The Fair Journal

[Mortal Man]

The Small Plates (where this prophecy is recorded) did not enjoy public circulation. They were not well known, they were not widely distributed - and the rest of the Book of Mormon is quite clear on this point.

Nephi is recording a sermon which he apparently gave (its possible it was only written, but as you note, the language refers regularly to it as more of a speech act in the traditional sense of a speech).

So which was it? A public speech or a private writing?

He is recording it decades after he has left Jerusalem. No matter what Nephi may know about “a specific place in Jerusalem”, the only person(s) present who would have had an awareness of that specific place would be Nephi, his brother Sam, their wives, and any of his surviving sisters (if present) their spouses, Zoram (and his wife), and perhaps Nephi’s mother (I forget off the top of my head if the text makes mention of her death). The vast majority of his audience would have no point of reference for such a specific place.

Whereas they would have had a much clearer point of reference for Columbia College, NY?

And we have to understand that this is part of the reason for the back drop of likening the scriptures unto themselves.

Or to some other people in the far-distant future.

Regarding whether JS used a Bible in his BoM translation:

I am quite confident that DCP would agree with me. I can even ask him if you like.

Ben: “Hey Dan, do you agree with me or Andrew?”

DCP: “You of course, whatever your position is. Andrew’s a jerk [because he finally managed to pin me down on this issue].”

I think that I tend to try to be very precise with my terms. In this case, we can say that the language occurs in the Book of Mormon the way that it occurs precisely because it occurs within the KJV the way it occurs there. This is a classic description of textual reliance.

Teacher: “Johnny, did you copy off Billy? Your essays are identical.”

Johnny: “No Ma’am, I only reinscribed his language based on textual reliance.”

I do not mean to imply that when the Book of Mormon was translated that a copy of the KJV was used (it might have been, or it might not have been). I find that the Book of Mormon relying on the KJV language is not incongruent with the idea of divine assistance in translation. I note in passing that my usage of the idea of reliance isn’t particularly radical.

Good grief Ben, cease this wishy washy wet-noodle apologetics and stand up for something! How long halt ye between two opinions? If Joseph used a Bible, admit it: but if God or someone else used it, then admit that. Choose you this day whom ye will serve. But as for me and my house, we will serve the Truth.

And that on these terms, I am pretty comfortable suggesting that DCP would agree with me.

Try not mentioning my name and see what he says. He will tell you JS did not use a Bible. He loves to quote that Emma interview in his speeches. Of course, as Robert pointed out, this puts him at odds with B. H. Roberts, H. Grant Vest, Sidney B. Sperry, Stanley R. Larson, Daniel H. Ludlow et al. I probably should have said that DCP occupies the mainstream position, rather than the majority position.

I am not sure that in a discussion like this, a statement from the Church website has any relevance at all. Perhaps you would like to be a bit clearer in why you think that Bruce R. McConkie or the Church’s website, or even Joseph Smith (assuming that he is not the author of the Book of Mormon) is giving us the authoritative view? Do you believe that they are the authoritative voice in the matter?

I guess I got the impression in Sunday School that the words of prophets and apostles, printed in official church publications, were somehow authoritative. I can see now that I was deceived and that only the voices of certain apologists are authoritative, although I’m not sure which ones. Could you point them out for me?

Scripture clearly gets reused all the time. Whether it is the chronicler modifying and correcting earlier texts, or the New Testament using (and abusing) Isaiah and other Old Testament authors, I think that we have developed notions of what authors are, of what texts mean that is probably inconsistent with this view of revelation and its use and re-use. But I do not think that this is bad interpretation or incorrect interpretation. Like Nephi, I agree with the idea that it is perfectly valid to remove a text from its context and create new interpretations that have completely foreign meanings to original intent. The only real problem isn’t in creating new meaning by reapplying texts – by re-contextualizing them. The only real problem occurs when we try to retrospectively force that interpretation backwards and to suggest that this is what the original author intended.

Now you’re finally making sense.

Despite your assertions that there is a misapplication or a misinterpretation here, Nephi's writings suggest that he would not have viewed it this way at all - and it's a theme that is developed through the entire writings of First and Second Nephi.

And in View of the Hebrews.

[Nathair/|\]

So which was it? A public speech or a private writing?

Whereas they would have had a much clearer point of reference for Columbia College, NY?

Or to some other people in the far-distant future.

Regarding whether JS used a Bible in his BoM translation:

Ben: “Hey Dan, do you agree with me or Andrew?”

DCP: “You of course, whatever your position is. Andrew’s a jerk [because he finally managed to pin me down on this issue].”

Teacher: “Johnny, did you copy off Billy? Your essays are identical.”

Johnny: “No Ma’am, I only reinscribed his language based on textual reliance.”

Good grief Ben, cease this wishy washy wet-noodle apologetics and stand up for something! How long halt ye between two opinions? If Joseph used a Bible, admit it: but if God or someone else used it, then admit that. Choose you this day whom ye will serve. But as for me and my house, we will serve the Truth.

Try not mentioning my name and see what he says. He will tell you JS did not use a Bible. He loves to quote that Emma interview in his speeches. Of course, as Robert pointed out, this puts him at odds with B. H. Roberts, H. Grant Vest, Sidney B. Sperry, Stanley R. Larson, Daniel H. Ludlow et al. I probably should have said that DCP occupies the mainstream position, rather than the majority position.

I guess I got the impression in Sunday School that the words of prophets and apostles, printed in official church publications, were somehow authoritative. I can see now that I was deceived and that only the voices of certain apologists are authoritative, although I’m not sure which ones. Could you point them out for me?

Now you’re finally making sense.

And in View of the Hebrews.

I think you may have a false dichotomy here. From reading Bro. McGuire's writings you quoted, I can see a reasonable harmonization. Nephi could easily have given it as a public talk, then written it down in a private record.

Now, I'm leaving this to the big boys again.

[Mortal Man]

For the record, Andrew, were you aware that the current LDS Gospel Doctrine Manual for the Book of Mormon has this to say on the subject?

That's an interesting link Ben. Thanks for posting it.

2 Nephi 27. In the Last Days the Lord Will Perform “a Marvelous Work and a Wonder”

Instruct students to read the chapter heading for 2 Nephi 27. Explain that this chapter contains one of the most significant prophecies about the latter-day Restoration—a prophecy about the coming forth of the Book of Mormon. Also explain that 2 Nephi 26 and 27 include many important details that are not found in the biblical record of Isaiah’s prophecy.

The section is entitled "2 Nephi 27" and 2 Nephi 26 was already discussed in the previous section, yet they lump the chapters together in saying they contain details not in Isaiah. Clearly they were reluctant to say this just for chapter 27.

These additional details could be either a restoration of Isaiah’s text or Nephi’s inspired commentary on what Isaiah taught.

Whereas the details about Jesus, the Ten Commandments etc. in chapter 26 are obviously not Isaiah's, the midrash in 27 is not at all obvious, since it remains tightly focused on Martin Harris and Charles Anthon and blends seamlessly with the direct quotes.

To help the students see these additional details, direct their attention to the chart. Invite them to compare the verses in Isaiah 29 with the corresponding verses in 2 Nephi 26 and 27.

Why not help the students see these additional details by directing them to the JST? Isn't that what the JST is for? To help clarify the intentions of the original authors and differentiate their words from later corruption of the Bible? The footnotes in the LDS Standard Works frequently refer to the JST for additional insights. Why is it excluded here? Is the Correlation Committee embarrassed by it?

As students compare the verses, encourage them to identify truths about the coming forth of the Book of Mormon that are found in 2 Nephi 26 and 27 but not in Isaiah 29.

Again they group the chapters together in the difference comparison. This enables them to escape drawing any definite conclusion about 2 Nephi 27:6-24. The Correlation Committee is being deliberately ambiguous.

If you can find a lesson manual that links 2 Nephi 27 to the JST, I'll grant you a major victory.

Suggest that they highlight these truths in their copies of the Book of Mormon. After sufficient time, have students discuss their findings. You may want to write their discoveries on the board. Possible responses are shown in the third column of the chart.

Where is this chart? What does it say about the differences between 2 Nephi 27 and Isaiah 29?

How does this ancient prophecy strengthen your testimony of the Book of Mormon and the Restoration of the Lord’s Church?

Excellent question

Invite a student to read 2 Nephi 27:25–26.

