A Hebraism In The Book Of Mormon

[Daniel Peterson]

Nobody said you saw it as a "knock out proof."

Thank you.

I never have.

But you may want to see the quote I give below.

How could I miss it, when you've bolded it, underlined it, and put it in red.

Don't be so subtle.

Don't be so shy about crowing in triumph when you think you've scored a hit.

But you thought the "evidence" was significant enough to mention in the recently uploaded FAIR youtube video.

I mention lots of things in the FAIR video --which, in my case, was recorded quite some time ago.

And that's crucial to keep in mind.

My view of such relatively minor items as the apparent cognate accusative of 1 Nephi 8:2 is that, taken in isolation, they're fairly unimpressive and mean relatively little. They become more significant, though, as part of a cumulative case, assembled via numerous small and not so small pieces of evidence. (Just in case you're curious, I'll cite some examples of what I see as stronger evidence: I regard, and have always regarded, the NHM altarpiece and the Lehites' route through Arabia, and the testimonies of the Book of Mormon witnesses, and the different voices in the Book of Mormon -- as revealed by people like Alvin Rencher, John Hilton, Roger Keller, Bruce Schaalje, and Grant Hardy, using various methods -- as much more substantial than the apparent cognate accusative in 1 Nephi 8:2, and I've devoted much more time, ink, and effort to them.)

It may astonish you to know that there are still those living who remember a time before Google books made such searches as yours easy. And it may surprise you to know that some of us change our minds. We adopt new arguments, abandon old ones, weigh evidence differently, as we continue to read and learn.

In the case of that apparent cognate accusative, I never thought it a slam dunk proof, and such parallels as you've adduced via Google move it even further from the slam dunk category. But it absolutely remains a nice little illustration of the Semitic cognate accusative or tamyiiz. As, for that matter, does the Greek Acts 2:17, and its English translation in the KJV, both of which depend upon the Hebrew text of Joel 2:28. In fact, the Greek of Acts 2:17 (καὶ οἱ νεανίσκοι ὑμῶν ὁράσεις ὄψονται, καὶ οἱ πρεσβύτεροι ὑμῶν ἐνυπνίοις ἐνυπνιασθήσονται) captures the two cognate accusatives perfectly, whereas the English doesn't -- precisely in the way, I speculated, that the English of the Book of Mormon most likely fails to fully capture an underlying dual cognate accusative largely because of the hybrid character of the English language. Thus, I think it holds up as an illustration of Semitic tendencies in the Book of Mormon.

The language you quote from me is far too strong, obviously, for the little 1 Nephi 8:2 cognate accusative alone, taken in isolation. I apologize for the fact that my more or less off the cuff oral comments sometimes fail to meet standards of precision generally applied to carefully written and edited written statements. I've never heard you speak, but I doubt that you ever make such bush league mistakes as those to which I'm prone. However, I'm afraid I'm not as embarrassed by the remark that you quote from me as you presumably wish me to be. I think that, taken along with the many other items that I typically mention in such firesides as those remarks originate in, and taken along with the many other things that I seldom mention but very much have in my mind, the cumulative case of which 1 Nephi 8:2 and its little cognate accusative forms a part is still pretty good, and I still don't find it remotely plausible that Joseph Smith, unaided, dictated the Book of Mormon on the fly, making it up as he went along, in the space of about two months.

As opposed to what we'd expect in 19th century English literature, right?

I think there's very little evidence to show that the Joseph Smith of 1828-1829 was intimately familiar with the Bible, and considerable evidence suggesting that he was not. But there's even less reason to believe that he was conversant with the poetry of Sir Walter Scott and Mary Ann Gray, Beilby Porteus's Lectures on the Gospel of St. Matthew, the parliamentary speeches of Edmund Burke, the theological works of Edward Pococke, Emmanuel Swedenborg's Arcana coelestia, and the essays of Joseph Addison -- every one of whom manifestly derived his or her references to "dreaming dreams" and "seeing visions" from Acts 2:17, which, in turn, indisputably reflects the Semitic rhetorical style of Joel 2:28.

There's no reason for you to be Googling through the literary remains of Thomas Sherlock, George Townsend, and William Hone in order to find a comparable cognate accusative to that in 1 Nephi 8:2 that was available in Joseph Smith's information environment, because Acts 2:17 is already there and was much more accessible to Joseph. And it indisputably reflects the Hebrew Unterlage of Joel 2:28. And it is, beyond any reasonable cavil, the ultimate source for all of your Googled parallels.

