Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

How did Deutero-Isaiah get on the Brass Plates?


Recommended Posts

13 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I highly recommend the "seeing the visions of eternity" thing. It has a lot of history in there.

Not history. Theology, eschatology, apocalypse, sacred legends, doctrine and things of that nature, but so far no history has been revealed using that method.

Link to comment
4 hours ago, Gray said:

Only if Crossan had access to a time machine, somehow.

He might have. Augustine thought that he could give the gospel armor against every attack from every angle. From scholars to philosophers to pagans. He tried and he did a pretty good job. I just don't think the gospel survived the procedure required.

4 hours ago, Gray said:

Not history. Theology, eschatology, apocalypse, sacred legends, doctrine and things of that nature, but so far no history has been revealed using that method.

What if I were to tell you that in 3400 BCE a herder first contacted Azathoth and swore his soul to the daemon sultan and that I learned this via revelation? Now, it is history if true. Admittedly most people would not believe it so it is not verifiable history beyond my witness but I know WHAT I SAW!!!!

Edited by The Nehor
Link to comment
24 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

What if I were to tell you that in 3400 BCE a herder first contacted the Azathoth and swore his soul to the daemon sultan and that I learned this via revelation? Now, it is history if true. Admittedly most people would not believe it so it is not verifiable history beyond my witness but I know WHAT I SAW!!!!

He's a witch! Burn him!!!!

Link to comment

Kevin, doesn't Barker's thesis primarily account for the Isaiah that Abinadi quotes but not the passages (49-52:2) that Nephi/Jacob quote? Also while Barker's is a defensible reading, it hasn't really caught on has it? (Recognizing here the problem between what is defensible versus socially persuasive in the scholarly community) As you mention in your "Paradigms Regained" she accepts the traditional dating for the Nephi/Jacob quotations so I think those still need to be addressed, although as I said I think those can be dealt with. As I said an interesting thing critics leave out is the significance of the parts of deutero-Isaiah not quoted. Those tend to be the strongest passages for an exile dating. 

Edited by clarkgoble
Link to comment
1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

Kevin, doesn't Barker's thesis primarily account for the Isaiah that Abinadi quotes but not the passages (49-52:2) that Nephi/Jacob quote? Also while Barker's is a defensible reading, it hasn't really caught on has it? (Recognizing here the problem between what is defensible versus socially persuasive in the scholarly community) As you mention in your "Paradigms Regained" she accepts the traditional dating for the Nephi/Jacob quotations so I think those still need to be addressed, although as I said I think those can be dealt with. As I said an interesting thing critics leave out is the significance of the parts of deutero-Isaiah not quoted. Those tend to be the strongest passages for an exile dating. 

Regarding the implications of defensible versus socially persuasive in a scholarly community, see Barker here:

http://christpantokrator.blogspot.com/search/label/Barker%3A 'Being an Independent Scholar'

And that context, is where Goff on positivism is particularly enlightening.  If a community admits the the implications of the critical position, it is open to criticism.  If a community assumes that what they do is "objectively facing facts and following them to a logical conclusion" the implications of their position, all too regularly, logical positivism, they conceal the implications of that position from themselves.  There is a huge difference between criticizing Barker, for instance, as "Not us" and actually defending the question of "Why us?" on grounds that are not self referential, that is, the orthodoxy of a specific school of thought. 

Best,

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

Regarding the implications of defensible versus socially persuasive in a scholarly community, see Barker here:

http://christpantokrator.blogspot.com/search/label/Barker%3A 'Being an Independent Scholar'

And that context, is where Goff on positivism is particularly enlightening.  If a community admits the the implications of the critical position, it is open to criticism.  If a community assumes that what they do is "objectively facing facts and following them to a logical conclusion" the implications of their position, all too regularly, logical positivism, they conceal the implications of that position from themselves.  There is a huge difference between criticizing Barker, for instance, as "Not us" and actually defending the question of "Why us?" on grounds that are not self referential, that is, the orthodoxy of a specific school of thought. 

While Alan and I have a lot of views in common I actually think he pushes things a tad too far for my comfort. We can reject a thoroughgoing positivism but still recognize that in whole, some positions have much more evidence and argumentative strength for them. But at the same time one doesn't have to read much of the literature to recognize most of the claims in these historical fields are highly underdetermined. Agreement seems more tied to a social consensus not always backed up by the evidence. That may not be as apparent to non-specialists who often can't quite understand that different fields have different degrees of strength for their conclusions. These areas of history seem at their best much weaker than say the typical paper in the field of physics.

Link to comment
On 3/5/2017 at 3:35 AM, Bobbieaware said:

Do you understand I was being sarcastic and that I'm on your side? You, apparently, are the second person who took what I wrote seriously when I thought it was quite obvious I was using sarcasm to make a point.

