Craig Criddle on If/And Conditional Sentences

[volgadon]

And yet, unless I'm mistaken, you've said several times on this board that you haven't read much of what those scholars have written. So your hope doesn't really seem to have moved you to action.

He is waiting for a majority of Harvard, Yale, Cambridge and Oxford to give it the seal of approval first before deigning to read.

Like I said before, he would have loved the Soviet academic world.

[DanGB]

I don't believe that anybody (apart from you, perhaps) believes that anybody "suddenly" developed (let alone "practiced") "reformed Egyptian."

Incidentally, I don't believe that "reformed Egyptian" was a "language," and I don't see anything remotely problematic about the concept of a modified Egyptian script. Nor would anybody else who is familiar with -- for example -- hieroglyphics, hieratic, demotic, and Coptic.

Have you read the articles to which you've been referred? You seem to be posting pretty much in a vacuum of actual information.

To me, the plausibility of a proposition rests on the strength of the evidence supporting it and the soundness of the logic with which that evidence is analyzed. Whether anybody else is paying attention to it or not is of minimal significance, at most.

And yet, unless I'm mistaken, you've said several times on this board that you haven't read much of what those scholars have written. So your hope doesn't really seem to have moved you to action.

I think you, and others here, missed my question and went into defend LDS scholarship.

My question mere asked if our Church scholars explanations or rationalizations of the BOM claim of "reformed Egyptian" have generated any interest from (appropriately qualified) scholars outside the Church. Whether you or I think LDS Scholarship in this area, or the area of BOM historicity, is the greatest doesn't matter nor answer answer my original question. I just thought since you seem to hold yourself out as one who travels the world w fellow scholars, you migh know if any have found such scholarship convincing.

If there is no interest nor support from the secular academic community, then we should jar say so. If such scholarship has been accepted and embraced by the secular academic community, in these areas, it would be helpful for me to know.

[Hamba Tuhan]

My question mere[ly] asked if our Church scholars['] explanations or rationalizations of the BOM claim of "reformed Egyptian" have generated any interest from (appropriately qualified) scholars outside the Church. ... If there is no interest nor support from the secular academic community, then we should jar [just?] say so. If such scholarship has been accepted and embraced by the secular academic community, in these areas, it would be helpful for me to know.

I think, Dan, that you are getting things backward here. It is precisely the work of non-Mormon scholars who deal with ANE languages and scripts which has provided Church scholars more-than-adequate 'explanations and rationalisations' for the Book of Mormon claim that a group of ancient Jews would have used an altered Egyptian script. It is the Mormon academic community which has 'accepted and embraced' this research by others, seeing that it provides examples in perfect parallel with those claimed by the Book of Mormon.

By the way, this question of yours still leaves me wondering what exactly you did with the information people provided you earlier, such as that from LOAP and Volgadon. Did you somehow not notice that it is not Mormon scholars who have reported on numerous Semitic-language texts written in 'reformed Egyptian'?

[Daniel Peterson]

I think you, and others here, missed my question and went into defend LDS scholarship.

I, for one, find it rather difficult to figure out what you think you're actually saying.

For example, in the paragraphs from you quoted below, you seem to conflate the question of whether LDS scholarship on "reformed Egyptian" has "generated any interest from . . . scholars outside the Church" with the question of whether these scholars "have found such scholarship convincing."

But those are two quite distinct questions.

I'm not "convinced," myself, by much scholarship in which I have no interest, for the simple and sufficient reason that I don't read it. It would be very misleading, though, albeit technically "true," if someone were to say that Professor Daniel Peterson remains unconvinced by, say, Allen Gerlach's Indians, Oil, and Politics: A Recent History of Ecuador (Wilmington, DE: Scholarly Resources, Inc., 2003). Of course I'm "unconvinced." I know nothing whatever about Ecuador, haven't read anything on the subject, and have never so much as set eyes on Allen Gerlach's book.

My question mere asked if our Church scholars explanations or rationalizations of the BOM claim of "reformed Egyptian" have generated any interest from (appropriately qualified) scholars outside the Church.

On the whole, they have not.

Scholars outside of the Church overwhelmingly don't care enough about our claims to pay them the slightest attention.

