Isaiah 53 and the dependence of the Book of Mormon on the KJV

[David Bokovoy]

David,

Oh, bother. I definitely goofed in overlooking the pluralization of those two nouns in Mosiah 14,6, 8. That alters my percentage from 99.7% down to 99.2%.

I hate making mistakes, and I really appreciate you pointing out these variations that I had overlooked. I'll have to take a look at these more carefully and let you know what I think about your text-critical observation.

No worries. I think you're on to a great Maxwell/FARMS Book of Mormon Insight piece. You've done so much for the IRR, it's about time you started writing some for us!

[Rob Bowman]

USU78,

Your comment confuses me. David was the one who translated it "hath (or has) borne." I thought you were simply agreeing with him.

"Bore" would be closer to "bare" if "bare" was present tense, but as I documented from the 1828 Webster's it was a preterit (past tense) form at the time Joseph Smith produced the BOM. Thus "bore" is no different in meaning now than "bare" in 1830. And "bore" was not introduced into the BOM quotation of Isaiah 53:12 until the early twentieth century.

When it comes to matters Hebrew, volga and David are the resident experts -- there are a couple of others. If he tells us that "bore" fits the Hebrew verb construction better than "hath borne," that tends to be in the area code of bankable.

Perhaps you have better Hebrew sources?

Which Hebrew verbal construction fits the past perfect "hath borne" best?

Which Hebrew verbal construction fits the imperfect "bore" best?

I myself don't know. I can sound things out and recognize a fair bit of vocabulary, but the niceties of Hebrew's functional equivalent of tense and such escape me entirely.

[David Bokovoy]

When it comes to matters Hebrew, volga and David are the resident experts -- there are a couple of others. If he tells us that "bore" fits the Hebrew verb construction better than "hath borne," that tends to be in the area code of bankable.

Perhaps you have better Hebrew sources?

Which Hebrew verbal construction fits the past perfect "hath borne" best?

Which Hebrew verbal construction fits the imperfect "bore" best?

I myself don't know. I can sound things out and recognize a fair bit of vocabulary, but the niceties of Hebrew's functional equivalent of tense and such escape me entirely.

Thanks for the defense. But admittedly, my point was based upon Rob's observation that the present Book of Mormon text reads "bore" rather than "bare." My assumption was that Rob was trying to suggest that this was evidence of a mistake on Joseph's part who may have unintentionally used the form "bore" as a better reflection of his day rather than Isaiah's when of course Christ had already born the sins of the world as a completed action.

Either way, my point is that Rob's observations would make a good Maxwell piece, and that no one I know is at all troubled in admitting that the KJ version of the Bible was used to help produce the Book of Mormon.

[Daniel Peterson]

This does not fit the evidence, imho. Only a TBM sees difference significant enough between Mormonism and the rest of the religions surrounding it. In actuality, there is essentially no difference either in the creeds (doctrines) or the spirituality (goodness) of their people compared to the mass of humankind either now or at any other time.

Seriously?

There is no reason to assume complete integrity in the early characters that formed Mormonism.

And there is no reason and no evidence to justify the assumption that they were the kinds of people who would have lied about fundamental issues, either.

The usual assortment of personality types was involved, including those we would today diagnose as schizophrenic. Delusion is very common in hyper spiritual people, who believe that they are special and that "God" has called them, even speaks to them, or more yet, appears repeatedly to them, etc. Most people disbelieve their claims. But sometimes, as in the case of Joseph Smith, enough people believe them to form a religion. When the delusion is supported by outside believers, the visions are verily believed by the receiver.

http://www.mormontimes.com/article/19831/Many-of-Prophets-revelations-were-shared-experiences

So I resort to my paradigm, and repeat it again: Mormonism for the Mormons, RCC for the Catholics, Islam for the Muslims, etc. This paradigm of "God's purpose" allows people of all persuasions to be right according to their own lights:

But wrong according to yours.

Your vision is no less imperialistic, no less "superior," than any others. You purport to know the truth about Mormon claims and Catholic claims and Muslim claims -- a truth not vouchsafed to believing Mormons, Catholics, and Muslims. In claiming to be tolerant of their claims, you subvert all of them in favor of yours. In relativizing their beliefs, you privilege and absolutize yours.

that's the inbuilt trouble of the dogmatic creed: it alone is right and the rest of the world is variously mistaken.

Precisely. And you have your own.

And that is why I can't accept the dogmatic, TBM view.

You substitute your own for it.

