Recently I responded to a Baptist who threw out a number of criticisms of Latter-day Saint theology on a friend's (LDS; ex-Calvinist) post. Here are my responses to his claims. As they discussed a wide variety of topics (textual criticism; Deut 6:4 and 32:7-9, 43; alleged anachronisms in the Book of Mormon, etc) I am reproducing my comments here.
[1]
Will split my responses up
into a few sections; for ease, will number them:
Re. the Hulburt affidavits:
Even those who try to rehabilitate belief in some of the content thereof admit
that there are many fabrications and tale tales therein, such as Roger
Anderson, Joseph Smith's New York Reputation Reexamined (Salt Lake City: Signature
Books, 1990) (cf. this review by Richard Lloyd Anderson
https://scripturecentral.org/archive/periodicals/journal-article/rodger-i-anderson-joseph-smiths-new-york-reputation-reexamined);
even Dan Vogel, in his reproduction of Mormonism Unvailed (where he provides
commentary in the footnotes) acknowledges many issues with these affidavits.
One killer blow against many of them is the claim the Book of Mormon was based
on the Spalding manuscript--fortunately, it was discovered in Hawaii in the
1880s and, contra some of the affidavits, has nothing to do with the Book of
Mormon, unless one thinks parallelomania is good methodology. One can read it
online at many places, for e.g.
https://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/digital/collection/rsc/id/13968/)
Re. Bennett: even many
critics of LDS history (e.g., Todd Compton; Dan Vogel) are skeptical of many of
his claims, so one has to read his work carefully. For a good overview of just
some of the many errors in his exposé, see Brian C. Hales, Joseph Smith's
Polygamy, 3 vols. (Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2013), 1:515-93. No
historian, LDS or non-LDS, just take Bennett’s History of the Saints at face
value, and even his biographer, Andrew F. Smith (author of The Saintly
Scoundrel: The Life and Times of Dr. John Cook Bennett [1997]) approaches his
claims cautiously, too.
[2]
On alleged anachronisms in
the Book of Mormon:
I would suggest reading what
Book of Mormon researchers & scholars have written on this, as well as read
Mesoamerican scholarship. Many of the purported anachronisms over the years
have been answered.
Re. horses: horse bones have
been discovered in strata dating to Book of Mormon times, showing it may not be
an anachronism after all. On this, see Wade Miller, Gilberto Pérez-Roldán, Jim
I. Mead, Rosario Gómez-Núñez, Jorge Madrazo-Fanti, and Isaí Ortiz-Pérez,
"Post-Pleistocene Horses (Equus) from México," The Texas Journal of
Science 74, no. 1 (2022) that discusses specimens of horses from a stratified
context at Rancho Carabanchel, Mexico and found remains of horses in
radio-carbon dated layers ranging from 1660 BC to 542 AD. (the only LDS involved in this study
was Miller; everyone else was non-LDS). One can download the paper for free at
https://meridian.allenpress.com/tjs/article/74/1/Article%205/487323/POST-PLEISTOCENE-HORSES-EQUUS-FROM-MEXICO
Re. pigs/swine:
Mesoamericans had peccaries (family Tayassuidae), which look like swine/pigs,
and are routinely called "pig-like" by zoological sources. For e.g.
"COLLARED PECCARY Pecari tajacu (Linnaeus 1758)," Natural Science
Research Laboratory, Texas Tech University, 2016 (URL: https://www.depts.ttu.edu/nsrl/mammals-of-texas-online-edition/Accounts_Artiodactyla/Pecari_tajacu.php)
calls them "Pig-like." Their relationship to pigs are also noted by
experts, such as Victoria Schlesinger, Animals and Plants of the Ancient Maya:
A Guide (Austin: University of Texas Press, 2001), 157-60. To quote an excerpt:
COLLARED PECCARY Pécari,
Jabalina (S) Kitam (M)
Identification: Both males
and females average 40 cm at shoulder height, 80-98 cm from nose to tail and
weigh 17-35 kg. A peccary, related to pigs, has their characteristically
hoglike large jowels, protruding snout, thick neck, and delicate skinny legs.
Gray to black hair covers its heavy-set body with longer, stiffer hairs
cresting the spine. A collar of pale hair rings the neck. Like pigs, it grunts,
or when frightened makes a doggish bark (Emmons 1997).
Habitat: They live in
various habitats from the desert grasslands (northern range) to the rain
forests (Emmons 1997).
Range: They live from the
southwestern United States down to Argentina.
Similar species: The three
existing species of peccary are indigenous to the New World. The most
wide-ranging is the collared peccary, although the white-lipped peccary
(Tayassu pecari) also occurs in the Maya area (Emmons 1997).
. . .
Re. sheep/goats and other
animals: You are behind the times, too. For e.g., there is a native species of
sheep in northern Mexico, the bighorn sheep (Ovis canandensis exicana). To
quote Alejandro Espinosa-T., Andrew V. Sandoval and Armando J. Contreras-B.,
"Historical Distribution of Desert Bighorn Sheep (Ovis canadensis
mexicana) in Coahuila, Mexico," The Southwestern Naturalist 51, no. 2
(June 2006): 282–288.
