Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!ucsd!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: iwtdr!wcsa@cbnewsc.att.com Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Textual analysis of cruces in the Book of Mormon [part 1 of ?] Message-ID: Date: 21 Oct 90 05:45:26 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Lines: 272 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu There are a number of basic problems I see in Robert Firth's recent analysis of Isaiah in the BoM beginning with his promise to "allow the documents to speak for themselves." I feel that he demonstrates very vividly that documents, especially when they're in conflict, cannot speak for themselves. Stylistic Considerations ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Firth's analysis of the passages in question is limited by his inability to read Hebrew, and, in the case of LXX support, Greek. He relys on English translations. Even though I studied Hebrew to fulfil my undergraduate requirements, my skills are unquestionably rusty and I would not presume to press my knowledge on Robert. However, I do know enough to follow closely the arguments of several Mormon scholars (Vest, Bishop, and Tvedtnes) as they examined the Isaiah variants of the BoM. Basically these Mormons approached the problem by putting the English of the BoM back into Hebrew. They were able to take style differences into account because they were able to compare the AV with the MT. In this respect the insistence of JS adhereing to the style of the AV, even when he altered the text, was God sent. The final result is that the "great chaisms" seen by Firth in the English translation are not so great in Hebrew. But this also introduces another problem, which Firth has not considered. Since the BoM adheres so closely to the style of the AV, the possibility that the creater, if it is a modern forgery, could have screwed up the Hebrew Grammer is rather high. For example, when Firth offers a conjective series of events that would have transformed the material of the AV into the tradition followed by the BoM, he doesn't recognize the series of grammerical land mines that he is stepping on. Although Firth senses that changing a *the* into a *that* will impact the grammerical structure of the text in English, he doesn't grasp how that would impact the Hebrew, neither does he consider the reverse process (a *that* to a *the*), and whether or not the reverse makes more sense. Although I do not care for the style of the AV, I can appreciate the challanges facing a person who would not only attempt to create a different tradition of Isaiah, but then lay that new tradition over an existing translation. To successfully carry that off is going to require not only a good knowledge of Hebrew and Grammer, but the ability to recognize the portions of the text where such alterations can be reasonably made. The task is hardly trivial. The Relationship of the BoM and MT ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Firth also makes an assumption that I am not sure that I agree with. >Finally, if we do suppose an earlier Hebrew document with the same text >as the BoM, we can explain the current MT as having been derived from >it by "change". What change is unspecified. However, since any >difference whatsoever between texts can be explained by "change", I >shall assume that this means "change by means of well-established >causes of transcription error". While other mormons might agree with Firth, that the BoM tradition is an "original" tradition from which the MT descended, I haven't accepted that position for many years. The reason I haven't accepted this position is based on the study undertaken by Bishop in 1974. Bishop examined the tradition variations of Isaiah, not only between the BoM and other texts, but also between just the other texts. Bishop argued that there were several different "branches" of Isaiah traditions, ie. LXX and MT, for example the 1QIsA Qumran Scroll seems to generally fall within the LXX tradition rather than the MT tradition. It was Bishop's opinion that the BoM Isaiah followed yet another tradition. Deutro-Isaiah and BoM ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ When Firth started this line of discussion, he argued that the BoM was a modern forgery because it quoted from portions of Isaiah that have been labeled as deutro-Isaiah, therefore, would not have been included in a tradition of Isaiah available in 600 BC. I responded that accepting deutro-Isaiah did not necessarily mean that deutro-Isaiah lived after 600 BC. In support of this, I pointed out that there were many instances of captivity tradition (used by critics to date deutro-Isaiah to a time period after the Exile) that are found in writings that pre-date 600 BC. Our moderator pointed out that dating the tradition would involve applying some textual criticism to each Isaiah passage found in the BoM. When I offered 12 examples of textual variation, Robert responded by attempting to apply some textual criticism to one example. In the process, Firth appealed to his original argument by automatically dating all deutro-Isaiah to after 600 BC. He based his position on two points: rejection of the captivity tradition and the specific references to the King of Babylon. Firth Asks: >Why is Isaiah talking about release from bondage, when Israel was not >in bondage, and moreover when the Lord had promised she would never >again go into bondage? [see II Samuel vii:10...] Two points need to be made: 1) There is strong evidence that a captivity tradition existed long before 600 BC. Evidence can shown by citing 1 Kings 8:46-51; Lev 26:33-45; Deut 28:64-8; and Deut 50:1-5, 2) A revival of this tradition by Isaiah would have naturally occurred in light of contemporary events, ie. the deportation of the Northern Kingdom. Firth also asks why Isaiah would have singled out Babylon when the Babylonian dynasty was gone and it was Assyria that was kicking everyone in the behind. Even if one rejects prophecy, as Firth evidently has, there are other alternatives that make equally good sense. 