wcsa@cbnewsc.att.com (08/30/90)
In article <Aug.26.22.41.28.1990.903@athos.rutgers.edu>, firth@sei.cmu.edu (Robert Firth) writes: >You probably would. Unfortunately, the Book of Mormon quotes >substantial chunks of parts of Isaiah that did not exist in >600 BC (the parts now attributed to Deutero-Isaiah). Joseph >Smith didn't know this, and so didn't realise that by these >quotations he was providing us with clear proof that the BoM >is a forgery. I recall you arguing this point once before, about two years ago on t.r.m. Since that time, I've reviewed the controversy of the multiple Isaiah problem, reconsidered my remarks, and I would like to present following response: Suppose I accept the concept of multiple Isaiahs based on the stylistic differences of 1-39 and 40-66, or even further 40-55 and 56-66 (three Isaiahs), by what *evidence* do you claim that *all* of chapters 40-66 were written after 600 BC? Apart from *obvious* interpolations (ie., Cyrus: 41:1-42:9; 43:9-44:23; 45:14-25), which are NOT included in the BoM, I don't see that you have much of a case. The admission of multiple Isaiah is not conclusive evidence that the passages in question were written after 600 BC. Even more interesting, nothing from 3rd Isaiah, (chapters 56-66) is contained in the BoM. So, I can accept the possibility that portions of Isaiah were written after 600 BC, but I am waiting to see the evidence that the portions of Isaiah contained in the BoM (even if they were written by a second Isaiah) *had* to be written after 600 BC. If you try to argue that the "Israel in Captivity" tradition was only devised after 600 BC, I will be glad to point out portions of 1st and 2nd Kings and other writings that predate 600 BC that allude strongly to the Israel in Captivity tradition (such as 1 Kings 8:46-51). So, even if you accept the multiple Isaiahs, you have no really strong evidence that any of the Isaiah passages contained in the BoM were written after 600 BC. Far from being an obvious forgery, what the BoM includes and excludes from Isaiah invites a much closer examination. -- Willard C. Smith att!iwsgw!wcsa wcsa@iwsgw.att.com "It's life, Captain, but not as we know it." [Right. Citing second Isaiah is an argument that I suspect would not be convincing to a majority of Christians. A criterion that would be more widely acknowledged would be to look at the textual history of passages quoted in the BoM. E.g. does it quote any passages later modified on the basis of Dead Sea material? If so, does it contain the KJV version or the Dead Sea version? This is not a perfect test, because there's no guarantee that we now have perfect texts, and texts brought to the New World may not have been perfect either. But you'd expect to see BoM quotations of the OT showing at least some improvements over the text used in the KJV. I've heard some allusions to tests like this having been done, but don't know any details. --clh]
hall@vice.ico.tek.com (Hal Lillywhite) (09/14/90)
In article <Sep.9.00.56.38.1990.9638@athos.rutgers.edu> firth@sei.cmu.edu (Robert Firth) writes: >Our good moderator chides me for my simplistic dismissal of >The Book of Mormon on the grounds that it quotes parts of the >Book of Isaiah that some people claim are post-Exilic. He >continues: >>... But you'd >>expect to see BoM quotations of the OT showing at least some >>improvements over the text used in the KJV. > >I agree. Indeed, if somebody could cite several such passages - >where the BoM disagrees with the AV and with the scholarship >of Smith's time, but agrees with more modern scholarship, I'd >regard that as strong evidence against my claim. I respectfully >invite such evidence. The following are a few examples of where the Book of Mormon, King James Bible and Qumran (Dead Sea scrolls) give different versions of some of the book of Isaiah. This is taken from "The Isaiah Variants in the Book of Mormon" by John A. Tvedtnes, published by FARMS (the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies), P.O. Box 7113, Provo, Utah 84602. This is not an extensive comparison between the 3 sources and it is quite probable I have overlooked even some pertinent information in Tvedtnes paper. In fact I only got about half way through it and ran out of time. I would invite those interested to get a copy of the paper and look it over themselves. Tvedtnes looks at the cases where the BoM Isaiah differes from the King James and tries to determine the reasons for the differences and classify them into several categories. There is of course quite a bit more than just Qumran comparisons. If I get time I will try to do a more extensive extract from this paper and post it later. I will use the following abbreviations to refer