Textual Criticism - The Bible and the Book of Mormon

[_Roger]

There's plenty of evidence for languages mixing Egyptian scripts with Aramaic or Hebrew languages, or vice versa. There's nothing for the specific language putatively referenced in the Book of Mormon, but we wouldn't really know if we found it.

A very reasonable response. Thanks. We would expect to find "plenty of evidence for languages mixing Egyptian scripts with Aramaic or Hebrew languages" because these are known languages and languages evolve. It also makes sense that Joseph Smith - not being an ignorant fellow - would suggest some unknown variation of an actual language if he were making up the whole story. So that point seems like a wash.

It's the "nothing" I was driving at. So, to my first question, "What textual or extra-BOM evidence exists for reformed Egyptian?" the answer is nothing. Whether or not we would know it if we saw it is irrelevant. The answer is still, nothing. As a Biblical scholar you know this is far from the case with the genuine languages used to produce the Biblical texts.

I asked: "How can we critically evaluate whether Joseph Smith's 'translation' of the Book of Mormon is accurate?"

You candidly responded: "Not really a good way to do it."

I agree. Obviously there are good ways to do this with the Bible since you've dedicated your career to it.

I asked: "Aside from Joseph Smith, who else has produced a translation into English of any Book of Mormon text or even a fragment?"

Again, you graciously replied: "No one of which I'm aware."

And once again, this is far from the case with the Bible, which is what makes your chosen field of study possible.

Finally, I asked: "What evidence is there to support the physical existence of cities, battles, migrations and people groups mentioned in the Book of Mormon?"

You replied with:

There's limited evidence here and there. There's no proof, but there are certainly things that can be taken as evidence. One example is Brian Stubbs' extensive research into lexical and grammatical relationships between the Uto-Aztecan and Afro-Asiatic/Semitic languages families.

Fair enough. There are things that for the believer can be taken as evidence, but certainly nothing that is recognized as legitimate, uncontroversial support for the historicity of the Book of Mormon.

Once again, this is not the case for the Bible - while recognizing that some locations, etc. remain a mystery or are disputed or whatever; overall, there are many elements within the Biblical texts that eliminate the question of whether its actually an ancient collection of books.

I might have also added, How many ancient copies of Mosiah exist? How many ancient copies of Nephi exist? And once again, the answer is virtually none. Why not? Why do we have literally thousands of ancient copies of Biblical texts and not one scrap of even one of the Book of Mormon books? As someone who studies ancient texts, doesn't that raise a red flag for you?

With all due respect, I think one of the things that annoys Christians about a Mormon doing critical analysis of the Bible, is the fact that we have no way of doing the same thing for the Book of Mormon because there simply is not even sufficient tangible evidence from which to begin such an analysis. So what ends up happening is the Bible gets scrutinized while the Book of Mormon gets a free pass.

Scholarly criticism of the Bible is appropriate but the fact that we can't do similar critical analysis of the Book of Mormon is frustrating. Hence - I believe - some of the passion on this and other threads.

All the best.

[_Gunnar]

Well put, Roger, and I appreciate how respectfully you stated it.

[_maklelan]

Sigh! I like you very much, maklelan, and I appreciate your understanding, but, for you, that was a remarkably unsatisfying and uninformative answer!

Sorry to disappoint.

[_maklelan]

A very reasonable response. Thanks. We would expect to find "plenty of evidence for languages mixing Egyptian scripts with Aramaic or Hebrew languages" because these are known languages and languages evolve. It also makes sense that Joseph Smith - not being an ignorant fellow - would suggest some unknown variation of an actual language if he were making up the whole story. So that point seems like a wash.

It's the "nothing" I was driving at. So, to my first question, "What textual or extra-BOM evidence exists for reformed Egyptian?" the answer is nothing. Whether or not we would know it if we saw it is irrelevant. The answer is still, nothing. As a Biblical scholar you know this is far from the case with the genuine languages used to produce the Biblical texts.

