David Bokovoy's explanation of OT

[stemelbow]

14 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The overwhelming scholarly and expert consensus about Mark Hofmann's "documents" was that they were authentic -- until it became clear that they were forgeries.

That event made such an impression on my mind that I am not apt ever to forget it.

Just sayin'.

 

And what's the consensus now? 

This is about as off topic as one will get.  But as the author of OP I'll allow it, because I don't mind off topic. 

[canard78]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Thanks.  If you see the word appearing on the graph at all, anywhere near 1830, it would throw out the theory by word.  I guess his argument is more that the trend of many words suggests the translation came from an earlier era.  While I could easily evaluate by word, to determine the trend and draw a conclusion is a bit outside of my level of expertise, but feels rather fluid and arguable.  So, as it is the theory itself hasn't impressed me enough to even go there. 

But thanks for the little link and demo.  I'll play with other words.  The "f" word was used in the early 1800s, peaked in around 1640.  It must have meant something else back then. 

F-word? You mean "faith"? We tend to avoid using words like that these days...

[juliann]

Kevin Barney's take,   https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V33N01_79.pdf

Quote

These misgivings and cautions notwithstanding, I do accept the Documentary Hypothesis. In my view, the evidence favoring the hypothesis is stronger than most people realize. It is not just a question of different sections using different names for God, which seems to be the popular conception. Rather, there are numerous doublets and triplets in the text. Extensive lists of terminology, contradictions, and other textual characteristics fit consistently into one or another of the matching stories of the doublets. There are also other indications of redaction, which have been assembled by scholars over a very long period of time. If one does not insist on a fundamentalist or inerrantist approach to the scriptures, the Documentary Hypothesis actually provides some fascinating insights into Mormon scripture as I have attempted to illustrate by a number of examples. So where do we go from here with respect to the issue of Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch? The present article notwithstanding, I believe that for the foreseeable future the great majority of the membership of the church will continue to fall under category 5 and make traditional assumptions about the composition of the Pentateuch. The founding of an array of LDS publications with a scholarly orientation over the past quarter century has greatly benefitted the liberal and centrist positions; I expect those positions to continue to see modest growth over time. Conversely, the authority of category 6 largely derives from the ecclesiastical prestige of its adherents. Now that church leaders no longer rail against the Documentary Hypothesis over the pulpit, I anticipate that category 6 may see a modest decrease in influence over time. Whatever the future may hold for continuing LDS interaction with the Documentary Hypothesis, I do believe that we need have no fear of the hypothesis. In my view, the correctness of that theory in its general outlines would by no means entail the incorrectness of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ.

 

[consiglieri]

4 minutes ago, juliann said:

Kevin Barney's take,   https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V33N01_79.pdf

 

Thanks for the cite, Juliann.

I think it is easy for Mormons to sometimes forget that all truth is supposed to be able to be circumscribed into one great whole.

If there are truths outside your paradigm, your circle is apparently not big enough. 

 

[canard78]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I have taken into careful consideration the articles and lectures by Stanford Carmack and Royal Skousen on this matter.  I believe that they have well established their position as fact.  It doesn't necessarily make sense, and I haven't heard a good explanation as to why God would do it that way.  However, we need to allow the evidence to speak for itself.

 

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I agree, John, and am anxious to see what other research shows.  Carmack & Skousen have made some sweeping claims, and it couldn't hurt to check up on them.  That's what the scholarly enterprise is all about.

John and I have shown at different times, that a lot of their evidence isn't evidence at all. How can you say they've established something as fact when the evidence they have proposed for their theory doesn't stand up to scrutiny. I looked into several of Skousens examples a couple of years ago and found 19th examples of the language he claimed as supporting his theory. John has gone further than I have and shown multiple examples of words and phrases still being in use in 19th C.

If their evidence is being debunked by a few minutes googling, imagine what an extensive investigation would conclude? On the basis that a lot of their evidence doesn't hold water I'm baffled how you can consider their case to be conclusive enough as to use the confident language that you have in this thread.

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Nevo said:

If God has revealed to you that the Book of Mormon is a true and authentic "record of God's dealings with ancient inhabitants of the Americas," or if you are convinced of this on "other sufficient grounds," then the latest scholarly theories on Isaiah authorship are of little consequence.

