How did Matthew's Gospel get into the BOM?

[TonyYL]

The book 3 Nephi in the BOM describes the descent from heaven of Jesus Christ after His Ascension to minister to the Nephites on the American continent. (Chs 11-26)

Chapters 12-14 of 3 Nephi are mostly word-for-word copies to the 5th-7th chapters of Matthew’s Gospel (KJV). This portion of the BOM was written by Mormon, who died ca. 385 AD, according to his son, Moroni (Mormon 8:2-3). Mormon wrote the text of 3 Nephi based on the eyewitness account of Nephi, which was recorded by Nephi on the “plates of Nephi.” (3 Nephi 5:9-12).

Moroni admits that his record gives less than a hundredth of the of Jesus’ teachings to the Nephites. (3 Nephi 26:6) If this is accurate, why are 3 Nephi 12-14 almost identical to Matthew 5-7? Even the synoptic gospels where similar events are described are not this close! Where did Nephi get this information? Matthew’s gospel was written on the other side of the Atlantic around the same time that Nephi died 72 AD (4 Nephi 1:19). How did Nephi get the Gospel to use for his work? Why would he use another text, written in a distant place, to describe Jesus’ ministry in his homeland, especially since he was a witness to these events? IF Jesus did appear to people somewhere other than the Middle East after His Ascension, I find it highly unlikely that his teaching would be exactly as before, in the same order.

When I first read the BOM at the request of someone close to me, this was the foremost of several reasons that led me to believe that the BOM was not what it claimed to be. I have asked several LDS members about this, and the best response was: “The writings are inspired from God, and that’s what He told Nephi, Mormon, and Joseph Smith to write.”

To the LDS members who post here, is there any further comment from the LDS authority that could clarify any of my questions?

Thanks.

 

[mormon_fool]

TonyYL:

To the LDS members who post here, is there any further comment from the LDS authority that could clarify any of my questions?
Thanks.

Well I think I will appeal to common sense rather than authority to help resolve your concern about the Book of Mormon. The text for the KJV chapters and Matthew originate from the same person, namely Christ. It is not particularly remarkable that listeners heard and recorded a conceptually similar sermon from the same speaker even though the delivery made in a different time and place.

Of course both of these texts were recorded in different languages and modernly translated into english. It is intuitive that a modern translator would pattern his english text after previous efforts made for a conceptually similar text, saving time and confusion. This explains the similarity in the texts.

LDS commentators have done a good job of analyzing the differences though. For instance Daniel Ludlow writes:

When the resurrected Jesus Christ appeared to the Nephites, he gave them the same sermon. In fact, he specifically told the Nephites, “Behold, ye have heard the things which I taught before I ascended to my Father.” (3 Nephi 15:1.) However, the account of this sermon in the Book of Mormon is much more complete and makes much more sense than the New Testament account.
Hope that helps,
fool

 

[Casen]

Mormon Fool summed it up pretty well.

I’m currently rereading the Book of Mormon once again and have noted that Christ’s sermon in the Book of Mormon (3 Nephi 11 to about 18) is more clear and complete and to me more powerful and moving (just my opinion, of course) than the New Testament version.

 

[ben_dy]

You know that there’s also a portion of Matthew (the last verse of chapter 23 and chapter 24 with some additional verses compared to the KJV) that is in the “Pearl of Great Price” - pretty much a word for word translation.

But…

I’m not certain where JS got the verses nor why they were included in the PoGP - the preface simply said that it was a ‘revelation’ - I’ve not compared it word for word but from what little I’ve read it’s almost word for word like the KJV but there may be some more revealed doctrine or something amongst the extra verses.

Maybe our LDS friends could shed some light on this?

Ben

 

[majick275]

This is part of the “Joseph Smith Translation” of the Bible. He supposedly was authorized by God to correct teh translation errors in the KJV of the Bible. The RLDS hold the copytight to the complete version but “key elements” are present in the LDS Pearl of Great Price as JS-Matthew and the book of Moses.

 

[Vidar]

Casen:

Mormon Fool summed it up pretty well.

I’m currently rereading the Book of Mormon once again and have noted that Christ’s sermon in the Book of Mormon (3 Nephi 11 to about 18) is more clear and complete and to me more powerful and moving (just my opinion, of course) than the New Testament version.

Yup, now tell me why the peculiar King James Bible errors found their way into the BOM. Footnotes from christian copyists found their way into the text of the King James Version. Somehow, these same footnotes are found in BOM…

Also explain why the ending of the ‘Our Father’ “For thine is the kingdom…” which was mistakenly added to the gospels because of it’s use in the early Catholic Mass found it’s way into the BOM.