That's correct.

I asked: "How can we critically evaluate whether Joseph Smith's 'translation' of the Book of Mormon is accurate?"

You candidly responded: "Not really a good way to do it."

I agree. Obviously there are good ways to do this with the Bible since you've dedicated your career to it.

There are good ways because we have the Vorlagen as well as several translations made from them. Without the source text, we're just speculating.

I asked: "Aside from Joseph Smith, who else has produced a translation into English of any Book of Mormon text or even a fragment?"

Again, you graciously replied: "No one of which I'm aware."

And once again, this is far from the case with the Bible, which is what makes your chosen field of study possible.

Finally, I asked: "What evidence is there to support the physical existence of cities, battles, migrations and people groups mentioned in the Book of Mormon?"

You replied with:

There's limited evidence here and there. There's no proof, but there are certainly things that can be taken as evidence. One example is Brian Stubbs' extensive research into lexical and grammatical relationships between the Uto-Aztecan and Afro-Asiatic/Semitic languages families.

Fair enough. There are things that for the believer can be taken as evidence, but certainly nothing that is recognized as legitimate, uncontroversial support for the historicity of the Book of Mormon.

Can you conceive of accepted and legitimate support for a supernaturally produced document that would not be controversial? You seem to be suggesting that we should expect such supernatural claims to have uncontroversial support. I find that a bit odd.

Once again, this is not the case for the Bible - while recognizing that some locations, etc. remain a mystery or are disputed or whatever;

The historicity of the Bible is far, far more problematic than that.

overall, there are many elements within the Biblical texts that eliminate the question of whether its actually an ancient collection of books.

I might have also added, How many ancient copies of Mosiah exist? How many ancient copies of Nephi exist? And once again, the answer is virtually none. Why not?

The putative origins of the Book of Mormon preclude such circumstances. It's not surprising.

Why do we have literally thousands of ancient copies of Biblical texts and not one scrap of even one of the Book of Mormon books? As someone who studies ancient texts, doesn't that raise a red flag for you?

A red flag in what sense? It purports to have a supernatural physical provenance. No other ancient text in existence makes such a claim. Why would I expect it to follow all the rules of the accident of preservation in light of that?

With all due respect, I think one of the things that annoys Christians about a Mormon doing critical analysis of the Bible, is the fact that we have no way of doing the same thing for the Book of Mormon because there simply is not even sufficient tangible evidence from which to begin such an analysis. So what ends up happening is the Bible gets scrutinized while the Book of Mormon gets a free pass.

No one's giving the Book of Mormon a free pass. What I'm doing is exposing the manipulative misrepresentation of the field of textual criticism in the interest of propping up the Bible as some kind of gold standard of historicity, and (2) pointing out the hypocrisy of applying critical methodologies to the Book of Mormon and demanding it satisfy them while at the very same time denigrating and rejecting critical methodologies applied to the Bible and demanding the faith claims of the Bible be accepted without question. That is my concern. I have no beef with anyone criticizing the Book of Mormon.

Scholarly criticism of the Bible is appropriate but the fact that we can't do similar critical analysis of the Book of Mormon is frustrating.

Why? It's not a contest.

Hence - I believe - some of the passion on this and other threads.

If that's the case, then my explanation above should assuage any concerns. I have no problem with people being critical of the Book of Mormon. Deconstruct away. My problem in this thread is the laughable misrepresentation of the state of text-critical scholarship related to the Bible. If Catherine wants to use biblical scholarship as a yardstick against which to measure the Book of Mormon, I'm going to make sure that yardstick is properly calibrated. Once that's established, she may do as she wishes.

[_maklelan]

Well put, Roger, and I appreciate how respectfully you stated it.

I agree. You have more patience than the vast majority of posters who engage me on this topic.

[_Roger]

Well put, Roger, and I appreciate how respectfully you stated it.

