A Hebraism In The Book Of Mormon

[Bill Hamblin]

Bill,

I had issued a CFR for your claim that I had not answered some of your questions. Your reply began by citing a question from post #312. However, in post #301, you wrote:

Here is the first question you claim I didn't answer:

Here was my response, from post #321:

There you have my answer. "This law" means the instruction that Moses received from the Lord and that he delivered first orally to the people and then in writing. That written instruction was later incorporated into a narrative framework in the book that we know as Deuteronomy.

You wrote:

I replied, again in post #321:

That was in reference to the following statement I made to you in post #275:

Although I stuck to my guns and refused to allow the discussion to be derailed into a debate over biblical inerrancy, I did comment in post #321 on the meaning of 2 Chronicles 34:14, as follows:

You wrote:

Okay, I didn't answer these questions.

Where was the part that was authentically Mosaic? Written down on one or more scrolls and kept in the custody of the priests; at some point the book of Deuteronomy was written with Moses' instruction incorporated into that book, and the whole book evidently kept in the temple once it was built.

Where in the Bible is Deuteronomy mentioned before the late seventh century? Well, of course it is not mentioned by that name, but it is mentioned several times in connection with Joshua (Josh. 1:8; 8:31-34; 23:6). By the way, Joshua 24:26 indicates that statutes and rules were added by Joshua to the Book of the Law of God. This statement would appear to be as clear an indication as anything that the Torah was not understood to be a static text completed by Moses and unedited afterward. The verse may be referring to a written record of what was said by Joshua at that time, material that was later to become part of the book we call the book of Joshua. According to Kings, several kings were aware of the law found in Deuteronomy, including David and Solomon in the tenth century (1 Kings 2:3), Jehu in the ninth century (2 Kings 10:31), and Amaziah in the eighth century (2 Kings 14:6). If we accept these statements at face value, Kings does not lead us to believe that Deuteronomy was "lost" for centuries and then out of the blue discovered in the seventh century. Rather, it specifically tells us about kings who knew about that book in the tenth, ninth, and eighth centuries, and leads us to believe that the book was neglected in the temple for some time prior to Josiah but after Amaziah.

You wrote:

But I had already written in post #269:

As you can see, I had already replied to the first premise of your question by pointing out that 2 Kings does not say everyone was shocked by the contents of the book. Repeating it doesn't make it so. 2 Kings also does not say they had never performed Passover as commanded by the book, but that they had not done so since the time of the judges. So both of the premises of your question were false. Your question, in any case, is rather silly: people have been ignoring instructions and laws in the Bible and governments have been ignoring laws in their own constitutions and codes from time immemorial.

You wrote:

You asked that question in the same post in which you falsely asserted that I was not answering your questions. When I said I had been answering most or all of your questions, I was of course referring to questions asked in posts earlier than that accusation.

For my answer to that question, see above.

I have no interest in quibbling with you about whether you answered my questions or not. I said I misspoke and that I meant you didn't answer all my questions, which you here admit you didn't. What is the point of this? I will note that saying you will not answer my question is not answering my question.

[Bill Hamblin]

Okay, I didn't answer these questions.

Where was the part that was authentically Mosaic? Written down on one or more scrolls and kept in the custody of the priests; at some point the book of Deuteronomy was written with Moses' instruction incorporated into that book, and the whole book evidently kept in the temple once it was built.

This is, of course, pure speculation. Evidence please? The correct answer is that we don't know.

Edited March 8, 2012 by Bill Hamblin

[Bill Hamblin]

There you have my answer. "This law" means the instruction that Moses received from the Lord and that he delivered first orally to the people and then in writing. That written instruction was later incorporated into a narrative framework in the book that we know as Deuteronomy.

So Moses did write the portions of Deuteronomy that are explicitly attributed to him. "This Law" refers to those Mosaic portions of Deuteronomy, correct?

[Bill Hamblin]

As you can see, I had already replied to the first premise of your question by pointing out that 2 Kings does not say everyone was shocked by the contents of the book. Repeating it doesn't make it so. 2 Kings also does not say they had never performed Passover as commanded by the book, but that they had not done so since the time of the judges. So both of the premises of your question were false. Your question, in any case, is rather silly: people have been ignoring instructions and laws in the Bible and governments have been ignoring laws in their own constitutions and codes from time immemorial.

