How an Ahistorical Book of Mormon Can Still Be Scripture

[Rajah Manchou]

11 minutes ago, Gray said:

They are anachronistic if they occurred in year of Jesus' death, as the book purports that they did.

How so? Jesus died and was resurrected in the 1st century AD. The book was sealed up in the 5th century AD.

25 minutes ago, Gray said:

Note that the Book of Mormon was written down in English the 19th century. Does that make it, in your opinion, a 19th century book?

If it truly was translated from a 5th century abridgment of an assortment of earlier Judeo-Christian texts, then it, in my opinion, would be a 5th century Judeo-Christian text that was translated in the 19th century.

28 minutes ago, Gray said:

The book dates the sermon to shortly after Jesus died, which is an anachronism. If the sermon was actually not delivered at that time, but anytime after ~85 CE, anachronism ceases to be the issue, but there are other issues that are just as problematic.

If

[Meerkat]

25 minutes ago, cdowis said:

Oh, you mean where he wrote you a letter of what he thinks he remembers and a reconstruction of what his father had told him about HIS memory and reconstruction of what McKay said to him, and later concluding that McKay had  "changed his mind" perhaps based on Nibley's book.

Is that your source?

One of the neat things about posts, if you look at the top of a quote (like this one) they have the name of the person we are responding to.  Tom N's post was the source you are seeking.  No One wrote me a letter.  I enjoyed Tom N's post, but if you read my response, his reference to David O. McKay having ever been ahistorical was troubling to me.  I can see my posts are too lengthy and inarticulate.  I will try to be more precise in the future.

[Gray]

On 9/1/2017 at 10:46 AM, clarkgoble said:

You're talking about a text that presupposes a Palestinian appearing in the air in America after dying. I'm not sure you can say there's no plausible way it got there given the commitments of the book. If you are taking as a premise that Jesus being anything but a regular mortal then yeah, I agree. But there's a certain circularity there I think you'd agree.

 

If we're making an appeal to miracles, this has already stopped being a discussion about history.

 

Quote

But you're then explaining away the clear differences. Which is fine, but let's at least be clear what's going on. 

Numbers 19 talks about the sprinkling of blood from the red heifer without defect. This is regularly remarked upon given the rarity of such cows. Interestingly this is one of the big issues with rebuilding the temple and reconstituting Jewish temple practice. It's disputable of course - and the pre-exilic tradition may well have been somewhat different.

The BOM is much closer to the Luke account than to Numbers 19. That's clear, right? Sprinkling blood from a heiffer vs literal/figurative passages about Jesus sweating blood?

 

Quote

Again though it's much more wrapped up in the atonement theology of the OT. Further I'd argue you can trace it's development within the Book of Mormon.

Penal substitution atonement, which is all over the book of Mormon, is a post-Biblical concept. It's not found among any of the early church writers, and would have been alien in the OT as well. According to Spong and Crossan, it's a theory modeled after feudalistic notions of crime and punishment.

 

Quote

Right, but of course the theology of Jesus is different in the Book of Mormon as well. Mosiah 15 is pretty key there with how Abinadi interprets saviors on Mt. Zion. Further unlike the NT where "Son" only applies to Jesus in the Book of Mormon it's an order. (See Alma 13) Again while Merkabah texts we have post-date the exile, the similarities are fairly close with such texts. The closest we have in the NT is Hebrews but in the Book of Mormon it's not just Jesus who becomes a priest after Melchezedek but all priests in some unspecified ritual immitating the heavenly priest. So in the Book of Mormon the Son of God is much more tied to priesthood. As I said there are elements of that in the NT, but it isn't the main emphasis. Further in some unspecified way the ordination of the priest demonstrates how people look to Jesus as priest.

The closest in the NT era isn't in the NT but at Qumran. There Sons of God are both the divine council but also tied to an order of Melchezedek. Like Alma 13 we have "men of the lot of Mel[chi]zedek will be atoned for" Extremely interestingly we have the same passage of Isaiah quoted about saviors on Mt. Zion that Abinadi quotes in Mosiah 15. It's hard not to see that as significant in terms of a pre-Christian tradition of a Messiah very much like the Nephite theology.

Redeemer is a common OT term. One can complain about the most similar to the Book of Mormon, Isaiah 54:5-8, as being post-exilic, but it's hard to say it's Roman. But the term is in the pre-exilic Isaiah as well as a significant term. More significantly Jeremiah uses it.

 

But you're having to cherry pick from all over different traditions to find these terms. They're all together in the NT because they're a specific response to Rome. They're also all together in the BOM.

 

Quote

The symbolism of the tree of life that turns into a divine female is pretty prominent in 1 Nephi 11:8-9, 18-23. Note that the Canaanite symbolism of Ashtoreth was a tree often in the temple. In this case you have the birth of Christ who is divine, whose mother is symbolized by this tree and who has a divine father. 

I've heard this interpretation before. It works okay but is probably not the intention of the author - the more obvious Tree of Life influence would come from Genesis, no?

 

Quote

Further we have a fourth figure who is a fallen divine figure. While more KJV language is used to name him (Satan/Lucifer) the role is pretty similar. Admittedly the main influence is Isaiah 14. However Isaiah 14 is regularly interpreted as arising from Canaanite pantheon. To the point many assume Isaiah was quoting the myth of Baal and Anat. The Athtar figure parallels Isaiah's Lucifer nearly exactly. Quoting from that:

More interesting Athtar was the son of Shachar whose name literally means morning. So Lucifer as Son of the Morning is Canaanite. There are quite a few other parallels and most Isaiah commentaries should go through them.

In the Book of Mormon Satan is tied with what in later Rabbinical Judaism is called "the evil inclination" (yetzer hara). This gets complicated. In later Hellenized Judaism this tends to get tied to the animal soul - although that's interesting relative to Benjamin's "natural man." So by the 1st century BCE we have two traditions of the evil inclination. One is personified in Satan and one is this natural inclination. While the Hellenized tradition tends to demythologize the personification aspects, that was a pre-Christian tradition as we see in the Qumran treatment tying it to fallen angels. Admittedly Qumran writings are well after the exile, it shows that the personification isn't just Christian. As I mentioned in Canaanite tradition you get a similar personification in Mot. (Athtar

Again you're reaching back to all kinds of diverse ancient traditions to find parallels, but the BOM draws most clearly from the Christian tradition in its depiction of Satan.

 

 

Quote

So what we have in the Book of Mormon is an amalgamation of Mot, Anath and Athtar as Satan/Lucifer as the personification of the evil inclination. (Anath and Athtar are already treated similarly in the broad Ugaritic tradition with the main difference being the sex of the figure)

It's worth noting of course than in Canaanite religion Baal is a dying and resurrection deity pretty otherwise similar to YHWH. Who kills Baal? Mot. 

