How did Matthew's Gospel get into the BOM?

[mormon_fool]

majick275:

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.

Yes, but who says Joseph Smith was aiming for “accuracy” (whatever that is when it comes to translating!) I say Joseph Smith was aiming for harmony with previous translation efforts while leaving in a few significant differences. For religous purposes of working as a second witness of the same sermon while still providing new insight, this is the optimal translation in my opinion.

If we still had the Nephite text I am sure we could have as many versions in english as there are competent translators–just like the Bible. And you are concerned about confusion in the LDS church!

later,
fool

 

[majick275]

I fail to see how duplicating errors creates harmony.

 

[mormon_fool]

majick275:

I fail to see how duplicating errors creates harmony.

I was using harmony in more a technical sense as it is used in textual criticism. It is not the presence of errors that leads to dis-harmony but having variant readings. You might want to read J.P. Holdings articles on the harmony or lack of it among biblical texts to get a flavor of what I meant. He is a mormon critic, and since he is not from FARMS perhaps you can trust him.

later,
fool

 

[majick275]

mormon fool:

I was using harmony in more a technical sense as it is used in textual criticism. It is not the presence of errors that leads to dis-harmony but having variant readings. You might want to read J.P. Holdings articles on the harmony or lack of it among biblical texts to get a flavor of what I meant. He is a mormon critic, and since he is not from FARMS perhaps you can trust him.

later,
fool

Yes that is an informative link. I don’t see its overall conclusion as precisely relevant to this discussion though. It would possibly fit with my examples of differing versions of the English Bible and maybe even with my example of different language versions of the BoM. But you see, establishing the doctrinal accuracy of Jesus’ sermon is not the intent of this thread.

What is being proposed in the OP is that this (BoM scripture) was a copy of Matthew straight out of KJV with minor edits from JS rather than a translation of nephite writings. Textual criticism as described in your link would seem to lend credence to that theory.

 

[mormon_fool]

majick275:

Yes that is an informative link. I don’t see its overall conclusion as precisely relevant to this discussion though.

These kind of studies of the textual variations created by in the transmission of texts are extremely relevant and it is not a problem that just goes away by handwaving.

One of the issues is this: If a text handler sees an error in the text does he make a correction or stay true to the original? If he propagates the error, it will cause confusion and may undermine the credibility of the text (because it has an embarrasing error). If he changes it, we can imagine that another text handler somewhere else in the world will also do the same, but perhaps correct the error diffferently. If we recover all three copies we suddenly see three different versions of the text. A critic might use these discrepancies to claim that the texts have been corrupted and thus question the credibility of the text. He might also accuse the text handlers of trying to subversively change the text to reflect a corrupted new teaching or hide an embarrassing old teaching.

And finally all modern translators have all these variant texts to consider and they have to decide what the best reading is. The different translations have different criteria for what “best” means. Sometimes that might mean picking out the oldest reading, sometimes it might be employing textual criticism to estimate the original, and sometimes it might mean harmonizing the variant readings.

But you see, establishing the doctrinal accuracy of Jesus’ sermon is not the intent of this thread.

It may not be the intent of this thread, but how best to establish the credibility of Jesus’ sermon is most certainly an issue that the translator of the Book of Mormon must have have faced and decisions were made accordingly. It is always fun to second guess, though.

What is being proposed in the OP is that this (BoM scripture) was a copy of Matthew straight out of KJV with minor edits from JS rather than a translation of nephite writings.

Don’t forget I want it both ways here. I speculate Matthew was consulted with minor edits originating from an attempt to harmonize the translated Book of Mormon text to the KJV text. (In other words, create a reading that minimizes differences while maintaining optimal integrity to the original BOM source.)

Textual criticism as described in your link would seem to lend credence to that theory.

I tend to think so.

later,
fool

 

[TonyYL]

mormon fool:

Like I said, there are no word-for-word equivalents between two languages.
Your accusations seems baseless to me.

later,
fool

There are indeed word-for-word equivalents between languages for some, but not all words!!! Good day= bom dia= buon giorno= guten tag. There you go, 4 languages, with the exact word-for-word meaning.

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?