So you are saying that Josiah rending his clothes (2 Chr. 34:19-21; 2 Kgs. 22:11-13) does not represent shock? He' not saying, "yeah, we knew that but we just didn't do it." He's saying "we had no idea we were supposed to do this."

[Rob Bowman]

Bill,

You wrote:

I have no interest in quibbling with you about whether you answered my questions or not. I said I misspoke and that I meant you didn't answer all my questions, which you here admit you didn't. What is the point of this? I will note that saying you will not answer my question is not answering my question.

So predictable. Why Bill, I think I'm starting to get to know you.

Bill, you insisted that I had not answered your most important questions. I asked you which questions I hadn't answered so I could make sure I didn't miss any. It turns out that most of the questions you claimed I didn't answer I had in fact answered. Those that I could see that I had not answered, I then answered. If you don't care whether I answered your questions or not then don't keep finding new ways to dress up the same criticism.

With regard to your three most recent posts, I'm done submitting to the third degree, since I don't appreciate having my responses dismissed as quibbles or followed up with simply more questions -- particularly on a subject concerning which you are not prepared to venture a clear opinion of your own.

[Bill Hamblin]

2 Kings also does not say they had never performed Passover as commanded by the book, but that they had not done so since the time of the judges. So both of the premises of your question were false. Your question, in any case, is rather silly: people have been ignoring instructions and laws in the Bible and governments have been ignoring laws in their own constitutions and codes from time immemorial.

2 Chr. 23:18

No Passover like it had been kept in Israel since the days of Samuel the prophet. None of the kings of Israel had kept such a Passover as was kept by Josiah, and the priests and the Levites, and all Judah and Israel who were present, and the inhabitants of Jerusalem

The point is that the people of Josiah had no idea they were supposed to keep passover as described in Deuteronomy. None of the kings had done it.

The argument that they knew the Law, but just decided not to keep it is belied by the fact that Josiah rent his garments. If he'd known about these laws all along, why would the discovery of the Laws cause him such distress. The problem was it was all new to him.

And, note, that in fact Samuel could not have kept the passover as ordered by Deuteronomy, because Deuteronomy requires a pilgrimage to the Jerusalem temple (Dt. 16:5-6 "You may not offer the Passover sacrifice within any of your towns that the LORD your God is giving you, but at the place that the LORD your God will choose, to make his name dwell in it, there you shall offer the Passover sacrifice,"), and it had not been built in the days of Samuel, so clearly Chronicles is hypothesizing here.

Edited March 8, 2012 by Bill Hamblin

[Bill Hamblin]

Bill,

You wrote:

So predictable. Why Bill, I think I'm starting to get to know you.

Bill, you insisted that I had not answered your most important questions. I asked you which questions I hadn't answered so I could make sure I didn't miss any. It turns out that most of the questions you claimed I didn't answer I had in fact answered. Those that I could see that I had not answered, I then answered. If you don't care whether I answered your questions or not then don't keep finding new ways to dress up the same criticism.

With regard to your three most recent posts, I'm done submitting to the third degree, since I don't appreciate having my responses dismissed as quibbles or followed up with simply more questions -- particularly on a subject concerning which you are not prepared to venture a clear opinion of your own.

OK. I'll let the readers decide if you are dodging and obfuscating or not.

As to the question, I answered honestly that I don't know. That is my "clear opinion." I don't know a lot of things. But I'm not sure what difference it would make in this particular issue.

Edited March 8, 2012 by Bill Hamblin

[Ares]

So predictable. Why Bill, I think I'm starting to get to know you.

You were told no more personal sniping. You seem to have a very difficult time repsecting others as you demand they respect you.

[Bill Hamblin]

Bill,

You wrote:

So predictable. Why Bill, I think I'm starting to get to know you.

