John Gee, Historian

[_Kevin Graham]

Hi Kish, you're right. What David once argued wasn't exactly the same thing, but it was pretty close.

David Bokovoy posted this August 17, 2006 on the Mormon Dialogue message board, in response to my criticism of Dan Peterson's "Nephi -Asherah" nonsense:

In his attempt to correct Dan, Kevin draws upon one of my personal pet peeves: (Kevin said: "One thing that struck me about this article was the numerous references to Proverbs and Ecclesiasticus in trying to identify "parallels." Some are weak and some are not, but I don't think these examples matter because we already know Joseph Smith knew his Bible."

I have a really problem with this criticism. In his attempt to refute what in my mind is one of the strongest links between the Book of Mormon and the ancient Near East identified thus far, Kevin results to a classic Anti-Mormon trick that actually seeks to turn important evidence for authenticity into confirmation against the Book of Mormon....

In addition, contrary to Kevin's suggestion, I'm not convinced that Joseph knew the Bible all that well when he translated the Book of Mormon. Joseph's mother certainly did not share Kevin's assessment. Lucy Mack Smith described her son as "a boy, eighteen years of age, who had never read the Bible through in his life [who] seemed much less inclined to the perusal of books than any of the rest of our children, but far more given to meditation and deep study."

I responded:

I could see my Mom saying something similar, even though it isn't true. But you overlooked the fact that this comment by his Mother was in reference to Joseph Smith at age 18. There was a seven year gap between this period and the publication of the Book of Mormon.

Am I also to understand that during the ten year period between Joseph's encounter with God and the publication of the Book of Mormon, that he never decided to pick up the Bible and read it through? What kind of prophet doesn't read the scriptures? Of course he read the Bible. If I had seen God and Jesus Christ last night, I can assure you I wouldn't be online right now. I'd be reading the scriptures day and night.

[_CaliforniaKid]

Here is the analysis of BYU scholars Dana M. Pike and David Rolph Seely, writing in the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, published by the pre-coup Maxwell Institute:

This feminine plural noun [the Hebrew word śĕkîyôt] occurs only once in the Masoretic Text, here in Isaiah 2:16b. The singular form śĕkîyâ, from which śĕkîyôt derives, does not occur at all in the Masoretic Text, nor is any form of śĕkîyâ attested in known Israelite inscriptions from before 600 BC (about the time the Lehites left Jerusalem with the brass plates). In cases such as this, scholars seek help in determining the meaning of rarely attested Hebrew words by examining cognates in other languages in the Semitic language family, of which Hebrew is a part.

Prior to the mid-20th century, English translations of the Bible often rendered the Hebrew noun śĕkîyôt as “pictures,” as in the Geneva Bible (1st ed., 1560) and the King James Version (1st ed., 1611). There is a Semitic root ŚKH, which has the general meaning of “to look out for, to hope for,” and a rare Hebrew noun maśkît, presumably connected with this linguistic root, which is often translated “figure, image.” Lacking other comparative data, earlier translators supposed that the rare Hebrew noun śĕkîyôt in Isaiah 2:16b was related to these words; thus the translation “pictures”—something to look at—occurs in the KJV.

However, the discovery of alphabetic cuneiform texts in a Semitic language preserved on clay tablets from ancient Ugarit near the coast of Syria that date to the 14th and 13th centuries BC has provided a valuable cognate resource. These texts, the first of which were discovered in 1929, indicate that the Ugaritic word ṯkt designates a type of ship. One particular text lists ṯkt–ships under the heading of ʾanyt miḫd, “ships of Maʾḫadu.” The Ugaritic word ʾanyt, “ships,” is cognate with Hebrew ʾŏnîyôt, of Tarshish” and elsewhere in the Masoretic Text. The Ugaritic word ṯkt appears to be cognate with Hebrew śĕkîyôt, which occurs only in Isaiah 2:16b. This correlation is strengthened by the fact that a related Egyptian word, sktw, means “ship.”

