A Hebraism In The Book Of Mormon

[Bill Hamblin]

Bill,

You wrote:

It seems likely.

You wrote:

I would have to qualify such a statement heavily. The language and style of Deuteronomy is certainly like some of the other biblical writings dating from the late Iron Age, but it is problematic to claim that this establishes the earliest date of Deuteronomy. Some scholars have pointed out linguistic and stylistic similarities as well as thematic connections between Deuteronomy and the eighth-century prophets, even arguing that Amos and Hosea were dependent on Deuteronomy. I am not aware of anything about the Hebrew language of Deuteronomy that would require a date no earlier than the seventh century. That having been said, I will repeat what I posted earlier, that I have no a priori objection to the possibility that the language of Deuteronomy was updated in the seventh, sixth, or even fifth century.

That's five questions from you to which I have given you straight answers. Now please let's get to the point you wish to make. I am not going to allow you to "lead the witness" indefinitely.

Just one more question.

Do you agree that the earliest actual manuscript evidence we have comes from the Dead Sea Scrolls, and dates, at the earliest to the third century BCE?

[Rob Bowman]

Bill,

You wrote:

Just one more question.

Do you agree that the earliest actual manuscript evidence we have comes from the Dead Sea Scrolls, and dates, at the earliest to the third century BCE?

Sounds about right.

[Ares]

Now please let's get to the point you wish to make. I am not going to allow you to "lead the witness" indefinitely.

You are here voluntarily Rob - stop trying to net nanny the others.

[Rob Bowman]

Bill,

You wrote:

I know this because anti-Mormons consistent rehash old arguments, ignore the responses, and demonstrate no knowledge whatsoever of current LDS scholarship. The fact that you hadn't read any of the books I've mentioned demonstrates this quite nicely. If the books are so easily dismissible that you can simply ignore them, it shouldn't be much effort to actually read, understand, engage, and respond to the arguments.

This is not true of me at all. Almost a week ago in this thread, I told you:

I've got some major projects along these lines in process, one in particular. Examining the specific book you mention isn't yet on my list, although I am aware of the book. I take the challenge seriously to respond to such apologetic works, and I'm pursuing the matter, as I stated on this forum over a year ago.

The fact is that I am not ignoring anything. I am working through the LDS scholarship on the Book of Mormon as fast as I can, which is not to say I am working through it superficially. I was already familiar with the basic claim of the three books you mentioned. They happen not to be among the numerous LDS books and articles on the Book of Mormon that I have already read. Assuming I continue as I have been in my research, I expect to have read them fairly soon. Although I have been studying Mormonism for the past 25 years or so, I know about a hundred times more about the subject now than I did four years ago.

If I may say so, I was already familiar enough with King Benjamin's Speech to be pretty sure it did not do what you claimed it did, namely, to compare and contrast ancient and modern patterns of evidence and models for understanding the Book of Mormon's origins. I skimmed it after your challenge to verify my recollection, and I was correct.

[Bill Hamblin]

Sounds about right.

So what we have is the following:

1- An text allegedly written by Moses in the 15th century BCE.

2- The first reference to the text from the 7th century BCE (800 years after it was allegedly written). That reference claims the text was otherwise unknown at the time it was discovered.

3- The text was found hidden away. (If so, it must have been hidden some time between the building of the temple by Solomon around 960 BCE, and the discovery of the text three centuries later, around 630 or so).

4- The Book of the Law is accepted because authenticated by the prophetess Huldah (2 Kgs. 22:14-20).

5- There is no actual manuscript evidence for the text under the 3rd century BCE (1200 years after it was allegedly written).

6- Many scholars believe that Moses never existed, and Deuteronomy was written shortly before it was "discovered" in the temple, and that it is an early seven century forgery.

Now, you accept the authenticity of Deuteronomy. But it has precisely the same type of textual problems as you attribute to the BOM. 1000 years from now the BOM will have a vast array of textual evidence going back to 1830, just as Deuteronomy can be traced from today back to the third century BCE. But that's not the question. The issue is, there is no textual evidence of Deuteronomy before the 3rd century BCE, 1200 years after its purported date. Which means it has precisely the same problem as the BOM, for which we have the first textual evidence some 1400 years after it was originally written.

Thus, if you reject the BOM for these types of manuscript issues, you must also reject Deuteronomy for precisely the same reason.

