The State of the Evidence

[Nevo]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

One thing is clear to me. . . .You do not even accept the clear-cut statements of Dr Bowman at the outset.  

You mean his statement that "the issue here is not the words themselves (the Old Testament uses corresponding Hebrew words that mean atonement, blood, Christ, and Lord) but the way they are put together to express an obviously explicitly Christian theological concept"? I agree with it completely. 
 

Quote

I thought that you at least might accept some guidance from him on the nature of the intertextual Judeo-Christian tradition.  Instead you opt for strict bifurcation -- in line with traditional assumptions, which have always been incorrect.

I have no idea what you mean here. What bifurcation? What assumptions? And why do you insist on shifting the discussion to intertextuality when it's the underlying concepts ("the way [the words] are put together") that are explicitly Christian? Obviously some of the wording in Mosiah 3:5–12 can also be found in biblical and extra-biblical writings (as your comparative chart indicates). No one disputes that. No one is arguing, for example, that the expression "not far distant" is anachronistic. The problematic concepts, in my view, are the doctrines of the Incarnation and the Fall, personal salvation through faith on Jesus' name, and Jesus' redemptive suffering and death in Gethsemane and on the cross and subsequent resurrection from the dead. If you disagree that those concepts are found in Mosiah 3:5–12 or that they are anachronistic in a pre-70 CE setting, then by all means let's see your arguments and evidence.
 

Quote

I gave you a number of very important sources, in addition to Bowman, but you chose not to respond to them, apparently pretending that they don't exist.

I suspect we have a different view of what constitutes "a number of very important sources." You provided three sources: Robert Bratcher's Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament, an online article by Rob Bowman, and a comparative chart (presumably authored by Robert F. Smith). I "chose not to respond to them" because I didn't think any required a response. It is manifestly true that NT authors quoted or alluded to passages in the LXX, sometimes using slightly different wording. But that has no bearing on anything I said. Likewise, I found nothing to disagree with in the excerpts you quoted from Rob Bowman. I agree with Bowman that Mosiah 3:5–10 "obviously" contains "explicitly Christian theological concept(s)" and that the author was familiar with the KJV. In fact I've made those same points several times in this thread. Your comparative chart was appreciated but is not really material to this discussion, as the elements that I'm alleging are anachronistic are either keyed to New Testament texts or show no "similar texts."

Edited August 10, 2016 by Nevo

[Robert F. Smith]

On 6/29/2016 at 5:21 PM, consiglieri said:

 

Quote

On 6/29/2016 at 4:48 PM, guerreiro9 said:

So your complaint is that teachings of Jesus given in one location and one language are the same as teachings of Jesus given in another location and another language when both are translated into English?

I'd hate to hear your complaint if they weren't the same...

-guerreiro9

That's the problem.

They shouldn't be the same.

Give two people the same Greek text of the Sermon on the Mount and have them translate it independently into English.

It is NOT going to be the same.

And it is certainly NOT going to be word-for-word the King James Version.

You're only digging yourself in deeper here. 

Please excuse me, Counselor, for taking up this issue again, but I have been going back over this thread to see what I may have missed:

In this case, you have made an assumption which is counterfactual.  Even with the same basic Greek NT text, the early translators have all rendered the Sermon on the Mount pretty much the same.  Why?  Because, from Wycliffe through Tyndale, the Geneva Bible, and the KJV, all were copying each other.  Traditional language and style had been established.  Everyone falls into the same pattern, including the Book of Mormon translation (whether done in Joseph Smith's time or centuries earlier).  Today of course translators have gone their separate ways.  I should have thought that you would be more concerned (like Nevo) with the overall Gestalt of that Sermon, such that the way the ideas are strung together and the interpretive thrust are seen by you as unique.  Instead you have foolishly focused on the KJV style English as though it has some sort of independent existence beyond time and space.