 

[mormon_fool]

Vidar:

Yup, now tell me why the peculiar King James Bible errors found their way into the BOM. Footnotes from christian copyists found their way into the text of the King James Version. Somehow, these same footnotes are found in BOM…

Also explain why the ending of the ‘Our Father’ “For thine is the kingdom…” which was mistakenly added to the gospels because of it’s use in the early Catholic Mass found it’s way into the BOM.

Assuming you are correct, I would say God apparently inspired or at least sufficiently approved of both of these developments.

 

[TonyYL]

Thanks for your reply, fool. However, I do not find your answer very covincing. (No offense)

Well I think I will appeal to common sense rather than authority to help resolve your concern about the Book of Mormon. The text for the KJV chapters and Matthew originate from the same person, namely Christ. It is not particularly remarkable that listeners heard and recorded a conceptually similar sermon from the same speaker even though the delivery made in a different time and place.

These two texts are not “conceptually similar.” They are, for the most part, word-for-word identical! The Lord’s Prayer in Matthew 6 and Luke 11 has more differences than most of The Sermon on the Mount in the KJV and the BOM. Sure, both accounts of the prayer are nearly identical, but there are minor differences in word order and sentence structure. This is what I would expect from two accounts of the same event in the same place. In the case of the BOM, we have two accounts of separate events in separate places that are almost word-for-word identical in 17th century English. My common sense tells me that the BOM account was lifted from a KJV Bible that JS had access to.

Of course both of these texts were recorded in different languages and modernly translated into english. It is intuitive that a modern translator would pattern his english text after previous efforts made for a conceptually similar text, saving time and confusion. This explains the similarity in the texts.

A credible translator will translate the text in front of him to another language. That’s the job. If JS actually had golden plates in front of him, and had a divine gift of translation, wouldn’t you think that he should stick to translating the plates into English? I highly doubt any translator would conform his translation to any similar one to save time and confusion. Wouldn’t that be plagarism? Shouldn’t the translator stick to the job of making the text of language A to an equal in language B?

 

[Vidar]

mormon fool:

Assuming you are correct, I would say God apparently inspired or at least sufficiently approved of both of these developments.

I would say Smith copied the text of the KJV, following it in its errors.

Vidar

 

[mormon_fool]

These two texts are not “conceptually similar.” They are, for the most part, word-for-word identical!

The texts I was referring to were the Greek and Nephite records of Christ’s sermon. Since languages don’t have word-for-word equivalents, I suggest that the best we can say is that those texts are “conceptually similar”. This then allows for the slight differences that actually do appear in the english translations.

HTH,
fool

 

[mormon_fool]

Wouldn’t that be plagarism? Shouldn’t the translator stick to the job of making the text of language A to an equal in language B?

Like I said, there are no word-for-word equivalents between two languages. The entire history of bible translations into show that translators all consulted previously translations and borrowed results. We don’t accuse any of these fine upstanding Christians of plagerism, so I think it would be unwise to single Joseph Smith out. How many of the Bible versions that we have now read very closely to each other?

Your accusations seems baseless to me.

later,
fool

 

[majick275]

so you are suggesting that an “inspired” individual translating from Nephite into 19th century american english would duplicate the errors of an “at least somewhat less inspired” team translating greek/latin into elizabethan english? …to the point of an almost word for word copy, in a situation where one author was relating a sermon from one continent and the other author was relating the same message being delivered in a later sermon to a culturally different audience on the other side of the world…

 

[mormon_fool]

majick275:

so you are suggesting that an “inspired” individual translating from Nephite into 19th century american english would duplicate the errors of an “at least somewhat less inspired” team translating greek/latin into elizabethan english? …to the point of an almost word for word copy, in a situation where one author was relating a sermon from one continent and the other author was relating the same message being delivered in a later sermon to a culturally different audience on the other side of the world…

Excellent reading comprehension!

Think of it this way, if Joseph Smith had rendered a “better” translation it would have upstaged the biblical account (even more than it does now). Not a desirable outcome when the two books are supposed to work together to act as a first and second witness for the gospel.

Have a nice day,
fool

 

[majick275]

I might have expected that since Jesus felt it necessary to actually visit the nephites rather than just have his prophet preach the sermon, then he most likely would adapted his sermon to the nephites so that they would understand it better. This would have led to a greater difference in the wording of the sermon while preserving the same principles.