Lehi and Nephi would have been very familiar with these traditions. So rather than an anachronism this is much more their being closer to the earlier pre-Josiah Jewish religion.

Was the Messiah supposed to die? That idea doesn't take hold until after the death of Jesus. Again, the parallels are much closer and less strained when taken from the Christian tradition, especially later in the tradition.

 

Quote

But again how Jesus is the pre-existent God is much more complicated than the NT. Again Mosiah 15 is the obvious text. I know some like to read it as espousing a 19th century conception of modalism but it also fits quite well a more Merkabah conception - especially the divinization of Enoch into Metatron or the Lesser YHWH. Again as I noted, I recognize Merkabah texts are post-exilic and often well into the Hellenized period. However most scholars consider that element of Merkabah tradition to come from the wider Mesopotamian tradition and likely entered Judaism during the exile. That's still a problem for Nephites of course although Margaret Barker (a well known non-Mormon scholar) ties these to pre-exilic traditions and the traditions Josiah's reforms was stamping out. The main difficulty there is Barker notes a distinction between sons of El and sons of YHWH with the latter being human. However there's the notion of the divine angel which bridges this. Barker sees the Gospel writers as adapting this pre-exilic tradition that had persisted in the Merkabah tradition and the Qumran Melchezedek tradition. As I mentioned there's something similar in the Book of Mormon.

 

I think if we assume Lehi is a historical figure, it makes sense for him to be familiar those older polytheistic traditions that were later stamped out. But connecting them to the Messiah? I don't think that works at all. Again you have to pull from many different traditions to try to make the BOM notions of Jesus work without being anachronistic - but it seems quite forced. Again, the closest fit is later in the Christian tradition, where all these notions first came together.

 

 

 

Edited September 6, 2017 by Gray

[Gray]

On 9/1/2017 at 11:06 AM, cdowis said:

Can I assume that you also deny that Nephi had a vision of aspects of Christ's life as well?

I don't have access to anyone's visions, but given that his visions seem to have more to do with the theological Jesus than the historical Jesus, I'll just say that his visions would also be theological in nature.

 

Quote

And who told you that?    Or is this just the blatherings of a modern day Pharasee.

It's not a controversial position. The set up to the sermon is a literary allusion to Moses. The message is Jesus is the new Moses. The teachings themselves could not have been from a single sermon. There were no NT stenographers. These were traditional teachings ofJesus - you could put them together in any order you want (and in fact different gospel writers put them in different orders). No one would have had access to an entire sermon on a particular day.

 

Quote

What specific doctrines are you talking about?  I know that specific practices or applications of doctrine have changed, but I personally know of no change in a doctrine itself.  Polygamy is an example where its practice changed, but you can find it practiced in the temple.

Adam God is quite different to what is taught now. In reading some of Brigham Young's sermons, I find his teachings quite alien to what is taught in the church today. It seems like late 19th century Mormonism was almost a different religion entirely.

That's normal - Christianity underwent rapid changes like that as well.

Edited September 6, 2017 by Gray

[Gray]

On 9/1/2017 at 11:23 AM, Rajah Manchou said:

How so? Jesus died and was resurrected in the 1st century AD. The book was sealed up in the 5th century AD.

Because the sermon didn't exist in that form until ~85 CE. Jesus' resurrection and visit to the Nephites would have been decades earlier.

 

Quote

If it truly was translated from a 5th century abridgment of an assortment of earlier Judeo-Christian texts, then it, in my opinion, would be a 5th century Judeo-Christian text that was translated in the 19th century.

If

Where did Mormon get his copy of Matthew, then?

Edited September 6, 2017 by Gray

[cdowis]

55 minutes ago, Gray said:

It's not a controversial position.

I'm sorry, but I am simply unable to take this post seriously.  It was at this point that I stopped reading.

[Gray]

Just now, cdowis said:

I'm sorry, but I am simply unable to take this post seriously.  It was at this point that I stopped reading.

The fact that you haven't heard this before and don't like what you're hearing doesn't make it controversial. At least not among NT scholars.

[cdowis]

1 minute ago, Gray said:

The fact that you haven't heard this before and don't like what you're hearing doesn't make it controversial. At least not among NT scholars.

I give up.  You know NOTHING about me and my knowledge of NT scholarship.  "Oh, the cdowis is just an ignorant fool and knows nothing about the fine work done by the brilliant scholars in the field."

I wish you all the best to you.  Goodbye.

[Gray]

Just now, cdowis said:

I give up.  You know NOTHING about me and my knowledge of NT scholarship.  "Oh, the cdowis is just an ignorant fool and knows nothing about the fine work done by the brilliant scholars in the field."

I wish you all the best to you.  Goodbye.

You're right, I don't know anything about you. You may have devoted years to the topic. But if you think it's a controversial position, I would then ask what kinds of scholars are you following?

[clarkgoble]

3 hours ago, Gray said:

If we're making an appeal to miracles, this has already stopped being a discussion about history.

Well it was never only about history in the academic sense but history in the broader sense.

Quote

The BOM is much closer to the Luke account than to Numbers 19. That's clear, right? Sprinkling blood from a heiffer vs literal/figurative passages about Jesus sweating blood?

Yes, but again we can't simply dismiss the differences as "misremembering." That's rather ad hoc to say the least.

Quote

Penal substitution atonement, which is all over the book of Mormon, is a post-Biblical concept. It's not found among any of the early church writers, and would have been alien in the OT as well. According to Spong and Crossan, it's a theory modeled after feudalistic notions of crime and punishment.

I don't have time to answer this in detail right now. I just don't think the Book of Mormon teaches a simple Calvinist penal theory. I have a half-written post on this I was supposed to have finished a year ago. To me the best overview of the penal theory of Book of Mormon soteriety is Wetzel's "Book of of Mormon Atonement Doctrine Examined in Context of Atonement Theology in the Environment of its Publication." The main limit of this approach is that it is merely comparing the Book of Mormon to 19th century views and not looking at Jewish views. While he only briefly touches on differences, Louis Midgley's "Evangelical Controversy: A Deeply Fragmented Movement" is worth reading here. Lorin Hansen's "Moral Atonement as a Mormon Interpretation" is a must read as well. Margaret Barker's "Atonement: The Rite of Healing" while not about the Book of Mormon is very relevant for Nephi and pre-exilic views. There are some other papers on how reading Alma in terms of a penal theory is incorrect. I'll see if I can find those later. They typically appeal to the Nephite view that punishment can't be transferred in Alma 34:10-13. That significantly undermines claims to a penal model.

I'll try and offer a more substantial rejoinder later - maybe tonight.

Quote

But you're having to cherry pick from all over different traditions to find these terms. They're all together in the NT because they're a specific response to Rome. They're also all together in the BOM.