to the various manuscripts: KJ: King James Bible BM: Book of Mormon MT: Masoretic text LXX: Septuagint 1Q: The first Qumran scroll of Isaiah 1 Ne, 2 Ne refer to books in the BoM I will also try to indicate italicized words in KJ by dashes, ie. -it-. Is 2:22, 2 Ne 12:11: BM adds to the beginning, "And it shall come to pass..." This is partially supported by both LXX and 1Q which add the "and," probably lost by haplography in MT. Is 2:20, 2 Ne 12:20 BM: he hath made for himself. KJ: they made each one for himself. MT: which they made for him 1Q: which his fingers made. (somewhat interpolated, there is a tear in the edge of the manuscript here.) Is 3:9, 2 Ne 13:9 BM: and they cannot hide it KJ: they hide -it- not MT: (agrees with KJ) 1Q, LXX add the "and" In this same verse BoM has "soul" in the plural while KJ gives the singular. MT, LXX, and 1Q all have singular but Hebrew singulars often have collective meaning. Is 3:11, 2 Ne 13:11 BM: the reward of their hands shall be upon them KJ: the reward of his hands shall be given him MT: the reward of his hands shall be done 1Q: the reward of his hands shall return KJ gives a very loose translation of MT. BM is closer to 1Q than to any of the others. All the versions non-BM give singular but the antecedent ("the wicked") is probably collective so it is probably justified to use the plural in English. In this verse no 2 versions agree. Is 9:9, 2 Ne 19:9 BM: inhabitants KJ: inhabitant LXX: agrees with BM MT: agrees with KJ (but could have collective sense) 1Q: abbreviated, could be either singular or plural. Is 13:22, 2 Ne 23:22 BM: her day shall not be prolonged for I will destroy her speedily; yea, for I will be merciful unto my people but the wicked shall perish. KJ: her days shall not be prolonged. LXX: quickly shall it be done and shall not be delayed 1Q: her days shall not be prolonged more. (BM ending starts with "for" as does the next verse, 14:1. This phrase could have been dropped by haplography. Note that the BM addition leads much more naturally to the meaning of the following verses.) Is 14:2, 2 Ne 24:2 BM: and bring them to their place, yea, from the far ends of the earth; and they shall return to their lands of promise. KJ: and bring them to their place. MT: agrees with KJ 1Q: and bring them to their land and to their place. (Again, wording is similar enough in verses 1 and 2 that some haplography may have occured.) Is 14:2, 2 Ne 24:2 (later in the same verse as above) BM: and the land KJ: in the land MT, LXX: upon the land 1Q: unto the land Is 14:32, 2 Ne 24:32 BM: What shall then answer the messengers KJ: What shall -one- then answer the messengers MT: agrees with KJ (somewhat uncertain) LXX: what shall the kings of the nations answer 1Q: agrees with BM (also the verb is plural,indicating "messengers" instead of "one") Is 29:5, 2 Ne 26:18 BM: those who have been destroyed KJ: the multitude of thy strangers MT: agrees with KJ LXX: the wealth of the unholy ones 1Q: "zryq" meaning unknown and perhaps scribal error Is 29:7, 2 Ne 27:3a BM: Zion KJ: Ariel LXX: Israel (most Mss) 1Q: Ariel Is 29:12, 2 Ne 27:19 BM: the Lord God will deliver again the book KJ: and the book is delivered LXX, MT: agree with KJ 1Q: and they shall deliver the book
mls@sfsup.att.com (Mike Siemon) (09/17/90)
In article <Sep.13.04.17.38.1990.24897@athos.rutgers.edu>, wcsa@cbnewsc.att.com writes: > Robert Firth asserts that the Isaiah passages in the BoM represent a > an inaccurate translation of the AV (suggesting that it was lifted from > the AV) rather than an older and more accurate text, such as the > Massoretic. Again, I suggest that Robert's approach to the problem, based > on Isa 5:25 - 2 Ne 15:25, is far too simplistic. While most biblical > scholars might agree that the Massoretic text *gernerally* represents an > older and thus more accurate text, I sincerely doubt that they hold to the > notion that *all* the Massoretic text is older and thus more accurate. If There are two questions here which you are conflating to the confusion of both. Yes, scholars will sometimes find a rendition in the Septugint or elsewhere good evidence for an earlier textform than is present in the Masoretic text. If one were to take seriously the contention that the Book of Mormon is based on some independent text tradition, it would in fact be necessary to examine the whole corpus of such crucial readings. However, the case Robert cites is rather different in character. You see, the translators empanelled by King James *intended* to use the Masoretic text -- as may be inferred from the translators' preface and confirmed in a number of ways. The trouble is that these earnest and scholarly men were not all that far from the beginnings