Where did the Book of Mormon come from?

[champatsch]

52 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Did a search in the book and couldn't find it either. But there are several occurrences in other books . Earliest I could find was 1699. 

God the Author of Reconciliation
Stephen Charnock
T. Ward & Company, 1699 - Salvation - 109 pages

Late 17th century, so it predates the Baptists and Methodists and looks like its more of a Presbyterian/Puritan thing. But couldn't it also be explained by coincidence?

That Google Books item is tricky, because it has multiple books. (I made this same mistake, and it is published in Interpreter.  Charnock died in 1680, I believe.) The phrase is found in the second one, and it is the language of Charles Finney, an American Presbyterian minister and leader in the Second Great Awakening.  Google Books only provides a snippet view, because the full book is found elsewhere.  Look toward the bottom of the second column here:  https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015009020523;view=1up;seq=225.

The earliest example of this language that we have found so far is the following:

1721, Joseph Perry: “it is true the Saints do sing this song of redeeming love in a measure now”.

This phrase is couched in a discussion of portions of the book of Revelation.

Edited March 10, 2018 by champatsch

[Nevo]

3 hours ago, cdowis said:

I cannot find that phrase in the link you provided.

1 hour ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Did a search in the book and couldn't find it either.

Here it is highlighted:

[Nevo]

2 hours ago, Brant Gardner said:

I've been looking at the seams where Mormon narrates, quotes, and then inserts himself in the text.  The insertions are interesting because the follow an ancient pattern rather than a modern one. In one case, the careful examination of hints about sources, who is writing, and the use of the techniques of insertion explain the otherwise anomalous lack of the introduction of the writer before the quoted "O that I were an angel" soliloquy. The text is packed with places where careful examination of patterns demonstrate that there were patterns, but ones of which Joseph appears to have been unaware.  

Very interesting. I look forward to reading your forthcoming book. I'm also looking forward to Jared Hickman and Elizabeth Fenton's long-delayed collection of early Americanist approaches to the Book of Mormon. Truly we're in a golden age of Book of Mormon scholarship right now.

[Brant Gardner]

20 hours ago, champatsch said:

But I would like you to elaborate on your position—found toward the end of your 2011 book—that Joseph Smith being saturated in biblical language goes a long way toward explaining the language of the Book of Mormon.  Here I am of course assuming your position of loose control—that is, that the dictation emanated from ideas revealed to Joseph.

When we attempt to look at the construction of the Book of Mormon in English, there is a lot that has to be taken into account. Certainly the syntax is part of that, but there are other aspects that we have to work with as well. Let's accept the syntax as archaic--and then look at the interplay between quotations and allusions (and the allusions are more important in this case) to New Testament scripture. As Frederick has pointed out, these allusions interplay in the text in ways that are creative to the text but could not have been available in the Nephite language (though I would suggest that the meanings might). From the standpoint of translation, we have a translator using language in a pretty sophisticated way to weave ideas with known texts.

This places a burden on the ultimate translator to handle a wide range of language and biblical competence, but then intermix it with complicated syntactic structures that are both earlier and later than the KJV. How do we understand that? Of course, we posit an unknown and unknowable translator--one who made all kinds of changes to the original Nephite text in a way that a native speaker would not. The discernible changes all relate to a translator whose competence was in English, not Nephite (whatever the plate version of Nephite was). God certainly could have, but then when we ascribe anything to God, it is a trump card played without needing any support. God certainly could have used grammar appropriate to 1830. Certainly, the later revelations show an improvement in grammar to more acceptable forms--clearly as Joseph's understanding improved--hence the 1837 grammatical changes to the Book of Mormon.

In geology and archaeology there is a principle of stratigraphy than can be used for dating. In the case of archaic syntax, it points to something--but nothing that can be timed. Some elements might be older than the KJV. Some elements persisted to later and certain post-KJV syntax changes are evident in the text. Thus, from syntax alone, the translation cannot be dated. It can be suggested that it is earlier than Joseph, but there are other elements (at least as I have read from you and Skousen) that date to much later. If the language of the text were to be treated geologically or archaeologically, it would be dated by the newest forms, with the older forms having persisted. Since that is a know process in the development of language, I see the syntax as part of the entire process of the revelation of the text, and date it to the latest information. 

I think it is very telling that you have found some of the archaisms in early revelations, here. Quoting you from that paper:

Quote

The position of tight control is that the Lord rendered the ancient Nephite record into English or had it done, and then transmitted this translation to Joseph Smith. The process of rendering the plate text into English is unknowable without specific revelation on the matter. Furthermore, tight control can involve modern English vocabulary and syntax as well as Early Modern English (1500-1700), and even some late Middle English.

In this description, using the range of options available to us, we would have to say that the Lord translated, or had it done, in a way that incorporated archaisms into a modern vocabulary. 

I am simply adding that the retention of old forms which had become considered ungrammatical can and did persist. Since we see them in things that were not translated (the 1833 plot of Zion, per the article), we understand that they have nothing to do with translation. They are artifacts of the language of the translator.

So now we return to your question of who the translator was. It was the same person who generated at least the early revelations, and the same who dictated the plot of Zion. That same divine intermediate was either removed from service, or replaced by someone who was learning more standardized grammar. That process creates a remarkably complicated version of both the Book of Mormon and all revelation through Joseph--and oddly enough, only through Joseph. For me, it makes a lot more sense that it actually was Joseph.

Edited March 11, 2018 by Brant Gardner

[Kevin Christensen]

On 3/9/2018 at 1:49 PM, hope_for_things said:

I don't think my expectations are unrealistic.  If they are unrealistic, I think the majority of Mormons from the beginning of the church up until the late 20th century had the same expectations that evidence would be found and was inevitable.  The reasons that expectations have changed by apologists is that it became apparent that it wasn't going to be discovered. 

It was a major goal post shift for practical purposes.  My problem is the goal posts should have shifted further, completely away from the historicity claims all together.  This shift is still happening for some, but the old guard has dug in their heals.  (I'm not expecting the average member to make this shift at first, I do expect the majority of the informed and educated to make the shift first.)  Look at the community of Christ and how they wrestled with the BoM historicity issue as an example of how it can be done. 

