A Hebraism In The Book Of Mormon

[zerinus]

If you analyzed that verse into its components like that, and tried to convert it back into Hebrew as if it had been from the KJV, what do you come up with in the end; is it something that sounds like genuine biblical Hebrew or not? If it does, then it is good evidence that it is of Hebrew origin. And if you did that with the whole of the Book of Mormon, and found a consistent pattern throughout, then that would be the strongest possible evidence of the Hebrew origin of the Book of Mormon. It may even be possible to computerise this process. Computer translation software has now become quite sophisticated. It may be that a good computer program already exists to translate Hebrew into English. If there is, it may be possible to tweak that software to make it translate the KJV back into Hebrew so that it does a perfect job of converting the KJV back into its original manuscript; and them feed the Book of Mormon into it, and see what comes out at the end. I think that that would be a good programming exercise for the clever computer programmers at BYU. If the results confirm the above, that would be a very strong evidence of the Hebraic origin of the BoM.

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.

How do you propose to conduct such a "statistical analysis"? My original suggestion made in post #142 was a serious one, and I hope LDS Hebrew scholars will take up the challenge, and put it to the test.

Talking about "statistical analysis," however, I thought of the following: One of the peculiar features of Semitic languages is the frequent use of the word "and" as a counter as well as a conjunction. Whereas in English we use commas (,) to separate a series of words and phrases, in Semitic languages they use "and;" hence the occurrence of "and" in a literal translation of a Hebrew (or Arabic) text into English should be much greater than a similar composition in native English; and if the Book of Mormon and OT KJV are both literal translations of a Semitic text, the occurrences of the word "and" in both of the should be roughly the same. And lo and behold, the results match the expectation perfectly. I have used Shakespeare as a comparison text for a composition in English. It belongs to the same time frame as the KJV, and uses the same idiomatic English and usage. Here are the results:

And here are some of the sources of the above figures:

http://www.biblebeli.../kjv-stats.html

http://www.opensourc...eare.org/stats/

http://wiki.answers...._of_Mormon_Have

I calculated the number of "and"s in each book using the WordCruncer software created by BYU.

[wenglund]

"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!

If by "bad" you mean the question of antiquity, from a secular perspective, is left open, then I suppose so. But, so what?

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?

I am not in the business of testing the antiquity of these works, and so I don't have an approach. What I am doing here, since you have made it your business, is testing YOUR secular approach.

However, in answer to your question, no, the lack of evidence for antiquity is not evidence for modernity--to think otherwise is to commit the fallacy of arguing from silence. The lack of evidence simply leaves the question of antiquity/modernity open.

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 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.

Not surprising, you are straining at the gnats and missing the point--which is, your assumption is not only logically flawed, but over time, with archaeological discoveries and the advancements in other soft sciences, your assumption is eventually proven false. In other words, there have been times in the somewhat distant past (pre-1900's) where the earliest known extant COPIES of biblical and other texts, some written in a different languages than the original text or oral tradition (do you really think that Jesus spoke in Greek, and do you really think that the Apostle John spoke and wrote in Greek?), were hundreds if not thousands of years distant from the times suggested in the texts, and were one to have applied your assumption at that time, then one would have concluded that those texts were more modern than ancient, only to learn latter on through archaeological discoveries, that their conclusion would have been false. In short, since your assumption would have been proven false over time, then your assumption is flawed. Did you get it that time?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Cobalt-70]

How do you propose to conduct such a "statistical analysis"? My original suggestion made in post #142 was a serious one, and I hope LDS Hebrew scholars will take up the challenge, and put it to the test.

Talking about "statistical analysis," however, I thought of the following: One of the peculiar features of Semitic languages is the frequent use of the word "and" as a counter as well as a conjunction. Whereas in English we use commas (,) to separate a series of words and phrases, in Semitic languages they use "and;" hence the occurrence of "and" in a literal translation of a Hebrew (or Arabic) text into English should be much greater than a similar composition in native English; and if the Book of Mormon and OT KJV are both literal translations of a Semitic text, the occurrences of the word "and" in both of the should be roughly the same. And lo and behold, the results match the expectation perfectly. I have used Shakespeare as a comparison text for a composition in English. It belongs to the same time frame as the KJV, and uses the same idiomatic English and usage. Here are the results:

And here are some of the sources of the above figures:

http://www.biblebeli.../kjv-stats.html

http://www.opensourc...eare.org/stats/

http://wiki.answers...._of_Mormon_Have

I calculated the number of "and"s in each book using the WordCruncer software created by BYU.

