Books with Questionable Historicity

[Nomad]

I totally agree. My point was that testimony is the only way we CAN know. So the intellectual side of it becomes almost (note I said almost) irrelevant.

And my point is that the intellectual side of the equation is essential, but secondary.

No one will ever be able to convince me that I have not, or cannot, receive knowledge of an intellectual nature via the revelations of the Holy Ghost. I know I can. The only problem is that you can't submit those kinds of things to the critical methodologies of the social and physical sciences. They cannot be tested by those means. However, they can be reinforced, confirmed, and even refined by our native powers of intellect.

But when Moroni talks about knowing "greater things," he is not suggesting that you will come across a map of the land of Zarahemla, complete with a detailed census of every city within its boundaries and a comprehensive account of 1000 years of Nephite history. He's talking about something completely different. And it is this underlying concept that winds it way through every chapter of the Book of Mormon -- hence my claim that it cannot reasonably be subjected to the same kinds of textual criticism one might apply to the Bible or any other similar ancient text. The Book of Mormon is fundamentally different, and if you persist in treating it as though it were not, I believe you are destined to lose the capacity to see and use it for what it was most intended to be: a vehicle for revelation.

[Nomad]

Well, that settles it then. If those are the only two options, then I don't believe the Book of Mormon is historical. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

But I don't think I'll take up your invitation to repudiate it.

"Every thing which inviteth and enticeth to do good, and to love God, and to serve him, is inspired of God. Wherefore, take heed, my beloved brethren, that ye do not judge . . . that which is good and of God to be of the devil." - Moroni 7:13-14

Don't get me wrong. I'm not suggesting that people who do not believe the BoM to be historical should repudiate it. I simply believe that they cannot avoid the consequences to their faith, over the long haul, of rejecting its historicity.

And frankly, I consider it the acme of illogic to argue against a historical Nephi possessing a bona fide copy of Isaiah 48, and yet simultaneously claim spiritual value in the book that contains such an account.

I know I would not do it.

And I don't believe that those who currently do it will withstand a future challenge to their tenuous faith, no matter how devoted they claim to be in this moment.

[David Bokovoy]

And frankly, I consider it the acme of illogic to argue against a historical Nephi possessing a bona fide copy of Isaiah 48, and yet simultaneously claim spiritual value in the book that contains such an account.

Would you consider it illogical for an individual to argue against a historical Jonah and talking donkey while simultaneously claiming spiritual value in the book that contains these accounts?

Will a believer who embraces the mythology of ancient Israel as a spiritual guide eventually repudiate the Bible?

I, for one, am convinced that there was a historical Nephi and that he really did hold the text of Isaiah 48 in his hands, and really did read it to his people. Indeed, if he didnâ??t, then the only other possible explanation, as I see it, is that the Book of Mormon is a complete fraud, and should be repudiated.

And I, for one, am convinced that the issue is not that simplistic.

How could anyone ever repudiate the Book of Mormon's spiritual efficacy when millions and millions of readers have experienced a life changing transformation via its message?

Who cares whether Joseph produced a literal translation of an ancient text, dictated an account via his religious imagination, or did something in between?!

As I understand the book via it's title page, the purpose of the BofM is to teach readers about Christ and covenants, not to profess a historical Nephi possessing a bona fide copy of Isaiah 48.

And I don't believe that those who currently do it will withstand a future challenge to their tenuous faith, no matter how devoted they claim to be in this moment

Oh ye of little faith! Why is it so hard for you to believe?!

[Nevo]

And frankly, I consider it the acme of illogic to argue against a historical Nephi possessing a bona fide copy of Isaiah 48, and yet simultaneously claim spiritual value in the book that contains such an account. I know I would not do it. And I don't believe that those who currently do it will withstand a future challenge to their tenuous faith, no matter how devoted they claim to be in this moment.

Well, I do find spiritual value in the Book of Mormon even though I don't think Nephi held the text of Isaiah 48 in his hands. As for my "tenuous" faith, it has already withstood a decade of being challenged so your prognostication seems a bit off.