Thanks Gunnar. I try but don't succeed as often as I should. I appreciate Mak's candor and honesty. Says a lot about him.

Plus, he's a Bronco fan, so he can't be as evil as he sometimes appears to be.

[_Roger]

Without the source text, we're just speculating.

Exactly.

Can you conceive of accepted and legitimate support for a supernaturally produced document that would not be controversial?

Yes, of course.

You seem to be suggesting that we should expect such supernatural claims to have uncontroversial support. I find that a bit odd.

Why is it odd? Does the very nature of supernatural claims in general require no legitimate, uncontroversial support? If any original - or even an ancient copy - of just one Book of Mormon text existed, wouldn't that constitute legitimate, uncontroversial support for the supernatural claims of how the entire English Book of Mormon allegedly came to be?

I suppose the controversy might center on whether or not such a document was genuinely ancient, but the point is that all it would take is one legitimate ancient document to support (not prove) the supernatural claims of Joseph Smith about the Book of Mormon.

Once again, this is not the case for the Bible - while recognizing that some locations, etc. remain a mystery or are disputed or whatever;

The historicity of the Bible is far, far more problematic than that.

Ah, but you clipped the rest of my assertion:

there are many elements within the Biblical texts that eliminate the question of whether its actually an ancient collection of books.

That's the key part of the assertion. Of course I realize that various places and people groups, etc. etc. are in dispute, but the point is there is no question the Biblical texts are legitimately ancient and in many cases give a reasonably accurate account of the locations, religious practices, migrations, battles, etc. of the various groups they describe. If that were not the case, it would all be speculative and you wouldn't have much to base your conclusions on.

The putative origins of the Book of Mormon preclude such circumstances. It's not surprising.

Not surprising? Why not? I would think it would only not be surprising if you're a skeptic and don't believe the claims of Joseph Smith. If I don't believe Joseph Smith, then I'm not surprised when Mormons dig but can't find any ancient manuscripts.

A red flag in what sense?

In the sense that there is no evidence when there should be.

It purports to have a supernatural physical provenance. No other ancient text in existence makes such a claim. Why would I expect it to follow all the rules of the accident of preservation in light of that?

Which supernatural physical provenance are you referring to specifically?

No one's giving the Book of Mormon a free pass.

Well obviously Joseph Smith is... or, if you believe him, then God is.

What I'm doing is exposing the manipulative misrepresentation of the field of textual criticism in the interest of propping up the Bible as some kind of gold standard of historicity,

I think you're well within your rights to do so and from what I can tell, you appear to be well qualified to do it.

and (2) pointing out the hypocrisy of applying critical methodologies to the Book of Mormon and demanding it satisfy them while at the very same time denigrating and rejecting critical methodologies applied to the Bible and demanding the faith claims of the Bible be accepted without question. That is my concern. I have no beef with anyone criticizing the Book of Mormon.

For the most part, I think that's reasonable. From what I can tell from my limited layman's vantage point, your textual analysis seems reasonable, thorough and fair. Like I stated earlier, you've given me no reason to doubt you other than you're LDS and, for example, your attacks on the Trinity mesh with LDS doctrine. On that particular issue - and again, just using this as an example - you suggest there is no Biblical support for the doctrine of the Trinity. But Christians down through the ages would beg to differ. They find lots of Biblical support for the Trinity even though the term is never used. You do not accept their proof texts. So who's correct? I don't know, but it's a little suspicious when we encounter a Latter-day Saint who argues from a textually critical scholarly standpoint about doctrinal matters that conveniently line up with LDS theology. Coincidence? I doubt it. I suspect the very reason it comes up is because you are:

"pointing out the hypocrisy of applying critical methodologies to the Book of Mormon and demanding it satisfy them while at the very same time denigrating and rejecting critical methodologies applied to the Bible and demanding the faith claims of the Bible be accepted without question."

