David Bokovoy on Deutero and Trito Isaiah in the Book of Mormon

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours ago, PacMan said:

Robert, I think you're misunderstanding the argument.  I was critical (and remain dubious) of Bokovoy's anticipated research due to borrowing.  It will be almost impossible to show that Trito-Isaiah elements in the BoM could not have derived from pre-BoM biblical text.  Without demonstrating that the Trito-Isaiah elements in the BoM are both material and unique, his work will be a complete waste of time.

As part of that, I gratuitously conceded a 80/20 split of academics that favor multiple authors to those those that support a unified author Isaiah theory.  I really don't care what that number is, but Nevo wanted to debate that those supporting a unified author is closer to 2%.  His bombastic certitude made me chuckle, and so he copied and pasted a bunch of random names to support his claim...including Maragaret Barker, among them.  This isn't a numbers games to me at all.  Ad populum, has never been my style.

Sorry that I so obviously misunderstood.  I sometimes get things backwards, as on this occasion.  I did think it odd that he included Margaret Barker, without realizing it.

I am looking forward to the Townsend-Bokovoy article, though.

[Robert J Anderson]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I'm not sure I understand your question.  Have you been following Skousen's work on O?

Thanks,

-Smac

Perhaps I am mistaken but there is a big gap in between when Joseph finished his translation and when the book of mormon was published (June 1829 to March 1830).  Joseph also had a penchant to revise his works over time as he did to the book of mormon for the 1835 edition.  He also extensively revised the D&C.  So, my question is based on knowing whether or not the original manuscript, that isn't completely extant, is the same as what was dictated and finished in June 1829.  How do we know that what is the original manuscript wasn't a product of revision that occurred between June 1829 and March 1830?

Thanks,

Robert 😃 

[OGHoosier]

19 minutes ago, Robert J Anderson said:

Perhaps I am mistaken but there is a big gap in between when Joseph finished his translation and when the book of mormon was published (June 1829 to March 1830).  Joseph also had a penchant to revise his works over time as he did to the book of mormon for the 1835 edition.  He also extensively revised the D&C.  So, my question is based on knowing whether or not the original manuscript, that isn't completely extant, is the same as what was dictated and finished in June 1829.  How do we know that what is the original manuscript wasn't a product of revision that occurred between June 1829 and March 1830?

Thanks,

Robert 😃 

If I'm not mistaken, you are positing that there was a secret original manuscript prior to the one which we currently call O, the original manuscript. This runs up on several problems.

The manuscript which we call O has been identified as the same manuscript Joseph Smith buried in the cornerstone of the Nauvoo House. He didn't do it in secret: multiple witnesses (not within Joseph's inner circle either) record Joseph ambling up to the House and chatting with them for a while, being very open about the fact that he was burying the original manuscript of the Book of Mormon. A remark from Hyrum Smith indicates that there had been scares concerning the safety of the manuscript in between 1830 and 1841, so it was likely being buried for safekeeping. This same manuscript was unearthed by Lewis Bidamon and partitioned, until eventually they have come back to us. There has never been any evidence of any other manuscript. O itself features clear evidences of being a dictation, thus according with all the eyewitness statements surrounding the translation, and it doesn't feature signs of significant revision. It does not feature sentencing or any form of punctuation, just as P (the printer's manuscript) does not. You'd think that if Joseph and Oliver were so intensely dedicated to crafting a masterpiece, they would at least figure out where the commas went themselves. There's no sign of intentional revision between O and P. 

Furthermore, the gap between the publishing and the end of dictation is not as big as it seems. Per John Gilbert, the typesetter of the Book of Mormon (and the man responsible for the punctuation), the process of producing the  first printing of the Book of Mormon began in August of 1829, but this was the 19th-century. Printing 5000 copies of a book took months so the process didn't wrap up until March of 1830. So, there was no year of revision. Oliver, per Joseph's command, copied the original manuscript onto the printer's manuscript bit by bit throughout 1829 and 1830. In the meantime, Joseph had headed back to Harmony in October 1829, so from that point on no revision would even be possible since he was not in the same state as any manuscript of the Book of Mormon. 

So, in sum: there is no reason to believe there was a pre-O manuscript, there's no evidence of revision between O and P, and the window in which such revision could be accomplished is more like August-October as opposed to June-March. In other words, I think the evidence suggests that O is in fact the first manuscript of the Book of Mormon and P is a faithful rendering thereof. 

