Robert F. Smith Posted February 15, 2014 Posted February 15, 2014 You know Robertolini, this tap dance of yours gets a little weary after awhile. If you have solid evidence that directly connects itself to (and is identifiable as such) the supposed Lamanite, Nephite, Jaredite, Mulekite or even Termite civilizations, please share it with us. In other words "Show me the money"............... PART IV Textual Criticism: Bill Hamblin observed on this board a couple of years ago, that It is interesting to note that the self-description of the editorializers of the BOM reflect precisely the type of editing that is often posited to have occurred in the Bible. That ancient scripture went through a complex editorial process as found in the BOM is consistent with modern theory, but radically inconsistent with biblical theory of the early 19th century.--Hamblin, post #148, June 27, 2012, on the Mormon Dialogue and Discussion Board, online at http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/58179-why-byu-and-the-maxwell-institute-are-in-serious-serious-trouble/page__st__140 . As Sidney Sperry pointed out long ago, the Book of Mormon text follows very early manuscript readings, about which Joseph could have known nothing, but which reflect the work of much earlier editors and redactors than those who have given us the Old Testament as we know it today.--Sperry, “Book of Mormon and Textual Criticism,” Book of Mormon Institute, Dec 5, 1959; Sperry, Answers to Book of Mormon Questions (SLC: Bookcraft, 1967), 92-93; Robert F. Smith, “Textual Criticism of the Book of Mormon,” FARMS Update, Sept 1984, also available in J. W. Welch, ed., Reexploring the Book of Mormon (Provo: FARMS, 1992), 77-79. Evidence of an early textus receptus of the Old Testament within the Bronze Plates as well as upon the Plates of Ether is also shown by examples such as the following: In its reference to the “Great Tower” story (Omni 22, Helaman 6:28, Ether 1:33), the Book of Mormon never refers to “Babel,” which some biblical scholars consider to be an Exilic or post-Exilic editorial insertion into the text at Genesis 11:9. Instead, the “great tower” and “confusion of tongues” episode in both Genesis 11:1-9 and Ether 1:33-37, recall the much earlier Sumerian “Golden Age” passage in which “the whole universe, the people in unison, to Enlil in one tongue (eme-aš-àm) gave praise,” followed shortly by the struggle between Enlil and Enki, lord of Eridu, who “changed the speech in their mouths, put contention into it, into the speech of man that (until then) had been one.” --L. E. Pearce, “Babylon,” in P. Achtemeier, ed., Harper’s Bible Dictionary (Society of Biblical Literature /HarperSanFrancisco, 1985), 88; S. N. Kramer, Sumerian Mythology, rev. ed. (Harper & Row, 1961/reprint Univ. of Penn. Press, 1972), xiv,107 n. 2; S. N. Kramer, “The ‘Babel of Tongues’: A Sumerian Version,” in W. W. Hallo, ed., Essays in Memory of E. A. Speiser, AOS 53 (New Haven, 1968):108-111 = JAOS, 88 (1968). At 3 Nephi 12:22, the Book of Mormon text follows the earliest and best manuscript evidence for the New Testament parallel text at Matthew 5:22 by leaving out the later addition of Awithout a cause@ (Greek eikē), i.e., it is absent from the earliest and most reliable texts and related documents, thus taking us much closer to the original words of Jesus – possibly because Jesus himself spoke them.-- Bruce Metzger and the UBS4 Committee have it as a glosse no earlier than the 2nd century A.D. (part of the so-called “Antiochian-Koine rescension”), A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2nd ed. (United Bible Societies, 1994), 11; “without a cause” is absent from codices Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, p64+67, minuscule manuscripts 1292, 1424, 2174, Ptolemy, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Origen, Jerome, Basil, Augustine, Cassian, most Vulgate, and Ethiopic. Resumptive Repetition: Editorial technique can be a transparent example of antiquity. For example, William M. Schniedewind observes that the Persian period Chronicler inserted some material into a verse in 1 Kings 14:25, and used Aa common editorial technique in the Bible (known as a >repetitive resumption,= or Wiederaufnahme)@ to give notice of his expanded text in 2 Chronicles 12:2-9, i.e., he repeated the same phrase as an envelope construction at the beginning and end of that addition to the text. Several good examples can be found in the Book of Mormon.