Bill, you insisted that I had not answered your most important questions. I asked you which questions I hadn't answered so I could make sure I didn't miss any. It turns out that most of the questions you claimed I didn't answer I had in fact answered. Those that I could see that I had not answered, I then answered. If you don't care whether I answered your questions or not then don't keep finding new ways to dress up the same criticism.

With regard to your three most recent posts, I'm done submitting to the third degree, since I don't appreciate having my responses dismissed as quibbles or followed up with simply more questions -- particularly on a subject concerning which you are not prepared to venture a clear opinion of your own.

So predictable.

I am not asking these questions because I am trying to harass you. I am asking because you consistently obfuscate and dodge the questions. And no, merely responding to a question is not necessarily answering a question.

Edited March 8, 2012 by Bill Hamblin

[Rob Bowman]

Ares,

I attempted to post this response once and it apparently didn't go through,

The original qualified apology went through. It was deleted due to a mild but still present argument with me about you using sarcasm instead of sniping. This is enough discussion about each other or the moderation. Everyone needs to stick to the topic, make a good faith effort to address each other and each others questions. - Ares

Edited March 8, 2012 by Ares

[Rob Bowman]

Bill,

You wrote:

So predictable.

Uh-oh.

You wrote:

I am not asking these questions because I am trying to harass you. I am asking because you consistently obfuscate and dodge the questions. And no, merely responding to a question is not necessarily answering a question.

Bill, I have done my best to answer your questions. I have answered numerous questions from you and to the best of my ability I have answered them directly and honestly. I have sought to clarify, not to obfuscate. Yet not only do you claim that I have not always done so, but you claim the opposite -- that I "consistently obfuscate and dodge the questions." That's pretty hard to take. It's also awfully hard to see any point in trying further given such a blanket accusation that in all candor I am sure is simply false and unfair. For that reason, I respectfully decline to continue this exchange with you.

[Bill Hamblin]

Bill,

You wrote:

Uh-oh.

You wrote:

Bill, I have done my best to answer your questions. I have answered numerous questions from you and to the best of my ability I have answered them directly and honestly. I have sought to clarify, not to obfuscate. Yet not only do you claim that I have not always done so, but you claim the opposite -- that I "consistently obfuscate and dodge the questions." That's pretty hard to take. It's also awfully hard to see any point in trying further given such a blanket accusation that in all candor I am sure is simply false and unfair. For that reason, I respectfully decline to continue this exchange with you.

OK. But it was just getting interesting.

I do find it amusing that your obfuscation is blamed on me asking questions.

Edited March 8, 2012 by Bill Hamblin

[Robert F. Smith]

Where in the Bible is Deuteronomy mentioned before the late seventh century? Well, of course it is not mentioned by that name, but it is mentioned several times in connection with Joshua (Josh. 1:8; 8:31-34; 23:6). By the way, Joshua 24:26 indicates that statutes and rules were added by Joshua to the Book of the Law of God. This statement would appear to be as clear an indication as anything that the Torah was not understood to be a static text completed by Moses and unedited afterward. The verse may be referring to a written record of what was said by Joshua at that time, material that was later to become part of the book we call the book of Joshua. According to Kings, several kings were aware of the law found in Deuteronomy, including David and Solomon in the tenth century (1 Kings 2:3), Jehu in the ninth century (2 Kings 10:31), and Amaziah in the eighth century (2 Kings 14:6). If we accept these statements at face value, Kings does not lead us to believe that Deuteronomy was "lost" for centuries and then out of the blue discovered in the seventh century. Rather, it specifically tells us about kings who knew about that book in the tenth, ninth, and eighth centuries, and leads us to believe that the book was neglected in the temple for some time prior to Josiah but after Amaziah.

Since the Deuteronomic Historian is seen as the author/redactor of the books of Joshua through Kings, there should be no surprise at references to Deut in those books -- even if the final form of these books is often supposed to be post-exilic. There is wisdom in positing a core of older traditions of Tora, even though scholars such as David P. Wright see the Covenant Code in Exodus as having been composed during the Assyrian period and based directly on the Code of Hammurabi (see Wright, Inventing God's Law [Oxford Univ. Press, 2009]), i.e., in the pre-exilic period.