So do you think the rock I found in my back yard should count as evidence supporting the BoM's historicity?

You were, as I recall, much funnier and more pleasant before your apostasy.

There. LOL. That ought to fuel quite a bit more clucking over at your other venue about my "lying for the Lord."

Edited February 28, 2012 by Daniel Peterson

[wenglund]

I can think of a much better experiment. Do a statistical analysis of all known Hebrew word patterns in the Book of Mormon. If there are more of them per page in the Isaiah sections of 2 Nephi than there are in the other sections, then the Book of Mormon is not a translation of original Hebrew.

Try your so-called test on various books of the English translation of the Bible to see how they fare. See how the frequency of Hebraism in those other biblical books compare with the Book of Isaiah, and if they lack the same frequency, then by your reasoning one may conclude that the English translation of these other biblical books was not derived originally from Hebrew,

This is my point. The critics often devise methodologies for determining the origins of the Book of Mormon, and fail to properly test their methodologies to see if the methodologies, themselves, are flawed or not. This, to me, is a critical error, which can't help but reflect poorly on their scholasticism.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited February 28, 2012 by wenglund

[Rob Bowman]

Wade,

You wrote:

This isn't the part of your methodology that I am testing. Rather, this part of your methodology may be used to test the other parts of your and other critics methodology that you each have applied to the Book of Mormon.

Scholarly methodology in the study of the origins of a text can't be divided and conquered in the way you are attempting. The lack of certain kinds of evidence puts other alleged evidence in a different light; the availability of certain kinds of evidence likewise puts other alleged evidence in a different light. One does not start a study of the origins of the Zohar with twentieth-century English translations. As a hypothetical example of the scholarly methodology I advocate, your example starts in the wrong place.

You wrote:

What I am testing is the step you evidently left unmentioned--i.e. the step you have used to conclude that the Book of Mormon is a 19th century production, the step that relates to idioms or Hebraism. Remember?

Actually, I remember better than you. I did not argue that idioms alone were sufficient to conclude that the Book of Mormon is a 19th-century production. You might want to review my argument more carefully.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Rob writes:

You missed step two.

I didn't miss step two. I am pointing out that you seem to be ignoring it when it suits your own agenda. Step 2, when applied to Isaiah seems to produce (among the vast majority of biblical scholars) the recognition that Isaiah is a composite work with a rather late date of final composition (certainly long after the death of the Isaiah fellow that the work is attributed to). That is, the conclusion is that Isaiah, in its present form, is not the work of a single literary figure named Isaiah who preceded the Babylonian exile. And yet here we have you drawing just the opposite conclusion (based entirely on your pre-existing beliefs about scripture) that Isaiah was in fact a unified text written by the prophet Isaiah prior to the Babylonian exile. My point, of course, is that your skepticism doesn't really seem to be as universal as you claim it is.

Ben M.

[wenglund]

Scholarly methodology in the study of the origins of a text can't be divided and conquered in the way you are attempting. The lack of certain kinds of evidence puts other alleged evidence in a different light; the availability of certain kinds of evidence likewise puts other alleged evidence in a different light. One does not start a study of the origins of the Zohar with twentieth-century English translations. As a hypothetical example of the scholarly methodology I advocate, your example starts in the wrong place.

Wrong. One of the fundamental aspect of science and critical analysis, and a factor that renders these scholastic tools so productive and of such great value, is the ardent effort made in testing the test, as well as the use of controls. The annals of scholarship are heavily imbued with instances where proven methodologies (or aspects thereof) are used to test new methodologies or new aspects of methodologies. At the very heart of the scholastic enterprise is the notion of falsifiability.

So, if you are going to appeal to secular methods in testing the things of God, you, and some of your fellow critics, would do well to finally learn this.

Actually, I remember better than you. I did not argue that idioms alone were sufficient to conclude that the Book of Mormon is a 19th-century production. You might want to review my argument more carefully.

You should take your own misdirected advice about reading more carefully. I didn't use the word "alone," or its cognate, nor did I think it or imply it. I also said: "Besides, my test was more directed at Mike Reeds comments than yours."

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Benjamin McGuire]

Dan P. writes:

... every one of whom manifestly derived his or her references to "dreaming dreams" and "seeing visions" from Acts 2:17, which, in turn, indisputably reflects the Semitic rhetorical style of Joel 2:28.