What critical methodologies have been applied to the Book of Mormon that haven't also been applied to the Bible? In light of the fact that a lot of critical analysis has been directed toward the Bible, how can we possibly do the same thing with the Book of Mormon? What critical methodologies can we possibly apply to the Book of Mormon? We can do textual analysis of the 1830 version, but what useful information comes out of that? We don't even know if we're looking at something that ever had an underlying ancient source but there are many indications it was a product of the 19th century.

Why? It's not a contest.

It tends to take on the characteristics of a contest when a capable LDS scholar posts online about textual issues in the Bible that threaten Christian orthodoxy. Don't get me wrong, Mak. I'm not saying you don't have a right to do exactly what you're doing. You do. And I think you're doing a good job at what you set out to do. But don't be surprised if it ruffles feathers along the way. And don't be surprised when people begin to wonder if and/or how you apply the same critical analysis to your own sacred scripture.

I'm suggesting the heart of the problem lies in the fact that your sacred scripture can't be analyzed in the same critical way you analyze the Bible because there are no ancient variants. That is, in a word, convenient.

If that's the case, then my explanation above should assuage any concerns. I have no problem with people being critical of the Book of Mormon. Deconstruct away. My problem in this thread is the laughable misrepresentation of the state of text-critical scholarship related to the Bible.

Mak, that's well and good. You may be right about that. Heck, you probably are. As far as I know, we're all laymen here. It's not that brilliant Biblical scholars don't exist. It's that they probably aren't going to waste their time posting on a website. But surely you must acknowledge that the very concept of text-critical scholarship of ancient sources related to the Book of Mormon is laughable. No? I don't mean any disrespect. I'm borrowing the term "laughable" from you. It's a legitimate question.

In light of that, why would God not allow anyone but Joseph Smith (or, eventually, his most devoted followers using their spiritual eyes) to see the plates for the Book of Mormon - apparently the only ones in existence - and yet the same God allows thousands of ancient translators across many years and miles to copy and translate the Biblical texts many times over?

If Catherine wants to use biblical scholarship as a yardstick against which to measure the Book of Mormon, I'm going to make sure that yardstick is properly calibrated. Once that's established, she may do as she wishes.

Yeah but that's a loaded proposition. I don't know Catherine, so I'm not defending her, but how could she possibly use biblical scholarship as a yardstick against which to measure the Book of Mormon when there is nothing extant to apply it to except a modern English text?

You said it yourself: "Without the source text, we're just speculating."

All the best.

[_Gunnar]

Well put, Roger, and I appreciate how respectfully you stated it.

Thanks Gunnar. I try but don't succeed as often as I should. I appreciate Mak's candor and honesty. Says a lot about him.

Plus, he's a Bronco fan, so he can't be as evil as he sometimes appears to be.

Really? A Bronco fan? Horrors! So much for that friendship! Go 49ers!

[_Roger]

Really? A Bronco fan? Horrors! So much for that friendship! Go 49ers!

Oh for Pete's sake! I never hear the end of how fabulous Joe Montana was from my wife. She seems to think there was some important game played years ago wherein said Montana beat Elway. I'm convinced she's imagining things.

[_maklelan]

Exactly.

Exactly? I hope you don't mean to turn this into a comment about textual criticism. Translation and textual criticism are two entirely different disciplines governed by entirely different standards and methodologies.

Yes, of course.

I cannot. There exists no such evidence anywhere in the world, and were such evidence to ever be found, obviously a great deal of people would vehemently reject it.

Why is it odd?

Because many people reject the possibility of the supernatural, and they happen to make up a large representative portion of the very groups of people that analyze evidence publicly.

Does the very nature of supernatural claims in general require no legitimate, uncontroversial support?

No.

If any original - or even an ancient copy - of just one Book of Mormon text existed, wouldn't that constitute legitimate, uncontroversial support for the supernatural claims of how the entire English Book of Mormon allegedly came to be?