==Historically, desert
bighorn sheep occurred throughout Coahuila, Mexico . . . We found historical documentation of bighorn sheep in 14
mountain ranges (Sierra Alamitos, Sierra Maderas del Carmen, Sierra la
Encantada, Sierra Hechiceros, Sierra del Pino, Sierra Mojada, Sierra el Rey,
Sierra San Marcos y del Pino, Sierra Gavia, and Sierra la Paila), including 4
previously not recorded (Sierra el Fuste, Sierra el Almagre, Sierra de la
Madera, and Sierra la Fragua). In addition, one archaeological site
with remains of bighorn sheep was identified (La Candelaria Cave). ==
You might want to read up on
these and other issues. My workplace has a very good Q&A at
https://mormonr.org/qnas/pLBiLb/anachronisms_in_the_book_of_mormon and ~1,300
sources one can read for free at
https://mormonr.org/qnas/pLBiLb/anachronisms_in_the_book_of_mormon/research - I
was involved in the research for this project (I work for the group full-time).
And your other anachronisms are wrong, too; (for e.g., a species of barley,
Hordeum pusillum, is attested in the New World; there are also other crops that
could be labelled 'barley' or 'wheat' from Mesoamerica, such as amaranth;
huauzontle; Setaria [fox-tail millet]; 40- and 20-chromosome 'perennial corn';
Chalco teosinte). It also shows that there are anachronisms (e.g.,
anachronistic technology) in 1-2 Chronicles and other issues—I bring this up,
not to dump on the Bible, but to show that one has to be careful when throwing
out naively the charge of ‘x’ being an anachronism.
One other thing to keep in
mind is “loan shifting”—using familiar terms for similar looking
animals/plants/etc. E.g., the Romans calling the hippopotamus a ‘river horse’
and how the Maya used the same word for both horses and tapirs. Here, Michael
D. Coe, a leading Mayanist, translates _tzimin_ as both 'horse' and 'tapir'
(also note the Maya also called the horse a ‘deer’—such is really common and
well discussed in anthropological/linguistic data). To quote Coe:
==As English-speakers, we
take it for granted that one can speak of, say “four birds” or “twenty-five
books,” but this kind of numerical construction is impossible in the Mayan
languages—between the number and the thing counted there has to be a numerical
classifier, describing the class to which the object, animal, plant, or thing
belongs. We have a glimmering of this sort of construction when we talk of “two
flocks of geese” or “a pride of lions,” but this is pale stuff compared to the
richness of Mayan classifiers. Colonial Yucatec dictionaries list dozens of
these, but only a handful are still in use in today’s Yucatán, yet even these
have to be interpreted even when the number itself might be in Spanish. If I
see three horses in a pasture, I would count them as ox-tul tzimin (ox, three;
-tul, classifier for animate things; tzimin, “horse” or “tapir”). However, if
there were three stones lying in the same pasture, I would have to say ox-p’el
tunich (ox, three; -p’el, classifier for inanimate things; tunich, “stone”).==
Source: Michael D. Coe,
Breaking the Maya Code, 3rd edition (London: Thames & Hudson, 2012), 52-53;
another example would be how the tapir was called anteburro/formerly an ass by
the Conquistadors. When one realizes that the Book of Mormon is a 19th-century
of an underlying Semitic & Mesoamerican text, many of the purported issues
can also be resolved (e.g., one rather inane one that still comes up at times
is ‘adieu’ in Jacob 7:27—the French word ‘adieu’ was adopted into English
before the time of Joseph Smith, and appears in Webster’s 1828 dictionary).
The Q&A and primary
research page I linked to above deals with practically all the purported
anachronisms and discusses the status of them in light of modern discoveries.
The case for the Book of Mormon grows as the number of purported anachronisms have
diminished since 1830.
[3]
You claim the Book of Mormon
contains KJV errors. I would love to see some. I know the usual list provided
by Matt Slick, Matthew Paulson, et al. But I have nothing to work with from
you. However let me note the following two:
2 Nephi 15:25 follows the
KJV which reads:
Therefore is the anger of
the Lord kindled against his people, and he hath stretched forth his hand
against them, and hath smitten them: and the hills did tremble, and their
carcases were torn in the midst of the streets. For all this his anger is not
turned away, but his hand is stretched out still.
Some modern translations do
not read "torn" but "as refuse." For e.g.:
This is why the Lord's anger
was roused against his people, why he stretched out his arm against it. And
struck it, so that the mountains quaked, and its corpses lay like refuse in the
streets. Yet his anger has not turned back, and his arm is outstretched still.
(1985 JPS Tanakh)
Some critics (e.g., Matthew
Paulson [Reformed]; William Whalen [Catholic]) have argued that this is an
error. However, if one looks at the Hebrew, it is כַּסּוּחָ֖ה kǎs·sû·ḥā(h)ʹ.;
this is not a KJV error that made its way into the Book of Mormon, but a
demonstration of the importance of looking at the Hebrew--if the Hebrew is read
as a verb, as in the KJV, it means "cut off" or "torn off";
only by reading it as a noun prefixed preposition (ל _l_) it would mean
"as offal."