Edited August 10, 2016 by Robert F. Smith

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Please excuse me, Counselor, for taking up this issue again, but I have been going back over this thread to see what I may have missed:

In this case, you have made an assumption which is counterfactual.  Even with the same basic Greek NT text, the early translators have all rendered the Sermon on the Mount pretty much the same.  Why?  Because, from Wycliffe through Tyndale, the Geneva Bible, and the KJV, all were copying each other.  Traditional language and style had been established.  Everyone falls into the same pattern, including the Book of Mormon translation (whether done in Joseph Smith's time or centuries earlier).  Today of course translators have gone their separate ways.  I should have thought that you would be more concerned (like Nevo) with the overall Gestalt of that Sermon, such that the way the ideas are strung together and the interpretive thrust are seen by you as unique.  Instead you have foolishly focused on the KJV style English as though it has some sort of independent existence beyond time and space.

Well, as Nevo has explained, it's not just the language but the conceptual content that is the issue. I'm trying to understand your application of intertextuality, but it sounds to me like you believe the post-Christian concepts and language were a product of modern translators and likely were not part of the original sermons and writings of the Nephites. 

[Robert F. Smith]

Just now, jkwilliams said:

Well, as Nevo has explained, it's not just the language but the conceptual content that is the issue. I'm trying to understand your application of intertextuality, but it sounds to me like you believe the post-Christian concepts and language were a product of modern translators and likely were not part of the original sermons and writings of the Nephites. 

To the contrary, John, the NT concepts are more important than language or style, and they go back into OT times.  Language and style are evanescent or transitory.  The pattern of thought is far more important, and it is easy to get caught up in surface impressions (as consiglieri was), thus ignoring the deep structure.  Those who skim over the surface are unlikely to see the Gestalt, just as they are unlikely to see the profound intertextuality.

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Robert F. Smith said:

To the contrary, John, the NT concepts are more important than language or style, and they go back into OT times.  Language and style are evanescent or transitory.  The pattern of thought is far more important, and it is easy to get caught up in surface impressions (as consiglieri was), thus ignoring the deep structure.  Those who skim over the surface are unlikely to see the Gestalt, just as they are unlikely to see the profound intertextuality.

As Nevo and Rob Bowman (a blast from the past if ever were one) mentioned, the NT takes the language and concepts of the OT and repurposes them in a distinctly Christian way. It's that repurposed context that is necessary to read these passages of the Book of Mormon. If I understand you correctly, the "deep structures" inherent in the OT text suggest that these "explicitly Christian theological concept(s)" were understood by OT writers as part of their Sitz im Leben.

[Nevo]

7 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

If I understand you correctly, the "deep structures" inherent in the OT text suggest that these "explicitly Christian theological concept(s)" were understood by OT writers as part of their Sitz im Leben.

Whereas I would argue that the Book of Mormon's Weltanschauung is deeply informed by a post-NT Heilsgeschichte.

[Robert F. Smith]

13 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

As Nevo and Rob Bowman (a blast from the past if ever were one) mentioned, the NT takes the language and concepts of the OT and repurposes them in a distinctly Christian way. It's that repurposed context that is necessary to read these passages of the Book of Mormon. If I understand you correctly, the "deep structures" inherent in the OT text suggest that these "explicitly Christian theological concept(s)" were understood by OT writers as part of their Sitz im Leben.

Understanding the form (as in Formgeschichte) does depend upon the situation in life, but that is as often no more than setting the scene in ancient times (mise en scene):  window dressing.  It is interesting and relevant, but not ultimately controlling when considering the deep structure.  The surface impressions conveyed by the style and language of the KJV NT makes it appear that there is a new departure in NT times from what obtained in the OT, but only because the committees doing the translation (and copying those who had gone before) were translating separately from separate languages, and they did not compare notes.  The result was a very different feel to the NT text, making Jesus, Paul, and their companions appear to be sui generis.  This is a false view, and Jewish scholars see Jesus as an OT prophet come late on the scene.

The English translation of the Book of Mormon naturally takes place in that same world and follows the same strictures.  Hard to escape the surface impression that they are cribbing instead of translating, but that is just the point -- the deep structure has legs, as John W. Welch has repeatedly shown us.

Edited August 11, 2016 by Robert F. Smith

[mfbukowski]

(....All of which simply proves how important German philosophical concepts are just in relatively simple intellectual discourse today.)

I gotta keep pushing it.

Kant and the boys are the basis of current western thought and will remain such for another hundred years at least.  The common man doesn't know what's coming- and what is coming will be a great boon to the church if we get our act together and combine these secular language games with out religious understanding of them.