[mfbukowski]

The Book of Mormon is fundamentally different, and if you persist in treating it as though it were not, I believe you are destined to lose the capacity to see and use it for what it was most intended to be: a vehicle for revelation.

And frankly I think it is intended to be a "barrier" to select those who are willing to receive revelation. But that is definitely beyond the scope of this thread.

[mfbukowski]

Would you consider it illogical for an individual to argue against a historical Jonah and talking donkey while simultaneously claiming spiritual value in the book that contains these accounts?

Will a believer who embraces the mythology of ancient Israel as a spiritual guide eventually repudiate the Bible?

And I, for one, am convinced that the issue is not that simplistic.

How could anyone ever repudiate the Book of Mormon's spiritual efficacy when millions and millions of readers have experienced a life changing transformation via its message?

Who cares whether Joseph produced a literal translation of an ancient text, dictated an account via his religious imagination, or did something in between?!

As I understand the book via it's title page, the purpose of the BofM is to teach readers about Christ and covenants, not to profess a historical Nephi possessing a bona fide copy of Isaiah 48.

Oh ye of little faith! Why is it so hard for you to believe?!

[Mars]

Hey Nomad,

I really liked your thread about the ball courts in the Pundits forum. Nice write up.

[Nomad]

Hey Nomad,

I really liked your thread about the ball courts in the Pundits forum. Nice write up.

Thanks. I hope you saw my follow-up post from earlier this morning. It elaborates on what I feel are some intriguing aspects of the ball game as revealed by the ever-increasing body of evidence.

As for the topic of this thread, it is also one upon which I have spent a considerable amount of time, thought, and research over the years.

I have much more to say than I have.

It is, of course, an ongoing debate in the larger world of LDS thought. There is a growing and relatively vocal group of thinkers who are advocating views like those espoused by David Bokovoy (whom, incidentally, I respect very much).

I believe he fails to see some very distinct possibilities, both in terms of the explanations for Book of Mormon anomalies as well as the looming dangers that the future holds for those whose faith is not completely grounded on a more concrete foundation than his professions of faith seem to embody.

I have been long preparing notes for a paper I would like to write that will directly address the topic upon which our differences arise. I think the present is a propitious time for me to complete that paper. When completed, I promise to post some version of it on this message board, and hopefully it will engender a profitable debate of the relevant issues.

Nevo also remarked:

Well, I do find spiritual value in the Book of Mormon even though I don't think Nephi held the text of Isaiah 48 in his hands. As for my "tenuous" faith, it has already withstood a decade of being challenged so your prognostication seems a bit off.

And I sincerely commend your continued faith. To me, it is a potent tribute to the capacity of the message of the Book of Mormon to act upon people's hearts, irrespective of the question of its historicity. There are many who don't acknowledge its historicity who likewise discern no real value or profundity to its literary portent. In fact, I would say that you, David, and others like you constitute an almost indiscernible minority, in terms of your spiritual devotion to the book, among those who doubt or deny its historicity.

Again, I will work hard in the next couple weeks to fully organize my thoughts on this urgent topic, and then present them formally here for further discussion.

I would like to pose one additional question (in two parts), for Nevo, Ben, and David:

Can you envision a scenario wherein (consistent with your conclusions concerning the apparent anachronisms in the Book of Mormon) the anomalous aspects of the book are NOT attributable to Joseph Smith, or any other 19th century man, but rather to some other factor(s) that might very well be encompassed by the description "by the gift and power of God"? Or do you feel compelled to seek only those answers that "meet the eye" and fulfill the perceived evidentiary requirements of modern scholarship?

[Benjamin McGuire]

Nomad writes:

Can you envision a scenario wherein (consistent with your conclusions concerning the apparent anachronisms in the Book of Mormon) the anomalous aspects of the book are NOT attributable to Joseph Smith, or any other 19th century man, but rather to some other factor(s) that might very well be encompassed by the description "by the gift and power of God"? Or do you feel compelled to seek only those answers that "meet the eye" and fulfill the perceived evidentiary requirements of modern scholarship?

