Anachronisms in the BOM

[Nevo]

Thank you for the clarification. I'm still not sure that it's very convincing as an anachronism since a "substitutionary atonement" is symbolized throughout the Old Testament.

It's not so much the substitution aspect I'm thinking of, as the idea of "justice" demanding satisfaction:

And thus we see that all mankind were fallen, and they were in the grasp of

justice; yea, the justice of God

, which consigned them forever to be cut off from his presence. And now, the plan of mercy could not be brought about except an atonement should be made; therefore God himself atoneth for the sins of the world, to bring about the plan of mercy, to appease

the demands of justice

, that God might be a perfect, just God, and a merciful God also. (Alma 42:14-15)

Through the atonement of Christ, then, "justice exerciseth all his demands, and also mercy claimeth all which is her own; and thus, none but the truly penitent are saved" (Alma 42:24).

As far as I can tell this doctrine is not found in the Bible--not in these terms, anyway. But early nineteenth-century sermons were full of this sort of thing. In an 1822 sermon the revivalist preacher Timothy Merritt taught, for example, that "if we incur the penalty of the law by transgression, that penalty must be executed either on us or on our substitute. If on us, then no favor is shown us; but if on our substitute, the way is opened, and mercy may be extended to us." Christâ??s suffering for us, in our stead, "[gave] exercise to that mercy and grace which otherwise would have been prevented by the unsatisfied demands of the law upon us." Thus, "the atonement was not made to render God merciful to us, but to satisfy the claims which his justice had against us as transgressors, and open the way by which he might extend mercy to us consistently with his character as Lawgiver and Judge" (Methodist Magazine 6 [July 1823]: 244-45).

God's character as Lawgiver and Judge would not allow him to flout the demands of justice--even in the name of mercy. To do so would go against his very nature. "God can no more disregard his justice in his conduct toward his creatures, than he can deny his own name, or destroy his moral perfection," declared the Utica Christian Magazine in 1813. "If God had saved sinners from threatened and deserved punishment without an atonement, he would have sacrificed his justice, and have ruined his character and government." In 1826, Josiah Priest argued that if Godâ??s attributes are essential to his nature, and if God is just, "[can] a being necessarily just, suspend his justice? . . . If mercy can overcome justice, what is become of Omnipotence by which justice is supported?" The implicit answer is that God would cease to be God (Alma 42:13, 22-23, 25). But, as Alma explains, the work of justice cannot be destroyed ("what, do ye suppose that mercy can rob justice?"). Only through Christ's atonement can mercy "satisfy the demands of justice" (Alma 34:16).

[urroner]

The BOM contains both Christian ideas, as well as Hebrew, such as the Mosiac law. But this thread is on anachronisms, which I fail to see that you have demonstrated. We do find hints of the atonement in the blood sacrifices of the Mosaic law. The writers of the NT point out many of the prophecies of the coming of Christ as foretold in the Hebrew scriptures.

Again, we are not talking about technological achievements, we are not talking about cars, tanks, and machine guns in mesoamerica. We are talking about ideas, doctrines and revelations to prophets.

The whole basis of your argument is that Christianity is based on the evolution of theology, not revelation from God to a prophet, but the gradual development of a religious philosophy over the course of millenia. We reject that model of religion.

We are asking for proof an an anachronism, and you have failed to demonstrate it beyond the "evolution of religious thought" inherent in your argument.

I am reading and struggling with Margaret Barker's latest book and it seems to me, if I understand her, that the OT and many other of the books written by in pre-Exilic Israel centered very much around a Messiah and the Atonement. The BofM fits very well into that time period.

[kawikadave]

It's not so much the substitution aspect I'm thinking of, as the idea of "justice" demanding satisfaction. As far as I can tell this doctrine is not found in the Bible--not in these terms, anyway. But early nineteenth-century sermons were full of this sort of thing.

Thank you for the additional clarification.

I guess my question would be, can we not find this idea of "justice demanding satisfaction" in sermons and writings earlier than the nineteenth century? Could we find this idea in the writings of the Early Christian Fathers?

My guess would be yes. It's hard to believe that this concept appeared out of nowhere in 1820. I'm not enough of a theological scholar that I can quote a reference right now, but let me poke around a bit to see if I can find one.

If I do, will you concede that it's not an anachronism, or will you hold to the idea just because it was also preached in Joseph Smith's day?

[Nevo]

Here is a useful article on the presence, function and background of Synagogues in the Book of Mormon.

http://farms.byu.edu/publications/jbms/?vo...um=1&id=207

From this evidence, it seems that there is no difficulty in the Book of Mormon usage of synagogues. While most of the passages in the Book of Mormon tend to use the word Synagogue as a place of gather or assembly in the broader sense, those passages that do talk about the construction of synagogues (as per Alma 21:4, Alma 31:12) could be explained by this evidence.

Adams's paper is notoriously problematic. First and foremost, Lee Levine--"a leading scholar on the history of the synagogue"--does not claim that synagogues existed before the Babylonian captivity in the form of chambers in the city gates. In the article Adams cites, Levine observed that many of the activities formerly associated with the city gate later found expression in the synagogue [in the first century CE]. Nowhere does he conflate the two. Levine writes: "When these functions were moved from the city gate or adjacent square to a building known as a synagogue is unknown. Presumably, it transpired sometime in the Hellenistic era, when many activities heretofore conducted at the city gate were moved into specific buildings" (Lee I. Levine, "The Nature and Origin of the Palestinian Synagogue Reconsidered," Journal of Biblical Literature 115 [1996]: 436).