Your claim about revealed knowledge through spiritual experience is based on a multitude of assumptions.  I doubt when someone prays to God asking if the BoM is true, that this person is specifically praying to ask God if the BoM contains historically accurate events in it.  I know I didn't even consider that question when I prayed about it.  I don't see why a person's spiritual experience has to fit into the specific parameters that you're outlining here.  

We can adjust to new information as it is learned.  I see this as part of the Mormon ideal for revelation, line upon line progression.   

[hope_for_things]

6 minutes ago, canard78 said:

If their evidence is being debunked by a few minutes googling, imagine what an extensive investigation would conclude? On the basis that a lot of their evidence doesn't hold water I'm baffled how you can consider their case to be conclusive enough as to use the confident language that you have in this thread.

This is a really good point.  Doesn't this somewhat undermine the respectability of the Interpreter as a peer reviewed journal?  

[Scott Lloyd]

49 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

And what's the consensus now? 

 

About Hofmann's forgeries being forgeries? Do you really have to ask that?

Quote

This is about as off topic as one will get.  But as the author of OP I'll allow it, because I don't mind off topic. 

No, it's not off topic.

Be it Hofmann's forgeries or Deutero-Isaiah, scholarly consensus is not necessarily immutable truth. That's all I'm saying.

Clear now?

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Stating your conclusion as fact seems difficult to maintain. 

It's a myth that anybody does anything else.  There are no facts, just interpretations.

Just watch the 6 o'clock news to get the "facts" and you will instantly understand.

[stemelbow]

18 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

About Hofmann's forgeries being forgeries? Do you really have to ask that?

No, it's not off topic.

Be it Hofmann's forgeries or Deutero-Isaiah, scholarly consensus is not necessarily immutable truth. That's all I'm saying.

Clear now?

No one's claiming that scholarly consensus is immutable truth.  You went off topic, Scott.  But I don't mind.  Have fun running down that rabbit hole. 

[Nevo]

31 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Your claim about revealed knowledge through spiritual experience is based on a multitude of assumptions.  I doubt when someone prays to God asking if the BoM is true, that this person is specifically praying to ask God if the BoM contains historically accurate events in it.  I know I didn't even consider that question when I prayed about it.  I don't see why a person's spiritual experience has to fit into the specific parameters that you're outlining here.

Fair point. I should have said "If you are convinced that God has revealed to you..." (Whether God actually reveals to anyone that the Book of Mormon is historically true is an open question.) But I think you would agree that, for most Mormons, the proposition that the Book of Mormon is "true" entails the proposition that it is an authentic ancient record. Very few take the position that it's spiritually true but not historical.

Edited May 25, 2016 by Nevo

[Johnnie Cake]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The overwhelming scholarly and expert consensus about Mark Hofmann's "documents" was that they were authentic -- until it became clear that they were forgeries.

That event made such an impression on my mind that I am not apt ever to forget it.

Just sayin'.

 

Red Herring

[Scott Lloyd]

56 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

It's a myth that anybody does anything else.  There are no facts, just interpretations.

Just watch the 6 o'clock news to get the "facts" and you will instantly understand.

Especially when you compare it with other news programs or news media reports.

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Especially when you compare it with other news programs or news media reports.

And the Church News is a whole 'nother thing.

[Scott Lloyd]

45 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

No one's claiming that scholarly consensus is immutable truth.  You went off topic, Scott.  But I don't mind.  Have fun running down that rabbit hole. 

I don't know why you keep claiming that I went off topic. I was addressing what I've read here: that the experts today say Isaiah has more than one author, and the experts must be right since there are so many of them who are saying so.

I don't really have anything else to say on this matter other than the point I've already made -- unless you are going to accuse me yet again of going off topic.

But FWIW, here is an entry in Encyclopedia of Mormonism by the late Victor Ludlow on Isaiah authorship.

Edited May 25, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[stemelbow]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don't know why you keep claiming that I went off topic. I was addressing what I've read here: that the experts today say Isaiah has more than one author, and the experts must be right since there are so many of them who are saying so.

I don't really have anything else to say on this matter other than the point I've already made -- unless you are going to accuse me yet again of going off topic.

 

You keep going off topic, Scott.  hah.

no one is saying the experts must be right since there are so many of them who are saying so.  There really isn't even an argument being made in this thread about any of that.  But if you'd like to offer a thoughtful response to David's two recent blog posts, I'm all ears. 