of Hebrew schol- arship by Europeans, and they simply bobbled the translation in this case. It is NOT a question of variant readings in manuscript attestation of the text. Precisely BECAUSE the KJV scholars *intended* to use the Masoretic text, *their* readings have *no* significance textually. However, they *do* have substantial value as signs of those who take their readings *from* the KJV -- an egregious error in one source is a pointer that those who later repeat the same error have seen that source. This does not completely eliminate the case where the KJV is used as a purely conventional substitution for what is "recognized" as the same text elsewhere -- but one must then wonder at the integrity of such a usage in biblical translation, where people have been known to make a big deal out of very small points. As I said in this context elsewhere, biblical translation is one field where conventional substitutions are NOT practiced as they are in secular translation, just because of the amibguities that practice would introduce. > May I submit simply the tip of the iceburg, 12 cases: > > 1 - Isa 3:26 = 2 Ne 13:26 > KJV: and she *being* desolate > BoM: and she shall be desolate > (MT Hebrew favors BoM) May I humbly submit, from a *very* limited knowledge of Hebrew, that it is preposterous, in view of Hebrew verb usage, to MAKE any distinction between the forced renderings into English here? *If* (and it's a nice if of typographical history) the rendering of auxiliary verb forms in italics was the common practice in Smith's day for English bibles, then the italics *signal* to anyone reading them a possibility for variation of the English phrasing, specifically in regard to verb forms. Because the KJV translators, terribly concerned for a word-by-word translation, *deliberately* pointed to places where *they* made an arbitrary decision in order to "get" English out of Hebrew. There will be many situations where *conventional* modern translation of a particular Hebrew form will differ from the convention adopted by the KJV scholars (again, their knowledge of Hebrew was limited); given that some arbitrary rendering into English *is* necessary, the acutal choice may be dictated more by the development of English syntax (the obsolesence of the form used in the KJV) than by any reference to an ancient text. I don't mean to be snottily dismissive; the *kind* of study you point to *is* relevant to the issue you raise. But the exerpts you post seem so linguistically unsophisticated that I despair of seeing any usable treatment of the problem.
wcsa@cbnewsc.att.com (09/23/90)
Mike Siemon's rather forceful comments remind me that nothing done
quick and dirty is worth doing. So, please understand that when
approaching the problem of Isaiah variants in the BoM, I'm usually
juggling several different problems that Mike, Firth, and others on
the net seem to have no knowledge. The result will be that I will
pass over issues that do not present any problems to me (maybe I should
take them more seriously), and address issues that are confusing or
seem to avoid the problems that are of concern to others as Siemon and
Firth.
When talking about the BoM's rendering of Isaiah I am considering several
problems: 1- the method of translation, 2- the impact of the translation
method on textual criticism, and 3- the impact of the BoM's rendition on
the interpretation of Isaiah. Intersecting these three problems are several
schools of thought among the Mormons which I will designate the B.H. Roberts
school (BHR) and the original tradition school (OT). A sort of middle
ground does exist between these two schools, a literal No Man's Land, but
for the sake time and space, I won't go into any description of that
position.
The translation of the BoM is a hotly debated topic among Mormon scholars
basically because JS never really told us the exact process, and the process
will influence how Mormons will approach the text. We can piece
together bits here and there, from D&C 9 and off hand comments by JS,
his wife, and several people, and from remarks set down by Oliver Cowdery,
who was present during most of the translation process. You hear from
time to time about JS using a "seer stone" with English text appearing
and disappearing magically. I'm sorry, but there are major problems with
that, not the least is D&C 9. Exactly how "seer stones" figure in, is
debatable, but what we do know from Cowdery is that near the end of the
translation of the BoM, JS was so "tuned in" to his source that he would
sit next to Cowdery, with the covered plates on the table, and dictate the
manuscript to him, page after page, hour after hour without the use of
stones, hats, or other cognative aids!