I think it's a relatively meaningless question.

Let me ask you a question - and perhaps then we can talk about the above. Is God a word for word kind of translator (when we talk about the "gift and power of God") or more of an idea-for-idea translator?

For the record, I am a proponent of a tight theory of translation (perhaps more so than anyone else who participates on these forums). I see Joseph as a reader of the text - and as such, just as capable of misunderstanding it as everyone else.

Ben M.

[Nomad]

Nomad writes:I think it's a relatively meaningless question.

Let me ask you a question - and perhaps then we can talk about the above. Is God a word for word kind of translator (when we talk about the "gift and power of God") or more of an idea-for-idea translator?

For the record, I am a proponent of a tight theory of translation (perhaps more so than anyone else who participates on these forums). I see Joseph as a reader of the text - and as such, just as capable of misunderstanding it as everyone else.

Ben M.

I can accept the fact that my question might seem meaningless if you are not pondering it in the context I am.

Very well. Forget it then.

I will answer your question: I don't believe God provided the translation of the Book of Mormon to Joseph Smith. I do believe it was translated "by the gift and power of God," but I do not consider the two things commensurate.

I believe God commissioned the task and left it to qualified subordinates to carry it out.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Nomad writes:

I believe God commissioned the task and left it to qualified subordinates to carry it out.

And so, I can see, we start from very, very different places.

You see, when you asked this question -

Can you envision a scenario wherein (consistent with your conclusions concerning the apparent anachronisms in the Book of Mormon) the anomalous aspects of the book are NOT attributable to Joseph Smith, or any other 19th century man, but rather to some other factor(s) that might very well be encompassed by the description "by the gift and power of God"?

From my perspective, they ALL come from whatever is encompassed by the description "by the gift and power of God". But, I also think that this has little impact on scholarly approaches to the text. And thus the reason why I didn't see any value to the question - without first attempting to explore the basic assumptions which are being brought with the question.

Ben M.

[Matthew J. Tandy]

As an Ancient Near Eastern Studies major at BYU, a few thoughts:

For starters, I am well aware of how the predecessor program often worked for people such as David. I want to assure all minds here that such is no longer the case. In the Hebrew track (if which there are probably 30-40), I think there are very few, if any, who do not fully believe in at least some part or version of the Documentary Hypothesis. There is not a single student who is not fully aware of its origins, the major scholars past and present, and its applications and ramifications. Indeed, even in one of my religion classes, Old Testament Part 1, students were required to know the basics of it and be able to identify which source a scriptural passage was likely to have come from per Academy concensus. I cannot think of a single day that goes by where in at least one of my classes we fail to talk about Documentary Hypothesis, Source Criticism, Literary Criticism, Form Criticism, Socio-Political Criticism, and so and so forth. There are a small handful of students who, because of language barriers or relative newness to the field do not fully grasp it, but they are certainly in the minority. Things such as Deutero-Isaiah and other items that have ramifications int he Book of Mormon are not shied away from. Last semester I wrote a 26 page paper called "The Lying God of Israel: An Analysis of Nuances in Early Prophetic Israel", in the which I dissected 1 Kings 22:14-23 (among many other pericopes, but that was the launching point), addressing soruce issues, dating, grammatical and lexical data, and so and so forth, concluding that it was likely an early passage that preserved a view that God could in fact deceive and facilitate lying. I am currently working on a paper regarding 1 Samuel 15, wherein I posit that it is a much later (likely late- or post-Exilic) pericope and was inserted into the already existant story of Saul. I also conclude that it is a priestly retelling that is heavily constructed around the transgression offering of Leviticus 5, thus stating that whether or not there is a historical kernel is not knowable, but the story as is is delibaretly forced into a particular motif.

All of my papers have been well received, even though they are by no means complete or perfect. I think it is safe to say things have come a long way at BYU with the ANES major. This is not to say that in certain, non-ANES classes that I do no feel like smashing my head against a wall, but I accept that everyone is entitled to their views and it really doesn't matter in the eternal salvific ways.

