Biblical Scholarship Supports

[serapha]

Okay, here's the article, and I'll give you guys time to read over it, and I'll be back tomorrow to post my comments, and then, as snow says... she (?) will post the easy rebuttal..

Biblical Scholarship Supports

Book of Mormon Authorship

The Nephi Project

November 2000, Bear River City, Utah

Copyright © 2000 Nephi Project. All rights reserved

By George D. Potter

Today Documentary Hypothesis or Higher Criticism is the methodology used by scholars at the world’s leading universities as well as most Jewish and Christian seminaries. The line of scholarship sets aside dogmatic assumptions about the authorship of the Bible, and looks to linguistics, archaeology, history and other disciplines to decipher the authorship of the scriptures.

The Documentary Hypothesis school of biblical inquiry needed a millennium to finally be accepted by scholars as the prevailing theory on the origins of the Five Books of Moses, the Pentateuch. Prior to 1830, the date of the first edition of the Book of Mormon, scholars supporting this line of reasoning were persecuted. One such notable scholar, Benedict Spinoza, wrote in his Tractaus theologico-politicus (1670 A.D. “It is …clearer than the sun at noon that the Pentateuch was not written by Moses, but by someone who lived long after Moses.

Under its hypothetical framework, biblical scholars have amassed substantial evidence that neither Moses, nor any one man, was the author of the Pentateuch. The body of evidence for this conclusion includes a pattern of doublets (multiple accounts of the same events), events transpiring after the time of Moses that he could not have known about, contradictions in the reporting of the same events, writing styles indicative of a later period, and considerable historical evidence supporting the motives of the authors at the alleged time and place in which the hypothesis holds the books were written. Although LDS Church leaders have generally criticized Documentary Hypothesis [ii], others have taken a tolerant view. J. Reuben Clark, Jr., wrote:

The article in it's entirity is at...

http://nephiproject.com/biblical_scholarsh...ip_supports.htm

Spencer, I edited the text out because I realized that I had left some of "my" comments in the text by accident. It is better that the document be reviewed without my comments ... my apologizes... ~serapha~

[Snow]

You're going to post your disagreement with Potter and then expect someone to rebutt your rebuttal? Seems like you ought to email Potter with your concerns.

[AFDaw]

I admit to not having read it. What about just doing a few points at a time?

[serapha]

Hello snow, et. al.

It wasn't me that said that they knew ~serapha~ and that they had read 5-6 postings and knew exactly what I would say and how to rebutt it....

You see, snow, what I do, and where I make the most contributions, in this type of discussion is.. Two weeks ago, I wasn't real knowledgeable on the distribution of the J, E, D, and P texts of the Bible, and I certainly wasn't aware of their application to the book of mormon.

So, what I did, is, I went and got the book from the library, and I read it so that I would have a clue about what the author was referencing.

You see, I do that. I don't just jump in and say... "It's all wrong"... make a bunch of comments and sling mud and then move on. I really do try to get all the eggs in one basket, and that requires a tremendous about of reading before replying.

But in general, the text of the article in application to the hyposthesis boils down to the statement that the first five books of the Bible are ascribed to have been written by four people from the Old Testament period, and assembled by a fifth person, the redactor who gives us the finished product we see today.

The J passages are based upon the southern kingdom, the E passages are based upon the northern kingdom (thats the book of mormon line) , the P passages are from the Priestly input, the D version is attributed to the prophet Jeremiah having written it, and the redactor is usually accredited to being Ezra.

Now, I know that no one on here is afraid to learn, and yes, I would like to go through the article over the next few days and I would be glad to explain from the original author and from comments made by this author concerning the credibility of the book of mormon.

You see the correlation between the hypothesis and the book of mormon is cited as a "proof" for the book of mormon. I will be right "upfront", and say, I don't see it that way.

So, if you want to discuss it, we can... Or, you can just continue to post, "I know all the arguments that ~serapha~ will present, and I know the standard rebuttals".

No, you don't know me... and you certainly don't know my style. I am not afraid to learn, nor am I unwilling to spend time researching and investigating. So, are you ready to learn, or just ready to tell me how much you know about me?

I will check back later tonight, I have a family obligation today.

BTW... the first error I would point out in the article is that the book of Jeremiah is NOT a part of the torah as is cited in the article. The torah is the first five books of the Old Testament, which we all know does not include the book of Jeremiah. I believe that to be a minor oversite of the author, and not an indication of his skill level on the subject matter.

~serapha~

[serapha]

BTW. you mail email anyone anything that you wish. My comments will be based upon the original text, that would be the book, "Who Wrote the Bible" by Friedman, and not

~serapha says~

I will just be presenting the facts. It is up to you to determine if all the article is on the mark or not. I say it is not-- based upon the cited text.

I just wanted you to know that it won't be my "opinion" of anything, but what the research shows.

Now we will be getting closer to my "style" ...

~later~

~serapha~

[Outshined]

I agree that this is weird. You post an article by a third party that holds little interest for the members here, plan to post your argument against it, and want Snow to rebut your argument?

I have to go along with the suggestion that you e-mail the author and air your concerns with him.

Unless it's just a personal challenge to Snow, since you seem to have a history with him.......

[Guest Starsky]

Well, why not make it simple and get your answers from the author of all truth?

I do, however, appreciate this insightful piece you posted... :)

[Snow]

Originally posted by serapha@Mar 20 2004, 04:57 AM

Hello snow, et. al.

It wasn't me that said that they knew ~serapha~ and that they had read 5-6 postings and knew exactly what I would say and how to rebutt it....

So, if you want to discuss it, we can... Or, you can just continue to post, "I know all the arguments that ~serapha~ will present, and I know the standard rebuttals".

I apologize serapha,

I assumed, apparently incorrectly, that you would understand that I was referring any argument that you might makes that The Church of Jesus Christ is not what it purports to be or that the Church of Jesus Christ is not Christian or that Mormons, etc and along the way, as an added bonus, I will be delighted to illustrate the hypocrisy inherrent in your position.

I did not think it required mentioning that I probably won't argue with you about:

-things I agree with

-things that are irrelevent to the issues above that I don't care about

-things that involve small furry animals and large meat processing plants.

PS. I bet Potter was really embarrassed when you told him that you thought he misused the word Torah. What did he say?

And oh yeah, will I need to be so meticulous in everything I say with you or can I take for granted that reasonably said things will be reasonably understood?

Oh, and oh yeah again, although I didn't see the context, I imagine you know that torah applies, in a wider sense, to all Hebrew teachings?

[Cal]

Originally posted by serapha@Mar 19 2004, 09:18 PM

Okay, here's the article, and I'll give you guys time to read over it, and I'll be back tomorrow to post my comments, and then, as snow says... she (?) will post the easy rebuttal..

Biblical Scholarship Supports

Book of Mormon Authorship

The Nephi Project

November 2000, Bear River City, Utah

Copyright © 2000 Nephi Project. All rights reserved

By George D. Potter

Today Documentary Hypothesis or Higher Criticism is the methodology used by scholars at the world’s leading universities as well as most Jewish and Christian seminaries. The line of scholarship sets aside dogmatic assumptions about the authorship of the Bible, and looks to linguistics, archaeology, history and other disciplines to decipher the authorship of the scriptures.

The Documentary Hypothesis school of biblical inquiry needed a millennium to finally be accepted by scholars as the prevailing theory on the origins of the Five Books of Moses, the Pentateuch. Prior to 1830, the date of the first edition of the Book of Mormon, scholars supporting this line of reasoning were persecuted. One such notable scholar, Benedict Spinoza, wrote in his Tractaus theologico-politicus (1670 A.D. “It is …clearer than the sun at noon that the Pentateuch was not written by Moses, but by someone who lived long after Moses.

