Background:
I was stopped on the street by a member of a fundamentalist, KJV-only Baptist group (Ballincollig Baptist Church, headed by Craig Ledbetter who lies through his teeth about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints), and we discussed sola scriptura, sola fides, the nature of baptism, and the Book of Mormon. This fellow claimed that the Book of Mormon anachronistically borrowed from the KJV New Testament, although could not provide any example when pressed. I gave him my email address, requesting him to support this contention. Here is our email exchange, which should give one an insight into the (1) deceptive nature of Ballincollig Baptist Church and other similar-groups and (2) the lack of critical thinking and intellectual integrity of many critics of the LDS Church:
From: Barry Keating
To: Robert Boylan
Date: 16/08/2015
Re: 1 Nephi and the New Testament
Good afternoon Robert,
Barry here, good to meet you in town yesterday.
I looked at my copy of the book of Mormon and found those verses that contain New Testament phraseology. I read on a little further and found some others too (see attached doc).
These verses clearly show that the book of Nephi was not written by an Israelite prior to the Babylonian captivity but rather by someone who had read and studied the King James Bible many centuries later!
I pray the Lord will open your eyes to this truth.
Best Regards,
Barry
From: Robert Boylan
To: Barry Keating
Date: 16/08/2015
Hi Barry,
Nice to hear back from you.
A few years ago, a fellow LDSapologist, Jeff Lindsay, wrote a satirical piece "Was the Book of Mormon plagiarised from Walt Whitman's [1855] Leaves of Grass?" He actually amassed a lot of data, showing six and even seven-world parallels alongside thematic parallels--of course, it was a joke piece as Whitman’s book postdates the Book of Mormon's initial publicationby 25 years but highlighted a recurring problem, one you are clearly guilty of—“parallelomania.” Indeed, Jeff's fallacious parallels are stronger than yours both textually and thematically.
A recent phenomenon in biblical studies is the recent claim, forwarded by R. Dennis MacDonald and a few others (e.g., Richard Carrier) that the Gospel of Mark and the Acts of the Apostles were based on the Homeric Epics (E.g., R. Denis MacDonald, The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark [Yale: 2000]). The thesis has been rather cogently critiqued by most New Testament scholars who have reviewed his various works, as the parallels are rather mundane (e.g., the main character and his followers being caught in a storm on a boat). Morna Hooker, a Methodist NT scholar, summed up the difficulties rather well, and they go for your attempts to draw allegedly anachronistic parallels between the KJV and the Book of Mormon too:
To be sure, some of MacDonald’s parallels are intriguing, but they cannot on their own provide an explanation of what Mark is doing. Odd details in Mark’s narrative do sometimes ‘echo’ events in Homer’s story (like the feast where participants sat in nine units of ‘five hundred men’) and sometimes provide contrasts (as with the storm, in which Odysseus was awakened but was helpless to do anything). But are these parallels and contrasts deliberate? Or are they accidental? … After all, as MacDonald admits, ‘feasting and sleeping [and] journeys are common in ancient writings; these and other similarities do not require mimesis’ (p. 127). … One is left wondering why – if MacDonald is right – Mark should have chosen to depict Jesus in this way, sometimes in imitation of Odysseus and sometimes in contrast to him. What would Mark have hoped to achieve? … MacDonald’s suggestion is that he ‘crafted a myth to make the memory of Jesus relevant to the catastrophies of his day’, and that he was ‘adapting cultural monuments to address new realities’ (p. 190). So was Mark’s Gospel simply a re-telling of Homeric myth? … To show that there are similarities in plot and theme between two authors is one thing, to prove dependence is quite another. That there are certain parallels between two narratives is hardly surprising, for similar themes reappear constantly in stories told by very different people. But suggestions that there is deliberate mimesis can easily topple into parallelomania. (Morna D. Hooker, Journal of Theological Studies, 53/1 [pp. 196-98]).
