The State of the Evidence

[jkwilliams]

47 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

Regarding the Deutero Isaiah, I offered some perspectives here:

http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=2694&index=7

A key point is the that some scholars believe that Second Isaiah was based on the liturgy of a pre-exilic festival, and it turns out that Jacob quotes his Deutero Isaiah chapters in that context.  Such things suggest to me that it's not just a matter of modern scholarship raising issues for the Book of Mormon, but the Book of Mormon often raises issues for modern scholarship.   And I found it interesting.  We don't need to fret about the chapters that the Book of Mormon does not quote, only the ones it does.

To which I add reference to Barker on The Original Setting of the Fourth Servant Song:

http://www.margaretbarker.com/Papers/FourthServantSong.pdf

She makes a very good case based on a wide range of evidence, both textual and archeological.  And this in the face of her own use of the multiple Isaiah hypothesis in The Older Testament and her Eerdman's Isaiah commentary.

And I'd also point to Brant's discussion of translation issues in A Reason For Faith, which is very good.  And Joseph Spencer's An Other Testament, which goes into the complexities and subtleties of Isaiah in the Book of Mormon. 

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

 

Just out of curiosity, how do you deal with the dependency, not just textual but doctrinal/thematic, of the Book of Mormon on the King James Version of the New Testamen? 

Edited June 29, 2016 by jkwilliams

[consiglieri]

Now that I can post again, let me make my position clear.

I believe that on most issues under the sun, reasonable minds can differ.

But this is not one of them.

No reasonable mind can believe that passages quoting KJV passages in the Book of Mormon that are dated to a time after Lehi left Jerusalem are not evidence against the historicity of the Book of Mormon.

Explanations can be given, to be sure.  But those explanations are not reasonable.

Just because an explanation is given does not make the explanation reasonable.

Wasn't it Mephistopheles in Faust who said that men suffer from the detriment that they think that just because some words are strung together, it must mean something?

So my position is that reasonable minds cannot differ on this issue.

Any mind who thinks that the presence of post-exilic KJV passages in the BOM is not evidence against BOM historicity is unreasonable per se.

 

[Gray]

26 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Unless we believe that what is in limited supply is misery and suffering. 

Maybe. There are always exceptional cases, like doctrines that actually motivate suicide in the hope of some great reward in the afterlife. Or doctrines that might motivate some people to commit murder in order to secure a better afterlife for the victim. 

Edited June 29, 2016 by Gray

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, consiglieri said:

No reasonable mind can believe that passages quoting KJV passages in the Book of Mormon that are dated to a time after Lehi left Jerusalem are not evidence against the historicity of the Book of Mormon.
Explanations can be given, to be sure.  But those explanations are not reasonable.
Just because an explanation is given does not make the explanation reasonable.

So my position is that reasonable minds cannot differ on this issue.
Any mind who thinks that the presence of post-exilic KJV passages in the BOM is not evidence against BOM historicity is unreasonable per se.

I disagree.
Just because you consider an explanation unreasonable does not make it so.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, consiglieri said:

Now that I can post again, let me make my position clear.

I believe that on most issues under the sun, reasonable minds can differ.

But this is not one of them.

No reasonable mind can believe that passages quoting KJV passages in the Book of Mormon that are dated to a time after Lehi left Jerusalem are not evidence against the historicity of the Book of Mormon.

Explanations can be given, to be sure.  But those explanations are not reasonable.

Just because an explanation is given does not make the explanation reasonable.

Wasn't it Mephistopheles in Faust who said that men suffer from the detriment that they think that just because some words are strung together, it must mean something?

So my position is that reasonable minds cannot differ on this issue.

Any mind who thinks that the presence of post-exilic KJV passages in the BOM is not evidence against BOM historicity is unreasonable per se.

 

Consig has spoken and the thinking has been done.  

[jkwilliams]

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Consig has spoken and the thinking has been done.  

How do you account for the Book of Mormon's textual dependency on the King James New Testament? 

Edited June 29, 2016 by jkwilliams

[JLHPROF]

13 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

How do you account for the Book of Mormon's textual dependency on the King James New Testament?

Nephi wrote in his language the text of Isaiah's words.
The KJV translated the original text into English.
Why is it so unlikely that when God showed Joseph the translation for Nephi's writing of Isaiah's words he used the text that Joseph was familiar with?

