Q

[_MCB]

Don't forget Ethan Smith's View of the Hebrews and Solomon Spalding's Manuscript Story.

Yes, as Madeline says, I have been working on this for quite a while, and that list doesn't even include the blind alleys.

[_Aristotle Smith]

You've probably heard the old elementary science "gotcha" about how bees should not be able to fly based on the laws of aerodynamics, yet we can observe that they in fact do fly. A mature understanding of the issue doesn't lead a person to have a purely logical, complete understanding of how bee's do, in fact, fly. Rather, the mature understanding of the issue is one where it has to be acknowledged there are things we simply don't understand - yet. For me, the idea that a tight and loose translation method was used to translate the Book of Mormon accounts for the problems while not doing damage to the things I feel to be true about it as sacred scripture. I suspect we are just going to disagree here. That doesn't mean I am opposed to discussing any issues you see with a loose vs tight translation method. I wouldn't remain here if that were the case. I apologize that I became snippy after the last round of responses, as it wasn't productive.

The problem with arguing that the translation was both loose and tight is that people tend to see the translation as being loose when it helps their case ("iron" doesn't mean iron, "horse" doesn't mean horse) and tight when it helps their case (look at all those Hebraisms!). The prudent thing to do is to pick one and stick with it, which people tend not to do because both have substantial problems.

One could conceivably argue based on some external criteria that in some cases it was loose and in some cases it was tight. However, I have never seen anyone actually do this. It all gets driven by apologetic necessity and ends up being circular reasoning. "Well, loose translation doesn't make Joseph look good, therefore in this case it must be tight" and vice versa.

The issue with 3 Nephi 12-14 is that it's clear you are not dealing with either loose or tight translation, you are dealing with plagiarism.

Anyway, I feel that my presentation of Section 7 of the D&C as an example of a restored document answered your request. Perhaps you have thoughts on that still?

Since I don't think John the apostle wrote the Book of John, no section 7 doesn't answer anything for me. Section 7 is based on a bad reading of John, with little historical insight as to why a certain section of John 21 was included by the author of John, and assumes that John the apostle wrote it. Section 7 is an impediment to understanding the book of John, so I don't think it is a good example of a restored document.

[_1 Iron]

Aristotle,

Your response below raises an interesting question:

It all gets driven by apologetic necessity and ends up being circular reasoning. "Well, loose translation doesn't make Joseph look good, therefore in this case it must be tight" and vice versa.

My question is: how do you perceive apologetics working; not just Mormon but Christian apologetics as well? Maybe it would be better if you focused on Christian apologetics in when answering my question because I suspect you don't see them as being in the same class.

I ask because I don't generally see apologetics of any kind being predictive in nature; rather, I see apologetics being explanatory. And if the explanation takes into account all of the evidence without multiplying conditions unnecessarily what do you feel is the problem when you say -

The problem with arguing that the translation was both loose and tight is that people tend to see the translation as being loose when it helps their case ("iron" doesn't mean iron, "horse" doesn't mean horse) and tight when it helps their case (look at all those Hebraisms!).

To me, you have pointed out what one should expect - we see one method works to explain one aspect of the translation while another method explains other portions of the text as part of one apologetic. All of the evidence is accounted for, and it is done rather parsimoniously. If you were to force me to agree the Book of Mormon has to be the product of one method only, I'd accept that the one method was, "through the power and inspiration of God" with the two now-submethods being tools used to accomplish this.

In the case of 3 Nephi and the KJV quotes, I have previous mentioned that my view is God gave Joseph language in a loose translaton of what was writtin on the plates with which he was already familiar. Back in the OP, I had mentioned that one of the reasons I believe God has not seen fit to restore all of the underlying, more pure texts that were used to create the New Testament which are currently lost is the same reason we do not yet have the words of the sealed portions of the plates: it's contingent on our desire and worthiness as a generation to live the words we have been given.

This also extends to the book we call the Gospel of John. I agree with you that the words we have now were not those written by the Beloved Apostle. I am not sure if a member of the church is compelled to believe that John wrote a gospel at all or if he transmitted his tale orally, but I do think that Section 7 shows that John recorded some of his account in written from. This account corresponds with portions of the Gospel. And here, where you see an issue I see something interesting - Chapter 21 of John, considered by some to be unoriginal to the previous portions of the Gospel, is directly related to this written parchment that Joseph Smith was given in vision to see, which was done in answer to a direct question.

