The State of the Evidence

[thesometimesaint]

The main theme's of the Sermon on the Mount are similar but not identical the Sermon at the Temple.

SEE https://www.lds.org/manual/book-of-mormon-student-study-guide/3-nephi-12?lang=eng

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours ago, Calm said:

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.

Modern translations, such as the New Jerusalem Bible and the Oxford Annotated NRSV with Apocrypha have excellent notes and cross references, making intertextual work much easier.  I would also highly recommend the second edition of the Jewish Study Bible (edited by Berlin & Brettler), along with the Jewish Annotated New Testament (edited by Levine & Brettler).  In addition, since Jesus spoke no Greek, it is very helpful to have translations of the NT in Hebrew.  Such have been available at least since Franz Delitzsch in the late 19th century, but my copy (donated) was tossed by the head of the Maxwell Institute a few years back in the midst of a mindless purge of research materials.  However, not to worry.  I acquired a more up to date translation (with wonderful notes, index, maps, and charts) at the FairMormon silent auction last week -- it was published by the Israel Bible Society in 1995.  As with the 1922 Jewish translation of the Book of Mormon into Hebrew, the Hebrew can help us place ourselves in that ancient world and see things with a somewhat different perspective.

[Kevin Christensen]

Consiglieri,

What evidence is there that the kinds of people who wrote and edited the Bible operated on the same definition of plagiarism that you do, when you are getting your $500 an hour?   And when they quoted from a translation, did they not only always cite the original author, but did they always take care to cite the translators? Or did they always insist on making a fresh translation on the spot, so that listeners had to re-conceive the thoughts while listening in order to recognize the sources? 

Quote

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.

My position that that the Sermon at the Temple is not word for word, but has meaningful differences.  Welch has a chapter on the differences:

http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1132&index=6

And there are important contextual differences, such as Welch discusses in the Sermon at the Temple, that Richard L. Anderson discusses in his comparison of the Book of Mormon with other "modern" gospels, and that Nibley saw in comparing 3 Nephi with ancient 40 Day accounts.   I even saw some meaningful context in comparing 3 Nephi to The Myth of the Eternal Return: Cosmos and History, by Eliade.

Anderson:

http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=939

Nibley:

http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1112&index=21

Me, the last section of this one:

http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1425&index=28

It makes a difference if you state which scholars, because scholars like fish, tend to gather in schools, and there is more than one school to consider, and because there are those who believe that Jesus did give the sermon, that the sermon is much more than a collection of sayings.  

Sorenson on the range of schools of thought:

http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1459&index=8

And Welch on the unifying context of 3 Nephi:

http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1132&index=3

The assertion that Jesus never gave the Sermon on the Mount, is, in other words, an assertion, not a demonstration that accounts for all of the evidence or even all schools of scholarly thought.  And no charge for my making the observation.

See Welch on Jesus and the Composition here:

http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1132&index=10

Unless you think that it's better to trust our case to the objectivity of the prosecution?  Why would they overlook anything relevant?

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[Nevo]

4 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

It makes a difference if you state which scholars, because scholars like fish, tend to gather in schools, and there is more than one school to consider, and because there are those who believe that Jesus did give the sermon, that the sermon is much more than a collection of sayings.

I'm interested in learning more about this school of NT scholars that rejects the view that SM is a later composition and instead holds that Jesus delivered the sermon pretty much exactly as it appears in Matthew 5–7. This is the first I've heard of it. I'd appreciate it if you could list some of their major publications so I can see how their arguments compare to those advanced by Davies and Allison, Betz, Luz, et al. Thanks.

Edited August 11, 2016 by Nevo

[Robert F. Smith]

17 hours ago, consiglieri said:

....................................

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.

Not quite, Counselor.  As DelHousaye points out:

Quote

Luke offers a shorter version, often called The Sermon on the Plain (6:17—49). Matthew and Luke may be presenting two different versions of a common oral tradition. The many parallels with James, Paul’s letters, and the Didache suggest a catechetical origin. Some attribute the overlap to Q.  I believe Luke has broken Matthew’s discourse down into smaller units, spreading them throughout his presentation, retaining the core—love and forgiveness—for the Sermon on the Plain.  https://www.academia.edu/5789556/The_Sermon_on_the_Mount_Translation_and_Notes_on_the_Greek_Text , page 10, citing Nolland, Matthew, 191.

17 hours ago, consiglieri said:

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.

............................................

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.

In the midst of your terminal and omniscient mockery, you missed the fact that Joseph didn't do the translation.  It had been done a couple centuries earlier.  He merely read it off his solid state device.  Jesus may in fact have given different versions of that same basic sermon many times, just as politicians do in making their standard campaign speeches -- and reporters get very tired of the same old stuff.  There is no reason why a translator into Early Modern English 1600 years later cannot pretty much follow the familiar pattern of that famous speech.  Why reinvent the dramatic ritual and catachetical temple context (as discerned by Welch)?  In fact, why would Jesus himself leave out crucial portions of the full text, if it contains optimal religious information?  You laugh, Counselor, but there may have been scribes there on each occasion, taking verbatim dictation -- such was done in the ancient world.