There is a fundamental flaw with this test. It fails to distinguish between Smith's mimicry of the Old Testament and Smith's actual translation of ancient Hebrew. You need a test that is sensitive enough to distinguish between those two theories.

This is why I proposed looking to any differences between the Isaiah and non-Isaiah parts of the Book of Mormon. Either both parts of the Book of Mormon came from an ancient Nephite record, written in encoded Hebrew, or the Isaiah parts came from the Bible (and originally from Hebrew) and the other parts came from God and/or Joseph Smith (possibly in imperfect mimicry of the KJV). There ought to be a way to distinguish, based on a comparison of how efficient Hebraisms are transmitted through the Isaiah parts versus through the non-Isaiah parts. If both parts come to us via ancient Hebrew, the frequency of Hebraisms ought to be comparable. If one part came to us via mimicry of the KJV, you would expect there to be fewer Hebraisms.

[wenglund]

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.

Correct. This is my source HERE (see #3)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited February 29, 2012 by wenglund

[volgadon]

Correct. This is my source HERE (see #3)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

After reading the link I would ask again, who are these "many leaning towards the 2nd century CE".

[DubaDNura]

I wrote earlier that Rakiah meant an interface. Calba Savua took me up on my offer to produce sources. I've spent a good deal of my free time over the last couple days coming up with sources for the meaning of Rakiah. Please tell me if I should post this stuff elsewhere. There's quite a debate that's occurring here about the Book of Mormon vis a vis 19th century English. I have no opinion about that debate, and I don't want to interrupt anything.

--

The term Rakiah is introduced in the Torah on the second day of creation. God says “Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.” Gen. 1:6. The next verse informs us that the firmament divided the upper waters from the lower waters. Rashi tells us that the Rakiah constitutes a rebuke. This is in line with the view that the first day of creation is associated with the sefirah (attribute) of Chesed/Kindness, while the second day is associated with Gevurah/Judgment or Separation (symbolized by the Rakiah, which separates between the waters above and below. The third day is associated with Tiferet/Beauty or Mercy (Kindness is shown absent a judgment; Mercy is shown after and in spite of a judgment).

The introduction to the Zohar, and Zohar on Parashat Breishit both spend some time talking about the Rakiah. Oddly, no set definition is offered for the Rakiah. Instead, the word seems to change meanings depending on the context. I would posit that the reason for this is that it is not a static concept, but rather an interface that separates and joins two concepts. For example, in the verse from Daniel (12:3), “The wise ones will shine like the shine of the firmament” (that is, like “Zohar haRakiah”), Rakiah is identified as the spreading of song (and specifically not with the song itself; Zohar is identified here with song). Zohar 15b. Literally a page later (Zohar 16a), the Zohar gives us yet another verse that contains the world Rakiah, and explains it quite differently: “The likeness of the firmament upon the heads of the living creature was as the color of the terrible crystal, stretched forth over their heads above” Yechezkel/Ezekiel 1:22. (By the way, this comes from the Merkavah narratives that were referred to earlier, and form the basis of the Kabbalistic Merkavah texts). There, the Zohar eventually says that the rakiah stands for the light that shines on top of the sages, the light of Torah that shines permanently, and never ceases.

Finally, 17b, the Zohar discusses the very first verse in the Torah to actually use the word Rakiah. There, it identifies rakiah with the concept of machloket – which means argument or separation. It then contrasts (as does Pirkei Avot 5:17) the machloket (argument) between Hillel and Shammai (identified here as a machloket that was for the sake of heaven, and therefore ascended up into eternity), and the machloket between Korach and Aaron (identified here as an argument that was not for the sake of heaven, and eventually caused Korach to descend into Gehinnom - Hell, for lack of a better translation, while still alive). At 17b, before going into such explanations, it says simply that the rakiah was the “first machloket – the arousal of anger, and the desire to separate.” If tells us that “G-d made the rakia, which was the machloket of love and desire (against anger and strength) – which sustains the world. This is the secret of Hillel and Shammai.” Here, the rakiah is invoked not as a static concept, but rather the interface that recognizes divisions that are inherent, and gives them meaning - much like how the debates that took place between the two Torah giants, Hillel and Shammai, were meaningful even unto themselves, regardless of the resolution of the conflicts offered throughout the Talmud. The argument is independently meaningful.