So I see two issues being critical to John - first, the scholarly investigation into the Gospel itself and it's place in Christian theology as you indicate being your primary interest; and second the investigation into the underlying source for this Gospel that may not be directly reflected in the text but none-the-less may tie back to a lost more pure account of Christ's life and the Apostolic understanding of His mission. I think the LDS faith not only allows for this latter condition but expects that it is likely the case.

[_Aristotle Smith]

My question is: how do you perceive apologetics working; not just Mormon but Christian apologetics as well?

They attempt to defend something. That's the meaning of the word apology in the Greek.

Maybe it would be better if you focused on Christian apologetics in when answering my question because I suspect you don't see them as being in the same class.

To be honest, I don't read much in the way of Christian apologetics. Of what I have read, some is good, some is mediocre, and some is complete crap.

I ask because I don't generally see apologetics of any kind being predictive in nature;

How could they be? They are a defense, they only deal with evidence that is already present.

rather, I see apologetics being explanatory.

They are explanatory only in the sense that they try and explain why one should hold to the faith in the face of contrary evidence.

And if the explanation takes into account all of the evidence without multiplying conditions unnecessarily what do you feel is the problem when you say -

The problem with arguing that the translation was both loose and tight is that people tend to see the translation as being loose when it helps their case ("iron" doesn't mean iron, "horse" doesn't mean horse) and tight when it helps their case (look at all those Hebraisms!).

The problem is that one also has to be reasonable. I have yet to see a reasonable case why the Book of Mormon should show signs of tight translation, loose translation, and plagiarism if it is translated through the power of God.

To me, you have pointed out what one should expect - we see one method works to explain one aspect of the translation while another method explains other portions of the text as part of one apologetic.

Yes, I would expect bad apologetics to reach for anything they can grasp without reference to any standard of rationality. That's what you have to do to posit loose translation + tight translation + plagiarism.

All of the evidence is accounted for, and it is done rather parsimoniously.

I think you might want to check a dictionary for the definition of parsimonious.

If you were to force me to agree the Book of Mormon has to be the product of one method only, I'd accept that the one method was, "through the power and inspiration of God" with the two now-submethods being tools used to accomplish this.

Fine, but that's not an argument, nor evidence. The problem is that there is so much contrary evidence to the idea that Joseph translated the Book of Mormon, or anything else for that matter, through the inspiration of God.

In the case of 3 Nephi and the KJV quotes SNIP

Sorry, I ran out of time for a detailed response. My recommendation is to study more on tools that scholars use to analyze texts. You seem to know a few concepts, but are applying them in a haphazard manner, driven by your testimony and apologetic necessity.

[_1 Iron]

A. Smith,

You mentioned this as a reason for apologia -

"They are a defense, they only deal with evidence that is already present.
...
They are explanatory only in the sense that they try and explain why one should hold to the faith in the face of contrary evidence."

I can agree with this. Since we seem to agree here, I am puzzled by the remainder of your post.

I have to be honest, I am disappointed in your dismissal of the idea that the Book of Mormon translation process was more complex than a simple "either-or" scenario. I see your argument against this suggestion as being little more than a school-yard "I'm like rubber..." dismissal. While I don't expect you to accept it as fact, I would hope that your sense of professionalism would require a more specific response than calling it bad apologia.

You have quoted 3 Nephi as one example that, when looked at critically, requires a response as to why Joseph Smith would provide an English translation of a complicated work from the 1600's as the direct words from a proto-Christian prophet living in North America who had transcribed the words of the Savior by His command. I've tried, repeatedly to show that the assumption for a single method may make sense if we require Joseph to be the source of the translation. But I view Joseph, not as the source, but an instrument of translation. I think that answers the issues you have raised quite nicely. In other words, it is sufficient to "hold to the faith".

I'd like to offer another example like your 3 Nephi quote that I feel shows that LDS have no reason to fear Biblical textual criticism but are, instead, prepared by current revelation to accept it and see what we have today as a stepping-stone to further light and knowledge that can be gained when we are prepared. This example is the quote of a portion of the Markan appendix found in the Book of Mormon.