I am reminded in all of this (partly, of course, by Mike's comments) of something written by Walter Brueggemann (in reference to 1 Samuel 18 - a passage with which I have some passing familiarity):

Our study of chap. 18 is evidence of the way in which attention to literary strategy in the narrative advances our theological understanding of the text. Unless we stay with the internal coherence and intentionality of the text, the various fragments and elements fall apart, as they have with many efforts in conventional historical criticism. When the text falls apart methodologically, we face only interesting factual questions and literary fragments; we likely will miss the hidden cunning that the narrative invites us to ponder. The chapter as it now stands requires that we look for a cunning that is more powerful and inescapable than analytic fragmentation suggests.

The interesting thing here is that the text isn't just a series of phrases that can be examined independently and discussed - it is a rather complex narrative. Although Dr. Peterson doesn't mention it, Joel 2:28 isn't really fresh or original either. It is an allusion to Number 12:6 -

Here is the passage from Joel 2 (from the KJV):

And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions:

And this comes from the Numbers text:

And he said, Hear now my words: If there be a prophet among you, I the Lord will make myself known unto him in a vision, and will speak unto him in a dream.

And we have First Nephi using the Numbers text earlier as part of its basic definition of what a prophet is (and why Lehi fits the mold of being a prophet like Moses) in 1 Nephi 2:1:

For behold, it came to pass that the Lord spake unto my father, yea, even in a dream, and said unto him: ...

So amidst all of the hyper attention of parallels, we lose sight of the rhetoric of the text - which is probably more important when talking about whether or not there is a legitimate hebraism in the text. But, discussing rhetoric hasn't seemed to be much of a strong point for him (as we note from the nonsense he reminds us from time to time that he wrote about chiasmus).

Ben M.

Edited February 28, 2012 by Benjamin McGuire

[Rob Bowman]

Ben,

You wrote:

I didn't miss step two.

You didn't say anything about it, either. You only mentioned the earliest extant manuscript (step one).

You wrote:

I am pointing out that you seem to be ignoring it when it suits your own agenda. Step 2, when applied to Isaiah seems to produce (among the vast majority of biblical scholars) the recognition that Isaiah is a composite work with a rather late date of final composition (certainly long after the death of the Isaiah fellow that the work is attributed to). That is, the conclusion is that Isaiah, in its present form, is not the work of a single literary figure named Isaiah who preceded the Babylonian exile. And yet here we have you drawing just the opposite conclusion (based entirely on your pre-existing beliefs about scripture) that Isaiah was in fact a unified text written by the prophet Isaiah prior to the Babylonian exile. My point, of course, is that your skepticism doesn't really seem to be as universal as you claim it is.

Step two deals only with the language of the text. The arguments for assigning Isaiah to different time periods are mostly not linguistic; they are largely historical-critical arguments that presuppose such assumptions as that God does not inspire predictive prophecy (an assumption I do not bring to the table in my study of the Book of Mormon), revisionist theories about the development of the theological outlook that the book represents, and the like. Linguistic analysis only goes so far back; it can show that the text of Isaiah predates the earliest extant manuscript by a considerable period of time but it cannot date the text to a specific century (or parts of it to specific centuries). To do that, we would need other literature in the same language from those centuries, be able to date them, and have enough such literature to form generalizations about the characteristics of the language during different centuries (as we can do, for example, with Greek from about 300 BC forward or for English for the past millennium). Old Testament scholars cannot do this with any reliability because the OT writings are for the most part the oldest Hebrew texts of any length that are extant. Once you get back to the oldest texts in a particular language what I called "step two" runs up against a methodological limit.

Now, I grant that in a broader sense, going beyond my step two, most biblical scholars take the position that Isaiah is a composite work incorporating writings dating between the eighth and sixth centuries (or so). But let's put this theory in some perspective. It is a matter of arguing that some of the material in Isaiah is roughly 2500 years old and other material is roughly 2700 years old. The gap between 2500 and 2700 is from a statistical perspective a very minor gap indeed. By contrast, the difference between dating the Book of Mormon to about AD 421 and dating it to 1829 is monumental, not just in terms of sheer amount of time (though that is surely significant) but in terms of an entirely different view of the book and everything about it. It is not like critical study had determined that part of the Book of Mormon dated from, say AD 600! Assuming the dominant critical view of the Book of Isaiah, scholars still agree that Isaiah and Ahaz were historical figures, that Isaiah prophesied in Ahaz's court, that the Assyrians and Babylonians did what the Book of Isaiah says they would do or did, and so forth. On the other hand, if the dominant critical view of the Book of Mormon is correct, Lehi, Nephi, Alma, and the rest of its figures never even existed, and none of the events that it narrates (other than events first mentioned in the Bible) ever took place. And again, we are unable even to apply step two to the Book of Mormon because no extant original-language text exists. The lack of such a text places a great burden of proof on those who maintain it existed.