Incidentally, who would these "appropriately qualified" scholars be, in your opinion? What would "qualify" them?

Whether you or I think LDS Scholarship in this area, or the area of BOM historicity, is the greatest doesn't matter nor answer answer my original question. I just thought since you seem to hold yourself out as one who travels the world w fellow scholars, you migh know if any have found such scholarship convincing.

To the best of my knowledge, they've neither found such scholarship convincing nor found it unconvincing. They're unfamiliar with it.

And what, exactly, do you mean by saying that I "seem to hold [myself] out as one who travels the world w fellow scholars." Is this a matter of opinion? I either do or I don't. Do you have any reason to suggest that I don't?

If there is no interest nor support from the secular academic community, then we should jar say so.

I'm happy to say, and have said many times, that there is little interest in the secular academic community in Mormon truth claims.

There was, by the way, little interest in the Greco-Roman intellectual community in Christian truth claims during the first two centuries of Christianity, either.

If such scholarship has been accepted and embraced by the secular academic community, in these areas, it would be helpful for me to know.

It has, on the whole, neither been "accepted and embraced" nor rejected by the secular academic community.

[ERayR]

I think you, and others here, missed my question and went into defend LDS scholarship.

My question mere asked if our Church scholars explanations or rationalizations of the BOM claim of "reformed Egyptian" have generated any interest from (appropriately qualified) scholars outside the Church. Whether you or I think LDS Scholarship in this area, or the area of BOM historicity, is the greatest doesn't matter nor answer answer my original question. I just thought since you seem to hold yourself out as one who travels the world w fellow scholars, you migh know if any have found such scholarship convincing.

If there is no interest nor support from the secular academic community, then we should jar say so. If such scholarship has been accepted and embraced by the secular academic community, in these areas, it would be helpful for me to know.

Pray tell me why it doesn't matter? My thoughts are just as important as someone who does not believe. Getting rather elitist aren't you?

[DanGB]

Pray tell me why it doesn't matter? My thoughts are just as important as someone who does not believe. Getting rather elitist aren't you?

I'll give you the short answer as we are at tipoff for KU. If a coach tells and convinces his team, based on all theory, athletic and physical evidence of the team, that they are a great team and they never submit to competition, what would the rest of the league think?

[Daniel Peterson]

I'll give you the short answer as we are at tipoff for KU. If a coach tells and convinces his team, based on all theory, athletic and physical evidence of the team, that they are a great team and they never submit to competition, what would the rest of the league think?

If, by contrast, the other teams simply never show up to compete against them, what should observers conclude?

You seem to be suggesting that the failure of mainstream scholarship to pay attention to Mormon scholarship is attributable to the cowardice of Mormon scholars. Do you have any actual reason to believe them to be cowards?

[DanGB]

If, by contrast, the other teams simply never show up to compete against them, what should observers conclude?

You seem to be suggesting that the failure of mainstream scholarship to pay attention to Mormon scholarship is attributable to the cowardice of Mormon scholars. Do you have any actual reason to believe them to be cowards?

Dan,

Great question. Hold that thought - too much happening in the arena, too big of game. Get back to you I PROMISE!

[DanGB]

If, by contrast, the other teams simply never show up to compete against them, what should observers conclude?

You seem to be suggesting that the failure of mainstream scholarship to pay attention to Mormon scholarship is attributable to the cowardice of Mormon scholars. Do you have any actual reason to believe them to be cowards?

(ok, this game is history!)

I actually your example provides a meaningful discussion and comparison.

Maybe this is where our concept passion differs.

[LifeOnaPlate]

How about putting the analogies on hold and simply responding to examples of Semitic/Egyptian language/script smashed up in to record a biblical psalm as mentioned above?

[Daniel Peterson]

I have no eccentric view of "passion," and this isn't about "passion" anyway.

What I'm trying to show you via our respective areas of passion is that they are quite similar.

[volgadon]

If DanGB would care to respond to either LOAP's or my posts on examples of Hebrew-Egyptians mishmashes, we are all ears.

[Daniel Peterson]

If DanGB would care to respond to either LOAP's or my posts on examples of Hebrew-Egyptians mishmashes, we are all ears.