I'm sure you are aware of what the Markan Appendix is, and why it is of interest to scholars. But since some may not be, I think the wiki is sufficient to help inform the discussion.

Since Mormon 9:22-24 is a direct quote of Mark 16: 15-18 with only minor edits, you may feel that this is another example of biblical plagiarism on the part of Joseph Smith. Yet Moroni, who is speaking here in the Book of Mormon, tells us he is quoting the words of Christ as they were spoken to the disciples in the America's. As I have suggested, it seems unlikely that the exact words written on the plates would match the words included in the Bible. Yet, it is not unlikely that the words Christ spoke to His disciples would be very different in both the Old World as well as the New. Where you see plagiarism, I see two things -

First, God giving Joseph Smith the familiar words that come from the Bible he read and knew that carry the same message that was transcribed on the plates;

and second, God giving us through this translation key understanding that the words of the Bible are to be trusted where some scholars tell us they should be called into doubt.

Where you see an issue, I see the fulfillment of 2 Nephi 29:8 -

Wherefore murmur ye, because that ye shall receive more of my word? Know ye not that the testimony of two nations is a witness unto you that I am God, that I remember one nation like unto another? Wherefore, I speak the same words unto one nation like unto another. And when the two nations shall run together the testimony of the two nations shall run together also.

(my emphasis added, of course)

You have also suggested that the Luke accounts of the Sermon on the Mount sayings is likely more accurate than the Matthew version. It could be the case, given that Luke shares these parables and sayings scattered through-out the gospel rather than all in one major sermon that began the ministry of Christ. Yet, I think the Book of Mormon presents this as a sermon similar to the Matthew account, exactly because that is what happened on this continent. Even if Luke's gospel is closer to how the material was presented in the Old World, this hardly matters to the topic at hand; Matthew's account is more closely matched to how it happened here and therefore explains why the Lord would use that account to inform Joseph Smith's translation of the plates.

You suggest that I am in need of more study. I won't disagree that there is always more to be learned on just about any subject, by just about everyone. But so far, I hope you can forgive if I see your points being little more than statements of disagreement without support or counter-argument.

I've answered your request for examples of a translation of something that was lost from the New Testament times with Section 7 of the D&C. I've answered the questions of why you think you see plagiarism in the Book of Mormon. I've answered why I see a q-like document to not be a challenge to LDS belief and why it should not be feared by Mormons but rather embraced. I admit to being poorly informed on how Catholics viewed the q-source and greatly appreciate the information shared by Madeleine and MCB. I've tried to explore if the issue you seem to have with this topic is in the purpose and role of apologia, but it appears that is not the case.

Frankly, my friend, I am not sure that this discussion is being impeded by my lack of "scholarship" as it were. I'd perhaps argue that your scholarly understanding of the hypothetical q-source is in fact the greater impediment. You can not seem to get past what you already think, whether it is regarding the LDS faith or the potential for extra-biblical sources such as Q, to hear what I am suggesting.

[_Aristotle Smith]

I have to be honest, I am disappointed in your dismissal of the idea that the Book of Mormon translation process was more complex than a simple "either-or" scenario. I see your argument against this suggestion as being little more than a school-yard "I'm like rubber..." dismissal. While I don't expect you to accept it as fact, I would hope that your sense of professionalism would require a more specific response than calling it bad apologia.

I do have a more specific response, and I have repeatedly stated it, which is this: Why would God inspire a translation which requires one to consider it at various times, tightly translated, loosely translated, and plagiarized? The only explanation I can see is apologetic necessity.

You have quoted 3 Nephi as one example that, when looked at critically, requires a response as to why Joseph Smith would provide an English translation of a complicated work from the 1600's as the direct words from a proto-Christian prophet living in North America who had transcribed the words of the Savior by His command.

Once you understand why that is a problem, you'll understand a lot more why I am saying what I am saying. The real problem is this; The same source critical techniques which identify Q in Matthew and Luke show this to be a problem for LDS scripture. You cannot selectively apply techniques when they suit your purpose. The bottom line is, if you think Q is a document, then 3 Nephi has problems. Or, you can think that Q is a bunch of scholarly hogwash and you are willing to junk most, if not all, techniques of biblical criticism, you can keep a problem free 3 Nephi.