[Bill Hamblin]

Bill,

You wrote:

This is not true of me at all. Almost a week ago in this thread, I told you:

The fact is that I am not ignoring anything. I am working through the LDS scholarship on the Book of Mormon as fast as I can, which is not to say I am working through it superficially. I was already familiar with the basic claim of the three books you mentioned. They happen not to be among the numerous LDS books and articles on the Book of Mormon that I have already read. Assuming I continue as I have been in my research, I expect to have read them fairly soon. Although I have been studying Mormonism for the past 25 years or so, I know about a hundred times more about the subject now than I did four years ago.

If I may say so, I was already familiar enough with King Benjamin's Speech to be pretty sure it did not do what you claimed it did, namely, to compare and contrast ancient and modern patterns of evidence and models for understanding the Book of Mormon's origins. I skimmed it after your challenge to verify my recollection, and I was correct.

Rob, this is pointless quibbling.

[Rob Bowman]

Bill,

You wrote:

So what we have is the following:

1- An text allegedly written by Moses in the 15th century BCE.

Why bother asking me questions, if you're going to ignore my answers?

[Bill Hamblin]

Why bother asking me questions, if you're going to ignore my answers?

I didn't ignore your answer. Note the word "allegedly." You may not believe the text dates to Moses. That's fine. But the text claims to have been written by Moses, as I noted in #286.

[Rob Bowman]

Bill,

You wrote:

I didn't ignore your answer.

Please, then, tell me how my answer played a role in the argument you presented.

You wrote:

Note the word "allegedly." You may not believe the text dates to Moses. That's fine. But the text claims to have been written by Moses, as I noted in #286.

No, the text claims that part of the material it includes was written by Moses, or that it incorporates material written by Moses. As I have already pointed out, the narrative frame of the book from beginning to end distinguishes its author from Moses.

[Rob Bowman]

Bill,

It's my turn to ask you some questions.

Do you think Moses wrote Deuteronomy? If not, what is your position with regard to its origin?

[Bill Hamblin]

Bill,

It's my turn to ask you some questions.

Do you think Moses wrote Deuteronomy? If not, what is your position with regard to its origin?

I don't know. I suspect part is Mosaic, and part not.

But that is not the point. The point is that your acceptance of the Mosaic origins for Deuteronomy--in whatever form--poses precisely the same methodological problems as does the BOM. Your rejection of the BOM, in part because of this issue, is a double standard, like so much else in your criiticsms.

[Bill Hamblin]

No, the text claims that part of the material it includes was written by Moses, or that it incorporates material written by Moses. As I have already pointed out, the narrative frame of the book from beginning to end distinguishes its author from Moses.

It does not. It is very explicit.

Deut 31:9 Then Moses wrote this law/Torah (ha-torah ha-zot) and gave it to the priests, the sons of Levi, who carried the ark of the covenant of the LORD, and to all the elders of Israel.

Deut 31:24 When Moses had finished writing the words of this law/Torah (ha-torah ha-zot) in a book to the very end,

It says explicitly that Moses wrote this Law/Torah, meaning the book of Deuteronomy. If "this law" in these verses does not refer to Deuteronomy, to what does it refer?

Edited March 6, 2012 by Bill Hamblin

[Bill Hamblin]

By the way, I forgot to mention the language issue.

The Book of Deuteronomy dates in part or in whole back to Moses, then the text has been "translated" to the extent that the language has "modernized" to make it seventh century Hebrew instead of 15th century Canaanite. In the process of translation it has also been "edited." Again, this is precisely like the BOM having been edited and translated as part of its transmission process. Why is this problematic for the BOM, but not for Deuteronomy.

[Rob Bowman]

Bill,

You wrote:

I don't know. I suspect part is Mosaic, and part not.

But that is not the point. The point is that your acceptance of the Mosaic origins for Deuteronomy--in whatever form--poses precisely the same methodological problems as does the BOM. Your rejection of the BOM, in part because of this issue, is a double standard, like so much else in your criiticsms.

You are mistaken. Your argument to support this conclusion began by ignoring my view about the book and then ran from there. A quick overview of your numbered points and why they fail to make your case:

1- An text allegedly written by Moses in the 15th century BCE.

I don't agree that the text, i.e., the Book of Deuteronomy as a whole, was written by Moses. Since you're trying to show that I treat Deuteronomy differently than I do the Book of Mormon, it is my view that matters here.

2- The first reference to the text from the 7th century BCE (800 years after it was allegedly written). That reference claims the text was otherwise unknown at the time it was discovered.

