This is a shrewd observation, but I fear your are misinterpreting the Essene documents. The word "until" here does not mean that at the law would terminate at the time of the Messiah. That is an implication that the word "until" carried in English but not in Hebrew. In point of fact, the Essenes thought the Mosaic was eternal and unchangeable in the same way that nature itself in unchangeable. For them, the New Covenant was realized not by a new law but by perfection in the way the law would be practiced in the eschatological age.

One pseudepigraphal book that the Essenes used heavily was the book of Jubilees, which recounts the stories of Genesis with a lot of theologically motivated changes. Among these are inclusions of Mosaic precepts in the sotries of earlier patriarchs like Noah. The Community Rule at Qumran, which outlines a lot of their practices has an addendum which explains how the law will be carried out in messianic times. In it, the two messiahs of Aaron and of Israel are expected to preside over the same liturgical functions that were already practiced at Qumran. Another text calledthe Temple Scroll describes an idealized Temple Architecture which may indicate how the author expected Mosaic Temple work to be carried on in the eschatological age. There is more evidence than this, but that is what I remember offhand.

One important detail in the DSS does have significant bearing on Paul's understanding of the law. A scroll called 4QMMT, uses the phrase "works of the law" in the context of describing purely ceremonial laws. One of the major arguements that Protestants make for faith alone as opposed to faith and works is that Pual teaches justification by faith "apart from works of the law." Since the phrase works of the law occurs nowhere except in Paul and 4QMMT, this is strong evidence that here Paul is not referring to all moral principles or works, but specifically to the ceremonial rites of the Old Testament, a point on which Catholics and Mormons generally agree.

Be careful not to ascribe to the Essenes particular beliefs except wherein they state said beliefs, such as in the Damascus Document and other related documents like the ones cited above. The Essenes were collectors of ancient texts of various kinds, from which they took what they felt of use for their own purposes and left the rest. They did not necessarily accept everything in all portions of the texts which they collected. Josephus also had this to say about their use of ancient texts and other ideas:

They dispense their anger after a just manner, and restrain their passion. They are eminent for fidelity, and are the ministers of peace; whatsoever they say also is firmer than an oath; but swearing is avoided by them, and they esteem it worse than perjury; for they say, that he who cannot be believed without [swearing by] God, is already condemned. They also take great pains in studying the writings of the ancients, and choose out of them what is most for the advantage of their soul and body; and they inquire after such roots and medicinal stones as may cure their distempers.

(Josephus, Wars of the Jews 2.135-136; older Whiston editions: Wars II.vii.6)

4QMMT very much contained much of the early Sadducean way of looking at the significance of the Law. Many scholars who examined this text when it was first made known jumped to the conclusion that the Essenes were really some kind of Sadducees! It may have had little pertinence to Essene thought, however!

How do we know what they would have picked out of this document and found of use to them? There is even a Greek philosophical text (I have not taken the time to translate this fragmentary text so do not know which one it is) and some Latin fragments of other texts that were found amongst remnants of manuscripts believed to have belonged to these same people!

I say, be careful not to jump to conclusions. We have no way of knowing what the Essenes believed except wherein they have told us. Most of their exegetical and mystical texts (such as the Book of Hagi, NOT to be confused with the Book of Haggai in the Bible) have been lost to us through the ravages of time. We only have a few of what they actually let behind and most of these we do have are no more than fragments. The texts that Consiglieri cited above were among the texts that tell us what they, the Yahad or the Community, believed.

[Bill Hamblin]

So, CK, do you believe the OT prophets truly prophesied of Christ? Or are NT interpretations merely anachronistic retrojections of their eccentric first century interpretations of OT prophecies?

If, in fact, there were authentic OT prophets who actually prophesied of Christ, it is not clear to me why you think the same could not be found in the BOM? (The BOM, by the way, repeatedly says that a great deal of information about Christ was revealed to the BOM writers.)

[MormonMason]

I understand the theory. But, I've neither seen nor heard of the textual evidence. Yes, perhaps it could happen "easily." But, where is the textual evidence that it, in fact, did happen?

The theory you propose (a version of the scribal corruption theory) is certainly possible, but, alas, it remains merely theoretical in the absence of observable textual data. Otherwise, I don't know what impact or relevance the "so-called multiple literary editions theory" has in this regard. Can you correlate this theory with a context-specific example, backed by textual evidence?

I suspect that Dr. Hamblin has in mind something more concrete than theoretical textual corruption.

But, again, very specific textual examples would be useful at this point, so that we're not just presuppositionally talking past one another.