When the poster Abulafia e-mailed Professor Levine to ask him about his position in light of Adams's article, he replied:

"There is no evidence for the existence of synagogues in the First Temple period, if what we mean by synagogues is a communal building with non-sacrificial worship (which is the usual definition). . . . Most scholars today have abandoned the once-accepted theories of the 7th-5th centuries (including myself) and date the emergence of the synagogue to the Hellenistic-early Roman periods. As for the Book of Mormon, I'm not sure what the author had in mind, but it seems to me that the description is heavily influenced by the New Testament Jesus stories."

The synagogues mentioned in the Book of Mormon plainly refer to free-standing buildings, "built after the manner of the Jews" (Alma 16:13). According to Helaman 3:9, the people in the land northward constructed their synagogues out of timber. I find it quite a stretch to say that these passages are actually referring to a chamber inside the city gate.

[Nevo]

Thank you for the additional clarification.

I guess my question would be, can we not find this idea of "justice demanding satisfaction" in sermons and writings earlier than the nineteenth century? Could we find this idea in the writings of the Early Christian Fathers?

My guess would be yes. It's hard to believe that this concept appeared out of nowhere in 1820. I'm not enough of a theological scholar that I can quote a reference right now, but let me poke around a bit to see if I can find one.

If I do, will you concede that it's not an anachronism, or will you hold to the idea just because it was also preached in Joseph Smith's day?

Even if the idea of "justice demanding satisfaction" could be traced to the Early Fathers--and I don't think it can--it would still be anachronistic. Even if it were a NT concept, it would be anachronistic. But this isn't necessary fatal to the Book of Mormon's claim of antiquity. If the Book of Mormon was written for Joseph's day (it wasn't written for the Nephites, that's for sure), why wouldn't it contain passages that spoke to contemporary concerns--perhaps even using contemporary religious terminology? After all, doesn't God give scripture to men "in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding" (D&C 1:24)?

[Brant Gardner]

I am not aware of any non-Christian text that equates a messiah with "a Savior of the world" who redeems all mankind from the effects of the Fall--an idea conspicuously absent from the Hebrew Bible.

This is where Margaret Barker's readings are most interesting. The absence from the Hebrew Bible appears to the be result of changes in Israelite religion which more closely aligned the king with the Messiah festivals and shifted emphasis to the military Messiah rather than the saving Messiah. Since that shift occured with Josiah and that is the time the Book of Mormon begins, its references to a very specific atoning Messiah as the essential message (and a new context for what was "removed" from the Bible) gives a time appropriate context for the Book of Mormon's specific emphasis on the atoning Messiah (and much less on the militaristic Messiah of the end times).

This dual concept of the Messiah has some survival into the time of the Dead Sea Scrolls where that community spoke of two Messiah's.

As the Dutch scholar Marinus de Jonge points out, "in the Old Testament the term â??anointedâ? is never used of a future savior/redeemer" (ABD 4:777)--much less a future savior of all mankind from sin and death.

Again, this is the specific issue of history. If we were to posit an inerrant Bible, the argument would be correct. However, in the developmental picture of the Bible, this concept is one that was removed through the Exilic/post-Exilic redaction, hence it isn't in the Bible now.

The argument that I find most fascinating with Barker is that the nature of the acceptance of Jesus as an atoning Messiah had to have some kind of precedence in order to be accepted. That had to be a context in which that could be given as a fulfillment of expectation. The early Christians justified it with a reading the Septuagint, and other texts such as Enoch. The threads of the pre-Exilic form logical remained when Judah was removed. The lower class remained, however, which is traditionally the most conservative (and the ones who had resisted the Hezikiahn reforms a century before Josiah). It therefore makes perfect sense that a figure from Galilee could tap into the popular expectations that were not in the official texts and be accepted as an atoning Messiah--still in contrast and opposition to the political religion.

[Brant Gardner]

This is interesting, to be sure. But infant baptism in the Book of Mormon is presented as a deviant Christian practice.

Of course. It has no relevance unless it is an apostate practice among the Christian community. The importance of finding the practice in the New World tells us where the idea came from that was imported into Nephite Christianity. Similar to the evolution of conceptions of baptism in the Old World, pagan rites that were similar in form and concept made for easy paths along which syncretism occurred. The existence of the practice outside the religion leads to the adoption of the form inside, and the conflict with the meaning of the more traditional form.

As Edwin Firmage observes, Mormon's opposition to the practice draws on "a pastiche of New Testament sentiments taken out of context":

His quotation of Jesus to the effect that 'the law of circumcision is done away in me' is the most peculiar. This Pauline sentiment makes sense in its original social setting: the struggle to establish the independence of the gentile church from Jewish ritual. But what relevance does it have to Moroni's practical difficulty?

Firmage does not appear to have read the Book of Mormon text carefully for its history. The post-destruction Nephite Christianity was a combination of peoples, many of whom were previous Lamanites (and not observers of Hebrew law, for all that we can glean from the text). Therefore, the essential Christian message has precisely the same issues of adaptation to a wider range of peoples, including those who had not been believers in brass plate religion, as occurred in the Old World. The conflicts were the same, and many of the solutions were the same (precisely because the same social conditions existed).