I've tried, repeatedly to show that the assumption for a single method may make sense if we require Joseph to be the source of the translation. But I view Joseph, not as the source, but an instrument of translation. I think that answers the issues you have raised quite nicely. In other words, it is sufficient to "hold to the faith".

You haven't shown this in any way. If you want to hold to the faith on faith, that's fine. But please stop asserting that you have shown anything of the sort.

I'd like to offer another example like your 3 Nephi quote that I feel shows that LDS have no reason to fear Biblical textual criticism but are, instead, prepared by current revelation to accept it and see what we have today as a stepping-stone to further light and knowledge that can be gained when we are prepared. This example is the quote of a portion of the Markan appendix found in the Book of Mormon.

I'm sure you are aware of what the Markan Appendix is, and why it is of interest to scholars. But since some may not be, I think the wiki is sufficient to help inform the discussion.

Since Mormon 9:22-24 is a direct quote of Mark 16: 15-18 with only minor edits, you may feel that this is another example of biblical plagiarism on the part of Joseph Smith. Yet Moroni, who is speaking here in the Book of Mormon, tells us he is quoting the words of Christ as they were spoken to the disciples in the America's. As I have suggested, it seems unlikely that the exact words written on the plates would match the words included in the Bible. Yet, it is not unlikely that the words Christ spoke to His disciples would be very different in both the Old World as well as the New. Where you see plagiarism, I see two things -

First, God giving Joseph Smith the familiar words that come from the Bible he read and knew that carry the same message that was transcribed on the plates;

and second, God giving us through this translation key understanding that the words of the Bible are to be trusted where some scholars tell us they should be called into doubt.

You really don't see how plagiarism of a biblical text, which shouldn't be in the Bible at all because it wasn't in the original biblical manuscripts, doesn't pose a problem for the Book of Mormon?

Where you see an issue, I see the fulfillment of 2 Nephi 29:8 -

Wherefore murmur ye, because that ye shall receive more of my word? Know ye not that the testimony of two nations is a witness unto you that I am God, that I remember one nation like unto another? Wherefore, I speak the same words unto one nation like unto another. And when the two nations shall run together the testimony of the two nations shall run together also.

(my emphasis added, of course)

Come on 1 Iron, go ahead and quote 2 Nephi 9:28 and dust off your feet at me!

You have also suggested SNIP!

Bottom line 1 Iron, here's the problem I have. I have no problem with people who read the scriptures and take them on faith. I do have a problem with people who think that LDS beliefs are somehow more immune to scholarly criticism when they clearly are not. I also have a problem with people who love to apply tools of scholarly criticism to the Bible, yet refuse to apply them to their own scriptures. Either read ALL scripture critically, or read none of them that way. Otherwise it comes off as just another attempt at special pleading.

[_1 Iron]

I think I see where we are crosswise, Aristotle. In the OP, I stated this -

For myself, I see many teachings in the LDS church that are not only comparable with this possibility, but that almost rely on it. We are, as a generation, under condemnation for not living the scripture we currently have. LDS are all but familiar with the notion of lost or sealed scripture. If there is a more pure "Q" document that contains the fullness of the Gospel from which subsequent writers took the most palatable parts (meaning it could contain much more than what is reflected in Matthew or Luke) for their intended audiences, I don't think anything in LDS teachings is troubled by this claim.

Above you said -

I have no problem with people who read the scriptures and take them on faith. I do have a problem with people who think that LDS beliefs are somehow more immune to scholarly criticism when they clearly are not. I also have a problem with people who love to apply tools of scholarly criticism to the Bible, yet refuse to apply them to their own scriptures. Either read ALL scripture critically, or read none of them that way.

First, it is not my argument that LDS theology or belief is more or less immune to scholarly criticism. I specifically asked your position in the OP because your response in the first vision discussion suggested you did not place much faith in Q being real. You effectively excluded it from the discussion at that time and I assumed you felt it could not be considered a real document if we did not have manuscript evidence for it's existence.