What did Isaiah say the Lord would do for His people in the last days?

Nothing whatsoever, he didn't say anything about the last days, as we understand that term.

In what ways is the Book of Mormon part of the “marvelous work and a wonder” that is taking place throughout the world?

It's not part of the "marvelous work and a wonder"; however, it is a marvelous work and a wonder.

To help students answer this question, invite them to read the following verses: 2 Nephi 27:29–30, 33–35; 28:2.

Ask them to mark the blessings that will result from the coming forth of the Book of Mormon.

The only BoM blessings I see are in 28:2.

Ask them to mark the blessings that will result from the coming forth of the Book of Mormon.

In what ways can you see these promises and blessings being fulfilled today?

The book has indeed become of great worth unto some of the children of men.

How can we be more involved in helping others receive these blessings?

Give them a Book of Mormon.

Explain that in the students’ reading assignment in preparation for the next class, Nephi continues to prophesy concerning the Book of Mormon, including the way some people in the world will respond to the book.

The next few chapters contain genuine prophecies.

Share your testimony of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon.

Okay

Did I pass the class?

[Benjamin McGuire]

Andrew writes:

So which was it? A public speech or a private writing?

Like other parts of these texts, it seems to have features of both. That is, there is a writing (we have a text). But it uses language that implies speech.

The issue of the private writing though is taking my comments out of context. You had asked why no one had complained about Nephi’s use (or misuse) of Isaiah. I suggested that the small plates “were not widely distributed”. While this implies a private text, it does not mean that Nephi intended or thought it would be a private text. It is not Nephi that restricts circulation or access. The text simply seems to be little known, and the internal explanation of its later authors (after Nephi) describe a very limited exposure to the larger Nephite group. So your comparison of my two comments isn’t actually very helpful here.

Now, it is also possible (and I have given some thought to this) that the language which seems to imply a spoken presentation of some sort is simply playing off the idea of a ‘voice’ from the dust from Isaiah. But, I don’t think that this fits as well with the narrative – particularly as we see the same kind of speech becomes editorialized writing elsewhere (particularly in Jacob 1 and 2, where the speech part is explicitly stated, and the editorialization is also fairly obvious).

Whereas they would have had a much clearer point of reference for Columbia College, NY?

It is an apt comparison. But I don’t think I understand the point you are trying to make.

Or to some other people in the far-distant future.

Sure. I know that you are trying to load this up with a rather heavy sarcasm, but I don’t think it is that unreasonable. Nor is it unreasonable for Joseph to liken it further to himself.

Teacher: “Johnny, did you copy off Billy? Your essays are identical.”

Johnny: “No Ma’am, I only reinscribed his language based on textual reliance.”

I have a translation of the Great Isaiah Scroll (from the Dead Sea Scrolls collection) which was published in the 90s. It duplicates the language of the KJV in more than 90 percent of its text. Now, you and I both know that the KJV was relied on in this project (and we can come up with a number of very reasonable explanations for this). But that doesn’t mean that there wasn’t an ancient text that stands behind the translation.

The point of this anecdote is this – there are reasons we can suggest as to why the Book of Mormon uses the King James language. But the fact that it does use it isn’t an indicator that it is entirely of modern manufacture.

Good grief Ben, cease this wishy washy wet-noodle apologetics and stand up for something! How long halt ye between two opinions? If Joseph used a Bible, admit it: but if God or someone else used it, then admit that. Choose you this day whom ye will serve. But as for me and my house, we will serve the Truth.

I explain things the way I do to you Andrew because it occurs to me that you fairly consistently misread or misrepresent what I do write. The other thing is (and this is fairly common in the world of literary criticism) that when we get a situation like this, there isn’t any value in trying to claim that Joseph used a copy of the KJV directly. Certainly our resident Spalding advocates would suggest that it was likely that Joseph didn’t – that in fact the KJV language came from the non-existent Spalding manuscript that was purloined by Rigdon (and let’s not forget your parting shot about View of the Hebrews). At some point the assertion that Joseph directly used a KJV is both unwarranted, impossible to prove, and of very little value. However, we can affirm with more than a reasonable amount of confidence that the Book of Mormon is connected to the KJV text, and that it relies on that text (in that, as I note, wording in the Book of Mormon occurs in the way it does precisely because the wording in the KJV occurs the way it does). And to repeat myself, this does not demonstrate a direct biological connection between the two text.

Try not mentioning my name and see what he says. He will tell you JS did not use a Bible. He loves to quote that Emma interview in his speeches. Of course, as Robert pointed out, this puts him at odds with B. H. Roberts, H. Grant Vest, Sidney B. Sperry, Stanley R. Larson, Daniel H. Ludlow et al. I probably should have said that DCP occupies the mainstream position, rather than the majority position.

I don’t think that the reliance indicates a need to have a Bible present. I think that you can differentiate between the notion of the language of the KJV finding its way into the Book of Mormon and a KJV being physically present. And I think that it is this last part that many LDS would have issues with. (And of course, lets not forget, as all of the above would point out, we have no witnesses claiming a KJV was actually used and statements IIRC to the contrary). The question of a KJV being present is largely only useful for charges of direct borrowing.

I guess I got the impression in Sunday School that the words of prophets and apostles, printed in official church publications, were somehow authoritative. I can see now that I was deceived and that only the voices of certain apologists are authoritative, although I’m not sure which ones. Could you point them out for me?

I think that the issue here has little to do with the above. I have never gotten the impression that the words of prophets and apostles, even when printed in official church publications trumped the scriptures. I have never been under the impression (at least not since my childhood) that prophets and apostles were somehow more competent readers than the rest of us. The Book of Mormon itself suggests very clearly that even the prophet who gives a revelation is at best a distant second best option for interpreting it to our own personal encounter with the divine. So when I hear dogmatic fundamentalist approaches like the one you offer above, it seems quite obvious to me that this is nothing more than a rhetorical ploy – an attempt to try and suggest that my view is contrary to the views of the authorities of the church. Of course, in the case of how to understand Nephi’s use of Isaiah, it seems that understanding it as selections of Isaiah interspersed with commentary is a correlated point of view – or, in other words – the church itself respects other views besides just those you want to hang your hat on. And in this case, your comments tend to lose a bit of force when we see that.

Ben McGuire

[Benjamin McGuire]

Andrew writes:

Whereas the details about Jesus, the Ten Commandments etc. in chapter 26 are obviously not Isaiah's, the midrash in 27 is not at all obvious, since it remains tightly focused on Martin Harris and Charles Anthon and blends seamlessly with the direct quotes.

And here, despite your earlier denials, we see the hang up you really do have with the late chapter breaks. Chapter 27 – until it was made chapter 27, wasn’t some kind of visible textual boundary. We all now that lesson manuals tend to play off things like chapters and verses, and we expect that. But, if we read the first edition, without these artificial breaks, this point isn’t anything at all like you suggest.

Why not help the students see these additional details by directing them to the JST? Isn't that what the JST is for? To help clarify the intentions of the original authors and differentiate their words from later corruption of the Bible? The footnotes in the LDS Standard Works frequently refer to the JST for additional insights. Why is it excluded here? Is the Correlation Committee embarrassed by it?

Well, the real reason is probably the fact that the JST (at least the part that is included in the appendix in the LDS Standard Works) only includes Isaiah 29:1-8. So whatever conclusions we might draw (and it seems obvious from your comments here that you will probably go in a different direction than I will) from this, the rest of the JST modifications to Isaiah 29 are not in a correlated resource (and we all know how much the Gospel Doctrine Manuals encourage you to go to uncorrelated resources ….)

Again they group the chapters together in the difference comparison. This enables them to escape drawing any definite conclusion about 2 Nephi 27:6-24. The Correlation Committee is being deliberately ambiguous.

I am okay with that. The point is though, is that they are being ambiguous – which means that there isn’t this universal support for the issue that you present. But I see that rather than recognizing this issue and moving on, you simply look for a different target.

And now that we have gone completely off topic, maybe we should get back to it. Are you still insisting (with the links to your blog) that the Isaiah in 2 Nephi 27 is completely separate from the Isaiah in 2 Nephi 26, and that the expansions in 2 Nephi 27 are intended to be read as restorations of an original (but missing or deleted) Isaiah text?

Ben McGuire

[Mortal Man]

Your logic has a tiny flaw.... it is based on the assumption that each of these come from the same textual family or tradition.

