Documentary Hypothesis and 'Who wrote the Bible?'
John S. Colton
Following a recommendation on a newsgroup (this one or another that I
follow, I can't remember), I have started reading Richard Friedman's
book, "Who wrote the Bible?".
The book, which is very well written and which I recommend (although
I'm only half way through), basically explains to the layman why
current Bible scholars believe the "Documentary Hypothesis", which is
that the first 5 books (books of Moses) in the Bible were written by
multiple authors. Although I don't agree with everything he says,
Friedman presents a compelling case through "higher criticism"
(examing the language of the books as opposed to examining scroll
fragments) for the books having been pieced together from works by (at
least) 4 different authors who most likely lived from 600-750 BC (he
narrows it down further than that). Of course, those authors would
have had references (oral or written) from which they based their
accounts.
I am very interested in hearing an LDS perspective on this. For that
matter, if any of the non-LDS "regulars" have a perspective, I'm
interested in that as well.
(*spoiler alert in case you want to read the book*)
Here's one specific reason why I think it's interesting: Friedman
proposes that the book of Deuteronomy and the books Joshua, Judges,
Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles were written in two parts by the prophet
Jeremiah. One part, the bulk of it, was written before the destruction
of Jerusalem, the other part (which IIRC is the last bit of Chronicles
together with some minor editing of the bulk section) some 20-50 years
later, after the destruction of Jerusalem. Comparing this to Book of
Mormon dating, it seems to me that Lehi et al, would have had access
to the first part, but not to the second revision. One could therefore
see if Friedman's model and the Book of Mormon are compatible by
seeing if any of language of the 2nd part is contained in the Biblical
quotations found in the Book of Mormon. Has anyone done this?
John
John S. Colton
Hedgehog
col...@socrates.berkeley.edu (John S. Colton) wrote:
> One could therefore
> see if Friedman's model and the Book of Mormon are compatible by
> seeing if any of language of the 2nd part is contained in the Biblical
> quotations found in the Book of Mormon. Has anyone done this?
We already know that the Book of Mormon quotes deutero-Isaiah.
Interpretation one: Smith is a fraud.
Interpretation two: Something's wrong with the documentary analysis of Isaiah.
Interpretation three: The Book of Mormon peoples did not accurately
understand their own origins.
Peace,
Hedgehog
CharlesSWaters
>
> In article <vKhn5.30642$RV1.3...@pouncer.easynews.com>,
> col...@socrates.berkeley.edu (John S. Colton) wrote:
>
> > see if Friedman's model and the Book of Mormon are compatible by
> > seeing if any of language of the 2nd part is contained in the Biblical
> > quotations found in the Book of Mormon. Has anyone done this?
>
>
> Interpretation one: Smith is a fraud.
>
> Interpretation two: Something's wrong with the documentary analysis of Isaiah.
>
> Interpretation three: The Book of Mormon peoples did not accurately
> understand their own origins.
Interpretation four: Other peoples migrated from the old world with
some of the more current writings of the prophets.
--
Charles
From the cowardice that shrinks from new truth,
From the laziness that is content with half-truths,
From the arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
[From the foolishness that denigrates the search for all truth,]
O God of Truth, deliver us.
-- Ancient Prayer
True morality consists not in following the beaten
track, but in finding out the true path for ourselves
and fearlessly following it. -- Mohandas Gandhi
Scott Marquardt
>Interpretation four: Other peoples migrated from the old world with
>some of the more current writings of the prophets.
...and five: along with things like "steel," the ancients had e-mail, too.
;-)
- Scott
Scott Marquardt
>Interpretation four: Other peoples migrated from the old world with
>some of the more current writings of the prophets.
...and five: along with things like "steel," the ancients had e-mail, too.
;-)
- Scott
Sean Luke
> ...and five: along with things like "steel," the ancients had e-mail, too.
Bad news for you Scott: it's been recently discovered that the ancients
_did_ have steel. Perhaps you've not been keeping up. I imagine we'll
soon discover they had email too.
Sean
cdo...@my-deja.com
hedg...@scripps.edu (Hedgehog) wrote:
snip
> We already know that the Book of Mormon quotes deutero-Isaiah.