This is more than mere hypothetical information. This theory to date has the strongest textual support out of all the theories. Unfortunately, the Biblical texts of the Dead Sea Scrolls have not been published in full. They come close in the English rendered The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible. Several examples of the theory and supporting evidence are given in the book in several places. As to more specifics, you should consult the work of Dr. Ulrich on the subject, and/or wait for the publication of his The Qumran Bible, where I am certain he will be discussing much more on the subject. This, however, is further bolstered by the fact that some of the biblical texts have multiple versions even amongst the Dead Sea Scrolls! Only the new theory seems to have taken into account all of the available evidence up to now--in my opinion, anyway.

I suppose that I have time for one specific example. The rendering supported by the fragment of Deuteronomy 32:8, when taken with the surrounding text, creates a situation where the nations are numbered according to the number of the gods (or, sons of God), rather than the Israelites (or, sons of Israel), and which places Yahweh as one of those sons of God receiving Israel as his portion from the Most High while the Most High allocates the other nations to the other gods (or, sons of God). The oldest version of the text here does not identify Yahweh as the Most High in the context of the passage.

How much more would be different if we had the complete text of Deuteronomy in its oldest form? This rendering tends to lend weight to Margaret Barker's thesis that El Elyon and Yahweh were initially understood to be separate and distinct in the "oldest Old Testament" (she herself gives other examples), an "older testament" that had within it ideas concerning a Son of God like that contained in the NT.

In addition to this, although we do not see much of that amongst the Isaiah texts of the Dead Sea Scrolls (several of which I am aware, all but one of which are fragments only) but we can see divergences of style between chapters 1-39, 40-55, and 56-66. There are only two conclusions that can be reached in the light of such evidence. We can conclude that Isaiah was written by two or three separate authors, or we can conclude--particularly when we consider the unity of structure and repeated patterns throughout the whole--that the latter portions of Isaiah were heavily interpolated to read as they now do.

We have evidence that Deuteronomy was rewritten, as was Joshua and Samuel and Jeremiah, and that some of these were done for political and/or religious reasons, as in the case of Deuteronomy. These had to have been done very early, however, and before the text made its way to Qumran.

Seeing that, it is entirely possible that the latter portions of Isaiah were interpolated and rewritten in like manner to conform with the theology developed in the Deuteronomic reforms under Josiah. The evidence of vocabulary and style is there to help bolster this thesis, in my view. I know it is a hard thing to accept but even Jeremiah stated that the scribes in his own day had falsified the Law of Moses as it then existed. (See Jeremiah 8:8, Hebrew [or some of the modern English versions which render this correctly]). Jeremiah even raised questions regarding the content of sacrifices pertaining to the Law elsewhere in his book. I do not recall the passages offhand at the moment but I am sure you can find them.

Such as?

Chris

Jeremiah, for one. The Dead Sea Scrolls exhibit a version that agrees with the Septuagint's shorter version found in the Septuagint. The manuscript evidence can also be seen in the versions of Samuel seen there, which are better textually in what exists than what we find in the current Masoretic text. This evidence can be seen in a fragment of Deuteronomy 32 which agrees more with the oldest manuscript fragments of the Septuagint than with the current Masoretic text, right down to the same underlying phrases that underlay texts that are cited from a Greek version of Deuteronomy by the author of Hebrews in his chapter 1 of said work!

Amongst the scrolls we can see a Book of Joshua that agrees with a citation of said book by Josephus and has a different chapter order than the current Masoretic text. We also see evidence that Deuteronomy originally may not have had the name of the place where Joshua built his altar (the Scrolls version indicates that the altar was built shortly after crossing the Jordan), but that the Samaritans wrote in Gerizim and the Jewish scribes in response wrote Ebal! The evidence is there waiting for you to examine it.

[cksalmon]

So, CK, do you believe the OT prophets truly prophesied of [the] Christ?

Yes. OT prophets truly prophesied of Israel's messiah. Now, did they intentionally and specifically prophesy of the God-man whose given name was to be Yoshua? That's certainly a different question, to my mind.

Or are NT interpretations merely anachronistic retrojections of their eccentric first century interpretations of OT prophecies?

I reject your "eccentric." Otherwise, in some cases, perhaps. The NT adoption of Isaiah's "Immanuel" prophecy is particularly problematic in this regard. If we're to take Isaiah's timeline seriously, then the birth of Jesus must be regarded as a secondary prophetic fulfillment. I'm not sure that one can credibly argue at all that Jesus' birth was the prophetic fulfillment of Isaiah's original prophecy. NT adopts and adapts this bit of historical lore, but doesn't appear to answer it precisely.