Isaiah 3:4 And I will give children to be their princes, and babes shall rule over them.
2 Nephi 13: 4 And I will give children unto them to be their princes, and babes shall rule over them.
Original - ד  וְנָתַתִּי נְעָרִים, שָׂרֵיהֶם; וְתַעֲלוּלִים, יִמְשְׁלוּ-בָם.4 And I will give children to be their princes, and babes shall rule over them

Children = children in Hebrew = children in Nephi's language = children in KJV English = children 1820's English
Why should it read differently.  And you'll notice that the BOM wasn't word for word from the KJV.

If the Book of Mormon record and the Bible record use the same source material, why should the usage of the KJV be a problem in any way?

[rodheadlee]

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

This may seem like an extreme reaction, but it could be 100% proven that there was no God, no afterlife, and no Savior, I am not sure I would bother getting out of bed the next day or breathing in and out.
I don't think there would be much incentive to deal with all the trials and stresses of mortal existence if we all end up as worm food and the earth is destroyed by some scientific phenomenon.  What a waste of effort and an abundance of problems would be the life without God.
 

 

[jkwilliams]

Just now, JLHPROF said:

Nephi wrote in his language the text of Isaiah's words.
The KJV translated the original text into English.
Why is it so unlikely that when God showed Joseph the translation for Nephi's writing of Isaiah's words he used the text that Joseph was familiar with?

Isaiah 3:4 And I will give children to be their princes, and babes shall rule over them.
2 Nephi 13: 4 And I will give children unto them to be their princes, and babes shall rule over them.
Original - ד  וְנָתַתִּי נְעָרִים, שָׂרֵיהֶם; וְתַעֲלוּלִים, יִמְשְׁלוּ-בָם.4 And I will give children to be their princes, and babes shall rule over them

Children = children in Hebrew = children in Nephi's language = children in KJV English = children 1820's English
Why should it read differently.  And you'll notice that the BOM wasn't word for word from the KJV.

If the Book of Mormon record and the Bible record use the same source material, why should the usage of the KJV be a problem in any way?

I'm not talking about Isaiah, FWIW, as it is not part of the New Testament.

[JLHPROF]

6 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I'm not talking about Isaiah, FWIW, as it is not part of the New Testament.

To which passages are you referring then?

Christ repeating the beatitudes word for word or some other quote?
The principle is the same - If the Book of Mormon record and the Bible record use the same source material, why should the usage of the KJV be a problem in any way?

Edited June 29, 2016 by JLHPROF

[jkwilliams]

10 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

To which passages are you referring then?

Christ repeating the beatitudes word for word or some other quote?
The principle is the same - If the Book of Mormon record and the Bible record use the same source material, why should the usage of the KJV be a problem in any way?

I'm talking about the way that the Book of Mormon starts with English KJV words and concepts and then expands on them. So far, the only explanation I've seen is Blake Ostler's modern expansion theory.

[bluebell]

16 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

How do you account for the Book of Mormon's textual dependency on the King James New Testament? 

I personally haven't spent much time on it. It's never been something that bothered me.

But I've read a little of Nibley's stuff on it and found it persuasive (just stuff that people have linked to or shared before. I haven't read any of his books on it all the way through). He's been mentioned already but I also think that Jeff Lindsay's theories are persuasive, though they're more the cliff notes version of accounting for the dependency than a full on treatment. 

Even if their theories are wrong, I think they are very reasonable explanations on why bible passages in the BOM don't have to argue against historicity. 

[jkwilliams]

Just now, bluebell said:

I personally haven't spent much time on it. It's never been something that bothered me.

But I've read a little of Nibley's stuff on it and found it persuasive (just stuff that people have linked to or shared before. I haven't read any of his books on it all the way through). He's been mentioned already but I also think that Jeff Lindsay's theories are persuasive, though they're more the cliff notes version of accounting for the dependency than a full on treatment. 

Even if their theories are wrong, I think they are very reasonable explanations on why bible passages in the BOM don't have to argue against historicity. 

I see it more in terms of textual and thematic dependency, which I do think is a problem, but I was just curious as to your take.

[Kevin Christensen]

2 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

Just out of curiosity, how do you deal with the dependency, not just textual but doctrinal/thematic, of the Book of Mormon on the King James Version of the New Testamen? 

That is a very general question, so I can only give a general answer.