The Zohar continues, later (18a), “the waters above [the rakiah] are masculine; the waters below are feminine.” In an aside, this becomes a strong theme in the Zohar. The “waters above” refer frequently to any arousal that comes from above (ie., from G-d, like having a spiritual experience at a house of worship on a holiday), while the “waters below” refer to any arousal that comes from below (like from personal introspection). In terms of male and female, G-d is often referred to as the male, while created beings are referred to as the female, as if in a marriage.

The “masculine” waters and the “feminine” waters also refer to the first Hei of the Tetragrammaton and the second Hei of the Tetragrammaton (the 4 letter name of G-d, YHVH). Those two letters also refer to Binah (understanding) and Malchut (royalty, but in this case, it refers to the faculty of action or speech) respectively. While Binah is usually called feminine, the terms masculine and feminine in the Zohar (and in Kabbalah generally) refer to relationships rather than to static concepts. In this case, Binah influences Malchut. Binah, being the giver, is therefore called masculine. Here you see the clearest example of the rakiah being what I called before an interface. The rakiah, here, is the interface between thought and speech.

Other places, (for ex., Zohar 8b) identify the rakiah simply as the expanse where the sun, moon, and stars can be found. This is much more similar to the Talmud’s definition. Interestingly, the Talmud (Tractate Chagigah 12b) says that there are actually 7 Rakias (you’ve heard of “Seventh Heaven”; this is likely the source). They are named, Vilon, Rakiah, Shechakim, Zevul, Ma’on, Machon, and Aravot. Take a look at the Talmud there for more details. As you can see, one of the names of the 7 rakias is actually rakiah. See Sefer Yetzirah, Chapter 4, and some of the commentaries thereto, which also explain these 7 heavens. The list is from the bottom, up. That means that “rakiah,” or the 2^nd heaven, is identified with the sefirah of Yesod (compared identified with the tongue), which is explicitly an interface: the tongue is the interface that affects speech.

Ok, more to come. These are just sources on the concept of a rakiah, and why I called it an “interface.” I’m writing this mostly for Calba Savua’s benefit, and I suspect he’ll have less trouble than others with the jargon. But feel free to ask if there’s anything I didn’t explain well, or that needs clarification. I lurk frequently, even though its taken me some days to post. Next, I’ll probably tackle the relationship between music and keter/desire/pleasure. That will be fun. I may have to quote Rebbe Nachman of Breslav. Until now, I haven’t quoted anything Chassidic – only Kabbalistic.

[volgadon]

Next, I’ll probably tackle the relationship between music and keter/desire/pleasure. That will be fun. I may have to quote Rebbe Nachman of Breslav. Until now, I haven’t quoted anything Chassidic – only Kabbalistic.

I appreciate the sources! Funny thing is, I was just listening to a Breslav folk album.

[Rob Bowman]

Wade,

You wrote:

If by "bad" you mean the question of antiquity, from a secular perspective, is left open, then I suppose so. But, so what?

Not a "secular" perspective. I am not a secularist. Historical perspective.

Regarding other works appearing in modern times claiming to be translations of ancient works for which we have no texts, you commented:

I am not in the business of testing the antiquity of these works, and so I don't have an approach. What I am doing here, since you have made it your business, is testing YOUR secular approach.

However, in answer to your question, no, the lack of evidence for antiquity is not evidence for modernity--to think otherwise is to commit the fallacy of arguing from silence. The lack of evidence simply leaves the question of antiquity/modernity open.

If you don't have an approach that can be used with all such works, but only works for the Book of Mormon, then you are the one who operates by a double standard, not me, as you have been claiming through several threads.

"Lack of evidence for antiquity" is not an accurate description of the situation. The sudden appearance of a book from a single individual who claims it is based on a text that is not available for anyone to inspect is evidence of modern origin, not merely lack of evidence for antiquity. Thus the argument is not an argument from silence.

You wrote:

Not surprising, you are straining at the gnats and missing the point--which is, your assumption is not only logically flawed, but over time, with archaeological discoveries and the advancements in other soft sciences, your assumption is eventually proven false. In other words, there have been times in the somewhat distant past (pre-1900's) where the earliest known extant COPIES of biblical and other texts, some written in a different languages than the original text or oral tradition (do you really think that Jesus spoke in Greek, and do you really think that the Apostle John spoke and wrote in Greek?), were hundreds if not thousands of years distant from the times suggested in the texts, and were one to have applied your assumption at that time, then one would have concluded that those texts were more modern than ancient, only to learn latter on through archaeological discoveries, that their conclusion would have been false. In short, since your assumption would have been proven false over time, then your assumption is flawed. Did you get it that time?

