Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!snorkelwacker!apple!sun-barr!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: wcsa@cbnewsc.att.com Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Multiple Isaiahs Message-ID: Date: 23 Sep 90 07:11:12 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories - Indian Hill West - Naperville, IL Lines: 301 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu Mike Siemon's rather forceful comments remind me that nothing done quick and dirty is worth doing. So, please understand that when approaching the problem of Isaiah variants in the BoM, I'm usually juggling several different problems that Mike, Firth, and others on the net seem to have no knowledge. The result will be that I will pass over issues that do not present any problems to me (maybe I should take them more seriously), and address issues that are confusing or seem to avoid the problems that are of concern to others as Siemon and Firth. When talking about the BoM's rendering of Isaiah I am considering several problems: 1- the method of translation, 2- the impact of the translation method on textual criticism, and 3- the impact of the BoM's rendition on the interpretation of Isaiah. Intersecting these three problems are several schools of thought among the Mormons which I will designate the B.H. Roberts school (BHR) and the original tradition school (OT). A sort of middle ground does exist between these two schools, a literal No Man's Land, but for the sake time and space, I won't go into any description of that position. The translation of the BoM is a hotly debated topic among Mormon scholars basically because JS never really told us the exact process, and the process will influence how Mormons will approach the text. We can piece together bits here and there, from D&C 9 and off hand comments by JS, his wife, and several people, and from remarks set down by Oliver Cowdery, who was present during most of the translation process. You hear from time to time about JS using a "seer stone" with English text appearing and disappearing magically. I'm sorry, but there are major problems with that, not the least is D&C 9. Exactly how "seer stones" figure in, is debatable, but what we do know from Cowdery is that near the end of the translation of the BoM, JS was so "tuned in" to his source that he would sit next to Cowdery, with the covered plates on the table, and dictate the manuscript to him, page after page, hour after hour without the use of stones, hats, or other cognative aids! Additional significance deals with the order in which the BoM was translated. Most people ASSUME that the first books (1 and 2 Nephi, Jacob) were produced first. In fact, they were the *last* books to be translated, moreover, the lengthy passages of Isaiah are found in those books. The BHR school feels that when JS came to the lengthy passages of Isaiah, found in 2nd Nephi, he simply copied the AV, except in instances where he felt that changes were necessary. This would account for the minute comparison of the text between the BoM and the AV. This also allows the application of all the current tools and thoughts of biblical criticism to be applied to this section of the BoM. This school tends to push the BoM text back to the MT except in instances where alternative traditions can be shown. But Cowdery's account of the translation process does not mention the use of a bible at any time. Now maybe that's simply an oversight of Cowdery, but Mormons are going to have to consider the possibility that the Isaiah portions of the BoM may have been given as part of the translation process rather than simply a comparison with the AV. The OT school will take this position on the translation process (more or less) and looks at the differences between the BoM, AV, and MT as evidence of an older more accurate tradition that is now lost, but restored by JS. Generally (but not always), modern biblical criticism doesn't appeal too strongly to the adherents of this view. The battlefront of these two schools, so to speak, can be drawn, in the case of BoM Isaiah variants, down two lines: the first involves those instances where the BoM rendition equals the AV, but both are unequal to the Masoretic Text, and the second line is drawn where the BoM's rendition is not equal to the AV. One example, from each of these lines, should be enough to give an idea of each two school approachs the problem. First, let's examine the specific problem raised by Robert Firth, concerning a passage in which the BoM and AV agree, but that they disagree with the MT (a total of five cases have been identified). Suppose you find a passage in the AV that could be considered to be a mistranslation of the MT and you find that passage in the BoM, well, that lends credit to the view of BHR. This presents no problem because, after all, Mormons