In our conversation yesterday, I did ask you to outline your methodology, although (unsurprisingly) you failed to do so--as I said, you are guilty of parallelomania (which I will show in a moment). Richard Hayes, a leading Protestant Pauline scholar wrote a volume in 1989, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (Yale), which is one of the best books out there in Paul's use, both direct and indirect ("echoes" being Hayes' term for the latter), and outlined his methodology which is rather sound (vis-a-vis the KJV and Joseph Smith, only the first is a "given," but the remaining ones don't exist in your list of examples); you might want to think of saving this for future reference:
1) Availability: Was the source of the alleged reference available to the author and/or the original reader?
2) Volume: How extensive is the explicit repetition of words or syntax (or other indicators)? How prominent is the material in the source text? How much rhetorical stress does the reference receive in the borrowing text?
3) Recurrence: How often does the author cite or allude to the same source?
4) Thematic Coherence: How well does the alleged parallel fit into the argument that the alluding text is developing?
5) Historical Plausibility: Could the author have intended the alleged meaning? Would his readers have understood it?
6) Historical Interpretation: Have others seen the same relationship?
7) Satisfaction: Does the proposed reading make sense?
Now, onto the parallels you claim exist between the two texts:
“Utterly facile” would be the most polite way to sum up your attachment. Your attempts to portray “plagiarism” on the behalf of Joseph Smith by using (allegedly, and as we will see, incorrectly) by purported anachronistic borrowings from the KJV NT amounts to drawing a few, often non-existent, word parallels and claiming plagiarism.
Let us actually examine the purported textual borrowings:
1 Nephi 1:3 and John 19:35
This is not a direct quotation, nor are there any thematic parallel, let alone plagiarism and/or anachronistic borrowing. The former says that he is making a record of the history of his people and that such is true/accurate, while the latter is the purpose statement of the Gospel of John and the role the Beloved Disciple had in the tradition informing the Gospel of John (cf. John 20:31). Surely, you don’t seriously think people making a written text and asserting its truthfulness/accuracy is not a novelty to John 19:35 throughout human history up until that point, right?
1 Nephi 3:22 and 1 Cor 3:12
Firstly, I will note that 1 Cor 3 is not a text friendly to any Protestant theology, your fundamentalist Baptist soteriology included. Furthermore, 1 Nephi 3:22 is part of a historical narrative where Lehi's family flee Jerusalem and bring with them their possessions, viz. gold, silver, and precious things. Paul in 1 Cor is using gold, silver, and precious stones [not “precious things, so this is an “unparallel” if you will], wood, hay, and stubble as metaphors for the good works and the sins that will be revealed at the final judgement, resulting in people receiving a reward (v. 14) or being punished before entering the presence of the Lord (v.15). Moreover, stones, hay, and stubble are not mentioned in 1 Nephi 3:22, and the materials used in both verses are used in a completely different thematic context (historical narrative vs. part of an extended metaphor of the final judgement), which raises another question--how do you dictate plagiarism instead of a unintended parallels, the latter this clearly is? It reflects a lot of poor critical-thinking skills. Then again, the anti-intellectualism which is part-and-parcel of fundamentalist Baptist denominations is well-known in many circles. Sadly, your work, which demonstrates no critical thinking skills or intellectual integrity, reflects this.
It should also be noted that verses in pre-exilic portions of the Old Testament that also refer to gold, silver, and precious things in the same verses include Gen 24:53 and Isa 39:2, which also demonstrates such a locution is not a novelty with Paul, which your argument requires. Additionally, your argument requires that no one in known history possessed gold, silver, and precious things and for them to make a passing remark about them, which, of course, is utterly inane, to put it mildly.
1 Nephi 4:13 and John 11:50
The idea of one man perishing for a nation to survive is actually known in 1 Sam 17 (Goliath/Philistines and David/Israel), so again, the idea that this concept of a novelty is fallacious. Furthermore, a friend of mine, Ben McGuire, wrote a very carefully argued piece showing that the Book of Mormon reflects a pre-exilic text of the David/Goliath epic, not the later textual tradition in the Masoretic Hebrew text; the article, "Nephi and Goliath: A Case Study of Literary Allusion in the Book of Mormon"--
unlike your list of parallels, is meaningful and holds up to methodological scrutiny. It also provides evidence for the historicity of the Book of Mormon, and is not something Joseph Smith could have successfully "winged" in 1829. Or, to borrow your verbiage, "Such a work clearly shows that the Book of First Nephi *was* written by an Israelite prophet prior to the Babylonian captivity instead of Joseph Smith many centuries later."
