tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post5875140495178407783..comments2023-11-02T07:25:45.884-05:00Comments on Mormanity - a blog for those interested in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: The Nahom Follies, Part 2: Could Nephi Have Known the Exodus Story? Does the Documentary Hypothesis Trump the Arabian Evidence?Jeff Lindsayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08776493593387402607noreply@blogger.comBlogger68125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-36498890874122643352015-10-30T13:16:37.636-05:002015-10-30T13:16:37.636-05:00Here I address Anderson, whose historical work I r...Here I address Anderson, whose historical work I respect. His linguistic work... Is he a trained linguist? No. He's a first-rate historian. First, Anderson probably did not use the dictated text (2009 Yale is the proxy for this) to make these comparisons. The same with Ludlow, who was not an expert in King James syntax or in earlier English. As a result, no rigorous comparison has yet been made between the dictation and bulk biblical passages. Second, there are more than 800 differences, and some of them show awareness of other biblical readings, and some of them show implicit knowledge of earlier English forms not found in the KJV. Thus it is reasonable to reject the above assertions.<br /><br />Also, had FairMormon asked Skousen to consult and write their answers with respect to these questions, then we would have something reliable. But it wasn't him. Who has written these? Do we know? Was it Gardner? If so, then we must take it with a grain of salt. Gardner isn't reliable because his translation theory is wrong. He follows Ludlow et al. down the primrose path.Dogberrynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-69168261323112003582015-10-30T00:04:53.806-05:002015-10-30T00:04:53.806-05:00Dogberry, How can it be a negative apologetic tact...Dogberry, How can it be a negative apologetic tactic when FairMormon, Jeff Lindsay and BYU emeritus professor of Church history and doctrine, Richard Lloyd Anderson all boil it down to the two explanations, God did it/ Smith copied a Bible?<br /><br />"The Book of Mormon incorporates text which seems to be taken from the Bible, including passages which are now considered to be mistranslations in the King James Version" -fairmormon.oeg<br /><br />FairMormon's explanation? Answer: God revealed the mistranslations to Smith<br /><br />"Given this evidence, we could assume that the Biblical (mistranslated) passages were revealed to Joseph during the translation process in a format almost identical with similar passages in the King James Bible" -fairmormon.org<br /><br />But Richard Lloyd Anderson (emeritus professor of Church history and doctrine at BYU no less) has a different take on the issue:<br /><br />"the language in the sections of the Book of Mormon that correspond to parts of the Bible is quite regularly selected by Joseph Smith, rather than obtained through independent translation. For instance, there are over 400 verses in which the Nephite prophets quote from Isaiah, and half of these appear precisely as the King James version renders them. Summarizing the view taken by Latter-day Saint scholars on this point, Daniel H. Ludlow emphasizes the inherent variety of independent translation and concludes: “There appears to be only one answer to explain the word-for-word similarities between the verses of Isaiah in the Bible and the same verses in the Book of Mormon.” That is simply that Joseph Smith must have opened Isaiah and tested each mentioned verse by the Spirit: “If his translation was essentially the same as that of the King James version, he apparently quoted the verse from the Bible.” Thus the Old Testament passages from Isaiah display a particular choice of phraseology that suggests Joseph Smith’s general freedom throughout the Book of Mormon for optional wording" - Richard Lloyd Anderson -emeritus professor of Church history and doctrine at BYUflying fignoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-31203033150334535052015-10-29T21:43:53.299-05:002015-10-29T21:43:53.299-05:002N27:11,19,20,22,24.2N27:11,19,20,22,24.Dogberrynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1360328260939646562015-10-29T17:43:29.801-05:002015-10-29T17:43:29.801-05:00Sorry, KJV "errors" are not powerful evi...Sorry, KJV "errors" are not powerful evidence. As stated, this is a negative apologetic tactic. One should have more respect for Skousen's opinion on this matter, and the text itself!, than for FairMormon's take on this, or Lindsay's opinion, or Gardner's, or Hardy's, etc.: JS read words -- 2N27:9,11,20,22,24.Dogberrynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-54993590623035668372015-10-29T14:05:13.535-05:002015-10-29T14:05:13.535-05:00Quite right, FF.
