Podcast: Download (5.7MB)
Subscribe: RSS
Mike Ash discusses the importance of understanding use of language and ancient context when analyzing the Book of Mormon. He writes: “If we try to understand the Book of Mormon as a real ancient document, written by real ancient people who lived and thought just like other ancient people and interacted with their environment, and recorded their doings in ways that are similar to other ancient people, then the arguments of the critics lose any power they might have had.”
The full text of this article can be found at Deseret News online.
Brother Ash is author of the book Shaken Faith Syndrome: Strengthening One’s Testimony in the Face of Criticism and Doubt, as well as the book, of Faith and Reason: 80 Evidences Supporting the Prophet Joseph Smith. Both books are available for purchase online through the FAIR Bookstore.
Tell your friends about the Mormon FAIR-Cast. Share a link on your Facebook page and help increase the popularity of the Mormon FAIR-Cast by subscribing to this podcast in iTunes, and by rating it and writing a review.
I wanted to take this opportunity to thank Brother Ash for his synthesis of the findings of other LDS scholars. As a PhD candidate (I dropped out) in biology, I was sometimes told that the best way to keep abreast of the field was to read the annual “Journal of Reviews” for that field. I found it to be good advice.
Likewise, synthesis articles and books can be very helpful to LDS readers who are interested in church history and other topics. The purpose of this research is not to expound doctrine, but to help us understand the real historical context of what has happened. We need to be willing to accept our history as real and complex, for that is the human condition.
Oh jezus maria how much time is wasted here to defend all this hokus/pokus.
Willem,
If you don’t believe it. Read the article or listen to the podcast and then explain why the argument is not convincing. Name calling isn’t a valid response.
Hmm… Mike, here are some reasons I have a hard time with the Book of Mormon.
If you honestly don’t have a problem with its iron-age descriptions and culture even though America at this time was clearly in the bronze age, or the clear 19th century language and cultural assumptions, what about
1) the use of Deutero-Isaiah texts, such as in 1 Nephi 20, that weren’t even written before Lehi’s family left to the Americas.
2) The quoting from Malachi 4:1-2 in 2 Nephi 26:6,9, which words were not written by Malachi until at least around the 4th century BC
3) Quotations like Ether 5:4 which clearly references 1 John 5:7, the Johannine comma, or Mormon 9:22-4, which quotes Mark 16:15-18. The problem is the Johannine comma is considered a very late addition to the Latin Vulgate, and definitely not originally in the bible, and the end of Mark is widely recognized as a later addition that looks like it was ripped off of Luke/Acts. Why did Christ quote false scripture?
If you can answer me questions like those, Mike, then I’d be happy to entertain Brother Ash’s glossing over of the difficulties in accepting the Book of Mormon as ancient literature.
Jacob,
Here are some articles addressing these issues:
http://en.fairlatterdaysaints.org/Book_of_Mormon/Anachronisms/Biblical/Deutero-Isaiah
http://en.fairlatterdaysaints.org/Book_of_Mormon/Anachronisms/Biblical/New_Testament_text
Thanks Steve.
That Deutero-Isaiah section is very weak. The study referenced by the Ensign article is located here, which unfortunately doesn’t preserve the charts of their results. Also, which Hebrew text are they using? I’d hope it was the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia? Why hasn’t a more recent study been published? Also, the study was published by BYU and was not peer reviewed, as far as I could tell. How do you trust their word, which has a clear pro-mormon agenda and has not faced critical scrutiny before being published, and yet not even read or seek to understand the debates on their own terms within the multiple authorship camp?
Most people would say these kind of word studies are crap anyway, which is probably why they haven’t been done since the 70’s, but if you really think the word study cited is sufficient evidence of single scholarship, I would suggest you look into forensic linguistics and see all the methods used to identify authorship and see how few were used in this study. Someone really needs to produce a new study using all of the techniques now recognized as being decent.
As for the anachronism page, do you really accept the wave of the hand they do in explaining them away? Malachi was quoted! The ideas of later dates are being quoted, even if you accept that language resembling a later author could be repeated in the translation due to Josephs own background and thus not invalidate the text when he chooses to match later language to the earlier idea.
The problem is that sequences of ideas first synthesized by a later author are being repeated, and the longer a sequence is, the more likely it is to have been copied between one source and the next. Notice how the anachronisms page completely ignores the Johannine comma and end of Mark references I gave.