I don't find the argument that we shouldn't expect to find any evidence because of how complex and difficult it is to find evidence a convincing argument.  We're finding plenty of evidence about the Mayans and Aztecs and all the cultures that did actually exist during the BoM time period.  

Regarding what the Community of Christ did with Book of Mormon historicity, I took a close look at the specific materials and scholarship that they based their decision on. I was not impressed.  For instance, this:

"Hindsight on a Book of Mormon Historicity Critique"

https://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1467&index=7

What I found is that Russell was wrong about everything.  So I am reluctant to follow the example of those who found his work paradigmatic and persuasive. Something significant that I did not discuss is that William Russell's arguments published in a couple of early 80s essays for the most part came because as an adult professor, he had never read the Book of Mormon, and decided to teach a class at Graceland to motivate himself to do so.  Several of the essays he cites as evidence were student papers written for the class.  While there was not a lot of important research on the Book of Mormon published before Russell when to work, his work is notable for ignoring nearly all of it.  (Consider, for instance, the essays in Noel Reynolds Book of Mormon Authorship, and important volumes by Hugh Nibley and a few others.)  And of course, and other Formerly Known as RLDS thinkers could not have considered the important and often revolutionary material published since then.   Just this afternoon, Shauna and I watched the National Geographic special on the Secrets of the Maya Snake Kings, showing just how radically the LiDAR technology has reshaped our view of the 10% of the region that has actually been surveyed.  One of the best known and explored sites is now known to be at least four times larger than thought. 

When discussing the Maya, it is important to not forget such important labels as Classic, and Preclassic, and consider just how much and how little exists other either side of that divide.   And it it important to consider whether a particular site is not only contemporary with Book of Mormon descriptions, but whether it can be reconciled with Book of Mormon geographic descriptions.  I'm particularly fond of Larry Poulson's approach.

http://www.webring.org/l/rd?ring=mormonsites;id=2;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.poulsenll.org%2Fbom%2Findex.html

The Nephites, as Brant explains, were outside the main Maya areas. 

And then when we do find something interesting outside the Book of Mormon settings, it may be still be interesting for cultural reasons, as with San Bartolo murals which are not only contemporary with the story of Benjamin's coronation, but also depict a coronation on a tower.

When discussing Book of Mormon evidence, it is important to define up front what should or can be considered evidence and of what.  For instance, whenever I am told that there is no evidence of the Book of Mormon, I wonder what in the world happened to the books and essays on my shelves?  Do they not count?  And why not?  And the Book of Mormon contains much that has been closely studied, in both the New World and the Old, in the context of Joseph Smith and in the ancient world into which the writing he produced offers testable claims.

And there is the recurrent mention of Pearl Curran's work as though she provides a worthy and sufficient counterweight to Joseph Smith.  This is not actually the case, as I have pointed out in discussions of my review of Taves, and which I supported by pointing to the directly relevant work of Richard L. Anderson. 

Quote

For example, in making a case that The Sorry Tale had not only a translation resembling the Book of Mormon, but an equally impressive content, Dunn writes:

Regarding The Sorry Tale, one author notes that “scholars and literary critics agreed that even a lifetime of reading all of the available knowledge of the Holy Land (reading that apparently never took place, but even if it had) still would not have given [Curran] the information to produce a book with such verisimilitude.”⁷⁵

With respect to Curran and verisimilitude, Anderson writes:

Mrs. Curran’s editor stated the plot as follows:

Christ himself is the outstanding and speaking character, though the central figure is a son of the Emperor Tiberius by Theia, a dancing slave, who names him Hatte. He is born outside the walls of Bethlehem on the same night in which Christ was born, and the two lives move on parallel paths to the tragedy on Calvary, where Hatte also is crucified, being the person known as the “unrepentant thief.”

[Page 105]This contrived story grinds through 500 pages of simplistic narrative and tedious dialogue before featuring Jesus. The whole is subvictorian prose at its predictable worst, where tears are dropping jewels and bosoms regularly heave. Despite Mrs. Curran’s claim of “panoramic” moving pictures in her mind, The Sorry Tale notably lacks social and physical details. If they are mentioned, the score for accuracy is low. For instance, Mrs. Curran claimed to envision “the ark as it was at that time restored,” but this relic had long since disappeared from Jewish scripture and history. The Roman governor sat in an oriental court, with “vested virgins” dancing before him, and Jesus shocked the masses by dining with the Pharisees, though they are known in the Gospels and Josephus as popularly respected. The unhistorical “eye of the needle” gate is described, with the physically implausible act of the camel inching through it on his knees.

If this Tale cannot recreate settings, what is its picture of Christ? The free and rapid dictation shows a patchwork of events from the Gospels — their historical integrity is flaunted in random chronology and modified message. The canonical five loaves and two fishes diminishes to “two fishes and a loaf,” and the miraculous is next subtracted. Although all Gospels detail how five thousand were physically fed, The Sorry Tale gives a sentimental version of how hunger vanished as the crowd was overwhelmed with truth. The close is an unrealistic platitude on Jesus’ lips: “for the body crieth out only when the spirit is barren.” Since the Tale reports no resurrection, the natural crescendo of Christ’s teachings is the Last Supper and the Garden, but here the reader meets no suffering Savior. Emotive prose changes the grim night arrest to a pregnant dawn; the bloody sweat is reduced to a footnote while Christ’s insuperable burden becomes a pleasant prayer about “supping sweet the cup.” This storybook Jesus gently wanders back to his Apostles, “pausing to pluck a branch and kiss it, plucking up a stone, to smile and leave it fall.”

The Sorry Tale spins overdone human tragedy but fades out the divine tragedy of Christ’s atonement for sin. Its Jesus teaches an unstructured “kingdom of love” but drops out the realities of [Page 106]sin and salvation, church and ordinances. Such oversimplified humanism does not match the Christ of the Gospels.⁷⁶

And that kind of argument does not even get round to looking at the Geology of 3 Nephi, Nibley's comparisons to the Old World 40 Day accounts, my comparisons with Eliade in Cosmos and History: The Myth of Eternal Return on the Year Rite,  Daniel Peterson on the Gaddiantons compared to modern theorists on Guerilla war, and many other notable things.