I don't claim that the Book of Deuteronomy was written 800 years before the 7th century. Also, I deny that the first reference claims that the text was otherwise unknown at the time. What it says is that the priest found the book of the law, not that no one at the time had ever previously heard of its existence.

3- The text was found hidden away. (If so, it must have been hidden some time between the building of the temple by Solomon around 960 BCE, and the discovery of the text three centuries later, around 630 or so).

"Hidden away" is a misleading attempt to manufacture a parallel between the Book of the Law and the Book of Mormon. The Book of the Law was found in the most natural and expected of places, in the temple. Taking what 2 Kings says at face value, the Book of the Law was not hidden so as to keep people from finding it. In the context of the narrative of Kings, it is far more likely that we are to understand that the book was simply neglected by most of the rulers of Judah.

4- The Book of the Law is accepted because authenticated by the prophetess Huldah (2 Kgs. 22:14-20).

You must know better. Read the text! Josiah sends Hilkiah and his associates to inquire of the prophetess, not to have the Book of the Law authenticated, but to find out what is going to happen to his kingdom in view of what the Book of the Law says (see vv. 11-13, 18-20). Josiah and Hilkiah already accept the Book of the Law as authoritative before Hilkiah went to see Huldah. Once again, you are trying to manufacture a parallel between the Book of the Law and the Book of Mormon (i.e., Joseph Smith is the prophet who authenticates the Book of Mormon). It won't work. In addition to the point I just made, there is the obvious fact that Josiah and Hilkiah already accepted Huldah as a prophetess and sought her out. She had nothing to do with "the coming forth" of the Book of the Law. This is actually quite an un-parallel.

5- There is no actual manuscript evidence for the text under the 3rd century BCE (1200 years after it was allegedly written).

Once again you are assuming that Deuteronomy as a book dated from the fifteenth century. I don't make that claim. Besides, at least we have manuscript evidence for Deuteronomy. We have none for the Book of Mormon!

6- Many scholars believe that Moses never existed, and Deuteronomy was written shortly before it was "discovered" in the temple, and that it is an early seven century forgery.

What "many scholars" believe is irrelevant to our discussion, since what you are trying to do is to show that I supposedly have a double standard in the way I view Deuteronomy and the Book of Mormon.

Your argument fails to make that case at every step.

[Bill Hamblin]

Bill,

You wrote:

You are mistaken. Your argument to support this conclusion began by ignoring my view about the book and then ran from there. A quick overview of your numbered points and why they fail to make your case:

1- An text allegedly written by Moses in the 15th century BCE.

I don't agree that the text, i.e., the Book of Deuteronomy as a whole, was written by Moses. Since you're trying to show that I treat Deuteronomy differently than I do the Book of Mormon, it is my view that matters here.

Weak; very weak.

You're quibbling here. Is there any part of Dt that dates back to Moses? Half? A Quarter? The text says it is Mosaic. You're an inerrantist. Are you admitting that the Bible is errant?

By the way, 2 Chr. 34:14 says Hilkiah found "the Book of Torah of Yahweh given through Moses." Is that an inerrant text?

Edited March 6, 2012 by Bill Hamblin

[Bill Hamblin]

2- The first reference to the text from the 7th century BCE (800 years after it was allegedly written). That reference claims the text was otherwise unknown at the time it was discovered.

I don't claim that the Book of Deuteronomy was written 800 years before the 7th century. Also, I deny that the first reference claims that the text was otherwise unknown at the time. What it says is that the priest found the book of the law, not that no one at the time had ever previously heard of its existence.

Quibbling again, I see. Fine. Before you said part was Mosaic. Now none of it is? Which is it? If even part of the text is authentically Mosaic, then the problem remains.

If part is authentically Mosaic, were was that part for the 800 years before Josiah? Where in the Bible is Deut mentioned before the late seventh century?

2 Kings says everyone was shocked by its contents and they had never performed Passover as commanded by the book. How could that have happened if they had known of the book before?

Edited March 6, 2012 by Bill Hamblin

[Bill Hamblin]

Bill,

3- The text was found hidden away. (If so, it must have been hidden some time between the building of the temple by Solomon around 960 BCE, and the discovery of the text three centuries later, around 630 or so).

"Hidden away" is a misleading attempt to manufacture a parallel between the Book of the Law and the Book of Mormon. The Book of the Law was found in the most natural and expected of places, in the temple. Taking what 2 Kings says at face value, the Book of the Law was not hidden so as to keep people from finding it. In the context of the narrative of Kings, it is far more likely that we are to understand that the book was simply neglected by most of the rulers of Judah.