Under its hypothetical framework, biblical scholars have amassed substantial evidence that neither Moses, nor any one man, was the author of the Pentateuch. The body of evidence for this conclusion includes a pattern of doublets (multiple accounts of the same events), events transpiring after the time of Moses that he could not have known about, contradictions in the reporting of the same events, writing styles indicative of a later period, and considerable historical evidence supporting the motives of the authors at the alleged time and place in which the hypothesis holds the books were written. Although LDS Church leaders have generally criticized Documentary Hypothesis [ii], others have taken a tolerant view. J. Reuben Clark, Jr., wrote:

I am not really concerned, and no man of faith should be, about the exact authorship of the books of the Bible. More than one Prophet may well have written parts of books now collected under one heading. I do not know. If so, what of it? Shakespeare's literature is neither lost nor dimmed because Bacon may have written it [iii]

According to the Encyclopedia of Mormonism the LDS Church “has taken no official stand concerning the collection and transmission of these legal texts in the Pentateuch.

Why use a controversial hypothesis to test Book of Mormon authorship? First, it is for that very reason. Being generally rejected by most Book of Mormon scholars, Documentary Hypothesis evidence provides a more unbiased test than is usually offered by Book of Mormon scholars.

Second, the evidence compiled by Documentary Hypothesis represents an enormous body of biblical inquiry. Using the inferences of the Documentary Hypothesis to test Book of Mormon authorship stacks the sacred record’s claim against the finest in current biblical scholarship.

Third, proponents of the Documentary Hypothesis have focused their Pentateuch research on a place and period relevant to the origins of Book of Mormon; Palestine between the time the tribes of Israel were divided into two kingdoms in 922 B.C. and the destruction of Jerusalem in 587 B.C. This was the era in which they believe that at least four versions of the Books of Moses were written, and initially edited into one text. Sjodahl uses the second verse in the Book of Mormon to explain why this is important when trying to tie the initial authors of the Book of Mormon to this ancient world.

It is certain that, if this verse had been penned by a modern impostor, he would have written, not "the language of my father," but "Hebrew," because that is the term now always used to denote the language spoken and recorded by the Jews at the time of Lehi. But Nephi did not know it under that name. The expression used is, therefore, unmistakable evidence of the genuiness of the book. [iv]

Still, this author has several reservations in using the Documentary Hypothesis evidence to test Book of Mormon authorship. First, there is no one Higher Criticism hypothesis or accepted summary of its findings. It is a line of biblical research that is worldwide and on-going. Second, any attempt to reduce the Documentary Hypothesis evidence into a model simple enough to use for comparison to the Book of Mormon authorship claims would be an oversimplification. Third, it might appear to the reader that the author agrees with the Pentateuch authorship conclusions of Documentary Hypothesis. I do not. However, that does not lessen my regard for the quality of their deductive inquiries and empirical research.

To minimize these concerns I have chosen to use a recent third party work to represent the latest Documentary Hypothesis evidence, Richard Elliott Friedman’s book, Who Wrote The Bible? Friedman is a leading figure in Documentary Hypothesis. [v] LDS scholar Kevin Christensen calls Friedman’s book “a popular survey of the evidence for the documentary hypothesis that dominates modern Biblical scholarship. [vi] Harvard Magazine endorsed the book in this fashion: “It is an event to have a book as readable and exciting as Who Wrote the Bible? It has about it the resounding smack of solid truth?” Friedman writes of his book “I have spoken almost exclusively in terms of the facts themselves – meaning the evidence from the text and from archeology – I took this approach because I wanted this to be a presentation of evidence and conclusions rather than a history of scholarship” [vii].

If the finest biblical scholarship provides compelling evidence placing the Book of Mormon authors in Palestine by 922 and 587 B.C., it would be naïve to argue that anyone wrote the book in New York in the 1820s. The Book of Mormon claims its initial author was Nephi. The young prophet-scribe wrote that his father’s family lived in Jerusalem contemporary with Jeremiah, but fled the city prior to its destruction (587 B.C.).

Before leaving Jerusalem for a promised land, Nephi acquired the brass plates that appear to have served as his family’s theological (1 Nephi 4:15,16; 5:21) and linguistic (1 Nephi 3:19) foundations. The brass plates contained the genealogy of Nephi’s family that indicated that he was a descendent of Joseph (1 Nephi 5:14), confirming that he was not Jewish, that is, of the tribes that formed the kingdom of Judah after the division of the kingdom after Solomon’s death. Nephi’s golden plates tell us that he was from the tribe of Manasseh (Alma 10:3), and that his wife was of the tribe of Ephraim [viii]; both tribes that had been part of the kingdom of Israel.

Nephi acquired the brass plates in Jerusalem, the capital city of the southern kingdom, Judah. However, Nephi took the plates from the house of a distant relative named Laban, also a descendent of Joseph, thus, the kingdom of Israel. Of particular interest to this authorship test is that the brass plates contained a version of the Five Books of Moses (1 Nephi 5:11). Nephi copied verses from the brass plates into his own account for the “learning and the profit of my (his) children” (2 Nephi 4:15). Since the brass plates were used to preserve the Nephite’s language (1 Nephi 3: 19) and to teach each new generation to read (Mosiah 1:2,3), we can presume that the writing style found on the brass plates was carried on by Nephi’s descendents and became a style that was evident throughout the Book of Mormon. In this regard, the original authorship style of the Book of Mormon rests with Nephi and to some degree with the scribes who engraved the brass plates. In summary, the Book of Mormon’s first authors were from tribes that had once formed the kingdom of Israel. Does biblical scholarship support this authorship claim?

Test One: Multiple Versions of the Pentateuch

A primary premise of Documentary Hypothesis is that there is evidence that many versions of the Books of Moses probably existed during the time the brass plates were written and for certain in Nephi’s time. Richard Friedman summaries this hypothesis:

There was evidence that the Five Books of Moses had been composed by combining four different source documents into one continuous history. For working purposes, the four documents were identified by alphabetic symbols. The document that was associated with the divine name Yahweh/Jehovah was called J. The document that was identified as referring to the deity as God (the Hebrew, Elohim) was called E. The third document, by far the largest, including most of the legal sections and concentrating a great deal on matters having to do with priest, and so it was called P. And the source that was found only in the book of Deuteronomy was called D. [ix]

What did Nephi see on the brass plates? J. M. Sjodahl, suggests that “the collection of Laban, known in the Book of Mormon as the Brass Plates, must have been unusually complete, judging from the contents. It must have been a very valuable library”. [x]

Fortunately, Nephi provided an itemized accounting of the separate documents contained on the brass, including four sets of scriptures, at least three were Mosaic in nature having prophecies dating back to the beginning plates (1 Nephi 5:11-13).

The evidence of Documentary Hypothesis for versions J E D P correlates remarkably well to what Nephi found on the brass plates. This author suggest one possible comparison:

1. Brass plates contain “the five book of Moses” (v. 11) which compares to the combination of versions E J in the Biblical Pentateuch. The brass plates included the fifth book or version D. (The complete Hexateuch, E J and P blended was not combined until Erza. [xi])

2. The brass plates contained a record of the Jews from the beginning” (v.12), compares to version J, the version whose author(s) came from in the kingdom of Judah.

3. The brass plates set of “prophecies of the holy prophets from the beginning” (v. 13) compares to version E, whose author(s) like Nephi came from the tribes that had formed the kingdom of Israel.

4. The brass plates record of “many prophecies spoken of by the mouth of Jeremiah” (v. 13) compares with the Book of Jeremiah.

5. Nephi described no set of plates equivalent to the P or Priestly version.

Whether these comparisons are accurate or not, the conclusion of biblical scholars is that during the period that Nephi lived there were different accounts of the stories from the beginning up to Moses is supported by the Book of Mormon.