On that note, here are my thoughts on the Bible, the Book of Mormon, and scripture and the Church in general.

On the Bible:

1) I believe that many, but certainly not all, of the major figures in the Bible truely existed. That is, Adam, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Saul, David, Isaiah (I'm still undecided on how many...), Jeremiah, etc.

2) Whether or not these people were known by the names as we have them in the Hebrew Bible I do not know. Additionally, I fully believe that many of these real figures have been syncretized with non-Israelite religions, beliefs, and legends. Furthermore, some of the things that happened to Isaac may actually have been to Abraham adn vice-versa, or even to some unknown righteouss individual. In ancient times, the deeds of many people were often rolled into a single character who had some basis in reality. We do it with modern movies that are based on true stories: The Other Side of Heaven and October Sky both combine multiple people into a single person who really existed. This has the effect of making one person seem much better (or worse) than they really were while simultaneously losing the memory of a very real person who ahd very wonderful thigns happen to them.

3) In my view, it matter not in the slightest if Noah was raped by a son or grandson, had a garment stolen, or was just seen drunk and subsequently mocked. It does not matter if there were hundreds of thousands of Israelites in the Exodus or only a few thousand. My testimony of the Gospel is unchanged if there was no Jonah, if David didn't kill Goliath, if the geneologies are for the most part duplicated in other scriptures with slight changes and passed for new, if certain stories such as meeting a future wife at a well or telling a ruler your wife is you sister are reused repeatedly. The reality is, these things have a net effect of ZERO on the truthfulness of the Gospel.

3) What does matter, to me, is that God spoke to mankind through the ages. There was a "Noah", "Abraham", etc. in some way to whom God really did make covenants with that affected their lives and the lives of their posterity. It is the reality that a covenant was made to an individual through whom all mankind is blessed that is important. Whether we have the name right or whether that person really did other interesting but completely irrelevant things such as going from point A to B and talking to C, it simply does not matter or change the central truths.

4) Some scholars, even LDS, are too quick to write off the kernels of reality of certain biblical figures. I prefer to find the important kernels and accept that the rest could simply be legends built around or syncretised with the individual.

The Book of Mormon

1) I believe that the plates really existed. I believe in an actual Mormon and Moroni. I believe that Christ really did visit the Americas as a resurrected being.

2) There are many evidences of an authentically ancient semetic culture that I believe are beyond doubt (and no, I will not derail this thread for someone wanting to ask which ones). I beleive that some of these are such that there is no way they could be there if the record itself wasn't truely of ancient origins. Some may beleive that God could have put them there through Joseph Smith, but the weight of the Witnesses to the actuallity of real plates makes that option competely impossible.

3) Just because Mormon and Moroni were real people, it doesn't mean all their records were accurate, that they themselves didn't interject popular stories of their time that may not have even been on previous records, or that they were unbiased. I am a firm believer that the Mulekites were subjugated by military power by the Nephites, this being one of the great evidences to me both of the authenticity of the record (the way in which it is written is somethong that implicitly implies an actual white-washing of history, not an account just made up by somebody in the 19th century) and the political/religious redactionist leanings of some historian along the way.

4) See Bible points 2 and 3 on how I also feel about much of the Book of Mormon. This is not to say it is not mostly accurate, but rather that even if it is not, it does not cahnge the antiquity of the record and the reality of certain core events (Christ visiting the Americas).

The Church in General

1) Joseph really did see God the Father and Jesus Christ. He really did see Moroni, a true resurrected (or at least translated) being. The Priesthood really was restored. The revelations were from God.

2) Brigham Young said that there is no revelation ever received by man from God that is recorded in its perfection because God does not dictate word for word and mortal man, with his physical, mental, and linguistic weaknesses can never fully express what is being revealed (paraphrasing). I don't agree with everything Brigham said, but I think that is pretty profound and true. It seems God shows a vision or gives impressions and then the prophet records what he is either seeing in vision or is impressed upon him or what he can recall after-the-fact. Thus, I hold no received revelation to eb perfect, but that it is the core principles being taught that are important. Pople who get hung up over the placement of an "and" or a comma are more often than not completely missing the point.