So you're saying everyone knew the book was there, but no one bothered to actually read it?

I note that you are not providing any references to support your claims. Josiah orders renovation of the temple (2 Kgs. 22:3-7). During those renovations they find the book (22.8 ). It was obviously found during the renovations. Whether it was lost or intentionally hidden is irrelevant. The point is, no one had seen the book before. It was a lost book.

2 Chr. 34:13-14 implies that it was found in the treasury of the temple.

Edited March 6, 2012 by Bill Hamblin

[Bill Hamblin]

4- The Book of the Law is accepted because authenticated by the prophetess Huldah (2 Kgs. 22:14-20).

You must know better. Read the text! Josiah sends Hilkiah and his associates to inquire of the prophetess, not to have the Book of the Law authenticated, but to find out what is going to happen to his kingdom in view of what the Book of the Law says (see vv. 11-13, 18-20). Josiah and Hilkiah already accept the Book of the Law as authoritative before Hilkiah went to see Huldah. Once again, you are trying to manufacture a parallel between the Book of the Law and the Book of Mormon (i.e., Joseph Smith is the prophet who authenticates the Book of Mormon). It won't work. In addition to the point I just made, there is the obvious fact that Josiah and Hilkiah already accepted Huldah as a prophetess and sought her out. She had nothing to do with "the coming forth" of the Book of the Law. This is actually quite an un-parallel.

You are again missing the point. The point is Huldah says the curses of Deut will fall upon the kingdom (2 Chr. 34:24). By doing so she is authenticating the validity of Deut as a Mosaic book. If Deut weren't an authentic Mosaic book, why would the curses it contains be effective?

Edited March 6, 2012 by Bill Hamblin

[Bill Hamblin]

5- There is no actual manuscript evidence for the text under the 3rd century BCE (1200 years after it was allegedly written).

Once again you are assuming that Deuteronomy as a book dated from the fifteenth century. I don't make that claim. Besides, at least we have manuscript evidence for Deuteronomy. We have none for the Book of Mormon!

We actually have far better manuscript evidence for the BOM than we have for Deut. The BOM we have a number of pages of the original manuscript! The earliest manuscript evidence we have for Deut dates to nearly 400 years after its discovery in the temple.

I am assuming nothing about the real origins of Deut. As I've noted over and over again, the Bible claims explicitly that it was written by Moses, both in Deut itself (Dt. 31:9, 24), and in the discovery narrative (2 Chr. 34:14). The fact that you don't believe what the Bible says is your privilege (and problem). My point is Deuteronomy itself makes the same unsubstantiatable claim about its purported origins as does the BOM.

Edited March 6, 2012 by Bill Hamblin

[Bill Hamblin]

6- Many scholars believe that Moses never existed, and Deuteronomy was written shortly before it was "discovered" in the temple, and that it is an early seven century forgery.

What "many scholars" believe is irrelevant to our discussion, since what you are trying to do is to show that I supposedly have a double standard in the way I view Deuteronomy and the Book of Mormon.

Of course its relevant. You accept the anti-Mormon arguments about the origins of the BOM. There are very similar arguments made against Deuteronomy. The claims are that it was a forgery, written at the time of its discovery, purporting to have been written by Moses, but in fact written by some contemporaries of Josiah who wanted to convince the king to centralize worship and power in the Jerusalem temple--which would, of course, had made Hilkiah the High Priest more powerful and wealthy in the bargain.

[Rob Bowman]

Bill,

I told you that I would not agree to be dragged into an argument with you about biblical inerrancy. The reason is simple: you don't hold the Book of Mormon to the standard of inerrancy, and I'm not criticizing the Book of Mormon for failing to be inerrant. Therefore, demanding that I defend biblical inerrancy as part of the task of validating my criticisms of the Book of Mormon is fallacious. In fact, it puts you in the position of a double standard, since you won't hold the Book of Mormon to that standard.

Nowhere does the Bible claim that Moses wrote the book of Deuteronomy. Let's look at the verses you cited.

"Then Moses wrote this law and gave it to the priests, the sons of Levi, who carried the ark of the covenant of the LORD, and to all the elders of Israel" (Deut. 31:9).