Now if a person wants to dismiss such work as bogus, fine.  I am just saying that highly abstract dismissals don't address or explain or mention or confront or account for literally thousands of details that count as "cause to believe" in my view.   If by "evidence" you mean, "Something provided by skeptical non-LDS sources that compels my unwilling submission to God," you are also saying that the only God you accept is one who will compell your unwilling submission.   Personally, I prefer to accept what I find to be an increasingly persuasive invitation.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Edited March 10, 2018 by Kevin Christensen
typo

[Nevo]

16 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

But we see similar references in the History of the Rechabites, a 5th century AD text that was unavailable to Joseph Smith.

• pointed references to a group of Israelites that escape the destruction of Jerusalem in the 6th century BC and are carried to an island in the sea
• references to tablets or plates which are inscribed with the history of these people and intended to be a testimony of Christ for others
• Lehi's (and Joseph Smith Sr's) dream closely resembling Zosimus' journey wandering through a wilderness and passing through a dark cloud or great mist nearby a deep river to arrive at a fair and beautiful tree(s) laden with fragrant fruits
• Zosimus being visited by an angel in clothing as lightning thought to be the Son of God
• Unique and distinctive phrases like "the most high, the God of all" appearing in similar narrative contexts
• Rechabites isolated from others but still receiving revelations concerning the people of Jerusalem
• The name Aminadab associated with both the Rechabites who were rescued by an angel from prison and the Nephite dissenter who witnesses the angels who protect Lehi and Nephi in prison.
• Then there are many more parallel characters and stories—even parallel civilizations between the Rechabites and the Nephites.

Seriously, what are the odds of two different migrations in 600 BC of tent-dwelling Israelites on the fringes of Jerusalem to a land set aside by God to preserve the remnant of a righteous covenant people who had received the promise that they would stand before God forever? 

We see parallels where we want to see them, and coincidence where we don't.

I guess where you and I differ is that I don't believe the History of the Rechabites is a real history of the Rechabites. I think it is fiction. I accept the scholarly consensus that it is an "expanded exegesis of Jeremiah 35" and not an actual history of ancient Israelites.

I would also point out that most of the parallels you list do not hold up in the Syriac version, which James H. Charlesworth considers to be "earlier and more reliable" than the Greek version that Welch uses—and some of them are strained even where the Greek version is used.

The Blessed Ones write on stone tablets, not "plates." And they don't testify of Christ.

Zosimus's journey bears no resemblance to Lehi's dream: "Then I left the cave, and traveled with the angel for forty days. I arrived at a certain place wearied and fatigued, and I collapsed from my exhaustion; afterward I prayed to God for three days. And a certain animal came and carried me away and traveled beneath me for many days until it reached a great ocean. . . . And I looked and saw in the midst of the sea something like a dense bulwark of cloud suspended upon the sea; and the top of the cloud extended to the height of heaven. And I thought perhaps the Blessed Ones were in the midst of it, because I heard a voice from the midst of the cloud which said, 'Father Zosimus.' Then realizing my misconception I praised and gave thanks to God. . . . And then I prayed to the LORD to deal with me as it pleases his will. And suddenly two luxuriant and very stately trees, larger than any I had ever seen, appeared on the shore of the sea."

Zosimus is not visited by an angel in clothing as lightning thought to be the Son of God. He approaches a seated figure who appears to be naked and the following exchange takes place: "He asked me, 'Have you come from the world of vanity?' Then I said to him, 'In truth I come from the world of vanity in order to see all of you. However, tell me, why are you naked?' But he said to me, 'You are he who is naked, and you do not discern that your garment is corrupted, but my own garment is not corrupted. If you wish to see me, however, come, gaze toward the height of heaven. And while gazing above I saw his face to be like the face of an angel." He isn't an angel, though, but is one of the inhabitants of the island.

The "unique and distinctive" phrase "the most high, the God of all" does not appear.

The name Aminadab is actually Jonadab, and so on.

Also, these Israelites weren't just led to an island in the sea in the 6th century BC. They were broken out of prison by angels and "placed in the air that is above the land" and brought to an island "in the midst of the water of this great sea." Then "God commanded and the waters rose up from the deep abyss and encircled this place. And by the command of God a cloud became a bulwark above the water and rose up as far as heaven." There they live in an Edenic state, "without sins and evil and abominable thoughts . . . purified and spotless." The sun does not shine there, but the land "is filled with a glorious light so darkness and night do not enter it." And the people themselves "possess a shining appearance and dwell in light." While they appear naked to Zosimus, they are actually "covered with a covering of glory . . . similar to that which clothed Adam and Eve before they sinned." They are fed by fruit trees at the ninth hour—except during fasts, when the trees withhold their fruit. During the fasting period, manna rains down from heaven. They do not experience sickness or fatigue and live "an extremely long time." When it is time to die, "the soul discerns and knows the day of its departure" and then  "the angels of God come to guide [the soul] from the body." The soul then makes an elaborate heavenly ascent while the angels bury the body—since the Blessed Ones themselves "have nothing to use for digging."

Edited March 10, 2018 by Nevo

[Brant Gardner]

2 hours ago, Nevo said:

Truly we're in a golden age of Book of Mormon scholarship right now.

I agree. There is a lot of really good work going on. I am making my way through the Abinadi: He Came Among Them in Disguise book. Of course it is uneven as is any anthology, but the multiple approaches to a single section provide a fascinating look at how our vision of the text is expanding--as well as the tools brought to bear on it.

[Rajah Manchou]

12 hours ago, Nevo said:

I would also point out that most of the parallels you list do not hold up in the Syriac version, which James H. Charlesworth considers to be "earlier and more reliable" than the Greek version that Welch uses—and some of them are strained even where the Greek version is used.

Correct. Its a wild mess. Charlesworth acknowledges it and regarding its provenance he writes “at this stage in our work it is best to suggest only that sections of this document are Jewish or heavily influenced by Jewish traditions, and that they may antedate the second century AD. It is practically impossible to discern the provenance of this document.” This is a complex text, and the debate about its provenance is not unlike the debate over Book of Mormon origins. Was it Hebrew authors predating Christ, or Christian redactors in the 5th century AD? Expansion by medieval translators maybe?

