Comparing DSS, KJV and BOM

[ruski_canuk]

Do the Dead Sea Scrolls provide compelling evidence which supports the latter day saint view that JS's BOM translation was divinely directed? Evidence supporting this view was submitted to me and is attached. I believe the work that is attached came from Stephen Ricks, a BYU professor.

I posted the same doc on postmormon.org and received the following response from "Ed"

---

First, I need to explain that I am not a Hebrew scholar by any stretch. I am very competent in New Testament (Greek) textual criticism (ask me about how badly JS screwed up the Sermon at the Temple in 3 Nephi sometime). I do have some familiarity with Hebrew, though (actually, enough to see what this guy is trying to pull off). Anyway, that having been said, I am going to call BS on this hack job. The author starts by listing four verses that are supposedly "better" in the Book of Mormon than the King James (where "better" means looks more like the DSS). None of these are any solid evidence for the Book of Mormon.

1) Isaiah 48:11

Here there are two changes made in the Book of Mormon version. The first changes "even for mine own sake" to "yea, for mine own sake". Big thing to note here is that the King James shows that 'even' is an italicized word here -- this means that the word is not original to the text. It is a word that is inserted into the text to make the meaning flow in English. All that Smith has done here is substitute his own italic word for another one in the King James. Neither the English translation provided in this document, nor the KJV version is truly correct. Here, each translator has substituted their own connective word to make things jive right. I actually did look up another DSS translation (available at http://www.ao.net/~fmoeller/qumdir.htm) and this particular translator retains the original King James 'even' rather than the 'yea' of the Book of Mormon, which is perfectly acceptable. The italicized word means absolutely nothing -- all that happened here was Smith changed an italic for a different italic, and the author of this paper has found a translation (or just made up his own) that would match. This is not a win for the Book of Mormon.

To go on a bit on italics, what you find in the 1st Ed. of the Book of Mormon is that Smith is VERY familiar with the italics in the King James and doesn't trust any of them, though it appears he has no idea what they mean. To him, they are just evil additions to the text and need to be scrubbed, which is what he does for the most part in 2 Nephi. This actually made the Book of Mormon a gigantic pain to read in the first edition, which eventually prompted the church to stick them all back in later on. For more info on this, see David P. Wright's essay "Isaiah in the Book of Mormon . . . and Joseph Smith in Isaiah". You can get most of the essay here: http://www.xmission.com/~research/central/isabm1.html

The second phrase that is changed in this passage is "for how should my name be polluted?" which is changed in the Book of Mormon to "for I will not suffer . . .". The translator at the DSS site that I mentioned earlier still retains the question here. I find it curious that the author has not cited the source for his translation. I don't if he is just doing this on his own, but certainly he should be able to cite a competent translation of the DSS for his work. Certainly the translation that I found does not agree with what he has put forth.

2) Isaiah 14:32

Here we have another instance of quibbling over an italic - which is pretty paltry evidence. The King James renders the verse "What shall *one* answer . . ." whereas the Book of Mormon removes the one. I have already mentioned how Smith likes to hack out italics, even when destroying the readability of the verse. This is really not a big deal - some other translator also chose not to insert a continuity word - this is hardly a win for the Book of Mormon. Really, all it does in my mind is make the author of the paper look desparate to find some corroboration.

3) Isaiah 9:9

Here, the word "inhabitant" is pluralized to "inhabitants". This does seem to be correct in the translation that I looked up, though I am not really impressed by it. Certainly we all knew that there is more than one person living in Samaria - why is this a big deal. We actually see Smith changes obvious things like this quite often. The JST of Luke 2 changes the word "inn" to "inns" in verse 7 (though there is, unequivocally, no manuscript support for this change. Basically, this isn't nearly as impressive as we would hope for the Book of Mormon. The DSS does have several significant variants that the Book of Mormon most certainly does not follow. An obvious slip of plurization does not make up for this.

4) Isaiah 3:9

I am kind of scratching my head at this one. The Book of Mormon version is significantly different from the KJV, but the KJV is closer to the DSS than the Book of Mormon is. I have no idea why this guy is using this as an evidence. The phrase "And they declare their sin . . ." is identical between the KJV and DSS. The Book of Mormon changes this to "And doth declare . . . " and so is the odd-man out. The excitement for the author of the paper is that the word 'and' shows up in the Book of Mormon. However, I don't think that this is necessarily correct. The translation that I found online definitely does not have the 'and' in this verse, and does treat the second half of this verse as its own sentence, just as the King James does.

5) The personification of Wisdom as female

The last thing that the author of this works discusses is how wisdom is personified in a particular piece of the DSS as female, and how it is also personified that way in the Book of Mormon. Hence, JS must be a prophet, QED!

Yes, the Hebrew word for "wisdom" is feminine. The big question is, of course, "How could JS have known about this?" In the authors opinion, he couldn't, hence the conclusion that he must be inspired. This argument, however, fails on inspection. There are two instances in the King James Bible in the Book of Proverbs alone where Wisdom is personified as a female (Pro 7:4, and Pro 9:1). Why, on earth, should we accept inspiration as the only conclusion when familiarity with King James translation of Proverbs can create the same effect? I most certainly can't give Joseph Smith brownie points for this, either.