>
> Interpretation one: Smith is a fraud.
>
> Interpretation two: Something's wrong with the documentary analysis
of Isaiah.
"deutero"Isaiah is a theory. Others have even suggested more than two
authors.
The BOM verifies that this analysis is incorrect.
>
> Interpretation three: The Book of Mormon peoples did not accurately
> understand their own origins.
>
> Peace,
> Hedgehog
>
>
--
Best regards,
Charles dowis
"Try to reason with a cat? I'm not sure that's possible."
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
John S. Colton
wrote:
>In article <vKhn5.30642$RV1.3...@pouncer.easynews.com>,
>col...@socrates.berkeley.edu (John S. Colton) wrote:
>
>> One could therefore
>> see if Friedman's model and the Book of Mormon are compatible by
>> seeing if any of language of the 2nd part is contained in the Biblical
>> quotations found in the Book of Mormon. Has anyone done this?
>
>We already know that the Book of Mormon quotes deutero-Isaiah.
Thanks for the response. For my benefit, could you elaborate on
deutero-Isaiah? I assume it's a model whereby Isaiah was written by
two authors? Does it relate to the documentary analysis of the books
of Moses I referred to above, or is it a separate documentary
analysis?
John
Craig L. Olson
>
> Scott Marquardt <wasREM...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > ...and five: along with things like "steel," the ancients had e-mail, too.
>
> _did_ have steel. Perhaps you've not been keeping up. I imagine we'll
> soon discover they had email too.
Who you callin' ancient, young whippersnapper? Oh my heck, yes, we had
e-mail. We had stone desktops for big e-mails and LBPD (liquid brass
plate display) laptops for regular e-mails ('coure we had bigger laps
back then, too). The Jaredites used mainframes, which they had to
haul around with elephants, but once the elephants died out, so did
the mainframes. The Mulekites all dialed in to AAOL (Ancient America
On Line), which they tried to use to decode the 24 gold plates (really
printed circuit boards from the no longer portable Jaredite mainframes,
but I digress), but that was replaced by a network of rope modems and
NSPs (Nephite Service Providers) once they got around to writing the
Book of Mosiah, which was available first online.
The real reason Moroni had to drag the Golden Plates around was that
he lost his network access when he fled into the wilderness; everything
was available online up until that point. But the descendants of the
Lamanites, seeking balance and beauty with nature, saw the dark side
of e-business and turned to a hunter-gatherer culture instead.
Craig, wondering if history will repeat itself, itself.
Scott Marquardt
>Scott Marquardt <wasREM...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> ...and five: along with things like "steel," the ancients had e-mail, too.
>Bad news for you Scott: it's been recently discovered that the ancients
>_did_ have steel. Perhaps you've not been keeping up. I imagine we'll
>soon discover they had email too.
It's true that I've not been keeping up.
I once posed that Smith's hat was an early VR headset. I reckon he had an
early bluetooth connection with the thing, too. ;-)
- Scott
Hedgehog
wrote:
> "deutero"Isaiah is a theory.
So is the claim that Joseph Smith was a prophet.
Peace,
Hedgehog
Hedgehog
col...@socrates.berkeley.edu (John S. Colton) wrote:
> Thanks for the response. For my benefit, could you elaborate on
> deutero-Isaiah?
No.
Most of the readers of SRM are in the United States. Nearly every town
and village in the United States has a Public Library.
If all else fails, there is amazon.com
I simply don't have the time or resources to provide free research services.
Peace,
Hedgehog
Charles B. Shield
<snip>
>For my benefit, could you elaborate on deutero-Isaiah? I assume it's a model
whereby Isaiah was written by two authors? <
I have heard that scholars of the Bible believe there were two authors to
Isaiah because Isaiah's prophesies actually came true. <g>
But I don't know if that is really what is at issue.
C9postal
Daniel Vieira
: >We already know that the Book of Mormon quotes deutero-Isaiah.
: Thanks for the response. For my benefit, could you elaborate on
: deutero-Isaiah? I assume it's a model whereby Isaiah was written by
: two authors? Does it relate to the documentary analysis of the books
: of Moses I referred to above, or is it a separate documentary
: analysis?
