Question From 1 Nephi 22

[Aliwe]

In 1 Nephi 22:20 Joseph Smith, translating from the golden plates, wrote:

And the Lord will surely prepare a way for his people, unto the fulfilling of the words of Moses, which he spake, saying: A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you. And it shall come to pass that all those who will not hear that prophet shall be cut off from among the people.

Curious about the context of Moses' words, I went to two verses in Deuteronomy 18:

[15] The LORD thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken;

[19] And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him.

The words are somewhat different (no "cutting off from the people" for example), and they omit words contained in three verses between them. But if you go to Acts 3:22-23, it reads:

For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you. And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people.

So my question is whether you think it is more likely Joseph Smith inserted the New Testament version of Moses' words into his translation, rather than translated it directly from the plates. And if so, why?

[Sevenbak]

It seems pretty clear to me that since the Acts reference quotes from an ancient text that is not in the current bible, you'd not want to go there.

Obviously the LDS would believe that Nephi had that record from the brass plates and Paul had that record from whatever source he had it from.

[Aliwe]

It seems pretty clear to me that since the Acts reference quotes from an ancient text that is not in the current bible, you'd not want to go there. Obviously the LDS would believe that Nephi had that record from the brass plates and Paul had that record from whatever source he had it from.

So if I follow you correctly, rather than Peter paraphrasing Moses from the existing Torah (which is the same now as it was 2000 years ago), your claim is that Peter stood preaching in the temple of God and quoted verbatim an unknown text that is no longer extant, but which happened to duplicate the passage in Deuteronomy to a high degree.

[zerinus]

In 1 Nephi 22:20 Joseph Smith, translating from the golden plates, wrote:

And the Lord will surely prepare a way for his people, unto the fulfilling of the words of Moses, which he spake, saying: A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you. And it shall come to pass that all those who will not hear that prophet shall be cut off from among the people.

Curious about the context of Moses' words, I went to two verses in Deuteronomy 18:

[15] The LORD thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken;

[19] And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him.

The words are somewhat different (no "cutting off from the people" for example), and they omit words contained in three verses between them. But if you go to Acts 3:22-23, it reads:

For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you. And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people.

So my question is whether you think it is more likely Joseph Smith inserted the New Testament version of Moses' words into his translation, rather than translated it directly from the plates. And if so, why?

I don't believe so, no. The texts are not identical in any of the versions. If Joseph Smith wanted to copy from the Bible, why copy from the NT rather than the the OT? And if copying from the NT, why not copy verbatim, but with alterations instead? None of it makes sense. Joseph said he was translating by the gift and power of God. There is no evidence that he used any other text. You will find many such anachronisms in the Book of Mormon; but there are always also variations for which there are no logical explanations to satisfy the straightforward "copying" scenario. Joseph Smith's own explanation of how it happened always seems to work out best. Here are the verses, with some the interesting differences highlighted:

Deuteronomy 18:

15 The Lord thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken;

18 I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.

19 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him.

Acts 3:

22 . . . A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you.

23 And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people.

1 Nephi 22:

20 . . . A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you. And it shall come to pass that all those who will not hear that prophet shall be cut off from among the people.

[Aliwe]

If Joseph Smith wanted to copy from the Bible, why copy from the NT rather than the the OT?

Because there are three omitted verses (Deuteronomy 18:16-19) which diverge into a discussion of the people's terror of God's fire and smoke at Mt. Horeb, and 1 Nephi 22:17-18 taught that the fire and smoke was reserved for those who hardened their heart against God. So logically, God would send the fire and smoke on the people for begging the Holy One of Israel to go away. But Moses said that God relented and would send a human prophet to represent God from that point forward. This divergence clouded the point Nephi was trying to make. Peter already dropped the diverging middle section. So Joseph Smith used his paraphrase.

You will find many such anachronisms in the Book of Mormon; but there are always also variations for which there are no logical explanations to satisfy the straightforward "copying" scenario.

The simplest explanation for the variations is probably the correct one, and it is suggested by the Joseph Smith "Translation" of the King James Bible. He didn't read Greek and his source was the King James Bible, which is a translation, so what he did was a revision.

[Flyonthewall]

It could simply be a matter of translation. If you take a sentence or a phrase of similar length, and give it to several different people to translate, you most likely will get several similar but different translations.