Lastly, what the author fails to discuss in the paper are the many failures that the Book of Mormon Isaiah chapters have, such as places where the (erroneous) King James version is copied verbatim without any proper correction. For anyone really interested in a detailed study of this, I REALLY suggest reading David P. Wright's essay on Isaih in the Book of Mormon found here: http://www.xmission.com/~research/central/isabm1.html. Wright was a Hebrew professor at BYU before being disciplined for his studies (I think it was actually something on the Book of Abraham that got him axed). Anyway, he is an actual credentialed scholar who finds Smith musings in Isaiah to be very transparent and obviously not inspired.

---

Dead sea Scrolls.pdf

[Ray Agostini]

For anyone really interested in a detailed study of this, I REALLY suggest reading David P. Wright's essay on Isaih in the Book of Mormon found here: http://www.xmission.com/~research/central/isabm1.html. Wright was a Hebrew professor at BYU before being disciplined for his studies (I think it was actually something on the Book of Abraham that got him axed). Anyway, he is an actual credentialed scholar who finds Smith musings in Isaiah to be very transparent and obviously not inspired.

Your link to Wright's essay didn't work for me. I think this is it:

Isaiah in the Book of Mormon

...and Joseph Smith in Isaiah.

From the Conclusion:

Many maintaining the antiquity of the BM have tried to make sense of KJV language in the BM by saying that Joseph Smith used it when the content of the plates agreed with the KJV. Hugh Nibley says, for example, that "the Book of Mormon follows the language of the King James Bible only as far as the latter conveys the correct meaning of the original."108 The KJV language comes specifically, according to different versions of this theory, either from Joseph Smith's using an English Bible in the translation situation or from revelation without use of the Bible.109 This theory and its versions are completely untenable in view of the complexity and nature of the evidence presented above. They cannot explain the preoccupation with the italics, variants based on English polysemy, and disturbances of Hebrew style. And they are chiefly rebutted by the maintenance of KJV translation errors in the BM as well as by the incomplete and incomprehensible texts in some variants.

[ttribe]

Doesn't this entire line of argument rely on the assumption that the DSS are "correct", and that, only because they are the oldest we have? That seems tenuous.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Doesn't this entire line of argument rely on the assumption that the DSS are "correct", and that, only because they are the oldest we have? That seems tenuous.

My thoughts exaclty. Or that teh DSS represnet something very comparable to the originals.

I don't think that anyone has claimed that but that is what I get form this thread.

[Ray Agostini]

Doesn't this entire line of argument rely on the assumption that the DSS are "correct", and that, only because they are the oldest we have? That seems tenuous.

No, it doesn't. The conclusion about authorship can be done independent of that. For example, the Isaiah anachronisms are not connected with the DSS.

[David T]

This also assumes that the Isaiah texts in the Book of Mormon are presented as-is, based on the same family of historical documents we have, and not interpolated by paraphrases and over-lapping modernizations (either by Nephi, Moroni, or even Joseph Smith).

[maklelan]

Do the Dead Sea Scrolls provide compelling evidence which supports the latter day saint view that JS's BOM translation was divinely directed? Evidence supporting this view was submitted to me and is attached. I believe the work that is attached came from Stephen Ricks, a BYU professor.

I posted the same doc on postmormon.org and received the following response from "Ed"

---

First, I need to explain that I am not a Hebrew scholar by any stretch. I am very competent in New Testament (Greek) textual criticism (ask me about how badly JS screwed up the Sermon at the Temple in 3 Nephi sometime). I do have some familiarity with Hebrew, though (actually, enough to see what this guy is trying to pull off). Anyway, that having been said, I am going to call BS on this hack job. The author starts by listing four verses that are supposedly "better" in the Book of Mormon than the King James (where "better" means looks more like the DSS). None of these are any solid evidence for the Book of Mormon.

1) Isaiah 48:11

Here there are two changes made in the Book of Mormon version. The first changes "even for mine own sake" to "yea, for mine own sake". Big thing to note here is that the King James shows that 'even' is an italicized word here -- this means that the word is not original to the text. It is a word that is inserted into the text to make the meaning flow in English. All that Smith has done here is substitute his own italic word for another one in the King James. Neither the English translation provided in this document, nor the KJV version is truly correct. Here, each translator has substituted their own connective word to make things jive right. I actually did look up another DSS translation (available at http://www.ao.net/~fmoeller/qumdir.htm) and this particular translator retains the original King James 'even' rather than the 'yea' of the Book of Mormon, which is perfectly acceptable. The italicized word means absolutely nothing -- all that happened here was Smith changed an italic for a different italic, and the author of this paper has found a translation (or just made up his own) that would match. This is not a win for the Book of Mormon.

This one is a wash. Both versions accurately convey the emphasis implied by the doubling of the word למעני.