Did you read the link from the Qumran texts? I don't see how you can say that is cherry picking. I'm not going "all over the place" but referring to two key texts. Mosiah 15 and Alma 13 that give Nephite Christology. Those texts form an important context to other verses. Further most scholars note the Qumran background. i.e. it isn't just about Rome even in the New Testament contrary to your claim.

Quote

Again you're reaching back to all kinds of diverse ancient traditions to find parallels, but the BOM draws most clearly from the Christian tradition in its depiction of Satan.

Again that's far, far from clear. You haven't provided anything that the Canaanite context can't explain just as well.

Quote

Was the Messiah supposed to die? That idea doesn't take hold until after the death of Jesus. Again, the parallels are much closer and less strained when taken from the Christian tradition, especially later in the tradition.

Again you're not engaging the argument. The issue isn't what Jews believed prior to Christ's death in the first century but what they believed in the 6th century BCE. We have clear and compelling reasons to see similarities to Canaanite models which do have a dying God. If the Nephites see the Messiah as God then that comes along for the ride. By the time of Christ he'd come to be seen in more eschatological terms (both by Christians and non-Christians). Typically scholars assume in pre-exilic period the Messiah was a just king who would purify the land. 

As to whether he dies, that tends to depend upon how you read the Suffering Servant imagery in Isaiah 53. It certainly appears to entail death. "He is brought as a lamb to the slaughter..." (7) "And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death." (9) Now often this was interpreted as all Israel and not just the Messiah. Now Isaiah 53 is problematic as it's part of Deutero-Isaiah and frequently tied to the exile but still centuries before Christ. Even outside of Isaiah 53 though you have 2 Esdras 7:28-29 "After those years my son the Messiah shall die, and all who draw human breath." 4 Maccabees  17:22 also lists Jewish martyrs as having an atoning feature. "And through the blood of those devout ones and their death as an atoning sacrifice, divine Providence preserved Israel that previously had been mistreated." So while the dying Messiah was certainly out of favor by the time the Christians pop up, it's actually a fairly old tradition.

Quote

I think if we assume Lehi is a historical figure, it makes sense for him to be familiar those older polytheistic traditions that were later stamped out. But connecting them to the Messiah? I don't think that works at all. Again you have to pull from many different traditions to try to make the BOM notions of Jesus work without being anachronistic - but it seems quite forced. Again, the closest fit is later in the Christian tradition, where all these notions first came together.

Not sure what you are a saying. If the pre-Deuteronomist Jews (especially of the northern tribes) were much more Canaanite, then why wouldn't that be part and parcel of their messianic beliefs? Not exactly sure what you're arguing here. By and large the universal view is that pre-exilic Jewish kings largely were wrapped up with Canaanite views. This includes seeing the king as a son of God and a priest-king, following the Canaanite model. Again, none of this is particularly controversial in the least. In particular the way the Baal Cycle relates to Jewish conceptions of Kingship. This descent of the king/god through death to the underworld is so common in the ANE I'm surprised you see it as essentially Christian. Typically the argument is that the Christians were just following an old tradition that Israel had moved away from.

It's sort of like you're just dismissing the earlier traditions because you want only the NT parallels to fit, but it's far from clear to me why they fit better. You've not really explained that. Put an other way, if we were to describe a figure opposed to Josiah's reforms, what would we expect their religion to be like? It's your refusal to engage with that question that makes you pick the NT parallels and dismiss difference as mere forgetfulness. However if we're going to do history, at a minimum we ought consider that question of what Lehi's religion would be like.

Edited September 6, 2017 by clarkgoble

[clarkgoble]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

Because the sermon didn't exist in that form until ~85 CE. Jesus' resurrection and visit to the Nephites would have been decades earlier.

Where did Mormon get his copy of Matthew, then?

There are variants on Matthew of course. There are two ways to answer that question. One is that he or someone else simply received it from an angel. The other is that the closeness to Matthew is either an artifact of translation or a partial expansion on the source material during the translation process. Also while the form in Matthew is late, that doesn't mean the version likely given repeatedly by Jesus was extremely dissimilar. You're being a bit misleading suggesting that Matthew is completely unlike what Jesus likely spoke. (And like many preachers, likely gave the same sermons repeatably) First off most assume Matthew gets the Sermon on the Mount from Q and possibly from Luke. However many think the Sermon on the Mount is older than Luke's Sermon on the Plain. Also there's a strong school in contemporary studies following Hand Dieter Betz that Matthew was copying from a pre-existing document. (See Betz' The Sermon on the Mount: A Commentary on the Sermon on the Mount Including the Sermon on the Plain)

 

[Gray]

18 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Well it was never only about history in the academic sense but history in the broader sense.

Yes, but again we can't simply dismiss the differences as "misremembering." That's rather ad hoc to say the least.

An ad hoc explanation? Sure, but two narratives about Jesus sweating blood, one figurative and one literal, certainly suggest literary dependence.

 

 

18 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I don't have time to answer this in detail right now. I just don't think the Book of Mormon teaches a simple Calvinist penal theory. I have a half-written post on this I was supposed to have finished a year ago. To me the best overview of the penal theory of Book of Mormon soteriety is Wetzel's "Book of of Mormon Atonement Doctrine Examined in Context of Atonement Theology in the Environment of its Publication." The main limit of this approach is that it is merely comparing the Book of Mormon to 19th century views and not looking at Jewish views. While he only briefly touches on differences, Louis Midgley's "Evangelical Controversy: A Deeply Fragmented Movement" is worth reading here. Lorin Hansen's "Moral Atonement as a Mormon Interpretation" is a must read as well. Margaret Barker's "Atonement: The Rite of Healing" while not about the Book of Mormon is very relevant for Nephi and pre-exilic views. There are some other papers on how reading Alma in terms of a penal theory is incorrect. I'll see if I can find those later. They typically appeal to the Nephite view that punishment can't be transferred in Alma 34:10-13. That significantly undermines claims to a penal model.

Penal substitution seems to be exactly what is taught in the BOM (esp Alma 42). According to Crossan at least that is not a concept that came out of the Jewish tradition at all, and not one present in the early Christian tradition either. Sacrifice was not the lamb suffering for the sins of the people. It was a meal shared with God as a means of reconciliation. Even the goat driven into the wilderness wasn't killed or tortured.

Punishment IS transferred in the BOM - to Jesus.

 

18 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Did you read the link from the Qumran texts? I don't see how you can say that is cherry picking. I'm not going "all over the place" but referring to two key texts. Mosiah 15 and Alma 13 that give Nephite Christology. Those texts form an important context to other verses. Further most scholars note the Qumran background. i.e. it isn't just about Rome even in the New Testament contrary to your claim.