 

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Robert J Anderson said:

Perhaps I am mistaken but there is a big gap in between when Joseph finished his translation and when the book of mormon was published (June 1829 to March 1830).  Joseph also had a penchant to revise his works over time as he did to the book of mormon for the 1835 edition.  He also extensively revised the D&C. 

Do you have any evidence of suspicious revisions between O and P?

Quote

So, my question is based on knowing whether or not the original manuscript, that isn't completely extant, is the same as what was dictated and finished in June 1829.  How do we know that what is the original manuscript wasn't a product of revision that occurred between June 1829 and March 1830?

Perhaps first we should address the question of evidence that there were revisions.

My understanding is that Oliver Cowdery drafted P between July/August 1929 to "circa January 1830."  Meanwhile, Joseph Smith and Martin Harris "looked for a printer to publish the book."

Martin and Oliver, who were both heavily involved in the translation process and coming forth of the Book of Mormon, became estranged from Joseph Smith.  Martin was excommunicated in December 1837 and was re-baptized in 1870, thus giving him 43 or so years to "come clean" about any shenanigans involving the O and P.  Oliver was excommunicated in 1838, and rejoined in 1848.  That's a solid decade for him to "come clean."

Neither did.  

See also:

https://knowhy.bookofmormoncentral.org/knowhy/why-bother-studying-the-textual-variants-in-the-book-of-mormon

https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V10N04_10.pdf

https://byustudies.byu.edu/content/significant-textual-changes-book-mormon-first-printed-edition-compared-manuscripts-and

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 21, 2020 by smac97

[Robert J Anderson]

13 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

If I'm not mistaken, you are positing that there was a secret original manuscript prior to the one which we currently call O, the original manuscript. This runs up on several problems.

The manuscript which we call O has been identified as the same manuscript Joseph Smith buried in the cornerstone of the Nauvoo House. He didn't do it in secret: multiple witnesses (not within Joseph's inner circle either) record Joseph ambling up to the House and chatting with them for a while, being very open about the fact that he was burying the original manuscript of the Book of Mormon. A remark from Hyrum Smith indicates that there had been scares concerning the safety of the manuscript in between 1830 and 1841, so it was likely being buried for safekeeping. This same manuscript was unearthed by Lewis Bidamon and partitioned, until eventually they have come back to us. There has never been any evidence of any other manuscript. O itself features clear evidences of being a dictation, thus according with all the eyewitness statements surrounding the translation, and it doesn't feature signs of significant revision. It does not feature sentencing or any form of punctuation, just as P (the printer's manuscript) does not. You'd think that if Joseph and Oliver were so intensely dedicated to crafting a masterpiece, they would at least figure out where the commas went themselves. There's no sign of intentional revision between O and P. 

Furthermore, the gap between the publishing and the end of dictation is not as big as it seems. Per John Gilbert, the typesetter of the Book of Mormon (and the man responsible for the punctuation), the process of producing the  first printing of the Book of Mormon began in August of 1829, but this was the 19th-century. Printing 5000 copies of a book took months so the process didn't wrap up until March of 1830. So, there was no year of revision. Oliver, per Joseph's command, copied the original manuscript onto the printer's manuscript bit by bit throughout 1829 and 1830. In the meantime, Joseph had headed back to Harmony in October 1829, so from that point on no revision would even be possible since he was not in the same state as any manuscript of the Book of Mormon. 

So, in sum: there is no reason to believe there was a pre-O manuscript, there's no evidence of revision between O and P, and the window in which such revision could be accomplished is more like August-October as opposed to June-March. In other words, I think the evidence suggests that O is in fact the first manuscript of the Book of Mormon and P is a faithful rendering thereof. 

 

Aren't there differences in the early 1st editions?  Wouldn't that suggest some revision was going on?  Further, how do you account for Joseph Smith revising the first edition when the second edition was coming out?  He also revised the D&C.  Perhaps in his mind, revelation was continuing?  Also, the original dictation was supposedly from April to June 1829, yet August to October 1829 is too short?  What if there were other changes that had to be made like the change from God to Son of God that Joseph did for the second edition?  Perhaps these were found between O and P?

My point is one of possibilities given the differences in the first edition copies and Joseph's ease in revising his prior revelations.