The expression "this law" cannot refer to the book of Deuteronomy, for two obvious reasons. (1) The book cannot be complete at this point because more happens that the book narrates. (2) Moses is referred to in the third person, as he is consistently throughout the narrative elements of the book -- a point I have made repeatedly that you have so far ignored. Additionally, it should be noted that the term "law" (torah) does not mean a book. It means instruction or law. The torah may be included in a book (or scroll), and Deuteronomy reports that Moses was writing down the torah that he first delivered orally to the people. What we have in Deuteronomy is a book that incorporates Moses' instruction from the Lord, the torah, in a narrative of Moses' last days.

"When Moses had finished writing the words of this law in a book to the very end, Moses commanded the Levites who carried the ark of the covenant of the LORD, 'Take this book of the law and put it by the side of the ark of the covenant of the LORD your God, that it may be there for a witness against you'" (Deut. 31:24-26).

The same points just made apply here. The "book" to which this verse refers cannot be our book of Deuteronomy, because at this point the events reported in Deuteronomy have not all taken place. It is the instruction or law, the torah, that Moses wrote in a book. The narrator clearly refers to Moses in the third person.

We can see quite easily that these verses cannot be referring to Deuteronomy by simply substituting "Deuteronomy" where it refers to what Moses wrote:

"Then Moses wrote Deuteronomy and gave it to the priests, the sons of Levi, who carried the ark of the covenant of the LORD, and to all the elders of Israel.... When Moses had finished writing the words of Deuteronomy to the very end, Moses commanded the Levites who carried the ark of the covenant of the LORD, 'Take this book, Deuteronomy, and put it by the side of the ark of the covenant of the LORD your God, that it may be there for a witness against you.'"

Obviously, this just doesn't work.

"While they were bringing out the money that had been brought into the house of the LORD, Hilkiah the priest found the Book of the Law of the LORD given by the hand of Moses" (2 Chron. 34:14).

As just explained above, the torah of Yahweh, the instruction of the LORD, had been given by the hand of Moses. That written instruction constitutes the bulk of the material found in Deuteronomy. However, Deuteronomy presents itself as a book that places the torah of Yahweh given through Moses in a narrative context of Moses' last days. 2 Chronicles 34:14 is not saying that the book of Deuteronomy per se was written by the hand of Moses; it is saying that the torah or instruction contained in Deuteronomy came by the hand of Moses.

No doubt you will claim, as you do repeatedly when you don't have a good answer, that I am "quibbling." But it is not quibbling to make an important distinction that is quite relevant as an answer to common criticisms of the authenticity of Deuteronomy. Let me refer you to an excellent article by an evangelical OT scholar that discusses the issue of the literary origins of Deuteronomy in more detail:

Block, Daniel I. "Recovering the Voice of Moses: The Genesis of Deuteronomy." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 44 (2001): 385-408.

More later.

Edited March 6, 2012 by Rob Bowman

[zerinus]

(2) Moses is referred to in the third person, as he is consistently throughout the narrative elements of the book -- a point I have made repeatedly that you have so far ignored.

That is not really true. For the most part Moses is speaking in the first person. The second parson occurs in limited passages in Deuteronomy (mainly at the beginning and towards the end) where a narrator intervenes to tell the story, and fill in the missing gaps. The narrator is not the author of Deuteronomy. He makes it clear that he is not the primary author of the book, but intervening where necessary to fill in the missing gaps. The narrator is basically a historian who tries to remain in the background, and lets the characters speak for themselves, and in their own words. The characters in this case are Moses and the Lord. These are the passages in which the narrator intervenes to tell the story:

DEUTERONOMY

Chapter 1:

1 These be the words which Moses spake unto all Israel on this side Jordan in the wilderness, in the plain over against the Red sea, between Paran, and Tophel, and Laban, and Hazeroth, and Dizahab.

2 (There are eleven days' journey from Horeb by the way of mount Seir unto Kadesh-barnea.)

3 And it came to pass in the fortieth year, in the eleventh month, on the first day of the month, that Moses spake unto the children of Israel, according unto all that the Lord had given him in commandment unto them;

4 After he had slain Sihon the king of the Amorites, which dwelt in Heshbon, and Og the king of Bashan, which dwelt at Astaroth in Edrei:

5 On this side Jordan, in the land of Moab, began Moses to declare this law, saying,

6 The Lord our God spake unto us in Horeb, saying, Ye have dwelt long enough in this mount:

Chapter 29:

1 These are the words of the covenant, which the Lord commanded Moses to make with the children of Israel in the land of Moab, beside the covenant which he made with them in Horeb.