I think you're glossing over sons of God vs Jesus' unique sonship in the Book of Mormon, which just so happens to look like late first century Christianity. Again, there is a cloud of terms used by early Christians to refer to Jesus. Lord, savior, son of God. redeemer, savior of the world. Where do those terms come together to refer to a single individual? Anywhere in your pre-exhilic sources? It's not just about a reference to "sons of God" in one context and another reference to redeemer in another context. It's the use of all the terms to refer to a single person - first to Caesar, then to Jesus.

18 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Again that's far, far from clear. You haven't provided anything that the Canaanite context can't explain just as well.

The Satan that Lehi might have been familiar with wasn't God's enemy, Satan was subordinate to God.  The Satan in the BOM is clearly the Christian notion of Satan.

 

18 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Again you're not engaging the argument. The issue isn't what Jews believed prior to Christ's death in the first century but what they believed in the 6th century BCE. We have clear and compelling reasons to see similarities to Canaanite models which do have a dying God. If the Nephites see the Messiah as God then that comes along for the ride. By the time of Christ he'd come to be seen in more eschatological terms (both by Christians and non-Christians). Typically scholars assume in pre-exilic period the Messiah was a just king who would purify the land. 

Again, you're glossing over some big issues. The Messiah wasn't god, and wasn't supposed to die. The Messiah was the King, an heir to David. Dying gods are common among many cultures. But dying God plus messiah plus son of Man plus son of God plus lord plus savior plus redeemer = Late first century or later Christian theology. All those things together belong to a particular time and place, even though you may find elements of them in any ancient tradition.

 

18 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

As to whether he dies, that tends to depend upon how you read the Suffering Servant imagery in Isaiah 53. It certainly appears to entail death. "He is brought as a lamb to the slaughter..." (7) "And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death." (9) Now often this was interpreted as all Israel and not just the Messiah. Now Isaiah 53 is problematic as it's part of Deutero-Isaiah and frequently tied to the exile but still centuries before Christ.

The interpretation of the suffering servant as the Messiah again comes later. And as you point out, it's Deutero Isaiah (another problem in the BOM that I didn't even bring up).

 

18 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Even outside of Isaiah 53 though you have 2 Esdras 7:28-29 "After those years my son the Messiah shall die, and all who draw human breath."

Isn't that a first century book? That doesn't help Nephi.

 

18 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

 

4 Maccabees  17:22 also lists Jewish martyrs as having an atoning feature. "And through the blood of those devout ones and their death as an atoning sacrifice, divine Providence preserved Israel that previously had been mistreated." So while the dying Messiah was certainly out of favor by the time the Christians pop up, it's actually a fairly old tradition.

Another first century text, right?

 

18 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Not sure what you are a saying. If the pre-Deuteronomist Jews (especially of the northern tribes) were much more Canaanite, then why wouldn't that be part and parcel of their messianic beliefs? Not exactly sure what you're arguing here. By and large the universal view is that pre-exilic Jewish kings largely were wrapped up with Canaanite views. This includes seeing the king as a son of God and a priest-king, following the Canaanite model. Again, none of this is particularly controversial in the least. In particular the way the Baal Cycle relates to Jewish conceptions of Kingship. This descent of the king/god through death to the underworld is so common in the ANE I'm surprised you see it as essentially Christian. Typically the argument is that the Christians were just following an old tradition that Israel had moved away from.

It's sort of like you're just dismissing the earlier traditions because you want only the NT parallels to fit, but it's far from clear to me why they fit better. You've not really explained that. Put an other way, if we were to describe a figure opposed to Josiah's reforms, what would we expect their religion to be like?

The NT parallels are much neater - there's a neat correlation from a single source to a single source. You're drawing from all kinds of sources over many hundreds of years (including sources hundreds of years later than Lehi) to try to account for these anachronisms, and you can only partially account for some of them.

[Gray]

48 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

There are variants on Matthew of course. There are two ways to answer that question. One is that he or someone else simply received it from an angel.

Let's bracket that idea - again I think that's outside the bounds of a discussion about history (at least as an explanation for a historical problem).

 

 

Quote

 

The other is that the closeness to Matthew is either an artifact of translation or a partial expansion on the source material during the translation process. Also while the form in Matthew is late, that doesn't mean the version likely given repeatedly by Jesus was extremely dissimilar. You're being a bit misleading suggesting that Matthew is completely unlike what Jesus likely spoke. (And like many preachers, likely gave the same sermons repeatably) First off most assume Matthew gets the Sermon on the Mount from Q and possibly from Luke.

I think most people date Luke After Mark, but of course Q would be a source. The problem is there is no plausible way to preserve a verbatim sermon from Jesus to Matthew. The literacy rates and the relative obscurity of Jesus during his own lifetime just don't make that a plausible idea.

 

Quote

 

However many think the Sermon on the Mount is older than Luke's Sermon on the Plain. Also there's a strong school in contemporary studies following Hand Dieter Betz that Matthew was copying from a pre-existing document. (See Betz' The Sermon on the Mount: A Commentary on the Sermon on the Mount Including the Sermon on the Plain)

 

Even if Matthew was copying from an existing earlier document (like Q), that still doesn't give us a preserved verbatim sermon from Jesus. Note also that there are some scattered pieces of the sermon in the earliest gospel - Mark. That suggests again that the order of these various sayings was not preserved as a single verbatim sermon.

Even then, at least according to the Jesus seminar, less than 20% of the words attributed to Jesus are likely to have been actually spoken by him. Maybe the Sermon has a higher score than that (I assume very little of John is thought to be authentic to Jesus of Nazareth.)

Edited September 6, 2017 by Gray

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

Let's bracket that idea - again I think that's outside the bounds of a discussion about history (at least as an explanation for a historical problem).
I think most people date Luke After Mark, but of course Q would be a source. The problem is there is no plausible way to preserve a verbatim sermon from Jesus to Matthew. The literacy rates and the relative obscurity of Jesus during his own lifetime just don't make that a plausible idea.

The school I mentioned thinks Matthew used an existing written document separate from Q. Again, not sure, but all these reconstructions are pretty speculative. The main issue isn't whether it was initially written during Christ's lifetime but whether it was an oft repeated short sermon that could be memorized with only slight variations. The Betz account has it being written around 50 AD. Again well after Christ but early enough that some fidelity is quite possible. 

I'm not sure I buy that Mark entails separate sermons compiled into one. Again we're talking of an wandering preacher over three years. He probably said the same things repeatedly. So I'm not sure I buy the premise you are resting upon.

Quote

An ad hoc explanation? Sure, but two narratives about Jesus sweating blood, one figurative and one literal, certainly suggest literary dependence.

I was more referring in general. I'm actually fine with literary dependence since I think the translation is loose and heavily influenced by the KJV and other environment to Joseph. The question is whether the underlying text which would loosely resemble our text would necessarily have such a literary dependence. I repeat this again as this is pretty key to my position. If you're looking at these linguistic parts, I fully concede the dependence but think I conceded that from the start. The question is the significance of differences and how the more general features correspond to pre-exilic Israel. So I think you're arguing against something I'm not arguing.