1- The entire passage addresses each of the surrounding nations in turn, not just Babylon, but also Assyria, Egypt, Moab, Philistia, etc. 2- The King of Assyria was also the King of Babylon (At least my NIV study Bible points that out), so mocking the King of Babylon is the same as mocking the King of Assyria. 3- As goes Babylon's King, so goes Babylon, meaning that the passage is predicting the fall of the worldly, cosmopolitian life that was certainly the Babylon of Isaiah's day. 4- Even if we accept Firth's proposal that part of this passage was composed by deutro-Isaiah, it could have been prepared before 600 BC. There is yet another possiblity, that Robert has overlooked. The passage in BoM Isaiah 14:3-4 is changed to "in that day." Certainly, if Firth is familiar with Isaiah chap 14-23, he should be aware of Isaiah 19:16-24, wherein a series of five "in that day" statements are made which clearly point to some time in the *far* distant future. Under that interpretation, BoM passage of Isaiah is not directly attacking the Babylonian dynasty, which Robert points out was long gone, instead he is predicting the long distant fall of the degenerate world which the Babylon of Isaiah's day certainly embodied. Opinion of BoM Creation ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Firth also presented an interesting theory, of which he offerred not the slightest hint of evidence, concerning the creation of the BoM variations. For all of this "minutiae, piled one atop another like grains of papyrus dust" have we seen anything that could not also be a characteristic of a legitimate tradition? If "the dusty life blood of textual criticism" involves the ferretting out of illegitimate traditions then what has Robert accomplished? With all the possiblities of screwing up the grammer, or adding a phrase that would have made no sense anciently, what has Firth's little exercise in textual criticism accomplished? Nothing! Think for a moment, we are looking at what appears to be a minor change in phrasing, but its impact on interpreting the text is major. It pushes the interpretation to the distant future. In fact, ALL changes in the BoM version of Isaiah, that drastically affect the interpretation, push the time period forward to the "last days." Is this consistent with Firth's speculation of one fumbling around in English? I maintain, and will offer *evidence* through version support, that it is much easier to go from the BoM version to the MT version then the other way around. Question of Corrupted Text ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Firth also attempts to "prove" modern forgery by pointing to a passage of Isaiah 14:4 that is controversal and ambigious. He makes the following points 1- some ancient translations read differently and are not supportative of the MT, 2- The controversy was settled by the discovery of 1QIsA, 3- 1QIsA differs from the MT by a single consonant suggesting a transcription error in the MT, 4- The error involved miscopying the word "arrogance" so that it resembled an Aramaic word for "gold." The BoM did not "correct" this passage, therefore it is a modern forgery. There are several ways to respond. If we accept without question Firth's analysis, at least one school of thought among Mormons, B.H. Robert's School, is going to respond, "What's the big deal? We certainly do not accept inerrancy, which for some reason seems to be the basic assumption of Robert Firth." At the heart of the matter is whether BoM Isaiah passages not altered have the same significance as altered passages. Firth assumes that they do, and the B.H. Robert's School does not. The *other* school of thought would respond much differently showing that although 1QIsaA does support the notion of *mraba* being incorrectly rendered as *mdaba*, to make *mraba* "fit" the correct gender, tense, etc. one must change the structure and meaning of the passage in such a way as to put it at odds with other traditions such as LXX and other ancient translations. The other school will also point out that *mdaba* was long thought to have been a Hebrew word borrowed from the Chaldean language and referred to the ingots received as tribute money making the passage consistent and fully parallel to the preceeding phrase (in Hebrew). Moreover, they would point out that the root to *mdaba*, does appear in the Old Testament within the correct context of Chaldean gold, while *mraba* has no supporting form in the Old Testament. My opinion is close to the B.H. Robert's school, in that ALL significant changes made in the BoM text of Isaiah appear to push the changed passages