17 hours ago, consiglieri said:

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.

Of course, the Sermon at the Temple in the BofM is directly related to the Sermons on Mount and Plain in the NT.  But you have allowed that obvious fact to overwhelm your judgment as to what that means.  More, you allow the KJV English language and style to cloud your analysis, never even positing the possibility that an underlying pattern is being followed, and that the translator is attempting to demonstrate that.

[Gervin]

12 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Not quite, Counselor.  As DelHousaye points out:

Good grief. He recites that it may have come from " ...versions of a common oral tradition" - not a historical event.  "Versions" and "oral tradition" are the words to focus on.  Besides, if the author is a typical Fuller grad, don't expect a strict literalist [it was an actual sermon at a specific location] - as someone described the seminary, "the voice of a third way that flows out of biblical values, instead of buying into the political ideology of either the right or the left."

Quote

In the midst of your terminal and omniscient mockery, you missed the fact that Joseph didn't do the translation.  It had been done a couple centuries earlier.  He merely read it off his solid state device.

The fact?  What does "fact" mean to you?  For me it means "irrefutable."  If it's "irrefutable" that "Joseph didn't do the translation" then how is this "fact" evidenced in the teachings of the Prophets and Professors or communicated through public relations?

If you believe with every fiber of your being that the BofM was translated in the 1600's, then you should dump this board, start a website, and devote your life to the proposition.  It may be a fact to you but all that tells me is that you've convinced yourself.  Who else is convinced?

Quote

But you have allowed that obvious fact to overwhelm your judgment as to what that means.  More, you allow the KJV English language and style to cloud your analysis, never even positing the possibility that an underlying pattern is being followed, and that the translator is attempting to demonstrate that.

Ohhhh, myyy ... sensitive judgments are being overwhelmed by an odorous and obvious fact ... and <sigh> analyses are corrupt and clouded by the foreboding KJV language, accompanied by its sinister style ...  what shall I dooo?

You realize that when you attack a person rather than his position that you're basically saying, "your position survives intact"?

Edited August 12, 2016 by Gervin

[Kevin Christensen]

On 8/11/2016 at 1:33 PM, Nevo said:

I'm interested in learning more about this school of NT scholars that rejects the view that SM is a later composition and instead holds that Jesus delivered the sermon pretty much exactly as it appears in Matthew 5–7. This is the first I've heard of it. I'd appreciate it if you could list some of their major publications so I can see how their arguments compare to those advanced by Davies and Allison, Betz, Luz, et al. Thanks.

The A. D. Sorenson essay I linked discussed differing schools of thought working in contrasting "fluid tradition" and "controlled" tradition.  But if you want to look at the most cutting edge arguments, just cut to the chase and read John Welch's latest book, which is expensive, or just try the pdf from the Mormonism and the Temple Conference in Logan 2013.

  http://www.templestudies.org/home/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/MormonismAndTheTemple.pdf

Welch's essay begins on page 61 and goes on to page 107.  The arguments and evidence here go much further than those in Illuminating the Sermon at the Temple and the Sermon on the Mount.

After exposing the ritual structure and Temple focused nature of the Sermon, Welch comments on page 85 and 86:

Quote

All of the foregoing would seem to say that the Sermon on the Mount was not composed by Matthew but existed as a text before Matthew wrote his Gospel. The emphasis on the Temple in the words and organization of the Sermon on the Mount would only be relevant to a composer as well as to listeners who were intimately familiar with the Temple, which can hardly be said of Christians in Antioch in the 70s, if that is the time and place when the Gospel of Matthew was written, as many have suggested. 

For one thing, as I pointed out in Illuminating, the vocabulary of the Sermon on the Mount contrasts sharply with the words used by Matthew in the rest of his gospel. Of the 383 basic vocabulary words in the Sermon, I count 73 (or 19% of the total) that appear only in the Sermon (sometimes more than once) and then never again appear elsewhere in the Gospel of Matthew.46 Seeing its temple character reinforces further the view that the Sermon on the Mount should be thought of as a pre-Matthean source,47 written at an early time when Jesus and his followers were still hoping for a restoration, reform, and rejuvenation of the Temple, not its destruction or obsolescence.
 

