Is the Book of Mormon a 19th century production?

[_stemelbow]

In my opinion, the Book of Mormon's extensive anachronistic use of the Bible poses a much more concrete and difficult problem for the ancient view than the vague appeal to "narrative complexity" does for the 19th century view.

That's not a bad point to raise. Additionally, anachronisms might be, at least in part, due to the idea that the record was translated in the 19th century--the examples of the use of Jesus Christ and Messiah seem to support that possibility. And if that be a possibility perhaps its not as concrete and difficult as you assume it to be. Who knows?

[_Chap]

In my opinion, the Book of Mormon's extensive anachronistic use of the Bible poses a much more concrete and difficult problem for the ancient view than the vague appeal to "narrative complexity" does for the 19th century view.

That's not a bad point to raise. Additionally, anachronisms might be, at least in part, due to the idea that the record was translated in the 19th century--the examples of the use of Jesus Christ and Messiah seem to support that possibility. And if that be a possibility perhaps its not as concrete and difficult as you assume it to be. Who knows?

You do realize where this idea of yours is leading? You are playing with the idea that the English text of the Book of Mormon may be significantly conditioned by the fact it was translated by an English-speaking man in early 19th C upstate New York, and therefore may not represent the original text in 'Reformed Egyptian' script (recording a version of Hebrew?) very closely. That is a version of the so-called 'Loose Translation' theory.

That may get you out of some holes, on a 'mighta, coulda, we don't really know' basis. But you will have to pay for that by losing all the benefits of the opposing 'Tight Translation' view, which is the one you need to adopt if you want to retain the supposed 'slam-dunk' apologetics based on alleged Hebraic factors in the structure of the text and its syntax. On the other hand, as I think you realize, if you go that way you will be in trouble with such problems as your example of ' the use of Jesus Christ and Messiah'.

I honestly think you will have to fall back on 'Who knows?' as your safest reaction if you don't want to be spiked on the horns of that dilemma. But you will still find that most educated people who read the text will simply say: 'Yeah - looks 19th century to me. No way is that ancient.'

[_CaliforniaKid]

That's not a bad point to raise. Additionally, anachronisms might be, at least in part, due to the idea that the record was translated in the 19th century--the examples of the use of Jesus Christ and Messiah seem to support that possibility. And if that be a possibility perhaps its not as concrete and difficult as you assume it to be. Who knows?

That explanation might help explain the fact that the Book of Mormon quotes Old Testament prophecies using New Testament KJV wording, and borrows translation errors unchanged from the KJV.

But how does it help explain the fact that the Book of Mormon quotes large potions of Second Isaiah and Malachi, even though these were not written until a few hundred years after the Lehites traveled to America? Or that the B.C. portion of the Book of Mormon also quotes about two hundred verses from the New Testament? If these are artifacts of translation, then I'm forced to wonder how we can build any kind of serious religious system upon such a loosely translated text.

[Guest]

The 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon is essentially what Joseph Smith dictated. Eyewitness accounts bear this out. How was this done?

Is it? We have little information on the day to day events, and only the words of some people around Joseph, some who may have been involved in creating or covering up how it may really have been created. Others may have witnessed a show to create the illusion that a translation was occuring. Their are many possibilities that I suspect you have never really entertained. In order to prove a fraud accured, one does not have to know all the details of how it was done in order to prove a fraud occured.

Remember, he had a seer stone inside of a hat for a good portion of the process.

Actually we don't know that since an accounting of what went on is very limited. Minutes were not keep.

The scribes had to keep up with what they heard without paragraphing, punctuation, or knowledge of how a sentence might end.

Scribes? Oliver was really the principle scribe here. Others did very little and this may have been done for their benifit to create the illusion.

Joseph Smith dictated in blocks of twenty words or so and he himself may not have known where a complicated sentence was going. How do you explain the actual evidence/process in regards to the translation?

Their are many possibilites, and again I suspect you have been to biased to learn about them. Again we do not know the minute by minute or hour by hour goings on here. Many suspect a text was already prepared beforehand. Joseph memorizing parts, etc are not that difficult, and again one does not need to expain every detail to show a fraud occured. You should study up a bit on how conmen, magicians, etc can operate and trick people.

I'm assuming you've also read Emma's account in regards to her participation in the the translation process. She mentions that Joseph never worked from notes or script and that whenever he took a break, he would begin again exactly where he left off, without seeing the manuscript or having anyone read back to him the last few sentences he had translated.

Have you tried to think about possibilites here other then the apologetic ones? A good memory is one. If one has a great memory they can remember long sections of text and where they left off. You are also taking Emma's words as true, when we know she has been willing to lie about Joseph. Eye witnesses are important, but we cannot just accept they are aleays telling the truth.