To go on a bit on italics, what you find in the 1st Ed. of the Book of Mormon is that Smith is VERY familiar with the italics in the King James and doesn't trust any of them, though it appears he has no idea what they mean. To him, they are just evil additions to the text and need to be scrubbed, which is what he does for the most part in 2 Nephi. This actually made the Book of Mormon a gigantic pain to read in the first edition, which eventually prompted the church to stick them all back in later on. For more info on this, see David P. Wright's essay "Isaiah in the Book of Mormon . . . and Joseph Smith in Isaiah". You can get most of the essay here: http://www.xmission.com/~research/central/isabm1.html

The second phrase that is changed in this passage is "for how should my name be polluted?" which is changed in the Book of Mormon to "for I will not suffer . . .". The translator at the DSS site that I mentioned earlier still retains the question here. I find it curious that the author has not cited the source for his translation. I don't if he is just doing this on his own, but certainly he should be able to cite a competent translation of the DSS for his work. Certainly the translation that I found does not agree with what he has put forth.

He's doing the translation on his own. He's quite a competent Hebrew scholar and has co-authored more than one book on the Dead Sea Scrolls. I can also offer my own translation, and I'll try to break down what's going on in the Hebrew so everyone can see what is at work in the variant. The MT reads (very literally), "for how?!/why?!/will?! it will be profaned?" The interrogative interjection איך can be interpreted a number of ways. The DSS differ in the conjugation of the verb "to profane." It is actually in the first person singular (איחל) and not in the third person (יחל), like the MT. A literal translation would be "For how?!/why?!/will?! I be profaned?" If one interprets the sentence as a negative interrogative, that is, expecting a negative answer, a paraphrase would be "for I will not be profaned!" "I will not suffer" is not an inaccurate rendering. It isn't the most accurate way to do it, but I've never subscribed to the theory that Joseph Smith was revealed the text letter for letter.

2) Isaiah 14:32

Here we have another instance of quibbling over an italic - which is pretty paltry evidence. The King James renders the verse "What shall *one* answer . . ." whereas the Book of Mormon removes the one. I have already mentioned how Smith likes to hack out italics, even when destroying the readability of the verse. This is really not a big deal - some other translator also chose not to insert a continuity word - this is hardly a win for the Book of Mormon. Really, all it does in my mind is make the author of the paper look desparate to find some corroboration.

Another wash. It's just another way to render a phrase, and Smith leaves plenty of the italics in where they're less necessary than here.

3) Isaiah 9:9

Here, the word "inhabitant" is pluralized to "inhabitants". This does seem to be correct in the translation that I looked up, though I am not really impressed by it. Certainly we all knew that there is more than one person living in Samaria - why is this a big deal. We actually see Smith changes obvious things like this quite often. The JST of Luke 2 changes the word "inn" to "inns" in verse 7 (though there is, unequivocally, no manuscript support for this change. Basically, this isn't nearly as impressive as we would hope for the Book of Mormon. The DSS does have several significant variants that the Book of Mormon most certainly does not follow. An obvious slip of plurization does not make up for this.

The DSS do pluralize the word "inhabitant." While it may seem simple enough to harmonize that portion, it's quite a different story to do it when DSS does it as well. Often such minutiae are ignored. It's not a slam dunk, but the Book of Mormon version is corroborated by DSS.

4) Isaiah 3:9

I am kind of scratching my head at this one. The Book of Mormon version is significantly different from the KJV, but the KJV is closer to the DSS than the Book of Mormon is. I have no idea why this guy is using this as an evidence. The phrase "And they declare their sin . . ." is identical between the KJV and DSS. The Book of Mormon changes this to "And doth declare . . . " and so is the odd-man out. The excitement for the author of the paper is that the word 'and' shows up in the Book of Mormon. However, I don't think that this is necessarily correct. The translation that I found online definitely does not have the 'and' in this verse, and does treat the second half of this verse as its own sentence, just as the King James does.

The word "and" is indeed found in DSS where it is lacking in MT. Interestingly, the verb translated "declare" in the KJV is in the plural in both texts, but is secondary in DSS. That is, it was originally singular (agreeing with the Book of Mormon), but someone added the waw on the end to make it plural after the text was finished (to agree with MT and KJV). Another consideration is that the Book of Mormon pluralizes "souls" while KJV does not. Both MT and DSS have the singular, but it should be plural. Again, this could just be a case of harmonizing.

5) The personification of Wisdom as female

The last thing that the author of this works discusses is how wisdom is personified in a particular piece of the DSS as female, and how it is also personified that way in the Book of Mormon. Hence, JS must be a prophet, QED!

Yes, the Hebrew word for "wisdom" is feminine. The big question is, of course, "How could JS have known about this?" In the authors opinion, he couldn't, hence the conclusion that he must be inspired. This argument, however, fails on inspection. There are two instances in the King James Bible in the Book of Proverbs alone where Wisdom is personified as a female (Pro 7:4, and Pro 9:1). Why, on earth, should we accept inspiration as the only conclusion when familiarity with King James translation of Proverbs can create the same effect? I most certainly can't give Joseph Smith brownie points for this, either.