I think that you are quite right to take this more nuanced view of Deuteronomy as having been edited and added to over time, even if there is some disagreement as to when and which portions were added. Most see the oldest portion, the core, as Deut 12 - 26 (Deuteronomic Code) with the Decalogue in chapter 5 (part of a section with chapters 4 - 11). Chapters 1 - 3, 27 - 30, and 31 - 34 are usually seen as post-exilic additions (with some very archaic poems inserted 32 - 33). Patrick D. Miller, Deuteronomy (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1990), and Duane L. Christensen's entry on Deut in Watson Mills, ed., Mercer Dictionary of the Bible (Macon: Mercer Univ. Press, 1990/1991), 211-212, cover that fairly well, suggesting that Deut has an ABCBA "ring structure."

[Robert F. Smith]

Posted 6 days ago

Rob Bowman, on 01 March 2012 - 05:09 PM, said:

Yes, they were originally written in Hebrew, and Moses, being a Hebrew, would have written in Hebrew. But careful about making assumptions about what other people believe; I don't take the position that the Pentateuch passed through the millennium after Moses with no editing.

Yes. However, for various reasons it was always known that the OT was originally written in Hebrew (with portions in Aramaic). Recent discoveries and studies have led OT scholars to the view that in some places the Greek versions may contain readings that reflect an older textual tradition than the MT (Masoretic Text), but in general the MT has held up extremely well.

Robert F. Smith, on 02 March 2012 - 11:58 AM, said:

We speak today of "Hebrew" and "Edomite" and "Moabite" and "Sidonian" and the like being spoken during the Classical Israelite period. Yet, in fact, these were merely dialects of Canaanite. Indeed, the Israelites never term their own language "Hebrew" in the Bible, Instead they refer to their language as the "language of Canaan" (Isa 19:18). As used biblically, the term "Hebrew" is an ethnicon of some sort (controversial) applied long before anything like a "Hebrew" language or dialect came into use during the Classical biblical period (biblical Hebrew).

So, Moses did not speak Hebrew, but perhaps some form of proto-Hebrew in line with Late Bronze Age Canaanite, perhaps on par with Ugaritic, which may or may not have been close to the dialect used by the Midianites among whom Moses came to live.

Thus, except for some very archaic poetry, the Pentateuch is written in a language which has been modernized from that which Moses would have been familiar. The transmission, updating, and redaction of the primeval history and Mosaic Law therefore comes to fit very well the sort of description given in general by the Documentary Hypothesis -- just as it does for the Book of Mormon. Using "modern" idiom in that sense does not challenge the authenticity of the text, but it does complicate matters.

Robert,

Your comments about Hebrew aren't so much incorrect as they are misleading. It's like saying that Beowulf wasn't written in English because the people in England at the time were really Germanic peoples and "Old English" was really a West Germanic language. If I understand you correctly, you were comparing the difference between the English Book of Mormon and the supposed language of the gold plates (whatever that might have been) to the updating of the Pentateuch's language. However, this is not an apt comparison. The updating of the Pentateuch's language to classical Hebrew is more like producing a modern English version of Beowulf, not like translating Reformed Egyptian (or whatever it was) into modern English.

Rob

I had no such grand objective in view. I merely sought to correct the inaccurate notion which you and others had expressed on this thread that the OT was originally written in Hebrew, or that Moses spoke Hebrew. It was not, and he did not. Moses most likely spoke a form of Late Bronze Age Canaanite, which at that time had case endings and certain vowels unknown to later, Iron Age Canaanite spoken by Israel and its neighbors -- which we (and not the ancient Israelites) now call biblical Hebrew, but which reads not differently from say 8th century B.C. Moabite or Phoenician.

Your comparison of an ancient version of Beowulf is apt, since it would be completely foreign to any user of modern English until fully modernized or "translated" into modern English. The same would apply to any sort of conversation between any King of Judah and Moses: communication would fail completely. I'm glad you face the stark reality that this required major updating and modernization over time -- quite aside from the editing and redacting process, which I am also pleased to find that you do not reject. This has nothing to do with reformed Egyptian.