Sure, its fine if the spirit leads someone to quote New Testament text before the New Testament was set in pen. But it’s not okay if the Book of Mormon is quoting a KJV new testament text that is a late interpolation, which the spirit never gave to anyone in the New Testament originally.
As another example that gets ignored by the anachronisms page, consider the almost verbatim copying of Matthew 5-7 in 3 Nephi 12-14. Consider this short, incomplete but decent overview of the problems there. I might add that when you look at the text that the KJV was based on, it contains errors that aren’t in earlier Greek and Latin manuscripts, so even if you consider Matthew as having quoted Jesus correctly, why does the Book of Mormon propogate errors from the King James Text, rather than bring us closer to the older and more accurate manuscripts for the same text? Shouldn’t Jesus be giving the words as he stated them originally, and not as they were changed in medieval times?
So please, Steve, try again. I am giving you some of my honest reasons for having lost faith, so if you can “bring me to the light”, please do so, and answer the issues I’ve raised. Thanks! =)
Jacob,
I’m sorry that I don’t have the time to debate this with you in more depth. Of course, I don’t expect to convert you to the gospel through a discussion of textual criticism. But I want to post a quick response.
I have posted the links above to help demonstrate that there are responses to the kinds of issues you have raised. Of course, not everyone accepts them. Some people, apparently like yourself, do not believe in revelation. So they assume that if the book attributed to Isaiah contains information about events that occurred long after the historical Isaiah’s death, the only way to explain that would be to attribute the later material to a “Deutro-Isaiah.” I, however, have no problem accepting the idea that prophets can speak of events that have not yet taken place. And the word print study simply bolsters the claim that Isaiah was written by Isaiah.
Similarly, I also have no problem accepting the possibility that Nephi or Mormon or Moroni received by revelation the concepts later written down by Malachi, or Mark or Luke or Paul. Or, perhaps they each were working from a source that we no longer have (e.g., Zenos? Zenock?). Either way, my testimony of the Book of Mormon does not rise or fall with textual criticism.
With respect to the possibility that the Book of Mormon actually used language from the KJV that was not true to the verbatim language used by the original authors, I’m okay with that as well. As the article I linked to discussed, “Joseph could choose to render similar (or identical) material using King James Bible language if that adequately represented the text’s intent.”
Oh, and it’s not true to say that wordprint studies have not been done since the 70’s. Dr. Paul Fields gave a presentation at the 2011 FAIR Conference on recent worprint analysis of the Book of Mormon.
Steve,
This is a matter of eternal life. How can you not have time to go over this with me? Is not every soul precious in the sight of God? What about mine? If you are right, then you are condemning me to damnation by not helping me see.
Thanks for regurgitating the caricature that the only people that are willing to accept the idea of Deutero-Isaiah are people who obviously don’t believe in revelation, because of Isaiah’s naming of Cyrus in Isaiah 44:28. Actually, my conclusions derive from looking at the context and theme of Isaiah and asking what he’s writing about and why.
I accept the possibility of revelation about future things. But the data really has to show it. We can’t claim something and then refuse to examine our premise, or see how well our claim fits the known details.
You say you posted the links to demonstrate that there are responses people have made to certain issues. Yay. Every religious group posts responses to criticism about itself. But are the responses really sufficient?