--begin quote--
from: the NAB Introduction to Isaiah
Chapters 40-55, sometimes called the Deutero-Isaiah, are generally
attributed to an anonymous poet who prophesied toward the end of the
Babylonian exile. From this section come the great messianic oracles
known as the songs of the Servant, whose mysterious destiny of suffering
and glorification is fulfilled in the passion and glorification of Christ.
Chapters 56-66 contain oracles from a later period and were composed by
disciples who inherited the spirit and continued the work of the great
prophet.
--end quote--
It is well established that this section of Isaiah comes from the end of
the Exile, as it names in Isaiah 44:28 and 45:1 Cyrus as the "shepherd"
of God. Cyrus was the Perisan king who conquered Babylon and allowed the
Jews to go home and build a Temple to God (as he was a Zoroastrian, he
equated the monotheistic faith of the Jews with his own, thus saw the good
in allowing them to return.) He made this pronouncement in 538 BC.
In any case, the assumption is that the BofM could not have these sections
of Isaiah in it, since Deutero-Isaiah dates from just before 538 BC, and
the Nephites would have left around 590 BC. This does remove some
credibility from the BofM, but as it is a book of faith rather than
history, I doubt many LDS would lose sleep over the issue.
Dan
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Dan Vieira | dvi...@primenet.com | dsv2...@huey.csun.edu |
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Faire et en faisant, se faire et n'etre rien que ce qu'il s'est fait."
-- Jean-Paul Sartre
"The darkening of the world, the flight of the gods, the destruction
of the earth, the transformation of men into a mass, the hatred and
suspicion of everything free and creative, have assumed such
proportions throughout the earth that such childish categories as
pessimism and optimism have long since become absurd."
-- Martin Heidegger
------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Dan's Web Site | http://www.primenet.com/~dvieira/index.html |
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ann Porter
news:mFvo5.973$V9.6...@news.easynews.com...
> I have heard that scholars of the Bible believe there were two authors to
> Isaiah because Isaiah's prophesies actually came true. <g>
If you grab any good non-LDS concordance, a description of the two (and
maybe three?) writers of Isaiah will be a subject covered in the commentary.
At issue for LDS is that the 2nd of the two Isaiahs wrote after the
migration by Lehi's family. So how could Nephi have quoted the words of the
Isaiah who hadn't written them yet?
I haven't looked at this issue in a long time, so I don't know where
biblical scholars put the break between the two Isaiahs, or if Nephi quoted
the 2nd. If the only quotes of the 2nd are found in later sections of the
BofM, they could have been a separate revelation to the writer so that all
the prophecies could be discussed.
I find the argument "there weren't two Isaiah's because he's quoted in the
Book of Mormon" to be circular, at best.
I've said this before: a theory, at least in science, and maybe in other
fields, is not just a hypothesis. It's a hypothesis well-supported by the
facts. If there are a wealth of facts to support the two Isaiah theory, and
only a few (like the Book of Mormon) to discount it, then an appropriate
approach would be to weigh all the facts and make a decision. Good scholars
don't throw out fifteen data points because there's one that doesn't jive.
Best,
Ann
cdo...@my-deja.com
hedg...@scripps.edu (Hedgehog) wrote:
> > "deutero"Isaiah is a theory.
>
> So is the claim that Joseph Smith was a prophet.
So is gravity.
cdo...@my-deja.com
"Ann Porter" <annp...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> If you grab any good non-LDS concordance, a description of the two
(and
maybe three?) writers of Isaiah will be a subject covered in the
commentary.
At issue for LDS is that the 2nd of the two Isaiahs wrote after the
migration by Lehi's family. So how could Nephi have quoted the words
of the
Isaiah who hadn't written them yet?>
Which, for LDS, simply proves that was only one author. No issue at
all.
snip
>If there are a wealth of facts to support the two Isaiah theory, and
> only a few (like the Book of Mormon) to discount it, then an
appropriate
> approach would be to weigh all the facts and make a decision.
And the problem here is to determine what is a *fact* and what is
opinion/speculation/assertion/baloney. It is interesting that some
people hear a so-called expert express his opinion on a matter, and
then accept that opinion as fact.