Ha ha! I did understand you were on my side. I apologize if you didn't think I was. I was agreeing by being sarcastic in return, regarding "scholars." (Our Church wasn't founded by a scholar, I don't need them to know the truth.)

Link to comment
Quote

Kevin, doesn't Barker's thesis primarily account for the Isaiah that Abinadi quotes but not the passages (49-52:2) that Nephi/Jacob quote? Also while Barker's is a defensible reading, it hasn't really caught on has it? (Recognizing here the problem between what is defensible versus socially persuasive in the scholarly community) As you mention in your "Paradigms Regained" she accepts the traditional dating for the Nephi/Jacob quotations so I think those still need to be addressed, although as I said I think those can be dealt with. As I said an interesting thing critics leave out is the significance of the parts of deutero-Isaiah not quoted. Those tend to be the strongest passages for an exile dating. 

As a side note (and not really related to the current discussion), there is this fascinating interplay between Abinadi, Alma (later writings) and Nephi/Jacob. There is a lot of intertextual reference between Alma and Abinadi, and Alma and Nephi/Jacob. There is very, very little between Abinadi, and Nephi/Jacob. This is interesting to me both from the position that this is seen in the historical narrative that the text presents (that the small plates are not in public circulation until after they are given to Benjamin - and so wouldn't have been available to Abinadi), and it is interesting from the perspective that in the translation chronology, the small plates come last.

Ben McGuire

Link to comment
3 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

As a side note (and not really related to the current discussion), there is this fascinating interplay between Abinadi, Alma (later writings) and Nephi/Jacob. There is a lot of intertextual reference between Alma and Abinadi, and Alma and Nephi/Jacob. There is very, very little between Abinadi, and Nephi/Jacob. This is interesting to me both from the position that this is seen in the historical narrative that the text presents (that the small plates are not in public circulation until after they are given to Benjamin - and so wouldn't have been available to Abinadi), and it is interesting from the perspective that in the translation chronology, the small plates come last.

Abinadi is just a complete mystery. Where does he come from? What's his religious tradition? Why does he care about Noah and his priests? He's by far the most fascinating figure in the Book of Mormon. The biggest question is what records does he have access to? He quotes extensively from deutero-Isaiah to Noah and his priests. But does that mean he had access to the brass plates and was part of an inner circle? What does this say about copies of the brass plates? So many questions and so few answers.

Regarding the textual question on the large plates and small plates, critics would note 1 Nephi - Jacob is translated last and that's why there's no connection. But of course whatever is on the 116 pages would have been known in the fraud model. Likewise if it was written as it went along, it'd be a perfect way to add prophecy into the small plates that would be referenced in Mosiah/Alma. That this doesn't happen is actually pretty intriguing as you note.

 

Link to comment
On 3/3/2017 at 9:59 AM, Johnnie Cake said:

This may be kicking a dead horse...this particular difficulty is at or near the top of a very very deep pile of perceived problems.

...so Bokovoy's argument...confirms my reasons for non-believe...but leaves me with a path to belief that does not work for me.  I should also add that anyone who proposes that the Biblical scholars are wrong and that the proof is in the fact that the Book of Mormon its self is proof that Deutero Isaiah was written before Lehi left Jerusalem because of the fact that it is in the Book of Mormon and thus must have been on the Brass Plates...sorry that dog won't hunt.

The horse ain't dead. It's a prancing white unicorn...with wings.

Johnnie, the critics who proposed (and those who still propose) that the last portions of Isaiah were supposedly written long after Isaiah's death did so mostly because of explicit prophecies in those chapters which require God knowing/sharing with mankind what would play out in the future. For example, the chapter which names Cyrus by name...long before his birth. In essence, the critics didn't believe in such a God, or in the nature of prophecy, so from their fractured foundation, they taught that the most prophetic passages must somehow have been written after the events foretold. They were wrong.

They attempted much the same with the most prophetic portions of Daniel. Attempting to question/dilute God's foreknowledge and promises.

No go.

Isaiah and Daniel actually were/are prophets...just as Jesus of Nazareth attested. And it is our duty/privilege to prayerfully study/understand the promises contained in their writings - because those promises pertain to us. James 1:5.

Isaiah 53, for example, is the counterpart to the messianic timeline in Daniel 9. By divine design.

As Isaac Newton said centuries ago: " Daniel is most distinct in order of time, and easiest to be understood, and therefore in those things which relate to the last times, he must be made the key to the rest."

In closing, as to whether the dog will hunt. I've heard that the dog prefers, for some reason, to sit and bark as the caravan rolls on. (I suggest that it instead hop on board and enjoy the unfolding panorama.) :0)

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...