The Hebrew noun śĕkîyôt in Isaiah 2:16b is in a genitival relationship with the following feminine singular noun ḥemdâ (usually translated adjectively in English), which means “desirable things, pleasant things.” Accepting Hebrew śĕkîyôt as cognate with Ugaritic ṯkt, as most Bible translators now do, the phrase in Isaiah 2:16b literally reads, “and against/upon all ships of pleasantness/desirableness/beauty.”

The authors conclude,

We are thus not presently aware of any solution that satisfactorily accounts for all the questions regarding 2 Nephi 12:16 in its relation to the preserved text of Isaiah 2:16.

Any further outrage may be directed toward Drs. Pike and Seely via the "send a message" feature provided on their BYU faculty pages:

http://religion.BYU.edu/dana_pike/contact
http://religion.BYU.edu/david_seely/contact

You might also want to send an angry note to Paul Y. Hoskisson, who was editor of the journal at the time of this article's publication:

http://religion.BYU.edu/user/26/contact

[_Tobin]

If anyone would wish to review a more full discussion of the issue than has been presented, please look here: http://publications.maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/publications/jbms/14/2/S00005-50c257241c7d12Pike:Seely.pdf

I think if you look into the issues and educate yourself, you'll see that the idea being fronted that the KJV translators made a mistake is actually pretty silly. The issue is more complex than that and I believe CaliforniaKid is trying to mislead people with his statement that we must radically change how this verse was rendered in the KJV in English because "It's a word-for-word translation ERROR". That is factually dishonest. Even ancient Greek translators had difficulties with this and translations of the Septuagint over the centuries included the treatment as the one the KJV uses in an attempt to translate this verse.

[_Kishkumen]

David Bokovoy posted this August 17, 2006...

Very interesting. I thought some different stuff in 2006, too. Indeed, I was still holding a temple recommend in 2006.

In addition, contrary to Kevin's suggestion, I'm not convinced that Joseph knew the Bible all that well when he translated the Book of Mormon.

So Joseph Smith never read the Bible before he translated the Book of Mormon, did not even own one, and was ignorant of it.

The biggest difference I see is that Bokovoy's comment suggests his mind is open to the possibility that he might be wrong.

Still, thanks, Kevin, for showing us that this kind of idea has been around for some while in different forms. Also, I have to say that I am impressed that you recalled this after nearly nine years.

[_Chap]

CK wrote:

Here is the analysis of BYU scholars Dana M. Pike and David Rolph Seely, writing in the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, published by the pre-coup Maxwell Institute:

This feminine plural noun [the Hebrew word śĕkîyôt] occurs only once in the Masoretic Text, here in Isaiah 2:16b. The singular form śĕkîyâ, from which śĕkîyôt derives, does not occur at all in the Masoretic Text, nor is any form of śĕkîyâ attested in known Israelite inscriptions from before 600 BC (about the time the Lehites left Jerusalem with the brass plates). In cases such as this, scholars seek help in determining the meaning of rarely attested Hebrew words by examining cognates in other languages in the Semitic language family, of which Hebrew is a part.

Prior to the mid-20th century, English translations of the Bible often rendered the Hebrew noun śĕkîyôt as “pictures,” as in the Geneva Bible (1st ed., 1560) and the King James Version (1st ed., 1611). There is a Semitic root ŚKH, which has the general meaning of “to look out for, to hope for,” and a rare Hebrew noun maśkît, presumably connected with this linguistic root, which is often translated “figure, image.” Lacking other comparative data, earlier translators supposed that the rare Hebrew noun śĕkîyôt in Isaiah 2:16b was related to these words; thus the translation “pictures”—something to look at—occurs in the KJV.

