The Books of Moses Titles

[Queolby]

This might be a strange question, but does anyone know if the titles, like Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Dueteromeny, and Numbers, were part of the original translation of the old testament? I wonder if they were added in later for the sake of distinguishing. I ask because in 1 Nephi 5:11, in the original manuscript, it read as the "Book of Moses," not the "five books of Moses" as we have it in our current edition of the BoM.

[wenglund]

5 hours ago, Queolby said:

This might be a strange question, but does anyone know if the titles, like Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Dueteromeny, and Numbers, were part of the original translation of the old testament? I wonder if they were added in later for the sake of distinguishing. I ask because in 1 Nephi 5:11, in the original manuscript, it read as the "Book of Moses," not the "five books of Moses" as we have it in our current edition of the BoM.

This explains it rather well:  WiKi: Torah

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Guest Scott]

All the titles of all books in the Bible (both Old and New Testaments) were added a long time after they were written.

The Bible was compiled by using different sources, scrolls, etc.  It was then organized into books, chapters and verses to make it easier to read.  A lot of the old sources used when the Bible was compiled didn't even use punctuation, let alone being organized by books, chapters, and verses.

[Queolby]

2 hours ago, Scott said:

All the titles of all books in the Bible (both Old and New Testaments) were added a long time after they were written.

The Bible was compiled by using different sources, scrolls, etc.  It was then organized into books, chapters and verses to make it easier to read.  A lot of the old sources used when the Bible was compiled didn't even use punctuation, let alone being organized by books, chapters, and verses.

 

I wonder if the books of Moses were actually one book originally, and that's why the BoM manuscript originally read as "the book of Moses' and that Joseph didn't need to change the wording. If this is true then this is evidence that Joseph didn't create the book of Mormon and that he was ignorant to some of the things in it. The more we prove how ignorant Joseph was, actually strengthens the authenticity of the book of Mormon and the reality that Joseph was a prophet of God. Another example is that Royal Skousen has discovered that the changes that Joseph made to the BoM were ignorantly changed from what Joseph thought was bad English grammar. When in reality it was correct grammar....from a different time period!  It ranged from the 1500s to 1700s. If Joseph fictitiously created this book he would have known about his own use of English and so why would he need to change something that was perfectly fine? He was ignorant of his own work. Which, I think, is almost impossible to be ignorant of your own work, thus this proves that it wasn't his own work. This discovery shows that this is a characteristic of someone writing someone else's book, in this case, Mormon's abridgment.

[wenglund]

2 minutes ago, Queolby said:

 

I wonder if the books of Moses were actually one book originally, and that's why the BoM manuscript originally read as "the book of Moses' and that Joseph didn't need to change the wording. If this is true then this is evidence that Joseph didn't create the book of Mormon and that he was ignorant to some of the things in it. 

The link I provided above supports this notion.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Guest Scott]

5 minutes ago, Queolby said:

 

I wonder if the books of Moses were actually one book originally, and that's why the BoM manuscript originally read as "the book of Moses' and that Joseph didn't need to change the wording. 

It is extremely unlikely that the Book of Moses was one "book" originally.  The Book or Moses is simply a term later used to describe writings attributed to Moses.   A section is the Pearl of Great Price is also referred to as the Book of Moses, but also says that it is a collection of just certain writings from that book.

Don't confuse what you think of as a book in modern days to what is now referred to as books from ancient days.

When an ancient "book" is mentioned, it almost never resembles what we think of as a book now days. 

As an example, the Dead Sea Scrolls (which are much more modern that writings would have been at the times of Moses) cover all books in the Old Testament except for Esther and Nehemiah.   The Dead Sea Scrolls aren't a book as we think of one today, but  a collection of at least 981 manuscripts that were stuffed in different places and in different clay jars.   There was no separation of books, chapters, verses, etc., and in fact there wasn't even any punctuation.

More than likely the "Book of Moses" was a collection of a number of clay tablets and/or scrolls stored in jars, boxes, or caves.    It wouldn't have been called the Book of Moses at the time.  