If, in fact, there were authentic OT prophets who actually prophesied of Christ, it is not clear to me why you think the same could not be found in the BOM? (The BOM, by the way, repeatedly says that a great deal of information about Christ was revealed to the BOM writers.)

I don't find ancient prophecies of Israels' messiah problematic. I find the high level of specificity in BoM suspect. The NT writers demonstrate a tendency to amalgamate, correlate, and harmonize OT prophecies with regard to Christ-as-Israel's-Messiah.

I don't think that's wrong.

But, we find a specificity in BoM that is manifestly lacking in any OT documents. And in DSS.

So, again, it's not the prophetic nature of BoM that is suspect, in general; it is the manifest specificity of BoM's messianism (a messianism, again, whose originary historical terminus must have been at least 7th c. Palestine).

I see no compelling reason to posit BoM's antiquity based merely on BoM's prophetic specificity, if doing so means that one must posit a common seventh c. BC source that is not extant, merely in order to explain BoM's prophetic specificity. And, moreover, one must then explain DSS's manifest lack of specificity vis-a-vis BoM. Perhaps MM is right: the answer may be to posit theoretical scribal corruption.

It all seems a bit circular to me.

Chris

[hagoth7]

Last night, as part of my preparation for Sunday school class dealing with Abinadi, I came across something that has left me somewhat astonished.

....What to make of this? At a minimum, it appears that Paul's teaching that the law of Moses need not be followed after the Messiah had come was not original to him, but was shared in some respect by the Qumran Community before Christ....

Consig,

Very interesting. THANK YOU for this thread. And to expand briefly upon what you've offered, may I recommend "Who Wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls"?

Mr. Golb basically suggests that the scrolls did not come from the Qumram community. Instead, based on the evidence within the scrolls themselves, Golb suggests the scrolls may be a depository for a central library or libraries in Jerusalem (not Qumran) - representative of broader, divergent streams of thought of pre-Christian Jews within Jerusalem itself.

[MormonMason]

Consig,

Very interesting. THANK YOU for this thread. And to expand briefly upon what you've offered, may I recommend "Who Wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls"?

Mr. Golb basically suggests that the scrolls did not come from the Qumram community. Instead, based on the evidence within the scrolls themselves, Golb suggests the scrolls may be a depository for a central library or libraries in Jerusalem (not Qumran) - representative of broader, divergent streams of thought of pre-Christian Jews within Jerusalem itself.

While an instructive read, I feel that Golb goes too far in the opposite direction for my liking. Josephus tells us something of the Essenes he knew. According to him, the Essenes collected various ancient texts and made use of them as suited them. They took what was needful in them to their souls and health from the documents that they collected but may not necessarily have believed everything contained therein.

A number of different texts--including those not sectarian and including at least one philosophical Greek text--have been found there, as Golb says. Where they explain their own beliefs are the only places we should be deriving an understanding of their beliefs and practices as best we can, and corroborating that with what we see in Josephus and, perhaps, Philo. It is sad that some of their more mystical texts and instruction are lost, we have enough in all the current scrolls to show that they were the Essenes.

Based on the texts I have been reading in their originals, I also have come to the conclusion that the Qumran community definitely were the Essenes. However, I believe that the complex in Qumran was originally a fortress that the community expanded and converted into a headquarters, where they produced pottery as a means of acquiring funds besides the communal fund. I believe that only a small community lived there and that all the rest lived in camps of tents and in cities, as some of their own religious texts state.

Anyway, just thought I would cast in my couple centavos.

[Bill Hamblin]

Yes. OT prophets truly prophesied of Israel's messiah. Now, did they intentionally and specifically prophesy of the God-man whose given name was to be Yoshua? That's certainly a different question, to my mind.

I reject your "eccentric." Otherwise, in some cases, perhaps. The NT adoption of Isaiah's "Immanuel" prophecy is particularly problematic in this regard. If we're to take Isaiah's timeline seriously, then the birth of Jesus must be regarded as a secondary prophetic fulfillment. I'm not sure that one can credibly argue at all that Jesus' birth was the prophetic fulfillment of Isaiah's original prophecy. NT adopts and adapts this bit of historical lore, but doesn't appear to answer it precisely.

I don't find ancient prophecies of Israels' messiah problematic. I find the high level of specificity in BoM suspect. The NT writers demonstrate a tendency to amalgamate, correlate, and harmonize OT prophecies with regard to Christ-as-Israel's-Messiah.

I don't think that's wrong.

But, we find a specificity in BoM that is manifestly lacking in any OT documents. And in DSS.

So, again, it's not the prophetic nature of BoM that is suspect, in general; it is the manifest specificity of BoM's messianism (a messianism, again, whose originary historical terminus must have been at least 7th c. Palestine).