SInce the King James version of the Bible is part of Joseph Smith's "language and learning" and the Book of Mormon purports to be a translation into that language environment, I don't have serious issues with his use of that language.  I think it helps the readers and makes the text more useful, comprehensible, and accessible.  Not perfect, which, even if it was, we would not be able to judge perfectly.  Plus I spent some serious effort many years ago exploring claims that certain things were anachronistic, such as a Sunstone in 1982 claiming that 3 Nephi has Jesus quoting the words of Christ before Jesus spoke them.  I checked and found that Peter was a disciple of Christ, and had obviously been privy to many conversations that did not make it into the New Testament, and that the phrase in question was highly formulaic anyway (that is, deliberately unoriginal, expressing ideas that had been expressed in many places in the Old Testament in similar language).  I found that Peter in several places seems to be quoting from the Dead Sea Scrolls, something that we would not have known until we had those sources.  I had read essays by Nibley on 3 Nephi compared to the 40 Day literature and Richard L. Anderson on Pesher teaching that George D. Smith didn't bother to mention, and therefore, did not explain.  It's one thing to try to burst a bubble with a pin prick, and quite another to address a network of interconnected strands.  I recall reading later how Jerald Tanner published a list of anachronistic borrowings from the New Testament based on computer searches that required him to suppress the information that in a great many cases, the New Testament passages borrowed from the Old Testament.  And of course, the Old Testament language itself is not completely original or unique, nor do we have all of the sources behind it.

For instance, in New Approaches:

Quote

David Wright argues that the Melchizedek material in Alma 13 is anachronistically derived from Hebrews:

Scholarship recognizes that Hebrews does not create all of its argument by itself but relies on tradition and perhaps even on some unknown written sources (in addition to the Bible) in some of the places where we have seen the epistle parallel elements in Alma 12-13. But these traditions and sources are in general relatively recent developments for the author of Hebrews, not traditions going back 700 years. Moreover, the traditions and sources found or supposed by scholars for the passages in Hebrews relevant to Alma 12-13 are diverse; . . . They are not likely to be found in one traditional source.⁵⁶

Rather than bail when I read this in 1994, I read some counter arguments by Welch and Tvedtnes, and then in 1999, got a copy of The Older Testament and saw this:

Quote

Melchizedek was central to the old royal cult. We do not know what the name means, but it is quite clear that this priesthood operated within the mythology of the sons of Elyon, and the triumph of the royal son of God in Jerusalem. We should expect later references to Melchizedek to retain some memory of the cult of Elyon. . . . The role of the ancient kings was that of the Melchizedek figure in 11QMelch. This accounts for the Melchizedek material in Hebrews, and the early Church’s association of Melchizedek and the Messiah. The arguments of Hebrews presuppose a knowledge of the angel mythology which we no longer have.⁵⁵

In contrast to Wright’s conclusion, Barker’s work connects the Melchizedek traditions to the First Temple, which not only moves them back seven hundred years earlier than Hebrews but also argues for the source of unity in those traditions behind Hebrews as being those of the temple.⁵⁷

With respect to the Melchizedek passages in the Book of Mormon,⁵⁸ we should note that the Alma 13 discussion is crowded with themes that recur in Barker’s books as signs of the preexilic tradition—the Father God (Alma 13:9),⁵⁹ his Begotten Son as the atoning one (Alma 13:5),⁶⁰ the council in heaven at the foundation of the world (Alma 13:3),⁶¹ the Day of Atonement imagery of garments being “washed white through the blood of the Lamb” (Alma 13:11),⁶² angels being sent to “all nations” (Alma 13:22),⁶³ judgment (Alma 13:29-30),⁶⁴ hell, and the second death (Alma 13:29-30).⁶⁵ This puts the Melchizedek passage in the Book of Mormon in tune with the angel mythology presupposed by Hebrews. None of these themes elicited any notice in Wright’s article.

(Borrowing from my http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1459&index=4 )

Rather than "tight or loose" translation, I prefer Kevin Barney's "complex" which strikes me as more realistic.  I read Blake Ostler's "Expansion Theory" and think it interesting that Barker's first book, The Older Testament appeared the same year.  Since most of Ostler's "expansions" involved places where the Book of Mormon seemed "too Christian before Christ", I think Barker's work renders most of his work obsolete, though I think his discussion of translation is still valuable.