Finally, you ignored the fact that I said that at the end of step two one reaches a preliminary conclusion about the approximate dating of a text, and that such a conclusion can be challenged and overcome by marshaling of evidence for a different conclusion. I can acknowledge that conservative evangelicals such as I bear some burden of proof if we wish to defend the unity of Isaiah. That's fine. I would also say that conservative Mormons bear some burden of proof if they wish to defend the antiquity of the Book of Mormon. The question is whether the evidence is there to make such a case.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Rob writes:

Step two deals only with the language of the text. The arguments for assigning Isaiah to different time periods are mostly not linguistic;

I disagree with you here on two issues Rob. First, Stage 2 - at least the way that you present it - is more than simply a linguistic argument about words and morphology. There are a number of tools that get employed here, that have nothing at all to do with your reservations. The second issue is that you boil the situation down to a point where it doesn't resemble the real scholarly discussion - it parodies it in exactly the same way that other polemical responses do. For example, if scholars determined that Isaiah was predominantly written by a single author, but then dated it to an earliest possible date that allowed for an absence of prophecy, you might have a point. But scholars don't do this. We have a series of texts, redacted a different times, with the later texts incorporating and using the earlier ones. This can be examined without the kind of appeals that you are so dismissive of:

they are largely historical-critical arguments that presuppose such assumptions as that God does not inspire predictive prophecy (an assumption I do not bring to the table in my study of the Book of Mormon), revisionist theories about the development of the theological outlook that the book represents, and the like. Linguistic analysis only goes so far back; it can show that the text of Isaiah predates the earliest extant manuscript by a considerable period of time but it cannot date the text to a specific century (or parts of it to specific centuries).

But what it may do quite well is demonstrate that there are multiple authors and a redactive process, each stage of which predates the next stage perhaps by a considerable period of time. So I don't agree with the argument you raise - it is very narrow, it is designed to deal with the issue in a polemical fashion - and thus avoid the actual details and arguments raised by scholars.

Further, and this is kind of the interesting part of the argument. You want to invoke this process that you apparently see as deeply flawed when it comes to the possibility of actual prophecy. But, in a sense, the notion of whether something is prophecy isn't predicted by the text in this case, it is determined by pre-existing bias. You want to treat the Bible differently from any other text - and we see you reiterate this here. What the scholars believe and do is good (except of course in this instance).

I understand that you recognize this, and you continue:

I would also say that conservative Mormons bear some burden of proof if they wish to defend the antiquity of the Book of Mormon. The question is whether the evidence is there to make such a case.

There are two aspects of this, aren't there, just as you present two distinct approaches to the Book of Mormon.

I think that one of the most interesting questions (that never gets answered - at least by the critics) is the question of what we should expect if the narrative provided by the Book of Mormon has some basis in reality. What would you expect the text to look like, what would you expect it to say, and so on. There is this fascinating feature that you bring up with regards to the Bible, that you don't raise about the Book of Mormon (and again, it goes back to your wanting to treat the Bible fundamentally differently from other texts) - you noted that part of your defense of Isaiah is based on the fact that "Old Testament scholars cannot do this with any reliability because the OT writings are for the most part the oldest Hebrew texts of any length that are extant."

Now, assuming that the Book of Mormon has some basis historically, what would you expect to be able to compare it to?

What I really see from you is a complete dismissal of the Book of Mormon as a text that has some historical basis. Instead of looking at a historical setting, you presuppose that its of modern origins (and you certainly have listed a number of reasonable issues that you believe support this presupposition) and then look only for parallels within that context. But in fact, (as we see all over the place in this thread), we can do that with nearly every ancient text. We could presuppose that its of modern origins and then find lots and lots of parallels within a modern context that helps solidify our presupposition. This is, of course, anything but following the paradigm that you have presented.

Ben M.

[Cobalt-70]

Try your so-called test on various books of the English translation of the Bible to see how they fare. See how the frequency of Hebraism in those other biblical books compare with the Book of Isaiah, and if they lack the same frequency, then by your reasoning one may conclude that the English translation of these other biblical books was not derived originally from Hebrew,

It would be worth a try. If the frequency of Hebrew word patterns in various Hebrew-origin books of the KJV cluster roughly together with the Isaiah parts of the Book of Mormon, and there is a significant gap between those books and the frequency of Hebraisms in the non-Isaiah parts of the Book of Mormon, then it seems to me that this would be an important finding.