Some (e.g., David P. Wright,
who used to be professor of Hebrew Bible at Brandeis) argued that the Book of
Mormon was in error for following KJV Isaiah 14:4 by rendering מדהבה _ mdhbh_
as "golden city." However, the KJV (and the BOM) seem to be correct
on this score. On this, see Seth Erlandsson, The Burden of Babylon: A Study of
Isaiah 13:2-14:23 (Coniectanea Biblica Old Testament Series 4; Lund, Sweden:
Berlingska Boktryckeriet, 1970), 29-32 who defends rendering _mdhbh_ as ‘golden
city’--I reproduced his comments, as well as Wright's criticisms of KJV/BOM Isa
14:4/2 Nephi 24:4 at
https://scripturalmormonism.blogspot.com/2022/11/seth-erlandsson-on-meaning-golden-city.html
Interestingly, the Book of
Mormon text finds support in the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Masoretic Text itself
(not the KJV translation thereof), and other modern discoveries. For e.g., the
Hebrew of Isa 53:4 is better reflected in the Book of Mormon at Alma 7:11 than
the KJV, and 1 Nephi 3-4, in its use of 1 Samuel 17, fits the A, but not later
B-source, of 1 Sam 16-18 (evidenced by the DSS, LXX, and later MT). On these
issues, see, for e.g.:
Thomas A. Wayment, "The
Hebrew Text of Alma 7:11," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 14, no. 1
(2005): 98-103, 130 (URL: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/jbms/vol14/iss1/10/
and
Benjamin L. McGuire,
"Nephi and Goliath: A Case Study of Literary Allusion in the Book of
Mormon," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 18, no. 1 (2009): 16-31
(URL: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/jbms/vol18/iss1/12/)
While dated (it came out 40+
years ago), John Tvedtnes’ study of Isaiah in the Book of Mormon is a classical
treatment, and even Wright and other critics concede some variants in the BOM
reflect ancient manuscripts:
John A. Tvedtnes, “The
Isaiah Variants in the Book of Mormon” (1981)
(URL: https://scripturecentral.org/archive/presentations/report/isaiah-variants-book-mormon)
I do have a friend who will
be working on an updated work on the Isaiah variants in the Book of Mormon
which I help him research (it is a topic I have done a lot of work on over the
years, as well as the use of proto-Deuteronomy in the Book of Mormon).
This is not a denial that
the KJV is the base text when large portions of biblical text are quoted (that
is my own view), but when important changes were on the plate text, appropriate
changes were made.
[4]
On the 1 Sam 16-18 text, it
evidences significant reworking, so this alone shows that Sarah’s comments are
correct re. the re-working of portions of the Bible. To quote McGuire:
== There has been a long-standing debate with regard to the
original composition of the Samuel texts. This debate has lingered because of
the differences between various manuscripts and textual families. For the
purposes of this study, this is particularly significant because, as Johan Lust
writes, “As far as the Books of Samuel are concerned, the story of David and
Goliath is by far the most important of the contexts in which several
manuscripts of the Septuagint, among which the early majuscule B, differ
considerably from the present Hebrew text. The Greek version . . . is much
shorter than the Hebrew. It omits 1 Samuel 17,
12–31.41.48b.50.55–18,6a.10–12.17–19.21b.30.” [70] Lust further asks: “Which
text is to be preferred, the longer or the shorter one? Which criteria allow us
to make a proper choice?” [71] The contribution of this study with regard to
these questions is to note that the specific markers that Nephi uses within the
Samuel text fall exclusively within the shorter source. Nephi only references
17:4–7, 11, 32, 34–37, 45–46, 51, and 54. The notable omission of the longer
(and arguably later)72 additions to the text may well represent the notion that
the text of Samuel contained in Nephi’s brass plates did not include these
additions==
[References for the Above]
==70. Dominique Barthélemy, David W. Gooding, Johan Lust, and Emanuel
Tov, The Story of David and Goliath: Textual and Literary Criticism (Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1986), 5. This source presents a fairly comprehensive
overview of the debate, and is written by four individuals with different
opinions on the subject as a series of position papers and responses. Briefer
discussions of the topic can be found in most scholarly commentaries.
71. Lust, Story of David and Goliath, 5.
72. Lust, Story of David and Goliath, 5. Lust,
Tov, and Gooding all represent the longer text as an addition to the shorter
text. Tov and Gooding are both more explicit in their arguments that these are
later additions to the text, while Lust begins with the notion that they may be
equally old traditions. Barthelemy argues that the LXX represents a harmonizing
reduction of an earlier unified text.==
Other scholars who have
discussed this include Tov in his Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (4th
ed.; Fortress Press, 2022), 250-53, 331 and P. Kyle McCarter Jr., in his Anchor
Yale Bible Commentary. This identification is further strengthened in the fact
that the LXX omits 17:12-31, 41, 48b, 50 and 55-18:5. In other words, we have a
significantly reworked narrative in the biblical accounts, evidenced by the LXX
and other sources. There is no evidence of any of this in the Book of Mormon
(if you think otherwise, please provide a change in the BOM that changes the
narrative structure of the pericope in question).
[5]
Other important textual
changes are evidenced by the Dead Sea Scrolls, such as the Deut 32:7-9, 43 as
evidenced by 4Q37Deuteronomyj and 4QDeuteronomyq, evidencing a corruption to
the text for theological reasons.
E.g. the NRSV renders v. 8
as "When the Most High apportioned the nations, when he divided humankind,
he fixed the boundaries of the peoples according to the numbers of the
gods"
The Hebrew in the DSS reads בני
אלוהים instead of MT בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל
(sons of Israel) (cf. LXX: ἀγγέλων θεοῦ angels of God). V. 43 (NRSV) reads
"Praise, O heavens, his people, worship him, all you gods! . . ." DSS
reads כל אלהים and assumes the ontological existence of these
"G/gods" in both passages (excised by later scribes).
The following is
representative of the scholarship on this particular issue:
The Hebrew of the Masoretic
text of Deut 32:8-9, which is paralleled by the Samarian Pentateuch, Targum,
Peshitta, and Latin Vulgate, reads as follows:
When the Most High (El
Elyon) gave the nations their inheritance and divided the sons of man, he
established the boundaries of the nations, according to the number of the sons
of Israel. For the portion of YHWH is his people, Jacob his inheritance. (MT Deut
32:8-9)
Manuscripts of the Greek
translation of Deuteronomy, by contrast, are almost unanimous in reading
“angels of God” in place of “sons of Israel.” This variant seemed puzzling
until the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls yielded Hebrew copies of
Deuteronomy preserving yet another reading. The versions of Deut 32:8b in
4QDeutj and 4QDeutq read bene elohim or bene El for bene Israel, raising the
possibility that “sons of God” was the earliest recoverable reading, which
Hebrew tradents later changed to bene Israel and which Greek tradents rendered
as angeloi theou (“angels of God”), whether in the course of translation or in
an inner-Greek shift akin to that in LXX Gen 6:2.