Thus, Firmage goes on to write:

The problem of infant baptism cannot realistically be located in the sort of world which the Book of Mormon itself would lead us to expect.

Except he is simply incorrect. It can be realistically located in the Book of Mormon world, his opinion notwithstanding.

[Brant Gardner]

If it were true that the synagogue as building could be traced to pre-exilic times, then perhaps it wouldn't be much of an anachronism. But as far as I know this is not the case.

It isn't that simple. Lee Levine notes that the dating is varied: "Theories have ranged from the late First Temple period (eighth-seventh century B.C.E.), through the exilic (sixth century) and postexilic (fifth century) eras, and down to the late Persian (fourth century) and Hellenistic times (third or second century). Most scholars have assumed a midway position, one that posits the emergence of the synagogue closely following the destruction of the first temple in 587/586 B.C.E, either during the Babylonian exile or soon after, when the Jews returned to to Judea during the era of restoration." (Lee Levine, "Synagogue," in The Oxford Companion to the Bible, 1993, 721.)

In his own book on the subject, he notes: "The reasons for this variety of opinions abound. First and foremost is the sheer absence of data. With no clear-cut references at hand, the only recourse has been to speculate on the time, place, and circumstances of the synagogue's emergence. . . .

Secondly, there is a lack of clarity as to the meaning of the term "synagogue" and, consequently, what characteristics and developments should determine its time and place of origin. . . . To look for a specific type of building might not be a fruitful exercise, for many different settings could have been used by a synagogue-community: a public building constructed expressly for religious purposes, a multipurpose communal building, a private residence or part of a home converted for public use." (Lee Levine, The Ancient Synagogue,, 22-23.

Trying to understand the usage in the Book of Mormon requires that we read the text with preconceptions. For example, people enter and exit synagogues and worship there. That tells us that it is an enclosed space, but doesn't tell us anything about the nature of that enclosure. For example, we don't know if there is a roof. If we place the Book of Mormon in Mesoamerica, the Zoramite experience becomes telling. Their Rameumptum is in the synagogue, and the description indicates that one ascends to above everyone else's head. That makes a high-walled, high-ceiling enclosure--if there were a roof. Such buildings do not exists. However, walled enclosures surround platforms exist all over. The synagogue as a walled enclosure and a site for worship easily fits into Mesoamerica, once we divorce architectural expectations from the word itself (as Levine suggests we must do).

[Brant Gardner]

Here I am not simply referring to republican government per se (which Bushman effectively refutes) but to what historians of American history refer to as "republicanism" or "republican ideology" (see, e.g., Gordon S. Wood, The Creation of the American Republic, 1776-1787 [Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1969], 46-123).

Interesting to know that this is a different perspective.

The best treatment of republicanism in the Book of Mormon is Kenneth Winn's Exiles in a Land of Liberty: Mormons in America, 1830-1846. Here are a few excerpts.

Republican ideology, it will be recalled, characterized the ideal society as one composed of independent, industrious, self-reliant citizens. These citizens exemplified simplicity, frugality, and civic virtue and shunned luxury and dependence which demoralized society and led to threats of tyranny and anarchy.

I can agree with most of this for the Book of Mormon. I see all of those principles outlined in the chapters of Isaiah that are included and appear to form the politico-religious charter. I trace Nephite egalitarianism to that document. The traits listed for "republicanism" also flow from that egaliatian/agricultural communal charter.

Having inherited similar biases toward wealth and labor from Puritan thought, Americans appropriated the Puritan jeremiad to voice their fears that society would collapse if they abandoned republican virtue. Thus the Book of Mormon with its cycle of virtue, decline, and reawakening displays a striking similarity to the canons of republican literature.

Interesting hypothesis, but it doesn't account for the nature of the fears. The type of wealth that the Puritans feared, land accumulation and money, are not really the Book of Mormon concerns. Those are encoded into "costly apparel" and social rank (which was a problem in the Puritan world). The particular nature of economic concerns in the Book of Mormon are very easily explained by the tension between their egalitarianism and the emerging hierarchically ranked societies in Mesoamerica at the time (including the multiple waves in connection with wealth).

But I don't think there is any getting around the fact that the Book of Mormon, in many places, echoes nineteenth-century pulpit rhetoric.

No need to get around it. It is obvious. Of course, as a translation, it simply indicates the source of the vocabulary used in the translation, so it cannot argue for the source of the ideas, only the vocabulary.

[Rommelator]

Of course, as a translation, it simply indicates the source of the vocabulary used in the translation, so it cannot argue for the source of the ideas, only the vocabulary.

This is where I think we Mormons get to have our cake and eat it too.

Those things that sound 19th centuryish can be explained by the translation, which is to be expected considering the nature of translations in general.

Those things that sound ancient we can explain by saying that the Book of Mormon is an ancient text from an ancient production culture.

Cool.

[Mudcat]

This is where I think we Mormons get to have our cake and eat it too.

Those things that sound 19th centuryish can be explained by the translation, which is to be expected considering the nature of translations in general.