Now add another level of complexity of different times, places and cultures, or translate a passage from language A to language B, then translate language B to language C. 10 different people may give you 20 different translations.

Take a look at the differences between the KJV, and newer translations of the Bible.

[Aliwe]

It could simply be a matter of translation. If you take a sentence or a phrase of similar length, and give it to several different people to translate, you most likely will get several similar but different translations. Now add another level of complexity of different times, places and cultures, or translate a passage from language A to language B, then translate language B to language C. 10 different people may give you 20 different translations. Take a look at the differences between the KJV, and newer translations of the Bible.

Errors in translation, as they pile up over time, will tend to make the copies of two initially identical documents become less similar, not more similar. I noted that Nephi's quotation of Moses more closely resembles the NT quotation of Moses than the one in the Pentateuch, particularly in that both Nephi and Peter omit precisely the same material. Sevenbak suggested that Nephi and Peter both had access to an unnamed document of the sayings of Moses that is external to the Pentateuch and which we no longer have, but I doubt Peter would have attempted, inside the temple, to persuade Jews to Christianity using scripture of less authority than Deuteronomy without an overwhelming need, because it would have raised questions of apostasy from Judaism.

[cdowis]

1. Nephi was quoting from the record of Joseph, the Brass Plates.

2. Peter was quoting from the record of Judah, as it existed prior to the birth of Christ and shortly thereafter.

3. The Jews made changes to the record we have today of the OT, specifically those verses which related to the Messiah.

So we have at least three different documents or traditions.

Edited June 24, 2012 by cdowis

[Aliwe]

1. Nephi was quoting from the record of Joseph, the Brass Plates.

2. Peter was quoting from the record of Judah, as it existed prior to the birth of Christ and shortly thereafter.

3. The Jews made changes to the record we have today of the OT, specifically those verses which related to the Messiah.

So we have at least three different documents or traditions.

For #1 I would say that the record of Joseph could not have covered the events at Mt. Horeb, because he was being carried around in a casket at the time. The Brass Plates contained the five books of Moses, and for that I will give YOU a reference.

1 Nephi 5:10-11 And after they had given thanks unto the God of Israel, my father, Lehi, took the records which were engraven upon the plates of brass, and he did search them from the beginning. And he beheld that they did contain the five books of Moses, which gave an account of the creation of the world, and also of Adam and Eve, who were our first parents;

For number 2 I humbly request a third party claim there is such a thing as a "Record of Judah" and it can even be an LDS site.

For number 3, however, I formally request references that indicate that the Torah was altered to make the account in Deuteronomy 18 resemble its current form, and why the Jews would do so.

[Flyonthewall]

For #1 I would say that the record of Joseph could not have covered the events at Mt. Horeb, because he was being carried around in a casket at the time. The Brass Plates contained the five books of Moses, and for that I will give YOU a reference.

1 Nephi 5:10-11 And after they had given thanks unto the God of Israel, my father, Lehi, took the records which were engraven upon the plates of brass, and he did search them from the beginning. And he beheld that they did contain the five books of Moses, which gave an account of the creation of the world, and also of Adam and Eve, who were our first parents;

For number 2 I humbly request a third party claim there is such a thing as a "Record of Judah" and it can even be an LDS site.

For number 3, however, I formally request references that indicate that the Torah was altered to make the account in Deuteronomy 18 resemble its current form, and why the Jews would do so.

I will see your 1 Nephi 5:10&11, and raise you a verse 12 & 13

10 And after they had given thanks unto the God of Israel, my father, Lehi, took the records which were engraven upon the ^aplates of brass, and he did search them from the beginning.

11 And he beheld that they did contain the five ^abooks of Moses, which gave an account of the creation of the world, and also of Adam and Eve, who were our first parents;

12 And also a ^arecord of the Jews from the beginning, even down to the commencement of the reign of Zedekiah, king of Judah;

13 And also the prophecies of the holy prophets, from the beginning, even down to the commencement of the reign of ^aZedekiah; and also many prophecies which have been spoken by the mouth of ^bJeremiah.

As you can see, the brass plates were not limited to the 5 Books of Moses.