And this is where I see the second point of concern - I am not sure how one approaches the Book of Mormon with an eye similar to Biblical study given that the material we are dealing with is very, very different. Manuscript sources for the Book of Mormon are as "pure" as we are going to get until such time as God returns the plates. And I hope we would not need to discuss that topic here. With the Bible we may never find the earliest documents because they may not have survived. We may not even correctly know what those sources are or who wrote them. To find a codex of writings in the actual hand of apostles such as Peter, James, John, or Paul would be earth-shattering. But I think all modern Christians have to come to terms with the fact the Bible we have does not accurately reflect this hypothetical codex. Mormons are not excluded from this, even if I think most Mormons are less aware of the issues than others. As noted, my experience is that Christians as whole vary in how they accept the evidence.

This discussion originated in a discussion on the first vision where I had postulated that early accounts such as the 1832 version of the first vision came to light due to research and publication on the part of the church. And I had compared this to the eventual revelation that another source had to be behind the writing of the synoptic gospels as a way of responding to the question why it wasn't canonized by the LDS church. In effect, I had asked why this question was even valid if Q was not canonized? I meant this not as a real question, given the time line involved in the eventual canonization of the currently accepted New Testament, but rather as a comment on how the early members of the LDS faith did not seem intent on canonizing every scrap that was written by Joseph Smith in the same manner.

So my bottom line is that reading LDS scripture the same as the Bible is akin to applying the wrong tool to the task. The Book of Mormon was not revealed through the sames means that we received the Bible. It was set aside specifically because of how the Bible would come down to us in order to make dark things clear.

Also, I would hope we are beyond dusting feet, my friend. We are here to discuss, no? If I am abrasive, it is likely because there are rough edges to both positions. A sharp branch does not catch on smooth stone, as they say.

[_1 Iron]

One more comment -

You really don't see how plagiarism of a biblical text, which shouldn't be in the Bible at all because it wasn't in the original biblical manuscripts, doesn't pose a problem for the Book of Mormon?

I think this would only be a problem if the Nephites had claimed to have the actual manuscripts written by the original authors. They don't with the exception of Isaiah. In the case of the New Testament material quoted, I don't see how you can see this as being a real argument. In the case of Isaiah, I admit it is more of an issue, but the response is the same - the quoted material was given to Joseph Smith not translated verbatim from what was written on the plates, whether we are talking about the brass plates or the golden ones.

As far as the Nephites were concerned, there wasn't an original manuscript, it was oral. As far as Joseph Smith was concerned, there needn't be a conflict with an original manuscript if his source was Divine and came about by inspiration/revelation. And as stated previously, what we apparenly have is what we are worthy of living.

[_harmony]

And this is where I see the second point of concern - I am not sure how one approaches the Book of Mormon with an eye similar to Biblical study given that the material we are dealing with is very, very different. Manuscript sources for the Book of Mormon are as "pure" as we are going to get until such time as God returns the plates.

Assuming there were plates at all. Are you so certain there were?

And I hope we would not need to discuss that topic here.

Why exclude a topic from discussion?

With the Bible we may never find the earliest documents because they may not have survived.

At least there is something (thank you, God, for the Dead Sea Scrolls). And yet there is no such disclaimer with the source documents for the Book of Mormon. There are no plates... whether or not there actually were plates at some point, we know for a fact that there are no plates now.

We may not even correctly know what those sources are or who wrote them. To find a codex of writings in the actual hand of apostles such as Peter, James, John, or Paul would be earth-shattering.

I think actual writings from Nephi or Mosiah would be even more earth-shattering... or most earth-shattering would be writing from the hand of Christ.

But I think all modern Christians have to come to terms with the fact the Bible we have does not accurately reflect this hypothetical codex. Mormons are not excluded from this, even if I think most Mormons are less aware of the issues than others. As noted, my experience is that Christians as whole vary in how they accept the evidence.

Mormons believe the Bible only when it's convenient. We demand a correct translation... while uncritically accepting our own collection of undocumented writings without little if any thought to the double standard.

[_Aristotle Smith]

At least there is something (thank you, God, for the Dead Sea Scrolls). And yet there is no such disclaimer with the source documents for the Book of Mormon. There are no plates... whether or not there actually were plates at some point, we know for a fact that there are no plates now.

We also know from contemporary witnesses that the plates were not used in the "translation." Even if there were any plates, it wouldn't matter, they were not used.