3) As mentioned when I wrote in December about Syncretism in the church, prophets throught he ages simply did not all know what others knew or wrote. Thus, they could be in harmony on what was revealed to them, but even in the Book of Mormon many never say what they are teaching is revealed. If we truely believe that this is the time when all things are revealed from the foundations of the earth and that new things that have never been revealed are now being revealed, then we should stop trying to force Alma or Amulek or Nephi or Mormon or even Joseph Smith to say what they new nothing about at that time. The Gospel and the scriptures lose their beauty of line upon line, precept upon precept.

4) I believe that anyone who takes the whole Book of Mormon or Bible as completely allegorical will discover in the end that they are wrong. Certain things must be historical realities for the Gospel to be true. It's not enough for something to simply be so beautiful it should be true (not trying to knock you David, just that phrase stuck in my mind), certain things must be true or it is all a lie, even if it is a lie that gives a delusional purpose to our lives. However, the scriptural critic that I am, I feel that less than 5% of what we have recorded in scripture really matters if it is true (that is not to say I believe that is all that is true, only that very little is critical that it be true). Again, those include the reality of Christ, the atonement, the Resurrection, of Christ's visit to the Americas (and thus a real covenant people there for him to visit), key events of the restoration, and the reality of modern revelation and authority. Beyond that, most of it simply does not matter.

So there are my thoughts, take them for what they are worth (not much!).

[Matthew J. Tandy]

***One more point I meant to make:

The Book of Mormon does definately have 19 Century elements in it. To me they are as undeniable as the ancient semetic elements. While everyone deals with this differently, my stance is that while some of the Book of Mormon may be a tight translation, I also look upon Joseph Smith as an inspired redactor of sorts. Phrases he uses, the way he presents an actual ancient event to a modern audience, perhaps even revealed events from the Nephites that God showed him and he put in words he knew. The exact details are not clear, nor does it matter. I simply believe that there are several voices of very real people in the Book of Mormon, one being Mormon, another Moroni, and another Joseph Smith.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Interesting stuff, thank you.

[David Bokovoy]

Thanks, Matt.

I'm really pleased to hear about your positive experiences. I have a great love for BYU and have been excited to hear about the progress that has been made over the years in it's biblical and ancient Near Eastern studies program. They certainly have some well-trained individuals, qualified to teach in the field.

I don't mean to paint my own experience as completely negative. Bill and Dan's class on Celestial Ascents was life changing and remains my favorite class I've ever taken. I also really enjoyed Bill's class on the history of Near Eastern warfare.

Unfortunately, I never took a class from him, but I really like David Seeley. He's currently finishing the Anchor Bible commentary on Deuteronomy and is well-qualified to address critical issues. Kent Jackson's work on Ammonite inscriptions remains the seminal work in the field of Northwest Semitics, etc., etc.

I'm also hopeful that my friend Cory Crawford will end up taking a permanent position and that someday, someone could convince Taylor Petrey to teach New Testament at the Y.

Don't know if it will happen, but it should.

best,

--DB

[e=mc2]

Matthew J. Tandy:

Last semester I wrote a 26 page paper called "The Lying God of Israel: An Analysis of Nuances in Early Prophetic Israel", in the which I dissected 1 Kings 22:14-23 (among many other pericopes, but that was the launching point), addressing soruce issues, dating, grammatical and lexical data, and so and so forth, concluding that it was likely an early passage that preserved a view that God could in fact deceive and facilitate lying.

I am currently working on this from the Hebrew angle! I would absolutely LOVE to see a copy of your paper! Anyway to send me an electronic copy email?! (rubbing hands in serious anticiaption.)

[e=mc2]

David Bokovoy:

Kent Jackson's work on Ammonite inscriptions remains the seminal work in the field of Northwest Semitics, etc., etc.