For Instance, Welch on Page 91:

Quote

Moreover, even more significant for present purposes, Sermon on the Mount elements are also found heavily in 1 Peter (by this count 7 times), in James (12 times), and Romans (11 times). On at least six of these 30 occasions, the word orders are chiastically inverted, which according to Seidel’s law, may indicate that these passages were consciously quoted. It seems easier to believe that the Sermon on the Mount was known to Peter, James, John, and even Paul, than to believe that all of these early New Testament writings were somehow known to the writer of the Sermon on the Mount. As mentioned above, Hans Dieter Betz has argued that parts of the Sermon on the Mount should be seen as preMatthean. But going beyond Betz’s analysis, the verbiage and echoes of the Sermon on the Mount found elsewhere in the New Testament would not only mean that parts of the Sermon on the Mount were also pre-Petrine, pre-Jamesian, and even pre-Pauline, but also (because these quotations and echoes come from every part of the Sermon on the Mount) that the Sermon had become coin of the realm at a very early stage in the first few decades of Christianity. Otherwise, how can one explain the fact that all of these Sermon on the Mount phrases had become so widely known and commonly taken as magisterial? Seeing the Sermon on the Mount as a temple-related text that was used to instruct converts and perhaps specifically to prepare initiates for baptism (as I suggest) would explain this wide distribution of Sermon on the Mount elements across the full breadth shown on Table 8, a suggestion that certainly has enormous implications.
 

Worth close and careful reading, in its entirety.  Welch points out that certain elements of the Sermon on the Mount came late, anti-pharisical and anti-gentile sentiments, but they are notably missing from 3 Nephi.

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

Edited August 12, 2016 by Kevin Christensen
A sentence on Welch at the end.

[Robert F. Smith]

11 hours ago, Gervin said:

Good grief. He recites that it may have come from " ...versions of a common oral tradition" - not a historical event.  "Versions" and "oral tradition" are the words to focus on.

Oral traditions often come into existence to recall actual historical events.  The one does not preclude the other.  You seem to have entirely missed the point.

11 hours ago, Gervin said:

 Besides, if the author is a typical Fuller grad, don't expect a strict literalist [it was an actual sermon at a specific location] - as someone described the seminary, "the voice of a third way that flows out of biblical values, instead of buying into the political ideology of either the right or the left."

The fact?  What does "fact" mean to you?  For me it means "irrefutable."  If it's "irrefutable" that "Joseph didn't do the translation" then how is this "fact" evidenced in the teachings of the Prophets and Professors or communicated through public relations?

If you believe with every fiber of your being that the BofM was translated in the 1600's, then you should dump this board, start a website, and devote your life to the proposition.  It may be a fact to you but all that tells me is that you've convinced yourself.  Who else is convinced?

I made my case and cited my sources, and in response all you have is invective, mockery, and ad hominems?  C'mon Gervin.  Wake up and smell the postum.  If the basic research of Skousen & Carmack is refutable, by all means show us their errors.  If you are not familiar with what they have published in recent years, by all means read it and try to understand it -- including getting third party advice and counsel on it.  I am as surprised by the results of their research as anyone else, but they did not start that research with the expectation of such odd results.  Indeed, it serves no one's apologetic purpose.

11 hours ago, Gervin said:

Ohhhh, myyy ... sensitive judgments are being overwhelmed by an odorous and obvious fact ... and <sigh> analyses are corrupt and clouded by the foreboding KJV language, accompanied by its sinister style ...  what shall I dooo?

You realize that when you attack a person rather than his position that you're basically saying, "your position survives intact"?

Not sure what any of this means, Gervin, but it doesn't appear to be a reply to my comments.  You might try keeping this on a high plane.

[Gervin]

22 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Oral traditions often come into existence to recall actual historical events.  The one does not preclude the other.  You seem to have entirely missed the point.

The author you cite notes that there are two versions of this story coming from an oral tradition.  You need to understand the difference between oral tradition and oral history.  But if oral tradition is so compellingly accurate, why did Jos. Smith need to add and redact from the Biblical accounting of the story?

22 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I made my case and cited my sources, and in response all you have is invective, mockery, and ad hominems?  C'mon Gervin.  Wake up and smell the postum.  If the basic research of Skousen & Carmack is refutable, by all means show us their errors.  If you are not familiar with what they have published in recent years, by all means read it and try to understand it -- including getting third party advice and counsel on it.  I am as surprised by the results of their research as anyone else, but they did not start that research with the expectation of such odd results.  Indeed, it serves no one's apologetic purpose.

I think it's great that Mormon scholars have found Early Modern English in the Book of Mormon. Some folks made that discovery not long after the book was published. As you learn more, you'll discover some interesting overlaps with thinkers who lived in the same early modern english time period.  

22 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Not sure what any of this means, Gervin, but it doesn't appear to be a reply to my comments.  You might try keeping this on a high plane.

It's hard; you keep bringing me down.

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, Gervin said:

The author you cite notes that there are two versions of this story coming from an oral tradition.  You need to understand the difference between oral tradition and oral history.  But if oral tradition is so compellingly accurate, why did Jos. Smith need to add and redact from the Biblical accounting of the story?

You need to go back and reread what DelHousaye actually said and take it to heart.  No one I know says that oral tradition is "compellingly accurate."  That is your negative and straw man spin on it.  You might try accepting standard scholarship in such matters rather than constantly engaging in sniping and guerilla warfare.  Just a little sincerity goes a long way, Gervin.