[Rob Bowman]

Ben,

You wrote:

I disagree with you here on two issues Rob. First, Stage 2 - at least the way that you present it - is more than simply a linguistic argument about words and morphology.

Actually, no. The way I presented it, that is precisely what it is. You can propose your own broader "step two," but that will be your presentation, not mine.

You wrote:

There are a number of tools that get employed here, that have nothing at all to do with your reservations. The second issue is that you boil the situation down to a point where it doesn't resemble the real scholarly discussion - it parodies it in exactly the same way that other polemical responses do. For example, if scholars determined that Isaiah was predominantly written by a single author, but then dated it to an earliest possible date that allowed for an absence of prophecy, you might have a point. But scholars don't do this. We have a series of texts, redacted a different times, with the later texts incorporating and using the earlier ones. This can be examined without the kind of appeals that you are so dismissive of:

This is all a bit nebulous for me to follow, and even confusing ("an earliest possible date that allowed for an absence of prophecy"?), but I will comment on what I can. In the case of the Book of Isaiah, we do not "have a series of texts." We have a single book that many scholars think originated as a series of texts redacted at different times. The alleged discrete texts are hypothetical, not extant or in our possession as such.

You wrote:

But what it may do quite well is demonstrate that there are multiple authors and a redactive process, each stage of which predates the next stage perhaps by a considerable period of time. So I don't agree with the argument you raise - it is very narrow, it is designed to deal with the issue in a polemical fashion - and thus avoid the actual details and arguments raised by scholars.

We're talking here about the generalities of the method, not the actual details and arguments. I'm not going to argue Isaianic higher criticism with you. I'm not engaged in polemics on this issue at all, but simply responding to your polemical claim that I operate by a double standard with regard to methodology. The fact is that I don't. If Isaiah originated in the way the dominant school of thought maintains, orthodox Christianity could still be true, though our view of how to interpret Isaiah would have to be modified. But if the Book of Mormon originated in the nineteenth century, then Mormonism cannot be true, as your own leaders have repeatedly insisted. So this isn't a useful comparison if you're trying to paint me as a wild-eyed polemicist unaware of the state of biblical studies.

You wrote:

Further, and this is kind of the interesting part of the argument. You want to invoke this process that you apparently see as deeply flawed when it comes to the possibility of actual prophecy. But, in a sense, the notion of whether something is prophecy isn't predicted by the text in this case, it is determined by pre-existing bias. You want to treat the Bible differently from any other text - and we see you reiterate this here. What the scholars believe and do is good (except of course in this instance).

I'm sure you have a point and that you know what it is, but I can't seem to follow your train of thought. Sorry.

You wrote:

I think that one of the most interesting questions (that never gets answered - at least by the critics) is the question of what we should expect if the narrative provided by the Book of Mormon has some basis in reality. What would you expect the text to look like, what would you expect it to say, and so on.

Well, for starters, I'd expect there to be a text! There isn't, you know. There is only the English work called the Book of Mormon, one that most Mormons cheerfully agree includes copious quotations from the King James Version (including the New Testament!), however this is explained. There is no text of the Book of Mormon written in its supposedly original Reformed Egyptian script. Mormons here have told me that it includes an indeterminate amount of "midrashic" material that is admittedly modern. What is modern and what is not depends on the Mormon. I just go farther than such Mormons and say that all of it is modern!

You wrote:

What I really see from you is a complete dismissal of the Book of Mormon as a text that has some historical basis. Instead of looking at a historical setting, you presuppose that its of modern origins (and you certainly have listed a number of reasonable issues that you believe support this presupposition) and then look only for parallels within that context. But in fact, (as we see all over the place in this thread), we can do that with nearly every ancient text. We could presuppose that its of modern origins and then find lots and lots of parallels within a modern context that helps solidify our presupposition. This is, of course, anything but following the paradigm that you have presented.

Your claim that my method would allow someone to presuppose the modern origins of any ancient text and then try to buttress that presupposition with "parallels" is outlandishly false. It is impossible to do so with Augustine's City of God, for example (written about the same time the Book of Mormon was supposedly completed). Only by ignoring the primary, fundamental issues of extant texts and external attestation could one even get started with such a foolhardy project. Since those issues are fundamental to my method, it is simply not true that my method would allow for any ancient work to be falsely characterized as modern in origin.