I said nothing of families or traditions, only textual dependencies. JST-Isaiah 29:11-26 depends on II Nephi 27:6-24 because it cleans up a few choppy sentences near the end but is otherwise identical.

Let me quote wiki: "The Masoretic text is the authoritative Hebrew text of the ****Jewish**** Bible".

Now let me give you a quiz. Does the Brass Plates claim to be from that textual tradition?

No, the Brass Plates constitute the beginning of the Voree tradition.

Note, for example, the blessing of Joseph in the BOM and compare that to the *****Jewish***** Bible. I have used astericks to give a subtle hint on the answer.

The Brass Plates are from ========== textual tradition which was removed from the ======= textual tradition. Nephi, et al, TOOK the Brass Plates away, never to be seen again by those in Jerusalem.

Can you fill in the blanks?

The Brass Plates are from the pre-exilic Judean textual tradition, which was far removed from the late-exilic textual tradition, containing Deutero-Isaiah (I Nephi 20-21, II Nephi 7-8 etc.), and the post-exilic textual tradition, containing Malachi (III Nephi 24-25) and numerous passages from the New Testament.

The Isaiah verses quoted here in the BOM are different from the Jewish Hebrew Bible for the same reason that the blessings of Joseph are more detailed in the ========= textual tradition.

The Jews had no interest in what was going on with the house of Joseph, and their textual tradition reflected that lack of interest.

By way of documentation and justification, I refer you to the first few chapters of Second Nephi where we find many details about Joseph, his history, blessings, and especially his future generations that are missing from the Jewish Bible.

And I refer you to JST-Genesis 50:24-35 which contains these exact same details copied directly from II Nephi 3:5-17.

This particular "additions" to Isaiah refers specifically to Joseph's descendants, and specifically the prophet named Joseph who was to bring forth the record of Joseph to the world.

The Jews would have zero interest in such things.

Was JST-Genesis 50:24-38 on the Brass Plates?

[Mortal Man]

I think you may have a false dichotomy here. From reading Bro. McGuire's writings you quoted, I can see a reasonable harmonization. Nephi could easily have given it as a public talk, then written it down in a private record.

Now, I'm leaving this to the big boys again.

A speech later written down in a private record does not harmonize Ben's argument.

I argued,

Fourthly, since the Brass Plates served as the basic scriptures of the Nephite nation, and were passed down by all the major prophets from Nephi to Mormon, any alteration of the words of Isaiah could not have gone unnoticed; i.e., metal engravings are not easily erased.

Ben responded that the alteration went unnoticed because the Small Plates were not publicly circulated; hence the midrash in question was not well known.

Either Nephi's contemporaries knew about it or they didn't. These are mutually exclusive positions.

Whichever position you take, you have to explain how Moroni came to the understanding he related to Joseph Smith.

[Mortal Man]

Whereas they would have had a much clearer point of reference for Columbia College, NY?

It is an apt comparison. But I don’t think I understand the point you are trying to make.

Referring to Mt. Zion in Jerusalem, you stated that "the vast majority of his audience would have no point of reference for such a specific place."

Then you effectively called the Charles Anthon midrash, "likening the scriptures unto themselves."

This is a non-sequitur, since they would have been even less familiar with Columbia College, NY than Mt. Zion, Jerusalem.

I don’t think that the reliance indicates a need to have a Bible present. I think that you can differentiate between the notion of the language of the KJV finding its way into the Book of Mormon and a KJV being physically present. And I think that it is this last part that many LDS would have issues with. (And of course, lets not forget, as all of the above would point out, we have no witnesses claiming a KJV was actually used and statements IIRC to the contrary). The question of a KJV being present is largely only useful for charges of direct borrowing.

So, did Joseph see KJV text in his seer stone?

I have never gotten the impression that the words of prophets and apostles, even when printed in official church publications trumped the scriptures.

I have certainly got the impression from boatloads of lessons and talks that the words of living prophets are more important to us than the words of dead prophets.

Have you been to church lately?

I have never been under the impression (at least not since my childhood) that prophets and apostles were somehow more competent readers than the rest of us. The Book of Mormon itself suggests very clearly that even the prophet who gives a revelation is at best a distant second best option for interpreting it to our own personal encounter with the divine. So when I hear dogmatic fundamentalist approaches like the one you offer above...

This is good Ben. Keep saying to yourself "When the prophet speaks, the thinking has not been done."

I say unto you, awake and arouse your faculties, even to an experiment upon my words, and exercise a particle of thought, yea, even if ye can no more than desire to think, let this desire work in you, even until ye think in a manner that ye can give place for a portion of my words.

And when you are learned, you will be wise, and need not hearken unto the counsel of prophets, but set them aside, supposing you know of yourself, wherefore, your wisdom will profiteth you much. And you shall prosper.

Of course, in the case of how to understand Nephi’s use of Isaiah, it seems that understanding it as selections of Isaiah interspersed with commentary is a correlated point of view – or, in other words – the church itself respects other views besides just those you want to hang your hat on.

The Correlation Committee is deliberately ambiguous regarding II Nephi 27:6-24 because neither solution (the words belonging to either Nephi or Isaiah) is satisfactory. Clearly the words are not Isaiah's but they can't impute them to Nephi without throwing Joseph Smith and the JST under the bus.

[Mortal Man]

By the way, out of curiosity, how would you describe the process of putting the original chapter breaks in when the Book of Mormon was being dictated?

When JS finished dictating what he considered to be a logical text unit (e.g., a KJV chapter) he instructed OC to write the word chapter into the original manuscript.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Andrew,

It seems that this conversation has run its course. So, let me add a couple of comments, and then feel free to have the last word.

You must have missed the not-so-ambiguous comment from the Ensign article that I provided: "Nephi continues this methodical explication throughout 2 Nephi 26 and 27 (Isa. 29) by quoting sections of Isaiah, then commenting, then resuming his quoting more of Isaiah." In the end, it seems that all of your discussion boils down to an ideological stance - that by accepting a different model we are somehow throwing something (the JST, or Joseph Smith or whatever the sacred cow of the moment happens to be) under the bus. You want to present us with a situation that has no good outcome. Either we throw this under the bus, or we throw that under the bus. For you, there is no third option. It seems to me that you are having a difficult time accepting the notion that I simply don't agree with your assumptions. And the only thing you seem able to hurl back at me is that I am on the road to apostasy. There is a certain degree of irony in that statement coming from an individual like yourself. I don't agree with you. Yet somehow that means that I am well on the road to join you? One of the more memorable occasions that I had this hurled into my teeth came from Paul Osborne (I assume you know who that is). Where is Paul today? The LDS Church is not a monolithic entity - it has great diversity in its members and their beliefs. The church allows people to believe a great many things. And this diversity strengthens the church.

You have on a number of occasions (here and elsewhere) taken the arguments in your blog and hurled them at the "apologists" - it was a challenge. I think that I have provided a more than reasonable response. And you have simply turned away from the arguments there to these ideological issues presenting conundrums that, as far as I can tell, largely only exist in your own mind. You talk about throwing the JST under the bus, but I think you are a bit confused as to what the JST is, and how the members of the church perceive it and use it. You want to constantly refer to sources that you think we should view as authoritative, and then, if we disagree complain about how we aren't being true to the faith. Of course I don't know how it is taught in other units of the church, but in mine, where I am the Gospel Doctrine teacher, I have some degree of control over how things get presented. Perhaps you should consider the idea that the church simply does not resemble the image that you have constructed for it. At any rate, I am satisfied that I have answered the issues that you raised on your blog. And I feel pretty confident that we have come to an impasse on the rest of it.

Ben McGuire

[Mortal Man]

Are you still insisting (with the links to your blog) that the Isaiah in 2 Nephi 27 is completely separate from the Isaiah in 2 Nephi 26, and that the expansions in 2 Nephi 27 are intended to be read as restorations of an original (but missing or deleted) Isaiah text?

I never said that the Isaiah in 2 Nephi 27 is completely separate from the Isaiah in 2 Nephi 26. My position is that the obvious interpretive commentary in 26 does not necessarily identify the tightly blended midrash in 27 as belonging to Nephi. Certain apologists claim this because 27:6-24 clearly cannot belong to Isaiah; however, the Correlation Committee is not prepared to go there on account of the JST.