CFR that there is scholarly consensus that these texts are an "expanded exegesis of Jeremiah 35" and not an actual history of ancient Israelites. That may be true for chapters 8-10, but there is no consensus. Like Charlesworth, Margaret Barker admits that "nobody can explain this text" but suspects that there was a historical group:

"Beneath the layers of fantasy and folk tale in this widely known ancient text, we glimpse a group who described themselves as angels, and who had fled from Jerusalem after the time of Josiah." 

Over centuries, Christians made additions to the core including the addition of Zosimus, our first person narrator, and the text evolves into something like what you've described in Charlesworth's Syriac translation. Through these important additions the core Rechabite narrative remains mostly in tact. This, combined with incoming accounts of traders returning from the East Indies, inspired a flourish of versions of the Alexander Romance, a fictional account based on historical events, of Alexander traveling east towards Paradise and meeting the Rahmans (often synonymous with Rechabites) along the way. Many of the additions John Welch describes as similarities such as the garments of lightning, the mists and clouds of darkness, Aminadab, the tablets inscribed with the history of the Blessed Ones emerge in this period of literature.

Exegesis on Jeremiah 35 seems correct for chapters 8-10, but could not the same be said for the Book of Mormon? These later Christian versions of the Narrative of Zosimus do have some interesting similarities with the Book of Mormon that date to the same time period, but yet were translated and published in the 19th century. Those similarities don't need to be dismissed just because there is an older Jewish core. Like the Narrative of Zosimus, the Book of Mormon claims to be (apart from the 116 pages fiasco) a 5th century AD text translated in the 19th century. Beneath the layers of fantasy and folklore, there could be some truth to that claim. Nobody can explain these texts.

The Greek version of the History of the Rechabites and later Slavonic, Armeninian and Russian versions of the Narrative of Zosimus were heavily influenced by the Alexander Romance. All this literature inspires dozens of accounts through the renaissance of a Utopian island inhabited by Rahmans, Jewish Brahmans, Gymnosophists, Christian Priests, Buraghmahs, Lost Tribes etc. Noone is saying that any of these accounts are entirely historical, or that the details in each account match up. For example, Mandeville's discovery of the Island of Bragmans is not the same as Zosima's discovery of the Brahmans on the Isle of the Blessed. But the core of all this Rechabite-like literature seems to remain the same: "a metaphor for the life of man on earth as a journey to Heaven -- and this promised land can only be reached if we reform ourselves.

This is my actual hypothesis that hasn't been addressed yet. The Book of Mormon fits this genre of literature well, and when you shift the setting of the Book of Mormon to the same setting found in Rechabite, Alexander and Lost Tribe literature, it fits. No more anachronisms, and no more need to debate tapirs and elephants and whether or not the Lehites had wheels or not. We've all grown exhausted by that. So I'm adding to the exhaustion by proposing a new perspective: the Lehites were Rechabites. The Kingdom of the Rahmans is Ramah, the Kingdom of Komara is Cumorah. The geography of the Island of the Blessed as it was imagined in Rechabite literature aligns with the internal geography of the Book of Mormon.

As Paul Owen proposed: "In essence, the Book of Mormon could be taken as a genuinely restored ancient text with a fictional narrative that originated in the Old World, an account that bore some connection to the mysterious (and probably later) History of the Rechabites." 

Edited March 11, 2018 by Rajah Manchou

[cdowis]

1 hour ago, Rajah Manchou said:

This is my actual hypothesis that hasn't been addressed yet. The Book of Mormon fits this genre of literature well, and when you shift the setting of the Book of Mormon to the same setting found in Rechabite, Alexander and Lost Tribe literature, it fits. No more anachronisms, and no more need to debate tapirs and elephants and whether or not the Lehites had wheels or not. We've all grown exhausted by that. So I'm proposing a new perspective: the Lehites were Rechabites. The island of the Rahmans is Ramah, Komara is Cumorah. The geography of the Island of the Blessed as it was imagined in Rechabite literature aligns with the internal geography of the Book of Mormon.

As Paul Owen proposed: "In essence, the Book of Mormon could be taken as a genuinely restored ancient text with a fictional narrative that originated in the Old World, an account that bore some connection to the mysterious (and probably later) History of the Rechabites." 

I prefer the Spaulding theory, over this one.  It is more likely.

[Rajah Manchou]

29 minutes ago, cdowis said:

I prefer the Spaulding theory, over this one.  It is more likely.

Spaulding's enlightened Lobaska does come to mind.

Like so many authors before him, Spaulding would have borrowed heavily, subconsciously or otherwise, from popular lost tribe lore inspired by the Alexander Romance which was mixed with the Abode of the Blessed to influence the Narrative of Zosimus or vice versa. All influenced by the same metaphor describing the life of man on earth as a journey to a paradise in the east -- and this promised land can only be reached if we reform ourselves.

So in saying Spaulding's theory is more likely, you confirm my hypothesis.

Edited March 11, 2018 by Rajah Manchou

[Glenn101]

10 hours ago, Brant Gardner said:

This places a burden on the ultimate translator to handle a wide range of language and biblical competence, but then intermix it with complicated syntactic structures that are both earlier and later than the KJV. How do we understand that? Of course, we posit an unknown and unknowable translator--one who made all kinds of changes to the original Nephite text in a way that a native speaker would not. The discernible changes all relate to a translator whose competence was in English, not Nephite (whatever the plate version of Nephite was). God certainly could have, but then when we ascribe anything to God, it is a trump card played without needing any support. God certainly could have used grammar appropriate to 1830. Certainly, the later revelations show an improvement in grammar to more acceptable forms--clearly as Joseph's understanding improved--hence the 1837 grammatical changes to the Book of Mormon.

Do you know of any explanation that covers all of those bases better than "by the gift and power of God?"

3 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

So in saying Spaulding's theory is more likely, you confirm my hypothesis.

He was biting his tongue. 

[strappinglad]

Rajah, please explain how the Plates got from the islands you propose to the hill in Manchester, aside from teleportation.

[Rajah Manchou]

23 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

He was biting his tongue. 

So was I.

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Spaulding's enlightened Lobaska does come to mind.