Test Two: Israeli “E” and Jewish “J” Versions of the Books of Moses

This second test is more explicit. The evidence at the core of Documentary Hypothesis asserts that there were different versions of the Books of Moses used by each of the two kingdoms. Friedman concludes, “If we separate the Elohim (E) stories from the Yahweh (J) stories, we get a consistent series of clues that the E stories were written by someone concerned with Israel and the J stories by someone concerned with Judah”. [xii]

Does the Book of Mormon support the theory that there existed a separate version of the Books of Moses for each kingdom? The answer is clearly, yes, and it distinguished these two records by their tribal origins more any other ancient record. Nephi and the brass plates had their roots in the kingdom of Israel, the land of the Documentary Hypothesis E version. The Book of Mormon reads:

“Wherefore, the fruit of thy loins (Joseph (Ephraim/Israel) v. 4) shall write; and the fruit of the loins of Judah shall write; and that which shall be written by the fruit of thy loins, and also that which shall be written by the fruit of the loins of Judah, shall grow together…(2 Nephi 3:12)

The Book of Mormon goes so far as to explain how a version in the brass plates (presumably an E version of the kingdom of Israel/Joseph) is different from the modern the Bible that is based on the Jewish Torah:

The book that thou beholdest is a record of the Jews, which contains the covenants of the Lord, which he hath made unto the house of Israel; and it also containeth many of the prophecies of the holy prophets; and it is a record like unto the engravings which are upon the plates of brass, save there are not so many. (1 Nephi 13:23)

Test Three: Did a version of the Books of Moses exist that could be identified as “prophecies of the holy prophets” (1 Nephi 5:12)

The brass plates set of “prophecies of the holy prophets” is not identified as belonging to another group, i.e. the Jews. It can be assumed that this record was their tribal version of the Book of Moses, the kingdom of Israel version, the E version. Does Doctrine Hypothesis support the idea that there existed such a version of the Books of Moses in Nephi’s time. Friedman writes: “They [E and D] both placed greater emphasis on the role of prophets – which makes sense, given that their heroes included such figures as Moses, Samuel, Ahijah, and later Jeremiah.” [xiii] Version D is identified as Deuteronomy, which does not cover events from the beginning of time. However, version E includes the creation and emphasizes the prophets. Biblical scholars have concluded that version E was written by authors from the kingdom of Israel. Not only does this support the authorship claims of the Book of Mormon, it explains how the collector Laban, from the same tribes, came to possess the manuscript.

Again, Nephi explained that the Jewish version differed from the Joseph or Israel versions on the brass plates. The brass plates contained more “prophecies” (1 Nephi 13:23); it emphasized the prophets. Evidence for this argument is found in the Book of Mormon. Nephi writes of his father recounting prophecies of Joseph of Egypt (2 Nephi 3), presumably from the Israel or E version since, according to Documentary Hypothesis version E gave special treatment to Joseph [xiv]. This prophecy of Joseph’s is not found in the Hebrew Bible. In summary, Biblical inquiry confirms what Nephi reported 2600 years earlier; there was a version of the Books of Moses that emphasized prophecies.

Test Four: The Name of Deity, E (Elohim) and J (Yahweh/Jehovah)

According to Friedman, “the Elohim group includes the names of all the tribes of Israel. The group of stories that invoke the name of Yahweh are the stories of: Reuben, Simeon Levi and Judah” [xv]. According to this Documentary Hypothesis conclusion, Nephi, from Israel, would have been expected to have called deity “God” or “Elohim”. That is, even though he dwelt in Judah, he would have been taught his religious terminology by the priest of Israel, including his father. However, if Nephi had invoked the name “Jehovah” for deity, he would have used the terminology of Judah, and biblical scholarship would question the authenticity of the Book of Mormon’s authors. Book of Mormon scholars have applied this technique to the name of Christ to show that the Book of Mormon was written by more than one author. [xvi] Friedman writes:

The two stories have two different pictures of what happened. Now, the three investigators noticed that the first version of the creation story always refers to the creator as God – thirty five times. The second version always refers to him by his name, Yahweh God – eleven times. The first version never calls him Yahweh; the second version never calls him God. [xvii]

In translating the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith differentiated “God” and “Jehovah”. Book of Mormon refers to deity as “God” 1339 times. The title Jehovah is only found in the Book of Mormon twice, once in a quotation from Isaiah (a prophet from Jerusalem who would have written in the “J” fashion, see 2 Nephi 22:2.), and in the last sentence in the Book of Mormon, where Moroni is clearly referring to Christ, not the Father, as Jehovah (Moroni 10:33,34).

Test Five: Does the Book of Mormon text contain the predicted bias of an author who is a descendent from the kingdom of Israel during that period?

By itself, the Book of Mormon’s preference for naming deity proves little. Nephi might have randomly selected his name preference for deity, which was followed by subsequent authors. However, Documentary Hypothesis scholars argument that specific indicators exist which distinguish E authorship from J authorship, and that when considered together these indicators provide compelling evidence as to the origins of the authors of the Books of Moses. Friedman explains:

The cumulative, consistent conclusion from all of this evidence, it seems to me, is (1) the early investigators were right about the existence of the two sources, J and E; (2) the person who wrote J was particularly concerned with the kingdom of Judah, and the person who wrote the E was particularly interested in the kingdom of Israel. [xviii]

Does Book of Mormon attest to the bias of a kingdom of Israel (E) scribe or a kingdom of Judah (J) authorship? For example, a key symbol in the kingdom of Israel was the bronze snake that the Lord had Moses make [xix]. The icon is mentioned in version E and the Book of Mormon (1 Nephi 17:41), but does not appear in the J version [xx]. The opposite is true of the ark-of-the-covenant, an important icon for Jerusalem and the temple, and therefore the kingdom of Judah. The ark is mentioned in the J version [xxi]. It does not appear in the E version or the Book of Mormon.

Friedman shows that the different versions of the Books of Moses contain a “chain of clues to the identity of their authors” [xxii]. However care should be taken when comparing E and J clues for inclusion or exclusion from the Book of Mormon or the brass plates. First, we have no list of all the stories on plates of brass or the large plates of Nephi. Second, inclusion or exclusion of a biblical event in the Book of Mormon is meaningless. Both kingdoms shared all the biblical stories and the same basic faith. Only if there exists significant historical evidence showing a pattern, which provides a rational basis for explaining why it is present or is not, can we then conclude that the Book of Mormon authors were from one kingdom or the other.

What pattern would indicate a reliable bias? Documentary Hypothesis points to the animosity that existed between the kingdom of Israel and the kingdom of Judah at that time. The initial author of the Book of Mormon was familiar with the enmity between the two groups. In selecting verses from Isaiah to copy onto the small plates, Nephi provides possible clues as to his family’s feeling toward the people of kingdom of Judah. “Manasseh and Ephraim shall be against Judah” (2 Nephi 19:21) and “Let us (Ephraim, Syria and Remaliah) go up against Judah and vex it.” (2 Nephi 17:5,6) and “Hear ye now, O house of David… The Lord shall bring upon thee, and upon thy people, and upon thy father’s house, days that have not come from the day that Ephraim departed from Judah, the king of Assyria.” (1 Nephi 7:17)

Friedman provides several iconographic and theo-political preferences that can be used to distinguish the period authors of the two kingdoms. Here are three:

1.) The Positioning Of Moses And Aaron

Current Documentary Hypothesis thinking suggest that:

E is a source which particularly emphasizes Moses as its hero, much more than J does. In this story, it is Moses’ intercession with God that saves the people from destruction. E also especially develops Moses’ personal role in the liberation from slavery, in a way that J does not [xxiii].