I got it the first time, but you still haven't gotten the cumulative, holistic nature of my methodology. I don't consider the question of the age of the oldest extant manuscripts in isolation. Until the twentieth century our oldest Hebrew manuscripts for Isaiah dated from about the ninth century AD, but no one -- absolutely no one -- thought Isaiah originated in the ninth or even the eighth century AD. This is because, in addition to those oldest Hebrew manuscripts of Isaiah, we had translations of Isaiah written in Greek of the ancient Hellenistic era (which was and is clearly distinguishable from modern Greek) and attestations of Isaiah in the New Testament (which often quotes an early Greek version of Isaiah) and in Jewish and Christian literature dating from the first century AD and in every century thereafter. This meant that we had evidence of continuous knowledge of the book's existence from before the time of Christ right up to the present. This information pushed our knowledge of Isaiah's existence back a thousand years earlier than the earliest extant Hebrew manuscripts, narrowing the gap to five or six centuries. Furthermore, nothing about Isaiah raised suspicion that it might have been a fraudulent work produced, say, in the first century BC. Historians look at the circumstances of a book's emergence and take them into account. If a text actually exists, and its discovery raises no red flags, and the text generally seems to fit its claimed origin, then responsible historians accept the text as genuine unless further study uncovers evidence calling its claimed origin into question. But where no text exists other than a modern-language version that was produced under suspicious circumstances and that contains material of obvious modern origin, then responsible historians regard the book as a modern fiction unless proven otherwise.

[Magyar]

I am still here, the OP, just quite buried by all these profound arguments. My only contribution at this point could be that as I carefully read my way through each sentence of the Book of Mormon, I have found so many instances of the text matching New Testament passages, on virtually every page, that I must conclude that either Joseph Smith memorized virtually the entire New Testament ... or that the same Divine Author inspired both works.

[Magyar]

I wrote earlier that Rakiah meant an interface. Calba Savua took me up on my offer to produce sources. I've spent a good deal of my free time over the last couple days coming up with sources for the meaning of Rakiah. Please tell me if I should post this stuff elsewhere. There's quite a debate that's occurring here about the Book of Mormon vis a vis 19th century English. I have no opinion about that debate, and I don't want to interrupt anything.

--

The term Rakiah is introduced in the Torah on the second day of creation. God says “Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.” Gen. 1:6. The next verse informs us that the firmament divided the upper waters from the lower waters. Rashi tells us that the Rakiah constitutes a rebuke. This is in line with the view that the first day of creation is associated with the sefirah (attribute) of Chesed/Kindness, while the second day is associated with Gevurah/Judgment or Separation (symbolized by the Rakiah, which separates between the waters above and below. The third day is associated with Tiferet/Beauty or Mercy (Kindness is shown absent a judgment; Mercy is shown after and in spite of a judgment).

The introduction to the Zohar, and Zohar on Parashat Breishit both spend some time talking about the Rakiah. Oddly, no set definition is offered for the Rakiah. Instead, the word seems to change meanings depending on the context. I would posit that the reason for this is that it is not a static concept, but rather an interface that separates and joins two concepts. For example, in the verse from Daniel (12:3), “The wise ones will shine like the shine of the firmament” (that is, like “Zohar haRakiah”), Rakiah is identified as the spreading of song (and specifically not with the song itself; Zohar is identified here with song). Zohar 15b. Literally a page later (Zohar 16a), the Zohar gives us yet another verse that contains the world Rakiah, and explains it quite differently: “The likeness of the firmament upon the heads of the living creature was as the color of the terrible crystal, stretched forth over their heads above” Yechezkel/Ezekiel 1:22. (By the way, this comes from the Merkavah narratives that were referred to earlier, and form the basis of the Kabbalistic Merkavah texts). There, the Zohar eventually says that the rakiah stands for the light that shines on top of the sages, the light of Torah that shines permanently, and never ceases.