Would like to see you engage this piece, if it is possible. I trow not
One should also compare this concept with the so-called “Scapegoat” ritual in Lev 16 , where the sins of the nation were given to a singular individual, Azazel (KJV: the “scapegoat”) and driven out of the midst of the people. Such a concept is also part of other ancient text. For instance, in 2 Maccabees 6:19-20, 30; 7:2, the Jewish martyrs die out as a result of refusing to break God's law. While they suffer justly as part of the disobedient nation, they are also in a position to offer their lives to God out of innocence and obedience as a plea that God would act favourably toward the disobedient nation. Of course, such is accepted by God who accepts their plea, for immediately following this scene, Judas and his armies enjoy their initial successes "for the wrath of the Lord had turned to mercy" (2 Maccabees 8:5). Furthermore, in the Talmud (Mek. Pisha 1:103-13), Moses and David offered their lives on behalf of a disobedient nation that had provoked God's wrath.
Such an idea is not a novelty with the ironic prophecy of Caiaphas in John 11:50, so your charge of anachronistic borrowing is, ultimately, a non sequitur.
1 Nephi 7:8 and Mark 3:5
I hate to be direct, but you are really desperate to find parallels. The idea of individuals being hard in their heart (or hardening their hearts) permeates the Old Testament (e.g., Exo 4:21; 7:3, 13, 14, 22; 8:15, 19, 32; 9:7, 12, 34, 35; 10:1 [x2], 20, 27; 11:10; 14:4, 8, 17; Deut 2:30; 15:7; Josh 11:20; Isa 63:17--all of these are pre-exilic texts). Furthermore, there is a huge difference between the two narratives--there is no miraculous healing in the former. Why claim plagiarism of a well-known phrase and concept that pre-dates the exilic period, not just the NT period, but then skip over the huge thematic difference? In you review, Joseph anachronistically borrowed a phrase that is actually pre-exilic(!!!) and just didn’t bother to pilfer from the “meatier” element of the narrative of Mark 3. This and the other parallels are classical examples of the logical fallacy of special pleading.
1 Nephi 10:3 and Rev 21:10
One cannot help notice the huge difference between these two texts--one is about the Old World Jerusalem and its impending destruction under the hands of the Babylonians; the latter is about the eschatological New Jerusalem. Furthermore, are you seriously claiming that the adjective "great" and/or the noun "city" were never predicated upon "Jerusalem" by anyone until the book of Revelation was written? That you think such is plagiarism only shows your utter lack of critical-thinking skills when it comes to this particular issue. For the Israelites, (Old) Jerusalem was "great" and a "city." I am sorry, but this parallel is utterly meaningless, too.
Your list of parallels, and similar other lists one will find, as with the work of MacDonald on Homer and Mark, doesn't provide the answers one needs to provide their case. What do I mean by that? In spite of your obvious superficial reading, at best, of the Book of Mormon, there is a growing body of evidences supporting its historicity, such as the discoveries of Bountiful and Nahom in the Arabian Peninsula; Hebraisms that cannot be found in the KJV; the pre-exilic Hebrew text of the Bible being reflected in the Book of Mormon narrative (as per Ben McGuire's article linked above discusses, among other similar works) and a host of other things (see here for a brief overview of only some of the evidences). Your superficial list of parallels (which you [falsely] claim to reflect plagiarism) hardly answers the case against the Book of Mormon and provide a meaningful naturalistic explanation of its origins. I would like to see you make a meaningful case for this side of the debate; furthermore, I would like to see you make an exegetically sound case for the doctrine of sola scriptura. After all, that is the formal doctrine of Protestantism and, furthermore, clearly informs your a priori rejection of the Book of Mormon. It should also be noted that, if you seriously think these are meaningful parallels, you cannot consistently answer a skeptic who claims Mark or Luke/Acts plagiarises from Homer or Virgil--you would have to engage in a double-standard (as the saying goes: "inconsistency is a sign of a failed argument").