However, the discovery of alphabetic cuneiform texts in a Semitic language preserved on clay tablets from ancient Ugarit near the coast of Syria that date to the 14th and 13th centuries BC has provided a valuable cognate resource. These texts, the first of which were discovered in 1929, indicate that the Ugaritic word ṯkt designates a type of ship. One particular text lists ṯkt–ships under the heading of ʾanyt miḫd, “ships of Maʾḫadu.” The Ugaritic word ʾanyt, “ships,” is cognate with Hebrew ʾŏnîyôt, of Tarshish” and elsewhere in the Masoretic Text. The Ugaritic word ṯkt appears to be cognate with Hebrew śĕkîyôt, which occurs only in Isaiah 2:16b. This correlation is strengthened by the fact that a related Egyptian word, sktw, means “ship.”

The Hebrew noun śĕkîyôt in Isaiah 2:16b is in a genitival relationship with the following feminine singular noun ḥemdâ (usually translated adjectively in English), which means “desirable things, pleasant things.” Accepting Hebrew śĕkîyôt as cognate with Ugaritic ṯkt, as most Bible translators now do, the phrase in Isaiah 2:16b literally reads, “and against/upon all ships of pleasantness/desirableness/beauty.”

The authors conclude,

We are thus not presently aware of any solution that satisfactorily accounts for all the questions regarding 2 Nephi 12:16 in its relation to the preserved text of Isaiah 2:16.

Any further outrage may be directed toward Drs. Pike and Seely via the "send a message" feature provided on their BYU faculty pages:

http://religion.BYU.edu/dana_pike/contact
http://religion.BYU.edu/david_seely/contact

You might also want to send an angry note to Paul Y. Hoskisson, who was editor of the journal at the time of this article's publication:

http://religion.BYU.edu/user/26/contact

And then Tobin responded:

If anyone would wish to review a more full discussion of the issue than has been presented, please look here: http://publications.maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/publications/jbms/14/2/S00005-50c257241c7d12Pike:Seely.pdf

I think if you look into the issues and educate yourself, you'll see that the idea being fronted that the KJV translators made a mistake is actually pretty silly. The issue is more complex than that and I believe CaliforniaKid is trying to mislead people with his statement that we must radically change how this verse was rendered in the KJV in English because "It's a word-for-word translation ERROR". That is factually dishonest. Even ancient Greek translators had difficulties with this and translations of the Septuagint over the centuries included the treatment as the one the KJV uses in an attempt to translate this verse.

The words 'blind with rage' do occur to one, do they not?

The idea of Tobin advising the learned CK to 'educate himself' is - well, rather droll.

[_Kevin Graham]

Also, I have to say that I am impressed that you recalled this after nearly nine years.

LOL.

Me too.

Actually, I was perusing the old Nephi-Asherah thread a few months ago and was taken by surprise when I read some of Bokovoy's comments. I had forgotten he was even involved. When I read Gee's comments in this thread, it just rung a bell.

But I was actually shocked at how many times he referred to me as a "deceptive anti-Mormon" for simply pointing out that biblical evidence in the Book of Mormon could just as easily be used as evidence for plagiarism. He sure has changed a lot since.

[Guest]

But I was actually shocked at how many times he referred to me as a "deceptive anti-Mormon" for simply pointing out that biblical evidence in the Book of Mormon could just as easily be used as evidence for plagiarism. He sure has changed a lot since.

Yes, well, I would venture to say that we have all done a little changing over time. Remember where Kerry Shirts, Blair Hodges, and David Bokovoy all were compared to where they are now. Hell, think of where you used to be!

I will never forget the knockdown, drag-out fights I used to have with EV anti-Mormons online. It amazes me to reflect on where I started out in all of this.

[_Symmachus]

Symmachus,

1) The KJV translation doesn't maintain the Jewish poetic prose, so it is in error.

You didn't read very carefully. The KJV DOES maintain the poetic structure; I was explaining why the image that the KJV uses is incongruous with the image and why we could tell that the KJV didn't know what the Hebrew says. It is not a word-for-word translation; it is an incorrect reading and an incorrect understanding of the Hebrew. The Book of Mormon shares that error, and any trained text critic will tell you that shared errors are clear sign of a textual relationship.

My response: The KJV is an ENGLISH word-for-word translation. It isn't REQUIRED to maintain the the Jewish poetic prose. That is why this criticism of yours is nonsense and you have yet to demonstrate any error in the translation.