Big picture, Dudes.  Big picture! Don't sweat the small stuff!   

The bottom line is that Romaticism triumphed and science doesn't yet know that,  Sprechen Sie Deutsch?

Die froeliche Wissenshaft  will conquer all, and the god of the sectarians is dead- long live our Heavenly Father, the new God who weeps!
 

Quote

 

After Buddha was dead, people
showed his shadow for centuries afterwards in a
cave,—an immense frightful shadow. God is dead:
but as the human race is constituted, there will
perhaps be caves for millenniums yet, in which
people will show his shadow.—And we—we have
still to overcome his shadow!

— §108

Section 125 depicts the parable of the madman who is searching for God. He accuses us all of being the murderers of God. "'Where is God?' he cried; 'I will tell you. We have killed him—you and I. All of us are his murderers..."

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gay_Science

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

 -- the deep structure has legs, as John W. Welch has repeatedly shown us.

!!!

[consiglieri]

4 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Please excuse me, Counselor, for taking up this issue again, but I have been going back over this thread to see what I may have missed:

In this case, you have made an assumption which is counterfactual.  Even with the same basic Greek NT text, the early translators have all rendered the Sermon on the Mount pretty much the same.  Why?  Because, from Wycliffe through Tyndale, the Geneva Bible, and the KJV, all were copying each other.  Traditional language and style had been established.  Everyone falls into the same pattern, including the Book of Mormon translation (whether done in Joseph Smith's time or centuries earlier).  Today of course translators have gone their separate ways.  I should have thought that you would be more concerned (like Nevo) with the overall Gestalt of that Sermon, such that the way the ideas are strung together and the interpretive thrust are seen by you as unique.  Instead you have foolishly focused on the KJV style English as though it has some sort of independent existence beyond time and space.

The KJV Sermon on the Mount has no independent existence beyond time and space, except for its existence in KJV Matthew.

Oh, wait, it also exists in the Book of Mormon.

But nowhere else, I grant you that.

That alone should tell us something.

[consiglieri]

4 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

To the contrary, John, the NT concepts are more important than language or style, and they go back into OT times.  Language and style are evanescent or transitory.  The pattern of thought is far more important, and it is easy to get caught up in surface impressions (as consiglieri was), thus ignoring the deep structure.  Those who skim over the surface are unlikely to see the Gestalt, just as they are unlikely to see the profound intertextuality.

I am starting to get the feeling you are intentionally not seeing the forest in order to talk about the trees.

[UtahTexan]

3 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

The KJV Sermon on the Mount has no independent existence beyond time and space, except for its existence in KJV Matthew.

Oh, wait, it also exists in the Book of Mormon.

But nowhere else, I grant you that.

That alone should tell us something.

yes   it tells us God is consistent   

[consiglieri]

1 hour ago, CountryBoy said:

yes   it tells us God is consistent   

And that he favors the KJV.

[Calm]

On August 9, 28 Heisei at 0:43 PM, Gray said:

If you hit return a few times in the middle of a quoted post, it will split the quote box in two. You can do this as finely as you like.

Like so

And so forth

you will be getting a number of random points from me for this tidbit.  

[Calm]

6 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Understanding the form (as in Formgeschichte) does depend upon the situation in life, but that is as often no more than setting the scene in ancient times (mise en scene):  window dressing.  It is interesting and relevant, but not ultimately controlling when considering the deep structure.  The surface impressions conveyed by the style and language of the KJV NT makes it appear that there is a new departure in NT times from what obtained in the OT, but only because the committees doing the translation (and copying those who had gone before) were translating separately from separate languages, and they did not compare notes.  The result was a very different feel to the NT text, making Jesus, Paul, and their companions appear to be sui generis.  This is false view, and Jewish scholars see Jesus as an OT prophet come late on the scene.

The English translation of the Book of Mormon naturally takes place in that same world and follows the same strictures.  Hard to escape the surface impression that they are cribbing instead of translating, but that is just the point -- the deep structure has legs, as John W. Welch has repeatedly shown us.