If Joseph Smith didn't use a KJV, and "God" dictated the BoM metaphysically, then everybody but the Mormons is in trouble. That is inconceivable so it isn't true (for anyone but Mormons anyway)....

If it's true, it's true. If it's false, it's false for everybody.

You're not being as friendly to the faith-assertions of Catholics, Muslims, and Mormons as you think you are when you declare that, ultimately, they're false.

[Bill Hamblin]

If you can present me an example of an apostle claiming to quote specifically from the Hebrew text but actually quoting from the Greek text, you can declare a kind of "gotcha." Otherwise, this question gets you nowhere as far as I can see.

You have a PhD in Bible studies and can't come up with one on your own?

At any rate, let's just ask a hypothetical. What would your response be?

My point is, of course, that you are using a double standard. One to judge the Bible, where every benefit of any doubt is automatically resolved in the Bible's favor. And another to judge to the BOM, where no benefit of any doubt is ever resolved in the BOM's favor. It's a pretty transparent rhetorical stance, really.

[Mortal Man]

Ah, the silly old "Joseph plagiarized from Ethan" theory.

If you ever decide to stop misstating my position, I might respond to your posts.

[Pahoran]

So if "God" dictated the BoM (including the Isaiah and other biblical parts a la KJV), we are left to ponder what manner of "God" we are talking about. If Joseph Smith's "God" is in fact a lesser being than the Necessary Cause of Existence in the First Place, then perhaps we are being victimized by a being who has taken airs upon himself, and we are later to be disabused of our worship. If on the other hand "God" dictating to Joseph Smith is actually the God of the universe and all of Existence, then I have a problem.

QB,

Perhaps it's just me, but the smug assumptions of superiority for your "God" -- and by extension, for you -- are becoming rather boring.

The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is a "lesser being" than nothing at all, and it is arrogant and offensive for you to describe Him thus.

Shall I tell you what a "lesser being" is? It's the "philosopher's God," the hypothetical deity that revealed himself to no prophets anywhere, ever, but is the product of the mind of a pagan professor (Plato) in his attempt to describe a perfect, abstract, ideal Divinity, of which all gods-that-are are imperfect copies; in much the same way that Plato thought of all real things as imperfect copies of a pure "ideal" that never actually existed anywhere.

The God of the absolutes is an idol made by men's hands; not from wood and stone, but from words. Like all idols, it can neither see nor hear nor eat nor smell.

The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob has His own divine reasons for whatever He does, and is constrained by nothing at all. The God of the absolutes was produced by human logic, and is therefore constrained by logic, being unable to rise above the limitations of his human creators.

The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob created all things, bringing order from chaos. The God of the absolutes is perfectly satisfied and has no needs of any kind; to bring about anything less than him would be both illogical and an imperfection. Therefore, he is logically incapable of creating anything.

As mentioned, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob creates by bringing order from chaos. This is a progressive activity; therefore, human creative activity, at its best, emulates that example, and thus, it its own small way, participates in the divine. Despite being logically unable to do anything but contemplate his own perfection, the God of the absolutes, being incapable of doing anything imperfect, supposedly created everything from nothing, in its most nearly perfect form; every human activity necessarily degrades that primal perfection. We can do nothing but mar, because the God of the absolutes is logically unable to make us capable of improving something that was necessarily already perfect.

The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob has a perfect love for all of His children. The God of the absolutes is perfectly indifferent to his creations, which are even farther beneath him than mould on a cheese is beneath us.

The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob sees the sparrow fall, and hears and answers our prayers, even to the point of setting aside His own plans; He is the "most moved mover." The God of the absolutes cannot be influenced by the desires of any lesser being; he is the "unmoved mover."

The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob loves us so perfectly that He even sent His own son to die for us so that we could live with Him again. The God of the absolutes has no such emotions or attachments.

The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is loved and worshipped by Godly men and women everywhere. The God of the absolutes is worshipped only by people who are inordinately impressed with their own "superior" intellects.

But he doesn't care. He can't.

That's because he is in every way inferior to the true God.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Mortal Man]

This could also explain why there are some strange Hebraisms in the text such as the if/and construction

There are no if/and constructions in the text; only if/and protases, which are perfectly proper English.

[Mortal Man]

I believe that he did not [use a Bible].

Fair enough. That position is utterly untenable, but thanks for clearly stating your position.

Every translation is more or less loose.

A wise choice, albeit not a very good one. The savvy apologists recognize tight control to be instant death; a reckless gamble for phantom Hebraisms.