I hope I have added food for thought. You clearly have not engaged "Mormonism" in any meaningful depth before, let alone the text of the Book of Mormon. I would be more than happy to help educate you on the relevant issues. Additionally, I hope God will, through His Holy Spirit, open your eyes to the false gospel you have embraced before it is too late.
From: Barry Keating
To: Robert Boylan
Date: 27/08/2015
Good evening Robert,
Hope you are doing well.
Thanks for your email, you have certainly gone into a lot of detail. I gather from your response that perhaps a deep emotional connection to Mormonism is keeping you from admitting the truth of this matter to yourself and (most importantly) to God.
This really isn't a scholarly issue and doesn't demand such meticulous analysis. The book of 1 Nephi clearly copies sayings and phrases straight out of the English King James Bible.
I am not sure of what relevance Jeff Lindsay's page is to this issue, because the parallels between the Book of Mormon and Walt Whitman's Leaves of Grass are not coincidental. Both were written at a similar time and in the same land. Of course they will share phrases and words. The issue we are talking about here is that a book (1 Nephi) supposedly written hundreds of years before the New Testament (and thousands of years before the King James translation of the Bible), somehow has specific phraseology and parts of verses taken straight out of the King James New Testament.
I don't really think it's appropriate to outline a methodology of how I recognise parallels between the book of Mormon and the KJV. As I said, it really isn't such a scholarly issue. If a friend walked up to you and said "May the force be with you", you would immediately know he got that from Star Wars. You shouldn't be asked what methodology you used to come to that conclusion. It's just obvious.
In the same way when I read the book of Mormon for the first time (without any prior knowledge of arguments of this sort), and I recognise phrases and statements from the King James Bible, I don't have a methodology, I am simply observing copied phrases and statements.
Now I just wanted to say at this point that faith is the substance of things hoped for.....
What immediately springs to your mind when you read the above sentence? Hebrews 11:1 of course... And you didn't require a methodology to recognise that obvious parallel. The likelihood that I never read the book of Hebrews and, by coincidence, quoted that unique statement is pretty much impossible.
Below is a bit more of an explanation of what I am talking about:
(1 Nephi 1:3) And I know that the record which I make is true…
(John 19:35) And he that saw it bare record, and his record is true: and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe.
Of course, I don't think people making a written text and asserting its truthfulness is a novelty to John 19:35. But rather the manner in which John asserts the truthfulness of the text is unique; the fact that John adds that "he himself knows he is speaking the truth" is extremely unique and an uncommon thing to say. In the Bible this wording is unique to John (see also John 21:24 & 3 John 1:12), and this unique manner of asserting the truth of a record is right there in 1 Nephi 1:3, showing that the author was familiar with John's writings. If you can find me another author (prior to John) that spoke exactly like this, then I'll admit the parallel could be coincidental.
(1 Nephi 3:22) …we did gather together our gold, and our silver, and our precious things.
(1 Corinthians 3:12) Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble;
If the parallel here is coincidental, it would be unlikely that 1 Nephi would mention the words "gold", "silver", and "precious" in the same order as the well-known verse in 1 Corinthians 3:12. If he said "silver, gold, and precious things" or something like "precious things, jewels, silver, and gold" then there would be no case. But the fact that they are in the same order and the book contains so many other parallels with the New Testament (as I am trying to show you) makes it likely that the author of 1 Nephi was familiar with 1 Corinthians 3:12 when writing this verse.
(1 Nephi 4:13) …it is better that one man should perish than that a nation should dwindle and perish in unbelief.
(John 11:50) Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.
This is probably the strongest parallel in my list. I am obviously not saying that the concept of one man dying for the nation is a novelty or a unique idea. What is unique is the wording used by Caiaphas in John 11:50 to describe such a concept, which wording the author of 1 Nephi took straight out of Caiaphas' mouth and placed into the book of Mormon. It is practically a direct quote!
(1 Nephi 7:8) And now I, Nephi, being grieved for the hardness of their hearts…
(Mark 3:5) And when he had looked round about on them with anger, being grieved for the hardness of their hearts, he saith unto the man, Stretch forth thine hand. And he stretched it out: and his hand was restored whole as the other.
