Two honest questions for Bible scholars...

[Archaea]

I don't believe the BoM should be regarded as historical record, per se, but rather a religious record. The caretakers were not trained historians, but rather religious record keepers and prophets. The purpose was distinctly different.

It has historical ties, but is not intended to be a document verifying historical events. I am open to different possibilities for the Isaiah chapters, as they do come at a strange time, and it makes sense that God may have inspired Joseph Smith to insert them at that stage for discussion and illustration purposes.

[pelagius]

Let me just weigh in on a couple of things related to this discussion.

1. I do think the dating of second Isaiah is a serious issue for the Book of Mormon. Mormons have historically argued for the unity of Isaiah. I think a good representation of that position is given by John W. Welch, "Authorship of the Book of Isaiah in Light of the Book of Mormon," in Donald W. Parry and John W. Welch, eds., Isaiah in the Book of Mormon (Provo: FARMS, 1998), 423-37. On the other hand I tend to accept the scholarly mainstream on the issue. The evidence seems to support both a Deutero and Trito Isaiah, and arguing for a Deutero Isaiah before 540 BCE is a bit difficult.
   
   
2. I don't think that the existence of 2nd Isaiah necessarily implies that the Book of Mormon isn't an ancient document: (a) The first solution compatible with ancient origins is to argue for an early date of composition of 2nd Isaiah. (b) The second is to argue like tooblue for anonymous redaction/editorial activity at later date by Mormon or somebody else. I think the biggest problem with this is that it doesn't seem to be consistent with Mormon's later non-anonymous redaction/editorial work. (c) Following Blake Ostler's lead argue that the Book of Mormon is "a modern expansion of an ancient source." Given the "midrashic" nature of the Inspired Version of the Bible (JST) a "modern expansion of an ancient source" seems reasonably consistent at least to me with Joseph Smith's revelatory process. Still this view is not without its notable detractors.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by pelagius

Let me just weigh in on a couple of things related to this discussion.

1. I do think the dating of second Isaiah is a serious issue for the Book of Mormon. Mormons have historically argued for the unity of Isaiah. I think a good representation of that position is given by John W. Welch, "Authorship of the Book of Isaiah in Light of the Book of Mormon," in Donald W. Parry and John W. Welch, eds., Isaiah in the Book of Mormon (Provo: FARMS, 1998), 423-37. On the other hand I tend to accept the scholarly mainstream on the issue. The evidence seems to support both a Deutero and Trito Isaiah, and arguing for a Deutero Isaiah before 540 BCE is a bit difficult.
2. I don't think that the existence of 2nd Isaiah necessarily implies that the Book of Mormon isn't an ancient document: (a) The first solution compatible with ancient origins is to argue for an early date of composition of 2nd Isaiah. (b) The second is to argue like tooblue for anonymous redaction/editorial activity at later date by Mormon or somebody else. I think the biggest problem with this is that it doesn't seem to be consistent with Mormon's later non-anonymous redaction/editorial work. (c) Following Blake Ostler's lead argue that the Book of Mormon is "a modern expansion of an ancient source." Given the "midrashic" nature of the Inspired Version of the Bible (JST) a "modern expansion of an ancient source" seems reasonable consistent at least to me with Joseph Smith's revelatory process. Still this view is not without its notable detractors.

See, there is a reason we let in these academic types. We rabble rousers have nothing on them.

[pelagius]

Originally Posted by Archaea

See, there is a reason we let in these academic types. We rabble rousers have nothing on them.

I'm trying to figure out if that was a compliment

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by pelagius

I'm trying to figure out if that was a compliment

I'll take being called rabble a compliment!

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by pelagius

Let me just weigh in on a couple of things related to this discussion.

1. (b) The second is to argue like tooblue for anonymous redaction/editorial activity at later date by Mormon or somebody else. I think the biggest problem with this is that it doesn't seem to be consistent with Mormon's later non-anonymous redaction/editorial work.

I would disagree with the notion of consitency, especially considering Moroni also had a hand in authorship of the abridgment -obviously we could argue extent.