I do not assume that the New Testament writers invented Christianity, but rather that Christianity springs from 1 Temple Theology, which Margaret Barker roots in Jerusalem 600 BCE, before the destruction of the First Temple.  And I find her essay on the transmission of the Old Testament "Text and Context" remarkable in that it tells a story remarkably similar to what I read in 1 Nephi 13.

I have found that the ways in which a person contextualizes and the tools they choose to employ greatly colors, even determines, what they see.  (For a broad overview of how this effects reading of the New Testament across a broad range of reasonable, learned, well documented, and mutually contradictory scholarship, Google  and read "John McDade, Jesus Research".  Richard Bushman makes a similar case regarding Joseph Smith biography in his 2005 talk at the Joseph Smith Conference).

I have found a great difference in what a reader like Mark Thomas sees, when contextualizing the Book of Mormon as a 19th Century text (Digging in Cumorah), and what I get from other close readers, like Alan Goff, Hugh Nibley, Daniel Peterson, Brant Gardner, John Tvedtnes, and John Sorenson, among others.  And I have found  that same applies to Grant Hardy and Joseph Spencer at times. No one reads the text without bringing some context.  It is best to do so conscious of the implications.  And we cannot know which context is best until we actually "stand where they stood" and realize that only then can we "see what they saw."  (As Margaret Barker puts it.)

I have learned from Thomas Kuhn that the same information that can seem a counter-instance for one person can seem a solvable puzzle to another, or no problem at all to another.  The data is always "theory-laden" as N. R. Hanson observed.  I have learned from my experience reading in LDS controversial literature that a focus on one set of problems can simultaneously filter out a set of equally significant and often remarkable solutions.

I have also learned from Kuhn that paradigm debate always involves deciding "which problems are more significant to have solved."  There is a great deal in the Book of Mormon that strikes me as best explained as eye-witness detail.  And it happens that the details and contexts that impress me most never get mentioned or explained by those who seem most taken with their own capacity to face problems boldly.  And that sort of thing weighs in my balance when I have decide "which paradigm is better."   One of the key paradigm-independent values for evaluating paradigms is whether the case is "more comprehensive and coherent" and I have never seen any explanation of the Book of Mormon come close to accounting for enough of what I see in historicity and authenticity to persuade me.

In general, in dealing with questions, I keep my eyes open, give things time, and re-examine my assumptions now and then.  The alternative is to not keep up, insist on final answers now, and never re-examine my assumptions.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Edited June 29, 2016 by Kevin Christensen

[Jeanne]

4 hours ago, Tacenda said:

JK, maybe it's not that they don't care whether it's true or not, these members just don't care to find out if it's false, because they are happy the way it is. So they do think it's true.

I agree..so much easier to put your fingers in your ear and go..nah..nah..nah..I have asked people who have been close to me and understand me..If the church wasn't true would you want to know?  Nobody just came out and said..it's true.but many came out and said..I wouldn't want to know.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, consiglieri said:

Now that I can post again, let me make my position clear.

I believe that on most issues under the sun, reasonable minds can differ.

But this is not one of them.

No reasonable mind can believe that passages quoting KJV passages in the Book of Mormon that are dated to a time after Lehi left Jerusalem are not evidence against the historicity of the Book of Mormon.

Explanations can be given, to be sure.  But those explanations are not reasonable.

Just because an explanation is given does not make the explanation reasonable.

Wasn't it Mephistopheles in Faust who said that men suffer from the detriment that they think that just because some words are strung together, it must mean something?

So my position is that reasonable minds cannot differ on this issue.

Any mind who thinks that the presence of post-exilic KJV passages in the BOM is not evidence against BOM historicity is unreasonable per se.

 

Books are not delivered by angels as a routine procedure.  I am sure Amazon would put them right to work delivering books and forget the drones, like right now, if that was possible.

So I would argue that if you are taking that tack, I would not worry about the relatively small matter of some portions supposedly being post-exile.

But if you DO believe in angels and if you DO believe in revelation, all that goes away.   If Joseph could "re-translate" huge portions of the Bible by plucking them from the air and we accept them as legitimate- (and yes I do in fact do that) there is certainly no problem in explaining those post-exilic passages the same way.  You are straining at a gnat and ignoring the elephant that is drawing the gnats in the first place.  If Joseph could "translate" the Book of Abraham by plucking it from the air, the same applies.