In the kingdom of Israel version, Moses is a hero, while Aaron is shown in an unfavorable light. Friedman reasons that the probable writer of the E version was a Levitical priest from Shiloh [xxiv]. The Shiloh priest prided themselves on being descendents of Moses. The priest in Judah were descendents of Aaron. [xxv]

The name of Moses is recorded 63 times in the Book of Mormon, while Aaron, the first high priest in the Aaronic order is never mentioned. According to Friedman, the E version of Moses shows “a powerful composition reflecting a special interest, sympathy for the prophet (3 Exodus 3:8), while the J version focus on Jehovah’s role in the liberation” (3 Exodus 3:10) [xxvi] Here are only a few of the references to Moses in the Book of Mormon: “Let us be strong like unto Moses” (1 Nephi 4:2); for he [Moses] spake unto the waters” (1 Nephi 4:2); Moses lead them out of bondage” (1 Nephi 17:24); “Moses commanded to do a great work” (1 Nephi 17:26); “he shall be great like unto Moses”(2 Nephi 3:9); and “Moses will I raise up, to deliver my people out of the land of Egypt” (2 Nephi 3:10).

2) The Covenant

During the period between 922 B.C. and 587 B.C. Palestine was more a land of tribes than nation-states. No other rivalry was more intense than that between the tribes of Joseph (Manasseh /Ephraim) and Judah. At the heart of the matter was which tribe had the birthright or covenant with God. The kingdom of Israel claimed that the birthright was held by the Ephramite kings (1 Kings 11:35-36), while the kingdom of Judah claimed the Davidic covenant wherein God promised the throne to the tribe of Judah (2 Samuel 7:16). Biblical scholars note that the E version shows the birthright as being given to Joseph’s son Ephraim (Genesis 48:8-20), while the J version has the birthright going to Judah (Genesis 49:8). [xxvii] The person, Judah, was only mentioned three times in the Book of Mormon, and each time the author is quoting someone citing a biblical source. That is, the Book of Mormon prophets never use Judah’s name when writing original scripture. [xxviii] The Book of Mormon mentions his half-brother Joseph 31 times.

Does Joseph or Judah hold the birthright covenant in the Book of Mormon? The book does not specify, so it is not possible to determine the author’s position on this matter from the text alone. The Book of Mormon mentions four times the “promise” the Lord made with Joseph, and provides Joseph a land of inheritance. These are both indicative of a birthright. [xxix] However, the book states in six places that the Jews are the covenant people of the Lord.

According to Documentary Hypothesis the conditionality of the covenant with the Jews is an indicator that the writer had origins in the kingdom of Israel:

Davidic covenant. Sometimes the insertions reiterated this promise that the Davidic kings would rule forever, even if they sinned (2 Samuel 7); but sometimes they seemed to be saying the opposite, that the kings could rule only if they did not sin. (1 Kings 8:25) [xxx]

In some verses, the Book of Mormon suggests that the Jewish covenant was conditional: “as many of the Jews as will not repent shall be cast off; for the Lord covenanteth with none save it be with them that repent and believe in his Son, who is the Holy One of Israel.” (2 Nephi 30:2) In other places in the book, the covenant appears to be an eternal one waiting for the Jews to be restored to it:

And behold they shall go unto the unbelieving of the Jews; and for this intent shall they go--that they may be persuaded that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God; that the Father may bring about, through his most Beloved, his great and eternal purpose, in restoring the Jews, or all the house of Israel, to the land of their inheritance, which the Lord their God hath given them, unto the fulfilling of his covenant; (Mormon 5:14)

The Jewish covenant in the Book of Mormon is eternal, thus unconditional in the respect that it will not be taken away, yet conditionally applied to each Jew based on his righteousness. Compare the verses above (Mormon 5:14) with Friedman’s description of the Jewish covenant in Deuteronomy:

We still need to come to the understanding that those who were descendants of Josephs were "Israel" and not the same as "Jew".

The Davidic covenant, therefore, became a promise only that the throne was eternally available to David’s family. Even if it was unoccupied at the present, there was always the possibility that a descendent of David, a messiah, might come someday and rule justly. [xxxi]

Friedman believes that the author of Deuteronomy came from the kingdom of Israel and was connected to the authors of the E version [xxxii]. He summarizes the author’s beliefs as having:

…pictured the covenant promise to David to be partly conditional and partly unconditional. The throne of Judah in Jerusalem was unconditional. It was to belong to David’s descendents forever. But the throne of all Israel was to belong to them only if they were worthy. [xxxiii]

The Deuteronomy and Book of Mormon doctrine on the Davidic covenant are remarkably alike, but in opposition to the J version’s definition of the covenant. To the kingdom of Judah authors, it was unconditional.

3. ) The Prohibition of Idols

The E and J versions differ on the commandment that forbids idols. The kingdom of Judah’s J version prohibited only molten images which biblical scholars see as targeting King Jeroboam’s molten gold calves or the Bull-EL that marked the two holy sanctuaries of the kingdom of Israel. On the other hand, the E version denounces both graven and molten images, including the graven golden cherubs [xxxiv] in the temple in Jerusalem. The law, as found in the Book of Mormon, agrees with the E version; it prohibits both graven and molten images. (see Mosiah 13:13 and 1 Nephi 20:22) Nephi seems to confirm this principle when he inscribed in his record the words of Isaiah “Shall I not, as I have done unto Samaria (Ephraim) and her idols, so do to Jerusalem and to her idols?” (2 Nephi 20:11).

When compared to the conclusions of biblical research, there seems to be little doubt that the Book of Mormon was written with the bias of the kingdom of Israel author of that period. Therefore, as the book claims, the authors of the Book of Mormon must have been a product of the faith and traditions of that kingdom.

Test Six: Were there prophecies “spoke by the word of Jeremiah”

At first glance, this would hardly seem to be a serious test of the Book of Mormon’s authorship. Every Bible and Torah has the Book of Jeremiah.

The key is that up to a few years ago, it was widely held by scholars that Jeremiah wrote the Book of Jeremiah. Today Biblical scholars believe Baruch son of Neriyah wrote it. “Then Jeremiah called Baruch the son of Neriah: and Baruch wrote from the mouth of Jeremiah all the words of the LORD, which he had spoken unto him, upon a roll of a book.” (Jeremiah 36:4) Friedman writes, “We have an explicit portrayal of his (Jeremiah) dictating prophecies to Baruch, who writes them on a scroll” [xxxv]. The Book of Mormon is consistent with biblical evidence in stating that the brass plates that contained the prophecies of Jeremiah were not written by his hand, but were “spoken by the mouth of Jeremiah” (1 Nephi 5:13).

Test Seven: Was Lehi a colleague of Jeremiah?

Nephi’s text suggest that his father was a spiritual colleague of the prophet Jeremiah.(1 Nephi 7:14) How can this be confirmed? First, Lehi knew which scriptures Jeremiah was quoting (1 Nephi 5:13). How could Lehi have known this unless he had followed Jeremiah and heard his sermons? Second, it seems that Nephi and his descendents admired Jeremiah for he is quoted by Book of Mormon prophets over five hundred years after his death (Helaman 8:20). Third, Lehi knew when Jeremiah was put in prison. (1 Nephi 7:14) Fourth, Lehi’s message to the Jews seemed to echo Jeremiah’s, “repent or be destroyed”, and the reaction of the Jews to Lehi’s message was similar to how they treated Jeremiah, he was mocked (1 Nephi 1:19-20) and they sought to kill him. (1 Nephi 1:2:13)

Since Lehi was from the kingdom of Israel, Documentary Hypothesis thought would reason that he would have had the same religious roots as Jeremiah. There is some biblical research that suggests that Jeremiah’s message was indeed the same as Lehi’s. Nephi, Lehi son, spoke of Moses as a great heroic figure, whose example they should follow (1 Nephi 4:2). Nephi uses the story of the bronze snake when teaching his brothers (1 Nephi 17:41).

The bronze snake is a part of the P text and not a part of the E text. I refer back to a statement in the opening paragraphs of this article...