You are misreading again. The KJV is NOT a word for word translation. That is the big clue. It is a paraphrase, and a misunderstood paraphrase. The problem is not that both the Book of Mormon and the KJV have a word-for-word translation but that they both paraphrase with the exact same words which reflect a wrong understanding of the Hebrew. The source for the KJV's incorrect paraphrase is the Vulgate (I gave you the background for that). What is the source of the Book of Mormon's absolutely identically wrong paraphrase?

2) The KJV uses the phrase "and upon all pleasant pictures", which you state is an error and should have been translated "every finely-wrought craft".

That is one possible translation that reflects what the Hebrew says. The one the KJV and Book of Mormon have, however, is NOT a possible translation that reflects what the Hebrew says.

My response: The exact word here is literally translated "pictures". They certainly aren't using the word CRAFT here. Again, you state that translation is in error, because it isn't a meaning-for-meaning translation and is instead a word-for-word translation (which it is).

Again it is not a word for word translation. It is simply nonsense.

...these are NOT errors because they are archaic English word-for-word translations. It is a misconception that the KJV translators were trying to make modern English meaning-for-meaning translation (including preserving the Jewish prose). That is the ONLY error here.

You're stating the wrong idea over and over, so out of my kindness I'll just correct it again: This is not a case of two texts literally translating the Hebrew; it is a two texts NOT translating translating literally—that is the whole point—and not translating literally in exactly the same way. The fact that they are both are also wrong is secondary; the point is that they are both wrong in exactly the same way. This is not the case of two texts doing a variant reading of the Hebrew; it is the case of two texts not know what the Hebrew says reflecting that ignorance with the same phrase. The KJV people used the Vulgate to fudge it; what did Joseph Smith/Moroni/Holy Ghost/God use?

If anyone would wish to review a more full discussion of the issue than has been presented, please look here: http://publications.maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/publications/jbms/14/2/S00005-50c257241c7d12Pike:Seely.pdf

I think if you look into the issues and educate yourself, you'll see that the idea being fronted that the KJV translators made a mistake is actually pretty silly. The issue is more complex than that and I believe CaliforniaKid is trying to mislead people with his statement that we must radically change how this verse was rendered in the KJV in English because "It's a word-for-word translation ERROR". That is factually dishonest. Even ancient Greek translators had difficulties with this and translations of the Septuagint over the centuries included the treatment as the one the KJV uses in an attempt to translate this verse.

Interestingly, I already linked that article (more evidence that you didn't read my comment), which doesn't dispute the argument I've presented but urges believers to see the problem in light of faith. I know one of the authors and have discussed this with him when he was writing this; he and I disagree on faith but not on the evidence.

If you persist in misrepresenting the nature of the problem only to support your view, I can only conclude that you are willingly doing so.

[_Chap]

If you persist in misrepresenting the nature of the problem only to support your view, I can only conclude that you are willingly doing so.

If you come to that conclusion, I fear that you may in fact be taking a more optimistic view of Tobin's posts than he deserves, i.e. that he has understood the evidence presented to him, realises that it is against him, and decided to ignore it.

It seems much more likely that he is operating along the lines of a chatbot with the 'rage and insults' setting permanently on maximum. He just uses a few key words in people's post as a cue for random output generation, and that's all. There's little or no reading and thinking going on in there.

[_Symmachus]

I fear that you may in fact be taking a more optimistic view of Tobin's posts than he deserves, i.e. that he has understood the evidence presented to him, realises that it is against him, and decided to ignore it.

It seems much more likely that he is operating along the lines of a chatbot with the 'rage and insults' setting permanently on maximum. He just uses a few key words in people's post as a cue for random output generation, and that's all. There's little or no reading and thinking going on in there.

Maybe. I haven't had enough interaction with Tobin to conclude one way or the other, and I usually assume everyone is operating in good faith with me even if that is not their reputation with others, at least until I have evidence to the contrary.