Quote

I think you're glossing over sons of God vs Jesus' unique sonship in the Book of Mormon, which just so happens to look like late first century Christianity.

I don't think so since Jesus' sonship is expanded upon in Mosiah 15. Again it's very significant how Mosiah 15 resembles sonship in the Qumran Melchezedek text. Particularly that passage of Isaiah. In particular how Jesus is a son is pretty different there from traditional Christian theology. Again this is a big difference you're just dismissing out of hand.

Quote

The Satan that Lehi might have been familiar with wasn't God's enemy, Satan was subordinate to God.  The Satan in the BOM is clearly the Christian notion of Satan.

The devil figure for the Canaanites was subordinate to El and was Baal's enemy. So you're just factually wrong on this.

Quote

The Messiah wasn't god, and wasn't supposed to die. The Messiah was the King, an heir to David. Dying gods are common among many cultures. But dying God plus messiah plus son of Man plus son of God plus lord plus savior plus redeemer = Late first century or later Christian theology. All those things together belong to a particular time and place, even though you may find elements of them in any ancient tradition.

The messiah did die I think I did pretty clearly establish. The issue of the Messiah being God I'll concede up to a point if you concede the other points are all part of the messiah doctrine in pre-exilic Israel. (He's explicitly the redeemer in Isaiah) The reason I say up to a point is of course the nature of Merkabah texts where Enoch becomes the Lesser YHWH and thus God in a sense. Further as I have discussed, that tradition according to most scholars has it's root in the pre-exilic period. So if you're talking post-exilic I'm all with you. Talk pre-exilic and things are simply more complicated. The pre-exilic form of Metatron or the Lesser YHWH is the Great Angel. Non-Mormons explicitly talk of the Great Angel as a second God. (Indeed that's the whole topic of Margaret Barker's book The Great Angel which is why Mormons find it so interesting)

(More later -- have to go)

[Rajah Manchou]

15 hours ago, Gray said:

Because the sermon didn't exist in that form until ~85 CE. Jesus' resurrection and visit to the Nephites would have been decades earlier.

If the sermon was written down in ~85 CE in Palestine, and was later abridged in the 5th century AD, then there is no anachronism. It would not be unusual to find text from a 1st century Judeo-Christian text in a 5th century Judeo-Christian text.

 

15 hours ago, Gray said:

Where did Mormon get his copy of Matthew, then?

I assume from the same place all Christians in the 5th century would have got a copy of Matthew. If we find lines from a 1st century text in a 5th century text, we can assume it was passed along by someone. I think you are assuming that the promised land, wherever it might have been, was completely cut off from Old World Christianity. Since the Sermon on the Mount is found in the Book of Mormon, there must have been contact between the Old World and the Promised Land. 

Disclaimer: I believe the Promised Land was located in the area known as "America" in the 15th-16th centuries, an island in the sea known in other 1st to 5th century Judeo-Christian texts as the Island of the Blessed. Texts such as the Narrative of Zosimus and the History of the Rechabites describe contact between Old World Christianity and the Israelite inhabitants of the island during the time of the Book of Mormon. The Promised Land = Island of the Blessed.

Edited September 7, 2017 by Rajah Manchou

[Rajah Manchou]

On 9/7/2017 at 11:14 AM, Rajah Manchou said:

Texts such as the Narrative of Zosimus and the History of the Rechabites describe contact between Old World Christianity and the Israelite inhabitants of the island during the time of the Book of Mormon. The Promised Land = Island of the Blessed.

“According to the Narrative of Zosimus, a righteous man named Zosimus, dwelling in a cave in a desert, prays to the Lord and obtains spiritual passage to a land of blessedness. In order to arrive at this land of promise, Zosimus must wander in the wilderness without knowing where he is being led. He is pushed to the point of exhaustion but attains his destination by constant prayer and divine intervention. Zosimus eventually arrives at the bank of an unfathomable river of water covered by an impenetrable cloud of darkness. Catching the branches of a tree, Zosimus is transported across the water where he sits beneath a beautiful tree, eating its fruit and drinking of the life-sustaining water which flows from its root. Zosimus is then met by an angelic escort, who asks him what he wants, shows him a vision in which he thinks he beholds the Son of God, and ultimately introduces him to a group of righteous sons of God. These elders tell Zosimus of their history and instruct him in their ways of righteousness. Their history is engraved upon soft stone plates. It explains how the group, led by their father, escaped the destruction of Jerusalem at the time of Jeremiah and how as a nation they survived the scattering of Israel.” (source)

Recent scholarship has identified the location of the land of blessedness described in the Narrative of Zosimus (source). It was called Qamara, and also America. The real world location of this legendary island matches the Book of Mormon geography 100%. (here, here, here) 

This cannot all be coincidence. There is something at play here that challenges all assumptions of Book of Mormon historicity.

[Gray]

Hi gents, will try to respond in the next day or two. It's been tough getting more than a few minutes at time to look at this forum

[Gray]

On 9/6/2017 at 2:30 PM, clarkgoble said:

The school I mentioned thinks Matthew used an existing written document separate from Q. Again, not sure, but all these reconstructions are pretty speculative. The main issue isn't whether it was initially written during Christ's lifetime but whether it was an oft repeated short sermon that could be memorized with only slight variations. The Betz account has it being written around 50 AD. Again well after Christ but early enough that some fidelity is quite possible. 

 

I'm not really disputing "some fidelity". The issue is expecting an entire sermon from a particular day to emerge more or less intact years after the fact.

 

On 9/6/2017 at 2:30 PM, clarkgoble said:

I'm not sure I buy that Mark entails separate sermons compiled into one. Again we're talking of an wandering preacher over three years. He probably said the same things repeatedly. So I'm not sure I buy the premise you are resting upon.

 

Remember, the story of the sermon itself is a literary construct, meant to allude to Moses. It should not be understood as referring to a real event. The teachings might be real, but the "sermon on the mount" likely never happened.

We do see pieces of the sermon in earlier sources, and that does suggest that these sayings were not recorded in an order that reflects the order in which they were given. It would be pretty much impossible to preserve that without someone having been there transcribing it. 

 

 

On 9/6/2017 at 2:30 PM, clarkgoble said:

I was more referring in general. I'm actually fine with literary dependence since I think the translation is loose and heavily influenced by the KJV and other environment to Joseph. The question is whether the underlying text which would loosely resemble our text would necessarily have such a literary dependence. I repeat this again as this is pretty key to my position. If you're looking at these linguistic parts, I fully concede the dependence but think I conceded that from the start. The question is the significance of differences and how the more general features correspond to pre-exilic Israel. So I think you're arguing against something I'm not arguing.