2 And Moses called unto all Israel, and said unto them, Ye have seen all that the Lord did before your eyes in the land of Egypt unto Pharaoh, and unto all his servants, and unto all his land;

Chapter 31:

1 And Moses went and spake these words unto all Israel.

2 And he said unto them, I am an hundred and twenty years old this day; I can no more go out and come in: also the Lord hath said unto me, Thou shalt not go over this Jordan.

7 And Moses called unto Joshua, and said unto him in the sight of all Israel, Be strong and of a good courage: for thou must go with this people unto the land which the Lord hath sworn unto their fathers to give them; and thou shalt cause them to inherit it.

9 And Moses wrote this law, and delivered it unto the priests the sons of Levi, which bare the ark of the covenant of the Lord, and unto all the elders of Israel.

10 And Moses commanded them, saying, At the end of every seven years, in the solemnity of the year of release, in the feast of tabernacles,

14 And the Lord said unto Moses, Behold, thy days approach that thou must die: call Joshua, and present yourselves in the tabernacle of the congregation, that I may give him a charge. And Moses and Joshua went, and presented themselves in the tabernacle of the congregation.

15 And the Lord appeared in the tabernacle in a pillar of a cloud: and the pillar of the cloud stood over the door of the tabernacle.

16 And the Lord said unto Moses, Behold, thou shalt sleep with thy fathers; and this people will rise up, and go a whoring after the gods of the strangers of the land, whither they go to be among them, and will forsake me, and break my covenant which I have made with them.

17 Then my anger shall be kindled against them in that day, and I will forsake them, and I will hide my face from them, and they shall be devoured, and many evils and troubles shall befall them; so that they will say in that day, Are not these evils come upon us, because our God is not among us?

18 And I will surely hide my face in that day for all the evils which they shall have wrought, in that they are turned unto other gods.

19 Now therefore write ye this song for you, and teach it the children of Israel: put it in their mouths, that this song may be a witness for me against the children of Israel.

20 For when I shall have brought them into the land which I sware unto their fathers, that floweth with milk and honey; and they shall have eaten and filled themselves, and waxen fat; then will they turn unto other gods, and serve them, and provoke me, and break my covenant.

21 And it shall come to pass, when many evils and troubles are befallen them, that this song shall testify against them as a witness; for it shall not be forgotten out of the mouths of their seed: for I know their imagination which they go about, even now, before I have brought them into the land which I sware.

22 Moses therefore wrote this song the same day, and taught it the children of Israel.

23 And he gave Joshua the son of Nun a charge, and said, Be strong and of a good courage: for thou shalt bring the children of Israel into the land which I sware unto them: and I will be with thee.

24 And it came to pass, when Moses had made an end of writing the words of this law in a book, until they were finished,

25 That Moses commanded the Levites, which bare the ark of the covenant of the Lord, saying,

26 Take this book of the law, and put it in the side of the ark of the covenant of the Lord your God, that it may be there for a witness against thee.

27 For I know thy rebellion, and thy stiff neck: behold, while I am yet alive with you this day, ye have been rebellious against the Lord; and how much more after my death?

28 Gather unto me all the elders of your tribes, and your officers, that I may speak these words in their ears, and call heaven and earth to record against them.

29 For I know that after my death ye will utterly corrupt yourselves, and turn aside from the way which I have commanded you; and evil will befall you in the latter days; because ye will do evil in the sight of the Lord, to provoke him to anger through the work of your hands.

30 And Moses spake in the ears of all the congregation of Israel the words of this song, until they were ended.

Chapter 32:

44 And Moses came and spake all the words of this song in the ears of the people, he, and Hoshea the son of Nun.

45 And Moses made an end of speaking all these words to all Israel:

46 And he said unto them, Set your hearts unto all the words which I testify among you this day, which ye shall command your children to observe to do, all the words of this law.

47 For it is not a vain thing for you; because it is your life: and through this thing ye shall prolong your days in the land, whither ye go over Jordan to possess it.

48 And the Lord spake unto Moses that selfsame day, saying,

49 Get thee up into this mountain Abarim, unto mount Nebo, which is in the land of Moab, that is over against Jericho; and behold the land of Canaan, which I give unto the children of Israel for a possession:

50 And die in the mount whither thou goest up, and be gathered unto thy people; as Aaron thy brother died in mount Hor, and was gathered unto his people:

51 Because ye trespassed against me among the children of Israel at the waters of Meribah-Kadesh, in the wilderness of Zin; because ye sanctified me not in the midst of the children of Israel.

52 Yet thou shalt see the land before thee; but thou shalt not go thither unto the land which I give the children of Israel.