Those things that sound ancient we can explain by saying that the Book of Mormon is an ancient text from an ancient production culture.

Cool.

Since the proposed source material if extant is unavailable can LDS have there cake and eat it... in regards to the record being a translation?

Is it not just as plausible to say that it sounds 19th centuryish in areas and ancient in others, because you have 19th century authorship trying to make the text appear ancient. This argument seems just as logical.

So I guess those who are critical of its authenticity get to have their cake and eat it too.

So If the Critics and LDS both get to have their cake and eat it too, how many cakes does that make?

A. 2

B. 4

C. Infinite

D. O

E. I don't care

[Analytics]

I assume you went to the link because this isn't one of your arguments. The list is pretty standard and you can find responses to them in the FAIR wiki as well as pretty much any modern discussion of the Book of Mormon.

I am particularly fond of "anachronisms" such as using Christ instead of Messiah....

Do you like it because by focusing on it, you create the impression that all of the others are as easy to dismiss?

But we have to make sure that those who are convinced don't join the church, right?

Absolutely not. First of all, somebody who accepts the Book of Mormon as an accurate translation of an authentic ancient document can infer from that all sorts of things: that some 19th century genius actually had the real manuscript and translated it himself, that Joseph Smith was a prophet but the church has since gone into apostasy, or that it was actually translated by the power of the devil rather than the power of God. In principle, somebody could believe the Book of Mormon is an accurate translation of an authentic ancient manuscript and still be an atheist or anti-Mormon Christian or whatever.

Second, if people who cared deeply about the history of the Mesoamerican people (i.e. Mesoamerican anthropologists) were converting to Mormonism at an uncanny rate, that would certainly prove your point.

We agree that I don't have the qualifications to evaluate what the secular evidence says about the Book of Mormon. Convince the people that do. I assure you that if the evidence proves that there is a 600 page book written by ancient Mesoamericans, that they really would be interested in taking that peek into their world.

[cdowis]

I assure you that if the evidence proves that there is a 600 page book written by ancient Mesoamericans, that they really would be interested in taking that peek into their world.

Take the article written by Larry Poulson. Let's try an experiment. Write the professional journals, describe his findings that he has strong evidence that the BOM is an authentic text....... Ask them if they would be interested in publishing such an article that would *convince* the world that the BOM is an authentic text.

Get back to us with their response.

[J Green]

A few thoughts on synagogues from the wilds of Afghanistan (wild, but with some internet capability):

1. A good read is Dan Urman et al, "Ancient Synagogues" (Leiden: Brill, 1995), where several of the contributers argue for the rise of the synagogue in the diaspora, with a late introduction into Palestine via (probably) Galilee. There are articles by J. G. Griffiths, Lester Grabbe, and others. Some of them see an Egyptian nexus, referencing 2nd- and 3rd-century BCE Egyptian commentary about Jewish prayer houses. The possible Egyptian connection is intriguing, because when we're placing Lehi in his world, we keep coming back to Elephantine names, hieratic-like scribal practices, etc.

2. Most scholarship focuses on a post-exilic origin of the synagogue. As has been noted, though, there have been a few scholars over the years looking at the time of Josiah's reforms as a good candidate. J. Morgernstern ("The Origin of the Synagogue") comes to mind, as he's the one always referenced at the early end of the spectrum (cf. "synagogue" entry in Kittel et al "Theological Dictionary of the New Testament"). One of the main issues that others had with this thesis at the time, however, was the consensus that Deuteronomy was not pre-exilic. A few years later, for example, Mowinckel voiced his objections to Morgenstern like this:

J. Morgernstern's arguments in support of A. Lod's suggestion that the Josianic reformation, 621 B.C., called forth the synagogue [CITATION] are not convincing--especially not when it is recognized that the basis of Josiah's reform cannot have been Deuteronomy--which is most certainly an early post-exilic book. (Sigmund Mowinckel, "The Psalms in Israel's Worship [Nashville: Abingdon, 1962], vol I, p. 4.)

Yet now the consensus seems to be shifting more toward the view that the basis of Josiah's reforms (2 Kgs 22) was some form of Deuteronomy. Based on the shift in focus over the last decade or so, is it time to revisit Morgenstern's arguments based on their merits?

3. The introduction to "Ancient Synagogue" has this great thought in a footnote:

Indeed, while the idea of the Mosaic origins of the synagogue came out of the early Jewish literature in the hands of the church (Josephus, New Testament, and Philo), the Babylonian origin's idea was founded largely upon statements in rabbinic texts. (p. xxi.)

Sound familiar? Many of the so-called anachronisms (e.g., strong Messianic terminology) have this same nexus: a current weltanschau based on rabbinic reconstructions versus early Jewish claims of pre-exilic beliefs that were preserved by early Christians. This is why the studies of Barker and others is important. This is why the widening field of DSS studies is so fascinating. We're wiping out the assumptions that there was one monolithic Judaism and we're starting to see a whole new world. Is it a coincidence that many of the "anachronims" have the same locus? What about a shrunken centroid vector that measures the fact that the footprint of the issues we're dealing with are narrowly aligned to a field of study just being tapped? I think I'm starting to see just how advanced Sidney's publishing house in PA really was.

Regards.