Hmm, but literary dependence is not just about terms but concepts too. I'm familiar with the loose translation theory, but at the end of the day doesn't it make Joseph Smith, at the least, a co-author of the Book of Mormon?

 

On 9/6/2017 at 2:30 PM, clarkgoble said:

I don't think so since Jesus' sonship is expanded upon in Mosiah 15. Again it's very significant how Mosiah 15 resembles sonship in the Qumran Melchezedek text. Particularly that passage of Isaiah. In particular how Jesus is a son is pretty different there from traditional Christian theology. Again this is a big difference you're just dismissing out of hand.

To me Mosiah 15 reads like a somewhat clumsy attempt to harmonize different scriptural and later theological statements about the nature Jesus in relationship to the Father.  Doesn't the text you're referring to date to 100 BCE or so?

 

On 9/6/2017 at 2:30 PM, clarkgoble said:

The devil figure for the Canaanites was subordinate to El and was Baal's enemy. So you're just factually wrong on this.

I think you're misunderstanding what I was saying - I agree with what you wrote here, but that doesn't describe Satan as he appears in the BOM. Satan in the BOM is not like Ha-Satan, he is like the Christian Satan. That's anachronistic,

 

On 9/6/2017 at 2:30 PM, clarkgoble said:

The messiah did die I think I did pretty clearly establish.

What I mean was the Messiah wasn't supposed to be a martyr. Jesus doesn't fit early concepts of the Messiah - he's more of a spiritual Messiah, an idea that developed later.

 

On 9/6/2017 at 2:30 PM, clarkgoble said:

The issue of the Messiah being God I'll concede up to a point if you concede the other points are all part of the messiah doctrine in pre-exilic Israel. (He's explicitly the redeemer in Isaiah) The reason I say up to a point is of course the nature of Merkabah texts where Enoch becomes the Lesser YHWH and thus God in a sense. Further as I have discussed, that tradition according to most scholars has it's root in the pre-exilic period. So if you're talking post-exilic I'm all with you. Talk pre-exilic and things are simply more complicated. The pre-exilic form of Metatron or the Lesser YHWH is the Great Angel. Non-Mormons explicitly talk of the Great Angel as a second God. (Indeed that's the whole topic of Margaret Barker's book The Great Angel which is why Mormons find it so interesting)

(More later -- have to go)

Maybe you can answer this - how early on was the full Canaanite pantheon still in play in Judaism? The "sons of El" were all Gods, then later understood to be angels.

[Gray]

On 9/6/2017 at 11:14 PM, Rajah Manchou said:

If the sermon was written down in ~85 CE in Palestine, and was later abridged in the 5th century AD, then there is no anachronism. It would not be unusual to find text from a 1st century Judeo-Christian text in a 5th century Judeo-Christian text.

So you're saying Jesus did not deliver this sermon when he visited the Americas?

 

On 9/6/2017 at 11:14 PM, Rajah Manchou said:

 

I assume from the same place all Christians in the 5th century would have got a copy of Matthew. If we find lines from a 1st century text in a 5th century text, we can assume it was passed along by someone. I think you are assuming that the promised land, wherever it might have been, was completely cut off from Old World Christianity. Since the Sermon on the Mount is found in the Book of Mormon, there must have been contact between the Old World and the Promised Land. 

Disclaimer: I believe the Promised Land was located in the area known as "America" in the 15th-16th centuries, an island in the sea known in other 1st to 5th century Judeo-Christian texts as the Island of the Blessed. Texts such as the Narrative of Zosimus and the History of the Rechabites describe contact between Old World Christianity and the Israelite inhabitants of the island during the time of the Book of Mormon. The Promised Land = Island of the Blessed.

 

You're assuming a lot of facts not in evidence here. I think you're getting way out ahead of the evidence, into deep waters of speculation.

[clarkgoble]

47 minutes ago, Gray said:

I'm not really disputing "some fidelity". The issue is expecting an entire sermon from a particular day to emerge more or less intact years after the fact.

Remember, the story of the sermon itself is a literary construct, meant to allude to Moses. It should not be understood as referring to a real event. The teachings might be real, but the "sermon on the mount" likely never happened.

I'm a bit skeptical of that. It could easily be a sermon, be meant to allude to Deuteronomy, and be contemporary and often repeated by Jesus. i.e. the argument here seems pretty weak. Again most orators repeat the same speech over and over again. The main argument against there being a real sermon on the mount is really that elements are quoted in Mark. But of course that could happen even in Mark doesn't give the whole sermon and quotes elements (which also likely were given in other contexts). 

Quote

Hmm, but literary dependence is not just about terms but concepts too. I'm familiar with the loose translation theory, but at the end of the day doesn't it make Joseph Smith, at the least, a co-author of the Book of Mormon?

Really depends upon your model of translation. It makes someone a co-author but not necessarily Joseph. This is just recognizing that most accounts of the translation method entail a relatively tight translation (reading words off the U&T) but the text itself showing strong signs of being a loose translation. But I fully accept an expansionist model of the Book of Mormon. But the later (post 1st edition) modifications to the text clearly are coming from Joseph in part. 

Quote

To me Mosiah 15 reads like a somewhat clumsy attempt to harmonize different scriptural and later theological statements about the nature Jesus in relationship to the Father.  Doesn't the text you're referring to date to 100 BCE or so?

Yes, although it most likely references earlier traditions. I confess I don't see Mosiah 15 as a clumsy harmonization. But the similarity to the Melchizedek scroll is so remarkably striking I'm not sure we can dismiss it. At minimum it undermines the "clumsy harmonization" argument as clearly the people at Qumran weren't merely doing harmonization but were conveying a fairly significant theological position.

Quote

What I mean was the Messiah wasn't supposed to be a martyr. Jesus doesn't fit early concepts of the Messiah - he's more of a spiritual Messiah, an idea that developed later.

Again that's far from unclear given the relevant Isaiah passages. Also there are pre-Christian Messiah as martyr texts as I mentioned. The suffering servant texts are pretty straightforward even if not always read as referring to the messiah but rather Israel.  This is so clear that around the time of Jesus some non-Christian Jews attributed those prophecies to figures in the Bar Kokba rebellion. But the martyr interpretation of the suffering servant passages is also reflected in pre-Christian Jewish sources. See for instance The Suffering Servant: Isaiah 53 in Jewish and Christian Sources.

The idea of a spiritual Messiah also is pre-Christian. Indeed the idea of two Messiahs, one spiritual and one political, is also pre-Christian. (The Messiah ben Joseph and Messiah ben David)

Quote

I think you're misunderstanding what I was saying - I agree with what you wrote here, but that doesn't describe Satan as he appears in the BOM. Satan in the BOM is not like Ha-Satan, he is like the Christian Satan. That's anachronistic,

The point is that there are devil figures in the pre-exile who match the Book of Mormon use of Satan. The only difference is the term used and that could easily be an artifact of translation. i.e. in terms of content it's not an issue.