Edited June 24, 2012 by Flyonthewall

[CV75]

So my question is whether you think it is more likely Joseph Smith inserted the New Testament version of Moses' words into his translation, rather than translated it directly from the plates. And if so, why?

In consideration of The Fall, it is most likely that the worst things (in this case, fraudulent and unscrupulous) will happen. However, in consideration of The Redemption, “nothing shall be impossible”, or “things which are impossible with men are possible with God.” I lean toward a world view made possible by The Redemption.

[Aliwe]

12 And also a ^arecord of the Jews from the beginning, even down to the commencement of the reign of Zedekiah, king of Judah;

As you can see, the brass plates were not limited to the 5 Books of Moses.

Yes indeed, I do see that. But the record of the Jews from the beginning, down to the reign of Zedekiah, means the brass plates contained the big fat history which in our modern bible is broken up into six books: 1 & 2 Samuel, 1 & 2 Kings, and 1 & 2 Chronicles. And that history commences (aside from the bare genealogies) with the penultimate judge, Eli, about a hundred years after Joshua entered the Holy Land. So it could not contain the record of the theophany at Horeb/Sinai, which the incident in question.

[zerinus]

Because there are three omitted verses (Deuteronomy 18:16-19) which diverge into a discussion of the people's terror of God's fire and smoke at Mt. Horeb, and 1 Nephi 22:17-18 taught that the fire and smoke was reserved for those who hardened their heart against God. So logically, God would send the fire and smoke on the people for begging the Holy One of Israel to go away. But Moses said that God relented and would send a human prophet to represent God from that point forward. This divergence clouded the point Nephi was trying to make. Peter already dropped the diverging middle section. So Joseph Smith used his paraphrase.

The simplest explanation for the variations is probably the correct one, and it is suggested by the Joseph Smith "Translation" of the King James Bible. He didn't read Greek and his source was the King James Bible, which is a translation, so what he did was a revision.

Sorry, but what you say doesn't make sense. The Isaiah quotes for example are extensive. They are for the most part identical to the KJV, but with some variations. The variations do not for the most part introduce doctrinal differences, but are just linguistic, which do not significantly alter the meaning of the text. So if he was "revising," what was he revising, and on what basis? Your theory still does not explain the observed phenomenon.

[Aliwe]

Sorry, but what you say doesn't make sense. The Isaiah quotes for example are extensive. They are for the most part identical to the KJV, but with some variations. The variations do not for the most part introduce doctrinal differences, but are just linguistic, which do not significantly alter the meaning of the text. So if he was "revising," what was he revising, and on what basis? Your theory still does not explain the observed phenomenon.

Let me give an example from Taoism. The 81 Chapters of the Taoteching were written in Chinese characters. Scholars who understand Chinese are able to transform these characters into English and publish a translation. Sometimes Chinese idioms don't cross over well. Other people will take their translation and smooth it out a bit, add some here, take some there, and publish a revision. This is what we have with the Joseph Smith "Translation". The kinds of alterations, however, go beyond simple clarification and add doctrinal content, such as when it was Noah who was sorry God made man, rather than God himself. So it approaches being a devotional paraphrase. In any event, my claim is that 1 Nephi 22 contains a revision of Acts 3 rather than a translation of Deuteronomy 18.

[zerinus]

Let me give an example from Taoism. The 81 Chapters of the Taoteching were written in Chinese characters. Scholars who understand Chinese are able to transform these characters into English and publish a translation. Sometimes Chinese idioms don't cross over well. Other people will take their translation and smooth it out a bit, add some here, take some there, and publish a revision. This is what we have with the Joseph Smith "Translation".

It really isn't. The bulk of the JST changes consist of linguistic variations which do not significantly alter the meaning of the text, and could only be explained on the grounds of making a literal translation from an original text; while at the same time they contain significant textual differences which provide additional information and/or doctrinal changes. Your suggestion does not explain the observed phenomenon.

The kinds of alterations, however, go beyond simple clarification and add doctrinal content, such as when it was Noah who was sorry God made man, rather than God himself. So it approaches being a devotional paraphrase.

How does that explain extensive and lengthy additions such as the Book of Moses for example, or the many significant additions to the NT? It doesn't.

In any event, my claim is that 1 Nephi 22 contains a revision of Acts 3 rather than a translation of Deuteronomy 18.