That would not result in a “better” translation but would certainly leave a “different” one. I would point to the new testament gospels(4 witnesses) for an example of how the differing accounts actually strengthen the message.

 

[mormon_fool]

majick275:

I might have expected that since Jesus felt it necessary to actually visit the nephites rather than just have his prophet preach the sermon, then he most likely would adapted his sermon to the nephites so that they would understand it better.

When I look at the text of the Sermon on the Mount in the KJV there isn’t much that depends on culturally dependent background information. I only thing I could think of that would be was the reference to “farthing”, but I went into the Book of Mormon and this is changed to “senine” the Nephite monetary unit. I don’t see much else that needs to be adapted between cultures.

This would have led to a greater difference in the wording of the sermon while preserving the same principles.

Maybe this is the case, but when both sources get translated to the same language the principles come out worded much the same.

That would not result in a “better” translation but would certainly leave a “different” one. I would point to the new testament gospels(4 witnesses) for an example of how the differing accounts actually strengthen the message.

I agree that the differences in the fifth gospel – contained in the Book of Mormon-- “strengthen the message”.

When critics see differences between accounts they try to discredit them. There was little point for the Book of Mormon translator to make waves while “preserving the same principles” and showing they were taught on both continents.

later,
fool

 

[majick275]

I still have a hard time understanding why Jesus needed to come to the nephites in person if there was not going to be a unique experience to be recorded. Why wouldn’t the people just have the sermon revealed to them?

As far as cultural differences in approach. It makes no sense linguistically for nephite to be translated exactly the same as even the exact same sermon in Greek/Latin/Aramaic,etc.
Today you would find more significant variations in wording just between the french and japanese versions of the current BoM. I also don’t see this happening in this case as we have translations of translations of translations in the case of the bible compared with what should be a direct translation in the BoM.

 

[majick275]

mormon fool:

I agree that the differences in the fifth gospel – contained in the Book of Mormon-- “strengthen the message”.

When critics see differences between accounts they try to discredit them. There was little point for the Book of Mormon translator to make waves while “preserving the same principles” and showing they were taught on both continents.

later,
fool

Yet we generally cherish the SIGNIFICANT difference in the Gospel of John as compared with the synoptics. Who is discrediting that?

 

[mormon_fool]

majick275:

I still have a hard time understanding why Jesus needed to come to the nephites in person if there was not going to be a unique experience to be recorded. Why wouldn’t the people just have the sermon revealed to them?

I can see a number of reasons to visit the Nephites:

1. He promised the Nephite forbearers he would.
2. The record of his teachings and resurrection on both continents acts an indepedent witness.
3. The Nephites do indeed have unique experiences with Jesus if we look at all of 3rd Nephi.
4. Christ was profoundly qualified to organize the church on the American continent and do so without contention. It is doubtful that Nephite prophets could have acheived the same unity.

As far as cultural differences in approach. It makes no sense linguistically for nephite to be translated exactly the same as even the exact same sermon in Greek/Latin/Aramaic,etc.
Today you would find more significant variations in wording just between the french and japanese versions of the current BoM.

Exactly, but if you were to translate the japanese and french versions back to english they should be mostly the same, especially if that is the design and objective of the translator.

later,
fool

 

[mormon_fool]

majick275:

Yet we generally cherish the SIGNIFICANT difference in the Gospel of John as compared with the synoptics. Who is discrediting that?

It sounds like we are thinking on the same wavelength. Critics will look at differences in texts and seek to discredit them. Believers will cherish the differences and learn from them.

And of course some critics will employ a fork: where texts are the same it discredits them, and where texts are different it discredits them.

later,
fool

 

[majick275]

mormon fool:

I can see a number of reasons to visit the Nephites:

1. He promised the Nephite forbearers he would.
2. The record of his teachings and resurrection on both continents acts an indepedent witness.
3. The Nephites do indeed have unique experiences with Jesus if we look at all of 3rd Nephi.
4. Christ was profoundly qualified to organize the church on the American continent and do so without contention. It is doubtful that Nephite prophets could have acheived the same unity.

Exactly, but if you were to translate the japanese and french versions back to english they should be mostly the same, especially if that is the design and objective of the translator.

later,
fool

That’s just it. they won’t be because the differences between the three languages (french, japanese, english) are significant enough to cause an increasingly greater shift with each translation.

when you look at greek, latin, english and then compare it to nephite, english then one would expect an accurate translation to be even more divergent. Just look at the differences between the various ENGLISH versions of the bible.