Again, I was not saying that the author of 1 Nephi was copying a concept (hardening of hearts) from the New Testament but rather specific wording from the New Testament. In all the Old Testament verses you list, the concept of hardening of a heart is present but not the specific wording "being grieved for the hardness of their hearts". So those verses are irrelevant to the issue. Also the context of the story in the book of Mormon and the absence of miracles has no bearing on whether or not the wording has been copied from the King James Bible. The author of 1 Nephi (being so familiar with the New Testament) clearly used a unique phrase from the Gospel of Mark to describe a situation in the story about Nephi.
(1 Nephi 10:3) That after they should be destroyed, even that great city Jerusalem….
(Revelation 21:10) And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and showed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God,
Nobody in the Bible prior to the book of Revelation used the term "that great city Jerusalem". The word "Jerusalem" is found in the Bible 811 times before the book of Revelation but it is not once preceded by the words "that great city" until the book of Revelation. So it is highly unlikely that a writing prior to the Babylonian captivity would contain a description so unique to John. What is far more clear (especially in light of so many more parallels between the New Testament and 1 Nephi) is that the author had a good knowledge of the New Testament and simply borrowed its phrases.
The doctrine of Sola-Scriptura is not even relevant to this issue. If the book of Mormon was the Word of God it would be worth following. However, it is demonstrable that the book of Mormon is of altogether human origin, and therefore not the Word of God, just like every other "holy book" that came after the New Testament.
I write this response, not because I want to win some kind of "scholarly debate", but because I wish to see falsehood torn down and God's true Word magnified in your life and in the lives of others. I really want to see you throw away that book of Mormon. I'm sure there are countless intelligent responses swirling around your mind right now. But the desire to merely gain the "upper-hand" in a debate, and smother an issue in intellectualism and slander is vain and unprofitable. A clever argument can be made for just about anything (including the book of Mormon). Christ and the Bible were sufficient before Joseph Smith and they continue to be sufficient now so follow HIM!
(1 John 5:13) These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.
Best Regards,
Barry
From: Barry Keating
To: Robert Boylan
Date: 27/08/2015
Sorry, by "follow HIM" I am referring to Christ of course.. not Joseph Smith!!
From: Robert Boylan
To: Barry Keating
Date: 27/08/2015
arry,
Firstly, you completely missed the point of Jeff's article and my reference to it--the Book of Mormon purports to be a translation and it was rendered into English--as a result, there will always be verbal parallels between it and any other text written in English, translation literature or otherwise. One can pick up any two random texts and find dozens, if not hundreds, of verbal, thematic, and structural parallels. Your arguments, ultimately, is answered by the fact that the Book of Mormon is an English text, and even taking a purely naturalistic approach to the volume's origins, your "arguments" are non sequiturs (e.g., an adjective + noun is so common it is utterly inane to claim it is questionable as you claim it to be, as are three or four-word parallels, etc. [To give one example--it is the height of inanity to claim that "great city Jerusalem" to have been an absolute novelty to the author of Revelation in AD 95 (cf. Gen 10:12; Jos 10:2; Jer 22:8; Jon 1:2; 3:2, 3; 4:11 for similar locutions)]). All you can do it show that the KJV NT is in a form of English and the Book of Mormon is in a form of English; a better "case" can be made between the Book of Mormon and Webster's 1828 dictionary--ultimately, it is meaningless and fails any sound literary-critical examination (which is why you refuse to engage the issue).
Furthermore, I will note that I have been totally consistent throughout this exchange, and you have had to change your claims, which is rather telling. After all, you initially claimed the text anachronistically plagiarised the KJV NT, now you have significantly demoted this claim, instead opting for verbal parallels, which are the weakest forms of literary parallels there are. Additionally, unlike you, I can honestly engage with, and answer an individual who claims that Mark and/or Luke/Acts is dependent upon the works of Homer, Virgil, and others and that they "invented" events in the life of the early Church and Jesus based on such works. Consistently, how could you answer something like this page (esp. the section, "Stark Examples") or similar works? You can't, at least, if you were consistent (and if you have to use a double standard to critique one perspective while defending your own, that speaks volumes of one's intellectual integrity, or lack thereof, as well as the inconsistency of their own position). Which of course is why methodology is important and its application. And the reason why you refuse to is simple--you are incapable of such, and your "evidences" would not hold up to any consistent standard. I think anyone who reads this exchange will realise this.