But you have the professional anti-Mormon Rob Bowman's endorsement, which, I suppose, has to count for something.

You degrade the currency of the term when you apply it to scholars like Rob. I suggest you reserve it for those who actually deserve it, like Ed Decker and Kurt Van Gorden.

[Mortal Man]

I think you and Mortal Man should discuss what he thinks of the Bible. I suspect you won't find it so amusing.

This is a two-edged sword, you know.

I'd be happy to discuss the Bible:

I believe Isaiah and Mosiah are both equally inspired texts.

I believe Joseph Smith and Isaiah are both equally valid as prophets.

I'd also be happy to discuss the original meaning of Isaiah 53.

As I mentioned to Rob, I'll soon be posting my take on the Easter story. I hope that you and Dan and David and nackhadlow et al. will respond to it.

[Mortal Man]

I 2nd this. Something tells me Rob wont find much humor when or if MM decides to do this.

Oh, it will have plenty of humor, for those with a sense of it.

[Mortal Man]

And kind of odd since isn't mortal man an atheist who believes the bible is manmade myth?

Rob and I are buddies no matter how much you guys try to turn us against each other. Isn't that right Rob?

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Rob?

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Hello?

[Mortal Man]

For what it is worth, I consider this issue of KJV passages (and series of chapters!) quoted almost verbatim in the Book of Mormon to be the single most difficult problem facing those arguing for its supernatural origin. (The only thing making it worse is New Testament passages.)

I have yet to arrive at a satisfactory answer for it.

(Heck, I have yet to even hear an answer that makes any sense, except for Sidney Sperry's idea that Joseph Smith simply had a Bible with him and used it freely.)

But as Phaedrus demonstrated on page 3, latching onto that particular answer may be akin to opening Pandora's box.

You're on the High Road to Hell consiglieri. I'll slip some extra shrimp on the barbie for ya.

[Daniel Peterson]

There are no if/and constructions in the text; only if/and protases, which are perfectly proper English.

Olympian assertion #1.

Time to genuflect.

That position is utterly untenable

Olympian assertion #2.

Time to genuflect again.

A wise choice, albeit not a very good one.

Olympian assertion #3.

Time to genuflect yet again.

[Mortal Man]

Can God inspire a prophet to make a scriptural quotation that is theologically-based rather than linguistically-based?

Sure, why not? After all, that's how the Malachi chapters got there. But I suppose then that you won't be arguing for Hebraisms any time soon?

[Mortal Man]

it's the critics, not the believers, who tend to need to quarrel with the primary sources.

Critics recognize the possibility that primary witnesses may have motives, like the natural desire of a woman to defend her husband's honor.

What you derisively dismiss as a "magical" scenario seems to me a responsible suggestion, consistent with the overall faithful paradigm. In fact, if Joseph Smith's dictation involved whole chapters from Isaiah without a Bible in the room, that seems to me further evidence of a miraculous element to the process.

I agree that quoting chapter after chapter of Malachi and Isaiah, in advance of them actually being written in Hebrew or Elizabethan English, is indeed miraculous.

Of course, you can always invoke magical scenarios to explain anything problematic. Unfortunately, assertions that God can do anything don't constitute actual arguments. That's what you fall back on when you don't have an argument.

[TAO]

I agree that quoting chapter after chapter of Malachi and Isaiah, in advance of them actually being written in Hebrew or Elizabethan English, is indeed miraculous.

Of course, you can always invoke magical scenarios to explain anything problematic. Unfortunately, assertions that God can do anything don't constitute actual arguments. That's what you fall back on when you don't have an argument.

Mortal Man, if God has the capability to see our universe as a frame, a single picture, he has the capability to do this... so how would it be not an argument 0.o? That would be the only way for Malachi to get in there anyways, and it's the only way to get resurrected as well I suppose. So it'd fit, tbh.

[Daniel Peterson]

Critics recognize the possibility that primary witnesses may have motives, like the natural desire of a woman to defend her husband's honor.

A pretty vacuous response. It provides no evidence, but, rather, cites an obvious and banal truism as if that established something previously challenged.

I agree that quoting chapter after chapter of Malachi and Isaiah, in advance of them actually being written in Hebrew or Elizabethan English, is indeed miraculous.

A sophistic straw man that represents no position actually advocated by anybody here.

Of course, you can always invoke magical scenarios to explain anything problematic. Unfortunately, assertions that God can do anything don't constitute actual arguments. That's what you fall back on when you don't have an argument.