If it is, then it was done by the Lord, not by Joseph Smith. He neither knew the Bible well enough, nor spent the length of time in the translation that would have been required to do that kind of detailed "editing".

[SamIam]

In any event, my claim is that 1 Nephi 22 contains a revision of Acts 3 rather than a translation of Deuteronomy 18.

As I have watched your sweeping presence in the very few days you have been here, I have been wondering when you were going to come out. I'm not sure yet that you have and so I will reserve engaging you until I am more clear on your perspective.

This claim you make above in the quoted portion to what ends is it an important claim to you? In other words you have provided us with "if this" "then that" what is the "therefore" part you have omitted? Where are you trying to get at?

[Aliwe]

How does that explain extensive and lengthy additions such as the Book of Moses for example, or the many significant additions to the NT? It doesn't.

Unfortunately, the more you emphasize the additions to the text, the more it moves from a translation to a devotional paraphrase, and you don't want the latter.

[Flyonthewall]

Yes indeed, I do see that. But the record of the Jews from the beginning, down to the reign of Zedekiah, means the brass plates contained the big fat history which in our modern bible is broken up into six books: 1 & 2 Samuel, 1 & 2 Kings, and 1 & 2 Chronicles. And that history commences (aside from the bare genealogies) with the penultimate judge, Eli, about a hundred years after Joshua entered the Holy Land. So it could not contain the record of the theophany at Horeb/Sinai, which the incident in question.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding you then...the 5 books of Moses are Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.

Are you saying the Brass plates, which includes the 5 books of Moses plus more, could not contain Deuteronomy?

[Aliwe]

As I have watched your sweeping presence in the very few days you have been here, I have been wondering when you were going to come out. I'm not sure yet that you have and so I will reserve engaging you until I am more clear on your perspective.

This claim you make above in the quoted portion to what ends is it an important claim to you? In other words you have provided us with "if this" "then that" what is the "therefore" part you have omitted? Where are you trying to get at?

In this case I'm getting the anachronism problem out of the way so I won't have to come back. It would be very boring for everyone involved if I jumped to the book of Ether and asked about the parts where Moroni lifted the "By faith so and so did this and that" litany straight from Hebrews. I won't go there. Besides, it's a dry hole. A Mormon apologist could say that the Bible and the Book of Mormon were both dictated to the authors from the same God so of course they're the same. But in this case, there's a problem that goes beyond mere style, there's three missing verses, so it's a structural issue. It would interest me if an LDS here admitted that maybe JS did resort to the KJV for some parts of the BoM, but if they dig in their heels that is also interesting.

[Aliwe]

Perhaps I am misunderstanding you then...the 5 books of Moses are Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.

Are you saying the Brass plates, which includes the 5 books of Moses plus more, could not contain Deuteronomy?

Quite the contrary, I'm insisting the Brass Plates contained Deuteronomy, so when Nephi quoted Moses, he should have quoted Deuteronomy 18, but in fact he quoted Acts 3. Do you see?

[Robert F. Smith]

In 1 Nephi 22:20 Joseph Smith, translating from the golden plates, wrote:

And the Lord will surely prepare a way for his people, unto the fulfilling of the words of Moses, which he spake, saying: A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you. And it shall come to pass that all those who will not hear that prophet shall be cut off from among the people.

Curious about the context of Moses' words, I went to two verses in Deuteronomy 18:

[15] The LORD thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken;

[19] And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him.

The words are somewhat different (no "cutting off from the people" for example), and they omit words contained in three verses between them. But if you go to Acts 3:22-23, it reads:

For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you. And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people.

So my question is whether you think it is more likely Joseph Smith inserted the New Testament version of Moses' words into his translation, rather than translated it directly from the plates. And if so, why?

Joseph certainly follows the KJV style of Acts 3:22-23 in his translation of I Nephi 22:20. However, in so doing, we should note that the NT Greek typically follows the Septuagint Greek version (LXX), as here, rather than the Massoretic Hebrew text. This accounts for the different KJV translation committees coming up with somewhat different translations. Joseph as translator is to be permitted to follow whichever tradition he prefers, providing that the substance of the Vorlage on the Small Plates of Nephi is followed.