You claim sola scriptura is not the issue then you discuss its formal sufficiency and why the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith, etc., are not necessary in the first place (see below). So yes, sola scriptura is an issue--apart from being a Baptist and, as a result, it being the formal doctrine of Protestantism, as I stated previously, it informs your a priori rejection of the Book of Mormon, so yes, it is relevant, your dodging the request to provide an exegetical case from the Bible itself notwithstanding. So I will ask one more time--please provide an sound exegetical case for sola scriptura. And no, Rev 22 is not evidence for such (see my exegesis here [I have actually discussed the issue a lot on my blog]).
I will also note that none of the evidences for the historicity of 1 Nephi itself was touched at all, which shows that merely claiming Joseph Smith was making it up as he went based on verbal parallels to the KJV NT(!) to be a facile approach to the text (e.g., the discoveries of Bountiful and Nahom in the Arabian Peninsula; Ben McGuire's work showing that the Old Testament text reflected in 1 Nephi fits the pre-exilic text of 1 Sam 16-17, etc--all of which refute claims that it is a purely 19th century construct).
BTW-- your wrote:
<<I gather from your response that perhaps a deep emotional connection to Mormonism is keeping you from admitting the truth of this matter to yourself and (most importantly) to God. >>
I would suggest leaving assessments of one's emotions to those trained in psychology, but if you want to go down that route, such is a classic example of what psychologists call "projection"--your emotions, not intellect, clearly colours your approach to this issue and others. Unlike you, I have a lot of intellectual integrity, evidenced by my response here and in my writings (both on my blog and in peer reviewed articles). There was no hint of emotionalism, unlike your response, accusing me of "slander." (where did I "slander you"? You do lack intellectual integrity if that is what you are referring to).
But if you think it is profitable to go down that route, let us tread there:
<<I'm sure there are countless intelligent responses swirling around your mind right now. But the desire to merely gain the "upper-hand" in a debate, and smother an issue in intellectualism and slander is vain and unprofitable.>>
This is hilarious. You falsely accused me earlier of relying on emotions in your pseudo-analysis of me, and now are reflecting this in a very anti-intellectual world-view where logic and facts are rejected (or feebly rejected as "intellectualisms") which is part-and-parcel of the stereotype of independent fundamentalist Baptists. You are clearly smothering the issues in emotionalism (so your earlier comment is indeed projection), which is vain and unprofitable.
<<Christ and the Bible were sufficient before Joseph Smith and they continue to be sufficient now so follow HIM!>>
. . . although Christ Himself could not, and did not hold to or practice sola scriptura, as he lived in a time prior to the inscripturation of the New Testament texts, right? Unless you will claim that the Old Testament was formally sufficient during the time of Jesus, but that would be a refutation, not support, of the Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura (unless one will jettison the New Testament . . .); neither did the New Testament authors, as they lived in a time of inscripturation where there was no totality of scripture (the concept of "tota scriptura"), and this is admitted even by Protestant apologists. And I will note your comment is void of exegesis--apparently, one is to accept your ipse dixit and that is it. As I said previously, such reflects anti-intellectualism and a world-view and theology informed by emotionalism and eisegesis of the Bible--evidently, it is you who has a deep emotional connection to your fundamentalist strand of Protestantism which is keeping you from admitting the truth of the matter to yourself and God. If you can show me an exegetically-sound case for sola scriputra, I'll listen, but until then, seeing that none of the biblical authors practised, let alone taught, sola scriptura, I am in good company in rejecting it as a false man-made tradition, one under the same anathema as the Korban rule in Matt 15/Mark 7 (cf. Gal 1:6-9).
As an aside, I have no issue with 1 John 5:13; I do have a problem with the common eisegesis of the text by some groups who use this as a "proof-text" for a variation of eternal security (I exegeted the text here).
Live long and prosper!
Robert Boylan
http://scripturalmormonism.blogspot.com
I will add to this page if/when further correspondence takes place.