[Brant Gardner]

Is it not just as plausible to say that it sounds 19th centuryish in areas and ancient in others, because you have 19th century authorship trying to make the text appear ancient. This argument seems just as logical.

If you generalize without looking at the data, yes. The actual argument is much more complicated, however. In any text that is read in translation, there are two documents that you deal with simultaneously (and usually unconsciously); the original and the translation.

There are certain things that are clearly discernible on the level of the translation. Similarities to language in use at the time an author translates a text into that language are not necessarily evidence of the underlying original. They may be artifacts of the translation.

The task, therefore, in examining any text in translation, is to find elements of the text that do not rely on vocabulary, but rather upon the actions or descriptions in the text. In the case of the "synagogue" in the Book of Mormon, one cannot make the decision about anachronism based on the text alone, because the word could be an artifact of translation. One must look at what the text says about synagogues, the descriptions, and uses, and determine from the descriptions what the underlying text requires of the meaning apart from the word used to express the meaning.

In that methdology, it is perfectly legitimate to have features that are common to the era of the translation, but still be authentically ancient. One need only look to the KJV to see a perfect example of the issue. One could, on the basis of vocabulary, establish the location and time period of the translation based upon the vocabulary. One may even see (in candles and swadling clothes, for example) anachronisms in the text. None of those things points to ancient Israel. However, other elements in the text do, therefore we are willing to accept the translation as representative of the more ancient version in the appropriate language.

[Brant Gardner]

Second, if people who cared deeply about the history of the Mesoamerican people (i.e. Mesoamerican anthropologists) were converting to Mormonism at an uncanny rate, that would certainly prove your point.

You continue to repeat this mantra, but for some reason never respond to the problems with it.

1) It assumes that interest in Mesoamerica will translate into an interest in the Book of Mormon if there is evidence for the Book of Mormon. That is not only an unsupported assumption, it is unsupportable. As has been pointed out to you several times, this simply does not happen. The Book of Mormon is dismissed (with prejudice) without any kind of hearing at all.

2) It assumes that an argument for the Book of Mormon must equal proof. That is simply never the case in any historical proposition. History and ethnohistory are built on arguments, not proofs. It is quite possible to understand an argument and grant that someone else might find it compelling, but refuse to believe it.

If you persist in asserting that you accept the methods of science and scholars, don't you think you should go all the way and accept only premises that can be supported by fact?

[Mudcat]

If you generalize without looking at the data, yes. The actual argument is much more complicated, however. In any text that is read in translation, there are two documents that you deal with simultaneously (and usually unconsciously); the original and the translation.

Hey Brant,

Thanks for the response, and I hope your family has a good Christmas.

I agree with this, but the fact that original is not present seems to force one to deal with the translation independently.

According to JS words, the BoM is the most correct book on Earth... granted he did not say it was perfect. Given the account of Harris to Stevens about the words in the stone not disappearing until it was "written". The only avenues for incorrectness in translation would seem to be from manuscript to print, and linguistic issues that came from the translator.

I suppose my thought in regards to manuscript to print, Smith was alive and saw the first copy, I would think he would have annotated any errors and corrected them. Seems like something the CoJCoLDS would have been aware of, IMO.

If you are willing take that as a given, the bulk of anachronisms/imperfections lay in the linguistics of Joseph Smith.

Seems synagogues was one used earlier, I mentioned "latchet" which also IMO, gives a strong implication that JS 'borrowed' certain phrases outside of Isaiah from the KJV.

I have heard it posited that the translation was confined to JS's limited vocabulary. However, it seems apparent that Joseph Smith was mentally cognitive of better language for what he was saying, using "latchet" for an example.

You would either have to assume that Smith altered the verse to fall into consistency with the KJV or you would have to assume that his translation was authentic and the Nephites had shoe latchets. Neither alternative is very compelling.

The task, therefore, in examining any text in translation, is to find elements of the text that do not rely on vocabulary, but rather upon the actions or descriptions in the text. In the case of the "synagogue" in the Book of Mormon, one cannot make the decision about anachronism based on the text alone, because the word could be an artifact of translation. One must look at what the text says about synagogues, the descriptions, and uses, and determine from the descriptions what the underlying text requires of the meaning apart from the word used to express the meaning.

In that methdology, it is perfectly legitimate to have features that are common to the era of the translation, but still be authentically ancient. One need only look to the KJV to see a perfect example of the issue. One could, on the basis of vocabulary, establish the location and time period of the translation based upon the vocabulary. One may even see (in candles and swadling clothes, for example) anachronisms in the text. None of those things points to ancient Israel. However, other elements in the text do, therefore we are willing to accept the translation as representative of the more ancient version in the appropriate language.

I see what you are saying, seems to rebuild the original you have to debug the 19th century difficulties. However, if you have JS 'at liberty' borrowing from the Bible, you have an entirely different set of problems and have to dissect between two non-extant ancient records and multiple translations of such. This IMO, doesn't improve the claims of 'most correct' if such as the case.

Respectfully,

Mudcat

[cdowis]

This IMO, doesn't improve the claims of 'most correct' if such as the case.

Respectfully,

Mudcat

Tell us what "most correct" means to you. In order to "improve" that claim, we need to know what it means.

[Brant Gardner]

Hey Brant,

Thanks for the response, and I hope your family has a good Christmas.