I agree that a working knowledge of KJV conventions would lead someone to use the feminine when dealing with the word "wisdom."

Lastly, what the author fails to discuss in the paper are the many failures that the Book of Mormon Isaiah chapters have, such as places where the (erroneous) King James version is copied verbatim without any proper correction. For anyone really interested in a detailed study of this, I REALLY suggest reading David P. Wright's essay on Isaih in the Book of Mormon found here: http://www.xmission.com/~research/central/isabm1.html. Wright was a Hebrew professor at BYU before being disciplined for his studies (I think it was actually something on the Book of Abraham that got him axed). Anyway, he is an actual credentialed scholar who finds Smith musings in Isaiah to be very transparent and obviously not inspired.

I have personally always looked at the Book of Mormon as an anaphoric translation, and so don't find much merit in criticisms of the transmission of KJV errors. At the same time, it makes it difficult to get excited about small variants that agree, like extra conjunctions and things like that. The bottom line, however, is that the DSS post date the composition of Isaiah by half a millennium, and so they're no magical key to unlocking the original text. They're very helpful, and they illuminate a number of important aspects of the textual transmission of the different books of the Bible, but showing how they agree or disagree with the Book of Mormon proves nothing one way or the other.

[Kevin Christensen]

John Tvedtnes has responded to Professor Wright's essay on the Book of Mormon in the FARMS Review vol 16 n2 (2004). Tvedtnes suggests that both his own earlier work on Isaiah in the Book of Mormon and Wright's should benefit from Skousen's critical text. Plus he notes that "The Book of Mormon modified 137 (71 percent) of [the verses with italicized words] but also modified 62 (32 percent) of the 195 KJV verses that include no italicized words. ((Tvedtnes, 165).

Brant Gardner also comments on Isaiah in the Book of Mormon Brant Gardner, â??Implications of the Evidence of Translation Methodâ? at http://frontpage2000.nmia.com/~nahualli/LDStopics/transmeth.htm

For what it's worth, all criticisms of Joseph Smith's translation make assumptions about what God would or would not do. And if you stop and identify those assumptions, the next futile but amusing exercise involves finding any evidence whatsoever in support of them. Wright, for example says "The BoM conserves unacceptable translations of the KJV now clearly recognized as such from the stance of modern research. If the former were a translation from an ancient text, one would expect it to transend the limitations of the KJV and even the limitations of modern scholars who still find a number of the noted passages insoluable." Wright, "Isaiah in the Book of Mormon" in American Apocrypha, p 173.

Kuhn observes that "Anomally emerges against a background of expectation." Here Wright states his expectation. Fine. But where is any evidence whatsoever backing it up? Where is an example of this expected transcendent translation, or even a usefully transcently perfect original text transmission, found anywhere? When I look at D&C 128:18, I see Joseph Smith stating "I might have rendered a plainer translation to this, but it is sufficiently plain to suit my purposes as it stands..." And D&C 1:24-28 expressly includes Joseph Smith's understanding, weakness, language, and potential for error as co-existent with his prophetic call. If it serves, it just might be good enough as it is.

Wright, for the record, was not excommunicated for any work on the Book of Abraham. He wrote an essay on Alma 13 in Metcalfe's New Approaches in 1993, arguing against the historicity of the Book of Mormon. And he earlier published other arguments in a Sunstone essay in 1992. And then the American Apocrypha essay on Isaiah. Since leaving BYU, he's worked and taught at Brandeis, working with David Bokovoy, who posts here now and then. And he just published a new book called _Inventing God's Law_, arguing that the covenant Code in the Bible uses and revises the laws of Hammurabi.

And Professor Welch's approach to the Sermon on the Mount, as Daniel Peterson recently announced, has been making waves.

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[Ray Agostini]

Kevin or maklelan:

Two anachronisms in the book relate to the issue of Isaiah. First, critical scholars with good reason have concluded that much of the biblical book, especially chapters 40-66, do not come from the eight century BCE prophet Isaiah, but from a later time.116 For example, the temporal perspective in chapters 40-55 (from which several of the BM Isaiah chapters come) is that of about 540 BCE. The people have recently suffered destruction at the hands of the Babylonians (in 586 BCE).117 The temple, Jerusalem, and other cities have been destroyed and need rebuilding.118 Many of the people are now in Mesopotamia, in captivity; but Babylonian might is waning119 and release from captivity is imminent.120 Cyrus, the Persian king, is the political leader who will effect the release (c. 538 BCE).121 It is not just the mention of specific sixth-centry BCE historical figures and events that pin these chapters to that time. Also telling is that precision in description ceases at this point in time. The era after the release is described in general terms, and this description is in error since bounteous blessing did not ensue.122 The lack of fulfillment gave Jewish, Christian and Mormon interpreters cause to reapply the chapters to later events. That Isaiah 40-55 were written after the middle of the sixth century BCE is also indicated by their perfect conceptual fit between other prophetic works written in the first half of the sixth century BCE (Jeremiah and Ezekiel) and those written at the end of this century (Haggai and Zechariah 1 - eight) . This dating for this part of Isaiah means it could not have been available to Lehi's family when they, according to the story, left for the New World around 600 BCE--Nephi, Jacob, Abinadi, and Noah's false priests could not have cited from it.123

[maklelan]

John Tvedtnes has responded to Professor Wright's essay on the Book of Mormon in the FARMS Review vol 16 n2 (2004). Tvedtnes suggests that both his own earlier work on Isaiah in the Book of Mormon and Wright's should benefit from Skousen's critical text. Plus he notes that "The Book of Mormon modified 137 (71 percent) of [the verses with italicized words] but also modified 62 (32 percent) of the 195 KJV verses that include no italicized words. ((Tvedtnes, 165).