Like so many authors before him, Spaulding would have borrowed heavily, subconsciously or otherwise, from popular lost tribe lore inspired by the Alexander Romance which was mixed with the Abode of the Blessed to influence the Narrative of Zosimus or vice versa. All influenced by the same metaphor describing the life of man on earth as a journey to a paradise in the east -- and this promised land can only be reached if we reform ourselves.

So in saying Spaulding's theory is more likely, you confirm my hypothesis.

You may also want to consider Jacob 5:35 as an expression very similar to Pseudo-Philo 28:4 (Charlesworth, OTP, II:341), in which Zenez/Kenaz says:

Quote

 "my father,..commanded  me, saying, 'These words you will say to the sons of Israel, “’...And I would plant a great vineyard, and from it I would choose a plant; and I would care for it and call it by my name, and it would be mine forever..., nevertheless my plant that was called by my name did not recognize me as its planter, but it destroyed its own fruit and did not yield up its fruit to me'"'"

Of course this also sums up the entire parable of Zenos.

 

[Rajah Manchou]

2 hours ago, strappinglad said:

Rajah, please explain how the Plates got from the islands you propose to the hill in Manchester, aside from teleportation.

I don't know about the plates, they weren't used in the translation/transmission of the text so I am not looking at that question. I'm also not figuring in what angels, prophets, scribes and the people of Palmyra generally thought about the text. I'm looking at the text alone. 

But do remember that the official version of the history claims that the plates were carried from Jerusalem to an island in the sea, and somehow ended up in a hill in Manchester. I don't think teleportation is involved in that version.

But if you twisted my arm for an answer, I have faith the text came "by the gift and power of God", or a more mundane explanation might be that it was transmitted there by a Spaniard "named" Nephi or an older gentleman "named" Moroni. There is after all precedence for sacred relics and metal plates inscribed in encoded scripts containing apocryphal Christian histories being cached in sacred local hills. It is not unheard of.

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

Edited March 11, 2018 by Rajah Manchou

[Brant Gardner]

36 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

Do you know of any explanation that covers all of those bases better than "by the gift and power of God?"

That was the best Joseph could come up with, and the only authoritative answer. Still, speculation is fun.

[Rajah Manchou]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You may also want to consider Jacob 5:35 as an expression very similar to Pseudo-Philo 28:4 (Charlesworth, OTP, II:341), in which Zenez/Kenaz says:

This is from Knights and Hammonds "The rechabites in the bible and in Jewish tradition to the time of rabbi David Kimhi" (source)

'Behold, the righteousness which is kept for them forever: in the days of Jehu, Jonadab son of Rechab was loved and honoured in Israel, and in the days of Jeremiah the prophet the Rechabites were in the midst of the sons of Israel, and scripture says "There will not lack a man to Jonadab son of Rechab standing before me forever". And the House of the Rechabites are of the sons of Jethro, as it is said, "These are the Kenites which came from Hammath, father of the House of Rechab"'.

"Rashi reflects the common rabbinic traditions here, that the fat portion of Jericho was given to the sons of Jethro, to eat of it until the Temple should be built, when the tribe who had had it built in its territory would receive Jericho as compensation. The sons of Jethro ate of it for 440 years, then their disciples left it and went alongside Othniel ben Kenaz, ie. Jabez, to study Torah. Rashi explains 'And he went and dwelt with the people' as 'People are the disciples who were sitting before him'."

Rechabites studying alongside the son of Kenaz. Interesting scenario, if Lehites are Rechabites. 

Edited March 11, 2018 by Rajah Manchou

[Robert F. Smith]

On 3/9/2018 at 10:51 PM, Nevo said:

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

I'm not a scholar but the sorts of repetitions and parallels that are found throughout the Book of Mormon do not strike me as being typical of authentic history. Consider, for example, the parallels between the Jaredite and Nephite migration narratives. Grant Hardy lists eighteen "parallel narrative elements and distinctive phrasal borrowings" that demonstrate "a close, unique literary connection between the first chapters of Ether and First Nephi" (see Hardy, Understanding the Book of Mormon, 231–233). That seems more than coincidental. In fact, the whole Jaredite story reads like just a more compressed, exaggerated version of the Nephite story. Both civilizations begin basically the same way and both end up destroyed by secret combinations.

Do you find the stories of Sherem, Nehor, and Korihor realistic? I don't really. As B. H. Roberts asked, "Is not the vindication of God and his truth by a vindictive miracle on the person of the ranting blasphemer rather the dream of a pious boy . . . than a matter of actual experience?" (Roberts, Studies of the Book of Mormon, 271).

Or take the twin narratives of the people of Limhi and the people of Alma in bondage. What are the odds that both groups would escape at night while their guards were unconscious? Does that seem historically likely? Or that two Lamanite kings would fall into trances as though dead?

And what do we make of the quasi-biblical parallels that Fawn Brodie noted: "The daughter of Jared, like Salome, danced before a king and a decapitation followed. Aminadi, like Daniel, deciphered handwriting on a wall, and Alma was converted after the exact fashion of St. Paul. The daughters of the Lamanites were abducted like the dancing daughters of Shiloh; and Ammon, the American counterpart of David, for want of a Goliath slew six sheep-rustlers with his sling" (Brodie, No Man Knows My History, 62–63)?

Then there is the whole atmosphere of miracle in the book, which isn't what "authentic history" typically looks like in my experience.

All worthwhile observations, but vitiated by the fact that they are deeply characteristic of biblical stories as well.  Now, of course, many people already believe that the Bible is not authentic history, but there is a sobering fact here which must be faced.  Virtually every criticism of the BofM on these bases is also a strong criticism of the Bible.  For those unfamiliar with the Bible that may seem absurd, but it is a fact among biblical scholars.  Brodie and those who followed her, were completey unaware of that fact, although it might not have mattered if they had been aware.

For example, you mention the abduction of women in Mosiah 20:1-23 , which is paralleled by the tribe of Benjamin and the maidens of Shiloh (Judges 21:16-23).  However, biblical scholars see that as merely one instance of a pattern well-known to Canaanite, Greek, and Roman society (cf. the Rape of the Sabine Women).  Indeed, Luke Timothy Johnson argues that it is only within the pattern that such stories have meaning.

