Evidence Of Deuteronomy, Or Some Version Thereof, On The Brass Plates

[USU78]

It should probably be noted, though, that Prof. Tiemeyer herself believes that Isaiah 40–55 was composed between 539 and 520 BCE, some 60 to 75 years after Lehi's party left Jerusalem.

A quibble, in my view.

[Nathair/|\]

Just for the record, Hermetics originates in very ancient Egypt with the Emerald Tablet of Hermes Trismegistus, aka the god Thoth. I don't have my alchemy texts with me, so I can't give more precise data than that right now, but if there is interest, I'll get it for you.

Speaking as a western magician, I'd say faith, hope and charity are essential to what we do.

Yours under the magical oaks,

Nathair /|\

[Robert F. Smith]

robuchan said:

No, no, no.

Nibley and Kevin Christensen are being nothing short of dishonest and fraudulent if they imply Moroni and Paul have the same source, citing an obscure German article. And then when you investigate the obscure German article, there's no source even remotely closely ancient enough that could have influenced both.

CFR on the ancient source or take back the claim and stop using it each time Moroni's plagiarism of Paul comes up.

I dismiss what Nibley and you offered because it was intentionally deceitful. The logic was that they had a common source and the reference was from Classic Greece.

I'm sorry if you think my accusation was too strong, but we've had this exact same discussion before on this board. You know the source is not something that would be common to Moroni and Paul, both, yet you used the logic and the false reference to support your logic.

All the other points you make defending Moroni's plagiarism of Paul are fine. I don't think they're very strong points, but I don't challenge them.

I'm challenging the source related to the theory that they had a common pre 600 BC source.

I agree with you, robuchan, that your comments were too strong, maybe even abusive, and I'm not sure what you dislike more: Mormons or Paul's Hymn to Love. In either case, you ought to try to participate in a discussion without creating straw men and without attributing to your chosen opponents arguments which they have not made.

You have already admitted that Paul was heavily influenced by already existing ancient literature. What Nibley and others of us have maintained through accurate citation of non-Mormon sources is the position that the triad of faith, hope, and love predates Paul. Another guy on this board claimed that such is not so, and that no commentaries take such a position. He was very adamant about that, even though he is quite wrong. I have taken a closer look, and provide here a short document with discussion and more sources supporting the Nibley position which you have claimed is "fake."

FAITH HOPE & CHARITY.pdf

[Robert F. Smith]

I hate to make common cause with robuchan, but Nibley's claim that "'the Hymn to Charity,' was shown early in this century by a number of first-rate investigators working independently (A. Harnack, J. Weiss, R. Reitzenstein) to have originated not with Paul at all, but to go back to some older but unknown source" is simply not true.

This has not been "shown." I have yet to find a critical commentary that even mentions this theory let alone one that regards it as a serious possibility. As far as I can tell, Harnack and Weiss never claimed that Paul was quoting an ancient source. If Reitzenstein did, then his claim has been completely ignored. Virtually all scholars believe that 1 Corinthians 13 originated with Paul. And the handful of scholars who dissent from this view theorize that 1 Corinthians 13 is a later (Christian) interpolation—not a quotation from an unknown ancient source.

I consulted two multi-volume commentaries, both of which assumed that the triad of faith, hope, and charity is a formula predating Paul. It is true, however, that Joseph Fitzmyer rejects that notion in his Anchor Bible translation-commentary on First Corinthians. I have found nothing suggesting that it might be a later interpolation. I have provided documentation of those and other notions in a reply to robuchan, above.

[robuchan]

I agree with you, robuchan, that your comments were too strong, maybe even abusive, and I'm not sure what you dislike more: Mormons or Paul's Hymn to Love. In either case, you ought to try to participate in a discussion without creating straw men and without attributing to your chosen opponents arguments which they have not made.

You have already admitted that Paul was heavily influenced by already existing ancient literature. What Nibley and others of us have maintained through accurate citation of non-Mormon sources is the position that the triad of faith, hope, and love predates Paul. Another guy on this board claimed that such is not so, and that no commentaries take such a position. He was very adamant about that, even though he is quite wrong. I have taken a closer look, and provide here a short document with discussion and more sources supporting the Nibley position which you have claimed is "fake."