I hold that JS would say that 2 Nephi 27:6-24 was on the Brass Plates.

I hold that the vast majority of TBMs, if you showed them 2 Nephi 27 alongside JST-Isaiah 29, would conclude that 2 Nephi 27:6-24 came from the Brass Plates.

The CC is happy to let them draw this conclusion, but it prefers not to mention the JST to avoid the issue altogether.

[Mortal Man]

You must have missed the not-so-ambiguous comment from the Ensign article that I provided: "Nephi continues this methodical explication throughout 2 Nephi 26 and 27 (Isa. 29) by quoting sections of Isaiah, then commenting, then resuming his quoting more of Isaiah."

Your argument essentially boils down to this:

Since the author of 2 Nephi 26 added his own commentary after his quotation of Isaiah, we should therefore assume that 27:6-24 belongs to Nephi. I'm sorry, that just doesn't follow. Nevertheless, I was willing to grant your point for the purpose of furthering the discussion. You dodged the numerous difficulties this position presents by turning the discussion personal.

In the end, it seems that all of your discussion boils down to an ideological stance - that by accepting a different model we are somehow throwing something (the JST, or Joseph Smith or whatever the sacred cow of the moment happens to be) under the bus. You want to present us with a situation that has no good outcome. Either we throw this under the bus, or we throw that under the bus. For you, there is no third option. It seems to me that you are having a difficult time accepting the notion that I simply don't agree with your assumptions.

For the most part, I've simply asked the logical questions that follow from your assumptions. You seem to perceive these questions as a personal problem of mine. I've said it before and I'll say it again:

Some have questions, for which they seek answers.

Others have answers, which must not be questioned.

Which type are you?

And the only thing you seem able to hurl back at me is that I am on the road to apostasy. There is a certain degree of irony in that statement coming from an individual like yourself. I don't agree with you. Yet somehow that means that I am well on the road to join you? One of the more memorable occasions that I had this hurled into my teeth came from Paul Osborne (I assume you know who that is). Where is Paul today?

Humor Ben, humor.

The LDS Church is not a monolithic entity - it has great diversity in its members and their beliefs. The church allows people to believe a great many things. And this diversity strengthens the church.

Diversity is not the strength of the church. But that's a whole different discussion.

You have on a number of occasions (here and elsewhere) taken the arguments in your blog and hurled them at the "apologists" - it was a challenge. I think that I have provided a more than reasonable response. And you have simply turned away from the arguments there to these ideological issues presenting conundrums that, as far as I can tell, largely only exist in your own mind.

The problems exist all on their own; I just point them out. Whether you allow them to enter your mind is up to you.

You talk about throwing the JST under the bus, but I think you are a bit confused as to what the JST is, and how the members of the church perceive it and use it.

Your attempts to personally discredit me may earn you lots of rep points but they don't further your case.

You want to constantly refer to sources that you think we should view as authoritative, and then, if we disagree complain about how we aren't being true to the faith. Of course I don't know how it is taught in other units of the church, but in mine, where I am the Gospel Doctrine teacher, I have some degree of control over how things get presented. Perhaps you should consider the idea that the church simply does not resemble the image that you have constructed for it. At any rate, I am satisfied that I have answered the issues that you raised on your blog. And I feel pretty confident that we have come to an impasse on the rest of it.

Yes, it appears we are at an impasse.

FWIW Ben, I genuinely appreciate the effort you've put into this thread. Despite the ostensible acrimony, I've not taken offense at anything you've said. I've truly enjoyed our discussion and, believe it or not, consider you a friend.

[Robert F. Smith]

When JS finished dictating what he considered to be a logical text unit (e.g., a KJV chapter) he instructed OC to write the word chapter into the original manuscript.

That wasn't Skousen's conclusion, and there is no evidence that Joseph discerned individual chapters, nor that he put headings at the tops of the Original Manuscript pages. Oliver apparently came back later and organized the text and placed the headings at the top in order to make it easier to find one's way through the massive collection of pages.

[Robert F. Smith]

I haven't ignored anything in this thread. I appreciate your well-considered comments but have limited time to respond. Since the scope of this thread has become extremely broad, I'm going to try to hit just the most relevant points.

“I believe the Bible as it read when it came from the pen of the original writers. Ignorant translators, careless transcribers, or designing and corrupt priests have committed many errors.” -- Joseph Smith

Does the JST Bible better represent "the pen of the original writers" than the KJV Bible?

Does the JST restore “plain and precious things which had been taken away”?

Footnote b in Isaiah 29:11 in the LDS Bible links to Joseph Smith-History 1:65:

“He then said to me, ‘Let me see that certificate.’ I accordingly took it out of my pocket and gave it to him, when he took it and tore it to pieces, saying that there was no such thing now as ministering of angels, and that if I would bring the plates to him he would translate them. I informed him that part of the plates were sealed, and that I was forbidden to bring them. He replied, ‘I cannot read a sealed book.’ I left him and went to Dr. Mitchell, who sanctioned what Professor Anthon had said respecting both the characters and the translation.”

Is this what Isaiah had in mind when he penned that verse?

David Seely says they're important.

I have dealt with some of these issues in a short paper here.

As I point out there, since Jesus himself frequently quotes midrashic and targumic versions of the Holy Scriptures known to him (including books since then dropped from the Judeo-Christian canon), and since OT prophets quote one another, it is quite a task to make hard and fast statements about what the particular literary intentions were at specific times and places. We mortal men (including you, me, David Seely, and others on and off this Board) must do our best to ferret out some semblance of the truth and use the best evidence to that end.

Giving exaggerated importance to Bible footnotes, to the so-called "JST," and other non-canonical sources seems to me most unwise. Also, we should not attribute sophistication to some individuals in history when there is no factual support for such attribution.

[Robert F. Smith]

Robert, this discussion has gone all over the map, mostly I think, due to misunderstandings. So, rather than trying to chase them all down, I'm going to try to simplify things by clarifying my position.

To you and me (and any text critic worth his salt), II Nephi 26-27 is obviously midrashic commentary interspersed among the Isaiah quotations (just as you noted). In my essay, I explicitly stated that II Nephi 27:6-24 is a midrash. The question has always been: whose midrash? This is not an easy question to answer for the following reasons:

1. II Nephi 27:6-24 is virtually identical to JST-Isaiah 29:11-26. The only way to reconcile this without throwing the JST under the bus is to assert that II Nephi 27:6-24 came off the Brass Plates.
2. The angel Moroni quoted Isaiah 29:11-14 to JS on multiple occasions saying, "the scripture must be fulfilled before it is translated, which says that the words of a book, which were sealed, were presented to the learned."
3. Moroni provided details found only in the midrash and attributed them to Isaiah. He didn't say anything about Nephi; he clearly understood the prophecy to be original to Isaiah.
4. It thus follows that Nephi's audience understood II Nephi 27:6-24 to be original to Isaiah.
5. Joseph told Emily Austin that he had to fulfill “that which Isaiah the prophet had spoken of..."
6. Joseph wrote in his journal, "and thus the Prophicy of Isaiaah was fulfilled which is writen in the 29 chapter concerning the book.”
7. Never once did JS or anyone else in the early church refer to this as Nephi's interpretation.
8. There is no change of voice or any transition whatsoever between the direct Isaiah quotations (2-5 & 25-35) and the midrash (6-24). In fact, the transition to direct quotation at 24-25 occurs mid-sentence.
9. By just looking at II Nephi 27, assuming no prior knowledge of Isaiah 29, it would be impossible to determine whose words were whose.

For the above reasons, I claim that JS would not have called II Nephi 27:6-24 a midrash. He would have claimed that it came from the Brass Plates. Before going further, I would like to know if you agree with my assessment of Joseph's understanding.

See my paper and comments immediately above.

[Mortal Man]

That wasn't Skousen's conclusion,

Yeah, it basically is.

and there is no evidence that Joseph discerned individual chapters,

Evidence from both the original and printer's manuscripts shows that Joseph Smith apparently saw some visual indication at the end of a section that the section was ending. Although this may have been a symbol of some kind, a more likely possibility is that the last words of the section were followed by blankness. Recognizing that the section was ending, Joseph Smith then told the scribe to write the word chapter, with the understanding that the appropriate number would be added later.

nor that he put headings at the tops of the Original Manuscript pages.

I never said he did.