BTW, note the double standard th...Quite right, FF.<br /><br />BTW, note the double standard that apologists apply to the evidence. The apologist goes gaga over every tiny bit of arcane evidence that (say) the BoM contains pre-KJV EModE, no matter how sketchy it is (and how inherently senseless it is; what could possibly be the reason for the BoM to have any such language at all?). But not so when it comes to much more powerful, obvious, and relevant evidence such as the presence of KJV errors. <br /><br />It's as if two people were arguing over whether their uncle is rich, as follows:<br /><br />John the Apologist: Uncle Bob is rich!<br /><br />Jim the skeptic: Why do you say so?<br /><br />John A: Well, he has a nice suit.<br /><br />Jim S: But appearances can be deceiving. I've seen Uncle Bob's credit rating, and it's terrible. The last check he wrote to me bounced. The bank is repossessing his house.<br /><br />John A: But he's rich, I tell you! Why else would he wear a hat that looks just like the one worn by Thurston Howell III on <i>Gilligan's Island</i>?<br /><br />Jim S: Ooookay.... Did I mention that he lost his job two years ago, and that his unemployment ran out, and that I found him last week on the on-ramp with a cardboard sign asking for gas money?<br /><br />John A: See! You know who else doesn't go in to work in the morning? Rich people!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04668073406352787818noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-89354121076227552412015-10-29T09:21:53.622-05:002015-10-29T09:21:53.622-05:00Fierce anger? Sorry, but that's your own inter...Fierce anger? Sorry, but that's your own interpretation of my comment. The fact is Jeff and FairMormon acknowledge there are actual KJV translation errors and added italicized words in the BoM <br /><br />"FairMormon does not take about position that God revealed 1769 KJV errors to Joseph, nor does FairMormon "concede" that Joseph copied KJV text over to the Book of Mormon. What FairMormon does do is acknowledge that there is scholarship that supports either position...Some LDS scholars believe that Joseph copied Biblical passages over to the Book of Mormon...Other scholars take the position that when Joseph reached a Biblical passage in the translation, that God, in most cases, simply gave him the ability to quote the verse as it existed in the currently available Bible."<br /><br />http://en.fairmormon.org/Criticism_of_Mormonism/Online_documents/Letter_to_a_CES_Director/Book_of_Mormon_Concerns_%26_Questions#Response_to_claim:_.22Contrary_to_FairMormon.E2.80.99s_assertion_above_that_God_himself_revealed_the_1769_KJV_errors_to_Joseph.2C_FairMormon_is_conceding_here_that_Joseph_copied_KJV_text_over_to_the_Book_of_Mormon.22<br /><br />They realize either God added the mistakes or Smith copied from a bible. Both are equally damaging but are admittedly the only explanation. flying fignoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-13898820444471403712015-10-29T08:13:07.252-05:002015-10-29T08:13:07.252-05:00As indicated above, OK, most of the so-called erro...As indicated above, OK, most of the so-called errors, are not errors. They have been declared to be errors as a negative apologetic tactic. What we see above, folks, from OK and ff is lame apologetics from the other side. Best to ignore their fierce anger when their faithless views are reasonably assaulted.Dogberrynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-46743375460253455062015-10-29T07:30:28.767-05:002015-10-29T07:30:28.767-05:00To the faithful LDS, the ONLY explanation for KJV ...To the faithful LDS, the ONLY explanation for KJV errors and added italicized words found in the BoM is that God purposely put them there. Any other explanation destroys the eyewitness testimony that Smith did not use a bible, destroys the credibility of Smith as a true prophet, and destroys the credibility of the BoM as an ancient text.<br /> Jeff knows it, FARMS knows it and as we've seen how troubling issues are usually handled, the Church will simply ignore it until enough members take notice and they issue a formal explanation, declare its not a big deal and for everyone to get over it.<br /><br />As you said, Orbiting, it's simply "inconceivable that these errors would have been present in the ancient original; why in the world would a divine agent take a biblical passage that was correct in the original and change it to something wrong in the translation?"flying fignoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-60872910761055547792015-10-29T00:41:46.324-05:002015-10-29T00:41:46.324-05:00Smith re-transmitted an English translation carrie...<i>Smith re-transmitted an English translation carried out by a divine agency, which used the KJV for biblical passages (for the most part). That is understandable given the KJV's prominence in 1820s America....</i><br /><br />That does not strike me as "understandable" at all, Dogberry.<br /><br />I suppose one could see why a "divine agency" would use the KJV version insofar as doing so actually afforded a faithful translation of the ancient text, but in the process of doing so, wouldn't that divine agent -- being <i>divine</i> and all -- know better than to replicate flat-out mistakes made by King James's scholars? It's inconceivable that these errors would have been present in the ancient original; why in the world would a divine agent take a biblical passage that was <i>correct</i> in the original and change it to something <i>wrong</i> in the translation?<br /><br />Joseph Smith said it was the most perfect book on earth. Given that, and given the fact that the passages in question are from (as you correctly point out) the single most important book in 1820s America, and given the Book of Mormon's supposedly earth-shattering role in restoring God's True Church, why would a divine agent put mistakes into it?<br /><br />Far from being "understandable," it boggles the mind. It just shows the mental contortions the apologist is willing to peform when the evidence conflicts with the testimony.<br /><br />Face it, people: the Book of Mormon is a product of the 19th century.