Finally, 17b, the Zohar discusses the very first verse in the Torah to actually use the word Rakiah. There, it identifies rakiah with the concept of machloket – which means argument or separation. It then contrasts (as does Pirkei Avot 5:17) the machloket (argument) between Hillel and Shammai (identified here as a machloket that was for the sake of heaven, and therefore ascended up into eternity), and the machloket between Korach and Aaron (identified here as an argument that was not for the sake of heaven, and eventually caused Korach to descend into Gehinnom - Hell, for lack of a better translation, while still alive). At 17b, before going into such explanations, it says simply that the rakiah was the “first machloket – the arousal of anger, and the desire to separate.” If tells us that “G-d made the rakia, which was the machloket of love and desire (against anger and strength) – which sustains the world. This is the secret of Hillel and Shammai.” Here, the rakiah is invoked not as a static concept, but rather the interface that recognizes divisions that are inherent, and gives them meaning - much like how the debates that took place between the two Torah giants, Hillel and Shammai, were meaningful even unto themselves, regardless of the resolution of the conflicts offered throughout the Talmud. The argument is independently meaningful.

The Zohar continues, later (18a), “the waters above [the rakiah] are masculine; the waters below are feminine.” In an aside, this becomes a strong theme in the Zohar. The “waters above” refer frequently to any arousal that comes from above (ie., from G-d, like having a spiritual experience at a house of worship on a holiday), while the “waters below” refer to any arousal that comes from below (like from personal introspection). In terms of male and female, G-d is often referred to as the male, while created beings are referred to as the female, as if in a marriage.

The “masculine” waters and the “feminine” waters also refer to the first Hei of the Tetragrammaton and the second Hei of the Tetragrammaton (the 4 letter name of G-d, YHVH). Those two letters also refer to Binah (understanding) and Malchut (royalty, but in this case, it refers to the faculty of action or speech) respectively. While Binah is usually called feminine, the terms masculine and feminine in the Zohar (and in Kabbalah generally) refer to relationships rather than to static concepts. In this case, Binah influences Malchut. Binah, being the giver, is therefore called masculine. Here you see the clearest example of the rakiah being what I called before an interface. The rakiah, here, is the interface between thought and speech.

Other places, (for ex., Zohar 8b) identify the rakiah simply as the expanse where the sun, moon, and stars can be found. This is much more similar to the Talmud’s definition. Interestingly, the Talmud (Tractate Chagigah 12b) says that there are actually 7 Rakias (you’ve heard of “Seventh Heaven”; this is likely the source). They are named, Vilon, Rakiah, Shechakim, Zevul, Ma’on, Machon, and Aravot. Take a look at the Talmud there for more details. As you can see, one of the names of the 7 rakias is actually rakiah. See Sefer Yetzirah, Chapter 4, and some of the commentaries thereto, which also explain these 7 heavens. The list is from the bottom, up. That means that “rakiah,” or the 2^nd heaven, is identified with the sefirah of Yesod (compared identified with the tongue), which is explicitly an interface: the tongue is the interface that affects speech.

Ok, more to come. These are just sources on the concept of a rakiah, and why I called it an “interface.” I’m writing this mostly for Calba Savua’s benefit, and I suspect he’ll have less trouble than others with the jargon. But feel free to ask if there’s anything I didn’t explain well, or that needs clarification. I lurk frequently, even though its taken me some days to post. Next, I’ll probably tackle the relationship between music and keter/desire/pleasure. That will be fun. I may have to quote Rebbe Nachman of Breslav. Until now, I haven’t quoted anything Chassidic – only Kabbalistic.

Thank you for this. Much food for thought.

[Mortal Man]

I do think it's pretty good.

I... haven't really thought about what you wrote

Of course, your latter statement explains your former statement.

[wenglund]

After reading the link I would ask again, who are these "many leaning towards the 2nd century CE".

You will have to ask the author of the linked website. I only have a slight acquaintance with the Zohar and it's history, and so I am relying on what others have said. I haven't staked out a position one way or another. In addition to my linked source, here are two other links: HERE and HERE. I can't vouch for their credibility.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[DubaDNura]

You will have to ask the author of the linked website. I only have a slight acquaintance with the Zohar and it's history, and so I am relying on what others have said. I haven't staked out a position one way or another. In addition to my linked source, here are two other links: HERE and HERE. I can't vouch for their credibility.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I don't know anything about Kabbalah.com. Chabad.org is reputable. It is affiliated with the Chabad-Lubavitch Chassidic movement, a mainstream Jewish Orthodox movement. The authorship of the Zohar was the subject of quite a debate between Rabbi Jacob Emden and Rabbi Jonathan Eibschutzh, both major Jewish figures in the 1700s. Emden believed that the Zohar was not written by Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai, but rather by a much later compiler. That debate continues until today. Orthodox Jews generally believe that the Zohar was written at least in large part by Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai, and to some extent by his followers - with some parts completed one or two generations later. Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai was one of the authors of the Mishnah. He lived in the 1st century, AD. You can guess what my opinion is, based on how often I quote the Zohar on this forum.