I doubt that he's going to do it. He seems much more committed to viewing scholarship in terms that would be more appropriate to beauty pageants or popularity contests than in evaluating scholarship on the basis of the evidence deployed and the analysis to which that evidence is subjected -- which is the only scholarly method of evaluating scholarship.

He's uncannily similar to a poster over at the Compound who calls himself Joey. Joey absolutely will not engage the content of any piece of Mormon scholarship, but only wants to know--persistently--whether or not it's converted some substantial portion of an audience that hasn't read it. The question is so completely wrong-headed that it's difficult to fathom why he apparently can't see how misguided it is.

You've adduced some very sound and directly relevant material. It would be interesting to see how DanGB might react to it, but I'm not holding my breath.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Poor Joey.

[Hamba Tuhan]

Since '[h]ope springs eternal,' it might be useful here to quote a few passages for DanGB from a paper presented in 1997 by Carl Mosser (then M.A., New Testament, M.A., Philosophy of Religion & Ethics, M.A., Theology) and Paul Owen (then PhD candidate in New Testament language, literature, and theology):

The first [myth] is that there are, contrary to popular evangelical perceptions, legitimate Mormon scholars. We use the term scholar in its formal sense of "intellectual, erudite; skilled in intellectual investigation; trained in ancient languages."

It is a point of fact that the Latter-day Saints are not an anti-intellectual group like Jehovah's Witnesses. Mormons, in distinction to groups like JWs, produce work that has more than the mere appearance of scholarship. The second conclusion we have come to is that Mormon scholars and apologists (not all apologists are scholars) have, with varying degrees of success, answered most of the usual evangelical criticisms. Often these answers adequately diffuse particular (minor) criticisms. When the criticism has not been diffused the issue has usually been made much more complex.

The scholarship of Mormon writers is often rigorous. In the least their work warrants examination.

The increased sophistication of LDS scholarly apologetic is clearly seen in their approach to the Book of Mormon.

There is not room here for detailed study of further examples of scholarly defences of the Book of Mormon. But there are many more which do merit attention.

Recently Mormon scholars have come to the forefront of Dead Sea Scrolls research. FARMS and BYU regularly sponsor international conferences on the Scrolls in Israel or the U.S. attended by world-renowned scholars. At least five [sic] Latter-day Saints are on the International Dead Sea Scrolls Editing Team headed by Emmanuel Tov. The work of Latter-day Saints on the Scrolls is readily accepted by the larger academic community and they are often asked to collaborate, contribute or edit books with non-LDS scholars.

Mormon scholars also have a related interest in the Old Testament pseudepigrapha. Their involvement in pseudepigraphal studies can be seen in the two volume Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, edited by James H. Charlesworth.

Mormon intellectuals do not confine their reconstruction of early Christian history to Latter-day Saint audiences. In an attempt to reach a wider academic audience C. Wilfred Griggs has published a book-length history of early Egyptian Christianity with E.J. Brill. By its frequent bibliographic listing in standard church history reference books it appears that Griggs' work has been received favourably. Though in no way an explicit apologetic for Mormonism, this book lends much support to the LDS thesis.

Another example comes from David L. Paulsen's article in the Harvard Theological Review entitled, "Early Christian Belief in a Corporeal Deity: Origen and Augustine as Reluctant Witnesses."

Though most energies are being spent in the study of these other areas, Mormons have not neglected biblical studies proper. An example that should have made evangelical Old Testament scholars aware of their LDS counterparts was the festschrift written in honour of R. K. Harrison. Produced in 1988 by an evangelical publishing house, Israel's Apostasy and Restoration, contained essays by several leading evangelical scholars as well as three essays written by Mormons (among others). The volume was edited by none other than Avraham Gileadi. And how does the scholarship of the LDS authors fare in comparison? Their essays in no way stand out as inferior. In fact, at least one evangelical theologian has quoted in agreement from these essays in his own writing.

It seems that there exists an unfounded presupposition among evangelicals that there are no respectable LDS biblical scholars. This often blinds people from noticing the work LDS scholars have done. Yet, as with the above mentioned theologian, evangelicals quote Mormon scholars for support more than they know.