Good scholars
> don't throw out fifteen data points because there's one that doesn't
jive.
Only if you have enough discrimination to understand the difference I
described above. The Book of Mormon is an authentic ancient record.
That outweighs a thousand opinions and speculations of those experts.
One data point vs a thousand opinions/assertions/speculation/baloney.
Scott Marquardt
>> > "deutero"Isaiah is a theory.
>> So is the claim that Joseph Smith was a prophet.
>So is gravity.
So is quantum theory.
Scott, who doesn't want to miss out if we're doing an exhaustive
enumeration... ;-)
Scott Marquardt
>And the problem here is to determine what is a *fact* and what is
>opinion/speculation/assertion/baloney. It is interesting that some
>people hear a so-called expert express his opinion on a matter, and
>then accept that opinion as fact.
Is this true as well for so-called prophets?
An apostate in this forum says no Mormon prophets have said any "thus saith
the Lord's" in a long time. Does this mean that everything the Mormon
prophet says has the force of prophecy, or does it mean what it appears to
mean -- that nothing does? Does one discern middlin' alternatives by the
Spirit alone? Why wouldn't he simply be clear? Is it a way of keeping
things in code, so that only LDS can disagree with each other as to which
of the things Mormon prophets have said are true?
- Scott
Daniel Vieira
:: migration by Lehi's family. So how could Nephi have quoted the words
:: of the Isaiah who hadn't written them yet?>
: Which, for LDS, simply proves that was only one author. No issue at
: all.
I see. So because it would cause an anachronism, you throw out a fairly
well regarded Biblical point. That's a nice way to deal with problems of
logic -- just disregard them. I guess it keeps away the cognitive
dissonance.
: Only if you have enough discrimination to understand the difference I
: described above. The Book of Mormon is an authentic ancient record.
: That outweighs a thousand opinions and speculations of those experts.
: One data point vs a thousand opinions/assertions/speculation/baloney.
But what if the "baloney" as you put it is the historical veracity of the
BofM? What proof exactly is there of the book's historical truth? This
of course is necessary to consider it a real challenge to the
Deutero-Isaiah theory.
Ann Porter
news:yODo5.251$2V3.1...@pouncer.easynews.com...
> In article <tyvo5.965$V9.6...@news.easynews.com>,
> hedg...@scripps.edu (Hedgehog) wrote:
>
> > > "deutero"Isaiah is a theory.
> >
> > So is the claim that Joseph Smith was a prophet.
>
> So is gravity.
What do these have in common? They are all hypotheses that are well
supported by the facts. Not, I think, the point Charles was trying to
make...
Best,
Ann
Scott Marquardt
>I see. So because it would cause an anachronism, you throw out a fairly
>well regarded Biblical point. That's a nice way to deal with problems of
>logic -- just disregard them. I guess it keeps away the cognitive
>dissonance.
"An epicycle a day, helps keep cognitive dissonance away!"
Well, it doesn't work very well with the customary melody. Let me ponder an
alternative...
;-)
- Scott
John S. Colton
wrote:
[snip]
>from: the NAB Introduction to Isaiah
[snip]
Thanks for the info, Daniel!
[snip]
>This does remove some
>credibility from the BofM, but as it is a book of faith rather than
>history, I doubt many LDS would lose sleep over the issue.
A good point. For starters, God could certainly reveal the same info
to Book of Mormon authors as He did to the Deutero-Isaiah author.
Although, as you say, it does remove some credibility, because then
there's the question of why would the Book of Mormon authors not say
there had been this additional revelation.
Anyway, I find the whole "An angel gave me these golden plates" claim
(although I believe it) a lot better place to start doubting the Book
of Mormon, then the deutero-Isaiah thing (from what little I know
about it now).
John
John S. Colton
wrote:
>cdo...@my-deja.com wrote:
>:: migration by Lehi's family. So how could Nephi have quoted the words
>:: of the Isaiah who hadn't written them yet?>
>
>: Which, for LDS, simply proves that was only one author. No issue at
>: all.