Brant Gardner also comments on Isaiah in the Book of Mormon Brant Gardner, â??Implications of the Evidence of Translation Methodâ? at http://frontpage2000.nmia.com/~nahualli/LDStopics/transmeth.htm

For what it's worth, all criticisms of Joseph Smith's translation make assumptions about what God would or would not do. And if you stop and identify those assumptions, the next futile but amusing exercise involves finding any evidence whatsoever in support of them.

This is the great cynic fallacy. Conflict in the cynical paradigm is almost exclusively derived from an expectation of the way God should or would do things.

Wright, for example says "The BoM conserves unacceptable translations of the KJV now clearly recognized as such from the stance of modern research. If the former were a translation from an ancient text, one would expect it to transend the limitations of the KJV and even the limitations of modern scholars who still find a number of the noted passages insoluable." Wright, "Isaiah in the Book of Mormon" in American Apocrypha, p 173.

Kuhn observes that "Anomally emerges against a background of expectation."

An important point for cynics, and equally important for apologists is Kuhn's statement regarding what people do when confronted with these anomalies:

They will devise numerous articulations and ad hoc modifications of their theory in order to eliminate any apparent conflict.

Here Wright states his expectation. Fine. But where is any evidence whatsoever backing it up? Where is an example of this expected transcendent translation, or even a usefully transcently perfect original text transmission, found anywhere? When I look at D&C 128:18, I see Joseph Smith stating "I might have rendered a plainer translation to this, but it is sufficiently plain to suit my purposes as it stands..."

Which supports the theory that he was rendering a primarily anaphoric translation.

And D&C 1:24-28 expressly includes Joseph Smith's understanding, weakness, language, and potential for error as co-existent with his prophetic call. If it serves, it just might be good enough as it is.

Wright, for the record, was not excommunicated for any work on the Book of Abraham. He wrote an essay on Alma 13 in Metcalfe's New Approaches in 1993, arguing against the historicity of the Book of Mormon. And he earlier published other arguments in a Sunstone essay in 1992. And then the American Apocrypha essay on Isaiah. Since leaving BYU, he's worked and taught at Brandeis, working with David Bokovoy, who posts here now and then. And he just published a new book called _Inventing God's Law_, arguing that the covenant Code in the Bible uses and revises the laws of Hammurabi.

I might add that Wright is on Bokovoy's diss. committee (if I am not remembering incorrectly), and that they get along quite well.

[maklelan]

Kevin or maklelan:

The Book of Mormon provides an example of late Old World scripture being provided the Nephites through an intermediary (see 3 Nephi 24), but I am personally not opposed to the idea that Joseph Smith interpolated his own understanding (and texts) from time to time into the Book of Mormon. On the other hand, exile-era redaction of Isaiah does not preclude a pre-exilic version of the text, and if Smith was indeed executing a more anaphoric translation, there's no reason he wouldn't incorporate the text as it was more familiar to him. In the end, however, these are all questions that have too many variables and unknowns to answer with any moderate degree of certainty.

[Ray Agostini]

The Book of Mormon provides an example of late Old World scripture being provided the Nephites through an intermediary (see 3 Nephi 24),

The BoM Isaiah chapters concerned are in 1-2 Nephi. The small plates were not abridged.

but I am personally not opposed to the idea that Joseph Smith interpolated his own understanding (and texts) from time to time into the Book of Mormon.

Which means you favour a loose translation. That doesn't seem to fit what Skousen found (so far).

On the other hand, exile-era redaction of Isaiah does not preclude a pre-exilic version of the text, and if Smith was indeed executing a more anaphoric translation, there's no reason he wouldn't incorporate the text as it was more familiar to him.

That opens all sorts of other possibilities.

[dblagent007]

For what it's worth, all criticisms of Joseph Smith's translation make assumptions about what God would or would not do. And if you stop and identify those assumptions, the next futile but amusing exercise involves finding any evidence whatsoever in support of them. Wright, for example says "The BoM conserves unacceptable translations of the KJV now clearly recognized as such from the stance of modern research. If the former were a translation from an ancient text, one would expect it to transend the limitations of the KJV and even the limitations of modern scholars who still find a number of the noted passages insoluable." Wright, "Isaiah in the Book of Mormon" in American Apocrypha, p 173.