The entire text of the paper can be found here. Note that these assessments are now 13 years out of date.

[Daniel Peterson]

Note that these assessments are now 13 years out of date.

And, trust me, the level of relevant Mormon scholarship hasn't gone down during those thirteen years.

[lostindc]

Craig Criddle

Thats all that needs to be said.

Craig's words have been nothing but lacking stabs in the dark. Craig has let his personal issues interfere with all of his so-called research.

[gmormon]

The standard view among Mormon scholars who have considered the nature of "reformed Egyptian" is that it refers to script, not to language.

There's a good brief treatment of "reformed Egyptian" here, with references for further reading:

http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Anachronisms/Reformed_Egyptian

I am way over my head in this dicussion, so please forgive me if I ask to simplistic of questions. However when I read your statement above the thought had never occured to me that Nephi, Mormon, Moroni, et al where using reform Egyptian to write Hebrew. This begs two questions from the recesses of my mind.

First what was the Joseph trying to accomplish by having Professor Anton translate any of the Book of Mormon if what he had was Hebrew written with Egyptian characters? Wouldn't that be like me writing English love letters using Chinese Characters? I could give them to Chinese natives and they could read the characters, but would it have any meaning to them seeing how I writing in English using Chinese characters?

Second what has happened to the Hebrew Language, if that is what the Laminites and Nephites spoke, when they came to the Americas? Have we found reminants of the Hebrew Language in any of the native dialacts? I have no training in linguistics, but does a language die so completely that its possible there is no modern tie in to it? I understand the concept of regional dialects of a common language, after all my mom was from Michigan and by dad was from Georgia and I was raised in Utah, I speak none of them fluently

[volgadon]

Professor Anthon was Martin Harris's idea. He wanted confirmation that they were dealing with an ancient text. Understandable, when you have a lot invested and a nagging wife. understandable from her POV as well.

[dblagent007]

This whole if/and thing has always been a puzzle to me. English translations of Hebrew don't contain if/and constructions because a good translator knows that it doesn't make sense in English and will eliminate it during the translation process. However, the BOM, translated by the God of the Universe, leaves this obvious translation error in place. Why? Does God purposefully allow certain translation errors to bolster believers' faith?

[William Schryver]

This whole if/and thing has always been a puzzle to me. English translations of Hebrew don't contain if/and constructions because a good translator knows that it doesn't make sense in English and will eliminate it during the translation process. However, the BOM, translated by the God of the Universe, leaves this obvious translation error in place. Why? Does God purposefully allow certain translation errors to bolster believers' faith?

Why do you believe that "The God of the Universe" translated the plates of Mormon? I've never come across any indication to that effect.

[LifeOnaPlate]

This whole if/and thing has always been a puzzle to me. English translations of Hebrew don't contain if/and constructions because a good translator knows that it doesn't make sense in English and will eliminate it during the translation process. However, the BOM, translated by the God of the Universe, leaves this obvious translation error in place. Why? Does God purposefully allow certain translation errors to bolster believers' faith?

I think the puzzle is solved when you realize your assumption that the "God of the Universe" translated the BoM is unfounded. It's not an either/or, God or human, puzzle at all.

[Mansquatch]

This whole if/and thing has always been a puzzle to me. English translations of Hebrew don't contain if/and constructions because a good translator knows that it doesn't make sense in English and will eliminate it during the translation process. However, the BOM, translated by the God of the Universe, leaves this obvious translation error in place. Why? Does God purposefully allow certain translation errors to bolster believers' faith?

Contrary to what some people claim, LDS believe Joseph Smith is not the God of the Universe. He translated the plates by the gift and power of God and if there are mistakes (such as leaving in Hebraisms that don't work in English) "they be the faults of a man".

[LifeOnaPlate]

Contrary to what some people claim, LDS believe Joseph Smith is not the God of the Universe.

Also. here are JS's known descriptions of the translation.

http://www.lifeongoldplates.com/2009/09/joseph-smiths-descriptions-of-book-of.html

[dblagent007]

I was operating under the impression that most of you believed that JS received the English text of the BOM purely by revelation. If so, then doesn't the if/and mistranslation come directly from God? If not, where did the English emanating from that hat come from?