Edited August 21, 2020 by Robert J Anderson

[Robert J Anderson]

12 hours ago, smac97 said:

Do you have any evidence of suspicious revisions between O and P?

Perhaps first we should address the question of evidence that there were revisions.

My understanding is that Oliver Cowdery drafted P between July/August 1929 to "circa January 1830."  Meanwhile, Joseph Smith and Martin Harris "looked for a printer to publish the book."

Martin and Oliver, who were both heavily involved in the translation process and coming forth of the Book of Mormon, became estranged from Joseph Smith.  Martin was excommunicated in December 1837 and was re-baptized in 1870, thus giving him 43 or so years to "come clean" about any shenanigans involving the O and P.  Oliver was excommunicated in 1838, and rejoined in 1848.  That's a solid decade for him to "come clean."

Neither did.  

See also:

https://knowhy.bookofmormoncentral.org/knowhy/why-bother-studying-the-textual-variants-in-the-book-of-mormon

https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V10N04_10.pdf

https://byustudies.byu.edu/content/significant-textual-changes-book-mormon-first-printed-edition-compared-manuscripts-and

Thanks,

-Smac

Perhaps they viewed the work as an ongoing revelation and that is why there wasn't any question about a supposed cover-up?  Maybe Oliver took some liberties with the work knowing that Joseph wouldn't know the difference as the plates had been taken?  Maybe the revisions were a collaborative effort?  Also, just because someone takes a secret to their grave doesn't mean that there wasn't a secret.  I am sure as any couple has, there are small secrets and big ones that aren't divulged to the world at large.

Of course these are just speculations as "how could Joseph have known" speculations are.

[OGHoosier]

9 minutes ago, Robert J Anderson said:

Aren't there differences in the early 1st editions?  Wouldn't that suggest some revision was going on?  Further, how do you account for Joseph Smith revising the first edition when the second edition was coming out?  He also revised the D&C.  Perhaps in his mind, revelation was continuing?  Also, the original dictation was supposedly from April to June 1829, yet August to October 1829 is too short?  What if there were other changes that had to be made like the change from God to Son of God that Joseph did for the second edition?  Perhaps these were found between O and P?

My point is one of possibilities given the differences in the first edition copies and Joseph's ease in revising his prior revelations.

There were relatively small revisions between the first and second edition of the Book of Mormon, yes, and small revisions have continued since. And yes, Joseph did revise his revelations in the D&C. Revelation to his mind was ongoing and the canon was fluid, as it should be for us. However, to your point, there's no evidence that emendations were ever made between O and P. P matches the 28% of O which we have faithfully, including some of the most significant chapters in the Book of Mormon. So, P and O offer no evidence for changes. Furthermore, Oliver was transcribing P bit-by-bit until January, but Joseph was gone for half the process, so revision could not have occurred. I repeat - Joseph Smith was hundreds  of miles away during the second half of the completion of P. Editing would not have been possible for him. 

I honestly don't have a problem with Joseph revising the revelations on inspiration, but there is no evidence that it happened in this case. 

[Robert J Anderson]

2 minutes ago, OGHoosier said:

There were relatively small revisions between the first and second edition of the Book of Mormon, yes, and small revisions have continued since. And yes, Joseph did revise his revelations in the D&C. Revelation to his mind was ongoing and the canon was fluid, as it should be for us. However, to your point, there's no evidence that emendations were ever made between O and P. P matches the 28% of O which we have faithfully, including some of the most significant chapters in the Book of Mormon. So, P and O offer no evidence for changes. Furthermore, Oliver was transcribing P bit-by-bit until January, but Joseph was gone for half the process, so revision could not have occurred. I repeat - Joseph Smith was hundreds  of miles away during the second half of the completion of P. Editing would not have been possible for him. 

I honestly don't have a problem with Joseph revising the revelations on inspiration, but there is no evidence that it happened in this case. 

I am speculating and talking possibilities and perhaps other documents will be unearthed to shed more light on this.  Even so, my speculation is that what is considered to be O might have been different from what was dictated and finished in June of 1829.  Also, there could be differences between the 72% of O and P.  If one accepts that Joseph continued to revise his works, then why not the book of mormon from dictation to O to P?  Sure, if O and P line up, then it is still possible that Joseph, Oliver and co. made extensive revisions between the dictation copy and O.