Additional significance deals with the order in which the BoM was translated.
Most people ASSUME that the first books (1 and 2 Nephi, Jacob) were produced
first. In fact, they were the *last* books to be translated, moreover, the
lengthy passages of Isaiah are found in those books.
The BHR school feels that when JS came to the lengthy passages of Isaiah,
found in 2nd Nephi, he simply copied the AV, except in instances where he
felt that changes were necessary. This would account for the minute
comparison of the text between the BoM and the AV. This also allows the
application of all the current tools and thoughts of biblical criticism
to be applied to this section of the BoM. This school tends to push the
BoM text back to the MT except in instances where alternative traditions
can be shown.
But Cowdery's account of the translation process does not mention the use
of a bible at any time. Now maybe that's simply an oversight of Cowdery,
but Mormons are going to have to consider the possibility that the Isaiah
portions of the BoM may have been given as part of the translation process
rather than simply a comparison with the AV. The OT school will take this
position on the translation process (more or less) and looks at the
differences between the BoM, AV, and MT as evidence of an older more
accurate tradition that is now lost, but restored by JS. Generally (but
not always), modern biblical criticism doesn't appeal too strongly to
the adherents of this view.
The battlefront of these two schools, so to speak, can be drawn, in the
case of BoM Isaiah variants, down two lines: the first involves those
instances where the BoM rendition equals the AV, but both are unequal to
the Masoretic Text, and the second line is drawn where the BoM's rendition
is not equal to the AV. One example, from each of these lines, should be
enough to give an idea of each two school approachs the problem.
First, let's examine the specific problem raised by Robert Firth, concerning
a passage in which the BoM and AV agree, but that they disagree with the
MT (a total of five cases have been identified).
Suppose you find a passage in the AV that could be considered to be a
mistranslation of the MT and you find that passage in the BoM, well, that
lends credit to the view of BHR. This presents no problem because, after
all, Mormons don't accept the notion of inerrancy, and the only sure way
of knowing the original intent is through the Holy Ghost (no surprises
there).
But the OT school is going to scream *foul*. Noone has proved that a
mistranslation has taken place, and the possiblity that the alternate
reading is a legitmate tradition is virtually ignored.
Robert Firth indicated that the rendering of Isa 5:25 = 2 Ne 15:25 is a
mistranslation of the MT. The OT would ask how does he know exactly which
tradition was used to translate this passage. While it is general
knowledge that the translators of the AV generally used the MT for the
Old Testament and the Stephen text for the New, the translation was not
based exclusively on those texts. The resulting task would be to chase
down all the primary sources used by the translators and determine that,
yes there was a mistranslation. Fortunately, for Firth, the problem is
much easier: an examination of the passage in question shows that a
relatively simple change can throw the meaning in either direction for
or against the tradition described in the BoM (that's why Firth's problem
is not very interesting).
The OT would also respond to Firth by pointing out that a tradition
supporting the rendering of the passage in favor of the BoM and AV but
against the MT exists. One such example was described by Gary L. Bishop in
1974 and comes from the portions of Isaiah found among the Qumran scrolls of
cave IV.
"The second difference between MT and 4QpIsa^b can be viewed in a couple
of ways. If the scribe of 4QpIsa^b simply left the *waw* out as an
oversight, then MT and 4QpIsa^b agree. if there was no oversight, then
the word in 4QpIsa^b is a verb in the perfect form and related the idea
of something having been cut. This verbal meaning would agree with the
idea of the English, "were torn." However, the pointing in MT clearly
indicates the word is a noun beginning with an inseparable preposition
and assimilated definite article. Contrary to the English, MT would then
have to be rendered, '...as the dung in the middle of streets...' This
idea agrees with LXX which reads, '...as a dunghill in the middle of a
path...'" "The Tradition of Isaiah in the BoM" (1974), pp 26-7.