The Book of Mormon includes a New World prophet named Samuel, possibly hinting that biblical Samuel’s name appeared on the brass plates and that Old World prophet was held in high esteem by the descendents of Lehi. According to Documentary Hypothesis evidence, these are direct parallels to what Jeremiah taught. Friedman believes Jeremiah was a Levite priest from Shiloh, which had been the religious center of the kingdom of Israel. Jeremiah, like Lehi, was probably a descendent of refugees who came from the kingdom of Israel south to Judah before the fall of their homeland to the Assyrians. Friedman writes of Jeremiah:

…he is the only prophet to allude to the story of Moses’ bronze snake. The story of that snake comes from E, the Shiloh source. King Hezekiah had smashed the snake. His destruction of an old relic that was associated with Moses himself was probably a blow to the priest of Shiloh. They were the ones who told its story, they held Moses’ in particular great esteem, and they may have been Moses’ descendents.

…he (Jeremiah) is also the only prophet to refer to Samuel, the priest-prophet-judge who was the greatest figure in Shiloh’s history. Jeremiah speaks of Samuel alongside Moses as the two great men of the people’s history. [xxxvi]

However, the most significant evidence that they taught the same message is the treatment of the Davidic covenant. We already saw how the Book of Mormon doctrine of the conditional yet unconditional doctrine parallels exactly with that of the Book of Deuteronomy. But what does this have to do with Jeremiah and Lehi? According the Friedman, all the evidence suggests that Jeremiah dictated to Baruch the accounts of Moses that became the Book of Deuteronomy! [xxxvii]

Test Eight: Version P: Did it exist in Nephi’s world?

In my suggested comparisons between Documentary Hypothesis’s four versions of the Books of Moses and the brass plates, I suggested that Version P, the priestly codes and laws, were not on the brass plates.

However, this is not a failed test of the Book of Mormon, rather a compelling argument that its authorship is genuine. Why? First, from what Documentary Hypothesis tells us about the content of this version, it would be unlikely that Laban, Nephi or anyone from the kingdom of Israel would have considered it sacred scripture. Second, although a version P is not explicitly mentioned in the Book of Mormon, there are several verses in the book that hint of version P’s existence.

Friedman credits P as containing, “a tremendous body of law, covering about thirty chapters of Exodus and Numbers and all the book of Leviticus” [xxxviii]. Are these laws and codes scriptures the kingdom of Israel prophets would have included on the brass plates? Are the scriptures at all? There is no body of laws or codes in the Book of Mormon. According Professor Eduard Reuss version P writings were never mentioned by ancient prophets. [xxxix] If they were not mentioned by the prophets, why would they have been found on the brass plates?

All the same, the Book of Mormon suggests that a doctrine or manuscript was circulating among the Jews at the time of Lehi that included false teachings. The P version was, according to the Documentary Hypothesis, an invention of the Priests of Judah, it was a rebuttal to versions J E. Jeremiah was from the E school and from the kingdom of Israel ancestry. Biblical scholars hold that Jeremiah was extremely critical of version P. Friedman explains:

Jeremiah knew the Priestly laws and stores. He did not like them, but he knew them.

How hostile he was to them can be seen in an extraordinary passage in the book of Jeremiah. Jeremiah says to the people:

How do you say, “We are wise, and Yahweh’s torah is with us?” In fact, here, it was made for a lie, the lying pen of scribes.” [xl]

Jeremiah was openly critical of version P. Why? Documentary Hypothesis suggests that the Priestly version, P, lessens the importance of the prophets and the Torah, and boosted the need for centralized worship and the priest. Sacrifices and other rites could only be made through a priest and usually only at a temple. While E Version emphasized prophets, the entire P version, by far the largest of all the versions, only mentions the prophets once. [xli] Indeed, Jeremiah’s and Lehi’s failed mission of persuading the Jews to reject version P is what possibly led to the end of the what scholars call “the great age of the prophets”. This period ended shortly after Jeremiah’s death. [xlii] One prophet in particular seemed to be trivialized by the P author. It was Joseph of Egypt. Friedman explains:

The story of Joseph, for example, is about ten chapters long in JE but just a few sentences in P. We can explain this partly in recognizing that the person who fashioned P rejected the angels, dreams, talking animals, and anthropomorphisms of JE. And so he eliminated most of the Joseph story, which involves six dreams in the JE version. [xliii]

Assuming that the Documentary Hypothesis version P existed, Lehi certainly would have been side-by-side with Jeremiah in proclaiming its falsehood. Lehi’s own revelations came in the form of dream (1 Nephi 2:2, 3:2, 8, 16:9), and a central figure in Lehi’s teachings was the prophet Joseph, the great patriarch of his family. (2 Nephi 3) Prophets and prophecies was a core belief of Lehi and Nephi. The reason Nephi was sent to obtain the brass plates was so the family would have a record of the prophecies of the holy prophets. (1 Nephi 3:19-20) Nephi taught that “by the Spirit are all things made known unto the prophets” (1 Nephi 22:2), and that the words of the prophets were necessary for salvation (2 Nephi 26:6).

Certainly, understanding the amount of "revelation" by dreams, etc., which is contained in the book of mormon and the doctrines and covenants, any criticism of the P text which never cited dreams, talking animals, personal contact of deity with man, etc... would be rejected by Lehi???

Indeed, the existence a P document, that diminished the prophets is strongly implied in Nephi’s text. Writing of his father’s mission, Nephi states, “the Jews heard these things they were angry with him; yea, even as with the prophets of old, whom they had cast out”(1 Nephi 1:20). Later he wrote that, “Jerusalem must be destroyed, because of the wickedness of the people. For behold, they have rejected the words of the prophets.” (1 Nephi 3:17-18) Nephi is not speaking of some past event, but a rejection of the prophets by the current generation in Jerusalem, perhaps those who were following a version P. He writes: “For behold, the Spirit of the Lord ceaseth soon to strive with them; for behold they have rejected the prophets and Jeremiah have they cast into prison. (1 Nephi 7:14)”

Test Nine: Version D: How Could Deuteronomy Have Been Part of the Book Of Mormon?

Documentary Hypothesis scholars believe that versions J E were combined into the first four Books of Moses before the P version was written sometime between 722 B.C. and 609 BC [xliv]. Therefore a version of the first four Books of Moses already existed in Nephi’s time. However, the young prophet identified a set of scripture on the brass plates that contained the Five Books of Moses. Was that possible in Nephi’s time under the conclusions drawn by modern biblical scholarship? The Documentary Hypothesis holds that the book of Deuteronomy, version D, was the book found in the Temple in Jerusalem by Hillkiah in 622 B.C., [xlv] and as Friedman contents it was probably dictated by Jeremiah. Biblical scholars claim that king Josiah used the book to instigate religious reform throughout his kingdom. [xlvi] It is reasonable to assume that the wealthy Laban, who associated with the elders of the city of Jerusalem (1Nephi 4:22), would have been in possession of such a religious code and would have had it inscribed on the plates along side the other sacred records. Laban appears to have been an influential member of the kingdom of Israel refugee community that settled in Jerusalem after the fall of the kingdom of Israel in 722 B.C. The scholars suggest that Jeremiah was a priest from the order of priest that had been at Shiloh in kingdom of Israel, and was part of the same refugee community as Lehi and Laban. If Jeremiah dictated Deuteronomy, Laban, undoubtedly had access to it.