What is most plausibly
reconstructed as the oldest known reading of Deut 32:8 also finds some
counterpart in the version of Deut 32:43 preserved in 4QDeutq—also with partial
parallels in LXX Deuteronomy. Where MT Deuteronomy reads “Nations, acclaim his
people, for he vindicates the blood of his servants” for the first part of the
verse (32:43a), 4QDeutq has “Rejoice, O heavens, with him, and worship him, all
elohim, for he vindicates the blood of his sons.” In the Greek, one finds a
combination of the two. In the part corresponding to the above-quoted portions
of 4QDeutq, moreover, there is an internal variation again around what is
rendered here as elohim: Codex Alexandrinus and several miniscules read “all
sons of God” (cf. “sons of God” in Codex Vaticanus), while a number of other
manuscripts have “all angels” instead.
The evidence surrounding
Deut 32:43, then, cautions us against assuming that the “sons of God” of Deut
32:8 were already more angel than deity. It is possible that both may have
meant something more akin to what later tradents seem to fear—or at least encompassed
this possible meaning in a deployment of deliberate ambiguity akin to the
examples noted above. In the case of Deut 32:43, the version of 4QDeutq
elevates Israel’s God by depicting Him as the one who is worshipped by other
divine beings, while in the case of Deut 32:8, the appeal to other divine
beings functions to underline YHWH’s exclusive fidelity to Israel. Although the
tradition that culminates in the MT negates both options entirely, they were
clearly still part of the textual tradition surrounding Deuteronomy well into
the Second Temple period. (Annette Yoshiko Reed, Demons, Angels, and Writing in
Ancient Judaism [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020], 75-76)
A former lecturer of mine
(who helped produce the BHQ on Deuteronomy) wrote:
Deuteronomy 32:8
The Song of Moses in Deut.
32:8 contains a scribal intervention, the aim of which was to render this
poetic description of Israel’s coming into being as the Lord’s special people
in a more theologically acceptable way. The verse speaks of the Most High organizing
the division of peoples within their various territories, fixing their
boundaries “according to the number of the sons of Israel” (= M). A different
form of v. 8b, “according to the number of the sons of God,” occurs in Qumran
(4QDeutj). This is also the reading of a section of the Greek tradition: “sons
of God.” M’s reading, “sons of Israel,” is generally accepted as a later
theological correction, a textual intervention aimed at avoiding any possible
hint of polytheism or suggestion that the Lord was simply one of the lesser
gods in a pantheon presided over by “the Most High.” Only JPS follows M—“He
fixed the boundaries of peoples in relation to Israel’s numbers”—without
further comment. By contrast, the remaining three modern translations adopt the
reading of 4QDeutj and G, in varying formulations. NRSV renders it as “the
number of the gods,” REB has “the number of the sons of God,” and NABRE reads
“the number of the divine beings.” All three include a footnote explaining the
origin of their preferred reading. (Carmel McCarthy, “Textual Criticism and
Biblical Translation,” in The Hebrew Bible: A Critical Companion, ed. John
Barton [Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2016], 551-52)
[6]
Concerning Deut 6:4 (the
‘Shema’):
No, the Shema is not
strictly monotheistic. This is refuted by the earliest strata of the text of
Deuteronomy (32:7-9, 43 as already discussed); further, according to biblical
scholars such as Michael Coogan, this commandment, and the Shema implicitly
recognises the ontological existence of other gods (cf. Gen 20:13). As in a
marriage, one of the primary analogs for the covenant, Israel was to be
faithful, like a wife to her husband. When the prophets condemn the Israelites
for having worshiped other gods in violation of this commandment, the metaphors
of marital and political fidelity are often invoked, sometimes graphically
(e.g., Ezek 16:23-24; 23:2-12; Jer 2:23-25; 3:1-10). Yahweh is a jealous
husband (e.g., Exo 34:14) and the worship of other gods, or making alliances
with foreign powers, provokes his rage (Michael D. Coogan, The Old Testament: A
historical and literary introduction to the Hebrew Scriptures [New York: Oxford
University Press, 2006], 176, 116).
Note the following
representative quotations on Deut 6:4 that support this reading:
The Decalogue’s wording does
not deny the existence of “other gods”; it merely directs Israelites to have no
relationship with them. The Shema’s language is obscure: What does it mean to
say that “the LORD is one”? According to some modern scholars, this line merely
asserts that the God of Israel does not subdivide into local manifestations in
the way many ancient Near Eastern deities did. In Mesopotamia there was a
goddess Ishtar of Nineveh, an Ishtar of Arbela, and an Ishtar of Carchemish; in
Canaan, there were dozens of local Baal-Hadads; but, the Shema tells us, the
LORD, the God of Israel, exists only in a single manifestation. Even if one
rejects this interpretation of Deuteronomy 6:4, understanding it instead to
mean “The LORD is our God, the LORD alone,” this verse may teach not that no
other gods exist, but that they are not Israel’s deity. Further, in the Hebrew
original the Shema, like the Decalogue, speaks not of “the LORD” but of “Yhwh,”
which is the personal name of the God of Israel. The use of a name to refer to
this deity suggests that there may be other deities out there; names are
necessary when we talk about a particular member of a larger class. In allowing
for the possibility that additional heavenly beings exist, these two verses are
not alone. The Hebrew Bible often refers to heavenly creatures other than Yhwh,
calling them “gods” (Genesis 6:2; Psalms 29:1, 82:6, 86:8, 89:7; Job 1:6),
“angels” (Numbers 20:16; 2 Samuel 24:16; 1 Kings 13:18; Zechariah 1:11-12;
Psalm 78:49; Job 33:23), and “the council of holy ones” (Psalm 89:6-8).