A better idea of the conflict between these two schools is illustrated
by their handling of a passage in which the BoM differs with the AV and
the MT. Approximately 260 cases are involved.
***************************************************************
*NOTE* while I have not marked the italized words, I have placed
personal comments and verse numbers within ()s. Parrallel relationships
are marked on the left margin, Sections in Capitals, and specific
passages in lower case.
Isaiah 51:17b-22 from the A.V.
A (The Bitter Cup)
a which hast drunk at the hand of the Lord the cup of his
fury;
b thou hast drunken the dregs of the cup of trembling
and wrung them out
B (Helpless or Childless)
c (18) There is none to guide her among all the sons
whom she hath brought forth;
c neither is there any that taketh her by the hand, of all the
sons that she hath brought up.
C (Double Disaster)
(19) These two are come unto thee;
e who shall be sorry for thee
f thy desolation and destruction,
and the famine and the sword
e and by whom shall I comfort thee?
f Thy sons have fainted,
B (Helpless or Childless)
g they lie at the head of all the streets;
as a wild bull in a net,
g they are full of the fury of the Lord,
the rebuke of thy God.
i (21) Therefore hear now this, thou afflicted, and
drunken, but not with wine:
i (22) Thus saith thy Lord the LORD, and thy God
that pleadeth the cause of his people,
A' (The Bitter Cup)
b' behold, I have taken out of thine hand the cup of
trembling,
a' even the dregs of the cup of my fury; thou shalt no more
drink it again.
***************************************************************
2 Nephi 8:17b-22
A (The Bitter Cup)
a which hast drunk at the hand of the Lord the cup of his
fury
b --thou hast drunken the dregs of the cup of trembling
wrung out--
B (Powerless)
c (18) And none to guide her among all the sons she
hath brought forth;
c neither that taketh her by the hand, of all the sons
she hath brought up.
C (Two Sons)
d (19) These two sons are come unto thee,
e who shall be sorry for thee
f --thy desolation and destruction,
f and the famine and the sword--
e and by whom shall I comfort thee?
d (20) Thy sons have fainted, save these two;
B (Powerless)
g they lie at the head of all the streets;
as a wild bull in a net,
g they are full of the fury of the Lord,
the rebuke of thy God.
i (21) Therefore hear now this, thou afflicted, and
drunken, and not with wine:
i (22) Thus saith thy Lord, the Lord and thy God
pleadeth the cause of his people;
A' (The Bitter Cup)
b' behold, I have taken out of thine hand the cup of
trembling,
a' the dregs of the cup of my fury; thou shalt no more
drink it again.
***************************************************************
Although both texts are chiasmic in form, the turning point, C, is
significantly different. In Isaiah 51:19-20a, the passage points to
a double disaster, ie. destruction and desolation. The section can be
arranged in a pair of parallels. But in 2 Ne 8:19-20a, while C also
fortells destruction and desolation, it also adds a reference to two
sons who are definitely not in a helpless condition. The addition begs
comparison with Rev. 11:3-12, thus suggesting an apocalyptic interpretation.
Note, as well, that the addition continues the chiasmic form of this
passage thru section C (which the regular Isaiah fails to do), and that
the addition (if you take the apocalyptic approach) neatly supports the
anthesis A', ie. how God will take the trembling cup out of the hands of
Israel and place it in the hands of their enemies.
After considering this "unauthorized" variation from the AV, along with its
interpretation, one might well ask, does the BoM text represent a different
and more accurate textual tradition than the MT. Ah, there's the rub!
Most of the textual variations (7 points in all) around the turning point C
are trivial: mainly the elimination of italized words. The only semi-
interesting variation is in verse 18.
AV: "_There is_ none to guide"
BoM: " And none to guide"
At first glance, it appears to be a simple case of italics substitution, but
it is not the case, for the BoM is supported by LXX. It appears that the MT
lost the prefixed conjunction w-. But when all is said and done, the
alterations around section C are not a really big deal. It is C that holds
our attention. BUT, there is no supporting tradition for C, at least among
the existing set of Isaiah traditions that I know of.