>
>I see. So because it would cause an anachronism, you throw out a fairly
>well regarded Biblical point. That's a nice way to deal with problems of
>logic -- just disregard them. I guess it keeps away the cognitive
>dissonance.
Well, as Ann pointed out, cdowis's point of view is not the only
possible LDS viewpoint.
[snip]
> What proof exactly is there of the book's historical truth? This
>of course is necessary to consider it a real challenge to the
>Deutero-Isaiah theory.
I've recommended this site before, but I really enjoy Jeff Lindsey's
"Evidences of the Book of Mormon" page:
http://www.jefflindsay.com/BMEvidences.shtml
His LDS FAQ also contains a few additional links relevant here:
http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/index.html
(in the "Questions about the Book of Mormon" section)
I won't list all the evidences here, since you can go to his page, but
I did think it interesting to see how many "proofs" were considered to
be "disproofs" in Joseph Smith's day. (Use of metals, writing on
plates, use of cement, etc.)
Personally, I find the Hebraic language structures and poetry (some,
but not all of which are listed on Jeff's pages) contained in the BofM
to be at least as compelling as "Higher Criticism" theories such as
Deutero-Isaiah I've seen, when considered purely on a linguistic note
(caviat: I'm certainly no expert on the subject).
John
Daniel Vieira
: Well, as Ann pointed out, cdowis's point of view is not the only
: possible LDS viewpoint.
This is true, but Charles just throws out the Deutero-Isaiah theory
because it doesn't agree with his world view. The problem is his view on
the BofM is not shared by anyone outside of LDS quarters, so while it may
seem like a valid argument to him, it seems rather meaningless to those of
us falling outside of the LDS camp.
: > What proof exactly is there of the book's historical truth? This
: >of course is necessary to consider it a real challenge to the
: >Deutero-Isaiah theory.
<snip websites on proofs for the BofM>
: Personally, I find the Hebraic language structures and poetry (some,
: but not all of which are listed on Jeff's pages) contained in the BofM
: to be at least as compelling as "Higher Criticism" theories such as
: Deutero-Isaiah I've seen, when considered purely on a linguistic note
: (caviat: I'm certainly no expert on the subject).
Actually, the most valid arguement against the BofM I see is that it
contains an almost orthodox theology. Aside from a few interesting
assertations, the book is very Traditional in scope, much like one would
find if a person with knowledge of 19th Century Christianity and some
Church History would put together.
I think the RLDS position on the BofM is perhaps the best: they deny it
is a book of history, yet accept it as an inspired message from God. Not
unlike the book of Deuteronomy, which was written towards the end of the
Kingdom period, and yet claims to be the words of Moses. It is an
historical fabrication with a real spiritual message.
I doubt the LDS Church would ever take that view on the BofM, however.
Dan
---
Daniel Vieira
: A good point. For starters, God could certainly reveal the same info
: to Book of Mormon authors as He did to the Deutero-Isaiah author.
I guess it's the same idea as how Jesus breaks down chapters of Matthew in
his discourse to the Nephites on an almost word for word basis. That was
just the way it was done. Besides, from what I know about the traslation
of the BofM, Smith never actually translated the plates per se, but used
the Urim and Thurim to "read" what the plates said. If this is the case,
why did Moroni give him the Urim and Thurim *and* the plates? Why didn't
he just tell Smith to put them in his hat and a message from God would
appear to him?
That could explain how the deutero-Isaiah appears in the BofM. God simply
made the words of Isaiah appear to Smith during the "translation" process.
See, here I go defending you guys! :^>
Best,
Dan
cdo...@my-deja.com
cdo...@my-deja.com
Scott Marquardt <wasREM...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> cdo...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> >And the problem here is to determine what is a *fact* and what is
opinion/speculation/assertion/baloney. It is interesting that some
people hear a so-called expert express his opinion on a matter, and
then accept that opinion as fact.>>
> Is this true as well for so-called prophets?
Yes, of course, depending on what subject they are opining -->> they
are telling us how to live the gospel or speculating on Book of Mormon
geography.
> An apostate in this forum says no Mormon prophets have said any "thus
saith
> the Lord's" in a long time. Does this mean that everything the Mormon
It means something only to an apostate. TSTL is not a requirement for
revelation.