How does one deal with the escape of Israelite spies from Jericho via confederates on the wall (window) being of the same pattern as Paul's escape from Damascus via confederates on the wall (window) (Joshua 2:1 - 6:25 ∥Acts 9:24-25, II Cor 11:32-33)? 

What does one conclude about authenticity, when Gilles Quispel states that Acts 2:7-11 is actually based on well-known features of astrological geography à la Paulus Alexandrinus (cf. Daniel 8:1-27), that Revelation 6:15-16 depends upon the Catalogus Codicum Astrologorum Graecorum, that Revelation 12:5 contains an allusion to Hephaistos of Thebes, and that Revelation 12 generally is really a version of the Legend of Isis the Virgin fleeing with her son Horus from Seth (Typhon-Hydra)?

Does II Samuel 12:7 cap a foil dependent on the New Egyptian "Contendings of Horus & Seth" (Papyrus Chester Beatty I, recto, 6 - 7)?  Does Orpheus = David in the 3rd century B.C. Psalm 151:3-4?  F. M. Cross says "No," but one does wonder.  In Matthew 7:2, is the phrase "the measure you give will be the measure you get" original with Jesus?  The Babylonian Talmud several times says the same thing: "In the measure with which a man measures, is it meted out to him" (Sota 3:7-8 [8b], Sanhedrin 90a, Nedarim 32a).  Who is quoting whom?  Or is there a much older, common rabbinic source?  And what is the nature of scripture?

Hugh NIbley addresses this quandary:

Quote

The putting of things on a ritual basis not only justifies us in assuming the actual performance of the episodes described, but explains why in the stories the same things seem to happen over and over again.  Why, for example, must Abraham go through the same routine with Pharaoh and Abimelech regarding Sarah?  Why must he repeat his own sacrificial trial with his son Isaac?  Why must Isaac go through the same long rigmarole with Abimelech that his father did?  Why must Hagar and Ishmael suffer mortal jeopardy, be rescued by an angel at the last moment, and be promised on the spot the blessings of royal progeny exactly as Sarah and Isaac were?  Why is Egypt specifically brought into the picture in every one of these episodes?  Renan thought that he had proven once and for all that Jesus was a mythical figure because he did the very things that were attributed to earlier religious and legendary figures.  But the repetition of the characteristic motifs long associated sometimes with solar, sometimes with vegetation, and almost always with coronation rites is the best index of authenticity.  Nibley, "The Three Facsimiles from the Book of Abraham," 7-8 (FARMS N-THE). 

Léon-Dufour suggests that the Lucan structures are imposed by the same Sitz im Leben der Kirche, as in the "significant parallels" between Luke 24:13-35 (Jesus & the disciples) and Acts 8:25-40 (Philip & the Eunuch), both by the same author.  O'Toole appears to agree, though he notes that all the Apostles frequently reenact or parallel Jesus (Jesus' baptism ∥Pentecost, Lk 3:22 ∥Acts 1:5, 2:2-3, 11:16-17; Jesus ∥Stephen, Lk 22 ∥Acts 6 - 7; Jesus ∥ Paul, etc.), and the parallels and grammatical repetitions are so widespread and detailed that they must have been intentional, i.e., Jesus and his disciples are described the same way, preach the same way, are treated the same way, perform the same actions, endure the same actions, are associated with the same places, etc.

In many cases, it is authentic narrative theology which is being presented by such means.    For example, (1) the Binding of Isaac (Aqeda) and the Baptism of Jesus,  (2) Israel in the wilderness and the Temptations of Jesus, and (3) Manna for Israel and the Feeding of the Five Thousand, each of which is laid out in detail by William R. Stegner, Narrative Theology in Early Jewish Christianity (1989).

For Fawn Brodie, Wayne Ham (Community of Christ), and others, none of this was ever noticed. Instead, they see chicanery.  So, if Jesus raised Lazarus, and King Lamoni was raised by Ammon (Jn 11:17-44 ∥Alma 19:1-12; cf. II Maccabees 3:24-33), it must be inauthentic.  Yet, what of Jesus raising the widow's son and Jairus' daughter (Lk 7:11-17, 8:40-42, 49-56)?  What of Paul raising Eutychus (Acts 20:7-12), and Peter raising Tabitha (Acts 9:36-43; cf. Mark 5:41)?  What of Apollonius of Tyana doing the same thing (Philostratus, Life, IV, 45)?  Are all of them cribbing from an example set by Elijah (I Ki 17:17-24)?! 

The trial of Alma and Amulek (Alma 14:4-24) is supposed to be very much like the well-known trials of Jesus in the Gospels.  Here again we must ask about the other New Testament trials which are such close parallels to those of Jesus: Peter & John (Acts 4), Stephen (Acts 6 - 7), Peter again (Acts 12), and Paul (Acts 21ff).  Does this call into question the authenticity of the New Testament?  An even closer parallel with the trials of Jesus is the trial of Jeremiah (Jer 26).  And what of the trial of James the Just (the brother of Jesus), who was executed by the High Priest and Sanhedrin in 62 A.D.?  Who is cribbing from whom?

Ham asserted that the escapes of Peter, Paul & Silas from prisons are very much like the escape of Alma & Amulek (Acts 12:3-19, 16:23-40 ∥Alma 14:22-29), though he failed to mention the escape of the Three Nephite disciples of Jesus (IV Nephi 30), and he missed the parallels with events at the same prison in Mosiah 7.  Jerald & Sandra Tanner, on the other hand, made a sole comparison with the release of Paul & Silas at Philippi (Acts 16:23-40).  One might as well add, for good measure, the escape of Peter and the Apostles (Acts 5:18-54).  Ham suggested that the escape of Alma & Amulek also combines Samson's destruction of the Philistine Temple of Dagon (Judges 16:28-30; cf. Alma 14:26-29), but missed the  verbal similarities with III Ne 8 - 11.  A further parallel can be found in Pseudo-Philo 6, wherein twelve of the Patriarchs are imprisoned, eleven escape, and the twelfth waits to be executed – only to have the tables turned on his persecutors, as in the Sampson story – which is further paralleled by Saint Euphemia, who is saved by an angel from death on a torture wheel (in late third century A.D. Chalcedon), the wheel then being used to destroy its maker and then being burned.