[wenglund]

Not a "secular" perspective. I am not a secularist. Historical perspective.

The term "secular" was in reference to your approach, not your belief system. I can see that you lack the capacity to grasp the difference, but that is your problem, not mine.

History and textual analysis and so forth are secular approaches used by secularists and religionists alike.

If you don't have an approach that can be used with all such works, but only works for the Book of Mormon, then you are the one who operates by a double standard, not me, as you have been claiming through several threads.

Since I don't personally employ a secular approach to determine the antiquity of the Book of Mormon (rather, my approach is spiritual, as outlined in the Book of Mormon), your hypothetical isn't relevant.

"Lack of evidence for antiquity" is not an accurate description of the situation.

It was informal shorthand for step two of your secular approach. I hesitated using it thinking it may be a nit you could pick so as to completely miss the point, but I decided to give you the benefit of the doubt. My mistake.

The sudden appearance of a book from a single individual who claims it is based on a text that is not available for anyone to inspect is evidence of modern origin, not merely lack of evidence for antiquity. Thus the argument is not an argument from silence.

Of course it is. Rephrase things however you wish, your assumption, in relation to your step two, is still the fallacy of arguing from silence. An assertion of modernity bears its own burden of proof, and that burden is not, in a rational sense, satisfied by the failure of the text to qualify under your previously stated step two. Sorry.

I would have thought this would have been made self-evident to you with the biblical and other examples I have mentioned, but apparently not. I could also bring up the issue of oral traditions, which don't qualify under your step two, but given your past performance, it would probably be a waste of both our time. You seem intent on holding desperately to your position regardless, and so I won't bother.

I got it the first time, but you still haven't gotten the cumulative, holistic nature of my methodology.

From what you have said above, clearly you still don't get it, and that is okay. You evidently cant keep straight in you mind when I am speaking to your methodology in general, or specific aspects of your methodology, and this in spite of my explicit and specific clarifications. Oh well...

I don't consider the question of the age of the oldest extant manuscripts in isolation.

By your own words, your assumption of modernity (which is the specific point I was addressing) is based solely on the failure of a text to qualify under your step two.

Until the twentieth century our oldest Hebrew manuscripts for Isaiah dated from about the ninth century AD, but no one -- absolutely no one -- thought Isaiah originated in the ninth or even the eighth century AD. This is because, in addition to those oldest Hebrew manuscripts of Isaiah, we had translations of Isaiah written in Greek of the ancient Hellenistic era (which was and is clearly distinguishable from modern Greek) and attestations of Isaiah in the New Testament (which often quotes an early Greek version of Isaiah) and in Jewish and Christian literature dating from the first century AD and in every century thereafter. This meant that we had evidence of continuous knowledge of the book's existence from before the time of Christ right up to the present. This information pushed our knowledge of Isaiah's existence back a thousand years earlier than the earliest extant Hebrew manuscripts, narrowing the gap to five or six centuries. Furthermore, nothing about Isaiah raised suspicion that it might have been a fraudulent work produced, say, in the first century BC. Historians look at the circumstances of a book's emergence and take them into account. If a text actually exists, and its discovery raises no red flags, and the text generally seems to fit its claimed origin, then responsible historians accept the text as genuine unless further study uncovers evidence calling its claimed origin into question. But where no text exists other than a modern-language version that was produced under suspicious circumstances and that contains material of obvious modern origin, then responsible historians regard the book as a modern fiction unless proven otherwise.

That is all well and good. However, it doesn't support the specific assumption in question, but in a way it draws that assumption further into question--whether you see it or not. Way to go!

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited February 29, 2012 by wenglund

[zerinus]

There is a fundamental flaw with this test. It fails to distinguish between Smith's mimicry of the Old Testament and Smith's actual translation of ancient Hebrew. You need a test that is sensitive enough to distinguish between those two theories.

This is why I proposed looking to any differences between the Isaiah and non-Isaiah parts of the Book of Mormon. Either both parts of the Book of Mormon came from an ancient Nephite record, written in encoded Hebrew, or the Isaiah parts came from the Bible (and originally from Hebrew) and the other parts came from God and/or Joseph Smith (possibly in imperfect mimicry of the KJV). There ought to be a way to distinguish, based on a comparison of how efficient Hebraisms are transmitted through the Isaiah parts versus through the non-Isaiah parts. If both parts come to us via ancient Hebrew, the frequency of Hebraisms ought to be comparable. If one part came to us via mimicry of the KJV, you would expect there to be fewer Hebraisms.