Trying to place the burden of proof entirely on me isn't right; it isn't reasonable. The Book of Mormon appears in historical circumstances we can identify for the first time in the late 1820s. There is no text. There is no attestation of its existence before the 1820s. The "translator" did not even use, refer to, or look at the metal plates on which the Book of Mormon was supposedly engraved when he was producing his "translation." His first 116 pages of translation were lost, after which he announced that the plates by divine arrangement included an alternate, better version of the narrative he had lost that differed enough to circumvent worries that the replacement translation would contradict the lost pages if they surfaced (whew!). The supposed translation of a work finished in the fifth century we have is laced with quotations from and allusions to a seventeenth-century translation of the Bible. Those quotations and allusions include materials from the New Testament, which the authors of the Book of Mormon would never have seen. It addresses religious, theological, and cultural concerns of intense interest in the first half of the nineteenth century but not the concerns of intense interest arising after that period (evolution, Communism, abortion, homosexuality, genetic engineering, nuclear weapons, etc.). In this way it dates its origins, in the estimation of all non-Mormon scholars, quite precisely and definitely to the first half of the nineteenth century. These considerations make a nineteenth-century origin for the Book of Mormon the default starting point or working hypothesis for any academically serious historical approach to the Book of Mormon (please note all of the qualifiers). The burden of proof is on you (conservative Mormons) to show that it originated earlier, not on me (and all other non-Mormon scholars) to show that it did not.

[wenglund]

It would be worth a try. If the frequency of Hebrew word patterns in various Hebrew-origin books of the KJV cluster roughly together with the Isaiah parts of the Book of Mormon, and there is a significant gap between those books and the frequency of Hebraisms in the non-Isaiah parts of the Book of Mormon, then it seems to me that this would be an important finding.

It would only be an important finding if the methodology, used to find it, wasn't flawed. It is relatively meaningless otherwise. Again, this is the problem that you and other critics have. You don't properly test your methodologies. You just assume that your methodologies work as intended and then you go on to muddle ahead.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited February 29, 2012 by wenglund

[altersteve]

If Isaiah originated in the way the dominant school of thought maintains, orthodox Christianity could still be true, though our view of how to interpret Isaiah would have to be modified. But if the Book of Mormon originated in the nineteenth century, then Mormonism cannot be true, as your own leaders have repeatedly insisted. So this isn't a useful comparison if you're trying to paint me as a wild-eyed polemicist unaware of the state of biblical studies.

But if the Bible, the New Testament specifically, had originated in the way atheists believe, then "orthodox Christianity" cannot be true. Your comparison between the Book of Mormon and the writings of Isaiah in this context is, in fact, the one that is not useful, because the truthfulness of "orthodox Christianity" does not stand or fall on Isaiah. It stands and falls on the Bible as a whole.

Edited February 28, 2012 by altersteve

[Vance]

It stands and falls on the Bible as a whole.

Nah.

I think you need to be more specific as in, "It stands and falls on the Bowman's interpretation of Bible as a whole. "

Just sayin.

[zerinus]

You are incorrect. Here is how Wade concluded his first post about the Zohar:

Well that is what he should have said!

[wenglund]

It may be useful to examine more in-depth the two-step methodology Rob outlined for determining ancient/modern origins of texts. However since by his own admission step two doesn't apply to the Book of Mormon, it may prove more useful to examine Rob's so-called "working assumption":

Where the second step cannot be performed, the burden of proof is on the claim that the work originated in a period significantly earlier than its earliest extant versions or external references. Thus the working assumption of scholarly historians will be that the Aquarian Gospel of Jesus the Christ, the Life of Issa, the Book of Mormon, and other such works, all of which claim to be modern translations of ancient works no longer extant and having no pre-modern attestation, are modern in origin.

Aside from this being as clear a case that I can recall of the fallacy of arguing from silence, if not also shifting the burden of proof (the lack of evidence for antiquity is not evidence for the assumption of modernity), let's see how various books in the Bible fare respectively, particularly those in the new testament.

Using Rob's step one, the earliest extant copy for the Gospel of John is the Rylands Papysus 52, which was first dated to "the first half of the 2nd century." The original transcription and translation of this text was in 1934. The writing on the papyrus was in Greek. And, to my knowledge, there are no external references to the Gospel of John or the bulk of the content of the fragment (Jn 18:31-33, 37, 38).

Using Rob's step two, since there is no "original-language manuscripts" of the Gospel of John, then "the working assumption of scholarly historians will be" that the Gospel of John was first written "the first half of the 2nd century."

However, prior to 1934, it is uncertain what the earliest extant copy of the Gospel of John, but it likely dated to around the tenth century. If so, then prior to 1934, and according to Rob's assumption, the Gospel of John was first written around the tenth century.