don't accept the notion of inerrancy, and the only sure way of knowing the original intent is through the Holy Ghost (no surprises there). But the OT school is going to scream *foul*. Noone has proved that a mistranslation has taken place, and the possiblity that the alternate reading is a legitmate tradition is virtually ignored. Robert Firth indicated that the rendering of Isa 5:25 = 2 Ne 15:25 is a mistranslation of the MT. The OT would ask how does he know exactly which tradition was used to translate this passage. While it is general knowledge that the translators of the AV generally used the MT for the Old Testament and the Stephen text for the New, the translation was not based exclusively on those texts. The resulting task would be to chase down all the primary sources used by the translators and determine that, yes there was a mistranslation. Fortunately, for Firth, the problem is much easier: an examination of the passage in question shows that a relatively simple change can throw the meaning in either direction for or against the tradition described in the BoM (that's why Firth's problem is not very interesting). The OT would also respond to Firth by pointing out that a tradition supporting the rendering of the passage in favor of the BoM and AV but against the MT exists. One such example was described by Gary L. Bishop in 1974 and comes from the portions of Isaiah found among the Qumran scrolls of cave IV. "The second difference between MT and 4QpIsa^b can be viewed in a couple of ways. If the scribe of 4QpIsa^b simply left the *waw* out as an oversight, then MT and 4QpIsa^b agree. if there was no oversight, then the word in 4QpIsa^b is a verb in the perfect form and related the idea of something having been cut. This verbal meaning would agree with the idea of the English, "were torn." However, the pointing in MT clearly indicates the word is a noun beginning with an inseparable preposition and assimilated definite article. Contrary to the English, MT would then have to be rendered, '...as the dung in the middle of streets...' This idea agrees with LXX which reads, '...as a dunghill in the middle of a path...'" "The Tradition of Isaiah in the BoM" (1974), pp 26-7. A better idea of the conflict between these two schools is illustrated by their handling of a passage in which the BoM differs with the AV and the MT. Approximately 260 cases are involved. *************************************************************** *NOTE* while I have not marked the italized words, I have placed personal comments and verse numbers within ()s. Parrallel relationships are marked on the left margin, Sections in Capitals, and specific passages in lower case. Isaiah 51:17b-22 from the A.V. A (The Bitter Cup) a which hast drunk at the hand of the Lord the cup of his fury; b thou hast drunken the dregs of the cup of trembling and wrung them out B (Helpless or Childless) c (18) There is none to guide her among all the sons whom she hath brought forth; c neither is there any that taketh her by the hand, of all the sons that she hath brought up. C (Double Disaster) (19) These two are come unto thee; e who shall be sorry for thee f thy desolation and destruction, and the famine and the sword e and by whom shall I comfort thee? f Thy sons have fainted, B (Helpless or Childless) g they lie at the head of all the streets; as a wild bull in a net, g they are full of the fury of the Lord, the rebuke of thy God. i (21) Therefore hear now this, thou afflicted, and drunken, but not with wine: i (22) Thus saith thy Lord the LORD, and thy God that pleadeth the cause of his people, A' (The Bitter Cup) b' behold, I have taken out of thine hand the cup of trembling, a' even the dregs of the cup of my fury; thou shalt no more drink it again. *************************************************************** 2 Nephi 8:17b-22 A (The Bitter Cup) a which hast drunk at the hand of the Lord the cup of his fury b --thou hast drunken the dregs of the cup of trembling wrung out-- B (Powerless) c (18) And none to guide her among all the sons she hath brought forth; c neither that taketh her by the hand, of all the sons she hath brought up. C (Two Sons) d (19) These two sons are come unto thee, e who shall be sorry for thee f --thy desolation and destruction, f and the famine and the sword-- e and by whom shall I comfort thee? d (20) Thy sons have fainted, save these two; B (Powerless) g they lie at the head of all the streets; as a wild bull in a net, g they are full of the fury of the Lord, the rebuke of thy God. i (21) Therefore hear now this, thou afflicted, and drunken, and not with wine: i (22) Thus saith thy Lord, the Lord and thy God pleadeth the cause of his people; A' (The Bitter Cup) b' behold, I have taken out of thine hand the cup of trembling, a' the dregs of the cup of my fury; thou shalt no more drink it