3 hours ago, Gervin said:

I think it's great that Mormon scholars have found Early Modern English in the Book of Mormon. Some folks made that discovery not long after the book was published. As you learn more, you'll discover some interesting overlaps with thinkers who lived in the same early modern english time period.  .........................

CFR that, aside from the King James Version of the Bible, "some folks" discovered Early Modern English in the BofM "not long after the book was published."  Otherwise you appear to be playing one more set of dirty pool.

[Robert F. Smith]

On 6/29/2016 at 4:58 PM, SteveO said:

David Rohl in his book, Towards a New Chronology:

The Genealogy of the Royal Architects, discovered in the Wadi Hammamat, confirms that the era known as the TIP (Third Intermediate Period) has been overstretched. Furthermore, all three key genealogies linking back to the New Kingdom indicate that over a century must be removed from the chronology of the transition period between the late 19th Dynasty and the Third Intermediate Period.

The point I was trying to make, probably unsuccessfully, is that I get a little leery when scholars try and fit everything into a predetermined timeline of events.  I'll tell you right now that you're definitely more knowledgable than I on this and probably most scholarship relating to the church. 

Rohl was, I believe in a documentary concerning the historicity of the Exodus.  I can't name it off the top of my head, but in it they examine the claim that there is absolutely no evidence for the Exodus--one of the paramount events in the bible.  In short, what they found was that evidence existed, but it had all been dismissed by scholars due to the fact that the evidences had not existed during the accepted date of the Exodus.  Examples: The walls of Jericho were destroyed by earthquake, but was dismissed because the quake had occurred hundreds of years before the Exodus, there was a large Semitic population living in Goshen but had dismissed because it had existed hundreds of years before the Exodus.

So when scholars look at Isaiah and say, "this part was written at this time, and that part was written at another time", I just think they close the door on new evidence because then it has to be shoehorned into a pre existing set of criteria.  

I'm not saying this completely fixes the problem, but it seems that people (actually just one in particular) is slamming the door and saying there is absolutely no wiggle room about the issue.  I just think thats absurd.

Hope that makes sense

It makes excellent sense, and that is just the point which I make in my “Moses Our Teacher (Moshe Rabbenu),” 2010, version 3, online at https://www.scribd.com/doc/51104640/Moses-Our-Teacher-Moshe-Rabbenu .

[Robert F. Smith]

On 6/29/2016 at 5:33 PM, Nevo said:

The problem is that Jesus never gave the Sermon on the Mount—it's a Matthean composition.

If your claim is that the Matthean composition in Greek was not given by Jesus (who did not likely speak Greek at all), I'd have to agree.  But if you are claiming that he delivered no such sermon in Aramaic or Hebrew, and certainly not on more than one occasion, one would have to ask how you could possibly know that.  The view of most scholars, as stated by DelHousaye, is that the versions of the sermon which show up in Matt & Luke are based on oral tradition -- formulated in the Gospels to serve a catechetical purpose.  That seems reasonable to me, but it certainly does not mean that such a sermon was not delivered, nor that a scribal record was not possible.  Indeed, in most cases, oral and written traditions continue in tandem over long periods.

[Gervin]

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You need to go back and reread what DelHousaye actually said and take it to heart.

DelHousaye provides no opinion as to whether this passage reflects an event or an amalgamation of events. 

Quote

 

You might try accepting standard scholarship in such matters rather than constantly engaging in sniping and guerilla warfare.  Just a little sincerity goes a long way, Gervin.

 

I'm sincere.

Quote

CFR that, aside from the King James Version of the Bible, "some folks" discovered Early Modern English in the BofM "not long after the book was published."

Parallels between Bunyan’s The Pilgrim’s Progress (1678) and the Book of Mormon have not gone entirely unnoticed. As early as 1831, Eber Howe, in his anti-Mormon book Mormonism Unvailed, noted the use of names — “Desolation” and “Bountiful” from Pilgrim’s Progressreappear in the Book of Mormon — but most observations have been similarly limited in scope or suffered from lack of a systematic methodology. Bunyan wrote upwards of 60 books, tracts, and pamphlets, including Grace Abounding, A Few Sighs from Hell, Holy War and The Life and Death of Mr. Badman, and these texts provide extensive narrative parallels to the Book of Mormon, often containing unique characteristics shared only by Bunyan and Smith.

https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/hiding-in-plain-sight-the-origins-of-the-book-of-mormon/

Quote

Otherwise you appear to be playing one more set of dirty pool.

cheaters never prosper - no dirty pool here

[jkwilliams]

10 minutes ago, Gervin said:

DelHousaye provides no opinion as to whether this passage reflects an event or an amalgamation of events. 

I'm sincere.