[OGHoosier]

1 hour ago, Robert J Anderson said:

I am speculating and talking possibilities and perhaps other documents will be unearthed to shed more light on this.  Even so, my speculation is that what is considered to be O might have been different from what was dictated and finished in June of 1829.  Also, there could be differences between the 72% of O and P.  If one accepts that Joseph continued to revise his works, then why not the book of mormon from dictation to O to P?  Sure, if O and P line up, then it is still possible that Joseph, Oliver and co. made extensive revisions between the dictation copy and O.

You don't sound like you're speculating. You sound like you're advancing a theory, for which there is no evidence. O was a dictation manuscript. It strains credulity to think that Joseph would dictate to Oliver and then redictate the text all the way over again, but that is what your theory requires. 

Again, this theory is pure unfiltered speculation and no evidence exists to back up the idea that there was a pre-O manuscript. 

[Kenngo1969]

19 hours ago, Robert J Anderson said:

Perhaps I am mistaken but there is a big gap in between when Joseph finished his translation and when the book of mormon was published (June 1829 to March 1830).  Joseph also had a penchant to revise his works over time as he did to the book of mormon for the 1835 edition. [Emphasis added by Kenngo1969.]  He also extensively revised the D&C.  So, my question is based on knowing whether or not the original manuscript, that isn't completely extant, is the same as what was dictated and finished in June 1829.  How do we know that what is the original manuscript wasn't a product of revision that occurred between June 1829 and March 1830?

Thanks,

Robert 😃 

I don't believe there is an 1835 edition.  Perhaps you're referring to the 1837 edition?  https://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Book_of_Mormon_Editions_(1830-1981)

[Damien the Leper]

6 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I don't believe there is an 1835 edition.  Perhaps you're referring to the 1837 edition?  https://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Book_of_Mormon_Editions_(1830-1981)

Or maybe the 1834 Kirtland Edition?

[Nevo]

20 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I did think it odd that he included Margaret Barker, without realizing it.

It wasn't accidental. Barker doesn't support the traditional view of authorship. Barker is a maverick on many issues but not on the subject of the multiple authorship of Isaiah.

She only comes up in these discussions because of her theory that the Fourth Servant Song was originally composed by First Isaiah in reference to Hezekiah (which she believes Deutero-Isaiah then drew on to symbolize the suffering of the people in exile).

[Robert F. Smith]

4 minutes ago, Nevo said:

It wasn't accidental. Barker doesn't support the traditional view of authorship. Barker is a maverick on many issues but not on the subject of the multiple authorship of Isaiah.

She only comes up in these discussions because of her theory that the Fourth Servant Song was originally composed by First Isaiah in reference to Hezekiah (which she believes Deutero-Isaiah then drew on to symbolize the suffering of the people in exile).

I have already said as much on my own account in this thread.  Inserting originalism (or whatever you want to call it) does the same duty.  In fact, I know of no one who rejects the multiple authorship within an Isaianic School.  The only question is when did the various components first come into existence.  The same question applies as well to Deuteronomy:  Everyone admits the original core must have preexisted Josiah and the Deuteronomist.  What we need to ask about is the process of redaction and the purposes served by it, which is what Dr. Barker asks.

Ultimately that also gets at the question of the "Christianization of the Old Testament sections of the Book of Mormon.," which has been an issue for quite some time now -- particularly for those who don't realize that the OT already contains the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  A fact opaque to them due to the lack of systematic and coherent translation in the KJ Bible.

[PacMan]

12 minutes ago, Nevo said:

It wasn't accidental. Barker doesn't support the traditional view of authorship. Barker is a maverick on many issues but not on the subject of the multiple authorship of Isaiah.

She only comes up in these discussions because of her theory that the Fourth Servant Song was originally composed by First Isaiah in reference to Hezekiah (which she believes Deutero-Isaiah then drew on to symbolize the suffering of the people in exile).

Nevo, this is in context of the BoM.  As Kevin has noted, Barker takes the BoM much of the way, but not the entire length of the field.  Rather than speak of a binary unified author, the issue here is whether there is a unity of authorship for those portions of Deutero-Isaiah in the BoM.  That's where M. Barker parts ways with other scholars.

Once we take the more nuanced view, I'm interested how many of your 98% of scholars that support the multiple-author theory would allow that some of the Deutero chapters in the BoM were actually authored by Isaiah himself.