Perhaps this may be partly true, but you will have to prove it. Plus, successive translations of the Bible should have the earliest Greek/Hebrew/Latin/Aramaic texts that are available at that point of time and work from there.

The reason I single out JS is that he must have consulted the KJV of the Bible when writing 3 Nephi, because it is copied word-for-word! Why would he plagarize from a book that he did not even feel what translated correctly? (Article of Faith 8, PoGP) Why not go directly to the alleged gold plates? Wouldn’t you think that JS’ access to the Urim and Thummim would not require any support of the KJV? After all, God gave JS the U&T for translating the BOM, not a copy of the KJV, right? JS-H 1:35

JS’ actions in this regard are further testimony to myself that he liked the Sermon on the Mount so much that he added to it minimally and included it in his book. If he possessed what he claimed from God, the gift of revelation, golden plates, etc., the BoM would be quite different.

 

[mormon_fool]

TonyYL:

There are indeed word-for-word equivalents between languages for some, but not all words!!! Good day= bom dia= buon giorno= guten tag. There you go, 4 languages, with the exact word-for-word meaning.

This is a rather trivial example. Even so If you consider all the usages of the word “good” in english with all the uses of, say, “gueten”, they would not cover the same semantic range. Theological terms have even less correspondence between time lapse and languages.

Perhaps this may be partly true, but you will have to prove it.

I will give you a hint, try googling “previous translation” and “Bible” and have fun.

Plus, successive translations of the Bible should have the earliest Greek/Hebrew/Latin/Aramaic texts that are available at that point of time and work from there.

You should let them know this.

The reason I single out JS is that he must have consulted the KJV of the Bible when writing 3 Nephi,

OK, this is at least one plausible theory.

because it is copied word-for-word!

I think we have noted some differences earlier in this thread that show it is not merely word-for-word. But there is enough similarities to suppose Joseph Smith or the divine being aiding Joseph Smith was well aware of the Matthew text.

Why would he plagarize from a book that he did not even feel what translated correctly? (Article of Faith 8, PoGP)

I am going to have to object to the word plagerize for what is a standard method of translation (i.e. consulting the work of previous translators). I have already argued at length that the translation of the Book of Mormon was designed to promote harmony between the two texts, thus lending optimal credibility to a sermon delivered to two independent witnesses. You may wish to review my posts above.

Why not go directly to the alleged gold plates?

I have argued above that the gold plates were consulted and they account for the differences in the texts, differences that have lead many LDS commentators to believe the the Book of Mormon account is superior to the one in the KJV.

Wouldn’t you think that JS’ access to the Urim and Thummim would not require any support of the KJV? After all, God gave JS the U&T for translating the BOM, not a copy of the KJV, right? JS-H 1:35

Correct. The Urim and Thummin was an impressively powerful instrument that gave Joseph Smith access to both the Book of Mormon text and the KJV text, without the latter needing to be physically present. That is my belief although some mormons are not bothered if Joseph Smith had physically consulted a copy of the KJV to aid his translation.

JS’ actions in this regard are further testimony to myself that he liked the Sermon on the Mount so much that he added to it minimally and included it in his book. If he possessed what he claimed from God, the gift of revelation, golden plates, etc., the BoM would be quite different.

If the BoM was “quite different” how would it serve a purpose to create a second witness for Christ and His gospel?

Jesus liked the Sermon of Mount so much he made sure it was included in both of his books

 

[mormon_fool]

TonyYL,

Here is another link on english versions of the Bible, many of which revise previous translations.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_English_Bible_translations

With that I will not be posting again for awhile. Thanks for the wonderful conversations everyone. And please continue investigating the Book of Momon, it is worth the trouble!

God Bless,
fool

 

[majick275]

So JS gives us “scripture” that is closer to the KJV (which he stated was incorrect) than the original source material. That to me would prove a lcak of divine influence. If JS had truly been given an accurate translation of the direct nephite acccunt of this sermon then we should be finding it closer in wording to the original source material than the King James teams efforts. Since it does not we must (Occams razor) suppose that JS copied from KJV of Matthew without any divine assistance. (at least for this particular passage).