In this case, it is Deuteronomy 18:18-19 which is paralleled by both Acts 3:22-23 and I Nephi 2:20, while the second half of verse 20 (and Acts 3:23) most closely follows the LXX and KJV rendering of Leviticus 23:29, rather than of Deuteronomy 18:19, thus excluding from direct consideration 18:15-17, and raising the question as to how the Pentateuch on the Brass Plates may have differed from the Massoretic Hebrew version of a millennium and a half later.

You may also want to consider the KJV quotation of Deut 18:15 in Acts 7:37, "This is that Moses, which said unto the children of Israel, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear." Again this most closely follows the LXX.

Edited June 24, 2012 by Robert F. Smith

[Flyonthewall]

Quite the contrary, I'm insisting the Brass Plates contained Deuteronomy, so when Nephi quoted Moses, he should have quoted Deuteronomy 18, but in fact he quoted Acts 3. Do you see?

So why can't Nephi be paraphrasing Deuteronomy?

Nephi would not need the missing versus because of the audience to whom he was speaking.

Acts does the same thing, omitting the missing verses because they were directed at a different audience. Acts only references the important versus to the message being taught.

People do that all the time...they cite portions of scriptures in talks/sermons to emphasize the important part of the passage, leaving out the parts that do not pertain to the message.

I can certainly see how "cut off" and "destroyed" could come from "I will require it of him"....As I stated earlier, this could simply be a translation issue from different times and cultures.

[Robert F. Smith]

So if I follow you correctly, rather than Peter paraphrasing Moses from the existing Torah (which is the same now as it was 2000 years ago), your claim is that Peter stood preaching in the temple of God and quoted verbatim an unknown text that is no longer extant, but which happened to duplicate the passage in Deuteronomy to a high degree.

Peter is not paraphrasing Deut 18:18-19. His quotation is embedded in a book authored by Luke, and you can be sure that Luke checked his copy of the LXX before circulating his book. Now, of course the Hebrew Torah (Pentateuch) used nowadays is based on traditional manuscripts around a millennium old. That means at least 2 millennia later than Moses, and long after Hebrew as a living language had disappeared. Although some scholarly Hebrew texts of the Torah now include some readings from the Qumran Scrolls, even those are at least a millennium later than Moses, and perhaps at a similar distance in time from the Brass Plates of Laban.

[Robert F. Smith]

For number 2 I humbly request a third party claim there is such a thing as a "Record of Judah" and it can even be an LDS site.

cdowis may be referring to the form of the Bible in use among the Jews in the 1st century A.D., whether Hebrew (MT) or Greek (LXX), since both were accepted among the Jews at that time.

For number 3, however, I formally request references that indicate that the Torah was altered to make the account in Deuteronomy 18 resemble its current form, and why the Jews would do so.

Numerous changes (tiqqune sopherim) in the text of Deuteronomy are known to have been made by Jewish scribes in the centuries before Jesus, and many more are suspected. Many such changes were made by pious scribes who were trying to blot out a perceived blasphemy, but in other cases standard copying errors were made. In some cases, doctrinal changes were made.^#

Margaret Barker discusses some of these doctrinal changes based on the Exilic or Post-Exilic creation of Deuteronomy,^@ which nearly all scholars agree was introduced into the Hebrew Bible very late.

# See Saul Levin, The Father of Joshua/Jesus (Binghamton, NY: State Univ. of New York, 1978), esp. chapter 4; Encyclopedia Judaica (1971-72), at tikkune sopherim.

^@ See Barker, Temple Mysticism: An Introduction (SPCK, 2011), 53-55, 146-147, and passim.

[Robert F. Smith]

Perhaps I am misunderstanding you then...the 5 books of Moses are Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.

Are you saying the Brass plates, which includes the 5 books of Moses plus more, could not contain Deuteronomy?

We do not in fact know the composition of the 5 books of Moses on the Brass Plates, but it is certain that they could not have contained Deuteronomy as we know it today (from the Massoretic tradition and copies at Qumran), since it was put together at a very late date. Moreover, as Margaret Barker maintains, Deut is a powerful revision of Israelite religion so as to exclude some of the most important esoteric traditions -- which continue sub rosa down to the time of the Christians, who resurrect the authentic Pre-Exilic traditions, including complex temple ideology.