[Robert J Anderson]

On 8/21/2020 at 10:53 AM, OGHoosier said:

You don't sound like you're speculating. You sound like you're advancing a theory, for which there is no evidence. O was a dictation manuscript. It strains credulity to think that Joseph would dictate to Oliver and then redictate the text all the way over again, but that is what your theory requires. 

Again, this theory is pure unfiltered speculation and no evidence exists to back up the idea that there was a pre-O manuscript. 

You claim I am more than speculating even though I say as much then say it is only speculation without evidence?  Ok.  I guess I struck a nerve.  Sorry about that.

[Robert J Anderson]

On 8/21/2020 at 2:26 PM, Kenngo1969 said:

I don't believe there is an 1835 edition.  Perhaps you're referring to the 1837 edition?  https://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Book_of_Mormon_Editions_(1830-1981)

Thanks for the correction.

[Michael G. Reed.]

I'm not a Hebrew Bible scholar.... but rather Religion of the Early Modern period, and David can defend himself with stripes without my help. But I will say that he is brilliant, genuine, and a good human being. He's also an early alumni from here, Fair, and FARMS/NAMI.

[Michael G. Reed.]

1 hour ago, Michael G. Reed. said:

1 hour ago, Michael G. Reed. said:

doesn't it seem more logical that JS quoted Isiah so extensively, after losing the 116 pages, was because he was mentally exhausted and needed filler? He used timeline filler to expand it too. "I was a wicked man and have nothing to add." Paraphrased 

 

 

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, Michael G. Reed. said:

I'm not a Hebrew Bible scholar.... but rather Religion of the Early Modern period, and David can defend himself with stripes without my help. But I will say that he is brilliant, genuine, and a good human being. He's also an early alumni from here, Fair, and FARMS/NAMI.

Hey Mike good to see you!

There was a thread here a couple of weeks ago about the cross and your name was mentioned more than once.

Welcome back! 

There are still a few of us old codgers around!

[Bede]

@Benjamin McGuire does this paper still represent your position?

https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/the-late-war-against-the-book-of-mormon/

It’s hard to follow who is still a member, who left, who left and came back, etc. So I am just curious.

[Nevo]

On 8/21/2020 at 3:53 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

In fact, I know of no one who rejects the multiple authorship within an Isaianic School.

There are a few scholars that do, but it's nowhere close to PacMan's 20 percent estimate.

On 8/21/2020 at 3:53 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

 The only question is when did the various components first come into existence. The same question applies as well to Deuteronomy:  Everyone admits the original core must have preexisted Josiah and the Deuteronomist.

No, not everyone admits that. Reinhard Kratz and Juha Pakkala notably do not.

But, yes, of course the question is when the various elements first come into existence. And in the case of the Deutero-Isaiah portions of the Book of Mormon, the overwhelming consensus of historical-critical scholarship is that they first came into existence after 540 BCE.

Barker's theory that Isaiah 52:13—53:12 may ultimately go back to First Isaiah (due to a posited connection between the Servant's suffering and Hezekiah's illness), is an outlier. One scholar that has adopted Barker's suggestion of a thematic link between Hezekiah's illness and the fourth Servant Song is A.L.H.M. van Wieringen, but he still maintains that Isaiah 52:13—53:12 is an exilic/post-exilic composition (see van Wieringen, "The Diseased King and the Diseased City (Isaiah 36–39) as a Reader-Oriented Link between Isaiah 1–39 and Isaiah 40–66," in ‘Enlarge the Site of Your Tent’: The City as Unifying Theme in Isaiah [Leiden: Brill, 2011], 81–93).

The Book of Mormon freely quotes and alludes to the New Testament, so the references to Deutero-Isaiah and Malachi shouldn't really surprise anyone. As Elizabeth Fenton and Jared Hickman have noted, "the text is self-consciously and committedly anachronistic" (Americanist Approaches to The Book of Mormon, 8 ) and demonstrates what Samuel Morris Brown calls "the notorious intertextuality of [Joseph Smith's] work," which was "fundamentally concerned with intertemporality" (Joseph Smith's Translation, 69).

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Nevo said:

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

But, yes, of course the question is when the various elements first come into existence. And in the case of the Deutero-Isaiah portions of the Book of Mormon, the overwhelming consensus of historical-critical scholarship is that they first came into existence after 540 BCE.

