Jump to content

19th century anancronism in the book of mormon


Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

1 Nephi 5:11 And he beheld that they did contain the five abooks of Moses, which gave an account of the creation of the world, and also of Adam and Eve, who were our first parents;

Given that the Torah or Pentateuch, the first five books of the Bible: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy were not even combined into their current format until well after Lehi's departure, sometime in the 5th century according to Biblical Scholars, How exactly would Nephi or perhaps Mormon, the abridger, have known to refer to the Brass Plates as containing the 5 Books of Moses which did not exist at the time of Lehi?

While certainly not a death knell for Book of Mormon origin claims, do we just dismiss biblical scholarship?

Edited by Fair Dinkum
Link to post
2 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

1 Nephi 5:11 And he beheld that they did contain the five abooks of Moses, which gave an account of the creation of the world, and also of Adam and Eve, who were our first parents;

Given that the Torah or Pentateuch, the first five books of the Bible: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy were not even combined into their current format until well after Lehi's departure, sometime in the 5th century according to Biblical Scholars, How exactly would Nephi or perhaps Mormon, the abridger, have known to refer to the Brass Plates as containing the 5 Books of Moses which did not exist at the time of Lehi?

While certainly not a death knell for Book of Mormon origin claims, do we just dismiss biblical scholarship?

I don't think you have received a fair answer here.  

It is my opinion that Joseph Smith's translation drew heavily upon a Nineteenth century millieu, to the point that Hebraisms evident in the Book of Mormon are merely Nineteenth century interpretations of such Hebraisms.  I am influenced by Brant Gardner's "The Gift and Power: Translating the Book of Mormon" which makes the same conclusions.  Thus, the insertion of the five books of Moses is, indeed, an anachronism.  One of many, really, but the anachronisms don't explain away the greater miracle of the Book of Mormon.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
4 hours ago, ttribe said:

David Bokovoy's commentary on this issue is, in my opinion, a necessary part of the discussion - http://www.withoutend.org/apologetics-documentary-hypothesis-response/

I was wondering if that particular piece prompted this discussion. 

FWIW, Bokovoy maintains in that piece that he maintains the position he did in Authoring the Old Testament, so even by his lights this issue is not fatal to faith. I would add that Bokovoy seems somewhat trigger-happy when it comes to assertions of consensus. There's a very broad consensus that the Pentateuch in its present form was not authored by Moses in his lifetime. There's a pretty solid, though certainly not universal, critical mass of scholars who think they can identify D and P. Other than that, I'm not sure it can be fairly said that there is a consensus on the dating or even the identification of many elements. 

4 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

I don't think you have received a fair answer here.  

It is my opinion that Joseph Smith's translation drew heavily upon a Nineteenth century millieu, to the point that Hebraisms evident in the Book of Mormon are merely Nineteenth century interpretations of such Hebraisms.  I am influenced by Brant Gardner's "The Gift and Power: Translating the Book of Mormon" which makes the same conclusions.  Thus, the insertion of the five books of Moses is, indeed, an anachronism.  One of many, really, but the anachronisms don't explain away the greater miracle of the Book of Mormon.

Brant Gardner's book does not claim that all Hebraisms evident in the Book of Mormon are "merely Nineteenth-century interpretations of such Hebraisms." I think that is not a fair characterization of Gardner's work itself. Gardner is obviously a proponent of Joseph Smith's influence in the translation, as am I, but that's not an excuse to dismiss all the Hebraisms and Egyptianisms in the book, particularly those which contribute to our understanding of the passages in question. 

Also, if @Kevin Christensen's answer (which I wholeheartedly endorse) is not a "fair answer", what does "fair answer" mean? 

For my part, I'm not convinced that Norman Whybray's critiques of the Documentary Hypothesis from his 1987 The Making of the Pentateuch have been fully addressed. Whybray argues for a single pseudepigraphal author in the late postexilic period for the Pentateuch, so it's not like I'm quoting some fundamentalist. But he does critique the conceptions of authorial convention which underlie many of the premises of the Documentary Hypothesis, and though I have not been convinced to totally dismiss the DH (and I certainly don't hold to unitary authorship) my confidence in it has been strikingly diminished. 