Terryl Givens said:
The naked implausibility of gold plates, seer stones, and warrior-angels finds little by way of scientific corroboration, but attributing to a young farmboy the 90-day dictated and unrevised production of a 500-page narrative that incorporates sophisticated literary structures, remarkable Old World parallels, and some 300 references to chronology and 700 to geography with virtually perfect self-consistency is problematic as well.

Ah a young farm boy again. In another thread he is great intellestual. This farm boy was already well versed in treasure hunting with a rock in a hat. It really is very much a conman's tool if you read up on the practice. Also why 90 days, when he and others may have been working on it for many years. As for sophistacted literary structure, we have discussed this before. I am not sure why we wouldn't see remarkable old world parallels from a book that borrows so much from the Bible and other sources.

I think there is more to it than brashly stating that the Book of Mormon is simply an 19th century production.

You are ignoring so much of the evidence and over stating other evidences. You also forget that in the other thread it is more then just the Book of Mormon we have to look at when evaluating LDS truth claims. The Book of Abraham is far worse then the Book of Mormon is for those claims.

The narrative complexity in and of itself does not jive with the mode and means of translation.

It's not that complex, but is an interesting work from the conext of a 19th century proction. AS mades some very good comments as did some others.

If he were composing as he went along, this would be quite a feat of memory, especially since the names in the narrative portion are in reverse order from the way they appear in the genealogical list.

Feats of memory are done by many people, and again they may have written the text years before making it look like a translation was going on.

Throwing out sound bites such as "The evidence suggests an 19th century production" doesn't do a whole lot to actually show evidence of anything except that you have an opinion.

Considering that it was not the topic of the thread and that their is so much information to look at I am not sure why you have a problem here.

Is there a Media Matters equivalent for Mormon critics to draw from for their programmed and politically correct (at least for this board) sound bites?

Lets not get hypocritcal here considering just how many sound bites you and other apologists like to use.

[_stemelbow]

You do realize where this idea of yours is leading? You are playing with the idea that the English text of the Book of Mormon may be significantly conditioned by the fact it was translated by an English-speaking man in early 19th C upstate New York, and therefore may not represent the original text in 'Reformed Egyptian' script (recording a version of Hebrew?) very closely. That is a version of the so-called 'Loose Translation' theory.

You are right, or it could be that God Himself, as the actual "author of the translation" chose to go with the anachronisms for "His own purposes"--something akin to providing a text that would best be accepted in early-to mid 19th century frontier America.

That may get you out of some holes, on a 'mighta, coulda, we don't really know' basis. But you will have to pay for that by losing all the benefits of the opposing 'Tight Translation' view, which is the one you need to adopt if you want to retain the supposed 'slam-dunk' apologetics based on alleged Hebraic factors in the structure of the text and its syntax. On the other hand, as I think you realize, if you go that way you will be in trouble with such problems as your example of ' the use of Jesus Christ and Messiah'.

I realize there are plenty of problems associated with any theory of how the translation took place. Since we don't know how it took place, its not all that awful to assume a hybrid theory right?

I honestly think you will have to fall back on 'Who knows?' as your safest reaction if you don't want to be spiked on the horns of that dilemma. But you will still find that most educated people who read the text will simply say: 'Yeah - looks 19th century to me. No way is that ancient.'

Which I readily accept--most will not accept it.

[_stemelbow]

That explanation might help explain the fact that the Book of Mormon quotes Old Testament prophecies using New Testament KJV wording, and borrows translation errors unchanged from the KJV.

But how does it help explain the fact that the Book of Mormon quotes large potions of Second Isaiah and Malachi, even though these were not written until a few hundred years after the Lehites traveled to America?

As I said to Chap, I realize there are problems, or at least questions, associated with any theory. But, if God is truly involved in the translation then can we assume He can't use the Old Testament portions as He sees fit, in hopes to get the message He wishes to get across? If God felt/feels that the use of Second Isaiah adequately reflects the thoughts that Nephi wished to express, and Isaiah is considered scripture to the majority of those in 19th cnetury america, whom God wishes to use to get the whole thing "kick-started", then the issue you raise has explanation. I realize there are a lot of "ifs" involved there, but as it is there is no consensus so why not be able to offer more possibilities?

Or that the B.C. portion of the Book of Mormon also quotes about two hundred verses from the New Testament? If these are artifacts of translation, then I'm forced to wonder how we can build any kind of serious religious system upon such a loosely translated text.

But the religious system was built but not solely by the Book of Mormon text. There was latter-day revelation which helped build the system. And to add, as if I'm repeating what I said above, if God was in charge of the translation and He felt it appropriate to quote the New Testament to convey the message He had in mind to those of 19th Century america, then we have an explanation. It'd be just a matter of God confirming such a theory as true, which isn't probably going to happen since He probably employed means we have not at all considered.