Vague but dismissive epithets such as magic are what you fall back on when the evidence is insufficient to establish the conclusion you so badly desire.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Orson Scott Card wrote a nice meaty Vigor column titled "Joseph Smith: Reader or Translator?" that addresses the topic of this thread and is not marred by the absolutist rhetoric of either faithful or critical approaches to the issues (it starts a little ways down, after the review of Noel Reynolds' 'Book of Mormon Authorship Revisited). I think it's pretty essential reading: http://www.nauvoo.com/cgi-bin/printer_friendly_vigor.cgi?page=/vigor/issues/16-extra.html

[Nathair/|\]

The following from the Noble and Great One, Dr. Hugh Nibley is essentially the same argument that has already been made. However, as a Celt, I place a great value on the power of Bardcraft. I don't think it can denied that the good Scot is a master.

4. As to the "passages lifted bodily from the King James Version," we first ask, "How else does one quote scripture if not bodily?" And why should anyone quoting the Bible to American readers of 1830 not follow the only version of the Bible known to them?Actually the Bible passages quoted in the Book of Mormon often differ from the King James Version, but where the latter is correct there is every reason why it should be followed. When Jesus and the Apostles and, for that matter, the Angel Gabriel quote the scriptures in the New Testament, do they recite from some mysterious Urtext? Do they quote the prophets of old in the ultimate original? Do they give their own inspired translations? No, they do not. They quote the Septuagint, a Greek version of the Old Testament prepared in the third century B.C. Why so? Because that happened to be the received standard version of the Bible accepted by the readers of the Greek New Testament. When "holy men of God" quote the scriptures it is always in the received standard version of the people they are addressing.

We do not claim the King James Version of the Septuagint to be the original scriptures

[zerinus]

According to Royal Skousen, "For Isaiah 53, 88 percent of the King James text is identical with the Geneva Bible" ("Textual Variants in the Isaiah Quotations in the Book of Mormon," in Isaiah in the Book of Mormon, ed. Donald W. Parry and John W. Welch [FARMS, 1998], 376).

The BOM quotation of Isaiah 53 in Mosiah 14, on the other hand, is 99.7% identical with the KJV. For reasons I have already explained, this fact cries out for a better, less ad hoc explanation than that God quoted the KJV.

I don't see a problem. As already mentioned, the KJV has a long history behind it. It kept getting better and better until it reached the KJV. At this point it reaches such a high level of perfection that very little change is needed to improve on it. The BOM takes advantage of that in keeping with the long history of Bible translation into English; but as other Isaiah quotes in the BOM shows, the Lord had no inhibitions about making alterations to the KJV text when deemed necessary, which renders your objections redundant. It just happens that Isaiah 53 is already so good that no changes in it are required; but as other KJV passages in the BOM shows, changes were made to them when deemed necessary. That pulls the rug from under your objections completely.

[volgadon]

I'd also be happy to discuss the original meaning of Isaiah 53.

Which was blasted out of the water.

[Vance]

Rob and I are buddies no matter how much you guys try to turn us against each other. Isn't that right Rob?

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Rob?

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Hello?

Now THAT really was funny.

[Vance]

Shall I tell you what a "lesser being" is? It's the "philosopher's God," the hypothetical deity that revealed himself to no prophets anywhere, ever, but is the product of the mind of a pagan professor (Plato) in his attempt to describe a perfect, abstract, ideal Divinity, of which all gods-that-are are imperfect copies; in much the same way that Plato thought of all real things as imperfect copies of a pure "ideal" that never actually existed anywhere.

Ah, yes, the "omni"-dejour creation of men that is impotent by definition.

[Rob Bowman]

Bill,

You had asked how I would respond to an apostle claiming to quote a Hebrew text of scripture while actually quoting a Greek translation of that scripture. I replied by asking you for an example. You wrote:

You have a PhD in Bible studies and can't come up with one on your own?

My PhD is in progress, actually. And I can't come up with one on my own because there isn't one.

You wrote:

At any rate, let's just ask a hypothetical. What would your response be?

You present the example, I'll look at it and tell you what I think. I refuse to speculate on what I would say with regard to a hypothetical that is contrary to fact.

You wrote:

My point is, of course, that you are using a double standard. One to judge the Bible, where every benefit of any doubt is automatically resolved in the Bible's favor. And another to judge to the BOM, where no benefit of any doubt is ever resolved in the BOM's favor. It's a pretty transparent rhetorical stance, really.

I realize that is your point, but the rhetorical stance is all yours, since all you have are rhetorical questions and hypotheticals contrary to fact.