> prophet says has the force of prophecy, or does it mean what it
appears to
> mean -- that nothing does? Does one discern middlin' alternatives by
the
> Spirit alone?
snip
Scott,
I understand the difference between revelation and opinion, and I'm in
no mood to argue this point with you.
cdo...@my-deja.com
Daniel Vieira <dvi...@primenet.com> wrote:
> cdo...@my-deja.com wrote:
> :: migration by Lehi's family. So how could Nephi have quoted the
words
> :: of the Isaiah who hadn't written them yet?>
>
> : Which, for LDS, simply proves that was only one author. No issue at
> : all.
>
> I see. So because it would cause an anachronism, you throw out a
fairly
> well regarded Biblical point.
"Well regarded" is not proof. Alot of "well regarded" opinions have
been shown to be wrong.
Give me solid proof. "well regarded" doesn't cut it.
That's a nice way to deal with problems of
> logic -- just disregard them. I guess it keeps away the cognitive
> dissonance.
Nope, I deal with it head on.
Proof, not opinion, assertion, assumption. Proof.
>
> : Only if you have enough discrimination to understand the difference
I
> : described above. The Book of Mormon is an authentic ancient record.
> : That outweighs a thousand opinions and speculations of those
experts.
>
> : One data point vs a thousand
opinions/assertions/speculation/baloney.
>
> But what if the "baloney" as you put it is the historical veracity of
the
> BofM?
Yep, some of the so-called proof of the BOM was indeed baloney,
especially back in the 50's .
What proof exactly is there of the book's historical truth? This
> of course is necessary to consider it a real challenge to the
> Deutero-Isaiah theory.
No challenge is necessary. It is just an opinion based on assumption
and speculation based on internal examination of Isaiah.
I have solid evidence for the BOM based on internal analysis of the
text compared with recent historical discoveries.
For example, the compelling evidence of names in the BOM, compared to
actual names recently discovered in the middle east. A comparison of
the geography of the arabian peninsula with the description in the BOM.
Not proof, but IMO compelling evidence.
Scott Marquardt
>Give me solid proof. "well regarded" doesn't cut it.
>Proof, not opinion, assertion, assumption. Proof.
>Not proof, but IMO compelling evidence.
What's that "O" in there? ;-)
Best,
Scott
John S. Colton
wrote:
[snip]
>Actually, the most valid arguement against the BofM I see is that it
>contains an almost orthodox theology. Aside from a few interesting
>assertations, the book is very Traditional in scope, much like one would
>find if a person with knowledge of 19th Century Christianity and some
>Church History would put together.
[snip]
That is, a person with knowledge of 19th Century Christianity as well
as Hebraic poetry, grammar, and idioms... ;)
I actually agree with you in a certain respect here, that the language
and/or opinions of the translator most likely influenced the final
product. In other words, the Book of Mormon would have had a different
feel if Oliver (or for example John Colton) had been the one
translating, not Joseph. I think anyone who has done some translation
themselves (as I have done) will most likely share that opinion.
John
cdo...@my-deja.com
>
> I think the RLDS position on the BofM is perhaps the best: they deny
it
> is a book of history, yet accept it as an inspired message from God.
As I have pointed out to our RLDS (or, Community of Christ as it is
called now) friends, this position is totally untenable.
It requires that Joseph Smith lied about the origin of the Book of
Mormon -- the angel Moroni, the plates, etc etc, and that the 11
witnesses also lied.
How can Joseph Smith be a prophet and he and his followers lie abt the
origin of the BOM? How can it be "inspired" with such a fraud.
And their answer to this is..... silence.
Either Joseph Smith is who he says he is, or he is a fraud. There is
nothing in between.
Not
> unlike the book of Deuteronomy, which was written towards the end of
the
> Kingdom period, and yet claims to be the words of Moses. It is an
> historical fabrication with a real spiritual message.
>
> I doubt the LDS Church would ever take that view on the BofM, however.
It just doesn't make any sense.
Scott Marquardt
>Either Joseph Smith is who he says he is, or he is a fraud. There is
>nothing in between.
David B., is there a tertium quid?