Former LDS apostle Orson Pratt (who was at one time considered the “spokesman” for the church) once said soemthing to the effect that if the BoM were true then no one could be saved without it and all should reject other churches. He also said in this that if it were shown to be false then the world should be shown that. It’s errors made known for there could be no salvation with it.

In the spirit of his comments I feel obligated to state my belief that the Book of Mormon is not scripture (although it contains some passages of scripture). It is not an ancient record nor was it revealed/translated/inspired by God. This thread has pointed out but one example of this. I submit that there are numerous others.I humbly encourage those who believe in this book to study objectively the evidence at hand, to ponder the teachings of Jesus in the Bible and to find the truth.

 

[flameburns623]

majick275:

So JS gives us “scripture” that is closer to the KJV (which he stated was incorrect) than the original source material.

Actually, the KJV is deemed by the LDS to be more accurate than any of the extant manuscripts we currently have available. It is seen as quasi-inspired, partially-inspired: not PERFECT, because the translators of the KJV did not have the keys of the Priesthood nor the full-fledged gift of prophecy which they would have required to properly restore the Bible to it’s pristine state. In much the same way our US Constitution is seen by the LDS to hold a measure of Divine inspiration, even though it is also a human document.

The weaknesses and errors in the KJV translation are seen as closer to the original manuscripts–as those originals were penned by the prophets and Apostles, acting under inspiration inspiration-- than are the extant manuscripts wich the LDS see as interpolated and or abridged to favor false doctrine. For more information on this see J. Reuben Clark, Why the King James Version, 1956.

 

[majick275]

Good point. I still don’t think this explains why nephite to English would result in the same linguistic “peculiarities” as greek/hebrew/latin to english. Especially if we are to believe that the nephites chose to write the BoM in “reformed egyptian” which would introduce another level of linguistic “drift”. (not to mention the differences in English between the KJV team and that of 1800’s American English as spoken by JS)

 

[flameburns623]

majick275:

Good point. I still don’t think this explains why nephite to English would result in the same linguistic “peculiarities” as greek/hebrew/latin to english. Especially if we are to believe that the nephites chose to write the BoM in “reformed egyptian” which would introduce another level of linguistic “drift”. (not to mention the differences in English between the KJV team and that of 1800’s American English as spoken by JS)

Frankly I think the BOM is transparently a product of the early 19th Century so can’t answer you there. I don’t think contemporary LDS apologists deny that Smith allowed his own personality and linguistic style to influence how he translated the BOM–so it would be a translation following rules of ‘dynamic equivalence’ more than of ‘direct quivalence’. There is, as you may know no small debate even in the translation of the Bible over whether a loose translation, using ‘dynamic equivalence’ is not in many ways more accurate than a strctly-literal translation using the rules of ‘direct equivalence’. Hence–the BOM could indeed be a ‘more-perfect’ translation than the KJV because it captures the SENSE of the originals, without necessarily being more literal than the KJV.

Of course–Smith used Elisabethan-sounding English in his BOM. One might argue that the BOM was translated from plates transcribed over a period of about a millenium, and that Nephite language(s) changed at least as much over that time as has English over the past thousand years. It can be further surmised that the plates preserved a form of Nephite language which was at least as antique-sounding to the Nephite peoples as is the KJV to English-speaking peoples today. This in fact IS what one article I read did argue.

I think Occam’s razor applies here: Smith cribbed from the only Bible he was familiar with, the KJV, and aped it’s style so as to make the BOM seem more ‘Scriptural’. But to those who believe, other explanations are at least possible.

 

[majick275]

Hmmm. very interesting.

I completely agree with you on the BoM being a product of the 19th century.

 

[amgid]

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…

You call them errors, but it is not at all certain that they are. The truth is that there are variations in various biblical manuscripts, and nobody can say with absolute certainty what is an error and what is not. Scholars can come to a “reasonable conclusion,” as to what they think might have been an error and what might not be, but no scholar worthy of the name would declare with absolute certainty what is error and what is not. You like to call them errors because it suits your purpose to do so to attack mormonism; but in the world of respectable Bible scholoship, nobody would be willing to make such definitive assertions.

amgid

 

[amgid]

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?