FAITH HOPE & CHARITY.pdf

It surely is fake that there is a documented source that Moroni would have had access to. That's what both Nibley and Kevin Christensen were implying. Ancient is not always ancient.

[USU78]

It surely is fake that there is a documented source that Moroni would have had access to. That's what both Nibley and Kevin Christensen were implying. Ancient is not always ancient.

That you believe there is no source inferrable from the evidence is obvious, but you cannot honestly claim "t surely is a fake."

As demonstrated, there is good reason to believe the sources go back far beyond Maccabees and perhaps to hoary antiquity via Egypt and, perhaps further, beyond.

While it's true that "[a]ncient is not always ancient," not extant does not equal never existed.

[robuchan]

That you believe there is no source inferrable from the evidence is obvious, but you cannot honestly claim "t surely is a fake."

As demonstrated, there is good reason to believe the sources go back far beyond Maccabees and perhaps to hoary antiquity via Egypt and, perhaps further, beyond.

While it's true that "[a]ncient is not always ancient," not extant does not equal never existed.

once again, CFR that faith, hope, and charity dates back to pre 600 BC or even a source that claims there is good reason to believe it goes that far back.

[Skylla]

Robuchan: You are out of this thread.

Skylla

[Robert F. Smith]

It surely is fake that there is a documented source that Moroni would have had access to. That's what both Nibley and Kevin Christensen were implying. Ancient is not always ancient.

once again, CFR that faith, hope, and charity dates back to pre 600 BC or even a source that claims there is good reason to believe it goes that far back.

]

Once again you substitute your own straw man claim for the one being made by both Nibley & Christensen. You even admit that by using the word "implying." It would be nice if you could come to grips with the claims actually being made, and to engage with the non-Mormon scholars which I have cited. Why are you so hesitant to do that? Should we take that as an admission that you don't engage simply because you cannot?

Edited August 28, 2012 by Robert F. Smith

[Kevin Christensen]

It surely is fake that there is a documented source that Moroni would have had access to. That's what both Nibley and Kevin Christensen were implying. Ancient is not always ancient.

I think you're a bit too fixated on the Brass Plates, as if they are the only records Mormon and Moroni had, and that all of their sources must therefore be pre-exilic, and any New Testament parallels in the Book of Mormon must defended in terms of potential pre-Exilic sources. In some cases, I think we can make such arguments, as I think I showed with respect to the Melchizedek material in Alma 13. But Alma 13 predates the visit of Jesus, which changes things as far as potential records goes. In the Isaiah in the Book of Mormon volume, Jack Welch argued that the Isaiah chapters that Jesus quotes don't have to be considered pre-exilic. Just as available to Jesus. Nor does the Sermon at the Temple, though Welch also points out pre-exilic and temple roots.

Just as Paul had other sources of learning besides the current Old Testament, Mormon and Moroni had other records available to them besides the Brass Plates. The obvious alternative is direct teaching from the same one who had given the New Testament discourse in Matthew. And even after Jesus departed, teaching much more than we have in 3 Nephi, those disciples he chose and taught were around for years.

It might help to remember and consider the implications of 3 Nephi 26:

6 And now there cannot be written in this book even a hundredth part of the things which Jesus did truly teach unto the people;

7 But behold the plates of Nephi do contain the more part of the things which he taught the people.

8 And these things have I written, which are a lesser part of the things which he taught the people; and I have written them to the intent that they may be brought again unto this people, from the Gentiles, according to the words which Jesus hath spoken.

And again, 2 Nephi 29:

8 Wherefore murmur ye, because that ye shall receive more of my word? Know ye not that the testimony of two nations is a witness unto you that I am God, that I remember one nation like unto another? Wherefore, I speak the same words unto one nation like unto another. And when the two nations shall run together the testimony of the two nations shall run together also.

9 And I do this that I may prove unto many that I am the same yesterday, today, and forever; and that I speak forth my words according to mine own pleasure. And because that I have spoken one word ye need not suppose that I cannot speak another; for my work is not yet finished; neither shall it be until the end of man, neither from that time henceforth and forever.