again. *************************************************************** Although both texts are chiasmic in form, the turning point, C, is significantly different. In Isaiah 51:19-20a, the passage points to a double disaster, ie. destruction and desolation. The section can be arranged in a pair of parallels. But in 2 Ne 8:19-20a, while C also fortells destruction and desolation, it also adds a reference to two sons who are definitely not in a helpless condition. The addition begs comparison with Rev. 11:3-12, thus suggesting an apocalyptic interpretation. Note, as well, that the addition continues the chiasmic form of this passage thru section C (which the regular Isaiah fails to do), and that the addition (if you take the apocalyptic approach) neatly supports the anthesis A', ie. how God will take the trembling cup out of the hands of Israel and place it in the hands of their enemies. After considering this "unauthorized" variation from the AV, along with its interpretation, one might well ask, does the BoM text represent a different and more accurate textual tradition than the MT. Ah, there's the rub! Most of the textual variations (7 points in all) around the turning point C are trivial: mainly the elimination of italized words. The only semi- interesting variation is in verse 18. AV: "_There is_ none to guide" BoM: " And none to guide" At first glance, it appears to be a simple case of italics substitution, but it is not the case, for the BoM is supported by LXX. It appears that the MT lost the prefixed conjunction w-. But when all is said and done, the alterations around section C are not a really big deal. It is C that holds our attention. BUT, there is no supporting tradition for C, at least among the existing set of Isaiah traditions that I know of. Here we get back to the two schools and how they deal with section C. John Tvedtnes, a member of the BHR school, is embarrassed by the passage and tries to force it back to the MT. In his work, "Isaiah Variants in the BoM," he suggests that maybe Oliver Cowdery wrote it down incorrectly, and when confronted with verse 20a "save these two" which clearly refers back to the "two sons" of the preceeding verse, he lamely suggests that the alteration might be attributed to Jacob, who is quoting these passages in his discourse and that "we have already seen how much he paraphrased earler portions of Isaiah during the same speech." (pg 88) The OT school, on the other hand, is going to cite this passage as an example of a lost, but now restored tradition of Isaiah that is more accurate than the MT. "So what if we don't have a text supporting its rendition at the moment," they'll say, "just be patient, and in the meantime, consider the variations in the text that we have that do have quite good textual support." Perhaps a short note on what the middle ground is doing. We're looking to see if the "two witnesses" have a pre-Christian tradition. But that's another story. Back in the wonderful world of netland, I can't help but be amazed when individuals, like Robert Firth, Ms. Smith, and a certain bozo from Colorado (of about a year ago), will get on the net and proclaim, on the basis of some "expert" like the late Walter Martin, that the BoM lifted passages from the Bible with little or no alterations at all. Pardon me, if I don't pay close attention to such "experts." Before concluding, I would like to point out one more thing. Previously I posted a series of examples: >> >> 1 - Isa 3:26 = 2 Ne 13:26 >> KJV: and she *being* desolate >> BoM: and she shall be desolate >> (MT Hebrew favors BoM) To which Mike Siemon responded: >May I humbly submit, from a *very* limited knowledge of Hebrew, that it >is preposterous, in view of Hebrew verb usage, to MAKE any distinction >between the forced renderings into English here? *If* (and it's a nice >if of typographical history) the rendering of auxiliary verb forms in >italics was the common practice in Smith's day for English bibles, then >the italics *signal* to anyone reading them a possibility for variation >of the English phrasing, specifically in regard to verb forms. Because >the KJV translators, terribly concerned for a word-by-word translation, >*deliberately* pointed to places where *they* made an arbitrary decision >in order to "get" English out of Hebrew. Perhaps it was my error to assume that *s around a word would indicate its italized format, otherwise, I can't figure out why Mike decided to offer such a condenscending little lecture on the use of typography within the AV. While it might appear to Mike that English words were added to make sense out of the Hebrew, may I point out (and I promise to do it nicely) the MT actually employs a verb (wnqth), which the BoM's rendition uses and the AV does not. -- Willard C. Smith att!iwsgw!wcsa wcsa@iwsgw.att.com "It's life, Captain, but not as we know it."