The Book of Mormon’s account that Deuteronomy was on the brass plates is in harmony with the evidence of biblical scholarship. Had Nephi’s claim of having seen the Five Books of Moses occurred just twenty-five years earlier, current biblical evidence could be used to dismiss the Book of Mormon as a fraud. However, just the opposite is the case. Nephi left Jerusalem with a copy of the Five Books of Moses before the destruction of Jerusalem by king Nebuchadnezzar. Documentary Hypothesis evidence would imply that such an assertion could only be true if the initial author of the book left Jerusalem between 622 B.C. (when Deuteronomy was discovered in the temple) and circa 587 B.C. (the date Jerusalem was destroyed). The Book of Mormon records Nephi leaving Jerusalem circa 597 B.C. Since biblical scholars have Deuteronomy only being discovered in Jerusalem in 622 B.C., the Book of Mormon’s original author must be placed in or around Jerusalem at the time Nephi claims his family left the city. The historical evidence on Deuteronomy’s authorship was not known in 1830, yet it mandates that the Book of Mormon’s first author had to have been in Jerusalem at the time he claims to have been.

In summary, the leading school of biblical scholarship, Documentary Hypothesis, provides compelling linguistic, iconographic and historical evidence that can be used to show that the Book of Mormon’s original authors came from descendents of the kingdom of Israel and that they were intimately aware of the theo-political communities of Jerusalem in 600 B.C. To have written the text of the Book of Mormon, its initial authors had to have lived in Jerusalem, have descended from the tribes of the kingdom of Israel, and have known first hand the doctrines that were supported and rejected by Jeremiah.

Richard Elliott Friedman, Who Wrote The Bible? (San Francisco: Harper, 1997) 21.

[ii] Two examples are B. H. Roberts, New Witnesses for God, Vol.2, p.23 &47 and Joseph Fielding Smith Jr., Doctrines of Salvation, Vol.3, p.187

[iii] J. Reuben Clark, Jr., On the Way to Immortality and Eternal Life, p.210.

[iv] For example, M. Sjodahl, An Introduction to the Study of the Book of Mormon, p.200

[v] Richard Elliott Friedman is a professor of Hebrew and compartive literature and holds the Katzin Chair of the University of California, San Diego. He earned his doctorate at Harvard and was a visiting scholar at Oxford and Cambridge.

[vi] Kevin Christensen, Journal of Book of Mormon Studies: A Response to David Wright on Historical Criticism, 78.

[vii] Friedman, 161.

[viii] Discourse by Apostle Erastus Snow," at Logan, Utah, May 6, 1882, see Journal of Discourses, vol. 23, pp. 184, 185.

[ix] Friedman, 24.

[x] J. M. Sjodahl, An Introduction to the Study of the Book of Mormon, p.204

[xi] Friedman. 223.

[xii] Ibid. 61.

[xiii] Ibid. 128.

[xiv] Ibid. 65

[xv] Ibid. 63.

[xvi] Mack C. Stirling, Review of Books on the Book of Mormon, p.296

[xvii] Ibid. 51.

[xviii] Ibid. 67.

[xix] Ibid. 126.

[xx] Ibid. 253.

[xxi] Ibid. 75.

[xxii] Ibid. 70.

[xxiii] Ibid. 71-72.

[xxiv] Ibid.

[xxv] Ibid.

[xxvi] Ibid. 80.

[xxvii] Ibid. 63-65.

[xxviii] Lehi quotes the prophet Joseph some an undetermined source (2 Nephi 3:12), presumably the brass plates, and the Lord is quoted citing Malachi (3 Nephi 24:4)

[xxix] See LDS Bible Dictionary, BIRTHRIGHT.

[xxx] Friedman, 133.

[xxxi] Ibid. 143.

[xxxii] Ibid. 129.

[xxxiii] Ibid. 133-134.

[xxxiv] Ibid. 74-76.

[xxxv] Ibid. 147.

[xxxvi] Ibid. 126.

[xxxvii] Ibid. 146-147.

I'm looking it over and will get back to you in a day or two.

[serapha]

Originally posted by Snow@Mar 20 2004, 10:54 AM

Oh, and oh yeah again, although I didn't see the context, I imagine you know that torah applies, in a wider sense, to all Hebrew teachings?

Oh, and oh yeah again, although I didn't see the context, I imagine you know that torah applies, in a wider sense, to all Hebrew teachings?

Hi there!

Perhaps you wouldlike to give me a reference in the scriptures where "torah" in a wider sence applies to all Hebrew teachings?

~serapha~

[Cal]

seraph--I have read the article you posted. I find it interesting. I tried to read it with an unbiased view. Here are my observations based on a complete reading, though I would have more comments if I could devote more time to it:

1) Regarding the Documentary Hypothesis--the author, himself says that he does not believe in the conclusions of the DH as applied to the authorship of the 5 books of moses, but then goes on to use it ANYWAY to try to "prove" the BoM. He points out that the methodology of the DH is controversial and is disbeleived by even some high placed LDS church leaders. The reader is, in essense, invited to pull out his "BS" detector right there. It is hard to have confidence in a theory that even the author doesn't BUY!

2) As a general statement about this "language" of the Lehites. Supposedly it was the language of both the Nephites and Lamanites, of which there were literally millions, and yet archaeology and linguistic analysis finds NO trace of such a Hebrew influenced language in ANY native american tribe--even the eastern US tribes that the supposed angel Moroni was supposed to have told JS were the Lamanites.

3)As to the idea that the BoM reflects this DH theory in a way JS couldn't have known about:

First, one has to show that the DH theory is valid to begin with--as mentioned above even the AUTHOR doesn't think it is. So what is there for JS to have had "supernatural" privy to?

Second, you would have to show JS or the BoM author(s) didn't have any OTHER basis for the referenced inclusions OTHER than by reference to the DH theory. It is this second proof that is found woefully wanting in the analysis, even if the first assumption is true.

Lets look at some of the claims as to the second issue:

A. 2 Nephi 3:12 --the dicotomy between the writings of the tribe of Joseph and those of Judah can easily be seen to reflect JS's claim that the BoM and the Bible are two separate documents (and may not refer to two separate versions of the OT itself which the author of the article refers to) So this reference can easily be interpreted to refer to the BoM and the Bible, and often is in mormon circles!

B. "prophets and prophesies"--the author tries to make the point that JS's preference to the use of these terms indicates an awarenes of the "E" version of the Pentateuch. One does not need such a reference to surmise WHY JS had an affinity for prophets and prophesies---JS's obvious references to himself as the "modern day" Moses, and his later self-references as the new modern day prophet make it easy to understand JS's liking for "prophet" references.

C. 2Nephi 13: 23---the author makes a point about how the DH makes a distinction between the Jew and the rest of the House of Isreal and how Lehi comes from a group that would not want to make much reference to the Jews. And yet, this scriptures (as well as many others in the BoM) refers to both the Jews AND the House of Isreal as though no real distinction is be made.

D. The author makes what he thinks is a big point about how the BoM only mentions the name Jehovah, twice. Once in the Isaiah part of the BoM, and then by Moroni at the end of the BoM. The point being that the Lehites, being under the influence of the "E" version, didn't use the word Jehovah. On can think of many reasons JS may have prefered the term God over Jehovah. Nevertheless , the real clincher lies in Moroni's use of the term JEHOVAH at all. When did Moroni live? Over 1000 years after the Lehites left Jerusalem, with their NON-Jehovah terminology. Why would Moroni use a word 1000 years later that had no importance. Obviously, the term MUST have been important to the Nephites, otherwise, why would it have survived in the language of the culture for 1000 years! There is something flawed in the application of the DH here.

E. Why does the BoM like to use MOSES instead of JEHOVAH as a reference? As pointed out before, JS likened HIMSELF unto Moses. He considered himself as the modern day Moses (not the modern day JEHOVAH--inspite of one off handed and often quoted statement by JS as to how his (JS') following was more cohesive that Jesus'). No one serious thinks that JS though of himself as a modern day Jesus, but he certainly thought of himself as a modern day Moses--so is it really surprising he would have refered to Moses a lot? So, why the need for JS's awareness of an "E" version to explain this?

