Textual Criticism - The Bible and the Book of Mormon

[_maklelan]

I actually taught about Arius mak!

Please, Catherine. Now you're just being silly.

I think I know what he taught.

Then why are you promoting this asinine notion that I align with what he taught?

And I also know how he was refuted by Athanasius. You'll meet your Athanasius down the road mak!

Right.

PS: Mormonism is a recapitulation of Arianism, dressed up as "restorationism." "Arianism was a 4th century heresy named after Arius (c.250-336), a presbyter in Alexandria, Egypt, who taught that the Son of God was not co-eternal and consubstantial with His Father, but rather a created being with a definite origin in time. In Arius's words, "there was [a time] when he (the Son) was not."" (Orthodox Wiki) This pretty much fits in with the Mormon teaching that Jesus, Elohim's first son, was born in time somewhere near Kolob, the first "spirit baby" of polygamous deities. He is, therefore, a creation, and not Creator.

Uh, no, this doesn't fit. It has areas of brief overlap if you squint hard enough at the details, but that's a far cry from saying it "pretty much fits." Good grief, this is just utterly grotesque sectarian bigotry.

[_Servant]

I actually taught about Arius mak!

Please, Catherine. Now you're just being silly.

I think I know what he taught.

Then why are you promoting this asinine notion that I align with what he taught?

And I also know how he was refuted by Athanasius. You'll meet your Athanasius down the road mak!

Right.

PS: Mormonism is a recapitulation of Arianism, dressed up as "restorationism." "Arianism was a 4th century heresy named after Arius (c.250-336), a presbyter in Alexandria, Egypt, who taught that the Son of God was not co-eternal and consubstantial with His Father, but rather a created being with a definite origin in time. In Arius's words, "there was [a time] when he (the Son) was not."" (Orthodox Wiki) This pretty much fits in with the Mormon teaching that Jesus, Elohim's first son, was born in time somewhere near Kolob, the first "spirit baby" of polygamous deities. He is, therefore, a creation, and not Creator.

Uh, no, this doesn't fit. It has areas of brief overlap if you squint hard enough at the details, but that's a far cry from saying it "pretty much fits." Good grief, this is just utterly grotesque sectarian bigotry.

I told you, mak, you are out of your frame of reference when it comes to the history of the Christian Church. I hope you'll take time to study it in the future, and that you come to realize that the childish labels you put out there like "sectarian bigotry" and all the rest of the ad homs you peddle really are ignored by thinking people.

[Guest]

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.

The question was in reference to translation. But in either case, your statement is true: "Without the source text, we're just speculating." The only sources we have for the Book of Mormon are modern English editions and I think you and I can probably agree that Joseph Smith was not a translator.

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 think we may be talking past each other on this point and yet ultimately agreeing. I might not be expressing myself very well. You made the point I was trying to make here:

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.

We agree, although I would qualify it a bit by not using the words "definitive proof" but rather "support." In any case, we agree on the general idea. Of course it would still be controversial - particularly among skeptics like me who don't believe Joseph Smith. It would have to be pretty compelling evidence, but I'm simply conceding that if just one legitimate ancient manuscript or even a legitimate fragment were discovered that would go a long way toward supporting the supernatural claims of Joseph Smith - which is why I don't believe you're ever going to find a legitimate ancient source for any Book of Mormon book written in reformed Egyptian or even in any known language. From that perspective, the absence of evidence is not surprising. It's what I would expect if what I believe about Joseph Smith is true.

Evidence for the supernatural (much less for the Book of Mormon) would cause controversy, and particularly if it were legitimate enough to withstand criticism.

Of course. But that's not what I understood you to be asking when you wrote:

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

You asked if I could "conceive of..." and the answer is, yes, of course I can conceive of legitimate support for the Book of Mormon (an alleged supernaturally produced document) in the form of the discovery of a legitimately ancient Book of Mormon text. The controversy would then revolve around whether the support was legitimately ancient or a modern hoax but I'm conceding that if it were legitimately ancient, then you would have uncontroversial support for Joseph Smith's supernatural claims. Ultimately I think we're talking past each other but agreeing on a minor point. I'm probably just not expressing myself very well.

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?

Well I suppose if I just believe what Joseph Smith says, then sure, I could accept a lot of things despite the lack of evidence or in spite of evidence to the contrary. The relevant point here is that in the actual case of the Biblical texts - which LDS believe to have been produced by people who, like Nephites, believed in the same God and were supernaturally inspired by the same God - we do find literally thousands of ancient copies and translations. So, at the very least, God seems to be operating under a radically different set of guidelines if his desire is to present the world with two inspired testaments. Why does he allow one collection of writings to be copied and translated many times over by fallible humans down through the centuries in one case, and yet won't even allow anyone but Joseph Smith to examine what is apparently the only extant version in the other?

You responded with:

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.