I'm just not prepared to put it all on the shoulders of Joseph Smith.

[SteelBlue]

Great thread gentlemen! Nice to have a guy like CHC aboard. I know so very little about this subject that I can only sit back and watch but it's one of the more interesting threads we've had here in a while.

Sidenote: Pelagius, you've got the econ and stats skills and now you come forward with a bunch of esoteric knowledge about Isaiah. Man, you guys make me feel like I don't know ANYTHING about ANYTHING.

[pelagius]

Originally Posted by tooblue

I would disagree with the notion of consitency, especially considering Moroni also had a hand in authorship of the abridgment -obviously we could argue extent.

I'm just not prepared to put it all on the shoulders of Joseph Smith.

I'm actually open to what you suggest. I think it would be intriguing to find that kind of extensive redaction activity since in my view it would be a nice parallel to the Old Testament where redaction actitivty is pretty common. I am actually open to all three possiblities I raised; maybe I came across more negative than I intended for option (b).

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by non sequitur

The threads on the book "Misquoting Jesus" got me wondering about a couple of things:

1. Given the KJV is filled with errors and that more accurate versions of the Bible exist, do those more accurate version support or contradict the JST?

2. Given the KJV is highly inaccurate and that Joseph Smith claimed to have translated the Book of Mormon from original text, how do LDS scholars reconcile the nearly word for word Bible passages that appear in the Book of Mormon?

I'm not trying to be antagonistic or to bait anyone. They are fair questions, and I'm honestly curious how these issues are reconciled.

At last, my response. I'll inject myself into the ongoing discussion as well.

First, in answer to:

1. For the most part they do not support the JST at all. There are a few passages that are interesting in this regard, and as I recall there is some ancient support for JS reworking the titles of the Gospels, but overwhelmingly the answer is "no." (they contradict it). From my training (I'm writing the last chapter of my dissertation in Communication Studies, review articles for the Journal of Media and Religion, have had extensive graduate training in historical, culture-based and literary methods, have interned with the head archivist at a presidential archive--all of which means that I'm not an expert on the JST or Greek or anything like that, but do have a good grasp of the historical issues and have formal academic training and extensive, but informal, training in Church History and doctrine) the JST is most accurately understood as not a translation of the bible, but rather an interpretation (or midrash). It tells us about JS and his developing theology, but does nothing to get the bible closer to the autographs (original texts).

For those less intellectually inclined who may be uncomfortable with what I've just written, I offer a few tangential observations:

A. Despite the presence of JST passages in the footnotes and appendix to the LDS edition of the KJV, it is almost never cited by General Authorities. They cite the King James, and have only very occasionally drawn on the JST to make a point (which I interpret as expressing agreement with JS, or thinking with JS, on a point, and not as making a claim to biblical originality).

B. Any brief foray through the accumulated mass of official LDS study materials and GA talks will reveal that scriptural passages have often been interpreted by different Church authorities in contrasting, and sometimes wholly exclusionary ways. I have no problem with this as I see similar tensions in scripture itself and feel that the burden (more of a joy, really) of truth seeking is on me. From where I sit, truth is paradoxical and constellational, and cannot be completely and universally captured by reason--this is the weakness of modernism in it's attempted supplanting of the universal discovery of truth via religion--that doesn't mean that I relinquish reason, but rather, like Emerson, James, Benjamin, and many others, use it dialectically with my faith. They are like pedals on a bicycle who's productive opposition propels me forward in my quest to catch little glimpses of knowledge and truth.

C. I have no difficulty with the idea of JS, or any prophet, growing, regressing, and struggling in what he knows. I see this in scripture, and more broadly, in human experience.