(Benjamin D. Dommer, “Monotheism,” in The Hebrew Bible: A Critical Companion,
ed. John Barton [Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2016], 239-40)
Deut 6:4 is one of the most
extensively discussed lines of the Hebrew Bible. While most interpreters agree
that the first line of the Shema’ Israel is not monotheistic statement, the
meaning of the word אחד in Deut 6:4 remains controversial. In our opinion, Deut
6:4 should be translated as “Hear, O Israel The Lord is our God, the Lord
alone.” J. Tigay describes the henotheistic intent of אחד as follows: “this is
not a declaration of monotheism . . . though other peoples worship various
beings and things they consider divine . . . Israel is to recognize YHVH alone”
(Deuteronomy [The JPS Torah Commentary; Philadelphian and Jerusalem: Jewish
Publication Society, 1996], 76). While early inscriptions from Kuntillet ‘Ajrud
could suggest that Deut 6:4 argued originally against multiple local version of
YHWH such as יהוה תימן (“YHWH of Teman”) and יהוה שמרן (“YHWH of Samaria), it
needs to be emphasized that these local forms of YHWH are attested only in
relatively few early inscriptions. It seems more probable that Deut 6:4 argues
in a positive way against Israelite polytheism, which is criticized by many
Deuteronomistic texts. Deut 6:4 would thus be a monolatric statement that
emphasizes Israel’s exclusive relationship with God while not denying the
existence of other deities. (Esther Eshel, Hanan Eshel, and Armin Lange,
"'Hear, O Israel' in Gold An Ancient Amulet from Halbturn in
Austria," Journal of Ancient Judaism 1 [2010]: 44-45)
. . . in its Deuteronomic
context, Deut 6:4 is not a monotheistic statement that denies the existence of
other gods. Rather, it is an acknowledgment that although there may be rival
claimants for Israel’s allegiance, YHWH is the King of Israel, unique, incomparable,
the one and only. Although the word אחד is never again predicated of YHWH in
Deuteronomy, this interpretation fits the context of the imminent crossing of
the Jordan: the question at that moment is not how many gods exists but whether
or not the people will remain loyal to YHWH or be seduced by the gods of the
Land they are about to enter. This was also the question posed by the
Deuteronomic author in the latter Israelites in exile. (Lori Ann Robinson
Baron, "The Shema in John's Gospel Against its Backgrounds in Second
Temple Judaism," PhD diss., Duke University, 2015, 38-39)
While Deut 6:4-9 was a text
that affirmed loyalty to YHWH only, Jewish belief in God’s uniqueness was also
able to accommodate belief in intermediary beings. (Ibid., 123)
In 1 Kings 8:22-53, a prayer
in dedication of the Temple, Solomon reiterates some of the themes of Shema:
“YHWH, God of Israel, there is no God like you in heaven above or on earth
beneath, keeping covenant and steadfast love for your servants who walk before
you with all their heart” (1 Kings 8:23/2 Chron 6:14; emphasis added; cf. 1
Kings 8:60; Deut 4:39; 5:10; 33:29). According to this speech, the Exile is the
result of Israel’s sin (1 Ki 8:46; cf. 44-53), but YHWH will have mercy upon
Israel “if they repent with all their heart and soul” (ובכל-נפשׁם בכל-לבבם;
8:48/2 Chron 6:38; emphasis added). This language recalls the demand for
wholehearted loyalty of the Shema and summarizes the renewal of the covenant,
which is at the core of Deuteronomy. Moreover, Solomon prays that the Temple
will be a witness to the nations: “so that all the peoples of the earth may
know your name and fear you, as do your people Israel” (1 Kings 8:43; cf. Deut
6:4-8). This theme will be central to the use of the Shema in Ezekiel’s oracles
of restoration and in John 17.
In Solomon’s blessing of the
assembly (8:54-66), he proclaims the essence of the Shema again: “YHWH is God:
there is no other” (8:60) and pleads with the people to incline their hearts to
YHWH and keep YHWH’s commandments (8:58, 61; cf. 11:2). The language of the
heart and love is also evoked in the recounting of Solomon’s errors; his
marriage to foreign wives “turned away his heart after other gods; and his
heart was not true to YHWH his God” (11:4). Instead, “Solomon clung to these in
love” (11:2) and “did not completely follow YHWH” (11:6). Thus in 1 Kings, the
themes of Deut 6:4-5 reflect the language of the Deuteronomic covenant. An
analysis of two verses of 2 Kings corroborates the influence of Deut 6:4-5 on
this material.