Do you not really care that Nephi says, “for the day soon cometh that all the proud and they which do wickedly shall be as stubble; and the day cometh that they must be burned.” (1 Ne 22:15, 1830 ed.), and “it is they which must be consumed as stubble; and this is according to the words of the prophet. And the time cometh speedily that the righteous must be led up as calves of the stall” (1 Ne 22:23-24, 1830 ed.), and “Wherefore all they that are proud, and that do wickedly, the day that cometh shall burn them up saith the Lord of Hosts, for they shall be as stubble” (2 Ne 26:4, 1830 ed.), and “the day cometh that shall consume them, saith the Lord of Hosts.” (2 Ne 26:6), and “But the Son of righteousness shall appear unto them; and he shall heal them” (2 Ne 26:9). And that Malachi said, “For, behold, the day cometh, that shall burn as an oven; and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble: and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the Lord of hosts…But unto you that fear my name shall the Sun of righteousness arise with healing in his wings; and ye shall go forth, and grow up as calves of the stall.” (Mal 4:1-2)
What “prophet” is Nephi quoting? What other prophet than Malachi used this kind of sun imagery when dealing with God and the destruction of the wicked (see also Mal 3:1-6)? If Malachi was quoting someone else in 4:1-2 (which he would have had to, if he and Nephi managed the same themes in the same order, and Nephi claimed to be quoting a prophet), then he’s also borrowing in 3:1-6, in which case, we need to extend how much he’s quoting to complete units of thought: 2:17-3:6, 3:16-4:1, and 4:2-3. 2:17 uses Malachi’s unique question-answer format, so if he’s quoting there, then perhaps the entire book is just quotes. But the theme of the book has to do with the Levirate priesthood in the second temple period, and so why would any earlier prophets have spoken these themes? Especially given the negativity about sun worship demonstrably present in earlier times: Ezekiel 8:16-18; Deut. 4:19, 17:2-5; 2 Kings 21:5, 23:11-12; Jer. 19:13; Zeph. 1:5
I too accepted for a long time the possibility that perhaps the Book of Mormon prophets just received the same things as later prophets by revelation. It is a necessary premise for believing in the Book of Mormon, with its 19th century Christianity 600 years before Christ. Read Alma 7, for instance, and you have to make that concession about revelation. But when a prophet is explicitly being quoted, who seems quite clearly the originator of the way he said something? Nephi was ahead of his time, for sure.
What about when the prophet’s words don’t have to do with revelation at all? For instance, 2 Peter 2:22 says, “But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.” You should notice that he is paraphrasing Proverbs 26:11, “As a dog returneth to his vomit, so a fool returneth to his folly.” Only, in the Proverb a pig is not mentioned, since Jews had nothing to do with pigs, being unclean animals. This is a clear infusion of Greek culture into the proverb. But wait! 3 Nephi 7:8 says, “And thus six years had not passed away since the more part of the people had turned from their righteousness, like the dog to his vomit, or like the sow to her wallowing in the mire.” Why the heck would a prophet in the Book of Mormon use the new testament version of the proverb, with its clear Greek influence? Certainly, you don’t mean to ascertain that pigs were kept by the Nephites?
I guess you could call that another example of Joseph “choosing” to render a passage with its intent, using King James language. So did Mormon actually use the Old Testament version, and we’re getting a corrupted text here? How come almost every legitimate test I subject the Book of Mormon to, which would have made great examples of its being an authentic translation, utterly fails? What are you putting your faith in? (Speaking of Greek… why are the Greek version of the word Jonah and the Greek name Timothy at the top of the 12 disciple list in 3 Ne. 19:4? And speaking of the disciples, why was Nephi called to be a disciple, and one of the 12 that was promised that he’d live to be 72 and then brought “speedily” into Christ’s kingdom in 3 Ne 28:3, and in 4 Ne. 1:14 it claims to have happened… EXCEPT in 1:19 Nephi the disciple finally dies, 110 AD, at least 80 years old… food for thought.)
You notice that the more scrutiny the Book of Mormon comes under, the more its proponents have to draw back and make absurd assertions to keep the faith. Same with the Book of Abraham, for that matter. What data, then, does your testimony support? That the content of the Book of Mormon cannot be separated from 19th century language, culture and theology, and that our actual deeper Mormon doctrines have to be found in the Doctrine and Covenants? That a type of Monism in the Book of Mormon was suppressed by the Prophet himself when he made changes to 1 Nephi 11 in the 1837 edition of the Book of Mormon, though it was left in in Mosiah 15, Alma 11, Ether 4, for instance? That the 1830 Book of Commandments reads very differently from the later Doctrine and Covenants, that details about the Priesthood were amended like afterthoughts, and details about early magical practices like Joseph’s stone-in-hat translation method and Oliver Cowdery’s water-witching in D&C 8 were suppressed? What ever role does the Prophet’s Jupiter Talisman, found on his body after the martyrdom, play in your theology, I wonder?
Does it matter to you that Hugh Nibley was so reluctant to translate the text on Facsimile 2 that it wasn’t published in its entirety (Dr. Nibley’s translation, that is) in his collected works until the last volume, One Eternal Round? That text is very damaging, despite what people like Michael Rhodes try to say about it. Or that Hugh Nibley refused to ever translate the text in Facsimile 3? I’ve read all his works — he simply refuses. Makes sense, since the Prophet in figure 2 says “King Pharaoh, whose name is given in the characters above his head”, whilst the characters above his head say, “The great Isis, mother of the god [Horus]”. Oops.