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04668073406352787818noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-63345746424883245792015-10-28T22:22:15.826-05:002015-10-28T22:22:15.826-05:00Yes, "tight control" (JBMS 7.1 (1998):24...Yes, "tight control" (JBMS 7.1 (1998):24), all the way. Skousen has concluded, based on MS evidence, printed edition evidence, internal textual evidence, and external textual evidence that the translation was tightly controlled, word for word. That view accepts that the KJV was used in the English-language translation. KJV readings were often used word for word. Nevertheless, many times there are changes. What may look like "loose control" is attributable to the divine faculty that translated the text.<br /><br />KJV errors: Textual usage like satyrs, pleasant pictures, quick understanding, seraphims, etc. are hardly errors. Satyrs are part goat, the next two are difficult passages that have puzzled translators for a long time. They can be cast and recast in multiple ways (how about a nice Segond reading for the second one?; and anyway, we're far from the earliest MSS). As for double-plural seraphims, it was the dominant way to express the sense in earlier English (and double plurals are found throughout the world's languages). The Red Sea passage is probably an error, but what does it tell us about authorship? Not much. It could be an error that was on the brass plates, that Nephi made, or that Smith made. Inconclusive. See Skousen's ATV on this.<br /><br />On the tight control view: Smith re-transmitted an English translation carried out by a divine agency, which used the KJV for biblical passages (for the most part). That is understandable given the KJV's prominence in 1820s America. Still, there are more than 800 word/constituent differences in bulk biblical passages. So either the divine agency made a lot of changes, or Smith did. The problem with the latter view is that in addition to standard 1769 readings, there is a Coverdale reading, there is a 1611 reading (probably more), and there are tweaks of the language that are found only in earlier English. So if we say Smith used a Bible, then he needed at least three. And would there have been 800+ changes with a scribe reading back to Smith what had just been written, in order to check accuracy? Probably not. And there is at least one other possible Coverdale element in the text, so that reading cannot be called a one-off thing.Dogberrynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-39643236601300569282015-10-28T09:47:15.384-05:002015-10-28T09:47:15.384-05:00Anon 2:02, you write that, according to Skousen, t...Anon 2:02, you write that, according to Skousen, <i>the text was given to Joseph Smith word for word and ... he read off revealed words to scribes</i>.<br /><br />Does that mean Skousen believes the translation was "tight control" for the entire text? This would be significant as it would eliminate the "loose control" explanation for the presence of KJV translation errors. That explanation never made sense for other reasons, but it would be nice to know that a Mormon expert of Skousen's stature rejects it on textual grounds.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04668073406352787818noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-76524286172540236672015-10-26T10:14:31.072-05:002015-10-26T10:14:31.072-05:00Yes, they desperately are overdoing it. It's r...Yes, they desperately are overdoing it. It's rather lame, but it keeps researchers busy and creates jobs and conferences and a patina of respectability. Untangle things and pontificate endlessly about inconclusive matters. If your work tends to strike down the possibility of the divine, then you have a greater chance of advancing in your career. Ever learning and never coming to the knowledge of the truth.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-51776648438174087232015-10-25T19:06:32.434-05:002015-10-25T19:06:32.434-05:00Back to RT's comments, regarding the idea of t...Back to RT's comments, regarding the idea of the Exodus being known among the Hebrews before the exile, he said <i>"I don't think you have reasonably substantiated this statement by any means. It was widely known among Judahites of the late 7th century-early 6th century and yet doesn't appear in authentically dated works from this period, such as in prophetic literature?"</i><br /><br />Hosea, a pre-exilic prophet, refers to Egypt: <br /><br />But I have been the Lord your God ever since you came out of Egypt. You shall acknowledge no God but me, no Savior except me. I cared for you in the wilderness, in the land of burning heat. (Hosea 13:4-5 NIV)<br /><br />1“When Israel was a child, I loved him,<br /><br />and out of Egypt I called my son. . . .<br /><br /><br />5“Will they not return to Egypt<br /><br />and will not Assyria rule over them<br /><br />because they refuse to repent? (Hos 11:1,5 NIV)<br /><br />Is Hosea now disputed as part of the prophetic literature? <br /><br />Jeremiah and Ezekiel also make references to the Exodus. After this error was pointed out in Wellhausen's work, people now claim that those parts must have been written later, but what is the evidence that the language of Jeremiah is post-exilic? It is often close to D from Josiah's day. <br /><br />On top of that, Friedman has made reasonable arguments about the reality of the Exodus, and also see J Berman's article at Mosaic Magazine: http://mosaicmagazine.com/essay/2015/03/was-there-an-exodus/. <br /><br />Perhaps the biblical minimalists are overdoing the undoing of the Bible. Jeff Lindsayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08776493593387402607noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-75888971308407612212015-10-25T15:14:08.701-05:002015-10-25T15:14:08.701-05:00I think that's the kind of embarrassment BYU i...I think that's the kind of embarrassment BYU is increasingly trying to avoid. Personally, I think it's a good (and overdue) strategy: let people do apologetics to their heart's content; just let them do it elsewhere, so that the lunacies that will inevitably emerge form it (e.g., <i>horses</i> refers to tapirs, the BoM is written in Early Modern English) don't discredit the university.