Brodie even went so far as to claim that Alma's conversion experience occurred in "the exact fashion" of Paul's, but to which account of Paul's conversion does she have reference?  Hint: The accounts differ.  And to which version of Alma's conversion?  (Mosiah 27:10-13,19,23-24,32, Alma 36:2-29, 38:5-15 ∥Acts 9:4,8-9,18,20, 22:7,9, 26:11-14).

Finally, Ham compared the prayers of the Pharisee & Publican to the prayers of the Zoramites (Lk 18:9-14 ∥Alma 31, 38:13-14), though another parallel certainly seems as likely (Mat 6:2-7), and the early Jewish ʽAmida (Eighteen Benedictions) is an even more convincing parallel.

Once it has been made clear just what hermeneutical standards govern the differentiation of such parallels from one another, i.e., good and bad (legitimate & illegitimate) parallels, then a meaningful understanding and discussion of authenticity might be possible. 

[Kevin Christensen]

Nevo commented that:

Quote

Do you find the stories of Sherem, Nehor, and Korihor realistic? I don't really. As B. H. Roberts asked, "Is not the vindication of God and his truth by a vindictive miracle on the person of the ranting blasphemer rather the dream of a pious boy . . . than a matter of actual experience?" (Roberts, Studies of the Book of Mormon, 271).

Along with Robert Smith's points, and my own reading things like Hero with a Thousand Faces and The Great Code, and The Anatomy of Criticism, and Cosmos and History: The Myth of Eternal Return that get into patterns that show up everywhere, there are particularly relevant studies in Alter's The Art of Biblical Narrative, which goes into the use of repeated patterns and allusion, and John Welch's Legal Cases in the Book of Mormon, which after separately taking close looks a the Sherem,  Nehor, and Korihor, includes a separate chapter called "Comparing Sherem, Nehor, and Korihor."  I notice that B. H. Roberts did not and sadly could not consult Welch's detailed 2008 book when writing his 1923 Devil's advocate brief.  I would think it would have made a far greater impact on Roberts himself than the study seems to make on those who lean on the 1923 study.

https://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=2238&index=11

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Edited March 11, 2018 by Kevin Christensen

[Rajah Manchou]

On 3/9/2018 at 8:03 AM, Brant Gardner said:

The problem with the Norse material is that they stayed separate and never attempted to blend in.

The moment for this topic has passed, but while reading the new preprint on Southeast Asian ancient DNA I found this:

"In 2010, Icelandic researchers discovered C1e lineage in their home country, estimating an introduction date of year 1700 AD or earlier, indicating a possible introduction during the Viking expeditions to the Americas. A Native American origin for this C1e lineage is likely, but the researchers note that a European or Asian one cannot be ruled out." (source)

Vikings brought Amerindian to Iceland 1,000 years ago

So it could be that the vikings did admix with Native Americans and carried some maternal American DNA back. Traces of that very small admixture event does turn up in Iceland today.

BTW, that SE Asian DNA preprint has the surprising result of proto-Indo-European y DNA (I2a2a2a) in a 3500 year old Vietnamese male. Imagine the ancestors of Central Europeans, including Ashkenazi Jews, camping on the Pacific during the time of the Jaredites. But probably better to wait for the final print before taking that leap.

[Gray]

On 3/8/2018 at 5:31 PM, Glenn101 said:

I think that you are incorrect there, as to presenting a problem. It presents a problem because it was not part of Joseph Smith's speech or writing patterns nor has it been identified in any part of his environment.

There are several options - old magical texts, Pilgrim's progress, coincidence, or botched attempts at imitating KJV language.

 

 

On 3/8/2018 at 5:31 PM, Glenn101 said:

The number of researchers working on the matter, (not a theory)is irrelevant to whether the Early Modern English is in the Book of Mormon or not. Stanford Carmack has identified many words and phrases which can very easily be verified by anyone who wishes and has listed documents and texts that he has researched in following up on Royal Skousen's initial discovery of the EmodE in the Book of Mormon. If you have an alternative explanation from personal knowledge, training, etc. I would be glad to hear it.

Since I'm not trained in this area, and so far this idea is coming from a small group of religious researchers, I think it's wisest to simply wait and see if anyone from the larger academic community takes up this issue, and what they might have to say about the work done so far.

 

On 3/8/2018 at 5:31 PM, Glenn101 said:

(Actually angelic help would be a historical explanation. Several witnesses claimed to have seen an angel in connection with the Book of Mormon production. It may not be an explanation that most would accept, though.)

That would be a theological explanation, not a historical one. Historians work with historical sources and historical methods. The supernatural is out of scope.

 

 

[Glenn101]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

There are several options - old magical texts, Pilgrim's progress, coincidence, or botched attempts at imitating KJV language.

It does not appear that you have followed Stanford Carmack's work on this very closely.

1 hour ago, Gray said:

Since I'm not trained in this area, and so far this idea is coming from a small group of religious researchers, I think it's wisest to simply wait and see if anyone from the larger academic community takes up this issue, and what they might have to say about the work done so far.

It does not take a linguist to determine if Early Modern English is in the Book of Mormon. The words ans phrases identified can be verified by anyone willing to take the time to do so. That phenomena was discovered by Royal Skousen while working on the critical text project. It was unexpected... not something that he was looking for. This information has been out there for some time now. Why do you think that no one has come forth to refute the information that Skousen and Carmack have produced?

1 hour ago, Gray said:

That would be a theological explanation, not a historical one. Historians work with historical sources and historical methods. The supernatural is out of scope.

 

Oh it is historical that there were witnesses that claimed to have witnessed physical objects and the appearance of angels. Should have put a smiley on that one.

[champatsch]

On 3/10/2018 at 1:21 PM, Brant Gardner said:

So now we return to your question of who the translator was.

That wasn't my question.  My question was how you square the fact that Joseph Smith's mind was saturated with biblical language with the verifiable observation that Book of Mormon archaism is extensively non-biblical.

On page 302 of The Gift and Power (2011), you discuss Joseph's mind being imbued with biblical language in order to explain certain parts of the text, such as frequent incorporation of King James phraseology.

Yet it is descriptively verifiable that Joseph dictated archaisms that were quite different from biblical (morpho)syntactic patterns, thousands of times over, even though they are mostly produced subconsciously.  Because he had internalized biblical ways of expression, and had implicit knowledge of these, we of course do not expect this to be the case from your perspective.