Barker's theory that Isaiah 52:13—53:12 may ultimately go back to First Isaiah (due to a posited connection between the Servant's suffering and Hezekiah's illness), is an outlier. One scholar that has adopted Barker's suggestion of a thematic link between Hezekiah's illness and the fourth Servant Song is A.L.H.M. van Wieringen, but he still maintains that Isaiah 52:13—53:12 is an exilic/post-exilic composition (see van Wieringen, "The Diseased King and the Diseased City (Isaiah 36–39) as a Reader-Oriented Link between Isaiah 1–39 and Isaiah 40–66," in ‘Enlarge the Site of Your Tent’: The City as Unifying Theme in Isaiah [Leiden: Brill, 2011], 81–93).

A lot of apriori beliefs come into play here, and some of them are schizoid.  On the one hand, for example, there is the claim that the Servant Songs are contemporary and descriptive of King Hezekiah, and that there can be only one meaning of such language (no bifurcations or dual applications in meaning), and, on the other hand, that later editorial work is all there is -- and must be taken as normative (with synchronous canonical criticism).  No stages of editing being permitted, as though the real world does not apply.

Yet we know that the biblical text makes is clear that there is some sort of Josianic and Deuteronomistic revolution, and it clearly begins contemporary with Lehi and Jeremiah.  We cannot take the endpoint of that process for the beginning.

1 hour ago, Nevo said:

The Book of Mormon freely quotes and alludes to the New Testament, so the references to Deutero-Isaiah and Malachi shouldn't really surprise anyone. As Elizabeth Fenton and Jared Hickman have noted, "the text is self-consciously and committedly anachronistic" (Americanist Approaches to The Book of Mormon, 8 ) and demonstrates what Samuel Morris Brown calls "the notorious intertextuality of [Joseph Smith's] work," which was "fundamentally concerned with intertemporality" (Joseph Smith's Translation, 69).

Yes, Richard Bushman says that the BofM text is self-consciously post-modern.  Yet all seem unaware of the crucial problem which obtains, regardless of a 19th century or EModEnglish text:  Does that "notorious intertextuality" exist due to pseudepigraphic plagiarism, or is it a result of the adoption of familiar Scriptural jargon to represent a foreign text?  We are not required to make the simplistic guilt by association connection, which is a common surface assumption used to explain the apparent "Christianization" of the OT sections of the BofM.  The Hebrew OT text itself already does that for those who can read it, even though it is masked by the KJV and previous English translations -- all of which adopt very different jargon for the OT and NT translations.  Jesus and his contemporaries saw no such distinctions.  It is we who are hamstrung by our own self-deceptions.  As Margaret Barker observes that “finding Christ in the Old Testament is exactly what we should expect, . . .”[1]  Why isn't that obvious?  Consider the following quotation in KJV style:

(MT Hebrew) Psalm 2:2	(LXX Greek and NT) Acts 4:26
The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed	The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord, and against his Christ.

The crucial difference here in this KJV quotation says it all.  The OT translators (and their predecessors) eschewed NT terminology, and the innocent reader is so easily led astray.

[1] Barker, “Joseph Smith and Preexilic Israelite Religion,” paper delivered in 2005, in Washington, DC, and published in J. Welch, ed., The Worlds of Joseph Smith: A Bicentennial Conference at the Library of Congress (Provo: BYU Press, 2006), 79.

 

[PacMan]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

A lot of apriori beliefs come into play here, and some of them are schizoid.  On the one hand, for example, there is the claim that the Servant Songs are contemporary and descriptive of King Hezekiah, and that there can be only one meaning of such language (no bifurcations or dual applications in meaning), and, on the other hand, that later editorial work is all there is -- and must be taken as normative (with synchronous canonical criticism).  No stages of editing being permitted, as though the real world does not apply.

Yet we know that the biblical text makes is clear that there is some sort of Josianic and Deuteronomistic revolution, and it clearly begins contemporary with Lehi and Jeremiah.  We cannot take the endpoint of that process for the beginning.