Parallels between Bunyan’s The Pilgrim’s Progress (1678) and the Book of Mormon have not gone entirely unnoticed. As early as 1831, Eber Howe, in his anti-Mormon book Mormonism Unvailed, noted the use of names — “Desolation” and “Bountiful” from Pilgrim’s Progressreappear in the Book of Mormon — but most observations have been similarly limited in scope or suffered from lack of a systematic methodology. Bunyan wrote upwards of 60 books, tracts, and pamphlets, including Grace Abounding, A Few Sighs from Hell, Holy War and The Life and Death of Mr. Badman, and these texts provide extensive narrative parallels to the Book of Mormon, often containing unique characteristics shared only by Bunyan and Smith.

https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/hiding-in-plain-sight-the-origins-of-the-book-of-mormon/

cheaters never prosper - no dirty pool here

Thanks for that. I never would have made the connection between Faithful/Hopeful and Abinadi/Alma. Interesting reading. Less impressed with the Lehi parallels, though seeing the book as "oral performance" is an intriguing avenue of study. 

Edited August 14, 2016 by jkwilliams

[Robert F. Smith]

On 6/29/2016 at 5:36 PM, Nevo said:

Here's a site that will help you get started:

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/BOM/mosiah/plag_list.html

It's an anti site, but as Nicholas Frederick notes in his JBMS article, "Evaluating the Interaction between the New Testament and the Book of Mormon: A Proposed Methodology," it's "an excellent resource."

Well, Steve Wells does provide a minor source of parallels in his SABOM, but, as Nicholas Frederick commented, "The issue with these sources is that they lack a critical methodology and an analysis of the text beyond a simple identification of parallel language" (4 n6).  He then calls attention to the Book of Mormon Critical Text, which I edited for FARMS, which has a thousand more parallels missed by Wells.  Moreover, Wells skips the OT parallels, presumably because they don't fit his negative spin.  He also makes errors, as in his reversal of the Ephesians 4:5 citation.  Furthermore, in his notes to the actual Book of Mormon text, he makes atrocious errors, such as his ignorant observation at I Nephi 1:2: “Egyptian, a strange language for an Israelite of 600 BCE to write in. But, then, we must get used to strange things if we are to read the Book of Mormon.”  What is truly strange is that Wells didn't bother to  inform himself that Israelites of Judea and the northern kingdom were making extensive use of Egyptian hieratic at that very time as well as in the century before.

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, Gervin said:

DelHousaye provides no opinion as to whether this passage reflects an event or an amalgamation of events.

He doesn't need to.  Any good historian knows that an oral tradition can hail from a real event, but they also know that they can't prove it.  So, DelHousaye gives his opinion of the way in which such a late catechetical account may have been formulated -- based on oral tradition.  Since you are not well read on the subject, you don't realize that oral and written traditions often accompany one another in separate communities, and come to condition one another.  For you the matter is reflected only by your ignorance of how history really occurs.  A sincere person would inform himself by reading the literature extensively, before going off half cocked.

3 hours ago, Gervin said:

.......................Parallels between Bunyan’s The Pilgrim’s Progress (1678) and the Book of Mormon have not gone entirely unnoticed. As early as 1831, Eber Howe, in his anti-Mormon book Mormonism Unvailed, noted the use of names — “Desolation” and “Bountiful” from Pilgrim’s Progress reappear in the Book of Mormon — but most observations have been similarly limited in scope or suffered from lack of a systematic methodology. Bunyan wrote upwards of 60 books, tracts, and pamphlets, including Grace Abounding, A Few Sighs from Hell, Holy War and The Life and Death of Mr. Badman, and these texts provide extensive narrative parallels to the Book of Mormon, often containing unique characteristics shared only by Bunyan and Smith.https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/hiding-in-plain-sight-the-origins-of-the-book-of-mormon/ ..............................................

William Davis' interesting article came out in 2012, much too early for him to have become familiar with the research of Skousen & Carmack on Early Modern English.  So, while Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress was a true best seller in its time, it is much too late to fit in with the grammatical characteristics adduced by Carmack and Skousen.  Why?  Because those characteristics went out of use before Bunyan wrote.

However, if he wants to join with Dan Vogel in suggesting that Joseph Smith had a wheelbarrow load of books by Bunyan and others (which he consulted extensively before doing his head-in-hat routine), then by all means have at it.  That is nearly as absurd as Bill Hamblin's picture of Joseph during his Harvard years.

[Nevo]

5 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

If your claim is that the Matthean composition in Greek was not given by Jesus (who did not likely speak Greek at all), I'd have to agree.  But if you are claiming that he delivered no such sermon in Aramaic or Hebrew, and certainly not on more than one occasion, one would have to ask how you could possibly know that.  The view of most scholars, as stated by DelHousaye, is that the versions of the sermon which show up in Matt & Luke are based on oral tradition -- formulated in the Gospels to serve a catechetical purpose.  That seems reasonable to me, but it certainly does not mean that such a sermon was not delivered, nor that a scribal record was not possible.  Indeed, in most cases, oral and written traditions continue in tandem over long periods.