Kuhn observes that "Anomally emerges against a background of expectation." Here Wright states his expectation. Fine. But where is any evidence whatsoever backing it up? Where is an example of this expected transcendent translation, or even a usefully transcently perfect original text transmission, found anywhere? When I look at D&C 128:18, I see Joseph Smith stating "I might have rendered a plainer translation to this, but it is sufficiently plain to suit my purposes as it stands..." And D&C 1:24-28 expressly includes Joseph Smith's understanding, weakness, language, and potential for error as co-existent with his prophetic call. If it serves, it just might be good enough as it is.

I think critics would respond that apologists' background expectation that the BOM is true colors their conclusions.

What I hear you saying is that we should not expect the BOM Isaiah translation to be free of translation errors contained in the KJV even though the BOM Isaiah was derived from a different text that predated the KJV by around two thousand years.

This seems to leave open a few possibilities. First, JS used the KJV as the source for the BOM, but it was okay because God sanctioned this technique. Or, God revealed to JS the text of Isaiah including the KJV translation errors because, well, I have no idea, but he is God and he can do what he wants. I shouldn't expect that he wouldn't.

Maybe it's just me, but these explanations are . . . well . . . less than satisfying.

As for the scriptures you cite, D&C 128 is referring to a translation of OT Malachi, which JS and everyone in the early Church acknowledged was correct only as far as it was translated correctly. Hence, JS could have rendered a plainer translation (like he did with the large portions of the bible in the JST). I think JS would probably object to you analogizing this to the BOM translation process.

[maklelan]

The BoM Isaiah chapters concerned are in 1-2 Nephi. The small plates were not abridged.

I didn't say that it happened with Mormon or Moroni, I said there is an example of non-extant scripture being delivered to the Nephites.

Which means you favour a loose translation. That doesn't seem to fit what Skousen found (so far).

Skousen's got his theories and I have mine.

That opens all sorts of other possibilities.

It does.

[Anijen]

sorry for the brief derailment. Maklelan, thanks for the book I received it today and have already read it. Man, I miss Brother Madsen.

Anijen

Edited to say; I'm posting this here because your PM space I guess is full or you have it turned off or something, maybe I'm on ignore LOL...

[Kevin Christensen]

Regarding the famous Isaiah problem in the Book of Mormon,

http://www.margaretbarker.com/Papers/FourthServantSong.pdf

She makes a good case that Isaiah 53 was inspired by Hezekiah's bout with the plague, which serendipitously, makes that chapter early and available. It also raises all sorts of interesting details which I have never seen mentioned in any discussion of Second Isaiah. I don't have a problem with the Second and Isaiah hypothesis for parts of the Bible text. I just think that the Book of Mormon raises issues for the theory, just as the theory raises issues for the Book of Mormon. It's a two way street.

I have a chapter in Paradigms Regained on the topic, but I hadn't read this essay on the setting of Isaiah 53 when I wrote it. I read and used several essays in Isaiah in the Book of Mormon. After reading it, I have a hard time imagining how a Second Isaiah could have done that chapter.

It's amazing how often arguments against the translation that we have hinge on logic that says "It's not what I would do if I were God." If the New Testament authors can quote the common translation of their time (the LXX, rather that some Hebrew original), so as to make the quotations immedately recognizable to common folk who used that text, why can't Joseph Smith?

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[ruski_canuk]

The problem, Kevin, is that the competing hypothesis is that the book's origin is the 19th century.

If it looks, quacks and waddles like a duck then...

Regarding the famous Isaiah problem in the Book of Mormon,

http://www.margaretbarker.com/Papers/FourthServantSong.pdf

She makes a good case that Isaiah 53 was inspired by Hezekiah's bout with the plague, which serendipitously, makes that chapter early and available. It also raises all sorts of interesting details which I have never seen mentioned in any discussion of Second Isaiah. I don't have a problem with the Second and Isaiah hypothesis for parts of the Bible text. I just think that the Book of Mormon raises issues for the theory, just as the theory raises issues for the Book of Mormon. It's a two way street.

I have a chapter in Paradigms Regained on the topic, but I hadn't read this essay on the setting of Isaiah 53 when I wrote it. I read and used several essays in Isaiah in the Book of Mormon. After reading it, I have a hard time imagining how a Second Isaiah could have done that chapter.

It's amazing how often arguments against the translation that we have hinge on logic that says "It's not what I would do if I were God." If the New Testament authors can quote the common translation of their time (the LXX, rather that some Hebrew original), so as to make the quotations immedately recognizable to common folk who used that text, why can't Joseph Smith?

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[maklelan]

The problem, Kevin, is that the competing hypothesis is that the book's origin is the 19th century.

And so you recognize the complexity of the issue and the fallacy of building criticism on reductive caricatures.

[Kevin Christensen]

The problem, Kevin, is that the competing hypothesis is that the book's origin is the 19th century.

If it looks, quacks and waddles like a duck then...

It may be a child's pull toy, capable of looking a bit like a duck, and of quacking, and waddling, but still not a real duck.

Back in 1953, Nibley pointed out that the method of the Renaissance scholars for determining the authenticity of a purported historical document was to assume that it is what is says it is and read it in that context to see how well it fits. And the methods of Joseph's critics tend to be, assume that it is fraudulent, and read it in a 19th century context (if at all), and assume that any resemblence constitutes sufficient evidence.