Chapter 33:

1 And this is the blessing, wherewith Moses the man of God blessed the children of Israel before his death.

2 And he said, The Lord came from Sinai, and rose up from Seir unto them; he shined forth from mount Paran, and he came with ten thousands of saints: from his right hand went a fiery law for them.

Chapter 34:

1 And Moses went up from the plains of Moab unto the mountain of Nebo, to the top of Pisgah, that is over against Jericho. And the Lord shewed him all the land of Gilead, unto Dan,

2 And all Naphtali, and the land of Ephraim, and Manasseh, and all the land of Judah, unto the utmost sea,

3 And the south, and the plain of the valley of Jericho, the city of palm trees, unto Zoar.

4 And the Lord said unto him, This is the land which I sware unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, saying, I will give it unto thy seed: I have caused thee to see it with thine eyes, but thou shalt not go over thither.

5 So Moses the servant of the Lord died there in the land of Moab, according to the word of the Lord.

6 And he buried him in a valley in the land of Moab, over against Beth-peor: but no man knoweth of his sepulchre unto this day.

7 And Moses was an hundred and twenty years old when he died: his eye was not dim, nor his natural force abated.

8 And the children of Israel wept for Moses in the plains of Moab thirty days: so the days of weeping and mourning for Moses were ended.

9 And Joshua the son of Nun was full of the spirit of wisdom; for Moses had laid his hands upon him: and the children of Israel hearkened unto him, and did as the Lord commanded Moses.

10 And there arose not a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face,

11 In all the signs and the wonders, which the Lord sent him to do in the land of Egypt to Pharaoh, and to all his servants, and to all his land,

12 And in all that mighty hand, and in all the great terror which Moses shewed in the sight of all Israel.

The rest is Moses' own words.

[Rob Bowman]

zerinus,

You wrote:

That is not really true. For the most part Moses is speaking in the first person. The second parson occurs in limited passages in Deuteronomy (mainly at the beginning and towards the end) where a narrator intervenes to tell the story, and fill in the missing gaps. The narrator is not the author of Deuteronomy. He makes it clear that he is not the primary author of the book, but intervening where necessary to fill in the missing gaps. The narrator is basically a historian who tries to remain in the background, and lets the characters speak for themselves, and in their own words. The characters in this case are Moses and the Lord. These are the passages in which the narrator intervenes to tell the story....

The rest is Moses' own words.

A "character" in a book is not its author.

[Kevin Christensen]

Kevin,

Your comments are a total cop-out as far as Bill's original claim goes, which was not merely that Mormons might be familiar with arguments for both ancient and modern origins of the Book of Mormon but that they had published studies that compared and contrasted patterns of evidence and models for both views. Furthermore, this was something he claimed anti-Mormons do not do. But how does he know what anti-Mormons may have read and simply not considered cogent arguments for the ancient origins view?

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

In Palmer's own estimation, one of the strongest parallels to American religious culture in the Book of Mormon is King Benjamin's famous farewell speech to his people, which Palmer compares to the setting of an early American frontier revival camp meeting. As an example, Palmer describes a camp meeting held by the Methodists in 1826 near Palmyra, New York. Gathering from miles around, over ten thousand people came and pitched their tents facing a stand. At this meeting, the venerable Bishop M'Kendree delivered a memorable farewell speech. The resemblance to King Benjamin's farewell speech and its setting may be granted, but a balanced approach would require considering parallels to the ancient Near East as well.

In fact, though unacknowledged by Palmer, a robust parallel to the ancient Near East exists. In King Benjamin's farewell address, which includes the appointment of his son Mosiah as his royal successor, Latter-day Saint scholars with expertise in the ancient Near East have discovered elements of ancient coronation ritual and other parallels with Israelite kingship ideology, as well as parallels to the covenant-treaty and prophetic lawsuit patterns of Old Testament prophetic rhetoric and evidence of an Israelite festival setting.⁴⁶ Benjamin's farewell address does bear some similarity to that given by Bishop M'Kendree in 1826, but it parallels point by point the twenty common elements of ancient Near Eastern farewell addresses as outlined by Bible scholar William S. Kurz.⁴⁷

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:

Sources for Joseph's clever fiction, Palmer argues, came from an 1826 Methodist camp meeting near Palmyra, where the anticipated farewell address of a respected, aged preacher, Bishop M'Kendree, summoned as many as ten thousand who pitched tents and listened intently. He reportedly preached powerfully on "the whole process of personal salvation." Many were moved and committed to Christ. "This," says Palmer, "is reminiscent of King Benjamin's speech to the Zarahemlans" (p. 97; cf. Mosiah 2—5). The question is whether this or other experiences in Joseph Smith's America inspired him to write the Book of Mormon, or whether Joseph translated an authentic ancient history by "the gift and power of God" (Testimony of Three Witnesses). To address that question honestly, one must not only examine the early American republic, as Palmer does, but the ancient world, which Palmer avoids, along with the vast literature produced by those who have dealt with this issue.