And how do you propose to carry out such a "test"? You are long on suggestions and short on nuts and bolts. And who is to say that if such a test was successfully carried out, that you would not attribute it to Joseph Smith's "mimicry of the KJV"?

[volgadon]

I don't know anything about Kabbalah.com. Chabad.org is reputable. It is affiliated with the Chabad-Lubavitch Chassidic movement, a mainstream Jewish Orthodox movement. The authorship of the Zohar was the subject of quite a debate between Rabbi Jacob Emden and Rabbi Jonathan Eibschutzh, both major Jewish figures in the 1700s. Emden believed that the Zohar was not written by Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai, but rather by a much later compiler. That debate continues until today. Orthodox Jews generally believe that the Zohar was written at least in large part by Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai, and to some extent by his followers - with some parts completed one or two generations later. Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai was one of the authors of the Mishnah. He lived in the 1st century, AD. You can guess what my opinion is, based on how often I quote the Zohar on this forum.

There have been a few notable Orthodox figures in recent, such as , R. Yosef Qafih, vehemently opposed to the Zohar, but they are a minority. I think that Wade might have assumed that chabad.org meant secular academics when refering to scholars, rather than rabbinical scholars.

[Rob Bowman]

Wade,

You wrote:

The term "secular" was in reference to your approach, not your belief system. I can see that you lack the capacity to grasp the difference, but that is your problem, not mine.

I understand the distinction, but the difference is irrelevant if you use the term "secular" as a pejorative for an academically responsible historical approach. That is, if by "secular" you mean an approach that excludes the miraculous, divine revelation, and so forth, then my approach is not secular. However, you wrote:

History and textual analysis and so forth are secular approaches used by secularists and religionists alike.

Including Mormons, when it suits them. Therefore, by your reasoning, Mormon scholars who engage in such studies are using "secular approaches."

You wrote:

Since I don't personally employ a secular approach to determine the antiquity of the Book of Mormon (rather, my approach is spiritual, as outlined in the Book of Mormon), your hypothetical isn't relevant.

You will object, but what this seems to mean is that in your approach facts or evidence don't matter. Feel free to backpedal.

You wrote:

Of course it is. Rephrase things however you wish, your assumption, in relation to your step two, is still the fallacy of arguing from silence. An assertion of modernity bears its own burden of proof, and that burden is not, in a rational sense, satisfied by the failure of the text to qualify under your previously stated step two. Sorry.

I'm not inclined to beat my head against the wall with you on this issue. Asserting that an ancient text that no one seems to have known anything about before the 1820s and that has never been available for inspection even existed is a claim that bears some burden of proof!

You wrote:

By your own words, your assumption of modernity (which is the specific point I was addressing) is based solely on the failure of a text to qualify under your step two.

False, and indeed so egregiously false that further attempts to explain historical method to you are obviously going to be fruitless.

[Mike Reed]

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

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

Good work, MM. I think it is also interesting that Dan claimed this was almost certainly a hebriasm, since such language would otherwise be poor grammar in English. And yet... Dan has also asserted,

"But Joseph Smith was very unsophisticated linguistically. He barely had a handle on written English. He could not have possibly forecasted something like this or known about it. It simply was beyond his capacity."

I like how you opened the blog entry with the Holland quote. I noticed this article from Elder Nelson the other day: http://www.lds.org/ensign/1993/07/a-treasured-testament?lang=eng

[DubaDNura]

There have been a few notable Orthodox figures in recent, such as , R. Yosef Qafih, vehemently opposed to the Zohar, but they are a minority. I think that Wade might have assumed that chabad.org meant secular academics when refering to scholars, rather than rabbinical scholars.

Right. It wouldn't be accurate to say that the matter is settled. But the mainstream Orthodox position is that the Zohar is authoritative. I don't know much about what secular academics believe.

[Cobalt-70]

I am still here, the OP, just quite buried by all these profound arguments. My only contribution at this point could be that as I carefully read my way through each sentence of the Book of Mormon, I have found so many instances of the text matching New Testament passages, on virtually every page, that I must conclude that either Joseph Smith memorized virtually the entire New Testament ... or that the same Divine Author inspired both works.

That's a quite different issue, because the New Testament was written originally in Greek and the KJV has "Greekisms." How did those get preserved while the ancient Nephite writer wrote in Egyptian-encoded Hebrew?