The discovery now of any ancient manuscript of the Book of Mormon would constitute support for Joseph Smith's claims, yes, but Joseph allegedly had such tangible support in his possession in the form of the plates. What if the plates actually said something different than what Joseph claimed they did? We'll never know because God - for some mysterious and apparently unparalleled reason - removed the evidence. Either that, or legitimate evidence never existed in the first place.

The point is that we are asked to place a different kind of faith in the claims of Joseph Smith than we are about the claims of the Bible. In the case of Joseph Smith we are left with no alternative but to simply believe what one man says in spite of the fact that God removed what would - or could - have been his greatest piece of supporting evidence and in light of the fact that many other claims of Joseph Smith are demonstrably false. In the Bible, the greatest claim we are asked to believe is that Jesus rose from the dead. An incredible claim, to be sure, but the subsequent actions of the apostles (being willing to suffer and die for the claim) lend support for the claim. I also personally believe the shroud of Turin lends tangible support for the claim, although it is certainly not uncontroversial support.

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.

What you seem to be saying is that if God wanted to preserve both the Bible and the Book of Mormon he could have used radically different preservation methods to do so. Sure. God can do whatever he wants. But you're arguing on this and other threads from the position of a scholar using accepted methodology on tangible artifacts. When we look at it from that perspective and eliminate the God factor, what we see is thousands of available, preserved, tangible artifacts with which to work, critically examine, scrutinize and analyze on the one hand, and a complete absence on the other. I'm asking you - from a scholarly standpoint - why do you think that is, and from what I can gather your answer up to this point is to fall back on the supernatural claims originally made about how the Book of Mormon came to be - if God wanted to preserve it in that way then what we see is exactly what we'd expect. So from a scholarly standpoint, why is it that we find lots of ancient manuscripts for the Biblical texts and none for the Book of Mormon?

All the best.

[_Fence Sitter]

Roger & Mak,

Great discussion. Thanks

Mak shouldn't a civilization that is capable of recording and maintaining a extensive record of its own history on metal plates over a period of 800 hundred years have left some physical fragments of that history somewhere on something? A carved piece of rock or a shard of pottery or something? When you look at the work Sorenson has done or even those who argue for a North American geography, all this research, all these interesting correlations to existing civilizations and not a single piece of written text that resembles anything in the Book of Mormon. Contrasted with the point Roger made about the Bible, it simply defies imagination that the Book of Mormon scribes would not have left some record, somewhere.

[_maklelan]

I told you, mak, you are out of your frame of reference when it comes to the history of the Christian Church.

And that's not true at all. You don't think early church history was a part of the curricula at Oxford and TWU?

I hope you'll take time to study it in the future, and that you come to realize that the childish labels you put out there like "sectarian bigotry" and all the rest of the ad homs you peddle really are ignored by thinking people.

Ah, I see.

[_Servant]

I told you, mak, you are out of your frame of reference when it comes to the history of the Christian Church.

And that's not true at all. You don't think early church history was a part of the curricula at Oxford and TWU?

I hope you'll take time to study it in the future, and that you come to realize that the childish labels you put out there like "sectarian bigotry" and all the rest of the ad homs you peddle really are ignored by thinking people.

Ah, I see.

So, mak, how long do you see yourself remaining in the LDS?

[_maklelan]

But in either case, your statement is true: "Without the source text, we're just speculating." The only sources we have for the Book of Mormon are modern English editions and I think you and I can probably agree that Joseph Smith was not a translator.

I think we can agree on that.

I think we may be talking past each other on this point and yet ultimately agreeing. I might not be expressing myself very well. You made the point I was trying to make here:

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.

We agree, although I would qualify it a bit by not using the words "definitive proof" but rather "support." In any case, we agree on the general idea. Of course it would still be controversial - particularly among skeptics like me who don't believe Joseph Smith. It would have to be pretty compelling evidence, but I'm simply conceding that if just one legitimate ancient manuscript or even a legitimate fragment were discovered that would go a long way toward supporting the supernatural claims of Joseph Smith - which is why I don't believe you're ever going to find a legitimate ancient source for any Book of Mormon book written in reformed Egyptian or even in any known language. From that perspective, the absence of evidence is not surprising. It's what I would expect if what I believe about Joseph Smith is true.

And similarly, we have a dearth of evidence that supports any of the supernatural claims made by the Bible. As with the Book of Mormon, the evidence unilaterally points to an entirely human origin. I'm comfortable acknowledging that, but most of the people with whom I interact refuse to acknowledge as much about the Bible, and that's the double standard that annoys me.

Of course. But that's not what I understood you to be asking when you wrote:

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

You asked if I could "conceive of..." and the answer is, yes, of course I can conceive of legitimate support for the Book of Mormon (an alleged supernaturally produced document) in the form of the discovery of a legitimately ancient Book of Mormon text. The controversy would then revolve around whether the support was legitimately ancient or a modern hoax but I'm conceding that if it were legitimately ancient, then you would have uncontroversial support for Joseph Smith's supernatural claims. Ultimately I think we're talking past each other but agreeing on a minor point. I'm probably just not expressing myself very well.