I suspect much of the Sermon on the Mount does go back to Jesus in one form or another. It may even be based on a sermon that Jesus delivered. Leon Morris has suggested that "Matthew has taken a sermon Jesus delivered, and expanded it by including matter given on other occasions" (Morris, The Gospel According to Matthew [PNTC; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1992], 92). I don't rule out that possibility. But I don't think we are looking at a "scribal record" in Matthew 5–7. As Hans Dieter Betz notes, "the written texts [of the Sermon on the Mount and the Sermon on the Plain], which are in Greek . . . cannot be shown to be simple translations from the Aramaic. Both SM and SP were conceived in Greek by whoever composed them" (Betz, "Sermon on the Mount/Plain," Anchor Bible Dictionary, 5:1106).

As you must surely be aware, most scholars are convinced that the Sermon on the Mount is a Matthean composition. Thus, John Meier has recently written: "The Sermon on the Mount, in its final form, is a prime example of Matthew's own vocabulary, style, structuring techniques, and theology. Only someone who programmatically ignores the redactional realities of Matthew's Gospel could constantly avert his eyes from Matthew's editorial hand pervading the Sermon on the Mount and connecting it with the rest of his Gospel" (Meier, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, vol. 4, Law and Love [AYBRL; New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2009], 614n173; see also here).

Graham Stanton argues further that, in addition to containing "a large number of the evangelist's redactional words and phrases," in all of Matthew's discourses "the same methods of composition are used, many of the prominent themes of the Sermon are found, and the same Sitz im Leben is presupposed" (Stanton, A Gospel for a New People: Studies in Matthew [Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox, 1993], 318). According to Stanton, "Matthew not only re-interprets the sayings of Jesus found in his sources by rearrangement and modification; he often elucidates them with extra phrases or even (on occasion) whole verses which he himself has composed. The following may be noted as examples: 5.10, 13a, 14a, 16; 6.10b and c, 13b; 7.12, 19, 20, 21; 10.8, 24–25, 41; 18.10a, 14, 35; 23.28, 32–34" (319). 

Dale Allison, who has studied the Sermon on the Mount as carefully as anyone, likewise notes that "the SM features dozens of words ('righteousness,' 'fool,' 'evil [one],' 'hypocrite,' 'little faith' are among the more obvious) as well as phrases and constructions (e.g., 'kingdom of heaven,' pros to + infinitive, instrumental apo) characteristic of Matthew. It also includes emphases (e.g., the validity of Torah and the importance of love) and uses compositional techniques (e.g., triadic arrangements) typical of the rest of the Gospel. The SM looks very Matthean" (Allison, review of Hans Dieter Betz's Sermon on the Mount in Journal of Biblical Literature 117, no. 1 [1998]: 136–137).  

Edited August 14, 2016 by Nevo

[Robert F. Smith]

20 minutes ago, Nevo said:

I suspect much of the Sermon on the Mount does go back to Jesus in one form or another. It may even be based on a sermon that Jesus delivered. Leon Morris has suggested that "Matthew has taken a sermon Jesus delivered, and expanded it by including matter given on other occasions" (Morris, The Gospel According to Matthew [PNTC; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1992], 92). I don't rule out that possibility. But I don't think we are looking at a "scribal record" in Matthew 5–7. As Hans Dieter Betz notes, "the written texts [of the Sermon on the Mount and the Sermon on the Plain], which are in Greek . . . cannot be shown to be simple translations from the Aramaic. Both SM and SP were conceived in Greek by whoever composed them" (Betz, "Sermon on the Mount/Plain," Anchor Bible Dictionary, 5:1106).

Most scholars are convinced that the Sermon on the Mount is a Matthean composition. John Meier is representative of this view: "The Sermon on the Mount, in its final form, is a prime example of Matthew's own vocabulary, style, structuring techniques, and theology. Only someone who programmatically ignores the redactional realities of Matthew's Gospel could constantly avert his eyes from Matthew's editorial hand pervading the Sermon on the Mount and connecting it with the rest of his Gospel" (Meier, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, vol. 4, Law and Love [AYBRL; New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2009], 614n173; see also, here).

Graham Stanton argues further that, in addition to containing "a large number of the evangelist's redactional words and phrases," in all of Matthew's discourses "the same methods of composition are used, many of the prominent themes of the Sermon are found, and the same Sitz im Leben is presupposed" (Stanton, A Gospel for a New People: Studies in Matthew [Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox, 1993], 318). According to Stanton, "Matthew not only re-interprets the sayings of Jesus found in his sources by rearrangement and modification; he often elucidates them with extra phrases or even (on occasion) whole verses which he himself has composed. The following may be noted as examples: 5.10, 13a, 14a, 16; 6.10b and c, 13b; 7.12, 19, 20, 21; 10.8, 24–25, 41; 18.10a, 14, 35; 23.28, 32–34" (319). 