Oliver apparently came back later and organized the text and placed the headings at the top in order to make it easier to find one's way through the massive collection of pages.

Are you confusing these headings with the modern chapter synopses we were talking about?

[Mortal Man]

I have dealt with some of these issues in a short paper here.

Thanks for the link to your interesting paper. I don't have a problem with anything in it. If your point is that Matthew et al. reinterpreted/misinterpreted OT scripture to further their agendas then you're preaching to the choir.

As I point out there, since Jesus himself frequently quotes midrashic and targumic versions of the Holy Scriptures known to him (including books since then dropped from the Judeo-Christian canon), and since OT prophets quote one another, it is quite a task to make hard and fast statements about what the particular literary intentions were at specific times and places.

And yet the church has been doing just that for Isaiah 29:11-12 throughout its entire history. Every prophet, every apostle and virtually every lesson manual the church has ever produced has clearly and consistently taught that these verses refer to Joseph Smith, Martin Harris, Charles Anthon and the Golden Plates.

From the current institute manual:

Isaiah 29:11–12 . What Was the “Book That Is Sealed” and to Whom Were Its “Words” Delivered?

Early in the process of translating the Book of Mormon, Martin Harris desired proof that the translation Joseph Smith was making was genuine. He obtained permission to carry a copy of several of the “words” from the plates, together with their translation, to some learned men. Martin Harris’s account given to the Prophet Joseph Smith states that he took the copy to Professor Charles Anthon of New York City, who certified that the characters were real and correctly translated. But when Professor Anthon discovered that the record from which the characters were obtained was itself received by supernatural means, he retracted his statement by asking for his certificate back and tearing it to bits. Martin Harris reports that Anthon said that “if I would bring the plates to him he would translate them. I informed him that part of the plates were sealed, and that I was forbidden to bring them. He replied, ‘I cannot read a sealed book.’ I left him, and went to Dr. Mitchell, who sanctioned what Professor Anthon had said respecting both the characters and the translation.” ( Joseph Smith—History 1:65 .)

The unlearned man to whom the book was delivered was, of course, Joseph Smith. Elder Orson Pratt once said: “Now in regard to Joseph Smith’s qualifications or attainments in learning, they were very ordinary. He had received a little education in the common country schools in the vicinity in which he had lived. He could read a little, and could write, but it was in such an ordinary hand that he did not venture to act as his own scribe, but had to employ sometimes one and sometimes another to write as he translated. This unlearned man did not make the same reply that the learned man did. For when the book was delivered to this unlearned youth and he was requested to read it, he replied, ‘I am not learned.’ I suppose he felt his weakness when the Lord told him to read this book; for he thought it was a great work.” (In Journal of Discourses, 15:186.)

I'm curious Robert, if you were teaching this institute class, would you follow the manual?

We mortal men (including you, me, David Seely, and others on and off this Board) must do our best to ferret out some semblance of the truth and use the best evidence to that end.

Does "doing our best" include contradicting the Correlation Committee?

Giving exaggerated importance to Bible footnotes,

Why is it that almost anytime I simply mention a feature of the LDS Standard Works, you and/or Ben accuse me of giving it "exaggerated importance"?

to the so-called "JST,"

The JST is not "so-called," it's simply called that in the footnotes of the LDS Bible. I'd give you some examples, but that might be giving them exaggerated importance.

and other non-canonical sources seems to me most unwise.

I'm pretty sure Joseph Smith-History 1:63-64 is canonical. Why else would the footnote point to it? Are you saying the footnote has to be exaggerated to make it canonical?

Also, we should not attribute sophistication to some individuals in history when there is no factual support for such attribution.

It's a straightforward question Robert. You've tried to dodge, spin, obfuscate and muddy the waters, but the question remains:

Was Isaiah referring to Joseph Smith, Martin Harris, Charles Anthon and/or the Golden Plates when he penned 29:11-12?

A simple "yes" or "no" will suffice. It's an open-book test. Feel free to use the manual for help.

[Robert F. Smith]

Yeah, it basically is.

Are you confusing these headings with the modern chapter synopses we were talking about?

Thanks for setting me straight on Skousen. I was clearly in error.

I was referring solely to the Original MS headings.

[Robert F. Smith]

Thanks for the link to your interesting paper. I don't have a problem with anything in it. If your point is that Matthew et al. reinterpreted/misinterpreted OT scripture to further his agenda then you're preaching to the choir.

That's fine and in accord with modern scholarship -- under the heading of Sitz im Leben der Kirche. However, this was taking place long before Jesus came along, and the likening process has been discussed by Jewish and Christian scholars for a long time. Nothing new there.

And yet the church has been doing just that for Isaiah 29:11-12 throughout its entire history. Every prophet, every apostle and virtually every lesson manual the church has ever produced has clearly and consistently taught that these verses refer to Joseph Smith, Martin Harris, Charles Anthon and the Golden Plates.

From the current institute manual:

I'm curious Robert, if you were teaching this institute class, would you follow the manual?

Does "doing our best" include contradicting the Correlation Committee?

No, but I do augment whatever lessons I teach from official manuals. In this case, I would likely include material from Robert F. Smith, Gordon C. Thomasson, and John W. Welch, “What Did Charles Anthon Really Say?” FARMS Update, May 1985, reprinted in John W. Welch, ed., Reexploring the Book of Mormon: The F.A.R.M.S. Updates (Provo: FARMS/ SLC: Deseret Book, 1992), 73-76, available at maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=71&chapid=785, as well as from a much longer FARMS Report produced at the same time: “Martin Harris’ Visit With Charles Anthon: Collected Documents on Short-Hand Egyptian,” FARMSPreliminary Report STF-85a (Provo: FARMS, 1985); 73pp; revised by J. W.Welch, ed., STF-90 (Provo: FARMS, 1990).

Why is it that almost anytime I simply mention a feature of the LDS Standard Works, you and/or Ben accuse me of giving it "exaggerated importance"?

I can't speak for Ben, but I opt for caution in giving too much importance to certain items (which I usually specify), and the so-called JST is merely one example of that.

The JST is not "so-called," it's simply called that in the footnotes of the LDS Bible. I'd give you some examples, but that might be giving them exaggerated importance.

You may be too young to recall, but only a generation ago most Mormons hadn't heard of the so-called JST. In fact, it one wanted a copy of such a document, one had to order it from the RLDS Church publisher, Herald House. There it was called The Holy Scriptures: Inspired Version, but was also known as the I.V. or "New Translation," and they had been publishing it since 1867. That is how I first became familiar with it, long before I heard anything about the work of Bob Matthews. The character of work on that project by Sidney and Joseph covered a wide range, now including even major revelatory material (the Book of Moses, for example) which may not have been part of the basic biblical revision approach -- which had already been done by Alexander Campbell, and which Sidney surely knew well. Moreover, the project was never completed or published in Joseph's lifetime.

I'm pretty sure Joseph Smith-History 1:63-64 is canonical. Why else would the footnote point to it? Are you saying the footnote has to be exaggerated to make it canonical?

Of course JS-H is canonical. Never said it wasn't.

It's a simple question Robert. You've tried to dodge, spin, obfuscate and muddy the waters, but the question remains:

No I haven't. I have tried to clarify. The shoe could be on the other foot.

Was Isaiah referring to Joseph Smith, Martin Harris, Charles Anthon and/or the Golden Plates when he penned 29:11-12?

It's a simple yes/no question.

It's also an open-book test.

Feel free to use the manual for help.

I can't read Isaiah's mind, and the interpretation of his words varies with each new generation. At Qumran, for example, the Suffering Servant material is given an interpretation which most scholars do not believe was on Isaiah's mind* -- but how would they know, unless they are following purely naturalistic assumptions? My above cited publications are the best answer I can give, and you can rely upon them for accuracy and relevance. Over and above that, bear in mind that prophecy can have multiple meanings and fulfillments -- thus ruling out the either/or nonsense.

* See especially Israel Knohl, The Messiah before Jesus: The Suffering Servant of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Mark Taper Foundation Imprint in Jewish Studies (U.C. Press, 2002), for a distinctly "Christian" interpretation of Isaiah.

[Mortal Man]

I can't read Isaiah's mind, and the interpretation of his words varies with each new generation.

Are all these interpretations equally valid?