We may be talking past each other. I think "uncontroversial" might be better as "definitive," or "clear," or something like that.

Well I suppose if I just believe what Joseph Smith says, then sure, I could accept a lot of things despite the lack of evidence or in spite of evidence to the contrary.

And that's the arbitrariness that governs faith in the biblical text as well. When it comes down to it, none of us can honestly pretend to be convinced by the evidence. We are all making a decision based on other factors.

The relevant point here is that in the actual case of the Biblical texts - which LDS believe to have been produced by people who, like Nephites, believed in the same God and were supernaturally inspired by the same God - we do find literally thousands of ancient copies and translations. So, at the very least, God seems to be operating under a radically different set of guidelines if his desire is to present the world with two inspired testaments.

Yes, it would certainly be a different method, but the gospel of Christ is a vastly different method from the Law of Moses. Consistency is not really the hallmark of the Judeo-Christian view of deity.

Why does he allow one collection of writings to be copied and translated many times over by fallible humans down through the centuries in one case, and yet won't even allow anyone but Joseph Smith to examine what is apparently the only extant version in the other?

I can't say, but God has certainly done a number of things that defy explanation.

You responded with:

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.

The discovery now of any ancient manuscript of the Book of Mormon would constitute support for Joseph Smith's claims, yes, but Joseph allegedly had such tangible support in his possession in the form of the plates. What if the plates actually said something different than what Joseph claimed they did? We'll never know because God - for some mysterious and apparently unparalleled reason - removed the evidence. Either that, or legitimate evidence never existed in the first place.

But it was Christ who said, "More blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

The point is that we are asked to place a different kind of faith in the claims of Joseph Smith than we are about the claims of the Bible. In the case of Joseph Smith we are left with no alternative but to simply believe what one man says in spite of the fact that God removed what would - or could - have been his greatest piece of supporting evidence and in light of the fact that many other claims of Joseph Smith are demonstrably false.

There are also the eleven other witnesses to the plates.

In the Bible, the greatest claim we are asked to believe is that Jesus rose from the dead. An incredible claim, to be sure, but the subsequent actions of the apostles (being willing to suffer and die for the claim) lend support for the claim. I also personally believe the shroud of Turin lends tangible support for the claim, although it is certainly not uncontroversial support.

What you seem to be saying is that if God wanted to preserve both the Bible and the Book of Mormon he could have used radically different preservation methods to do so. Sure. God can do whatever he wants. But you're arguing on this and other threads from the position of a scholar using accepted methodology on tangible artifacts. When we look at it from that perspective and eliminate the God factor, what we see is thousands of available, preserved, tangible artifacts with which to work, critically examine, scrutinize and analyze on the one hand, and a complete absence on the other.

But in both cases, the analysis would return the same conclusion: exclusively human origin.

I'm asking you - from a scholarly standpoint - why do you think that is, and from what I can gather your answer up to this point is to fall back on the supernatural claims originally made about how the Book of Mormon came to be - if God wanted to preserve it in that way then what we see is exactly what we'd expect. So from a scholarly standpoint, why is it that we find lots of ancient manuscripts for the Biblical texts and none for the Book of Mormon?

Because one was the sacred corpus of a culture that survived down into modernity within dry regions that were continually inhabited the entire time, and the other was the sacred corpus of a culture that was dissolved within a broader culture that itself went extinct millennia ago in a very humid and alkaline region. The accident of preservation tilts unilaterally in favor of the former.

[_maklelan]

So, mak, how long do you see yourself remaining in the LDS?

Just one or two more posts calling my church a cult and you'll have me convinced to leave, Catherine. Don't give up on me yet.

[_Servant]

So, mak, how long do you see yourself remaining in the LDS?

Just one or two more posts calling my church a cult and you'll have me convinced to leave, Catherine. Don't give up on me yet.

OH, goody! The Episcopalians will love to get you! I know Spong!

[_Gunnar]

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

If Peyton Manning is a significant part of why you are a Broncos fan, I can hardly fault you for that. Even though I am a 49er fan, it is hard not to be a Peyton Manning fan. I have nothing but admiration for him, both as a great quarterback and a thoroughly decent and honorable human being! For that reason, I can forgive you for being a Broncos fan.

Getting back to the Book of Mormon, I think Roger's points are very well taken and quite damaging to its credibility. I think that when honestly and rationally considering all the evidence currently available, It is difficult to understand how one can fail to conclude that the case for the historical accuracy and divine origin of the Book of Mormon is extremely weak, even when compared to that for the Bible, which is also quite weak. "Supernatural" or "spiritual" arguments for the authenticity of either impress me not at all (as you can see by reading my signature line) unless they are backed up more tangible, secular type evidence.

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.

I am no great fan of Catherine (Servant), but I don't think you can honestly or rationally deny that she is at least right about that much.