F. The author makes an issue of the BoM's awareness of the conflict between the Jews and the rest of Israel as a basis for saying that JS must have had some awareness of the "E" version or other versions. This would be true if one could not extract that information from the Bible itself, without reference to these "versions". Well, any bible scholar of any credentials at all can see that conflict. So why did JS have to have knowledge of these "versions" to get that out of the OT?

G. The author makes reference to the BoM making a point of saying Lehi was a Josephite. Implying that this somehow proves that JS was aware of the various "versions". Why that is so totally escapes me. That JS or the BoM claims that Lehi was a Josephite is a fact that needs no reference to separate versions of the 5 Books of the OT. The bible tells of a tribe of Joseph etc. Why does JS need separate version to extract this idea. Clearly there are distinctions betweent he tribes of Isreal and that some Hebrews claim ancestery to one other other. No real need for JS to have knowledge of separate versions to come up with the idea that Lehi was of Joseph.

H. 1 Nephi 5:13 Is supposed to show that JS was aware that Jeremiah didn't actually WRITE the Book of Jeremiah, which was supposedly not knowledge avaiable at the time of the BoM publishing. The author uses the scripture above to try to prove the JS knew that Jeremiah didn't write the book. Actually, the scripture says that Jeremiah "SPOKE", and doesn't say WHETHER OR NOT he did any writing. This scripture doesn't really prove anything. That JS thought that Jeremiah SPOKE is supposed to reveal something unusual? What prophets didn't SPEAK? Were the rest of them "MUTE"? The fact that JS or the BOM simply said Jeremiah SPOKE hardly proves that JS thought he didn't ALSO write. It really leave the issue unresolved, and so reallyneither resolves nor proves anything.

I. The author makes an issue about how the "codes and laws" version deemphasizes the "prophets and prophesies" version. That JS or the BoM emphasizes the later is supposed to prove JS was aware of the separate version. Is there no other equally rational explanation? I think there is: JS fashioned HIMSELF as a prophet! That was HIS mind set---a view boltered by his self-references to Moses etc. Why is it surprising that JS would favor refernces to prophets and prophesies over laws and codes? One tangential point can also be made: It could be argued that JS already had the mind set that the "laws and codes" of the Law of Moses were going to be "fulfilled" or done away with in the coming of Jesus Christ--it would only be understandable that JS would have a bias AGAINST the old Hebraic "laws and codes". So again, why did JS have to had an awareness of these "versions" to come up with the BoM?

J. The author makes a big deal about how the last book of the pentateauch (sp) wasn't written until just before Lehi left Jerusalem, and since the book of mormon references the FIVE books of the OT, JS was correct to include the fifth book. All I can say to this is, LUCKY JOE!

Conclusion: A very interesting article--thank you seraph for posting it. I wish I could say that I find it convincing--I really wished it had been, I'll keep looking.

[Snow]

Originally posted by serapha+Mar 21 2004, 07:51 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (serapha @ Mar 21 2004, 07:51 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Snow@Mar 20 2004, 10:54 AM

Oh, and oh yeah again, although I didn't see the context, I imagine you know that torah applies, in a wider sense, to all Hebrew teachings?

Oh, and oh yeah again, although I didn't see the context, I imagine you know that torah applies, in a wider sense, to all Hebrew teachings?

Hi there!

Perhaps you wouldlike to give me a reference in the scriptures where "torah" in a wider sence applies to all Hebrew teachings?

~serapha~

The inference being that I am making it up...

I wonder what purpose I might have in doing that? Falsely make myself seems smart in comparison to you? I dunno. Why did you point out what you think is an error in Potter's work? Did you think he really doesn't know that the torah is (or that if used incorrectly, it wasn't just a mistake) and that somehow impacts the validity of whatever else he writes?

The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition.  2001.

Torah

(tôr´) (KEY)  [Heb.,=teachings or learning], Hebrew name for the five books of Moses—the Law of Moses or the Pentateuch, the first five books of the Bible. The Torah is believed by Orthodox Jews to have been handed down to Moses on Mt. Sinai and transmitted by him to the Jews. It laid down the fundamental laws of moral and physical conduct. The Torah begins with a description of the origin of the universe and ends on the word Israel, after the story of the death of Moses, just before the conquest of Canaan by the Israelites. In a wider sense the Torah includes all teachings of Judaism, the entire Hebrew Bible and the Talmud.

and this from the AMP Bible:

Ezra 3:2

Then stood up Jeshua son of Jozadak, and his brethren the priests, and Zerubbabel son of Shealtiel, and his brethren, and they built the altar of the God of Israel to offer burnt offerings upon it, as it is written in the [The Hebrew word here is torah, and although usually translated "law," that is only one phase of its meaning, and so to use it, to the exclusion of its fuller sense, may defeat its intended purpose at times. The word torah is used more than 200 times in the Old Testament. When capitalized, Torah means the whole of the Pentateuch, the five books of Moses. Says Baker's Dictionary of Theology (E.F. Harrison et al., eds.), "The Hebrew torah originally signified authoritative instruction (Prov. 1:8); hence it most commonly means an 'oracle' or 'word' of the Lord, whether delivered through an accredited spokesman such as Moses, or a prophet or priest. Thus torah comes to have the wider sense of 'instruction' (as in RV margin) from God.... It is therefore a synonym for the whole of the revealed will of God--the word, commandments, ways, judgments, precepts, etc., of the Lord, as in Gen. 26:5, and especially throughout Ps. 119."] instructions of Moses the man of God.

(Whole Chapter: Ezra 3 In context: Ezra 3:1-3)

[Cal]

Snow--did you read the article seraph referenced? What did you think?

[Snow]

Cal,

I scanned it but don't think it interests me enough to spend much energy on it. One of the reasons being the same as yours:

"1) Regarding the Documentary Hypothesis--the author, himself says that he does not believe in the conclusions of the DH as applied to the authorship of the 5 books of moses, but then goes on to use it ANYWAY to try to "prove" the BoM. He points out that the methodology of the DH is controversial and is disbeleived by even some high placed LDS church leaders. The reader is, in essense, invited to pull out his "BS" detector right there. It is hard to have confidence in a theory that even the author doesn't BUY!"

...though I conclude something a bit differently from it than do you. Potter isn't using the conclusions of the documentary theory to support the BoM, he is using the method of inquiry utilized from the documentary theory - so no, my BS detector doesn't go off as he is quite up front about that but I view it simply as an intellectual exercise. The existence of the documentary theory and Potter's ability to draw connections between it and the BoM do nothing significant to prove the BoM. Interesting perhaps to some, but not much more from what I see in my brief scan...

[serapha]

The inference being that I am making it up...

When you stop the practice of presuming what I think... then I will talk to you. Until then, stew in your own juices. I rise above your type of conduct. That means... I just ignore you.

~serapha~

[serapha]

seraph--I have read the article you posted. I find it interesting. I tried to read it with an unbiased view. Here are my observations based on a complete reading, though I would have more comments if I could devote more time to it:

Hi there!

I appreciate your comments, and that you took the time to read the article. That article is presently being used as a evidence that the book of mormon is true. That would be why it was given to me by a member of the CoJCoLDS's to address the content of the article.

I have seen this particular article cited as an evidence when the statement is made that there are no historical evidences for the book of mormon--historical evidences being the history or written word.

I suggest is is an invalid evidence.

~serapha~

[AFDaw]

I haven't read the article...my only excuse is it's too long and the first part doesn't interest me enough to keep reading. (Which is why I suggested you do snippits to discuss...I can do snippits far easier :))

Then again, it wouldn't matter to me whether anyone accepted historical evidence of the BoM. Many of us have a testimony of the BoM that isn't based on "historical evidence."

[Snow]

Originally posted by serapha@Mar 21 2004, 07:25 PM

The inference being that I am making it up...