From this I have concluded that you have unintentionally ended up arguing against your position that Joseph worded the text.

But now I've learned that you would respond with the fantastic linguistic claim that Joseph produced ALL the extra-biblical (morpho)syntax by dictating according to an idiosyncratic archaizing language.

Because your linguistic claims in relation to Joseph's idiolect are extreme and unlikely, I continue to reasonably think that your point about Joseph's mind being imbued with biblical language materially weakens your position on Book of Mormon translation.
 

I would like to point out to others that Skousen's studied observation in 2006 was the following: “The biblically styled language of the text seems to date from [the 1500s and 1600s], yet it does not imitate the specific language of the King James Bible” (ATV: Mosiah 19:24).

This reliable information was of course available to Gardner when he was writing his 2011 book, but he disregarded it when he provided readers with the following inaccurate information on pages 192 and 302: "The Book of Mormon’s imitation of King James translation language and style is so obvious it does not need demonstration. * * * King James Version style appears in the Book of Mormon because Joseph could not escape it. I doubt that it was a conscious decision to imitate that style."

[champatsch]

On 3/10/2018 at 1:21 PM, Brant Gardner said:

I think it is very telling that you have found some of the archaisms in early revelations, here. Quoting you from that paper:

Quote

The position of tight control is that the Lord rendered the ancient Nephite record into English or had it done, and then transmitted this translation to Joseph Smith. The process of rendering the plate text into English is unknowable without specific revelation on the matter. Furthermore, tight control can involve modern English vocabulary and syntax as well as Early Modern English (1500-1700), and even some late Middle English.

In this description, using the range of options available to us, we would have to say that the Lord translated, or had it done, in a way that incorporated archaisms into a modern vocabulary. 

I am simply adding that the retention of old forms which had become considered ungrammatical can and did persist. Since we see them in things that were not translated (the 1833 plot of Zion, per the article), we understand that they have nothing to do with translation. They are artifacts of the language of the translator.

So now we return to your question of who the translator was. It was the same person who generated at least the early revelations, and the same who dictated the plot of Zion.

There are quite a few things in this post that deserve a sharp response.  Here are two things that strike me as manipulative.

The early revelations Gardner refers to in this comment were received by Joseph Smith before and during the dictation of the 1829 Book of Mormon text.  He received them in the same way as the Book of Mormon text.  Thus they cannot be used as evidence of the archaisms Joseph was capable of producing from his own biblically influenced language.  This is like using a selection from the Book of Mormon in order to show what Joseph's archaizing language was.  (That one is presumably a translation and the other not is irrelevant to either of our positions about Joseph wording the text or not.)  Of course Gardner knows this, so we must be on our guard that he might be intentionally treating the evidence unfairly.  He has certainly done so in this case. 

The underlined portion above is another problem.  (To be clear, "old forms" should be understood as also encompassing syntactic structures and systematic usage.)  Here Gardner leads us into thinking that ALL the archaic forms, structures, and systematic usage of the Book of Mormon persisted, while writing it carefully for plausible deniability.  I haven't seen him research linguistic persistence and demonstrate it by examples and analysis.  He apparently pays little attention to the research and findings of hundreds of independent linguists over many years, who have described a multitude of diachronic shifts and obsolescence in the English language, some of which are directly relevant to the Book of Mormon text.  Immediately after this, Gardner mentions that the 1833 Plot of Zion, though not a translation, has archaisms. His purpose may be to support Joseph wording the Book of Mormon, by implying that Joseph worded the possible archaisms of the Plot of Zion precisely because it wasn't a translation.  Yet he knows very well that we don't think that Book of Mormon archaism is contingent on translation; by extension, Plot of Zion archaism isn't contingent on translation either. This part is obscure and misleadingly selective.

[Nevo]

On 3/11/2018 at 1:14 AM, Robert F. Smith said:

Virtually every criticism of the BofM on these bases is also a strong criticism of the Bible.  

You'll get no argument from me on that front. Many biblical stories are literary creations as well. Robert Alter, for example, sees most of the OT narratives as "historicized fiction." Elaborating further, he writes:

Quote

The various biblical narratives . . . may be usefully seen as forming a spectrum between the opposing extremes of disorder and design. Toward the disorderly end of things, where the recalcitrant facts of known history have to be encompassed, including specific political movements, military triumphs and reversals, and the like, would be Judges, Samuel, and Kings. In these books, the narrators and on occasion some of the personages struggle quite explicitly to reconcile their knowledge of the divine promise with their awareness of what is actually happening in history. At the other end of the spectrum, near the pole of design, one might place the Book of Esther. This post-exilic story, which presents itself as a piece of political history affecting the main diaspora community, is in fact a kind of fairytale—the lovely damsel, guided by a wise godfather, is made queen and saves her people—richly embellished with satiric invention; its comic art departs from historical verisimilitude in ways that pre-exilic Hebrew narrative seldom does, and the story demonstrates God's providential power in history with a schematic neatness unlike that of earlier historicized fiction in the Bible.

 — Robert Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative (New York: Basic Books, 1981), 33–34.

I would suggest that many Book of Mormon narratives also exhibit a "schematic neatness" that would tend to place them closer to the "design" end of things.

Grant Hardy sees a few places where Mormon seems to struggle with "the recalcitrant facts of known history," writing: "Mormon is also enough of a historian that he occasionally includes details that allow us to critically evaluate the points he is making, as when he works hard to convince his readers that the martyrdom of more than a thousand believers was actually a good thing (Alma 24:20–27), or that Captain Moroni, an impetuous and sometimes brutal military commander, was in reality a paragon of Christian virtue (Alma 48:11–18)" (Hardy, Understanding the Book of Mormon, 112). But Hardy's reading here is clearly informed by his own cultural sensibilities. Rather than a narrator grappling with historical facts that don't easily fit the story he is trying to tell, I think we may just be dealing with a story-world where the martyrdom of believers is a good thing and where being an angry, "brutal" (by the standards of a gentle 21st-century academic) military commander is not thought to be incompatible with being a good Christian.

Edited March 12, 2018 by Nevo