Yes, Richard Bushman says that the BofM text is self-consciously post-modern.  Yet all seem unaware of the crucial problem which obtains, regardless of a 19th century or EModEnglish text:  Does that "notorious intertextuality" exist due to pseudepigraphic plagiarism, or is it a result of the adoption of familiar Scriptural jargon to represent a foreign text?  We are not required to make the simplistic guilt by association connection, which is a common surface assumption used to explain the apparent "Christianization" of the OT sections of the BofM.  The Hebrew OT text itself already does that for those who can read it, even though it is masked by the KJV and previous English translations -- all of which adopt very different jargon for the OT and NT translations.  Jesus and his contemporaries saw no such distinctions.  It is we who are hamstrung by our own self-deceptions.  As Margaret Barker observes that “finding Christ in the Old Testament is exactly what we should expect, . . .”[1]  Why isn't that obvious?  Consider the following quotation in KJV style:

(MT Hebrew) Psalm 2:2	(LXX Greek and NT) Acts 4:26
The kings of the earth   set themselves,   and the rulers take   counsel together,   against the LORD,   and against his anointed	The kings of the earth   stood up,   and the rulers were   gathered together   against the Lord,   and against his Christ.

The crucial difference here in this KJV quotation says it all.  The OT translators (and their predecessors) eschewed NT terminology, and the innocent reader is so easily led astray.

[1] Barker, “Joseph Smith and Preexilic Israelite Religion,” paper delivered in 2005, in Washington, DC, and published in J. Welch, ed., The Worlds of Joseph Smith: A Bicentennial Conference at the Library of Congress (Provo: BYU Press, 2006), 79.

 

Boom. This. 
 

Scholarly criticisms that does not account for potential common borrowing is myopic and hardly scholarly...or critical. 

[Nevo]

5 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Does that "notorious intertextuality" exist due to pseudepigraphic plagiarism, or is it a result of the adoption of familiar Scriptural jargon to represent a foreign text?  We are not required to make the simplistic guilt by association connection, which is a common surface assumption used to explain the apparent "Christianization" of the OT sections of the BofM.  The Hebrew OT text itself already does that for those who can read it, even though it is masked by the KJV and previous English translations -- all of which adopt very different jargon for the OT and NT translations. 

Well, as you know, I disagree. We've gone over all this before in detail (in this epic thread and elsewhere). I'm fine with believers "finding Christ in the Old Testament" by taking a sensus plenior approach. But I don't think we can assert that the Hebrew Bible is, in fact, Christian, and that Jesus of Nazareth is in view whenever it talks about an anointed one (and that all this would be obvious if the King James translators had only done a better job).

Against Margaret Barker, I think the earliest Christians read Old Testament texts in new ways, not in old(er) ways. The religion of pre-exilic Israel was not Christianity. Nor was the religion of Jesus himself, for that matter.

I'm curious, though. How do you interpret Psalm 2:2's reference to YHWH and YHWH's anointed?

[Robert F. Smith]

4 minutes ago, Nevo said:

Well, as you know, I disagree. We've gone over all this before in detail (in this epic thread and elsewhere). I'm fine with believers "finding Christ in the Old Testament" by taking a sensus plenior approach. But I don't think we can assert that the Hebrew Bible is, in fact, Christian, and that Jesus of Nazareth is in view whenever it talks about an anointed one (and that all this would be obvious if the King James translators had only done a better job).

Against Margaret Barker, I think the earliest Christians read Old Testament texts in new ways, not in old(er) ways. The religion of pre-exilic Israel was not Christianity. Nor was the religion of Jesus himself, for that matter.

I often have a very hard time getting people to understand that Abraham did not speak, read, or write Hebrew.  Why they ask?  In a state of shock.  Because Classical (biblical) Hebrew would not exist for at least a millennium, and even the OT does not term biblical Hebrew "Hebrew," but instead "Canaanite."  Moreover, King David would not have understood the Canaanite of Moses, although Moses would have had no problem understanding Ugaritic.  What truly perplexes most people (if they get around to asking about it) is the fact that Canaanite religion at Ugarit is so similar to later Israelite religion.  They just don't realize that Israelite cult never existed in stasis.  Sure I understand your preference for synchronous canonical criticism, but the real world of Holy Writ is diachronic and dynamic.  Margaret Barker helps us see the ties that bind two worlds which appear so dissimilar on the surface.

And, yes, if the KJV committees had consulted with one another and established standard phrases for equivalent expressions in Hebrew & Greek, we all might be less confused.  I have yet to meet a critic who understands what that means.

4 minutes ago, Nevo said:

I'm curious, though. How do you interpret Psalm 2:2's reference to YHWH and YHWH's anointed?

Since YHWH is not a name, but a descriptive epithet used by both the Father and the Son, I have no problem with it at all.