[Robert F. Smith]

Essays in the FARMS Review quite cheerfully compare and contrast patterns of evidence and models for both views. For instance:

That is Mark Ashurst McGee here:

http://maxwellinstit...15&num=2&id=513

Steven Harper's review takes a similar approach, comparing Palmer with material from the King Benjamin's Speech volume:

Harper writing here:

http://maxwellinstit...15&num=2&id=512

And there are others. In 1987, Blake Ostler reviewed such arguments in Dialogue. More recently, Duffy goes through the motions of doing comparing pro and con in Sunstone in The Mapping Mormon Issues essay on the Book of Mormon, though I'm not impressed with his efforts, for various reasons.

I've done side by side comparisons or pro and con arguments myself in 1995 with respect to King Benjamin's discourse in "Paradigms Crossed."

http://maxwellinstit...=7&num=2&id=193

I should have also mentioned that LDS Mesoamericanist scholar, Mark Wright, who occasionally posts as Hashbaz, has pointed out the relevance of the San Bartelo murals, which date to around the same time as Benjamin's discourse, are located just outside of Book of Mormon lands, and depicts a similar coronation on a tower.

In all of the reading I have done of LDS defenses of the Book of Mormon, as well as of critical attacks, I have found that I consistently learn far far more about the critical arguments from the defenders than I learn of the defenders arguments from the critics. This is a natural result of the higher investment the LDS have. We live in the house, and therefore, take more time to tidy up, weed the gardens, and deal with the issues. Those engaged in boundary maintenance or self-justification often just want to close a gate and say, "Nothing to see here folks, move along." That was the point of the famous essay on "Loosing the Battle and Not Knowing it," that most Evangelical authors didn't bother to engage current LDS scholarship. The New Mormon Challenge tried to remedy that, and it looks like you are trying here. But the overall trend is clear.

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Right on target, Kevin!!

Evangelical scholars themselves regularly refer to the same ancient concepts in biblical literature, but sometimes neglect to admit their real views in a polemic situation (I'm glad that Rob is willing to share his actual views). An example is from the source just cited by Rob in the Journal for Evangelical Theology, 44/3 (Sept 2001):391, in which an evangelical scholar says that in Deuteronomy Moses "dictates the curses that are to be recited and responded to in Israel’s covenant renewal ceremony (27:12–26)," which is an important issue in King Benjamin's Speech as well. See it online at http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/44/44-3/44-3-PP385-408_JETS.pdf . The mainstream scholarship employed by Mormon researchers has made all the difference in disclosing the true nature of the Book of Mormon.

[wenglund]

Posted 6 days ago

Rob Bowman, on 01 March 2012 - 05:09 PM, said:

Yes, they were originally written in Hebrew, and Moses, being a Hebrew, would have written in Hebrew. But careful about making assumptions about what other people believe; I don't take the position that the Pentateuch passed through the millennium after Moses with no editing.

Yes. However, for various reasons it was always known that the OT was originally written in Hebrew (with portions in Aramaic). Recent discoveries and studies have led OT scholars to the view that in some places the Greek versions may contain readings that reflect an older textual tradition than the MT (Masoretic Text), but in general the MT has held up extremely well.

Robert F. Smith, on 02 March 2012 - 11:58 AM, said:

We speak today of "Hebrew" and "Edomite" and "Moabite" and "Sidonian" and the like being spoken during the Classical Israelite period. Yet, in fact, these were merely dialects of Canaanite. Indeed, the Israelites never term their own language "Hebrew" in the Bible, Instead they refer to their language as the "language of Canaan" (Isa 19:18). As used biblically, the term "Hebrew" is an ethnicon of some sort (controversial) applied long before anything like a "Hebrew" language or dialect came into use during the Classical biblical period (biblical Hebrew).

So, Moses did not speak Hebrew, but perhaps some form of proto-Hebrew in line with Late Bronze Age Canaanite, perhaps on par with Ugaritic, which may or may not have been close to the dialect used by the Midianites among whom Moses came to live.