Given different paradigms, Kuhn observes, the thing to do is compare two, and ask, which is better? And that involves deciding "which problems are more significant to have solved?" And the way to measure involves values: accuracy of key predictions, comprehensiveness and coherence, fruitfulness, simplicity and aesthetics, and future promise.

Professor Wright is a brilliant man, but I find his explanations of the Book of Mormon focuses on textual issues that don't bother me, since I don't make the same assumptions he does about what an inspired translation should be, and I find that neither his talent, nor his honesty, nor his sincerity make him omniscient and infallible, and beyond criticism. Nor do his discussions of the Book of Mormon address the things that I find most interesting and telling about the Book of Mormon. That is, the little quacking and waddling text that he describes does not include any meaningful discussion of the features that I find most significant in upholding my own view of the Book of Mormon text. That includes things like the NDE accounts and affereffects, the ritual backgrounds in Benjamin's discourse, the insights of Alma 32, the correspondence with Barker's First Temple Theology, the Forty-Day and Temple in 3 Nephi, the fits in 600 BCE Jerusalem and Arabia, the correspondences to Mesomaerica, the use of type scenes and allusion, the poetry from quasida to chiasmus, the unique fit of the Sidon to the Grijalva, the detailed description of a volcanic event that simultaneously fits with Eliade's description of the rites of the New Year, the Survivor Witness profile, the patterns of warfare, etc. He'd have me think that any such correspondences were coincidence, and he avoids discussing or even mentioning them in his essays. I don't find that his explanation is accurate on details that I find key, nor is it comprehensive and coherent, nor have I found it fruitful, nor promising, nor at all attractive or persuasive.

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[ruski_canuk]

Back in 1953, Nibley pointed out that the method of the Renaissance scholars for determining the authenticity of a purported historical document was to assume that it is what is says it is and read it in that context to see how well it fits. And the methods of Joseph's critics tend to be, assume that it is fraudulent, and read it in a 19th century context (if at all), and assume that any resemblence constitutes sufficient evidence.

How about a 3rd way which attempts to compile evidence for both theories (divine or 19th century man) and then attempts to weight the evidence which is aligned to support either position? Right, of course, we will never know with absolute certainty whether Germany invaded Poland in 1939 (after all, it could be that God has just set everything up to seem that way when in fact, it never happened).

Are you an advocate or a judge? Now there is an actual dichotomy.

[Ray Agostini]

It may be a child's pull toy, capable of looking a bit like a duck, and of quacking, and waddling, but still not a real duck.

Back in 1953, Nibley pointed out that the method of the Renaissance scholars for determining the authenticity of a purported historical document was to assume that it is what is says it is and read it in that context to see how well it fits. And the methods of Joseph's critics tend to be, assume that it is fraudulent, and read it in a 19th century context (if at all), and assume that any resemblence constitutes sufficient evidence.

Given different paradigms, Kuhn observes, the thing to do is compare two, and ask, which is better? And that involves deciding "which problems are more significant to have solved?" And the way to measure involves values: accuracy of key predictions, comprehensiveness and coherence, fruitfulness, simplicity and aesthetics, and future promise.

Professor Wright is a brilliant man, but I find his explanations of the Book of Mormon focuses on textual issues that don't bother me, since I don't make the same assumptions he does about what an inspired translation should be, and I find that neither his talent, nor his honesty, nor his sincerity make him omniscient and infallible, and beyond criticism. Nor do his discussions of the Book of Mormon address the things that I find most interesting and telling about the Book of Mormon. That is, the little quacking and waddling text that he describes does not include any meaningful discussion of the features that I find most significant in upholding my own view of the Book of Mormon text. That includes things like the NDE accounts and affereffects, the ritual backgrounds in Benjamin's discourse, the insights of Alma 32, the correspondence with Barker's First Temple Theology, the Forty-Day and Temple in 3 Nephi, the fits in 600 BCE Jerusalem and Arabia, the correspondences to Mesomaerica, the use of type scenes and allusion, the poetry from quasida to chiasmus, the unique fit of the Sidon to the Grijalva, the detailed description of a volcanic event that simultaneously fits with Eliade's description of the rites of the New Year, the Survivor Witness profile, the patterns of warfare, etc. He'd have me think that any such correspondences were coincidence, and he avoids discussing or even mentioning them in his essays. I don't find that his explanation is accurate on details that I find key, nor is it comprehensive and coherent, nor have I found it fruitful, nor promising, nor at all attractive or persuasive.

I don't find any of this a convincing argument that the BoM is historical. It is, to be sure, an enigma, but the facts against historicity stare me too strongly in the face to deny them. I did not arrive at this firm conclusion overnight, more like 30-plus years. In the last couple of years this fact has stared me in the face stronger than it ever has. However, many will continue to find the book of much personal value, as recorded in Eugene England's Converted to Christ Through the Book of Mormon . So it isn't my intention to denigrate such spiritual experiences, though these days I find the BoM of much less personal value than it previously was. While I'm not a fan of the Qur'an, I respect the fact that many Muslims consider it their holy book. While I'm not a Christian, I respect the fact that many Christians find much value in the Bible. My arguments against historicity are not meant to denigrate these spiritual experiences, but to afford those seeking more knowledge an opportunity to take another look. While it didn't work for me, many will come to a belief that the BoM isn't historical yet still place high personal value in it.