2 Kings 23 describes
Josiah’s reading of the book of the Law that had been found in the Temple,
followed by his reform of the Judean religion. The essence of this reform is
Josiah’s commitment to the covenant: “to follow YHWH, keeping his commandments,
his decrees, and his statutes, with all his heart and soul” (2 Kings 23:3/2
Chron 34:32; emphasis added). The language of oneness is absent, but the
passage goes on to describe Josiah’s thoroughgoing destruction of idols in the
Land, implying that the uniqueness of YHWH is of utmost concern. The curses of
Deuteronomy will be incurred by abandoning YHWH and worshiping other gods (2
Kings 22:16-17; 23:19). The writer eulogizes Josiah, declaring that “[b]efore
him there was no king like him, who turned to YHWH with all his heart, with all
his soul, and with all his might, according to the law of Moses; nor did any
like him arise after him” (בכל־לבבו ובכל־נפשׁו ובכל־מאדו; 23:25). This is the
only threefold repetition of the terms of Deut 6:5 outside of that passage,
suggesting Josiah’s singular loyalty to YHWH and the covenant. This passage
also makes explicit the connection between wholehearted commitment to YHWH and
adherence to the Law of Moses. Finally, this encomium of Josiah’s contains an
implicit critique of the rest of Israel’s kings; Deut 6:4-5 is used as a
standard by which both Israel and its kings are judged. Here, the reader is
warned not to hold out any hope that future kings will live up to the same
standard. (Ibid., 62-65)
Many modern readers regard
the Shema as an assertion of monotheism, a view that is anachronistic. In the
context of ancient Israelite religion, it served as a public proclamation of
exclusive loyalty to YHWH as the sole Lord of Israel . . . the v. makes not a
quantitative argument (about the number of deities) but a qualitative one,
about the nature of the relationship between God and Israel. Almost certainly,
the original force of the v., as the medieval Jewish exegetes [noted], was to
demand that Israel show exclusive loyalty to our God, YHWH--but not thereby to
deny the existence of other gods. In this way, it assumes the same perspective
as the first commandment of the Decalogue, which, by prohibiting the worship of
other gods, presupposes their existence. (The Jewish Study Bible [2d ed.; New
York: Oxford University Press, 2014], 361)
The “none besides” language
in Hebrew is the language of incomparability; not the denial of ontological
existence. One sees this at Qumran (e.g., 1QHa XVIII 8-12 [the Thanksgiving
Hymn]) and how the "“there is none” (Hebrew: אין . . . כ)" language
does not deny the existence of other gods, but denotes incomparability (such a
construction is used, for e.g., of Saul [1 Sam 10:14]; Job (Job 1:8; 2:3);
Goliath's sword (1 Sam 21:10), etc. It also appears in Ancient Near Eastern
literature, too (e.g., Papyrus Amherst 63, xiii-11-17 [c. 5th
century BCE]). For more, see C.J. Labuschagne, The Incomparability of Yahweh in
the Old Testament (Pretoria Oriental Series Vol V; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1966),
excerpts of which I put on my blog at https://scripturalmormonism.blogspot.com/2019/08/cj-labuschagne-on-language-of.html.
As Michael Heiser noted re. Isa 43:10 and like-texts,
[Isa 43:10] does not deny
that Yahweh created any ‘ĕlōhim. Rather, it asserts there will be no such god
as Yahweh to follow. If the objects of creation were what was intended to be
negated, we would expect a plural form of hyh, not the singular yihyeh, or some
other negated plural construction. (Michael E. Heiser "You've Seen One
Elohim, You've Seen Them All? A Critique of Mormonism's Use of Psalm 82,"
FARMS Review 19, no. 1 [2007]: 254)
He also noted elsewhere that
Similar constructions are
used in reference to Babylon and Moab in Isa 47.8, 10 and Nineveh in Zeph 2.15.
In Isa 47.8, 10, Babylon says to herself, אני ואפסי עוד ("I am, and there
is none else beside me"). The claim is not that she is the only city in
the world but that she has no rival. Nineveh makes the identical claim in Zeph
2.15 (אני ואפסי עוד). In these instances, these constructions cannot constitute
the denial of the existence of other cities and nations. The point being made
is very obviously incomparability. (Michael S. Heiser, "Does Deuteronomy
32:17 Assume or Deny the Reality of Other Gods?," The Bible Translator 59,
no. 3 [July 2008]: 144-45)
For more, on the book of
Deuteronomy, see Nathan MacDonald, Deuteronomy and the Meaning of
"Monotheism" (2d ed.; Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012)
[7]
BTW, the charge of LXX
Errors in the New Testament is something that one would like to see you
interact with. Take the following--
During the Council of
Jerusalem in Acts 15 James is reliant upon the LXX notwithstanding its obvious
translation mistakes. In Acts 15:13–17, James appeals to Amos 9:11–12 in an
effort to support through scripture the taking of the gospel directly to the Gentiles
and the cessation of circumcision. It even seems James’ quotation helps settle
the debate. The critical portion of Amos 9 reads
In that day will I raise up
the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and close up the breaches thereof; and
I will raise up his ruins, and I will build it as in the days of old: That they
may possess the remnant of Edom, and of all the heathen, which are called by my
name, saith the LORD that doeth this. (Amos 9:11)
This reading comes from LXX
Amos, although there is a bit of movement. For instance, “the Lord” is an
addition. The LXX actually omits the object, reading, “so that the remnant of
the people might seek, and all the nations . . .” There is also a clause missing
from Acts’ quotation (“and set it up as the days of old”). The important
observation, however, is the Greek translation’s relationship to the Hebrew.
The crucial section reads in the Greek, “so that the remnant of the people
might seek,” but in the Hebrew, “that they may possess the remnant of Edom.”
The confusion with Edom arises likely because of the lack of the mater
lectionis which we find in MT in the word אדום. Without it, the word looks an
awful lot like אדם , “man,” or “humanity.” The verb “to possess” (יירשׁו), was
also misunderstood as “to seek” (ידרשׁו). It is unlikely that MT is secondary.