Dale Allison, who has studied the Sermon on the Mount as carefully as anyone, likewise notes that "the SM features dozens of words ('righteousness,' 'fool,' 'evil [one],' 'hypocrite,' 'little faith' are among the more obvious) as well as phrases and constructions (e.g., 'kingdom of heaven,' pros to + infinitive, instrumental apo) characteristic of Matthew. It also includes emphases (e.g., the validity of Torah and the importance of love) and uses compositional techniques (e.g., triadic arrangements) typical of the rest of the Gospel. The SM looks very Matthean" (Allison, review of Hans Dieter Betz's Sermon on the Mount in Journal of Biblical Literature 117, no. 1 [1998]: 136–137).  

I can agree with all that, in theory, adding that the LXX Greek version of the OT was normative for whoever created Matthew.  And, even if a scribal record had been made on the occasion of this or that sermon of Jesus, the time over which it was retained and recopied, and then translated, would make it subject to the very redactional features the scholars assume were present -- could be adapted to a preferred language and style -- just as the eventual translation into German or English would also take on the preferences of the initial translators and then be transmitted as if sacrosanct. Each wave of adaptation would bring its own layer of interpretation and be expressed in a particular style.  Any ordinary person familiar with the Geneva and KJV Bibles, and with related literature and religious speech would be able to present the material in that same fashion -- regardless of the precise grammatical strictures which might exercise tight control upon a scholar.  Who might that translator have been?  We don't know, but it could not have been Joseph Smith.

[Robert F. Smith]

On 6/29/2016 at 7:22 PM, Teancum said:

Here are some claims from competing truth claims.  How does one reconcile such things? 

“Here are some truth claims of different religions, taken from their theology:

Seventy-five million years ago, Xenu, the dictator of a galactic confederation, brought billions of humanlike beings to Earth in a giant spaceship that resembled a Douglas DC-8. Paralyzed and then preserved in antifreeze, their bodies were piled up around the bases of volcanoes and destroyed by exploding hydrogen bombs within the craters. Their escaped souls, called “thetans,” were captured, taken to a giant cinema, and forced to watch movies for about a month, implanting in the thetans bad ideas like Catholicism. The thetans then escaped, affixing themselves to the bodies of those who survived the explosions. Humans afflicted with thetans can be diagnosed only with special devices that measure skin conductance.

You don’t believe that, right? But that is official doctrine of the Church of Scientology, concocted by the science-fiction writer L. Ron Hubbard and seen as gospel by his church and its adherents, many of them paying thousands of dollars to learn these “truths.” If you don’t accept that story, why not?

....................................................

Excerpt From: Jerry A. Coyne. “Faith Versus Fact.” Penguin Publishing Group, 2015-04-21. iBooks. 

Coyne of the realm from Jerry, an expert on religion -- Not !  How dare he call into question the science of dianetics?  

[Robert F. Smith]

On 6/29/2016 at 7:23 PM, Teancum said:

This is meaningless to anyone but yourself and for all we know you have been deluded.

Yes, and that is the whole point, Teancum:  A testimony is non-transferrable.  The Holy Spirit usually appeals to your subjective nature.

[Robert F. Smith]

On 6/29/2016 at 9:47 PM, Nevo said:

I can't think of any off the top of my head, but I'm sure there must be some conservative Evangelical scholars that hold that view.

But there is broad agreement among critical scholars that he didn't. Here's a sampling:

• "Matthew’s Sermon was composed by the author of the rest of the Gospel. Drawing upon Q, Mark, and his distinctive tradition (M), he forged the discourse in accordance with his own interests." (Dale C. Allison, Jr., "Sermon on the Mount/Plain," Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible, ed. David Noel Freedman, Allen C. Myers, and Astrid B. Beck [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000], 1187) 

• ......................................................................

These learned and clever reconstructions carry great weight with scholars (and with me).  However, it ought to give us pause that they are so frequently wrong, as they have been at the Jesus Seminar (as criticized by Tom Wright, Birger Pearson, et al.), and as they were when reconstructing the genesis of an essay by C. S. Lewis (http://merecslewis.blogspot.com/2013/01/why-lewis-is-sure-biblical-critics-have.html ).

[Robert F. Smith]

On 6/30/2016 at 7:49 AM, consiglieri said:

Raising a similar difficulty is the fact the Book of Mormon quotes the ending of Mark's Gospel.

...........................................................

Notice the similarity?  Other than the addition of the word "And" in Mormon at the very beginning, it is word-for-word the same.  The dependence on the KJV of Mark 16 is obvious.

But making the issue even thornier is the fact that scholars agree this passage from Mark was not in the original.

It was added sometime later.

This means that not only is Mormon 9:23-24 quoting verbatim from KJV Mark, it is quoting from a section that was almost certainly not in the original manuscript of Mark.

The BofM nowhere says that it is quoting Mark.  You cite the so-called Longer Ending of Mark herewith, but miss the point that, although the consensus among NT scholars is that the Longer Ending was not originally part of Mark, it was an authentic part of a now unknown ancient Gospel, and is thus included in the UBS 3rd ed in double brackets (B. Metzger, Textual Commentary, 122-126).