I see no compelling reason to posit BoM's antiquity based merely on BoM's prophetic specificity, if doing so means that one must posit a common seventh c. BC source that is not extant, merely in order to explain BoM's prophetic specificity. And, moreover, one must then explain DSS's manifest lack of specificity vis-a-vis BoM. Perhaps MM is right: the answer may be to posit theoretical scribal corruption.

It all seems a bit circular to me.

Chris

Let's see. You agree that God revealed true prophecies of the coming of the Messiah, but object that God is more specific in the BOM than in the OT. And you feel God couldn't (shouldn't) reveal the name of Jesus, even though God tells Mary that she should name her son Jesus (Lk 1:31)? Now, of course, God could have chosen to name the Messiah George or Fred, but, in fact, whatever God might have chosen to name the Messiah, since God chose the name, he could have revealed that name, could he not? Once you accept the existence of true prophecies of the Messiah, the fact that such a revelation of the name Jesus does not survive in the extant OT prophecies does not mean it could never have been revealed. (And, indeed, the BOM explicitly says it was a special revelation to Nephite prophets, does it not? (2 Ne 10:3, 25:19))

Once you accept that God revealed true prophecies of the Messiah, why do you object if in one of those prophecies he gives the name of the Messiah?

[consiglieri]

Moreover, BoM's (chronologically-earlier) messianism is much more highly developed and specified than the DSS excerpts Consig has provided us.

Hi, CKS!

Always great to hear from you.

I would tend to agree with your statement regarding the more "highly developed" messianism in the BoM as compared with the Dead Sea Scrolls.

But we agree that messianism is present in both the BoM and the Dead Sea Scrolls, so all we are talking about is a matter of comparitive degree between the two. If they are not identical, I suppose one would have to have a higher degree than the other.

The main point of the thread is to look at the specifically Pauline idea from the New Testament that the law of Moses needed to be followed only up until the Messiah came; an idea which is found in the Book of Mormon in a pre-Christian context, but which is found nowhere in the Old Testament.

It appears that the Dead Sea Scrolls, discovered in1947, have several passages that indicate a similar point of view amongst the Qumran community.

I find this to be, in some ways, as remarkable as the discovery of inscribed metal plates subsequent to the production of the Book of Mormon.

Wishing you all the Best!

--Consiglieri

[consiglieri]

Consig,

This is a shrewd observation, but I fear your are misinterpreting the Essene documents. The word "until" here does not mean that at the law would terminate at the time of the Messiah. That is an implication that the word "until" carried in English but not in Hebrew. In point of fact, the Essenes thought the Mosaic was eternal and unchangeable in the same way that nature itself in unchangeable. For them, the New Covenant was realized not by a new law but by perfection in the way the law would be practiced in the eschatological age.

Hi, Soren,

I confess I am not expert in Hebrew, and barely make my way with English. Maybe somebody else with better qualifications can address your point about the word "until."

Of course, being a Mormon, and having been told countless times by fundamentalist Christians that prophets could not exist anymore because the New Testament says that "all the prophets prophecied until John," may have admittedly colored my perception of that particular word's meaning.

Once again granting that I am no expert on the Dead Sea Scrolls, I would suggest that it could perhaps be methodologically unsound to interpret all the DSS as conveying the uniform doctrine of one communal mind; in other words suggesting that the passages quoted in the OP could not mean what they appear to mean because other passages in other scrolls seem to suggest something else.

I think most scholars would agree that numerous different, and sometimes conflicting, concepts and ideas are put forth by authors of the Old Testament, as well as the New Testament, and that trying to interpret all the passages so as to make them "harmonize" with each other may be less than effective. If so for the OT and the NT, then I think it could be the case for the DSS. I believe the same situation exists for the cache of documents found at Nag Hammadi in 1945; that though they seem to come from a gnostic community with a similar overarching frame of reference, there are nevertheless many points at which the various documents differ in doctrinal detail. (OK. Couldn't resist the alliteration. I'm bucking for GA here.)

Anyway, just some of my thoughts, and thank you for sharing yours.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Alf O'Mega]

The argument is not about literary dependency. First, the data demonstrates that the old anti-Mormon argument is false. (It would be nice to see some anti-Mormon admit this. Anyone? Anyone?)

I'll be happy to concede that a number of anti-Mormon arguments have been made that I disagree with. I'm sure you'll concede that there is some bad pro-Mormon apologetic floating around.

Although in this case, I'm still not sure what particular anti-Mormon argument has been discredited. Was somebody actually arguing that pre-Christian Jews didn't anticipate a Messiah? That would be pretty strange. Or was it that they weren't calling him by name or using clearly Pauline language? (In which case the present evidence leaves that argument untouched.)