[wenglund]

2 hours ago, Scott said:

It is extremely unlikely that the Book of Moses was one "book" originally.  The Book or Moses is simply a term later used to describe writings attributed to Moses.   A section is the Pearl of Great Price is also referred to as the Book of Moses, but also says that it is a collection of just certain writings from that book.

Don't confuse what you think of as a book in modern days to what is now referred to as books from ancient days.

When an ancient "book" is mentioned, it almost never resembles what we think of as a book now days. 

As an example, the Dead Sea Scrolls (which are much more modern that writings would have been at the times of Moses) cover all books in the Old Testament except for Esther and Nehemiah.   The Dead Sea Scrolls aren't a book as we think of one today, but  a collection of at least 981 manuscripts that were stuffed in different places and in different clay jars.   There was no separation of books, chapters, verses, etc., and in fact there wasn't even any punctuation.

More than likely the "Book of Moses" was a collection of a number of clay tablets and/or scrolls stored in jars, boxes, or caves.    It wouldn't have been called the Book of Moses at the time.  

There is also the possibility that some of the collection was a part of oral traditions at the time.

What I find interesting is that a number of Old Testament passages refer to the writings of Moses in the singular form "book," whereas at least two authors in the book of Mormon refer to the same writings of Moses in the plural "books." (see HERE)

Even more interesting, is that while the translated portion of the Gold Plates contain a number of "books," it is nevertheless referred to in the singular, "Book of Momon."

To me, the point being, whether these scriptures are considered and referred to as a single book comprised of a collection of material  compiled primarily by one person (i.e. the Book of Moses or the Book of Mormon),  or as separate books (the Books of Moses),  is of far less importance than the point you made about conceptually understanding that  they are compilations of material from different sources. The title is far less significant than correctly grasping the content.

After all, regarding the Book of Moses (singular) found in the Pearl of Great Price,  Bradshaw and Bowen note: "Hugh Nibley describes Moses 6:51–68¹⁰¹ as an 'excerpt from the Book of Adam.'¹⁰² Perhaps it formed part of the 'book of remembrance' mentioned in Moses 6:46. The setting for these verses is a sermon by Enoch."  (see HERE)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

[Traveler]

On 2/27/2019 at 7:43 AM, Scott said:

All the titles of all books in the Bible (both Old and New Testaments) were added a long time after they were written.

The Bible was compiled by using different sources, scrolls, etc.  It was then organized into books, chapters and verses to make it easier to read.  A lot of the old sources used when the Bible was compiled didn't even use punctuation, let alone being organized by books, chapters, and verses.

Although I appreciate your input - ancient scripture was written in specific format.  We can call the formats a form of punctuation even though it is not a conformal mapping with punctuations used in modern English.  Most scripture was written conforming to one of many types of Hebrew poetry.  Because Hebrew poetry has specific format - it can be used as what we think of as punctuation.  In the standard King James Version of the Bible there is something that looks like a paragraph symbol that begins the poetic structure that will define the structure until the next symbol is provided.  This can be of great assistance in understanding the meaning of most specific segments of scripture.

I believe it is important to understand the Hebrew poetic structure in order to understand the symbolism used within the structure.  Nephi said that when we understand the methods of the Jews - scripture is more readily (easily) understood.  I believe this is in part what he was referencing.  The Hebrew poetic structure of Genesis is methodically structured around Chiasms.  Each verse of the King James Version is then a Hebrew poetic structure within the Chiasm.  Side note - how a person quotes scripture and how what they quote related to the Chiastic structure can be a clue in how well they understand and utilize the sacred symbolism they are trying to reference.  Anciently it was believed that only a prophet called of G-d and inspired of his holiness was capable of writing scripture in the divinely inspired format and that only a devoted disciple (disciple meaning someone properly trained or taught and also inspired by the spirit) would understand the symbolism.  The Pearl of Great Price, Doctrine and Covenants and the Book of Mormon are witnesses (by their very poetic structure) that they were written by a prophet of G-d especially because this structure was not well known in the historic era of Joseph Smith. 

 

The Traveler