At Qumran, for example, the Suffering Servant material is given an interpretation which most scholars do not believe was on Isaiah's mind

The Suffering Servant Songs weren't on his mind because he didn't write them.

bear in mind that prophecy can have multiple meanings and fulfillments -- thus ruling out the either/or nonsense.

That's about as fuzzy as you can get, isn't it? If we loosen up the tolerances to make everything fit then reason, logic and critical thinking are no longer possible.

My above cited publications are the best answer I can give, and you can rely upon them for accuracy and relevance.

In 1834, Professor Charles Anthon vehemently denied that he told Martin Harris that the Book of Mormon characters resembled Egyptian. A different story, of course, is found in the Pearl of Great Price (Joseph Smith—History 1:63-65). Who is telling the truth?

Charles Anthon

According to Martin Harris, Joseph Smith copied some of the Book of Mormon characters and Martin took them to New York. There he met with Charles Anthon, who certified to him that they were correct. Completely reassured, Harris returned to Harmony, told his friends about it, and later mortgaged his property to finance the publication of the Book of Mormon. This is very early concrete evidence that Martin Harris's version of his meeting with Anthon is accurate and that Anthon's later retraction was an attempt to save face, if not an act of downright dishonesty.

This so-called "evidence" is neither "very early" nor "concrete". This is not the story he told upon his initial return; in fact, the early story is quite the opposite. Harris was reassured because the learned Anthon couldn't translate the characters. Since the unlearned Joseph could translate them, that proved Isaiah's prophecy to be true!

Shortly afterwards, in 1831 W. W. Phelps wrote a letter in which he reported that Anthon had translated the Book of Mormon characters and declared them to be "the ancient shorthand Egyptian." This is a most telling clue, for where else, except from Anthon, would Harris and hence Phelps have gotten this precise phrase, the phrase shorthand Egyptian?

He could have got it directly from the American Quarterly Review or another publication. It's unlikely he got it from Harris, since Harris never used the term and didn't understand that there are different forms of Egyptian. This would be like Einstein getting his information from Groucho Marx.

On the other hand, this precise term was known to scholars, Anthon included. In 1824, Champollion had used an equivalent term, "tachygraphie," in his landmark Préçis du système hieroglyphique des anciens Égyptiens (a copy of which Anthon owned),² to describe hieratic Egyptian script. In June 1827, this book was reviewed in the American Quarterly Review, calling hieratic Egyptian script "short-hand" Egyptian.³ Anthon knew this review: He owned a copy and he cited it in his Classical Dictionary.⁴ Anthon would have read this review only months before Harris's visit.

Anthon knew enough to recognize that the characters on the transcript were not Egyptian, shorthand or otherwise.

Thus it becomes highly probable that Phelps indeed heard this peculiar phrase from Harris, who in turn got it from Anthon, the only person involved who was likely to have known it. Anthon probably mentioned shorthand Egyptian because he was struck by certain obvious similarities in the transcript to hieratic or demotic Egyptian. From this, what else can one conclude, except that Harris told the truth about what Anthon said on this point?

That is not the story Harris initially told. The story changed over the years to meet the expectations of new converts. See the Hullinger [19] reference in my essay.

Anthon's side of the story breaks down in other ways, as has long been pointed out. For example, on whether he gave Harris a written statement: Anthon's 1834 letter to Eber D. Howe says that he did not, while his 1841 letter to T. W. Coit says that he did. On how convincing he had been, Anthon's 1834 letter simply says that Harris "took his leave," but his 1841 letter claims that Harris left with the "express declaration" that he would not mortgage his farm or have anything to do with printing the golden book.⁵ In fact, in light of Harris's subsequent conduct (which was totally supportive of Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon), Harris clearly left Anthon fully satisfied.

Moreover, a motive for Anthon's 1834 and 1841 behavior is not hard to find. Protecting his prestigious standing among his peers must have been Anthon's primary concern. It turned out to be a professional liability for Anthon to have been linked with the Mormons and with Smith's notorious "roguery"—as Anthon termed it. In 1868 (some forty years later!), in a Commemorative Address, Anthon's successor at Columbia College still spoke about the Harris-Anthon affair and admitted that it was a real threat to Anthon's reputation.

Caught on the horns of a dilemma, and having unwittingly fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah 29, Anthon took the easy way out: He tore up the statement he had innocently given to Harris and denied Harris's story.

Today Anthon's cover-up appears more blatant than ever.

Anthon had to respond to two completely different versions of the story. At first, he had to address allegations that Joseph was smarter than he was, since Joseph could translate Egyptian and he couldn't. Later, when the Saints were borrowing his prestige to bolster their claims, he had to deny that he had confirmed Joseph's translation (which was never provided to him). Such were the "horns" of his dilemma. Anthon didn't contradict himself, rather, JS and the early Saints turned the story around 180 degrees, forcing Anthon to respond to opposing allegations.

Today, the apologetic cover-up appears more blatant than ever.

[Robert F. Smith]

Robert F. Smith, on 24 May 2011 - 06:16 AM, said:

I can't read Isaiah's mind, and the interpretation of his words varies with each new generation.

Are all these interpretations equally valid?

"Valid"? That depends upon your own value judgment as to whether each new generation can have an interpretation "valid" for them in their own time. Most scholars deal with the question inductively and understand the multiple interpretations both synchronically and diachronically. A better question might be: What was God's intention?

Quote

At Qumran, for example, the Suffering Servant material is given an interpretation which most scholars do not believe was on Isaiah's mind

The Suffering Servant Songs weren't on his mind because he didn't write them.

You are certainly free to see Isaiah as both an individual and as the founder of a school of prophecy, and you'd be in good company should you do so. In any case, my colleagues and I have readily interpreted the Bible, Book of Mormon, and other writings via the Documentary Hypothesis (the Book of Mormon is consciously transmitted in this way by its ancient writers and redactors). A good example of that is John L. Sorenson's "The 'Brass Plates' and Biblical Scholarship," Dialogue, 10/4 (Autumn 1977), 31-39, online at http://www.dialoguej...e_V10N04_33.pdf .

Peter Stuhlmacher sees at least four distinct ways in which the Fourth Servant Song in Isaiah 52:13 - 53:12 may reasonably be interpreted as prefiguring future events:

1. “collectively, in light of Isa 49.3 (and the parallel identifications of the Servant with Israel in Isa 41.8-13; 42.19; 43.10; 44.1-5; 45.4; 48.20), as the people of Israel, or that part of Israel carried away to Babylon;”

2. “or individually, of the prophet Isaiah,”

3. “of a future prophet like Moses,”

4. “or (as in Wisdom 2.12-20; 5.1-5) simply of the individual righteous sufferer.”

(Stuhlmacher, “The Significance of the Old Testament Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha for the Understanding of Jesus and Christology,” in S. Meurer, ed., The Apocrypha in Ecumenical Perspective, UBS Monograph Series 6 [uBS, 1992], 4-5)

Quote

bear in mind that prophecy can have multiple meanings and fulfillments -- thus ruling out the either/or nonsense.

That's about as fuzzy as you can get, isn't it? If we loosen up the tolerances to make everything fit then reason, logic and critical thinking are no longer possible.

Au contraire, mon frere. Induction requires that we accept prophecy as it is, i.e., as part of a vast array of type & antitype. Indeed, Northrop Frye states very succinctly that the

"typological way of reading the Bible is indicated too often and explicitly in the New Testament itself for us to be in any doubt that this is the 'right' way of reading it–'right' in the only sense that criticism can recognize, as the way that conforms to the intentionality of the book itself and to the conventions it assumes and requires." (Frye,

The Great Code: The Bible and Literature

[Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1981/1982], 79-80)

In practice this means, according to Rowan Greer, that

"In general terms, the New Testament writers do more than cite the text of Scripture. They are saturated in it, and the biblical idiom comes naturally to their lips. Constant allusions may be found to the Hebrew Scriptures. We cannot read Luke’s infancy narratives without being reminded of the story of Samuel’s birth. Matthew’s Sermon on the Mount is clearly meant to take us to a new Sinai. The miraculous feeding of the multitude in the wilderness harks back to the manna miracle in the wilderness, as John 6 makes explicit. Behind Christ hover the figures of Adam, Abraham, Moses, and David. . . . the Hebrew Scriptures become a type of Christ, foreshadowing him and his work, or an allegory in which the letter of Scripture points toward the timeless truths explicitly defined in the New Testament writings. John 3:14 treats Moses’ lifting up of the serpent in the wilderness (Num. 21:9) as a type of Christ’s exaltation on the cross. Matthew 12:39ff. (cf. Matt. 16:4) treats Jonah’s three days in the belly of the whale as a type of Christ’s three days in death, but Luke 11:29ff. interprets Jonah as a sign of repentance. 1 Peter 3:21 understands the deliverance of Noah as a type of Christian baptism. And in Galatians 4, Paul interprets the story of Abraham’s two children in a partly typological partly allegorical fashion to argue for the incorporation of the Gentiles into God’s people." (Greer in J. Kugel & R. Greer,

Early Biblical Interpretation

, Library of Early Christianity [Phila.: Westminster Press, 1986], 133-134)

Quote

My above cited publications are the best answer I can give, and you can rely upon them for accuracy and relevance.