[Scott Lloyd]

7 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

And the Church News is a whole 'nother thing.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and take that as good-natured teasing as opposed to the proverbial cheap shot.

 

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

You keep going off topic, Scott.  hah.

no one is saying the experts must be right since there are so many of them who are saying so.  There really isn't even an argument being made in this thread about any of that.  But if you'd like to offer a thoughtful response to David's two recent blog posts, I'm all ears. 

Yep, Scott's statement would have made sense had David's articles been mere appeals to authority. They aren't. Obviously, Scott finds the argument unpersuasive, though I don't think it's because there is consensus among the experts.

[Scott Lloyd]

49 minutes ago, Nevo said:

Fair point. I should have said "If you are convinced that God has revealed to you..." (Whether God actually reveals to anyone that the Book of Mormon is historically true is an open question.) But I think you would agree that, for most Mormons, the proposition that the Book of Mormon is "true" entails the proposition that it is an authentic ancient record. Very few take the position that it's spiritually true but not historical.

And I would contend that such a position is not logically coherent.

[Scott Lloyd]

32 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Red Herring

Alaskan king salmon.

[jkwilliams]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and take that as good-natured teasing as opposed to the proverbial cheap shot.

 

It was the former, hence the wink. 

[Scott Lloyd]

16 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Yep, Scott's statement would have made sense had David's articles been mere appeals to authority. They aren't. Obviously, Scott finds the argument unpersuasive, though I don't think it's because there is consensus among the experts.

I wasn't talking about David's articles, necessarily. Although I think even he cites the "overwhelming scholarly consensus." I'd have to go back and check to confirm.

Edited to add:

Here you go:

Quote

One of the most insightful perspectives held by mainstream biblical scholars involves the historical development of the book of Isaiah.   Since the 20^th century, all mainstream scholars have held the position that chapters 40-66 were written after the Jewish exile into Babylon (c.a. 586 BCE). Scholars typically identify the exilic material in 40-55 by the title Deutero-Isaiah, and the post-exilic material in 56-66 by the title Trito-Isaiah (though these works may have been written by multiple authors). This means, of course, that the second half of the book of Isaiah was not written by the historical Isaiah, a prophet who lived in Jerusalem during the eighth century BCE. 

Bold emphasis mine.

But I must hasten to say that I'm not all that interested in this topic, except to offer the comment I made above about appeal to authority and the comparison to the Hofmann episode and the mainstream "experts" who were opining at that time. I really hadn't intended to go beyond that, and since stemelbow thinks I'm derailing his thread, I think it would be best to bow out now.

You may have the last word, if you want it.

 

Edited May 25, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I wasn't talking about David's articles, necessarily. Although I think even he cites the "overwhelming scholarly consensus." I'd have to go back and check to confirm.

The key is that he explains why there's overwhelming scholarly consensus.

[Johnnie Cake]

29 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Yep, Scott's statement would have made sense had David's articles been mere appeals to authority. They aren't. Obviously, Scott finds the argument unpersuasive, though I don't think it's because there is consensus among the experts.

haha made me laugh out loud

[stemelbow]

23 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I wasn't talking about David's articles, necessarily. Although I think even he cites the "overwhelming scholarly consensus." I'd have to go back and check to confirm.

Edited to add:

Here you go:

Bold emphasis mine.

But I must hasten to say that I'm not all that interested in this topic, except to offer the comment I made above about appeal to authority and the comparison to the Hofmann episode and the mainstream "experts" who were opining at that time. I really hadn't intended to go beyond that, and since stemelbow thinks I'm derailing his thread, I think it would be best to bow out now.

You may have the last word, if you want it.

 

Well if your only attempted contribution was to say even scholars can be wrong, then so be it.  But it's a shame you had to come in to suggest as much while accusing people of doing that which they did not do--"was addressing what I've read here: that the experts today say Isaiah has more than one author, and the experts must be right since there are so many of them who are saying so". Nobody suggested as much.

I'm fine with off topic.  I was in essence teasing you, Scott, since as I recall you've complained about off-topics posts.  Yes, I still see your first post in this thread as a red herring and thus off topic.  But that's ok because it took us down a path that showed you ahd the wrong impression about what people were actually saying.  Hopefully we can all move on without trying to put words into other people's mouths. 

Hope all is well.