-- David E. Bokovoy, ARepetitive Resumption in the Book of Mormon,@ FARMS Update, #182, in Insights, 27/1 (2007):2. The discrete section of 1 Nephi 11 - 14, which begins and ends with Athe things which/that my father saw/had seen@ (11:1 214:29) and AI was carried/caught away in the spirit@ (11:1 214:30), and which even closes with a colophon and AAmen@ (14:30). Nephi is clearly the editor in those instances. Another can be found in Mormon’s interruption of his story about Alma & Zeezrum by inserting a brief snippet from the Nephite monetary system (Alma 11), after which he takes up where he had left off by repeating nearly the same words, followed by parallel material about Antionah (Alma 12): Alma 10:32 211:20, ANow the object of these lawyers was to get gain; and they got gain according to their employ@ 2ANow, it was for the sole purpose to get gain, because they received their wages according to their employ.@ Punning: The monetary designations of ezrum and antion disclose the metonymous word-play of the names Zeezrum and Antionah as Amoneymen,@ as discussed first by Gordon Thomasson.--Thomasson, AWhat=s in a Name? Book of Mormon Language, Names, and [Metonymic] Naming,@ Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, 3/1 (Spring 1994):1-27; cf. James Barr, ASymbolism of Names in the Old Testament,@ Bulletin of the John Rylands Library, 52 (1969-1970):11-29; Barr, The Scope and Authority of the Bible (SCM/Westminster, 1980), 141 n. 6. Another example of punning in name-formation can be found for the place-name Jershon, the land near the east sea, and south of land Bountiful, given “for an inheritance” to the people of Ammon (Alma 27:22 - 43:25). The etymology is likely hypothetical Hebrew *Yēršôn “Place of Inheritance,”with the nominalizing ending -on, from yāraš, “to inherit” (Alma 27:22, “for an inheritance,”24, 35:14, all with puns).--John Tvedtnes, “Hebraisms in the Book of Mormon,” 1994 FARMS Book of Mormon Lecture (Provo: FARMS, 1994),13; J. Tvedtnes, “Hebrew Names in the Book of Mormon,” 3, citing especially Stephen Ricks & John Tvedtnes, “The Hebrew Origin of Some Book of Mormon Place-Names,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, 6/2 (Fall 1997):257-258; Martin Noth, IPN, 56. 2
Robert F. Smith Posted February 15, 2014 Posted February 15, 2014 Robert, when you brought up steel in the KJV I made the link to the usage of KJV in the BoM. I assumed you meant that because the source is the KJV the BoM usage of the word steel was the same. I see that as a reasonable argument actually. Apparently that isn't why you brought up the KJV and I still don't know why you brought it up. You seem fixated on insulting me, rather than addressing the discussion. I think it is time I put you in the ignore list.Thank you. 2
Robert F. Smith Posted February 16, 2014 Posted February 16, 2014 You know Robertolini, this tap dance of yours gets a little weary after awhile. If you have solid evidence that directly connects itself to (and is identifiable as such) the supposed Lamanite, Nephite, Jaredite, Mulekite or even Termite civilizations, please share it with us. In other words "Show me the money"............... PART V Taken in no particular order, Oh PaleOne, this has been a limited appraisal of some systematic features of the Book of Mormon which belie any claim that it is fiction. One could go on with many more such features in response to those who present lists of claimed anachronisms. The problem with a sole focus on claimed anachronisms is not only that many of those anachronisms are not anachronistic at all, but that anachronisms are a feature of every literature, whether historical or fictional. The Bible, for example, has many more anachronisms than the Book of Mormon, and an entire literature (apologetic literature) has grown up in defense of the authenticity of the Bible. Of course, as in the case of the Book of Mormon, those who attack the Bible always minimize any evidence contrary to their claims, and never discuss the authentic indicators in biblical texts and in related archeological data. That sort of monomania crushes any possibility of meaningful repartee. At the very least, as Grant Hardy has put it: If the Book of Mormon is a work of fiction, it is more intricate and clever than has heretofore been acknowledged.-- Hardy, Understanding the Book of Mormon: A Reader=s Guide, xv. It is high time that those who consider the Book of Mormon to be fictional at least be familiar with the actual nature of the Book of Mormon, as well as familiar with that portion of the ancient world from which it comes (or claims to come). How else can they expect to make a fair judgment on its authenticity?
Recommended Posts