Smith, Thomasson and Welch said:

In 1834, Professor Charles Anthon vehemently denied that he told Martin Harris that the Book of Mormon characters resembled Egyptian. A different story, of course, is found in the Pearl of Great Price (Joseph Smith—History 1:63-65). Who is telling the truth?

Charles Anthon

Quote

According to Martin Harris, Joseph Smith copied some of the Book of Mormon characters and Martin took them to New York. There he met with Charles Anthon, who certified to him that they were correct. Completely reassured, Harris returned to Harmony, told his friends about it, and later mortgaged his property to finance the publication of the Book of Mormon. This is very early concrete evidence that Martin Harris's version of his meeting with Anthon is accurate and that Anthon's later retraction was an attempt to save face, if not an act of downright dishonesty.

This so-called "evidence" is neither "very early" nor "concrete". This is not the story he told upon his initial return; in fact, the early story is quite the opposite. Harris was reassured because the learned Anthon couldn't translate the characters. Since the unlearned Joseph could translate them, that proved Isaiah's prophecy to be true!

Quote

Shortly afterwards, in 1831 W. W. Phelps wrote a letter in which he reported that Anthon had translated the Book of Mormon characters and declared them to be

"the ancient shorthand Egyptian."

This is a most telling clue, for where else, except from Anthon, would Harris and hence Phelps have gotten this precise phrase, the phrase

shorthand Egyptian?

He could have got it directly from the American Quarterly Review or another publication. It's unlikely he got it from Harris, since Harris never used the term and didn't understand that there are different forms of Egyptian. This would be like Einstein getting his information from Groucho Marx.

As we point out immediately below, Anthon himself would have been the most likely source simply by the law of parsimony. We know he had the Review, and the best explanation is that Harris (who wrote so little that to say he "never used the term" is absurd) undoubtedly communicated the phrase orally to Phelps and Joseph.

Quote

On the other hand, this precise term was known to scholars, Anthon included. In 1824, Champollion had used an equivalent term, "tachygraphie," in his landmark

Préçis du système hieroglyphique des anciens Égyptiens

(a copy of which Anthon owned),

2

to describe hieratic Egyptian script. In June 1827, this book was reviewed in the

American Quarterly Review,

calling hieratic Egyptian script "short-hand" Egyptian.

3

Anthon knew this review: He owned a copy and he cited it in his

Classical Dictionary.

4

Anthon would have read this review only months before Harris's visit.

Anthon knew enough to recognize that the characters on the transcript were not Egyptian, shorthand or otherwise.

Au contraire again, mon ami. Whether Anthon knew enough about Egyptian to say anything substantive is doubtful and beside the point. For the likeliest artifact of that period, the horizontal "Anthon Transcript" (in possession of the RLDS Church), has been recognized as being written in Egyptian hieratic by a couple of non-Mormon Egyptologists: (1) the late William C. Hayes of the Metropolitan Museum of Art told the late Stanley Kimball so in 1956, and even gave Kimball notes showing how to interpret the beginning of the first line of the AT; (2) the late Richard A. Parker later told Richard Bushman (while a visiting scholar at Brown Univ.) that it appeared to be Egyptian script, but in a language unknown to him -- like Meroitic, he suggested. Unfortunately, the longer Anthon paper I mentioned in a post above is not available online. However, it contains plenty of comparisons of Egyptian cursive with the AT. The important thing about such comparisons is that the AT characters appear to face in the correct direction to be read from right to left as actual hieratic of some kind.

Quote

Thus it becomes highly probable that Phelps indeed heard this peculiar phrase from Harris, who in turn got it from Anthon, the only person involved who was likely to have known it. Anthon probably mentioned shorthand Egyptian because he was struck by certain obvious similarities in the transcript to hieratic or demotic Egyptian. From this, what else can one conclude, except that Harris told the truth about what Anthon said on this point?

That is not the story Harris initially told. The story changed over the years to meet the expectations of new converts. See the Hullinger [19] reference in my essay.

As with other narratives, emphases may change over time. That is not the same thing as saying that actual contradictions have entered in. Hullinger means well and tries mightily to provide an alternate explanation which doesn't leave his faith in shambles.

Quote

Anthon's side of the story breaks down in other ways, as has long been pointed out. For example, on whether he gave Harris a written statement: Anthon's 1834 letter to Eber D. Howe says that he

did not,

while his 1841 letter to T. W. Coit says that he

did.

On how convincing he had been, Anthon's 1834 letter simply says that Harris "took his leave," but his 1841 letter claims that Harris left with the "express declaration" that he would not mortgage his farm or have anything to do with printing the golden book.

5

In fact, in light of Harris's subsequent conduct (which was totally supportive of Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon), Harris clearly left Anthon fully satisfied.

Moreover, a motive for Anthon's 1834 and 1841 behavior is not hard to find. Protecting his prestigious standing among his peers must have been Anthon's primary concern. It turned out to be a professional liability for Anthon to have been linked with the Mormons and with Smith's notorious "roguery"—as Anthon termed it. In 1868 (some forty years later!), in a

Commemorative Address,

Anthon's successor at Columbia College still spoke about the Harris-Anthon affair and admitted that it was a real threat to Anthon's reputation.

Caught on the horns of a dilemma, and having unwittingly fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah 29, Anthon took the easy way out: He tore up the statement he had innocently given to Harris and denied Harris's story.

Today Anthon's cover-up appears more blatant than ever.

Anthon had to respond to two completely different versions of the story. At first, he had to address allegations that Joseph was smarter than he was, since Joseph could translate Egyptian and he couldn't. Later, when the Saints were borrowing his prestige to bolster their claims, he had to deny that he had confirmed Joseph's translation (which was never provided to him). Such were the "horns" of his dilemma. Anthon didn't contradict himself, rather, JS and the early Saints turned the story around 180 degrees, forcing Anthon to respond to opposing allegations. Today, the apologetic cover-up appears more blatant than ever.

The statements in two of Anthon's letters directly contradict one another on substance (there is a third letter which is of no consequence). Your explanation as to why he lied sounds plausible, but I know of no modern-day coverup -- apologetic or otherwise.

[Mortal Man]

A better question might be: What was God's intention?

If it was to pack each scripture passage with an infinite variety of meanings, such that anyone anytime anywhere could give it a new Sitz im Leben and still be perfectly correct in his interpretation, then there is really nothing left to talk about.

A good example of that is John L. Sorenson's "The 'Brass Plates' and Biblical Scholarship," Dialogue, 10/4 (Autumn 1977), 31-39, online at http://www.dialoguej...e_V10N04_33.pdf .

Peter Stuhlmacher sees at least four distinct ways in which the Fourth Servant Song in Isaiah 52:13 - 53:12 may reasonably be interpreted as prefiguring future events:

1. “collectively, in light of Isa 49.3 (and the parallel identifications of the Servant with Israel in Isa 41.8-13; 42.19; 43.10; 44.1-5; 45.4; 48.20), as the people of Israel, or that part of Israel carried away to Babylon;”

All of these passages were written in Babylon ~60 years after Nephi took the Brass Plates out of Jerusalem and ~5 years after Nephi died; hence, they could not have been on the Brass Plates. For Deutero-Isaiah, the carrying away into Babylon was a fait accompli, a done deal, a past-tense event. The key to the Fourth Servant Song is to look at what immediately precedes it.