[Cobalt-70]

And how do you propose to carry out such a "test"? You are long on suggestions and short on nuts and bolts. And who is to say that if such a test was successfully carried out, that you would not attribute it to Joseph Smith's "mimicry of the KJV"?

This is just a rough sketch of an idea. I have no plans to actually do it, and a lot of details would have to be worked out. And I have no idea what the result would be. But certainly there would be some amount of Hebraisms in the non-Isaiah parts of the Book of Mormon, even if they are due to mimicry of the KJV. It would not be evidence of some ancient Hebrew source unless the Isaiah and non-Isaiah parts have nearly the same density of Hebraisism.

[volgadon]

Right. It wouldn't be accurate to say that the matter is settled. But the mainstream Orthodox position is that the Zohar is authoritative.

The only ones in the Orthodox world arguing differently are those who take a particular stance in regards to the Rambam.

I don't know much about what secular academics believe.

The commonly accepted explanation is the one favoured by Scholem, the Zohar being almost entirely a creation of R. Moshe de Leon. Originally roposed by Yehuda Liebes, a different idea has been gaining traction. According to it, R. Moshe de Leon wasn't the sole author, the Zohar growing out of the writings of a circle of Kabbalists in Christian Spain. Both Liebes and Moshe Idel have been showing that many ideas, concpets and even phrases used by the Zohar go back much further, and Ronit Meroz has been identifying different layers in what grew to be the Zohar. Not saying you ought to believe in any of that, but figured I'd offer a brief overview of the secular academic beliefs.

Edited March 1, 2012 by volgadon

[zerinus]

This is just a rough sketch of an idea. I have no plans to actually do it, and a lot of details would have to be worked out. And I have no idea what the result would be. But certainly there would be some amount of Hebraisms in the non-Isaiah parts of the Book of Mormon, even if they are due to mimicry of the KJV. It would not be evidence of some ancient Hebrew source unless the Isaiah and non-Isaiah parts have nearly the same density of Hebraisism.

Methinks you don't know what you are talking about. The book of Isaiah is prophetic/poetic literature. It is a completely different kind of literature from, say, the book of Chronicles, or Deuteronomy, or proverbs etc., or indeed other parts of the Book of Mormon. They have different literary qualities and characteristics. What you demand is like saying that the book of Job should have the same "density of Hebraism" as the book of Esther--without having a clue what kind of "Hebraisms" you are talking about. Your argument is becoming sillier and sillier by the minute. The Book of Mormon is true. It is a literal translation from an ancient Hebrew text. There are as many Hebraisms in it as there are in the Bible, which can be demonstrated in many ways, especially the ways that I had outlined in my earlier posts.

Edited March 1, 2012 by zerinus

[wenglund]

There have been a few notable Orthodox figures in recent, such as , R. Yosef Qafih, vehemently opposed to the Zohar, but they are a minority. I think that Wade might have assumed that chabad.org meant secular academics when refering to scholars, rather than rabbinical scholars.

Just to clarify, I didn't have any specific set of scholars in mind.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

I understand the distinction, but the difference is irrelevant if you use the term "secular" as a pejorative for an academically responsible historical approach.

I wasn't using it as a pejorative. I was using it as a descriptor (can you not get anything right?). And, of course the distinction is relevant. To think otherwise is to not really understand the distinction.

That is, if by "secular" you mean an approach that excludes the miraculous, divine revelation, and so forth, then my approach is not secular.

This was explained to you before. You obviously didn't get it then, and likely never will. Oh well...

Including Mormons, when it suits them. Therefore, by your reasoning, Mormon scholars who engage in such studies are using "secular approaches."

Obviously. However, they are using "secular approaches" to answer the secular attacks on their faith, and not as a basis for faith. That is an important distinction between them and you, and a distinction that you also will likely not grasp.

You will object, but what this seems to mean is that in your approach facts or evidence don't matter. Feel free to backpedal.

What this really means is that you just unwittingly provided further evidence that you haven't a clue.

I'm not inclined to beat my head against the wall with you on this issue. Asserting that an ancient text that no one seems to have known anything about before the 1820s and that has never been available for inspection even existed is a claim that bears some burden of proof!

Yes, there certainly is a wall, and I will leave it at that.

False, and indeed so egregiously false that further attempts to explain historical method to you are obviously going to be fruitless.

Now that's funny, though it is good news in a way. ;good:

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited March 1, 2012 by wenglund