As for the other books in the New Testament, because their earliest extant manuscripts are dated to as late as the fifth century, understandably they fare less favorably under Rob's assumption, thereby demonstrating its flaw.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited February 28, 2012 by wenglund

[Mortal Man]

Rob Bowman writes:I have one counter example for you Rob. Isaiah.

After all, the earliest manuscript copies of Isaiah date to about 200 BCE? Most scholars who work with the original language manuscripts of the text believe that the text as it stands significantly postdates the time period in which Isaiah lived. And yet, here you are claiming to believe in a unified Isaiah ... no, I don't think you take the same approach to all such texts. I think that you put the Bible into its own separate category.

Ben M.

[Rob Bowman]

Steve,

You wrote:

But if the Bible, the New Testament specifically, had originated in the way atheists believe, then "orthodox Christianity" cannot be true. Your comparison between the Book of Mormon and the writings of Isaiah in this context is, in fact, the one that is not useful, because the truthfulness of "orthodox Christianity" does not stand or fall on Isaiah. It stands and falls on the Bible as a whole.

Steve, I didn't introduce the comparison between the Book of Mormon and the Book of Isaiah.

Unlike the Book of Mormon, the Bible comes to us as a group of books written over a lengthy period of time with a history of manuscripts and external attestation for each one that is different for different books. This means that we can talk about the authenticity, antiquity, authorship, unity, textual history, etc., of a single book of the Bible, such as Isaiah, as a meaningful question, which we cannot do with the "books" in the Book of Mormon. With the Book of Mormon, it's all or nothing; either the whole thing is a translation from gold plates buried for fourteen centuries or the whole thing is a fraud. There is no middle ground, as Mormon authorities have constantly and correctly pointed out. That isn't the case with the books of the Bible. One might take the position that the Gospels and at least many of the NT epistles are authentic and reliable sources of information, that some books of the OT are as well, that in other books there are legitimate question marks, etc. If in the end it turns out that Isaiah 40-55 came from some anonymous "Deutero-Isaiah" this doesn't mean Jesus never existed. On the other hand, if Alma 5 came from a former Methodist during the Second Great Awakening, that invalidates not only Alma 5 but the Book of Mormon as a whole, and it would mean that Lehi, Nephi, Alma, and the rest of the Nephite prophets never existed. So I agree with you -- comparing questions about Isaiah to questions about the Book of Mormon is not very useful.

[Mortal Man]

I can acknowledge that conservative evangelicals such as I bear some burden of proof if we wish to defend the unity of Isaiah. That's fine. I would also say that conservative Mormons bear some burden of proof if they wish to defend the antiquity of the Book of Mormon.

[altersteve]

Rob, my mistake. I should have read the entire discussion.

[Mortal Man]

Nobody said you saw it as a "knock out proof."...

But you thought the "evidence" was significant enough to mention in the recently uploaded FAIR youtube video.

You've given this example on many occasions, and it appears in your

Evidences of the Book of Mormon FARMS article quoted from below:

Dan's favorite Hebraism is the if/and conditional.

I've enjoyed, over the years, watching critics make various attempts to get rid of the "if/and" conditional. Their lack of success, thus far, is encouraging.

He apparently considers this to be the closest thing to a "knock out proof." Unfortunately for Dan, if/and conditionals don't actually exist..

Edited February 29, 2012 by Mortal Man

[Rob Bowman]

Wade,

You wrote:

It may be useful to examine more in-depth the two-step methodology Rob outlined for determining ancient/modern origins of texts. However since by his own admission step two doesn't apply to the Book of Mormon, it may prove more useful to examine Rob's so-called "working assumption".

"Admission" isn't the right word. The fact that the second step cannot apply to the Book of Mormon is bad for the Book of Mormon!

You wrote:

Aside from this being as clear a case that I can recall of the fallacy of arguing from silence, if not also shifting the burden of proof (the lack of evidence for antiquity is not evidence for the assumption of modernity), let's see how various books in the Bible fare respectively, particularly those in the new testament.

Stop for a minute. Do you take this approach to the Aquarian Gospel of Jesus the Christ? How about the Life of Issa? Is the lack of evidence for their antiquity not evidence of their modernity? Can we not say that the fact that the Life of Issa was totally unknown to the world until Notovitch claimed to have "translated" them from texts that still are not extant poses something of a serious objection to his claim?