2. For starters, I have no problem with the idea that JS simply felt inspired to plug those passages into the BoM. As well ask Matthew or Luke why they selected certain passages from Mark, but also felt obligated to change them (yes, I find myself agreeing much with the Mark as the first gospel we have in the Canon hypothesis, drawing on Q, and oral tradition and all that), or ask the writer of Daniel why he reinterpreted Jeremiah's prophecy (and Daniel is a quazi-history book, not a future predicting book, in my view). Prophets and bible writers often draw on and change older scriptural writings, and typically do so in a way that can make them more relevant in the now. Scriptures are just words and shouldn't be worshipped. They are digital (in that they’re alphabetic), and can never capture the more analogue aspects of human experience. Moreover, and from a communication studies perspective, I think the sola sciptura doctrine of the Reformation is a colossal mistake. Other prophetic forms such as images (I’m working on an article on the word-image contrast in the stone tablets vs. golden calf account in Exodous), theatre (such as in the Endowment presentation), and the voice of the living should be accounted for. The scriptures have their value and I'm commited to striving for accuracy in their texts (Insert my pitch for you to go out and buy an NRSV here!!! Do it now!!!), but much of their relevance comes from the continuing tradition of prophets and prophecy. Hence, my perspective is quite LDS, actually.

As someone somewhat trained in historical criticism, I can make a much, much, stronger case AGAINST the BoM as the history it has been purported to be than I could make in FAVOR of it. Linguistically it has some interesting features and has the marks of a religious genius. It has turns of phrase that strike me as 19th century New York, Elizabethan, 13th century English, and even ancient (I’m thinking of John Welch’s chiasmus material here, but not only that). Similarly, I believe the Gospels (and much of the NT) were written pseudonymously, Paul only wrote some of the letters attributed to him, and the fantastic stories in the OT are essentially folklore (and some of those, such as from the early part of Genesis, correspond to Babylonian myth and were doubtlessly handed down via oral tradition for a long time before they were even written down.). But then I’m not in the business of conflating scripture with some kind of definitive historical record. Jesus’ parables aren’t describing “real” historical events, yet they reverberate with the human experience. The same goes for Job (my favorite OT book, hands down), the Song of Solomon (another favorite, I love that there’s some erotica in the bible to stick a thorn in the feet of the puritanical), the allegory of the olive tree in Jacob five and on and on.

As a correlative to this, I’m not inclined to look for truth exclusively within the Church. I read philosophy, literature, holy books from other traditions (such as the Qur’an and Bhavagad Gita), and have found much value in them. I believe that the ordinances of my Church are valid and that it is an excellent framework for my search for truth, but I don’t make the kinds of exclusive claims that many Mormons do. If you want some insight into my perspective, read 2 Kings 22 where Hilkiah finds the lost book of the law and sends people out to all the various and sundry Israelite sects to come and perform the temple ordinances again. In other words, I believe that while a priest may be a prophet (and in the case of the LDS church, is), a prophet doesn’t have to be a priest. I believe this view is very much supported in scripture, and even in the 1978 First Presidency statement that said there was a measure of inspiration in Mohammed and Confucius. Moreover, the bible speaks of prophetesses like Deborah, and that even after some very patriarchal folks had control of the manuscripts for a long time.

In brief, the word-for-word Isaiah passages don’t bother me at all and I see no reason not to accept the scholars’ dating of second Isaiah. If the BoM is the historical artifact it's purported to be, or something similar, great. If not (and I suspect that this is so), that's not a problem for me whatsoever.

Also, one of the plusses of moving on from the KJV would be a renewed understanding that the JST is about Joseph and not about bible originals.

In conclusion, I’m going to quote President Hinckley on the BoM. This is from the First Presidency Message of the February, 2004 Ensign (p.6). The emphasis is mine:

“The evidence for its truth, for its validity in a world that is prone to demand evidence, lies not in archaeology or anthropology, though these may be helpful to some. It lies not in word research or historical analysis, though these may be confirmatory. The evidence for its truth and validity lies within the covers of the book itself. The test of its truth lies in reading it. It is a book of God. REASONABLE PEOPLE MAY SINCERELY QUESTION ITS ORIGIN; but those who have read it prayerfully have come to know by a power beyond their natural senses that it is true, that it contains the word of God, that it outlines saving truths of the everlasting gospel, that it "came forth by the gift and power of God … to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ.”

[Jeff Lebowski]

SEIQ,

Thank you for taking the time to put together that post. I really enjoy your contributions on this site.