Second, it posits an archaic proto-Messianic source shared by the NT, the Essenes and the BOM authors. Obviously it would be seventh century BC or earlier.

Well, then I don't see how the present evidence advances that position either.

It should be noted that, before the DSS were discovered, the standard interpretation of the NT was that its messianology, concept of law, eschatology, temple and high priest ideologies, etc. were uniquely Christian. The DSS has demonstrated that the Christian interpretation was part of much broader and older Jewish trends, just at the BOM claims.

Except that the trend lines run in the wrong direction for the Book of Mormon.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Except that the trend lines run in the wrong direction for the Book of Mormon.

How so?

[Alf O'Mega]

How so?

See above.

[consiglieri]

Although in this case, I'm still not sure what particular anti-Mormon argument has been discredited. Was somebody actually arguing that pre-Christian Jews didn't anticipate a Messiah?

The argument to which this thread attempts to respond is the argument that pre-Christian Jews did not anticipate that the law of Moses would be fulfilled with the coming of their Messiah.

This we find in the Book of Mormon.

And this we also appear to find in the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Both in a pre-Christian context.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[cksalmon]

The argument to which this thread attempts to respond is the argument that pre-Christian Jews did not anticipate that the law of Moses would be fulfilled with the coming of their Messiah.

This we find in the Book of Mormon.

And this we also appear to find in the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Both in a pre-Christian context.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

I definitely derailed the thread, Consig. My apologies.

I concede your point readily.

My question involves Dr. Hamblin's assumption that, therefore, the shared source "obviously" dates to the seventh century BC--in order to accommodate, it appears, BoM's inclusion of this potentially-overlapping material. I don't find that assumption warranted by the evidence at hand. It can certainly be postulated as possible, but it certainly can't be determined to be "obvious."

With A&O, I'd suggest that the trend runs counter to assuming a seventh-century or earlier proto-source, extant in the time period required by BoM's proposed authorship.

Why can't we get BoM statements in this regard from NT. Positing a shared source dating to ~600 years earlier to infer a connection between BoM and DSS, when NT might serve just as well as a source seems to be a stretch.

Best.

Chris

[consiglieri]

Why can't we get BoM statements in this regard from NT. Positing a shared source dating to ~600 years earlier to infer a connection between BoM and DSS, when NT might serve just as well as a source seems to be a stretch.

I agree with you that the most common, if not universal, non-Mormon answer would be to attribute the presence of this pre-Messianic idea in the Book of Mormon to the New Testament.

I approach this from the point of view of a believer who gained a spiritual testimony of the Book of Mormon 30-years ago.

From my perspective, the New Testament influence doesn't make much sense, because I do not accept Joseph Smith as the author of the Book of Mormon.

Therefore, from my perspective, the idea in the Book of Mormon that the Jews would keep the law of Moses until the Messiah came, but would not need to do so afterward, has always made me somewhat uncomfortable.

It has made me somewhat uncomfortable because, to my knowledge, the only source for this idea in the Book of Mormon could have been the New Testament. (Can you say cognitive dissonance?)

For me to thereafter discover the presence of a similar idea in the Dead Sea Scrolls dated to before the time of Christ therefore allows me some cognitive consonance.

And the fact that this idea appeared in the writings of one group of self-dispersed Jews at the Dead Sea makes it not so difficult to believe it could occur in the writings of another group of self-dispersed Jews in the New World.

In reading some more, it appears there is an opinion that the writings discovered at the Dead Sea originated in Jerusalem, and were carried to Qumran. If this is the case, I think we can document the presence of this concept in Jerusalem to possibly 200 B.C., and it can remain an open question as to how long this concept had been around in Jerusalem prior to the departure of Lehi circa 600 B.C.

So in comparing the fact that this idea is documented in the pre-Christian Dead Sea Scrolls with the argument that we can't show it went back as far in pre-Christianity to 600 B.C. Jerusalem, I see one small step for LDS critics; one giant leap for the Book of Mormon.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Bill Hamblin]

My question involves Dr. Hamblin's assumption that, therefore, the shared source "obviously" dates to the seventh century BC--in order to accommodate, it appears, BoM's inclusion of this potentially-overlapping material. I don't find that assumption warranted by the evidence at hand. It can certainly be postulated as possible, but it certainly can't be determined to be "obvious."

You misunderstood. My point was that if there is a shared proto-source between the BOM and the DSS, it "obviously" dates to the seventh century. On the other hand, this "obviously" does not demonstrate that there is such a shared source.