Hugh Nibley writes, "Of all the possible ties between the Book of Mormon and the Old World, by far the most impressive in our opinion is the exact and full matching up of the long coronation rite described in the book of Mosiah with the 'standard' Near Eastern coronation ceremonies as they have been worked out through the years by the 'patternists' of Cambridge. Imagine a twenty-three-year-old backwoodsman [or even a Harvard professor] in 1829 giving his version of what an ancient coronation ceremony would be like."¹² Other scholars have confirmed Nibley's conclusion and presented further evidence that King Mosiah's coronation ritual, including Benjamin's sermon, belongs less to the setting of a camp meeting in the early American republic than to an ancient Jewish Feast of Tabernacles.¹³

As long as one ignores the ancient Near East, however, superficial parallels seem to suffice. That a sermon in some ways similar to Benjamin's occurred near Joseph's home is, to Palmer, proof that Joseph Smith wrote Mosiah 27—5 based on it. Never mind that Joseph Smith is not known to have been at the 1826 camp meeting. Neither Joseph, his mother, Joseph Knight, nor other known sources of information on Joseph's activities in 1826 mention the event. Even supposing that the 1826 camp meeting profoundly influenced Joseph Smith, his 1832 written history largely bears out Emma Smith's later recollection that he could hardly have composed a well-written letter at the time of their marriage in 1827. Palmer's argument demands that Joseph Smith must have heard Bishop M'Kendree, remembered his sermon, crafted King Mosiah's sermon from it at least two years later (without, as Emma Smith testified, any written sources to jog his memory), and positioned it coherently in the midst of a complex book that ran to nearly six hundred pages (pp. 97—98).

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."

Metcalfe's own essay provides a good example of this. He writes about King Benjamin's oration as though it were a nineteenth-century revival, claiming that "the apex of the narrative . . . depends . . . fundamentally on a nonbiblical pattern contemporary with Smith" (p. 421 n. 31). He sees the four-step pattern as "(1) Revival Gathering (Mosiah 2); (2) Guilt-Ridden Falling Exercise (4:1-2a); (3) Petition for Spiritual Emancipation (v. 2b); and (4) Christological Absolution and Emotional Ecstasy (v. 3)" (ibid.).

Metcalfe then remarks that "some have attempted to assert comparisons between Lehite religious awakenings and ancient Hebrew rituals" (p. 421 n. 31), referring to, but neglecting the strengths of, valuable studies by Welch, Nibley, Ostler, Ricks, and Tvedtnes,⁸⁴ and ignoring other studies such as those by Welch on the farewell address form⁸⁵ and on the complex interwoven chiastic structures,⁸⁶ and Thomasson on kingship.⁸⁷ He defends the priority of his reading by asserting that nineteenth-century camp meetings were modeled after the Israelite Feast of Tabernacles. He also leaves us to wonder why the ancient studies provide a far more comprehensive set of parallels to the ancient convocations than does comparison with the nineteenth-century sources. Nibley's chapter alone, "Old World Ritual in the New World" in An Approach to the Book of Mormon, includes a thirty-six-step pattern, versus a four-step pattern in Metcalfe.⁸⁸

Reluctant to confront directly the undeniably more comprehensive account by "traditionalists," Metcalfe shifts his ground and anchors his account to a "key" anomaly, claiming that traditionalists need to show "neophytes of any culture B.C.e." experiencing a " "revival' conversion."⁸⁹ This begs the question of whether " "revival' conversion" is an appropriate description of the Mosiah account, sidesteps serious consideration of the more comprehensive studies assembled by FARMS, and ignores the potential effect of translation factors on the language used.⁹⁰

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

Edited March 6, 2012 by Kevin Christensen

[zerinus]

A "character" in a book is not its author.

Except that the narrator thinks that it is, and says that it is. He has taken the book that Moses wrote, and added material to it as needed to provide historical relevance and context. How could he have made that any clearer than he already has? In those days people didn't write using scholarly conventions that are customary today.

Edited March 6, 2012 by zerinus