"In general terms, the New Testament writers do more than cite the text of Scripture. They are saturated in it, and the biblical idiom comes naturally to their lips. Constant allusions may be found to the Hebrew Scriptures. We cannot read Luke’s infancy narratives without being reminded of the story of Samuel’s birth. Matthew’s Sermon on the Mount is clearly meant to take us to a new Sinai. The miraculous feeding of the multitude in the wilderness harks back to the manna miracle in the wilderness, as John 6 makes explicit. Behind Christ hover the figures of Adam, Abraham, Moses, and David. . . . the Hebrew Scriptures become a type of Christ, foreshadowing him and his work, or an allegory in which the letter of Scripture points toward the timeless truths explicitly defined in the New Testament writings. John 3:14 treats Moses’ lifting up of the serpent in the wilderness (Num. 21:9) as a type of Christ’s exaltation on the cross. Matthew 12:39ff. (cf. Matt. 16:4) treats Jonah’s three days in the belly of the whale as a type of Christ’s three days in death, but Luke 11:29ff. interprets Jonah as a sign of repentance. 1 Peter 3:21 understands the deliverance of Noah as a type of Christian baptism. And in Galatians 4, Paul interprets the story of Abraham’s two children in a partly typological partly allegorical fashion to argue for the incorporation of the Gentiles into God’s people." (Greer in J. Kugel & R. Greer, Early Biblical Interpretation, Library of Early Christianity [Phila.: Westminster Press, 1986], 133-134)

I agree with all of that.

Whether Anthon knew enough about Egyptian to say anything substantive is doubtful and beside the point. For the likeliest artifact of that period, the horizontal "Anthon Transcript" (in possession of the RLDS Church), has been recognized as being written in Egyptian hieratic by a couple of non-Mormon Egyptologists: (1) the late William C. Hayes of the Metropolitan Museum of Art told the late Stanley Kimball so in 1956, and even gave Kimball notes showing how to interpret the beginning of the first line of the AT...

The important thing about such comparisons is that the AT characters appear to face in the correct direction to be read from right to left as actual hieratic of some kind.

Well then, it seems that the Egyptologists have been dragging their heels all these years. If the Anthon Transcript is simply Egyptian hieratic then I’d expect one of them to translate it any day now. What do you suppose is holding them up?

what else can one conclude, except that Harris told the truth about what Anthon said on this point?

Do you really not see any problems with the official story? Do you really think Anthon stated that “the translation was correct, more so than any he had before seen translated from the Egyptian”? How many Reformed Egyptian translations had Anthon seen up to that point?

I know of no modern-day coverup -- apologetic or otherwise.

I was simply mirroring the conclusion of your paper.

[Robert F. Smith]

If it was to pack each scripture passage with an infinite variety of meanings, such that anyone anytime anywhere could give it a new Sitz im Leben and still be perfectly correct in his interpretation, then there is really nothing left to talk about.

Just because we mortal men can come up with endlessly clever interpretations of text doesn't mean that an infinite variety is possible or reasonable, nor that that was God's intention (which should be communicated via the Holy Spirit in any case). It is clear, however, that (as with Jesus' parables) various levels of meaning can be contained in certain texts, and unpacking them does require some insight and sophistication. In any case, we should not opt for only the one-single notion of interpretation -- unless, of course, our only touchstone is rational, enlightenment thinking.

All of these passages were written in Babylon ~60 years after Nephi took the Brass Plates out of Jerusalem and ~5 years after Nephi died; hence, they could not have been on the Brass Plates. For Deutero-Isaiah, the carrying away into Babylon was a fait accompli, a done deal, a past-tense event. The key to the Fourth Servant Song is to look at what immediately precedes it.

Of course that is the consensus among biblical scholars, and is another direct result of rational, enlightenment thinking, e.g., the disbelief that a prophet could actually foresee or predict future events in detail, such as the names of specific rulers:

Josiah (Isaiah 13:2),

Cyrus (Isaiah 44:28, 45:1),

or even Jesus, whose name means "Salvation" (II Nephi 22:2-3 [∥Isaiah 12:2-3], 25:19, 33:6, Mosiah 3:8-9, Isaiah 25:9, Psalms 20:6, 35:9, 38:23, Matt 1:21, Lk 1:31,69, 2:21,30, 3:6 [∥ Isa 52:10]).

The late David Noel Freedman had an interesting view of claims of prophecy ex eventu in his Unity of the Bible, 48,68. He didn't "buy" them and neither do I.

Well then, it seems that the Egyptologists have been dragging their heels all these years. If the Anthon Transcript is simply Egyptian hieratic then I’d expect one of them to translate it any day now. What do you suppose is holding them up?

Meroitic is written in Egyptian characters, but cannot be deciphered. A number of other scripts have yet to be deciphered.

The scholars I have spoken with on this very matter say that the AT "Caractors" appear to come from a period about a thousand years after Lehi & Nephi, so that (as with Demotic Egyptian) it has developed and changed ("reformed") through time, along with the language underlying it, so that translating it is a bear -- to say the least. The brevity of the AT is another problem.

Reading the "Brass Plates" of Laban, or even the Small Plates of Nephi, on the other hand, would be fairly straightforward, since they were likely in standard Egyptian.

Do you really not see any problems with the official story? Do you really think Anthon stated that “the translation was correct, more so than any he had before seen translated from the Egyptian”? How many Reformed Egyptian translations had Anthon seen up to that point?

I don't know what actually went on between Harris & Anthon, nor with Harris & Mitchill (which may have been more significant). Would love to have been a fly on the wall. All we have are the results and later writings, and you already know how I and my colleagues have interpreted all that. It is possible that Anthon got on his "high horse" and made some silly, exaggerated claims which he later regretted. Certainly his contempt for Harris could have led him to make some unwise statements. Did God or Isaiah foresee all that? Not if there is no God . . .

[Mortal Man]

The scholars I have spoken with on this very matter say that the AT "Caractors" appear to come from a period about a thousand years after Lehi & Nephi,

What a stunning coincidence that your scholars have dated the characters to precisely the time Mormon wrote them down. What do you think their reaction would be if you told them this? How exactly did they date the characters? What contemporary corpus of reformed Egyptian texts did they compare to? Or did they somehow quantify the mutation rate of the various graphemes?

Reading the "Brass Plates" of Laban, or even the Small Plates of Nephi, on the other hand, would be fairly straightforward, since they were likely in standard Egyptian.

Then I suppose we've been wasting our time all these years looking for "Hebraisms" when we should have been looking for "Egyptianisms". What sort of chiastic structures might we expect to find in Egyptian?

I don't know what actually went on between Harris & Anthon, nor with Harris & Mitchill (which may have been more significant). Would love to have been a fly on the wall. All we have are the results and later writings, and you already know how I and my colleagues have interpreted all that. It is possible that Anthon got on his "high horse" and made some silly, exaggerated claims which he later regretted. Certainly his contempt for Harris could have led him to make some unwise statements.

He didn't know Harris until he showed up in his office. Anthon is not the villain you make him out to be.

Did God or Isaiah foresee all that? Not if there is no God . . .

JS could still have twisted Martin's story, even if there is a God.

[Robert F. Smith]

What a stunning coincidence that your scholars have dated the characters to precisely the time Mormon wrote them down. What do you think their reaction would be if you told them this? How exactly did they date the characters? What contemporary corpus of reformed Egyptian texts did they compare to? Or did they somehow quantify the mutation rate of the various graphemes?

I was speaking of LDS scholars who are extrapolating both from their knowledge of Hieratic and Demotic Egyptian as well as inferences from Mormon 9:32, "the characters which are called among us the reformed Egyptian, being handed down and altered by us, according to our manner of speech." For, as Ed Ashment has observed, Demotic language and script are tightly correlated.

Then I suppose we've been wasting our time all these years looking for "Hebraisms" when we should have been looking for "Egyptianisms". What sort of chiastic structures might we expect to find in Egyptian?

Quite rightly. Most Hebraisms are also good Egyptianisms (the languages are closely related), but there are a goodly number of instances in which the Book of Mormon features Egyptianisms which don't exist in Classical Hebrew.

As for chiasmus in Egyptian, it exists in both texts written on papyrus, as well in the formal inscriptions and architecture of ancient Egypt. Here's an example from Bible Review, 8/6 (Dec 1992), ca. 23??, a colorphoto of bottom of wooden stele of the Priest Harsiese, showing him offering to Reʽ-Horakhty and Atum (10^th – 8^thcenturies BC):

:EGYPTIAN CHIASM 1.pdf