Is there a group who have provided translations for both so that the continuity is more obvious?  I suppose someone would need to be an expert in Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic to the idiom level in order to catch these things.

[UtahTexan]

12 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

And that he favors the KJV.

No.....that he is consistent.  Versions matter little...the message matters.

An example, As an attorney, I am more concerned with the message than the version of the case-law.  Attorneys are like that.

Non-attorneys are more concerned with the version.

It is an issue that comes in court quite frequently.

Edited August 10, 2016 by CountryBoy

[consiglieri]

42 minutes ago, CountryBoy said:

No.....that he is consistent.  Versions matter little...the message matters.

An example, As an attorney, I am more concerned with the message than the version of the case-law.  Attorneys are like that.

Non-attorneys are more concerned with the version.

It is an issue that comes in court quite frequently.

Your constant preening grows tiresome.

But I would think that you, as a $500 an hour "real litigator" who trains other attorneys when not posting on message boards, would realize that copying the words of another amounts to something lesser minds would call plagiarism.

You have obviously not thought this through.  Let me help.

Your position appears to be that the resurrected Jesus appeared to the Nephites and taught them word-for-word the Sermon on the Mount as recorded in Matthew 5-7.

This is an impossibility in the first place, because scholars agree that the Sermon on the Mount is an amalgamation of assorted sayings of Jesus that were never given as a sermon, but compiled in Matthew by the author.  You will note that Luke collects some of the same sayings, but by no means all, in an abbreviated sermon sometimes referred to as the Sermon on the Plain.

In other words, Jesus never gave the Sermon on the Mount.

But leaving that point aside, for argument's sake, let us grant your position that Jesus really did give the Sermon on the Mount in the Old World.

Because it was such a great speech, and one he apparently had memorized for recitation on various occasions to assorted groups, he gave the exact same speech to the Nephites.

The Nephites, who were such good note-takers, actually managed to write it all down word-for-word, and inscribed it in Reformed Egyptian on the gold plates.

About 1800 years later, Joseph Smith is translating the Reformed Egyptian into English and, when he gets to 3 Nephi 12-14, he hits the Sermon on the Mount.

Here is where it gets strange.

For some reason, Joseph Smith translated the same speech Jesus gave to the Nephites in exactly the same language used by the King James Version translators to render Jesus's Sermon at the Mount from the Greek.

This is not possible.  Not even remotely.

It is obvious the Book of Mormon Sermon on the Mount is dependent on the New Testament Sermon on the Mount.

There is no reasonable explanation for it to be otherwise.

Unless you are suggesting that God intentionally had Joseph Smith translate it in the same language used in the KJV New Testament.

The very same version of the Bible Joseph Smith had in his home.

Presumably the only reason God would engage in such micromanagement of the translation process would  be to ensure it looked like plagiarism.

Which doesn't sound too omniscient to me.

[UtahTexan]

10 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

Your constant preening grows tiresome.

But I would think that you, as a $500 an hour "real litigator" who trains other attorneys when not posting on message boards, would realize that copying the words of another amounts to something lesser minds would call plagiarism.

You have obviously not thought this through.  Let me help.

Your position appears to be that the resurrected Jesus appeared to the Nephites and taught them word-for-word the Sermon on the Mount as recorded in Matthew 5-7.

This is an impossibility in the first place, because scholars agree that the Sermon on the Mount is an amalgamation of assorted sayings of Jesus that were never given as a sermon, but compiled in Matthew by the author.  You will note that Luke collects some of the same sayings, but by no means all, in an abbreviated sermon sometimes referred to as the Sermon on the Plain.

In other words, Jesus never gave the Sermon on the Mount.

But leaving that point aside, for argument's sake, let us grant your position that Jesus really did give the Sermon on the Mount in the Old World.

Because it was such a great speech, and one he apparently had memorized for recitation on various occasions to assorted groups, he gave the exact same speech to the Nephites.

The Nephites, who were such good note-takers, actually managed to write it all down word-for-word, and inscribed it in Reformed Egyptian on the gold plates.

About 1800 years later, Joseph Smith is translating the Reformed Egyptian into English and, when he gets to 3 Nephi 12-14, he hits the Sermon on the Mount.

Here is where it gets strange.