Thank you, and the same for you and yours.

I agree with this, but the fact that original is not present seems to force one to deal with the translation independently.

It certainly makes if more difficult, but not impossible. The problem is that you have to be careful to examine issues that are more likely to come through the translation rather than the translation itself.

According to JS words, the BoM is the most correct book on Earth... granted he did not say it was perfect.

That must be the most quoted misinterpreted text about the Book of Mormon. It doesn't take any more than the next sentence to know that when he said it, he meant something very different from precision in presentation (heck, even Moroni warns about human errors in the text--he seemed to be quite worried about it).

Given the account of Harris to Stevens about the words in the stone not disappearing until it was "written". The only avenues for incorrectness in translation would seem to be from manuscript to print, and linguistic issues that came from the translator.

The problem with the issue of translation is that it is something that has to be investigated, not simply taken on such instructions. The problem with Harris' account is that the manuscript proves him incorrect. If we take a hearsay evidence (he couldn't have seen what was there) then we are left with the more sure data from the manuscript. While there was certainly an impetus to considering the text pseudo-inerrantly, that was an opinion developed about the text and not one that came from the text or from Joseph Smith (who felt free to edit it and produce a different edition prior to the "most correct" statement).

I suppose my thought in regards to manuscript to print, Smith was alive and saw the first copy, I would think he would have annotated any errors and corrected them. Seems like something the CoJCoLDS would have been aware of, IMO.

Some errors were corrected, based on misreadings of the manuscript in preparation for printing. Some other changes were made. Still, the presumption that Joseph Smith could make a correction after the fact implicitly assumes he knew the original content so that it could be corrected. He didn't say that. He said he translated it. That would assume a lot to believe that he would recognize something in the translation that he did not recognize the first time around.

If you are willing take that as a given, the bulk of anachronisms/imperfections lay in the linguistics of Joseph Smith.

Good scholarship can't take anything as a given. Data must be examined to determine what items come from where.

Seems synagogues was one used earlier, I mentioned "latchet" which also IMO, gives a strong implication that JS 'borrowed' certain phrases outside of Isaiah from the KJV.

There is ample evidence the the phraseology of the KJV affected his vocabulary and phrasing. It provides the clearest reason for the inclusion of Pauline phrases or paragraphs in the Book of Mormon.

I see what you are saying, seems to rebuild the original you have to debug the 19th century difficulties. However, if you have JS 'at liberty' borrowing from the Bible, you have an entirely different set of problems and have to dissect between two non-extant ancient records and multiple translations of such. This IMO, doesn't improve the claims of 'most correct' if such as the case.

As I said, it isn't easy. However, it can be done, and must be done if the question of anachronisms will ever have an adequate answer.

[Mudcat]

Tell us what "most correct" means to you. In order to "improve" that claim, we need to know what it means.

Well, Cdowis, here is the quote from JS.

â??I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book.â?

"Most correct" from my understanding means that according to Joseph Smith, its proposed translator the BoM is:

1. The foundation of Mormonism.

2. By following its precepts you will get nearer to God, than following any other book on earth.

I don't want to derail your thread, but I wouldn't mind discussing this further.... here is as good a spot as any, IMO. If you are agreeable with my definition of "most correct", then I will proceed, with your permission.

Respectfully,

Mudcat

[Mudcat]

Brant,

Again thanks for the response, and the well wishes.

That must be the most quoted misinterpreted text about the Book of Mormon. It doesn't take any more than the next sentence to know that when he said it, he meant something very different from precision in presentation (heck, even Moroni warns about human errors in the text--he seemed to be quite worried about it).

Most likely you are correct, but does it make sense that its the most correct book to teach a person about God, but it isn't the most correct book in regards to translational errors?

That is like saying that God gave us a botched up translation of his word that will get us closer to him than this less botched up translation that will lead you to apostasy. Personally I don't think you believe that. I think that you believe it is the most correct spiritually, as well as the least botched up in regards to translation. Right?

The problem with the issue of translation is that it is something that has to be investigated, not simply taken on such instructions. The problem with Harris' account is that the manuscript proves him incorrect. If we take a hearsay evidence (he couldn't have seen what was there) then we are left with the more sure data from the manuscript. While there was certainly an impetus to considering the text pseudo-inerrantly, that was an opinion developed about the text and not one that came from the text or from Joseph Smith (who felt free to edit it and produce a different edition prior to the "most correct" statement).

I suppose if you want to account Harris' words as hearsay, do you also discount his witness as one of the three witnesses as hearsay as well?

He transcribed Smith's words and was much closer to the situation than you or I could have been. It could be posited that he made it up on his own, but doesn't that discredit him as a witness to the plates?

Some errors were corrected, based on misreadings of the manuscript in preparation for printing. Some other changes were made. Still, the presumption that Joseph Smith could make a correction after the fact implicitly assumes he knew the original content so that it could be corrected. He didn't say that. He said he translated it. That would assume a lot to believe that he would recognize something in the translation that he did not recognize the first time around.

If anyone would have known the content of the plates, is there a better candidate than JS? He was the 1st Prophet of the LDS Church, the Revelator and Seer. From the text of the BoM itself, it puts being both Prophet and Seer, in a category of its own. Assuming that his duty was to transmit the word of God, am I being unfair in saying that I feel, if such is the case, he would not shirk that duty? IMO, you are putting JS in the position of someone who posited errant statements as truth.