Here we get back to the two schools and how they deal with section C. John
Tvedtnes, a member of the BHR school, is embarrassed by the passage and
tries to force it back to the MT. In his work, "Isaiah Variants in the
BoM," he suggests that maybe Oliver Cowdery wrote it down incorrectly,
and when confronted with verse 20a "save these two" which clearly refers
back to the "two sons" of the preceeding verse, he lamely suggests that
the alteration might be attributed to Jacob, who is quoting these
passages in his discourse and that "we have already seen how much he
paraphrased earler portions of Isaiah during the same speech." (pg 88)
The OT school, on the other hand, is going to cite this passage as an example
of a lost, but now restored tradition of Isaiah that is more accurate than
the MT. "So what if we don't have a text supporting its rendition at the
moment," they'll say, "just be patient, and in the meantime, consider the
variations in the text that we have that do have quite good textual support."
Perhaps a short note on what the middle ground is doing. We're looking to
see if the "two witnesses" have a pre-Christian tradition. But that's
another story.
Back in the wonderful world of netland, I can't help but be amazed when
individuals, like Robert Firth, Ms. Smith, and a certain bozo from Colorado
(of about a year ago), will get on the net and proclaim, on the basis of
some "expert" like the late Walter Martin, that the BoM lifted passages
from the Bible with little or no alterations at all. Pardon me, if I
don't pay close attention to such "experts."
Before concluding, I would like to point out one more thing. Previously
I posted a series of examples:
>>
>> 1 - Isa 3:26 = 2 Ne 13:26
>> KJV: and she *being* desolate
>> BoM: and she shall be desolate
>> (MT Hebrew favors BoM)
To which Mike Siemon responded:
>May I humbly submit, from a *very* limited knowledge of Hebrew, that it
>is preposterous, in view of Hebrew verb usage, to MAKE any distinction
>between the forced renderings into English here? *If* (and it's a nice
>if of typographical history) the rendering of auxiliary verb forms in
>italics was the common practice in Smith's day for English bibles, then
>the italics *signal* to anyone reading them a possibility for variation
>of the English phrasing, specifically in regard to verb forms. Because
>the KJV translators, terribly concerned for a word-by-word translation,
>*deliberately* pointed to places where *they* made an arbitrary decision
>in order to "get" English out of Hebrew.
Perhaps it was my error to assume that *s around a word would indicate
its italized format, otherwise, I can't figure out why Mike decided to
offer such a condenscending little lecture on the use of typography within
the AV. While it might appear to Mike that English words were added to
make sense out of the Hebrew, may I point out (and I promise to do it
nicely) the MT actually employs a verb (wnqth), which the BoM's rendition
uses and the AV does not.
--
Willard C. Smith att!iwsgw!wcsa wcsa@iwsgw.att.com
"It's life, Captain, but not as we know it."ok@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au (Richard A. O'Keefe) (09/27/90)
In article <Sep.23.03.11.09.1990.5517@athos.rutgers.edu>, wcsa@cbnewsc.att.com writes: > The translation of the BoM is a hotly debated topic among Mormon scholars > basically because JS never really told us the exact process, and the process > will influence how Mormons will approach the text. We can piece > together bits here and there, from D&C 9 and off hand comments by JS, > his wife, and several people, and from remarks set down by Oliver Cowdery, > who was present during most of the translation process. Given that Oliver Cowdery was excommunicated (as were most of the witnesses listed at the beginning of the BoM), why is his testimony taken seriously? JS had the chance to proof-read and correct the BoM, so we don't have to rely on Cowdery's faithfulness there, but did JS get the chance to review and correct Cowdery's remarks referred to above? [For the sake of revealing possible bias: I have the BoM, D&C, PoGP and so on, some of the commentaries, and several biographies, and have read them. Having read these things I don't understand why _anyone_ is a Mormon. I'm certainly not.] Concerning Isaiah, JS wrote an amplified/"corrected" version of the Bible; part of Matthew is published by the LDS. I understand that the RLDS have and use the whole thing. Shouldn't a Mormon analysis include JS's version of Isaiah as well as the AV and MT? Indeed, shouldn't a Mormon analysis take JS's version as _more_ correct than the MT? -- Fixed in the next release.