Duane Garrett's Rethinking Genesis: The Source and Authorship of the First Book of the Pentateuch is on my reading list. 

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
5 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

As George W. Bush said once, "That boy's smart!" :D ;)

I have a magnate in my classroom that quotes W: "Rarely is the question asked, is our children learning?"

😁

  • Haha 1
Link to post
8 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

I have a magnate in my classroom that quotes W: "Rarely is the question asked, is our children learning?"

😁

Wow, that's cool!

You have a rich guy that hangs out in your class room??

How did he make all his money just sitting around all day?

Link to post
Posted (edited)
12 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Wow, that's cool!

You have a rich guy that hangs out in your class room??

How did he make all his money just sitting around all day?

It’s called passive income. Once your corpus has grown large enough, you can subsist on the growth. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to post
7 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It’s called passive income. Once your corpus has grown large enough, you can subsist into the growth. 

The idle rich...

Link to post
On 6/3/2021 at 7:30 AM, Fair Dinkum said:

1 Nephi 5:11 And he beheld that they did contain the five abooks of Moses, which gave an account of the creation of the world, and also of Adam and Eve, who were our first parents;

Given that the Torah or Pentateuch, the first five books of the Bible: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy were not even combined into their current format until well after Lehi's departure, sometime in the 5th century according to Biblical Scholars, How exactly would Nephi or perhaps Mormon, the abridger, have known to refer to the Brass Plates as containing the 5 Books of Moses which did not exist at the time of Lehi?

While certainly not a death knell for Book of Mormon origin claims, do we just dismiss biblical scholarship?

Since Lehi was a prophet perhaps by revelation he was already aware of what would eventually become the 5 books of Moses and that that information was included in the brass plates.
I know it's a weaker argument. 

Link to post

I don’t need my mind to jump through hoops to explain something....I believe it is anachronistic.  I also believe the BoM is a 19th century work.  A few years ago, in a seminar with new mission presidents, President Nelson stated “It is not a textbook of history, although some history is found within its pages....”.

https://www.ldsliving.com/President-Nelson-Shares-What-the-Book-of-Mormon-Is-Not/s/82550

Link to post
Posted (edited)
13 hours ago, 2BizE said:

I don’t need my mind to jump through hoops to explain something....I believe it is anachronistic.  I also believe the BoM is a 19th century work.  A few years ago, in a seminar with new mission presidents, President Nelson stated “It is not a textbook of history, although some history is found within its pages....”.

https://www.ldsliving.com/President-Nelson-Shares-What-the-Book-of-Mormon-Is-Not/s/82550

This is one of the most blatant instances of out-of-context quotation I’ve ever seen! Do you REALLY believe President Nelson was saying here that the Book of Mormon originated in the 19th century and was fiction invented out of whole cloth? 
 

Added later: This is from the Church News report from which the content to which you linked was taken:

President Nelson said part of the miracle of the Book of Mormon is its translation. He quoted several eyewitnesses to the book’s translation, including David Whitmer, who testified that it was “translated by the gift and power of God, and not by any power of man.”

President Nelson also quoted Emma Smith, who acted as an early scribe to her husband, Joseph Smith, during the translation process: “Joseph Smith … could neither write nor dictate a coherent and well-worded letter; let alone dictating a book like the Book of Mormon. … I was an active participant in the scenes that transpired. … It is marvelous to me, ‘a marvel and a wonder.’”

Edited by Scott Lloyd
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
12 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

This is one of the most blatant instances of out-of-context quotation I’ve ever seen! Do you REALLY believe President Nelson was saying here that the Book of Mormon originated in the 19th century and was fiction invented out of whole cloth? 
 

Added later: This is from the Church News report from which the content to which you linked was taken:

President Nelson said part of the miracle of the Book of Mormon is its translation. He quoted several eyewitnesses to the book’s translation, including David Whitmer, who testified that it was “translated by the gift and power of God, and not by any power of man.”

President Nelson also quoted Emma Smith, who acted as an early scribe to her husband, Joseph Smith, during the translation process: “Joseph Smith … could neither write nor dictate a coherent and well-worded letter; let alone dictating a book like the Book of Mormon. … I was an active participant in the scenes that transpired. … It is marvelous to me, ‘a marvel and a wonder.’”