However even in the 2cd temple period before Christ the Enochian tradition had a pretty full bodied Satanel as fallen angel. These are typically taken to be a strong part of the Priestly tradition in the Documentary Hypothesis. When this develops isn't entirely clear with many saying elements arise in the Babylonian exile. But it's simply not a product of Christianity as you assert but predates it.

Quote

Maybe you can answer this - how early on was the full Canaanite pantheon still in play in Judaism? The "sons of El" were all Gods, then later understood to be angels.

I think the overwhelming consensus is that the earlier Jews had a pantheon very similar to Canaanite and surrounding pantheons. This slowly changes first by simply distinguishing the pantheon. i.e. Elijah has Baal vs. YHWH rather than treated them as the same figure. Then with the Josiah reforms you have elements of the pantheon removed or allegorized (such as with Wisdom literature where elements of Ashtoreth or Egyptian deities are present, but allegorized away)

 

Edited September 13, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Rajah Manchou]

12 hours ago, Gray said:

So you're saying Jesus did not deliver this sermon when he visited the Americas?

I don't know if Jesus ever visited anywhere. I have faith that He did, but as far as I can tell there is no evidence for it. But such stories, if written down after the first century, are not anachronistic. 

12 hours ago, Gray said:

You're assuming a lot of facts not in evidence here. I think you're getting way out ahead of the evidence, into deep waters of speculation.

Authentic early Christian (and Arabic) texts describe voyages of Israelites to promised lands in the same time period as the Book of Mormon. The evidence seems to suggest that the Book of Mormon matches up quite closely with other texts from the early centuries of the Christian era. I may have gone too far in speculating where I believe the author(s) of the text intended the setting to be, but that isn't important.

What exactly in the Book of Mormon doesn't fit in the time period of the 6th century BC to the 4th century AD? What in the Book of Mormon is ahistorical?

Edited September 14, 2017 by Rajah Manchou

[Gray]

On 9/13/2017 at 9:54 AM, clarkgoble said:

I'm a bit skeptical of that. It could easily be a sermon, be meant to allude to Deuteronomy, and be contemporary and often repeated by Jesus. i.e. the argument here seems pretty weak. Again most orators repeat the same speech over and over again. The main argument against there being a real sermon on the mount is really that elements are quoted in Mark. But of course that could happen even in Mark doesn't give the whole sermon and quotes elements (which also likely were given in other contexts). 

The story has literary dependence on Moses' story - the best conclusion therefore is that it's a literary construction. 

Luke's Sermon on the Plain doesn't seem to be derived directly from Matthew, but there are a lot of thematic similarities in the sermon, but a lot of differences too. That shows just how much this material can change and mutate year over year. 

 

On 9/13/2017 at 9:54 AM, clarkgoble said:

Really depends upon your model of translation. It makes someone a co-author but not necessarily Joseph. This is just recognizing that most accounts of the translation method entail a relatively tight translation (reading words off the U&T) but the text itself showing strong signs of being a loose translation. But I fully accept an expansionist model of the Book of Mormon. But the later (post 1st edition) modifications to the text clearly are coming from Joseph in part. 

Okay, thanks

 

 

On 9/13/2017 at 9:54 AM, clarkgoble said:

Yes, although it most likely references earlier traditions. I confess I don't see Mosiah 15 as a clumsy harmonization. But the similarity to the Melchizedek scroll is so remarkably striking I'm not sure we can dismiss it. At minimum it undermines the "clumsy harmonization" argument as clearly the people at Qumran weren't merely doing harmonization but were conveying a fairly significant theological position.

Traditions from 500 years earlier?

 

On 9/13/2017 at 9:54 AM, clarkgoble said:

Again that's far from unclear given the relevant Isaiah passages. Also there are pre-Christian Messiah as martyr texts as I mentioned. The suffering servant texts are pretty straightforward even if not always read as referring to the messiah but rather Israel.  This is so clear that around the time of Jesus some non-Christian Jews attributed those prophecies to figures in the Bar Kokba rebellion. But the martyr interpretation of the suffering servant passages is also reflected in pre-Christian Jewish sources. See for instance The Suffering Servant: Isaiah 53 in Jewish and Christian Sources.

The suffering servant as Messiah is a later interpretation, yes? Your pre-Christian Messiah/martyr texts are also late, yes? So what would these be doing in the Book of Mormon?

It's not enough to say these ideas are pre-Christian. of course Christianity did not spring up in a vacuum, and is after all a Jewish sect to begin with. What you need to do is bring all these ideas back to at least the 7th century BCE, and I don't see that you can. 

 

On 9/13/2017 at 9:54 AM, clarkgoble said:

The idea of a spiritual Messiah also is pre-Christian. Indeed the idea of two Messiahs, one spiritual and one political, is also pre-Christian. (The Messiah ben Joseph and Messiah ben David)

Again, we need to bring this to the 7th century BCE, otherwise the anachronism remains. 

 

On 9/13/2017 at 9:54 AM, clarkgoble said:

The point is that there are devil figures in the pre-exile who match the Book of Mormon use of Satan. The only difference is the term used and that could easily be an artifact of translation. i.e. in terms of content it's not an issue.

Which devil figures would those be? Not the Hebrew Ha-Satan. I think you're hearing hoofbeats and thinking of Zebras. The Christian Satan is in the Book of Mormon because that's the Satan the author was familiar with. 

 

On 9/13/2017 at 9:54 AM, clarkgoble said:

However even in the 2cd temple period before Christ the Enochian tradition had a pretty full bodied Satanel as fallen angel. These are typically taken to be a strong part of the Priestly tradition in the Documentary Hypothesis. When this develops isn't entirely clear with many saying elements arise in the Babylonian exile. But it's simply not a product of Christianity as you assert but predates it.

Yes, it's a gradual development of course. But again, we have to bring this back to Lehi's time frame.

 

On 9/13/2017 at 9:54 AM, clarkgoble said:

I think the overwhelming consensus is that the earlier Jews had a pantheon very similar to Canaanite and surrounding pantheons. This slowly changes first by simply distinguishing the pantheon. i.e. Elijah has Baal vs. YHWH rather than treated them as the same figure. Then with the Josiah reforms you have elements of the pantheon removed or allegorized (such as with Wisdom literature where elements of Ashtoreth or Egyptian deities are present, but allegorized away)

 

Thanks! These reforms would have been in Lehi's day more or less, right? 

Not to turn this into an endless discussion, but another anachronism occurs to me. Apocalypticism in Judaism is post-exhilic, yet we find it in the Book of Mormon. 