10 Wherefore, because that ye have a Bible ye need not suppose that it contains all my words; neither need ye suppose that I have not caused more to be written.

Someone might want to argue that "faith, hope, and charity" would be out of character as a teaching of Jesus, or that Jesus would never say anything that was not totally original and without parallel, or that if Paul was completely original, that Jesus could not have heard about it and passed it along. But I think they'd have a hard time doing do, given that Jesus, like Paul, freely quoted and paraphrased scripture and other sources.

And thanks to the always amazingly well informed, Robert Smith, we have a better idea of what could be available to Paul.

If that sort of argument regarding potential sources seems to open up too easy an escape hatch for those who want to quickly settle accounts with the Book of Mormon via the charge of obvious anachronism, there are many other tests to be made. Lots of eye-witness details to check. Lots of convergences to evaluate. Any inference about a particular passage needs to be part of a theory that can best account for the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith and company as whole.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Edited August 28, 2012 by Kevin Christensen

[Nevo]

I consulted two multi-volume commentaries, both of which assumed that the triad of faith, hope, and charity is a formula predating Paul. It is true, however, that Joseph Fitzmyer rejects that notion in his Anchor Bible translation-commentary on First Corinthians. I have found nothing suggesting that it might be a later interpolation. I have provided documentation of those and other notions in a reply to robuchan, above.

Hi Robert,

I appreciate your response but you seem to have misunderstood my disagreement with Nibley. I was responding to Nibley's claim that "the Hymn to Charity" (not simply "the triad of faith, hope, and charity") did not originate with Paul, and that this had been demonstrated by Harnack, Weiss, and Reitzenstein, among others. I think you would agree that this claim is problematic. As you know, virtually all scholars hold that Paul was the author of 1 Corinthians 13 (the only two that I am aware of that have disputed this are Eric Titus and William O. Walker, who do indeed claim that 1 Corinthians 13 is a Christian interpolation).

Now whether the triad of faith, hope, and charity predates Paul, I have no idea. But even if it did, that hardly solves the problem of Moroni quoting 1 Corinthians 13:4-8 nearly word for word (see Moroni 7:45-46).

[Robert F. Smith]

Hi Robert,

I appreciate your response but you seem to have misunderstood my disagreement with Nibley. I was responding to Nibley's claim that "the Hymn to Charity" (not simply "the triad of faith, hope, and charity") did not originate with Paul, and that this had been demonstrated by Harnack, Weiss, and Reitzenstein, among others. I think you would agree that this claim is problematic. As you know, virtually all scholars hold that Paul was the author of 1 Corinthians 13 (the only two that I am aware of that have disputed this are Eric Titus and William O. Walker, who do indeed claim that 1 Corinthians 13 is a Christian interpolation).

Thanks for the clarification. I did focus on the triad only because it seemed more manageable in short compass. However, I did cite Levine & Brettler for the Jewish view that all of I Cor 1-13 was based on already extant views. The verbiage with which such concerns (centering on the triad) were expressed may be Paul's, or he may be using a combination of words and phrases he learned as a rabbinical student at the feet of Gamliel as well as from other sources (all of us tend to do that). I am very dubious about looking at such material in isolation, as though it is so original or sui generis that we must look with horror on similarities. A lifetime spent with ancient and modern texts has taught me that there is nothing new under the sun.

Now whether the triad of faith, hope, and charity predates Paul, I have no idea. But even if it did, that hardly solves the problem of Moroni quoting 1 Corinthians 13:4-8 nearly word for word (see Moroni 7:45-46).

I am well aware of the close parallels, having catalogued the minutiae for the FARMS Book of Mormon Critical Text which was published in three volumes and in two editions in the mid-1980s. They're being painstakingly digitized now, as a simple ocr scan was inadequate.

I won't repeat here the various ways in which commentators account for those parallels, but some of that does depend on a priori beliefs, one's theory of translation, as well as on the sources available to both Moroni and Joseph. There is too much we do not know about such matters to reach hard and fast conclusions, and this is not the only instance in which the Book of Mormon exhibits tight parallels with post-exilic materials. In any case, I don't regard it as a "problem" in the negative sense.