I believe those arguing for historicity are fighting what will eventually turn out to be a losing battle, yet I wish them no ill in this quest, and the debates will continue to be interesting at some levels. In the last several years I have also have a change of heart. I no longer believe that apologetics is as important as I once considered it. While the defenders argue for historicity until they're blue in the face, someone, somewhere in the world is reading the BoM through an entirely different perspective, the one England talked about. Joseph Smith did not emphasise the historicity of the BoM (though he obviously believed it), but the teachings of the BoM. What will "draw a man nearer to God"? Historicity? Or what the Book teaches? Those who can extract value from the Book without the certainty of historicity, will probably be the only "winners" in the long term.

[Kevin Christensen]

How about a 3rd way which attempts to compile evidence for both theories (divine or 19th century man) and then attempts to weight the evidence which is aligned to support either position? Right, of course, we will never know with absolute certainty whether Germany invaded Poland in 1939 (after all, it could be that God has just set everything up to seem that way when in fact, it never happened).

Are you an advocate or a judge? Now there is an actual dichotomy.

I've been advocating the 3rd way in print since 1991, at considerable length and detail on occasion. In RBBM 7:2 at length, and in my previous post, briefly, as you may or may not have noticed.

Given different paradigms, Kuhn observes, the thing to do is compare two, and ask, which is better? And that involves deciding "which problems are more significant to have solved?" And the way to measure involves values: accuracy of key predictions, comprehensiveness and coherence, fruitfulness, simplicity and aesthetics, and future promise.

I'm an advocate of Book of Mormon historicity and divine inspiration, among other things. And as I judge on that topic, I expect to be judged.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[Glenn101]

I don't find any of this a convincing argument that the BoM is historical. It is, to be sure, an enigma, but the facts against historicity stare me too strongly in the face to deny them. I did not arrive at this firm conclusion overnight, more like 30-plus years. In the last couple of years this fact has stared me in the face stronger than it ever has. However, many will continue to find the book of much personal value, as recorded in Eugene England's Converted to Christ Through the Book of Mormon . So it isn't my intention to denigrate such spiritual experiences, though these days I find the BoM of much less personal value than it previously was. While I'm not a fan of the Qur'an, I respect the fact that many Muslims consider it their holy book. While I'm not a Christian, I respect the fact that many Christians find much value in the Bible. My arguments against historicity are not meant to denigrate these spiritual experiences, but to afford those seeking more knowledge an opportunity to take another look. While it didn't work for me, many will come to a belief that the BoM isn't historical yet still place high personal value in it.

I believe those arguing for historicity are fighting what will eventually turn out to be a losing battle, yet I wish them no ill in this quest, and the debates will continue to be interesting at some levels. In the last several years I have also have a change of heart. I no longer believe that apologetics is as important as I once considered it. While the defenders argue for historicity until they're blue in the face, someone, somewhere in the world is reading the BoM through an entirely different perspective, the one England talked about. Joseph Smith did not emphasise the historicity of the BoM (though he obviously believed it), but the teachings of the BoM. What will "draw a man nearer to God"? Historicity? Or what the Book teaches? Those who can extract value from the Book without the certainty of historicity, will probably be the only "winners" in the long term.

It is hard to separate the two for me. I believe that the Book of Mormon is a historical document and was acquired in the manner that Joseph Smith said it was. If ultimately it is proven not to be so, it will be the undoing of the Church. I do not base my belief in the Book of Mormon on archeological or linguistic or any other physical evidence, however I do feel that over the years the evidence that has come forth tends to be more supportive of the Book of Mormon claims rather than destructive, as noted somewhat by Kevin Christensen.

Glenn

[Ray Agostini]

If ultimately it is proven not to be so, it will be the undoing of the Church.

I don't believe so. The CoC survive okay and they dropped "historical literalism" years ago, on the advice of their scholars. But I think it will mean a reduction in LDS membership. I'm not sure either how many Christians really depend heavily on the historicity of the Bible, hence the often used dichotomy the "Jesus of History" and the "Jesus of Faith". The "Jesus of history" is always going to present problems. But I'm quite sure that for Christians faith in Jesus isn't going to die out soon, regardless of how much scholars argue over questions of historicity.

[ruski_canuk]

"I'm an advocate of Book of Mormon historicity and divine inspiration, among other things."

"I've been advocating the 3rd way in print since 1991"

Sincerely, I may have missed something. Are you saying, in a nutshell, that you used to advocate for the objective perspective (acting as impartially towards the two theories as possible) but then decided to advocate for the BOM's historicity based on these values "accuracy of key predictions, comprehensiveness and coherence, fruitfulness, simplicity and aesthetics, and future promise"?