in only one direction, that is toward a "last days" interpretation, which is consistent with how most Mormons view the BoM (as a text prepared for people of the last days). If the changes were suppose to reflect an original tradition, as the other Mormon school of thought supposes, then we should also see changes that push portions of the text back to Isaiah's specific time. You don't see that. I personally do not believe that the BoM text is suppose to take you back to some early inerrant "original tradition," but that it reflects only the significant material in that original tradition which pertains to the last days. In support of this view (at least to other Mormons), I might point out that the Isaiah passages are quoted at length to lend support to Nephi's second telling of his Tree of Life Vision (which is the major repeating theme of 2nd Nephi), and that Nephi's Tree of Life vision mainly concentrated on the Last Days and the Restoration of all things. As a result of this view, Firth's problem is rather meaningless to me. Version Support ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ After all is said, the bottom line comes back to the question, what do the documents say, or in other words, is there support for the Isaiah tradition in the BoM for Isaiah 14:3-4. Firth asserts that there is no support: >That there is no Hebrew document now in existence with this >text is certain. Firth is only partially correct, but in several different texts each difference is supported in whole or part! If Firth expects one text to have all the differences I submit that he expects far too much and once again demonstrates his willingness to go for the easy simplistic approach to textual criticism. One response ago, I submitted 12 cases each with an abstract, Firth and Siemon both objected. I see my error, I should have typed in Tvedtnes' entire Summary for each case instead. Only in this way can Firth's objections be evaluated and perhaps (in a limited way) we can *finally* see what the documents say: **Begin Tvedtnes's Summary of Isaiah 14:3-4** 14:3 = 2 Ne. 24:3 KJV "the day" is BM "that day". The difference would indicate that BM had the additional word h-hw ("that") which, while it is not in MT, is found in some Hebrew mss. KJV's wording makes vs 3 the protasis of vs 4, which begins with "that". This is possible, for the inital word of vs 4 is the Hebrew conjunction w- (normally translated "and"), which may show just such a syntactic relationship. In fact, it may show such a relationship even when the following apodosis begins with w-hyh ("and it shall come to pass") as in BM vs 4. However, this possiblility disappears by the addition of the demonstrative "that" in BM. The original probably read as follows: w-hyh b-ywm h-hw' w-hnyh Yhwh lk, "And it shall come to pass in that day that (w-) the Lord shall give thee rest..." We assume that the first change was the deletion of w- (here meaning "that" in the temporal sense of "when" rather than a relative market "in which" - the latter would be ky). It would be a simple deletion since the letter would already been written by the scribe in the preceding word (h-hw'), with just one letter intervening (and perhaps without word-divisions). This would produce a sentence which could read in one of two ways, either "And it shall come to pass in that day, the Lord shall give thee rest..." or, "And it shall come to pass in that day, the Lord's giving of rest (lit., "making rest") to you..." Neither sentence is without its problems. But without the demonstrative h-hw' (easily dropped by haplography, since it begins with the same letters as the two words between which it is situated), it becomes, "And it shall come to pass in the day of the Lord's giving you rest" (or, as in KJV's more idiomatic English, "when the Lord shall give you rest"). This leaves us without a complete sentence unless we continue on to vs 4, which then dropped its beginning as redundant (see below). BM is supported in this respect by LXX also, which read "en te hemera ekeine", "in that day". In prophecy, "that day" (see also vs 4) often refers to the "day of the Lord" and is so read throughout much of the Bible. 14:4 = 2 Ne 24:4 BM adds at the beginning, "And it shall come to pass in that day ..." this is a repeat from the preceding verse. If the changes took place in vs 3 as we have speculated, then this would of necessity have been dropped from vs. 4 of MT to make it the apodosis of vs 3. MT begins with the conjunction w- (=LXX kai), but the rest is missing. Some LXX-mss. support the BM version by adding here "en te hemera ekeine", "in that day". **End of Quote** My only addition to this is to point out that the other LXX-mss support in verse 4 is the Alexandrine Text, "And thou shalt say in that day ..." (see note for Isaiah xiv:4 in _Septuagint With Apocrypha_, (Hendrickson, 1990), p.849. The bottom line is that there *is* reasonable support, from an examination of the text, grammer, and other versions of Isaiah, for the BoM tradition. Unlike Firth's nice speculative approach that dealt with mistakes and associated fumblings in English, this approach shows that the text could very easily be altered in Hebrew without resorting to a cynical "hypothesis of deliberate change." -- Willard C. Smith att!cbnewsc!iwsgw!wcsa wcsa@iwsgw.att.com "It's life, Captain, but not as we know it."