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04668073406352787818noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-15646306606128117802015-10-25T14:53:24.335-05:002015-10-25T14:53:24.335-05:00That last link is to a blog post by William Hambli...That last link is to a blog post by William Hamblin, a full Professor at BYU. If that's standing up for ancient Book of Mormon studies, then maybe he should have stayed sitting down, because his failure to mention any specific major achievement of the field makes a bad impression. It's like an NBA player striding out onto the court and shouting, "You say I got no game?" Then when everyone's waiting for him to prove them wrong by sinking a three-pointer, he just says, "That's mean!" and goes back to the bench.<br /><br />Jeff Lindsay does a much better job than that right here, it seems to me.James Anglinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18266855639647700167noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-53446455343739043272015-10-25T11:58:33.831-05:002015-10-25T11:58:33.831-05:00I agree, James. Apologetics and academic research ...I agree, James. Apologetics and academic research have decidedly different standards, and this difference has always caused tension in church-sponsored universities.<br /><br />At BYU there seems to be a struggle going on right now. As a religious university, should it put the emphasis on the "religious" part of the mission, and support the apologists -- who rarely seek peer review and whose work is often academically suspect -- simply because it helps build faith? The downside here is a resulting decline of the BYU degree out there in the wider world where graduates compete for jobs and graduate/professional school admissions.<br /><br />Or should it put the emphasis on the "university" mission and only support those who submit their work to the independent secular judgment of "the world" and are willing to follow the evidence wherever it leads?<br /><br />This tension exists at all theologically conservative colleges and universities. At BYU, much to the chagrin of the <a href="http://www.patheos.com/blogs/faithpromotingrumor/2015/9/why-byu-destroyed-ancient-book-of-mormon-studies/" rel="nofollow">FARMS-style apologists</a>, the academic standard appears to be <a href="http://www.patheos.com/blogs/enigmaticmirror/2015/9/8/how-byu-destroyed-ancient-book-of-mormon-studies/" rel="nofollow">gaining.</a>Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04668073406352787818noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-43413670410870972782015-10-25T09:53:13.477-05:002015-10-25T09:53:13.477-05:00If I were buying a car, and a guy I knew from chur...If I were buying a car, and a guy I knew from church or something was a lifelong car buff who had devoted decades of study to cars, then I might well be perfectly satisfied to buy a car on this one guy's recommendation. On the other hand, though, I might still want to hear advice from a few other people as well — because you never know. Among people who devote decades of study to things, some are obsessive wackos with ideological axes to grind.<br /><br />Academic scholarship has far higher standards even than car buying. Where I as a nervous car buyer may say, "Wow! Decades of study!", as an academic I'm saying, "Just one guy?" James Anglinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18266855639647700167noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-52619127920734240252015-10-24T16:07:42.974-05:002015-10-24T16:07:42.974-05:00If that is Skousen's studied opinion, then I t...If that is Skousen's studied opinion, then I think the book is most definitely a fraud. The book wasn't translated at all then. It was channeled. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-51232343114919561442015-10-24T14:02:52.521-05:002015-10-24T14:02:52.521-05:00It is Skousen's studied opinion, after decades...It is Skousen's studied opinion, after decades of research as a critical text analyst and linguist, that the text was given to Joseph Smith word for word and that he read off revealed words to scribes.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-32769763706812952792015-10-24T10:10:40.533-05:002015-10-24T10:10:40.533-05:00@Stephen Smoot and RT:
I don't read Hebrew, b...@Stephen Smoot and RT:<br /><br />I don't read Hebrew, but I do a fair amount of talking and (simple) writing in a second language, and my wife is a linguist who studies cross-linguistic influence. So I'm interested in the general problem of recognizing the influence of one language on a text written in another. Would either of you be willing to give any specific examples of Book of Mormon passages that either show, or do not show, awareness of ancient Hebrew language or style?<br /><br />Beyond that issue itself, I'm a bit confused about its implications for the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. If a passage in an English text seems poorly written, then this might be explained as bad translation from an original language. But if the Book of Mormon was translated by the power of God, it's hard to understand why the translation should be bad. Going from Hebrew in reformed Egyptian characters to King James-ish English is already such a miracle; so why stop short of perfection?<br /><br />What I suppose I could understand would be a case for Book of Mormon English that was not bad, but just unusual in a poetic license sort of way, in such a way as to convey flavor and tone from a Hebrew original. That would be not bad translation, but remarkably good translation. To me, examples of that would indeed be consistent with the theory of divine translation. <br /><br />But it's not an easy case to establish. So far I haven't seen any examples of anything like that. All I've seen so far have been three kinds of things:<br />1) Bad-translation theories, where something that's confusing or even outright ungrammatical in English gets "explained" as being the kind of mistake that a translator might make if their English was weaker than their Hebrew;<br />2) Bad-translation theories, in which some bit of awkward English gets explained as Hebrew-English wordplay, even though cross-linguistic wordplay like that is actually pretty easy to invent, because you get to use the imprecision of translation twice, and even though the alleged puns in question hardly seem important enough that a good translator would commit bad English just to preserve them; or<br />3) Rhetorical forms like chiasmus and parallelism, which are effective in any language and easy to pick up from the King James Bible.<br /><br />What am I missing?James Anglinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18266855639647700167noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-27233496415785955362015-10-23T15:33:48.888-05:002015-10-23T15:33:48.888-05:00Anyone who can perform nude has a lot of..... self...Anyone who can perform nude has a lot of..... self confidence. <br /><br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-30982904775821940712015-10-23T13:51:31.651-05:002015-10-23T13:51:31.651-05:00RT says: "I read Hebrew, am very familiar wit...RT says: "I read Hebrew, am very familiar with Hebrew poetry, and disagree with the idea that the BoM reflects anything of the sort."<br /><br />I also read Hebrew and am familiar with Hebrew poetry, and for me there's no question that the Book of Mormon intimately reflects an awareness of ancient Hebraic poetic and literary form, style, etc. way beyond someone cribbing from the KJV.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00875946186254569775noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-47458544224937005392015-10-22T23:40:03.520-05:002015-10-22T23:40:03.520-05:00:-):-)Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04668073406352787818noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-12539051399326569702015-10-22T21:51:54.529-05:002015-10-22T21:51:54.529-05:00Sorry Orbiting, I didn't mean to imply that yo...Sorry Orbiting, I didn't mean to imply that you were making your students disrobe in class, or anything of the sort. I only meant to demonstrate my train of thought- that it would be odd for a physics or math department to have nude performances. I can see it in a department that includes theater classes, and I get that it was entirely up to the student. I had to adjust my thinking to realize you were in a department where that sort of thing made sense. And though I often disagree with you, I do think you are an interesting person.Ryannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-74003444680352822502015-10-22T19:03:38.318-05:002015-10-22T19:03:38.318-05:00Ryan, back in the day I did two years as a math/ph...Ryan, back in the day I did two years as a math/physics major, then tuned in, turned on, and dropped out for a few years, and returned to finish undergrad and grad school in English. I've been teaching and writing about literature ever since. The switch was not that dramatic for me, and didn't really surprise those who know me, since I've always been pretty passionate about both the sciences and the humanities.<br /><br />And just to be clear on a couple of things:<br /><br />(1) Not to rehash the whole nudity issue, but my involvement with it goes no further than being a member of a department that includes a theater program that requires students to direct a play and to act in one. Each student must choose his/her own play to direct, and theater students being what they are, some of them choose plays involving nudity. And some students choose to fulfill their acting requirement by acting in one of these plays <i>au naturel</i>. The point is that we do occasionally have students getting naked on stage, and sometimes in the course of doing so they are fulfilling a requirement for their major. But as I hope you can see, they're not being <i>required to perform in the nude</i>, since they can fulfill the acting requirement by acting in a play without nudity (as in fact the great majority of them do).<br /><br />This state of affairs is not all that complicated, but I can easily see some sleazy, outrage-mongering clickbait farm describing egregiously misrepresenting it by putting the words <i>nudity</i> and <i>required course</i> next to each other in a deliberately misleading way.<br /><br />(2) I'm not really that interesting a person. Certainly not a globe-trotting cosmopolite like Jeff.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04668073406352787818noreply@blogger.com