[Abulafia]

As I understand, both the sermon on the mount and the sermon on the plain come from another source (Quelle).  Goodacre would suggest Luke copied from Matthew on this,  but he would be in the minority on this issue.

I understand why members would consider the Book of Mormon an ancient text, and so try to make the evidence fit, but without that initial assumption of historicity it really is blindingly obvious that Joseph wove a story from his deep knowledge, and love of, the King James Bible.  It's not just the sermon on the plain and mount which Joseph uses without knowledge of the historical critical method, it's also the unacknowledged references to Pauline language.  With the host of other anachronistic renderings of biblical verse whether from the OT or NT, I would suggest that the ahistoricity of the Book of Mormon is obvious to anyone without a spiritual testimony that it is genuinely ancient.

 

For me, this is and was a case of the head and heart telling me something completely different.

 

[Kevin Christensen]

Nevo reported

Quote

John Meier has recently written: "The Sermon on the Mount, in its final form, is a prime example of Matthew's own vocabulary,...

Yet Welch had reported in Illuminating the Sermon at the Temple and the Sermon on the Mount that:

Quote

, the vocabulary of the Sermon on the Mount contrasts sharply with the words used by Matthew in the rest of his gospel. Of the 383 basic vocabulary words in the Sermon, I count 73 (or 19% of the total) that appear only in the Sermon (sometimes more than once) and then never again appear elsewhere in the Gospel of Matthew.

And he elaborates on the use of temple Psalmic allusion and language throughout.  (See the Table 1 in Mormonism and the Temple (linked above) page 68-70.  And beyond the language, the structure, Table 2, page 74.

Quote

The Sermon on the Mount Seen in Twenty-Five Stages of Ascent
Jesus and his disciples go up “into the Mountain” (5:1; compare Exodus 19:20; 24:13)
1: A promise of ultimate heavenly blessings is given (the Beatitudes, 5:3–12)
2: A charge is given, with a warning, to become the salt of the earth (5:13)
3: A calling is given to be a light unto the world to the glory of God (5:14–16)
4: Obligation imposed to obey and teach the fullness of the law and prophets (5:17–20)
5: Anger, ill-speaking, and ridicule of brothers are prohibited (5:21–22)
6: All animosities are reconciled before gifts are given at the altar (5:23–26)
7: Sexual fidelity is required before, during, and after marriage (5:27–32)
8: Oaths are sworn along this path only by saying “yes, yes” or “no, no” (5:33–37)
9: Disciples agree to do good and to pray for all people, including enemies (5:38–47)
10: Gifts of sun and rain upon all are promised as blessings from heaven (5:45)
11: Passing from that first level into a higher order of perfection (5:48)
12: Donations are given voluntarily and inconspicuously to the poor (6:1–4)
13: Prayers are offered without fanfare, both in private and as a group (6:5–13)
14: Forgiveness is given and is commensurately received (6:14–15)
15: Fasting, washing, and anointing are done in a secret setting (6:16–18)
16: Treasures are consecrated with singleness of heart in loving service to God (6:19–24)
17: Assurances of sufficient food, drink and glorious clothing are received (6:25–34)
18: In preparing for the final judgment, people judge themselves, not others (7:1–5)
19: A curse is placed on those who inappropriately disclose that which is holy (7:6)
20: A threefold petition is made: asking, seeking, and knocking (7:7–8)
21: Good gifts are received from the Father, and gifts are given as he gives (7:9–12)
22: The righteous enter through a narrow opening that leads into life (7:13–14)
23: They enjoy and bear the fruits of the tree of life, not of corruptness (7:15–20)
24: Doing God’s will, they are allowed to enter into his presence and kingdom (7:21–23)
25: They then build upon this rock by hearing and doing these things (7:24–27)
Based on John W. Welch, The Sermon on the Mount in the Light of the Temple (London: Ashgate, 2009), 41–182.

And beyond the structure and language, Welch goes further and describes how the imagery and language even corresponds in detail to the temple floor plan, pages 81-83.  That is, it is concerned with eye-witness details and physical movement through the temple and thus is more than just a collection of sayings gathered and/or composed at a late date. This information comparing the physical temple and the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew appears also in a shorter version from the 2012 Temple studies Group, for your convenience, see here:

http://www.templestudiesgroup.com/Papers/Temple_Welch.pdf

Welch also discusses the relationship of the Sermon on the Plain in Luke to the Sermon on the Mount and notes in detail (on pages 93-94 in the longer Mormonism and the Temple pdf) this:

Quote

While the Sermon on the Plain follows the same order as the Sermon on the Mount, it suitably contains only its more public elements.

The Sermon on the Mount goes into and through the Temple, and thus, is directed to disciples, rather than just anyone.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Edited August 14, 2016 by Kevin Christensen

[Calm]

Been awhile, Abulafia.  Good to see you.