First, there’s no object for the transitive verb εκζητησωσιν, “that they might
seek.” Second, the reading in MT makes more sense within the context. David’s
fallen house would be restored so that it might reassert its authority,
specifically in overtaking the remnant of Edom (see Amos 1:11–12) and “all the
nations,” for which Edom functions as a synecdoche (Edom commonly acts as a
symbol for all of Israel’s enemies [Ps 137:7; Isa 34:5–15; 63:1–6; Lam 4:21]).
The notion that the restoration of the Davidic kingdom would cause the remnant
of the people and all the nations to seek the Lord is also a bit of a
disconnection within Amos. This quotation shows not only that the early church
relied on the Septuagint, but that it rested significant doctrinal decisions on
the Greek translation, even when it represented a misreading of the underlying
Hebrew. Christians today reject the inspiration of the LXX, but the New
Testament firmly accepted it, and if the New Testament is inspired in its
reading of LXX Amos 9:11-12, which is itself a misreading of the original
reading, then the current Hebrew Old Testament is in error. (See Gary D.
Martin, Multiple Originals: New Approaches to Hebrew Bible Textual Criticism
[Atlanta, Ga.: Society of Biblical Literature, 2010], pp. 255-61 for more
information on this issue).
To quote one scholar whose
comments are representative of such (and to show this is not just me):
. . .James quotes Amos 9:11,
according to the LXX, to the Jewish audience assembled in Jerusalem. He could
rather have used the original Hebrew wording, instead of the reading in the
LXX. The difference is significant. The Hebrew reads “and I will build them as
in the days of old, that they (the Israelites) may inherit (יירשׁוּ) what remains
of Edom (את שׁאריּת אדוֹם) and of the other nations over which my name is named.”
The LXX reads יירשׁוּ as ידרשׁוּ (omitting את, and translates it εκζητησωσι, “to
seek.” According to Glenny, the Hebrew “they may possess the remnant of Edom,”
appears in the LXX as “that the remnant of men may seek me” (Glenny explains
the contradiction by the translator’s misreading of the second yod in the word יירשו
[“possess”], which lead to the change to dalet and became ידרשו [“seek”].
Glenny, “Septuagint and Apostolic Hermeneutics,” 6, 7). Moreover, LXX reads מוֹדא
as מדא, and takes מדא as the subject of the verb instead of the object. Thus,
“men” becomes the subject of the sentence instead of “Edom” (Lake and Cadbury,
English Translation and Commentary, 176). As a result, the meaning of the whole
phrase shifts from “a promise that Israel should possess their lands” to a
promise of conversion of the Gentiles (Lake and Cadbury, English Translation
and Commentary).
According to Glenny’s
observation the LXX translation of Amos 9:11 contradicts the other passages in
the Minor Prophets (Hos 9:6; Amos 2:10; Obad 17, 19, 20; Mic 1:15; Hab 1:6;
Zech 9:4), where the Hebrew, yāraš, was translated with the Greek κληρονεμεω,
“to inherit,” and not “seek.” Glenny accounts for it by the fact that LXX
translators could have been influenced by the wording of Zechariah’s prophecy
(Glenny, “Septuagint and Apostolic Hermeneutics,” 8). Zech 14:2, 9, 16, similar
to Amos 9:12, contain the phrase πατα τα εθνη and καταλειψθωσιν εκ παντων των
εθνων. The wording of Zech 8:22 repents in the following manner, και εθνη πολλα
εκζητησαι το προσωπον κυριου. Here, the aorist infinitive εκζητησαι means “to
exert effort to find out or learn someth., seek out, search for” (BDAD,
εκζητεω, 1). The LXX translators most likely adjusted the wording of Amos to
the similar text in Zechariah's prophecy (Glenny, “Septuagint and Apostolic
Hermeneutics,” 8). If one accepts that the LXX was used by Jews living in the
diaspora, and that they had access to the Greek translation of these Hebrew
prophecies, it becomes clear that the reading, “that the rest of men may seek
the Lord,” appeared preferable. (Elena Butova, The Four Prohibitions of Acts 15
and Their Common Background in Genesis 1-3 [Eugene, Oreg: Wipf and Stock,
2018], 96-97)
[8]
On the issue of the text of
the Book of Mormon, no, the LDS Church and LDS researchers try to go back to
the earliest text as much as possible (28% of the Original Manuscript has been
preserved; most of the Printer’s Manuscript has been – one can find them online
at the Joseph Smith Papers Website at
https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/original-manuscript-of-the-book-of-mormon-circa-12-april-1828-circa-1-july-1829/1
and
https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/printers-manuscript-of-the-book-of-mormon-circa-august-1829-circa-january-1830/1
One LDS scholar, Royal
Skousen (a linguist by profession) has been working for ~4 decades on the Book
of Mormon critical text project, and Yale has published his "The Book of
Mormon: The Earliest Text." The first ed. can be found online at https://bookofmormoncentral.org/content/book-mormon-earliest-text
His 4,000+ work, Analysis of
Textual Variants of the Book of Mormon, is also available online at
https://interpreterfoundation.org/books/atv/
The 2013 printing of the BOM
incorporates some of the earlier text of the Book of Mormon, as did the 1981
printing, for e.g., Alma 29:4, restoring the phrase "yea decreeth unto
them decreed which are unalterable" which the 1837 ed. accidentally
omitted.
So, no, LDS are not allergic
to the earliest text tradition of the Book of Mormon and neither is the Church.
[9]
On the change you bring up
in the Book of Mormon, out of intellectual honesty, let me note that there are
four offending changes critics bring up, not just one, in an effort to claim
that Joseph Smith’s earliest Christology was a form of Modalism:
(*) 1 Nephi 11:18:
originally read "Mary the mother of God," in the 1837 ed. "the son
of" was added later in the 1837 ed.