Good scholarship can't take anything as a given. Data must be examined to determine what items come from where.

I ultimately recognize as a scholar this is the position you must take. I imagine that there are moments when the 'good scholar' in you and the 'good Mormon' in you, must wrestle quite a bit.

There is ample evidence the the phraseology of the KJV affected his vocabulary and phrasing. It provides the clearest reason for the inclusion of Pauline phrases or paragraphs in the Book of Mormon.

I'm curious Brant, have you ever done an article...or book on your thoughts regarding the translation process of the BoM?

As I said, it isn't easy. However, it can be done, and must be done if the question of anachronisms will ever have an adequate answer.

I suppose with your above statement, we both find agreement, in the fact that JS received some impact that 'bled through' from the KJV in the BoM, I could only agree that it must not be easy.

Respectfully,

Mudcat

[Brant Gardner]

Most likely you are correct, but does it make sense that its the most correct book to teach a person about God, but it isn't the most correct book in regards to translational errors?

Has God dictated every translation of the New Testament into English? If so, why can't he make up his mind which words to use?

The obvious reality is that humans translate, even when God inspires them to do so. As humans, we get picky about words, but the essence of the gospel must be meaning not words, else the gospel couldn't be translated into any other language.

The Book of Mormon comes from the same God, so I wouldn't expect significant differences in the nature of inspiration and humanity in the scriptures as we see in the books of the Old and New Testament.

I suppose if you want to account Harris' words as hearsay, do you also discount his witness as one of the three witnesses as hearsay as well?

Historians are required to examine witness testimony to make sure that what the witness tells you is something they actually witnessed. In the case of seeing the plates, Harris saw them himself and his testimony was first person.

In the case of translating, he never translated. Whatever Joseph saw in/on/through the interpreters, Harris never saw it. He was present, but did not see. What could he testify to? He could testify that he saw and heard corrections. He cannot testify to what Joseph saw and how Joseph reacted to it. Of course there is the possibility that Joseph told him. However, when the evidence of the manuscripts contradicts Harris' testimony about process, it simply says that he created the best explanation for what he saw. That process is quite well known in folklore and is a standard explanation for the way actual incidents become part of the lore community (and the types of changes they endure).

If anyone would have known the content of the plates, is there a better candidate than JS? He was the 1st Prophet of the LDS Church, the Revelator and Seer. From the text of the BoM itself, it puts being both Prophet and Seer, in a category of its own. Assuming that his duty was to transmit the word of God, am I being unfair in saying that I feel, if such is the case, he would not shirk that duty? IMO, you are putting JS in the position of someone who posited errant statements as truth.

No. What I am saying is that as a translator, he translated rather than invented the text. There is some process that occurs that allowed him to translate using phrases that were familiar to him (and most of us who have done any translating understand how that happens, particularly if we believe the meaning is the same as a known model--the model impinges on the translation). However, assuming that he completely understood what he was translating elevates him to a sufficiency of knowledge of the text that he never demonstrated.

Let's take the frequently used example of the word "horse." That is a probable anachronism, if it is represented in the original text (though there is current evidence that suggests it may not have been anachronistic at all). The argument is made that this is a translator's labeling issue. If that is correct (for the sake of argument), then when Joseph translated "horse," he understood the English word "horse," and not the animal that might have been given that label. There is no way he could "correct" the text for the "real" animal unless he were the author. As translator, he knew only what he translated.

I imagine that there are moments when the 'good scholar' in you and the 'good Mormon' in you, must wrestle quite a bit.

I hope those are the categories that describe the wrestling .

I'm curious Brant, have you ever done an article...or book on your thoughts regarding the translation process of he BoM?

I wrote up a "flagpole" paper and distributed it to a few members of FAIR. Since my opinions are radically different from Royal Skousen's (for example) I was curious to see if I was too far afield. That wasn't the feedback, though I don't know that I convinced anyone, either. I am currently working on a book to present the information (well, very slowly and intermittently working on it).

I suppose with your above statement, we both find agreement, in the fact that JS received some impact that 'bled through' from the KJV in the BoM, I could only agree that it must not be easy.

The "bleed through" is so obvious I am surprised that anyone tries to find some other explanation for it. By the way, the book I am working on has two conceptual parts; the second deals with how the translation was done. The first section presents information that would allow one to suggest that it is a translation. If there were no evidence of it being a translation, speaking of how it was translated is presumptuous. That section not only has to explain the ways that the text corresponds to real world history, but must also explicitly deal with anything suggested as an anachronism. Most of them cannot be clearly moved from the translation layer to the underlying text. One that can (currently, anyway) is the working of metals. The text does require it and it is not attested that early in that location. Single contradictions seldom obviate an otherwise strong hypothesis, however.

[Mudcat]

Has God dictated every translation of the New Testament into English? If so, why can't he make up his mind which words to use?

Brant,

You type faster than I can think. That aside, I know the above statement is somewhat rhetorical, but I wanted to respond to it. Both you and I could most likely agree that as language changes, for God's word to maintain potency, it must needs follow language.