Of course not. You honestly think it wouldn't be controversial if someone claimed to have an ancient Book of Mormon manuscript?

I suppose the controversy might center on whether or not such a document was genuinely ancient, but the point is that all it would take is one legitimate ancient document to support (not prove) the supernatural claims of Joseph Smith about the Book of Mormon.

Just like it would only take the enormous mountain of existing evidence to support evolution without controversy? Controversy is not determined by the legitimacy of the evidence, it's determined by the reaction of the public. Evidence for the supernatural (much less for the Book of Mormon) would cause controversy, and particularly if it were legitimate enough to withstand criticism.

Ah, but you clipped the rest of my assertion:

there are many elements within the Biblical texts that eliminate the question of whether its actually an ancient collection of books.

That's the key part of the assertion.[/quote]

I'm aware. I wanted to point out, however, that the lead in wasn't a perfectly accurate assessment.

Of course I realize that various places and people groups, etc. etc. are in dispute, but the point is there is no question the Biblical texts are legitimately ancient and in many cases give a reasonably accurate account of the locations, religious practices, migrations, battles, etc. of the various groups they describe. If that were not the case, it would all be speculative and you wouldn't have much to base your conclusions on.

I would say "in some cases," not "in many cases."

Not surprising? Why not? I would think it would only not be surprising if you're a skeptic and don't believe the claims of Joseph Smith. If I don't believe Joseph Smith, then I'm not surprised when Mormons dig but can't find any ancient manuscripts.

If the story is true that God delivered this book directly and specifically to Joseph Smith, kept it from prying eyes, and then took it back when the translation was done, what makes you think that other copies of it would have been found by now? The accident of preservation already tells us we shouldn't make assumptions about what would and should have been preserved, but add to it the notion that the discovery of this artifact is all a part of God's specific plan (obviously not a foreign notion to someone who believes the Bible to be God's word), and we have even less of a reason to say there's something fishy going on if we can't uncover other manuscripts.

In the sense that there is no evidence when there should be.

I don't agree that there "should be" material evidence. If there were always material evidence where we thought there should be, archaeologists would be a lot more rich and famous.

Which supernatural physical provenance are you referring to specifically?

That God directed its preservation, its hiding away, and its delivery to a specific person, and then protected it from enemies and took it back when everything was done.

Well obviously Joseph Smith is... or, if you believe him, then God is.

That's a bit of a non sequitur. They're not engaging in this discussion.

I think you're well within your rights to do so and from what I can tell, you appear to be well qualified to do it.

I appreciate that.

For the most part, I think that's reasonable. From what I can tell from my limited layman's vantage point, your textual analysis seems reasonable, thorough and fair. Like I stated earlier, you've given me no reason to doubt you other than you're LDS and, for example, your attacks on the Trinity mesh with LDS doctrine.

My "attacks" on the Trinity represent the academic consensus (the critical academic consensus--conservative devotional scholars obviously don't like it), so if that meshes with LDS doctrine, mores the pity for folks like Catherine (Servant).

On that particular issue - and again, just using this as an example - you suggest there is no Biblical support for the doctrine of the Trinity. But Christians down through the ages would beg to differ. They find lots of Biblical support for the Trinity even though the term is never used. You do not accept their proof texts. So who's correct?

Obviously I think I and the academic consensus are correct. I am more than happy to defend my case against challenges, though.

I don't know, but it's a little suspicious when we encounter a Latter-day Saint who argues from a textually critical scholarly standpoint about doctrinal matters that conveniently line up with LDS theology. Coincidence? I doubt it.

Then read here or here or here. Two are Protestant and the other is agnostic.

I suspect the very reason it comes up is because you are:

"pointing out the hypocrisy of applying critical methodologies to the Book of Mormon and demanding it satisfy them while at the very same time denigrating and rejecting critical methodologies applied to the Bible and demanding the faith claims of the Bible be accepted without question."

You would be wrong.