It was a unique experience. In His visit, Jesus taught the Nephites an awful lot more than what is recorded in the New Testament. Read the whole of 3 Nephi and find out. You are just concentrating on the Sermon. The Sermon is the Sermon, and there is no reason why it should be any different. Do you mean to tell me that Jesus should have taught a different set of rules to Nephites that what He taught to the Jews? The rules are the same, the doctrines are the same, and so the sermon is the same. But the whole experience was very unique, and contained a lot of material not contained in the NT.

amgid

 

[majick275]

I have read it many times. I was staying focused on the sermon because that appeared to be the focus of this thread. My point here was that there must have been something unique that the nephites needed to hear directly from Jesus. I don’t see why he would repeat the same sermon. No I don’t think he wold give them different rules but rather a unique understanding of the existing ones.

The question here is how did Matthew’s Gospel get into the BoM? my answer is it was copied from JS Bible. (KJV) Now you may believe that is okay as the Lord could have revealed to JS that Jesus repeated the Sermon to the nephites and so Joseph copies it from his scriptures to save time/effort, or because it’s easy for him to understand, whatever. You might also believe that he wrote every word from revelation and they just happened to be the same.

I have stated my opinion and why I believe that way. You are certainly welcome to disagree and I make no claim to being infallible.

 

[amgid]

majick275:

I have read it many times. I was staying focused on the sermon because that appeared to be the focus of this thread. My point here was that there must have been something unique that the nephites needed to hear directly from Jesus.

As I said before, they did hear something unique from Jesus. If you consider the rest of 3 Nephi, you must conclude that He did teach them something unique.

I don’t see why he would repeat the same sermon. No I don’t think he wold give them different rules but rather a unique understanding of the existing ones.

Then you don’t understand the doctrinal and theological significance of the Sermon on the Mount. The Sermon is the very embodiment of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Jesus came to do away with the Law of Moses, and give mankind a new (and higher) set of laws to live by. Those new and higher set of laws are contained in the Sermon on the Mount. The Sermon on the Mount is Christianity’s “Ten Commandments”. They replace the Ten Commandments of the OT. Jesus would not give a different set of “Ten Commandments” to the Nephites than what He gave to the Jews; nor would He have expressed them in a different way, which could leave room for ambiguity or misunderstanding.

The question here is how did Matthew’s Gospel get into the BoM? my answer is it was copied from JS Bible. (KJV)

And of course I do not accept that.

Now you may believe that is okay as the Lord could have revealed to JS that Jesus repeated the Sermon to the nephites and so Joseph copies it from his scriptures to save time/effort, or because it’s easy for him to understand, whatever.

No, I don’t believe that is what happened either.

You might also believe that he wrote every word from revelation and they just happened to be the same.

Yes! That is how I believe it happened. And there is a reason for that. The KJV is an extremely literal translation, and so is the Book of Mormon. They also use the same vocabulary and idiomatic form of the language, and that is why their wording appears to be nearly identical. The same explanation holds true for the reason why the Isaiah passages quoted in First and Second Nephi are so close to the KJV.

amgid

 

[majick275]

and this is my issue here. I can’t see the nephites hearing even the exact same sermon and the direct translation (in reformed egyptian) being so word for word identical with the KJV ( with all of its layers of translation) when “revealed” (as you stated) to a 19th century American. (curious as to your belief on wether JS had the specific words revealed to him or just the concepts and then he wrote them in his own words)

 

[PaulDupre]

I’d like to point out that Jesus did not speak in Elizabethan English, and neither did the people of Joseph Smith’s day. Why then is the BoM and all of JS’s reveleations written in King James lingo? Because JS was trying to sound “scriptural”, and to him that meant KJV English.

It is perplexing that the Urim and Thummim (or Joseph’s seer stone in his hat) produces KJV grammar and vocabulary no matter what century it’s in. Maybe the dial is stuck.

 

[arieh0310]

PaulDupre:

I’d like to point out that Jesus did not speak in Elizabethan English, and neither did the people of Joseph Smith’s day. Why then is the BoM and all of JS’s reveleations written in King James lingo? Because JS was trying to sound “scriptural”, and to him that meant KJV English.

Becausest thou cans’t haveth the apprearance Godly revelation in contemporary dialects.