You wrote:

Using Rob's step one, the earliest extant copy for the Gospel of John is the Rylands Papysus 52, which was first dated to "the first half of the 2nd century." The original transcription and translation of this text was in 1934. The writing on the papyrus was in Greek. And, to my knowledge, there are no external references to the Gospel of John or the bulk of the content of the fragment (Jn 18:31-33, 37, 38).

Using Rob's step two, since there is no "original-language manuscripts" of the Gospel of John, then "the working assumption of scholarly historians will be" that the Gospel of John was first written "the first half of the 2nd century."

You seem to be very confused. The papyrus you mention IS an "original-language manuscript" of the Gospel of John!

You wrote:

However, prior to 1934, it is uncertain what the earliest extant copy of the Gospel of John, but it likely dated to around the tenth century. If so, then prior to 1934, and according to Rob's assumption, the Gospel of John was first written around the tenth century.

No. We have to consider, as I already explained, both extant manuscript evidence and external attestation. We have a continuous stream of external attestation to the Gospel of John from writers of every century from the second century to the present. It was quoted in the writings of the apostolic fathers, later church fathers, medieval commentators and theologians, the Reformers, and biblical scholars in every year of the last two centuries. Codices from the fourth century containing the whole NT were discovered in the nineteenth century well before 1934. But again, there was a continuous history of external attestation, copying, translating, and circulation of the Gospel of John from the early second century to the present. Not only did copies circulate during the second, third, and fourth centuries, but it was translated into Coptic, Latin, and other languages; it was quoted by church fathers as well as heretics, so much so that practically every line of the Gospel can be found in their surviving writings.

You wrote:

As for the other books in the New Testament, because their earliest extant manuscripts are dated to as late as the fifth century, understandably they fare less favorably under Rob's assumption, thereby demonstrating its flaw.

You need to go do some serious reading on this subject. You don't know what you're talking about. There are extant manuscripts for every book of the NT long before the fifth century. Essentially complete, whole copies of the Gospels and most of the epistles date as far back as AD 200, and there are fragmentary manuscripts attesting portions of the NT writings earlier than that.

[Mortal Man]

Actually, I was trying to emphasize the literary and archeological nature of the parallels, and was premising the Egyptian nature of those parallels on the Book of Mormon itself claiming to have been written in Egyptian language.

Rob, whose side are you on?

Actually, like many other LDS scholars, I think that the language was Hebrew, and that "reformed Egyptian" signifies the script in which that language was written.

Why don't you and Dan get together and finally decide whether reformed Egyptian is actually a language or just a script?

Edited February 28, 2012 by Mortal Man

[volgadon]

My source states that the scholars are divided over the dating of the origins, with many leaning towards the 2nd century CE.

Who? Even Yehuda Liebes doesn't date it that early. Ronit Meroz has identified the oldest portion, assigining it to the early 11th c. CE, so I would love to know who these scholars are.

[Daniel Peterson]

Dan's favorite Hebraism is the if/and conditional.

He apparently considers this to be the closest thing to a "knock out proof."

I've never said that. But I do think it's pretty good.

I once read something you had written attacking it, but wasn't convinced and haven't really thought about what you wrote or, for that matter, about you since then.

However, he's been silent on the topic ever since this post.

Your characteristic self-importance is once again on display, I'm afraid.

I clicked hastily on your link just now, and what I saw there doesn't look at all familiar to me. I don't believe I've ever seen it before. Perhaps it's a reformatted rehash of the thing I read earlier?

I've been silent on most topics since most posts. Clearly, those posts caused my silence. In fact, come to think of it, I've been silent as a clam about Australian rugby, too (as well as about Japanese hibachi grilling, sego lilies, and the breeding habits of the Peregrine falcon), ever since the Central Coast Rays beat the Melbourne Rebels 20 to 12 in Bluetongue Central Coast Stadium on 13 October 2007. Although I had never heard of that game until I Googled "Australian Rugby" just now, it was clearly a pivotal moment in my life.

Why don't you and Dan get together and finally decide whether reformed Egyptian is actually a language or just a script?

Is there a rule somewhere requiring believing Latter-day Saints to agree on everything?

If so, I guess I missed it.

[Bill Hamblin]

Who? Even Yehuda Liebes doesn't date it that early. Ronit Meroz has identified the oldest portion, assigining it to the early 11th c. CE, so I would love to know who these scholars are.

I think it is based on the following.

1- The mythos of the Zohar says it was written by the 2nd century sage Shimon bar Yochai.

2- Lots of Ultra-Orthodox believe this.

3- I believe Kabbalah Center crowd accepts this claim.