For some reason, Joseph Smith translated the same speech Jesus gave to the Nephites in exactly the same language used by the King James Version translators to render Jesus's Sermon at the Mount from the Greek.

This is not possible.  Not even remotely.

It is obvious the Book of Mormon Sermon on the Mount is dependent on the New Testament Sermon on the Mount.

There is no reasonable explanation for it to be otherwise.

Unless you are suggesting that God intentionally had Joseph Smith translate it in the same language used in the KJV New Testament.

The very same version of the Bible Joseph Smith had in his home.

Presumably the only reason God would engage in such micromanagement of the translation process would  be to ensure it looked like plagiarism.

Which doesn't sound too omniscient to me.

Preening?  I simply tried to give you an example.

As to your explanation, it is disingenuous.  Heavenly Father is not nearly as limited as you need Him to be.  But, as has been shown, He IS consistent.  As to translations, I was not there, but the similarities do not bother me as they were directed by God.

I apologize for upsetting you so.  

[consiglieri]

30 minutes ago, CountryBoy said:

Preening?  I simply tried to give you an example.

As to your explanation, it is disingenuous.  Heavenly Father is not nearly as limited as you need Him to be.  But, as has been shown, He IS consistent.  As to translations, I was not there, but the similarities do not bother me as they were directed by God.

I apologize for upsetting you so.  

God directed a translation process in order to make it look like Joseph Smith copied the KJV?

Try again, counselor.

[UtahTexan]

3 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

God directed a translation process in order to make it look like Joseph Smith copied the KJV?

Try again, counselor.

All I said was that I was not there....were you?  God directed the translation.  Can you prove God didn't?  

Do you think your comments are the first we have heard about this topic?

I have no issues with how it was translated.

Now...if you have definitive proof Joseph lied, please present it.

[Gervin]

4 hours ago, consiglieri said:

Here is where it gets strange.

It gets stranger.  Joseph Smith then turns around and edits the KJV passages to (sort of) match the Book of Mormon version.

Here's a good treatment of the Greek that includes intertextuality (assumptions on page 6).  It's rather detailed but provides good insight into the passages.  The author also seems to think that "setting" is rather important. http://www.academia.edu/5789556/The_Sermon_on_the_Mount_Translation_and_Notes_on_the_Greek_Text

[JLHPROF]

4 hours ago, consiglieri said:

God directed a translation process in order to make it look like Joseph Smith copied the KJV?

Sure.  Why not?

[Nemesis]

The Two of you need to grow up.

nemsis

[Robert F. Smith]

21 hours ago, consiglieri said:

The KJV Sermon on the Mount has no independent existence beyond time and space, except for its existence in KJV Matthew.

Oh, wait, it also exists in the Book of Mormon.

But nowhere else, I grant you that.

That alone should tell us something.

There is really nothing new in the Sermon on the Mount, Sermon on the Plain, and in Third Nephi -- and its constituent elements have been analyzed and sourced in great detail.  That alone should tell us something.

But wait.  Like Shakespeare, the KJV English does have some cachet, and makes us feel as though it has independent existence somewhere among Plato's or Jung's archetypes.  Mustn't hide from our feelings.  "Listen to the warm."

Edited August 11, 2016 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Gervin said:

It gets stranger.  Joseph Smith then turns around and edits the KJV passages to (sort of) match the Book of Mormon version.

Here's a good treatment of the Greek that includes intertextuality (assumptions on page 6).  It's rather detailed but provides good insight into the passages.  The author also seems to think that "setting" is rather important. http://www.academia.edu/5789556/The_Sermon_on_the_Mount_Translation_and_Notes_on_the_Greek_Text

He also thinks that intertextuality is very important, presenting a limited chart on page 6, and saying:

Quote

Jesus draws heavily from Ancient Israelite Scripture (also called the Hebrew Bible or Old Testament). He cites from or alludes to all three sections of the Palestinian canon: Law, Prophets, and Writings.

He also employs chiastic analysis when appropriate.  A very helpful work, Gervin.  Thank you.

You might also want to obtain a copy of Robert M. Bowman's doctoral dissertation, “The Sermon at the Temple in the Book of Mormon,” PhD dissertation (South African Theological Seminary, 2015).