Thus, except for some very archaic poetry, the Pentateuch is written in a language which has been modernized from that which Moses would have been familiar. The transmission, updating, and redaction of the primeval history and Mosaic Law therefore comes to fit very well the sort of description given in general by the Documentary Hypothesis -- just as it does for the Book of Mormon. Using "modern" idiom in that sense does not challenge the authenticity of the text, but it does complicate matters.

Rob

I had no such grand objective in view. I merely sought to correct the inaccurate notion which you and others had expressed on this thread that the OT was originally written in Hebrew, or that Moses spoke Hebrew. It was not, and he did not. Moses most likely spoke a form of Late Bronze Age Canaanite, which at that time had case endings and certain vowels unknown to later, Iron Age Canaanite spoken by Israel and its neighbors -- which we (and not the ancient Israelites) now call biblical Hebrew, but which reads not differently from say 8th century B.C. Moabite or Phoenician.

Your comparison of an ancient version of Beowulf is apt, since it would be completely foreign to any user of modern English until fully modernized or "translated" into modern English. The same would apply to any sort of conversation between any King of Judah and Moses: communication would fail completely. I'm glad you face the stark reality that this required major updating and modernization over time -- quite aside from the editing and redacting process, which I am also pleased to find that you do not reject. This has nothing to do with reformed Egyptian.

Does this mean that, when ascertaining the ancient or modern origins of an earliest extant text, it doesn't matter so much the language in which the words of the text are written, but the way in which the words are structured and the manner in which things are conceptualized?

In other words, doesn't this mean that idioms within the questioned text, particularly a claimed translation, are far less significant than things like chiasmus and psalmisms?

If so, then this would mean that a methodology that assumes that a text is modern solely on the basis that the earliest extant manuscript is not written in the presumed original language, is inadequate at best, and fatally flawed at worst.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Robert F. Smith]

Does this mean that, when ascertaining the ancient or modern origins of an earliest extant text, it doesn't matter so much the language in which the words of the text are written, but the way in which the words are structured and the manner in which things are conceptualized?

In other words, doesn't this mean that idioms within the questioned text, particularly a claimed translation, are far less significant than things like chiasmus and psalmisms?

If so, then this would mean that a methodology that assumes that a text is modern solely on the basis that the earliest extant manuscript is not written in the presumed original language, is inadequate at best, and fatally flawed at worst.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Rhetorical analysis of the poetic structure is always helpful, but I would say that form criticism may be equally useful since it discloses the formulaic nature and purpose of various texts. But, yes, you and Bill have got a good handle on the problem with the core of Deuteronomy not being available in its original language -- not to mention the lack of certainty as to its original content. Documentary analysis (higher criticism) can take us only so far. After that, faith and spiritual experience enter the picture.

As evangelical scholar William Lane Craig has said of his own personal epistemology: "I still think this experiential approach to the resurrection is a perfectly valid way to knowing that Christ has risen. It’s the way that most Christians today know that Jesus is risen and alive."

--http://www.bartdehrman.com/pdf/resurrection_debate.pdf

[wenglund]

Documentary analysis (higher criticism) can take us only so far. After that, faith and spiritual experience enter the picture.

Well said. To me, it is the latter that is of significance from a religious perspective, though it may have little bearing on a secular or purely academic perspective.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Vance]

This was a very interesting thread.

But alas, when the going gets tough, the weak flee.

Another drive-by insult will get you thread banned.

Edited March 13, 2012 by Minos

[Rob Bowman]

Robert,

You wrote:

Since the Deuteronomic Historian is seen as the author/redactor of the books of Joshua through Kings, there should be no surprise at references to Deut in those books -- even if the final form of these books is often supposed to be post-exilic.

Granted, but my point was that Kings does not represent the matter as Deuteronomy being "discovered" by Hilkiah after eight centuries of no one knowing anything about it, as Bill had tried to argue. The argument makes a selective use of information in Kings to construct a theory flatly contradicted by Kings.

[Bill Hamblin]

Robert,

You wrote:

Granted, but my point was that Kings does not represent the matter as Deuteronomy being "discovered" by Hilkiah after eight centuries of no one knowing anything about it, as Bill had tried to argue. The argument makes a selective use of information in Kings to construct a theory flatly contradicted by Kings.

Ready for round two, I see!