I do not wish to go in depth into any of that here; there are sources enough you can find on most of it, if you really care about basing your faith in what is true, and not simply what you wish is true.
Thanks for the note about wordprints. The comment here by Kevin Barney, a latter-day saint, seems to sum up pretty well how impressive-looking yet shoddy they can be. Is it any wonder that “wordprint” in Google gives you results that make it pretty clear that it’s Mormons toting this thing around as if it’s legitimate. “wordprint -mormon” returns nothing about wordprints. Interesting, no?
This is a fairly decent response to early wordprint analysis. How far have we come since then? The “experimental design” section is particularly important. I have the feeling that if we left out the “and it came to pass” portion, and stopped overfitting the data, we’d have greater alignment of the texts. From what I have found, and borrowing clues from Royal Skousen, there is a slight shift in language beginning in the Book of Ether and ending in Words of Mormon (imagine the Book of Mormon wrapping around… you are aware that the “small plates” were translated last, right?). The words of Jacob in 2 Ne. 9 and Jacob 2-5 might come out as being unique…but maybe not. I’ve read the Book of Mormon a couple dozen times and seems pretty consistent throughout… lengths of sentences, manner of speaking and correcting oneself, redundancies and flow of thought, etc.
Another question for you, Steve, or anyone else who cares to respond: you said you’re okay with “language from the KJV that was not true to the verbatim language used by the original authors”. Firstly, doesn’t that destroy the validity of any wordprint studies anyway? Shouldn’t they rather indicate the same author throughout, in that case? I have a feeling that this exact interpretation is what’s going to happen when say a PhD study comes out verifying the unity of the text. People have a way of saying, “either way, it supports my faith”. Isn’t faith amazing, that way? Secondly, why in the world would the original authors even have an intent that would lead to, say, most of 1 Corinthians 13:2-8,13 being repeated in Moroni 7:44-46, or especially Mormon 9:22-24, Ether 4:18, D&C 24:13-14, quoting Mark 16:15-18, where those concepts, and thus intent, were not originally part of the scriptures, and so Christ never had said nor should have repeated or sanctioned them. Does that make sense? Do you see why I can’t sanction explaining that some text’s intent matched a false scripture, and therefore it was okay to use that scripture?
By the way, it is almost universally acknowledged that Luke and Matthew were copying Mark and some other source. Matthew can be shown to have been the most liberal in rearranging texts to suit his needs. So again, why is Jesus quoting Matthew, when a more accurate sermon on the mount would have come from Luke 6? Follow your idea, that some people are working from sources. Use your Gospel Harmony in the Bible Dictionary and trace Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John out yourself. I have my scriptures fully concorded that way, so I know where a passage in one author can be found in the others. It will work wonders in your comprehension of the New Testament.
And if you really read that New Testament, and then look at the Book of Mormon again, how can you avoid seeing the major source for the Book of Mormon? How does the evidence really stack up? Can you keep justifying to yourself that somehow it works out? Can you really ask other people to have that kind of “faith”? I mean, that kind of faith would justify my acceptance of pretty much any religion.
But I want the truth. And I find the truth to be so compelling, so worth finding, that I do have time to debate and learn and question and really seek for answers. This is an eternal issue, and a matter of the soul. How can you not have time? Please examine your premises, and your data. Don’t be afraid to find more data. Believe it or not, there is only one set of truths, and one of us has to have more of it (in this field) than the other. If you really want truth, you have to be willing to throw out the opinions, the beliefs and the “responses” as you have eloquently called them, and just look at the data.