;-)
- Scott
Woody Brison
Daniel Vieira wrote:
>
> John S. Colton <col...@socrates.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>
> : A good point. For starters, God could certainly reveal the same info
> : to Book of Mormon authors as He did to the Deutero-Isaiah author.
>
> I guess it's the same idea as how Jesus breaks down chapters of Matthew in
> his discourse to the Nephites on an almost word for word basis. That was
> just the way it was done. Besides, from what I know about the traslation
> of the BofM, Smith never actually translated the plates per se, but used
> the Urim and Thurim to "read" what the plates said. If this is the case,
> why did Moroni give him the Urim and Thurim *and* the plates? Why didn't
> he just tell Smith to put them in his hat and a message from God would
> appear to him?
>
> That could explain how the deutero-Isaiah appears in the BofM. God simply
> made the words of Isaiah appear to Smith during the "translation" process.
>
> See, here I go defending you guys! :^>
There was some research done a while back using wordprints.
It showed there was no deutero-Isaiah. It showed that there
were about fifteen authors of the Book of Mormon. It was
presented at a BYU Tuesday Morning Thing in the Marriot
Center, around 1980 as I remember. But the guys published
papers and all. Anyway, what I wanted to say was that we
can speculate all day on Joseph's translation methods but
he never really told anybody how he did it. He probably
was a little wary from when he told that minister about
his first vision and suffered persecution for years as a
result. There's an article about the translation process
on the FARMS website,
http://www.farmsresearch.com/free/transcripts/ricks86.html
Wood
Hedgehog
<wwbr...@nospam.com> wrote:
> There was some research done a while back using wordprints.
> It showed there was no deutero-Isaiah.
Technically, all it can show is that there is no significant statistical
difference between the diction used in various parts of Isaiah.
> It showed that there
> were about fifteen authors of the Book of Mormon.
This suprises me because of the frequent uses in the Book of Mormon of
stock phrases such as "and it came to pass". In addition, we know the
Book of Mormon quotes extensively from the Bible and so presumably all the
Biblical quotes would have to be removed from consideration. Finally, one
would suppose that proper nouns would have to be excluded.
> It was
> presented at a BYU Tuesday Morning Thing in the Marriot
> Center, around 1980 as I remember. But the guys published
> papers and all.
Any references on the papers?
It's kind of hard for anyone not at BYU on Tuesday mornings in the 1980's
to tell what exactly these guys said.
Peace,
Hedgehog
John S. Colton
[snip]
>Any references on the papers?
The wordprinting article that I read was published in BYU Today. It
was *not* published in any peer-reviewed journal, which is a big blow
to its credibility, in my book. No word-printing Book of Mormon study
has ever been published in a peer-reviewed journal, that I know of. As
much as I complain about the "publish or perish" mentality of
academics today, peer-reviewed journals are a terrific way of sorting
through bogus claims. (Not that I'm saying this claim was bogus, just
it did not pass through this particular "bogu-filter".)
Anyway, as I said, I have read the study. It was interesting, but IMO
by no means definitive. I don't remember details (I read it about 8
years ago), but my impression was that the study was not extremely
scientific.
More interesting than the Book of Mormon study, I thought, was the
study on the Lectures on Faith. (This may have been published in the
same place, or in a different place, I do not remember.) In contrast
with the BoM study, the LoF study I thought *did* provide conclusive
evidence for authorship of the various Lectures on Faith. IIRC, Joseph
Smith was shown to be the author of most of the Lectures, but with
Sidney Rigdon author of a couple of them.
If anybody is really interested in this subject, I may have the
article(s) filed somewhere. If you let me know, I will try to dig them
out.
As far as general methodology is concerned, IIRC it seems like one
thing they focused on was rate of introduction of new words. I.e.,
sort of like: given the past 1000 words, what is the likelihood that
the next 100 words will contain a word that was not used previously?
That is one way they could not be overly affected by phrases such as
"it came to pass".
The study I read also analyzed some 20th century authors, in books
where the writer was writing different points of view. IIRC of the 3
or 4 authors examined, only Faulkner was able to "fool" the
wordprinting methodology into thinking he was multiple authors.
John