[Gray]

22 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

I don't know if Jesus ever visited anywhere. I have faith that He did, but as far as I can tell there is no evidence for it. But such stories, if written down after the first century, are not anachronistic. 

If you're assuming that Mormon composed the story instead of passing it on from earlier records, yes, not anachronistic. If the story is accurate, then it is anachronistic. Either way it doesn't see plausible for Mormon to have access to a 5th century copy of the NT. 

 

22 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Authentic early Christian (and Arabic) texts describe voyages of Israelites to promised lands in the same time period as the Book of Mormon. The evidence seems to suggest that the Book of Mormon matches up quite closely with other texts from the early centuries of the Christian era. I may have gone too far in speculating where I believe the author(s) of the text intended the setting to be, but that isn't important.

What exactly in the Book of Mormon doesn't fit in the time period of the 6th century BC to the 4th century AD? What in the Book of Mormon is ahistorical?

Do authentic early Christian and Arabic texts talk specifically of the scenario you're hypothesizing - NT texts being transported by boat to the Americas? If not, what's the relevance? I hope that doesn't sound harsh, I just don't see a lot of value in baseless speculation. Just my opinion. 

[Kevin Christensen]

On the topic of apocalypticism in Judaism as anachronistic in the Book of Mormon, see:

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

And then, for more details and background, see this essay:

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

And this book:

http://www.margaretbarker.com/Publications/OlderTestament.htm

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

The story has literary dependence on Moses' story - the best conclusion therefore is that it's a literary construction. Luke's Sermon on the Plain doesn't seem to be derived directly from Matthew, but there are a lot of thematic similarities in the sermon, but a lot of differences too. That shows just how much this material can change and mutate year over year. 

I don't see how that is an argument for late origin though. Again look at people who repeat presentations. Often they'll rework existing presentations to fit a slightly different theme. Further saying material can change isn't the same as saying it does - especially if there are lost written versions. There's really just not a whole lot of argument here.

Quote

Traditions from 500 years earlier?

Definitely quite plausible, much as the Great Angel stuff from the pre-exile period becomes reworked in Merkabah texts. Plus we have more written tradition in the 2cd temple period leading to possibly more stability.

Quote

The suffering servant as Messiah is a later interpretation, yes? Your pre-Christian Messiah/martyr texts are also late, yes? So what would these be doing in the Book of Mormon?

I think you miss the argument. If it's pre-Christian it's not caused by Christian belief but represents a rather robust way of reading it. Further since the text is pretty explicitly engaging the topic of a messiah and death, it's a rather obvious interpretation. We don't have a lot of interpretation of Isaiah in the pre-exilic period. Basically Jeremiah. Jeremiah doesn't have the martyr angle but has most of the rest and quotes/paraphases Isaiah in places like Jer 23. But the idea of a suffering servant is pretty key to Jeremiah to the point a common speculation is that the suffering servant of deutero-Isaiah is based upon Jeremiah. (This is a common medieval Jewish interpretation for instance starting with Rashi) This interpretation still gets debated in scholarly circles. 

But the key point is that this isn't a late Christian interpretation (which was all I was really arguing about). Knowing how early Jews took the text is difficult to know given the paucity of texts from the time period you are asking about. So perhaps the real question is, why should we assume it is only a later interpretation given the fairly obvious features of the text?  i.e. I think the burden here is for you to argue this interpretation isn't natural but is caused by events that only make sense in later history. That seems difficult to do given the explicit ties to death in the text. Even those who tie it to later (say the martyrdom of Eleazar in the Maccabean revolt) are primarily dating the text to that period on the basis of that parallel. However if we're going to theories, it was for decades fairly common for scholars to see the Servant as an actual historical figure from early in the exile. That's pretty early, if true. (Not saying it is true - just noting that scholars don't seem to think it has to be a late interpretation) The main reason for the traditional Jewish interpretation of the Servant as Israel is due to the naming in some of the other writings of deutero-Isaiah. But of course if there isn't a single deutero-Isaiah but texts compiled in the exile then that reasoning falls apart. (And as I said, that's the reading I favor as explaining Book of Mormon use of deutero- Isaiah. It's speculative but defensible.)

Quote

Again, we need to bring this to the 7th century BCE, otherwise the anachronism remains. 

But who's burden is this? Your original argument was that it was anachronistic in the 7th century. i.e. you're the one making claims about 7th century interpretations. I'm merely arguing it's a reasonable interpretation in the 7th century which is much easier to establish. It could be completely original with Nephi for my theory to work. (I doubt it is, but I'm just here noting the logic of the argument)

Quote

Which devil figures would those be? Not the Hebrew Ha-Satan. I think you're hearing hoofbeats and thinking of Zebras. The Christian Satan is in the Book of Mormon because that's the Satan the author was familiar with. 

That's circular logic.

Again in terms of structure rather than name there's nothing in the Book of Mormon Satan that's anachronistic. If you think there is please point to the passage and why it is anachronistic. i.e. what structural features are the problem. Again, please keep in mind Egyptian and Canaanite devil like figures.

Quote

Yes, it's a gradual development of course. But again, we have to bring this back to Lehi's time frame.

I already did. The Lucifer passage in Isaiah as a fallen angel as a type for the King of Tyre predates Lehi by a century. Further the Canaanite model has Mat as a fallen member of the heavenly court. Indeed these pre-existing Canaanite myths are usually taken to be basis for Isaiah's text. I even quoted to you the text Isaiah is borrowing from. So if you're going to make an argument you at minimum have to point to elements not already in proto-Isaiah. Further the fact Isaiah makes use of the Canaanite myths undermines your attempt to say the Canaanite context isn't part of pre-exilic Israel.

Quote

Not to turn this into an endless discussion, but another anachronism occurs to me. Apocalypticism in Judaism is post-exhilic, yet we find it in the Book of Mormon. 

What element of apocalypticism are you talking about?  Note that the apocalyptic elements in the Book of Mormon are quite different from the apocalyptic literature during the Hellenistic period. There are more parallels of course to the Enochian texts but that doesn't appear to be what you're referring to here. Note that scholars universally consider Isaiah 24–27 and 33 to be apocalyptic texts. The usual designation of Isaiah 24-7 is The Apocalypse of Isaiah.

i.e. do you have an argument here?

Quote

If you're assuming that Mormon composed the story instead of passing it on from earlier records, yes, not anachronistic. If the story is accurate, then it is anachronistic. Either way it doesn't see plausible for Mormon to have access to a 5th century copy of the NT. 

Why? We have explicit in the text figures bringing texts from the ANE to the Nephites. I mean you can just dismiss that as supernatural but if we're dismissing the supernatural out of hand then all the Book of Mormon by definition is impossible. In terms of demonstrating a contradiction which is what I thought you were attempting to do then it's rather relevant that Mormon could have had the texts.

 

Edited September 14, 2017 by clarkgoble