Kent Jackson from BYU?! Why on earth doesn't he make more of his materials available? I have never, ever, ever even heard of any of his scholarly work outside of his LDS writings. Why doesn't he incorporate his research into the LDS scheme? This is astonishingly interesting to me. Perhaps, and obviously I have somewhere gotten the completely wrong impression of him down the pipeline somehow.

[e=mc2]

Bokovoy:

but I really like David Seeley. He's currently finishing the Anchor Bible commentary on Deuteronomy and is well-qualified to address critical issues.

***OUTSTANDING***! I have really enjoyed Seely's writings as well! This is sooooooo good that he is doing an update on Deuteronomy for Anchor Bible! I am looking seriously forward to getting that one!

[mfbukowski]

It is, of course, an ongoing debate in the larger world of LDS thought. There is a growing and relatively vocal group of thinkers who are advocating views like those espoused by David Bokovoy (whom, incidentally, I respect very much).

I believe he fails to see some very distinct possibilities, both in terms of the explanations for Book of Mormon anomalies as well as the looming dangers that the future holds for those whose faith is not completely grounded on a more concrete foundation than his professions of faith seem to embody.

I would like to suggest that "faith" cannot be "completely grounded on a more concrete foundation" by its very nature. It is evidence that is fleeting and changes but faith can adjust to changes in evidences. I would suggest that putting one's faith beyond historical evidence is in fact the stronger position.

[Matthew J. Tandy]

I would like to suggest that "faith" cannot be "completely grounded on a more concrete foundation" by its very nature. It is evidence that is fleeting and changes but faith can adjust to changes in evidences. I would suggest that putting one's faith beyond historical evidence is in fact the stronger position.

Indeed, one of the most powerful essays I have ever read in terms of guiding where I place my testimony is Bitton's essay "I Don't Have a Testimony of the History of the Church". Very well worded and thought out. It doesn't hurt that he was also Church Historian for a while and thus it is an easy essay to mention when someone at church seeks to question my testimony because I mention gray areas of church history.

[Matthew J. Tandy]

I am currently working on this from the Hebrew angle! I would absolutely LOVE to see a copy of your paper! Anyway to send me an electronic copy email?! (rubbing hands in serious anticiaption.)

I'll see about sending you a copy. And as for the Hebrew angle, you would need Hebrew to understand most of my argument. It has some major revisions and expansions that are needed, especially in the appendices, but you can have what's there right now. Come summer I'll clean it up and see about submitting it for publication somewhere.

[DavidC]

Could the problem with Deutero-Isaiah in the Book of Mormon be approached by suggesting that the chapters in question were originally written in a different form by the original Isaiah, then revised after the exile? That would mean that the plates of the BofM contained the original version, but that for whatever reason, God inspired Joseph Smith through the interpreters to replace the large Isaiah quotes with language from the KJV with a few minor variations. I've never heard there was any evidence that Joseph Smith consulted a KJV while translating the plates. This approach leads to the question of whether there is any evidence of the original content of the Deutero-Isaiah chapters outside of the block quotes, and whether anything in that content would be offensive to post-exhilic Jews who would want to make revisions.

As an interesting example of Deutero-Isaiah outside of the block quotes, I noted the other day that Tom Wayment found a better translation of the Hebrew of Isaiah 53:4 (of Deutero-Isaiah) in Alma 7:11 than in the translation in the KJV. see JBMS 14.1

When I look at Nephi's commentary in 1 Ne 22:6-9 on that part of Isaiah 49 found in 1 Ne 21:22-23, I have to wonder if Nephi is reading the same version of Isaiah that I am because the relationship of the Gentiles to the Jews is so different.

In the Isaiah version as we have it, God sets up a standard (a banner or signal) to the Gentiles, who respond by carrying and nursing the House of Israel, then licking up the dust of their feet. (As one numbered among the Gentiles, I don't find this last part appealing, though it may have been appealing to a post-exhilic Jew.)