(*) 1 Nephi 11:21, 32, and
13:40: "the son of" was added before "the Eternal Father."
Firstly, I think these
readings are sound, and both readings are acceptable in LDS theology.
"Father" and like-terms are flaccid, not rigid designators; like
"God" they can be predicated upon various individuals. In Isa 9:6 (v.
5 Hebrew), the Messianic figure is called "everlasting father" (or
better, "father of eternity"), but it would be fallacious to read
into these passages Modalism. In the Book of Mormon (e.g., Mosiah 3:8) Jesus is
called "Father" in that he is the creator, not that he is numerically
the same person as the Father. Even in the context of just First Nephi itself,
there is always a numerical distinction of person between Jesus and God the
Father. For e.g., 1 Nephi 10:7; 11:6-7, 24, 27, 31-32 (same chapter 3 of the 4
changes took place in); 12:5-10, 18; 13:40, etc.)
I believe (and I am not alone in thinking this), that the
changes were clarifications for a 19th century audience, esp. Mary being
"Mother of God," which would lead to the charge of
"Romanism," though I think the original readings fit very well with a
pre-exilic origin of the Book of Mormon, esp. in light of the scholarship of
Mark S. Smith et al. On this, see Brant A. Gardner, “Monotheism, Messiah, and
Mormon’s Book” (2003) (URL:
https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/conference/august-2003/monotheism-messiah-and-mormons-book),
an expanded version appeared as "Excursus: The Nephite Understanding of
God," in Second Witness: Analytical and Contextual Commentary on the Book
of Mormon, 6 vols. (Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2007), 1:214-222. (*)
Either way, they do not
reflect a change in theology. Even in the OM/PM and 1830 ed. Jesus in these
chapters is distinguished from the person of the Father, being "Son of
God" (1 Nephi 11:7, 18 24) and the "Lamb of God" (1 Nephi 13:40
itself)
I have discussed the myth of
early Mormon modalism at some length, both on a podcast ep and a two-part
debate. One can find the playlist, "The Myth of Early Mormon
Modalism" at
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL3zkEJJsWikxWRUAHQD6_5CoFZv5U_b06 where
I also discuss issues such as the Book of Moses, 1832 First Vision Account, the
Lectures on Faith, and other BOM texts such as Mosiah 15:1-4. As far as I can
ascertain, alongside Blake Ostler, I have done the most work on this particular
topic.
(*) No, the Shema/Deut 6:4
is not strictly monotheistic. See the above discussions re. Deut 32:7-9, 43 and
6:4.
[10]
Re. evidences for the Book
of Mormon, we have the seal of Mulek/Malkiyahu, authentic names such as *Alma,
*Aha, *Josh, and *Sariah as a female name (per Elephantine) from manuscripts or
inscriptions or ostraca discovered post-1830; another impressive linguistic
issue is the transliterated word _Sheum_ in Mosiah 9:9 for a type of grain--this
has been attested in Akkadian, a language deciphered post-1830. On p. 346 of
The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago,
vol. 17: Š, part II, eds. John A. Brinkman, Miguel Civil, Ignace J. Geleb,
A. Leo Oppenheim, and Erica Reiner (Chicago: The Oriental Institute, 1992),
there is an entry under še’u (alt. še-a-am) for a grain in Akkadian. I pick
these as examples are 19th century (and even some modern) critics
claim they are evidence against its authenticity; we also find in the Book of
Mormon genuine word plays that only make sense in light of it being a
translation (Jershon [place of inheritance-- ירשׁ yrsh coupled
with -on [ון]) being said to be given as an inheritance, for e.g., -- Alma
27:22, 23; 35:14; _Zarahemla_ being composed of Herbew ‘zera [זרע;
seed/offspring] and chemla [חמל; compassion/pity]—see the word play on "Zarahemla"
and "compassion"/being spared in Mosiah 9:2; Alma 27:4-5;53:10-13; 3
Nephi 8:24 [Joseph Smith did not study Hebrew until later in his life]); valid etymologies
of words based on Semitic/Egyptian, such as Nephi from Egyptian _NFR_ [Fair
one], and a host of other issues, such as the discovery of the burial site
NHM/Nahom in the Arabian Peninsula, and turning nearly directly east (cf. 1
Nephi 17:5), Wadi Sayq, a candidate that matches Book of Mormon Bountiful
perfectly. And there is a growing body of convergences in the New World, such
as geological evidence for a great destruction around the time of Christ
matching that of 3 Nephi 8-9 (on this, see geologist Jerry Grover’s work at https://bmslr.org/geology-of-the-book-of-mormon/) –
you can falsely claim there is no evidence for the BOM, but that is simply
false. There is a great deal to support it being a 19th century
translation of an ancient text informed by the Ancient Near East and
Mesoamerica.
Genuine question: what have
you read on the pro-LDS side of things? Are you aware of scholars such as Blake
Ostler, Brant Gardner, Jerry Grover, John Tvedtnes, John Sorenson, Neal
Rappleye, Stephen O. Smoot, Barry Bickmore, Brian Hales, Donald W. Parry, et
al? These are not randomers; they are some of the leading scholars on various
LDS issues, whether Biblical, Book of Mormon, theological, philosophical, and
other? I will happily recommend good books and articles on these and other
issues if you are genuinely interested. Here are some good Website
recommendations:
Book of Mormon Central:
https://bookofmormoncentral.org/
Evidence Central:
https://scripturecentral.org/evidence
Interpreter Foundation:
https://interpreterfoundation.org/
Jeff Lindsay has a good
overview of many of the evidences for the BOM at:
www.jefflindsay.com/BMEviences.shtml