I make no assertion of that translators are inspired, in regards to the Bible. However, Joseph Smith is a singular case. If we hold what he says to be true, then we must recognize that he is an inspired translator. Obviously this sets him to his own bailiwick.

Historians are required to examine witness testimony to make sure that what the witness tells you is something they actually witnessed. In the case of seeing the plates, Harris saw them himself and his testimony was first person.

In the case of translating, he never translated. Whatever Joseph saw in/on/through the interpreters, Harris never saw it. He was present, but did not see. What could he testify to? He could testify that he saw and heard corrections. He cannot testify to what Joseph saw and how Joseph reacted to it. Of course there is the possibility that Joseph told him. However, when the evidence of the manuscripts contradicts Harris' testimony about process, it simply says that he created the best explanation for what he saw. That process is quite well known in folklore and is a standard explanation for the way actual incidents become part of the lore community (and the types of changes they endure).

Granted, Smith alone was the posited translator and I don't want to argue Harris' case to the bone. But, he was a transcriber, if we at least agree that when he made a "boo boo" in translation, the translation could not be counted as "written" until it was corrected, we can find common ground in his account.

Let's take the frequently used example of the word "horse." That is a probable anachronism, if it is represented in the original text (though there is current evidence that suggests it may not have been anachronistic at all). The argument is made that this is a translator's labeling issue. If that is correct (for the sake of argument), then when Joseph translated "horse," he understood the English word "horse," and not the animal that might have been given that label. There is no way he could "correct" the text for the "real" animal unless he were the author. As translator, he knew only what he translated.

In light of your statement, all aberrations were a failure in transmission, which God allowed. Ok.

I hope those are the categories that describe the wrestling .

At least IMO.

I wrote up a "flagpole" paper and distributed it to a few members of FAIR. Since my opinions are radically different from Royal Skousen's (for example) I was curious to see if I was too far afield. That wasn't the feedback, though I don't know that I convinced anyone, either. I am currently working on a book to present the information (well, very slowly and intermittently working on it).

The "bleed through" is so obvious I am surprised that anyone tries to find some other explanation for it. By the way, the book I am working on has two conceptual parts; the second deals with how the translation was done. The first section presents information that would allow one to suggest that it is a translation. If there were no evidence of it being a translation, speaking of how it was translated is presumptuous. That section not only has to explain the ways that the text corresponds to real world history, but must also explicitly deal with anything suggested as an anachronism. Most of them cannot be clearly moved from the translation layer to the underlying text. One that can (currently, anyway) is the working of metals. The text does require it and it is not attested that early in that location. Single contradictions seldom obviate an otherwise strong hypothesis, however.

I can't argue with anyone for long....must be my Ammonite blood.

Anyways... I have a fretless bass that has been in progress and I have meticulously had to redo the fretboard twice. Its been an very sporadically ongoing project for a number of years. I hope your book has equitable success to the function of my fretless project. Hopefully, it will be a reminder to us both to go work in the woodshed.

Merry Respectfully,

Mudcat

[cdowis]

Well, Cdowis, here is the quote from JS.

“I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book.”

It is obvious to me that "correct" refers to "precepts" and "getting nearer to God". JS made that quite clear.

"Most correct" from my understanding means that according to Joseph Smith, its proposed translator the BoM is:

1. The foundation of Mormonism.

2. By following its precepts you will get nearer to God, than following any other book on earth.

OK, we are in total agreement. Now can we agree what it does NOT mean? It does not mean "without human error", e.g. grammatical errors, transcribal errors, minor errors in facts, and even minor translation issues. By minor errors, I refer to anything which relates to "precepts" or doctrines.

[Mudcat]

Cdowis,

OK, we are in total agreement. .

That's good to know we are on the same page, as it relates to what we both believe JS meant in his statement.

Now can we agree what it does NOT mean? It does not mean "without human error", e.g. grammatical errors, transcribal errors, minor errors in facts, and even minor translation issues. By minor errors, I refer to anything which relates to "precepts" or doctrines

I don't know if we will find agreement, on what it doesn't mean. But I can agree that we could say he made that remark with human error already being considered.

Nevertheless, it seems that we both agree that JS was saying, that the commandments and doctrines taught in the BoM are the most correct in the world and if you are looking for a path to get closer to God, there is no path laid out any other place that will lead you closer to him than the one that is in the Book of Mormon.

The problem we have is that Joseph Smith's statement was, at least to a non-LDS, highly subjective. No doubt he most likely believed his statement was correct, but what can we test his statement against? If we dissect each and every precept that is taught in the Book of Mormon, what can we hold these in comparison to and say this is taught more correctly here, than in this other literature over here. After thinking about it, I don't know that we could resolve much with this sort of discussion.... and I admit, that was my original intention when I responded to your post. I think we both might get to hung up in what we believe to be true to be very objective about what is most true.

What makes his statement even more difficult to test against the BoM, is that it appears to me that the BoM isn't utilized, nor taught to be utilized as a stand alone instrument by the CoJCoLDS. From my understanding, LDS believe that all Scripture is profitable, but it would stand to reason, in light of JS words that the BoM is the "most profitable".

So if out of all Scripture, the BoM stands above all others in profitability, then what makes it most profitable?

In regards to doctrine, I suppose there are two things that could be considered as a method of measurement, those being the quantity and quality of doctrine.

Respectfully,

Mudcat