What critical methodologies have been applied to the Book of Mormon that haven't also been applied to the Bible?

That haven't been applied to the Bible? No legitimate methodologies. You might say belligerent sectarianism has been applied to the Book of Mormon and not the Bible ;)

In light of the fact that a lot of critical analysis has been directed toward the Bible, how can we possibly do the same thing with the Book of Mormon? What critical methodologies can we possibly apply to the Book of Mormon?

Oh, tons. Archaeological investigation can still examine the putative material contexts for the Book of Mormon, even if it unilaterally undermines those contexts. Textual criticism can show the textual development of the English version and the relationship to the King James Version of the Bible. Tradition and literary criticism can show relationships to other texts and to ideologies contemporary to Joseph Smith's day. They can also show rhetorical purposes and thematic divisions and things like that. David Bokovoy actually held a class last year at the University of Utah applying literary criticism to the Book of Mormon (here).

We can do textual analysis of the 1830 version, but what useful information comes out of that?

See here.

We don't even know if we're looking at something that ever had an underlying ancient source but there are many indications it was a product of the 19th century.

And textual criticism can give us more evidence to work with.

It tends to take on the characteristics of a contest when a capable LDS scholar posts online about textual issues in the Bible that threaten Christian orthodoxy.

But when the response is not to defend Christian orthodoxy, but to threaten a Mormon orthodoxy that I'm not defending or promoting, it takes on an air of misguided vengeance rather than academic defense. At the very least, it suggests to me that individuals are rhetorically evading the issues I'm raising, rather than raising legitimate ones themselves.

Don't get me wrong, Mak. I'm not saying you don't have a right to do exactly what you're doing. You do. And I think you're doing a good job at what you set out to do. But don't be surprised if it ruffles feathers along the way. And don't be surprised when people begin to wonder if and/or how you apply the same critical analysis to your own sacred scripture.

And Servant has asked me exactly that question literally for years. When I tell her I do apply the same methodologies, though, she just ignores me and continues her belligerent ranting and raving.

I'm suggesting the heart of the problem lies in the fact that your sacred scripture can't be analyzed in the same critical way you analyze the Bible because there are no ancient variants. That is, in a word, convenient.

Not for me.

Mak, that's well and good. You may be right about that. Heck, you probably are. As far as I know, we're all laymen here. It's not that brilliant Biblical scholars don't exist. It's that they probably aren't going to waste their time posting on a website.

You'd be surprised.

But surely you must acknowledge that the very concept of text-critical scholarship of ancient sources related to the Book of Mormon is laughable. No? I don't mean any disrespect. I'm borrowing the term "laughable" from you. It's a legitimate question.

It certainly doesn't have the pedigree of textual criticism of the Bible, but there are absolutely ways to go about it.

In light of that, why would God not allow anyone but Joseph Smith (or, eventually, his most devoted followers using their spiritual eyes) to see the plates for the Book of Mormon - apparently the only ones in existence - and yet the same God allows thousands of ancient translators across many years and miles to copy and translate the Biblical texts many times over?

I suppose I would have to say that any ancient manuscript of the Book of Mormon would be definitive proof of its antiquity and the legitimacy of Joseph Smith's claims. The same cannot be said of ancient manuscripts and translations of the Bible. Faith is not threatened by proof in either case.

Yeah but that's a loaded proposition. I don't know Catherine, so I'm not defending her, but how could she possibly use biblical scholarship as a yardstick against which to measure the Book of Mormon when there is nothing extant to apply it to except a modern English text?

You have to watch the video to see how she does it in this instance, but it is precisely to that disparity that she appeals as evidence that the Book of Mormon is false. If the Book of Mormon were true, obviously it would have all the same textual, historical, and archaeological features. It's a not uncommon--yet still phenomenally naive--approach.

You said it yourself: "Without the source text, we're just speculating."

All the best.

And for Catherine that's a strike against the Book of Mormon.