You don’t know how badly I have wished and in the past how strongly I believed the church was true. But I am an honest person, and I cannot justify lying or obscuring truth. I really did give our religion a thorough look, examined all the data apologists have to offer, the evidence from my faith, my life, the faith and lives of those around me. I drunk deeply of all the words of the prophets, both in general conference, sunday school and priesthood readings, and pretty much every book on our faith the BYU library and bookstore and Deseret book had to offer. I did so not because my faith was wavering, but because my faith was strong and I thoroughly believed, as you do now, that the evidence was strongly in favor of Mormonism. I wanted to learn it all, so I could defend our faith like it says in 1 Peter 3:15, “But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:”. It was through church materials that I lost my faith. Once I had seen most of the evidence, and gone through it all myself, I could no longer honestly say I believed these things. I came to terms with my faith and was compelled to leave it. I am well acquainted with apologist rhetoric. Unfortunately, it has such scant evidence behind it that I can’t justify standing behind it. The more I continue to learn (and continue to read all the LDS Standard Works!), the more satisfied I am with my decision. Yet, if I am wrong someone had better walk through the evidence with me and let me know what I’ve missed. For instance, I will keep in mind the wordprint studies and hopefully get my hands on the full datasets so I can go through them carefully. I consider my own detailed look at the Book of Mormon more convincing, however. I can almost count on my hands the evidences in behalf of the Book of Mormon, but I couldn’t count on 100 hands the evidence I have against it.
So please, don’t end the discussion. And please learn the field of textual criticism while you’re at it. You don’t expect to convert me to the gospel through a discussion of textual criticism. If you take an honest look at textual criticism, I expect I could convert you away from the gospel through it. There is enough data available to raise important questions and discover important results, as much as we’d like to claim that there isn’t enough evidence to decide either way.
Jacob,
I do not deny that there are interesting intellectual problems with the Book of Mormon, the Book of Abraham, and many other aspects of the gospel. There are also interesting intellectual supports that are discussed on this blog and elsewhere. (There is an excellent DVD on the Book of Abraham that was just released by FAIR.) We could go back and forth about these issues for an endless period of time. However, while this would be interesting, I do not base my testimony of the Book of Mormon on an intellectual analysis, but rather upon a spiritual conviction. This is why I say that I do not expect to convince you with an intellectual discussion. I do not expect to be able to convince anyone, beyond all doubt, by the force of textual criticism, empirical demonstration, or logical argument. If I could compel belief by force of intellectual argument (or any other means), I would be robbing people of the freedom to disbelieve. The points you raise help create the space within which faith can exist and a proper test of the state of our hearts can be conducted. In short, since my belief in the Book of Mormon is based upon the knowledge that has come to me through the witness of the Holy Spirit, I find your arguments to be interesting, but not compelling. While I do hope that you will regain your belief in the Church, I do not think that continued discussion along this vein will assist you in finding a spiritual witness of the truth.
Steve,
Is this just a cop out for your fear of proving something you don’t wish to believe? That matters of faith can indeed come under the scrutiny of the intellect?
I have gone through the intellectual supports, as likely you have too. Why don’t you go through the problems as well? Do you like having a lop-sided intellect? Is that what you call “faith”?
If faith is seeing, then how can you consider your refusal to even look “faith”? The “space within which faith can exist” is a stubbornly created delusion borne of your refusal to even engage at a level where you’re willing to risk your preconceptions to find out what we can and can’t be sure about.
I took the leap of faith twice — once to give everything to God and trust that He had all the answers. My second leap was to trust that God’s truths cannot contradict truths which we can discern by any of our other senses. Either our senses are wrong, or our conception about God is. And you aren’t even willing to engage your senses. Shame on you.
How can you really say you trust God and believe in anything you have been taught, if you are that afraid to engage your other senses and verify that your claims about God are more than just skin deep? Is that fear of God or some other force (2 Tim 1:7)?
Really, how can you “not deny that there are interesting intellectual problems”, and yet refuse in general to acknowledge them, or place them side by side with your precious “supports”? See which set of “solutions” – that Mormonism is either true or false – really holds up to scrutiny?
All you did here was back away from the possibility of either of us growing or learning more. If you really trust Mormonism is true, would you have to back away? I’d hope not. Because doing so to me acknowledges that Mormonism is intellectually at least on as equal ground (or less equal!) as a variety of other world views and faiths. In which case what right do you have to assert that view above any other? Do you really feel comfortable taking a position as weak as any others and making it a part of your community and world? Is that justified? Will it do our children any better to take such a viewpoint rather than scrutinize and establish a foundation of provable truths as our working basis? To teach our children to unabashedly seek truth, to scrutinize and re-scrutinize all sources until through doing so we actually make the world a better place, not necessarily just a more sectarian place? You think Mormonism alone would have ever ended the ban on Priesthood to non-white males without free thinkers who weren’t caught up in endless dogma?
Anyway, some thoughts for you. I’m really sorry to see you give up a good discussion. Moreover, intellectual openness.