It is totally obvious to any "reasonable" person- BY YOUR highly limited and archaic definition of "reasonable", (as demolished by the last 200 years of philosophy on both sides of the Atlantic) that the whole thing is a farce in the first place.  On the other hand if you pick up a book occasionally, you would see your definition of "reasonable" is now in the realm of flat-earth-believers from an epistemological point of view, in a religious context.  Even educated atheists would agree with me, and I often cite them here- in fact my siggy below does that.

The beliefs we choose are social constructions within contexts of belief, and those same social constructs decide what is or is not "reasonable"

The issue here is revelation- nothing more or less

As has been said by one far wiser than me, "For those who believe in revelation there can be no question, and for those who do not believe in revelation there can be no answer"

Simple as that really.   The whole issue of BOM evidence misses the entire point.   So your point just falls flat.  

You are arguing about the characteristics of the bark on a single tree in a forest which, according to your assumptions, should not even exist.

If you want to make a reasonable argument at least start talking about what to you is the invisible forest.

Oh wait.

The whole thread is about the invisible forest.  Or maybe it's about the emperor's invisible clothes, that some of us see all too clearly.  They're there, but just not where you are looking!

[consiglieri]

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

I disagree.
Just because you consider an explanation unreasonable does not make it so.

Give me one reasonable alternate explanation and we'll chat.

 

I'm all ears.

[consiglieri]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

Consig has spoken and the thinking has been done.  

That is very funny, bluebell!

But seriously, if anybody wants to posit one reasonable alternate explanation for the appearance in the BOM of KJV passages after Lehi left Jerusalem, I am all ears.

Skip the Deutero-Isaiah stuff and just go to the New Testament.

But no Smac-style FAIR-bombing and running.

Just give me one good reason and we can discuss it.

I'm really good at listening. 

 

[consiglieri]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

 

If the Book of Mormon record and the Bible record use the same source material, why should the usage of the KJV be a problem in any way?

Why should the Book of Mormon record be using KJV New Testament source material?

[consiglieri]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I personally haven't spent much time on it. It's never been something that bothered me.

I was the same way, bluebell.

It never bothered me when I didn't spend much time on it.

It was only after I spent some time on it that I saw how devastating KJV NT passages in the Book of Mormon are to the position that the Book of Mormon record is not a product of the 19th century.

[consiglieri]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

 

The issue here is revelation- nothing more or less

 

The issue is not about revelation.

It is about the dependence of the Book of Mormon on KJV NT passages that were not written until 600-years after Lehi left Jerusalem.

The KJV NT passages could therefore not have been on the brass plates.

The NT records were not even in the same hemisphere from the BOM authors!

So how is it that BOM authors show a heavy dependency on KJV NT passages?

You say "revelation," as if it is a magic wand that can make the problem go away.  It is not.  And to use "revelation" in such a manner is not only cynical, it is demeaning to the whole notion of what "revelation" really is.

In short, it is not reasonable.

 

 

[JLHPROF]

17 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

Why should the Book of Mormon record be using KJV New Testament source material?

Why shouldn't it?
I would like a specific example as to which KJV NT passages contained in the BOM pose a problem to reason.

[consiglieri]

11 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Why shouldn't it?
I would like a specific example as to which KJV NT passages contained in the BOM pose a problem to reason.

There is no sense ignoring the elephant in the living room.

We may as well start with the Sermon on the Mount, where Matthew 5-7 is reproduced in 3 Nephi 12-14.

This is a thorny problem because it is not a short passage, but three chapters long.

Making it even more difficult is the scholarly consensus that Jesus never gave the Sermon on the Mount in the first place!

Instead, the author of Matthew cobbled together a bunch of sayings of Jesus that were in circulation and formulated them into the story of a sermon given by Jesus.  This would have been done sometime around 75 CE.

So not only does a reasonable explanation have to be given for why the Book of Mormon is repeating the lengthy Sermon on the Mount.

It must also explain why Jesus is giving a three-chapter long sermon in the Book of Mormon in King James English when Jesus never gave such a sermon during his mortal ministry.

[jkwilliams]

Maybe this discussion of the KJV in the Book of Mormon could be its own thread. 

[JLHPROF]

2 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Maybe this discussion of the KJV in the Book of Mormon could be its own thread.

Probably, but it is on topic as far as the evidences for Mormonism.