Why would I think that President Nelson believes the BoM is 19th century work?  I don’t think he does.  That is what I believe.  I do think he was wanting to ensure the new mission presidents understood what the BoM is not.  He certainly believes it is not a textbook of history.

Link to post
5 hours ago, 2BizE said:

Why would I think that President Nelson believes the BoM is 19th century work?  I don’t think he does.  That is what I believe.  I do think he was wanting to ensure the new mission presidents understood what the BoM is not.  He certainly believes it is not a textbook of history.

Why would you insert a quote from him into a paragraph in which you overtly denied the authenticity of the Book of Mormon if you didn’t intend the quote to support your denial? This does not compute. 

Link to post
On 6/3/2021 at 3:33 PM, OGHoosier said:

Gardner is obviously a proponent of Joseph Smith's influence in the translation, as am I, but that's not an excuse to dismiss all the Hebraisms and Egyptianisms in the book, particularly those which contribute to our understanding of the passages in question. 

I have it on pretty good authority that he is skeptical of Hebraisms that are not involved with names. Names appear to follow a different logic in the translation--or so I think he thinks.

  • Haha 2
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
6 hours ago, Brant Gardner said:

I have it on pretty good authority that he is skeptical of Hebraisms that are not involved with names. Names appear to follow a different logic in the translation--or so I think he thinks.


I want to know what makes you the authority on what this Brant Gardner fellow thinks. 🤡

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
8 hours ago, Peppermint Patty said:


I want to know what makes you the authority on what this Brant Gardner fellow thinks. 🤡

😄

Link to post
13 hours ago, Peppermint Patty said:


I want to know what makes you the authority on what this Brant Gardner fellow thinks. 🤡

You know, I have so many people wonder why I think I might be an authority on anything--so I guess it just goes with the territory.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
On 6/5/2021 at 10:00 AM, Scott Lloyd said:

This is one of the most blatant instances of out-of-context quotation I’ve ever seen! Do you REALLY believe President Nelson was saying here that the Book of Mormon originated in the 19th century and was fiction invented out of whole cloth? 
 

Added later: This is from the Church News report from which the content to which you linked was taken:

President Nelson said part of the miracle of the Book of Mormon is its translation. He quoted several eyewitnesses to the book’s translation, including David Whitmer, who testified that it was “translated by the gift and power of God, and not by any power of man.”

President Nelson also quoted Emma Smith, who acted as an early scribe to her husband, Joseph Smith, during the translation process: “Joseph Smith … could neither write nor dictate a coherent and well-worded letter; let alone dictating a book like the Book of Mormon. … I was an active participant in the scenes that transpired. … It is marvelous to me, ‘a marvel and a wonder.’”

Perhaps this quote from Emma shouldn't be appealed to, considering that we know very well that Joseph could both write and dictate quite eloquent letters, and that in this very interview Emma lied about Joseph's polygamous marriages.

  • Like 2
Link to post
28 minutes ago, the narrator said:

Perhaps this quote from Emma shouldn't be appealed to, considering that we know very well that Joseph could both write and dictate quite eloquent letters, and that in this very interview Emma lied about Joseph's polygamous marriages.

Was Emma referring to Joseph's ability at the time of the translation of the Book of Mormon or throughout his life?  I would assume that Joseph's ability improved over time.

  • Like 2
Link to post
1 hour ago, ksfisher said:

Was Emma referring to Joseph's ability at the time of the translation of the Book of Mormon or throughout his life?  I would assume that Joseph's ability improved over time.

That has always been my assumption. 

Link to post
2 hours ago, the narrator said:

Perhaps this quote from Emma shouldn't be appealed to, considering that we know very well that Joseph could both write and dictate quite eloquent letters, and that in this very interview Emma lied about Joseph's polygamous marriages.

Be that as it may, you’ve quite missed the point. I’m not quoting Emma, I’m quoting President Nelson. And I’m doing it to rebut what 2BizE implied or seemed to imply: that President Nelson doesn’t believe the Book of Mormon is an authentic narrative. 

Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...