When you stop the practice of presuming what I think... then I will talk to you. Until then, stew in your own juices. I rise above your type of conduct. That means... I just ignore you.

~serapha~

Don't worry, your participation is not required. You're transparent and you needn't interact with me in order for me to highlight it

[Cal]

Originally posted by Snow@Mar 21 2004, 07:16 PM

Cal,

I scanned it but don't think it interests me enough to spend much energy on it. One of the reasons being the same as yours:

"1) Regarding the Documentary Hypothesis--the author, himself says that he does not believe in the conclusions of the DH as applied to the authorship of the 5 books of moses, but then goes on to use it ANYWAY to try to "prove" the BoM. He points out that the methodology of the DH is controversial and is disbeleived by even some high placed LDS church leaders. The reader is, in essense, invited to pull out his "BS" detector right there. It is hard to have confidence in a theory that even the author doesn't BUY!"

...though I conclude something a bit differently from it than do you. Potter isn't using the conclusions of the documentary theory to support the BoM, he is using the method of inquiry utilized from the documentary theory - so no, my BS detector doesn't go off as he is quite up front about that but I view it simply as an intellectual exercise. The existence of the documentary theory and Potter's ability to draw connections between it and the BoM do nothing significant to prove the BoM. Interesting perhaps to some, but not much more from what I see in my brief scan...

Snow--of course your comments make sense. However, I wasn't implying that the author was using the conclusions of the DH methodology, but just the fact that he didn't trust its conclusions regarding the Pentateauch (sp) makes me wonder why he would trust its conclusion when applied to the BoM.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Cal@Mar 21 2004, 10:56 PM

Snow--of course your comments make sense. However, I wasn't implying that the author was using the conclusions of the DH methodology, but just the fact that he didn't trust its conclusions regarding the Pentateauch (sp) makes me wonder why he would trust its conclusion when applied to the BoM.

These arguments in favor of the BoM sometimes turn of very fine points of reasoning, much of it esoteric, at least to the layman. I probably would agree and disagree on some of Potters thinking but without spending a lot of time with it, I doubt I would have much insight on it. I suppose the challenge of it would do me good though. Much of the stuff we normally talk about - you know a fair portion of both sides of the argument before you even saying anything; one doesn't have to rev up the brain to much to stake out a fairly safe position. A lot of it is just word games. Know what I mean...

Something new would be good. Maybe I'll read a bit more on it.

[Guest Starsky]

I don't really get it. If the people read the BofM and don't benefit from it, don't receive a confirmation that it is true...why do they care...

I have read many books that I didn't like.....Darwin's for instance...LOL Good grief..there are so many books out their expressing beliefs I do not hold with....claiming to be authoritative works...that i don't find valid at all...but I don't waste my life chasing down it's followers nor try to hang it's authors.....

I don't understand the mentality of the anti.....activists.....They themselves do nothing productive....their whole existence is filled with destroying others work and reputation and belief.

[porterrockwell]

Plain and simple, that is what Satan wants. Take Ed Decker and the Tanners for instance pure slander, sensationalism and strawman tactics. That is all they can do. What is funny, is that if no proof exists, how can one make a claim from either side till sufficient proof is rendered available. So, you must judge through the HG, either it is telling you that it is truly from God, or it is not.

[Cal]

Originally posted by Peace@Mar 22 2004, 12:15 AM

I don't really get it. If the people read the BofM and don't benefit from it, don't receive a confirmation that it is true...why do they care...

I have read many books that I didn't like.....Darwin's for instance...LOL Good grief..there are so many books out their expressing beliefs I do not hold with....claiming to be authoritative works...that i don't find valid at all...but I don't waste my life chasing down it's followers nor try to hang it's authors.....

I don't understand the mentality of the anti.....activists.....They themselves do nothing productive....their whole existence is filled with destroying others work and reputation and belief.

Peace---Your response above has stimulated some thoughts I would like to share---some may upset you, I hope some you can find worth while. The theme of my 'ramblings' are along the idea that 'religion is true enough to justifying any good you can do, in its name; but not true enough to justify doing evil'.

Anyway-------I am often accused of being Anti-. I think some think this because I question a lot of things other mormons take at face value. However, questioning is not the same thing as "trying to destroy". If I raise a question that another mormon cannot answer, whose problem is that, mine or his? if the question is a legitimate one and asked with a sincere desire to find out the truth, is it ANTI?

For example, I have read the story in Ether in the BoM about the Bro of Jared and those "vessels". Now, if one reads this story of HOW the vessels were supposed to travel and couples that with a modicum of understanding of Newton's laws motion, you arrive at an inescapable question-----how could these have possibly worked? No one has yet, ever, answered that question to my satisfaction, and until they do, the credibility of the BoM remains in doubt, not to mention other problems with it.

Does this make me ANTI? The fact that my rational mind will not surrender itself and be dominated by a desire to "believe" everything I am told by church folk? Should I feel guilty that I have not had any angelic visitation or conversion experience? Does it make me ANTI that I truthfully state that I haven't? Should I act like I have, make testimonial proclamations, and outwardlly pretend that I believe certain things, that I don't? Is that ANTI ?

Every now and then, someone (mormon or not) makes a statement either for or against the church. If it can be backed up with facts, fine. But too often we hear bald statements the that the poster can say nothing in defense of, other than, "I am better than you because I am guided by faith" And I say "groovy for you". "now tell me something to make me think you are not hallucinating?" Ususally they just reiterate their spiritual superiority and try to call me to repentance.

You see, my problem with "blind faith", which is what I call believing without 1) ANY basis in fact or worse 2) believing in the face of monumental evidence to the contrary, is that one abdicates his only line of defense against mental slavery.

This might better be addressed by asking the question: How does one tell the difference between a halucination and the holy ghost. (The only answer I have ever heard is "you just know")---now you see, that answer goes right back in to the can called "groovy for you". Then you can go to the mountain of research on the operation of the human mind, showing that people all over the world claim to have "visions, out of body experiences and epiphanies of knowledge and enlightenment", many of which such claims flatly contradict the claims of others. CAN THEY ALL BE FROM THE SAME SOURCE?

How does one deal with this? Simple---- apply the scientific method---our only TRUE defense against mental slavery. Ask, where is the data to back up what I believe? Do I have any INDEPENDENT reason to believe, OTHER THAN simply the desire to believe or the desire to have this "spiritual experience". It may come as a shock to some people to realize that the human brain is perfectly capable to generating its own 'spiritual experiences'. This is why people have such a variety of experinces to report--they generate the type of feeling they EXPECT to have. Neurologists can even identify the place in our brains that generate them, and a neurologist can actually stimulate your brain and cause you to have a 'spiritual experience'.

Now, you might say " well, I like my 'spiritual experience' and I don't care where it comes from, whether self induced or from heaven". Personally, I don't see any particular harm in it, as long as the person realizes that it could have several origins and that such 'spiritual experinces' don't justify doing anything that would OTHERWISE be considered immoral or unethical. In other words, religious experiences are 'true enough' to justify doing anything GOOD that you can think of in their name, but NOT SO true that they justify doing anything EVIL. (the best illustration I can think of is this--remember the discussion we had about how failed return missionaries are treated with distain when they return. I''m sure that the gosipy, self rightous people who shun them feel that they have the STRONGEST testimonies of all. So strong and true that they are JUSTIFIED in their criticism. My take, as I point out above, is that religion is NOT SO TRUE that one should feel justified in doing this kind of thing--which would otherwise be considered evil--that is, passing unrightous judgement on your fellow man.

Comments?

[Snow]

Originally posted by serapha@Mar 21 2004, 07:32 PM

I suggest is is an invalid evidence.

~serapha~

That sounds a little too much like Trident's famous rebuttal of ProudDuck last week:

"Yes it is"

Say, by any chance you aren't a Navey SeAl are you?