In Nephi's commentary the Gentiles themselves are the standard which God has set up, and they carry and nurse the House of Israel by making known to them the covenants of the Father in heaven unto Abraham. This implies that the House of Israel had previously hardened their hearts against the Holy One of Israel, a thought which would not have been appealing to a post-exhilic Jew.

This difference may be evidence that Nephi was reading a different version of Isaiah than what we find in Joseph's translation, or it may be evidence that I am totally clueless about how to interpret Isaiah -- which is what I feel most of the time anyway. But it is easier for me to believe that God withheld a plainer translation of the Isaiah chapters as they exist on the plates of the Book of Mormon than it is for me to doubt the Book of Mormon's historicity. It may be that a plainer translation would have brought up too many distracting textual questions before the time was ripe to address them.

[Nevo]

Could the problem with Deutero-Isaiah in the Book of Mormon be approached by suggesting that the chapters in question were originally written in a different form by the original Isaiah, then revised after the exile? That would mean that the plates of the BofM contained the original version, but that for whatever reason, God inspired Joseph Smith through the interpreters to replace the large Isaiah quotes with language from the KJV with a few minor variations. I've never heard there was any evidence that Joseph Smith consulted a KJV while translating the plates. This approach leads to the question of whether there is any evidence of the original content of the Deutero-Isaiah chapters outside of the block quotes, and whether anything in that content would be offensive to post-exhilic Jews who would want to make revisions.

Hi David, welcome to the board! Thanks for offering your thoughts on the Deutero-Isaiah problem. I hadn't considered this possibility before. I don't think it is the most parsimonious explanation of the evidence, but it does have the advantage of preserving the historicity of the Book of Mormon--for which there is considerable evidence--without completely dismissing the "assured results" of modern biblical scholarship. (Although, I'm not sure that one could really make a case, from the Bible, that a preexilic Ur-text underlies Deutero-Isaiah.)

[David Bokovoy]

Hello David,

Could the problem with Deutero-Isaiah in the Book of Mormon be approached by suggesting that the chapters in question were originally written in a different form by the original Isaiah, then revised after the exile?

It certainly is possible. There clearly exists a strong thematic and textual link between the original call narrative in chapter six and the new call narrative in chapter 40.

That would mean that the plates of the BofM contained the original version, but that for whatever reason, God inspired Joseph Smith through the interpreters to replace the large Isaiah quotes with language from the KJV with a few minor variations. I've never heard there was any evidence that Joseph Smith consulted a KJV while translating the plates. This approach leads to the question of whether there is any evidence of the original content of the Deutero-Isaiah chapters outside of the block quotes, and whether anything in that content would be offensive to post-exhilic Jews who would want to make revisions.

Like B.H. Roberts, I personally would reject any assertion by the witnesses that to their knowledge Joseph did not make use of the KJV of the Bible during his translation. I don't believe that he used the Bible throughout the production, but I believe that he clearly used the Bible throughout certain portions of the work, which would support your theory regarding a reflection of the KJV Isaiah text rather than the original now non-existent text.

Ultimately, your theory is an argument from silence, but you could strengthen your contention if you could identify some specific reasons why a later editor would have wanted to revise chapters 40 and beyond, and of course, perhaps some textual evidence suggesting that a tampering may have occurred.

I think it's an interesting idea, and would enjoy seeing how you would develop the argument.

In my mind, the issue of Deutero-Isaiah is the greatest challenge the BofM faces with regards to questions of its ancient authenticity, so it would be worth a try.

best,

--DB

[Benjamin McGuire]

Like B.H. Roberts, I personally would reject any assertion by the witnesses that to their knowledge Joseph did not make use of the KJV of the Bible during his translation. I don't believe that he used the Bible throughout the production, but I believe that he clearly used the Bible throughout certain portions of the work, which would support your theory regarding a reflection of the KJV Isaiah text rather than the original now non-existent text.

At the very least, you can make a strong argument for the dependance (it doesn't matter what the mechanism was that drove the dependance) of the Book of Mormon on the King James Bible. Which is to say, material in the Book of Mormon appears as it does only because the KJV text appears the way it does.

Ben M.