[_mentalgymnast]

Also why 90 days, when he and others may have been working on it for many years.

This is the crux of the matter. Along with one or more of the scribes being in cahoots with the scam. I haven't seen any clear evidence of either. Unless you want to travel down Spalding Lane. The evidence that I've seen along the way points towards a 90 day translation period where things really got rolling after the short hiatus when the translation stopped. Oliver Cowdery was a major player during this time. He would have HAD to be in cahoots on the scheme. But the fact is that he never denied his testimony of the Book of Mormon and its divine origin or spilled the beans on Joseph. He had plenty of reason to do so especially early on with the Fanny Alger affair and such.

When Cowdery returned to the Church, he humbly expressed only the desire to be rebaptized and fellowshipped, and refused any position in the Church. Lack of funds and winter forced the family to stay in Missouri in 1849. Unfortunately, Oliver was suffering from a respiratory condition and died on March 3, 1850, before he was able to move to Utah with the rest of the Church. His last letter states that he accepted a call to lobby for the Church in Washington, though he was never able to fulfill this call. His wife recorded concerning him:

"From the hour when the glorious vision of the Holy Messenger revealed to mortal eyes the hidden prophecies which God had promised ... until the moment when he passed away from earth, he always without one doubt or shadow of turning affirmed the divinity and truth of the Book of Mormon"

(Richard Lloyd Anderson, Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses, p.63).
http://www.mormonwiki.com/Oliver_Cowdery

Are you able to show that there was an extended Book of Mormon fabrication period previous to the 90 day time slot for translation that we're accustomed to hearing about and finding in the written record?

Regards,
MG

[_Chap]

That explanation might help explain the fact that the Book of Mormon quotes Old Testament prophecies using New Testament KJV wording, and borrows translation errors unchanged from the KJV.

But how does it help explain the fact that the Book of Mormon quotes large potions of Second Isaiah and Malachi, even though these were not written until a few hundred years after the Lehites traveled to America?

As I said to Chap, I realize there are problems, or at least questions, associated with any theory. But, if God is truly involved in the translation then can we assume He can't use the Old Testament portions as He sees fit, in hopes to get the message He wishes to get across? If God felt/feels that the use of Second Isaiah adequately reflects the thoughts that Nephi wished to express, and Isaiah is considered scripture to the majority of those in 19th cnetury america, whom God wishes to use to get the whole thing "kick-started", then the issue you raise has explanation. I realize there are a lot of "ifs" involved there, but as it is there is no consensus so why not be able to offer more possibilities?

Or that the B.C. portion of the Book of Mormon also quotes about two hundred verses from the New Testament? If these are artifacts of translation, then I'm forced to wonder how we can build any kind of serious religious system upon such a loosely translated text.

But the religious system was built but not solely by the Book of Mormon text. There was latter-day revelation which helped build the system. And to add, as if I'm repeating what I said above, if God was in charge of the translation and He felt it appropriate to quote the New Testament to convey the message He had in mind to those of 19th Century america, then we have an explanation. It'd be just a matter of God confirming such a theory as true, which isn't probably going to happen since He probably employed means we have not at all considered.

I surrender! Don't shoot! Yes - any feature whatsoever of the Book of Mormon that might suggest a 19th C. origin can be be validly and convincingly explained away by saying that maybe God just thought it was a good idea to make the text read that way.

I agree to anything. Just please don't say 'pep pep'.

[_EAllusion]

I think David P. Wright's work on Isaiah in the Book of Mormon conclusively demonstrated dependence on the KJV text.

http://www.xmission.com/~research/central/isabm1.html

And if that's the case, the argument above, "...Emma's account in regards to her participation in the the translation process. She mentions that Joseph never worked from notes or script and that whenever he took a break, he would begin again exactly where he left off, without seeing the manuscript or having anyone read back to him the last few sentences he had translated," appears untenable as an argument against 19th century authorship. In fact, Smith's testimony about the translation process in contrast to other witnesses is really a testimony about her character.

[Guest]

Oliver Cowdery was a major player during this time. He would have HAD to be in cahoots on the scheme. But the fact is that he never denied his testimony of the Book of Mormon and its divine origin or spilled the beans on Joseph. He had plenty of reason to do so especially early on with the Fanny Alger affair and such.

There is in fact some suggestion that he did deny it at some point - Times and Seasons, Vol 2, page 482. But regardless, I'm surprised at any assumption that one would impugn his own credibility by denying something he had openly claimed to witness solely for the sake of tarnishing the reputation of another. How do we know that, once free from the church, Oliver faced any real pressure to issue a public denial? Perhaps he just wanted to be rid of it. How do we know that, finding himself in a sickly and deprived state, he didn't have more basic motivations for seeking the comfort of the saints? We don't - it's speculation either way. The testimony of his dying words, as you know, did not actually come from an unbiased source.