RMM

Response to Reformed Ministry to Mormon’s “Is the Book of Mormon Credible?”

The following is an e-mail that Robert Boylan wrote to Reformed Ministry to Mormons, a Reformed (Calvinistic) group operating from the United Kingdom.

Please note: The Response to Cork Free Presbyterian Church’s paper, attached in the original e-mail, can be found at http://sites.google.com/site/irishlds87/burning_in_bosom/Burning_in_Bosom.pdf

From: IrishLDS87@gmail.com <Robert Boylan>

To: Reformed Ministry to Mormons

Date: 5 February 2009

Subject: The "Is the Book of Mormon Credible" Paper

Dear Reformed Ministry to Mormons (I am guessing this will be sent to Andrew Price),

As some background on who I am--My name is Robert Boylan, I am twenty-one, Irish, a Latter-day Saint engaged in LDS apologetics through the Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research (FAIR--www.fairlds.org) and hold a BATh in theology and anthropology and finishing a M.Th in biblical scholarship in the Pontifical University of Maynooth. Additionally, I have been researching biblical scholarship and also "Mormonism" from both sides of the coin since late-2001.

While browsing the Internet, I decided to re-visit Ancientpaths.tv, the programme for Christ Presbyterian Church in SLC, and watched some of Andrew Price's interview with Pastor Jason Wallace. I decided to visit the Reformed Ministry to Mormons (hereafter RMM) Website. I hope you know that the pages on "Mormonism" I quickly read are fraught with errors, and whoever authored the pieces is not up to date with LDS scholarship and apologetics, as well as related fields.

For instance, take the PDF file on the Book of Mormon, which I will concentrate on this e-mail, for the sake of brevity. Please note that I have attached a PDF of a review by a piece by another Reformed Protestant group, here in the Republic of Ireland, Cork Free Presbyterian Church. It deals with issues Price discussed briefly with Wallace, such as the Calvinistic understanding of the depravity of man per my exegesis of Ephesians 2:1-5, among Psalms 106, etc. Other issues, such as Romans 10; Christ's visitation to the Book of Mormon peoples, etc., are addressed, as well as the LDS understanding of James 2, etc. I hope you do read it.

However, before I begin, I will note that you rely on D. Michael Quinns revised edition of Early Mormonism and the Magic World View from 1998. I have read this book, and though interesting, find that Quinn tends to pad his notes and sources. Indeed, his book, whose conslusions you accept unequivocally on certain other pages on the RMM Website, has been thrashed by LDS historian, William J. Hamblin, a well-respect figure in ANE history (his book on ANE Warfare from 1600 B.C.E. and on Solomon's Temple has been well-recieved and aclaimed in non-LDS circles, for instance). I strongly suggest you read his lengthy review taking Quinn to task at http://farms.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=12&num=2&id=364

1. The birthplace of Jesus and Alma 7:10

This represents a fundamental mis-reading of the Book of Mormon, for the text does NOT state that Jesus would be born in the city of Jerusalem, but in the *land* of Jerusalem.

In the Ancient Near East, and in the biblical texts, the chief city ruled over just the land of the city itself, but also the land surrounding it. For instance, in Joshua, we frequently read of "cities with their villages" (e.g., Joshua 15:36). In some cases, as known city is named and is said to have other cities, towns, or villages under its dominion. Thus, we read of "Heshon and all her cities" (Joshua 13:17), "Ekron with her towns and her villages" (Joshua 15:45), "Megiddo and her towns" (Joshua 17:11), and "Ashdod with her towns and her villages" (Joshua 15:47).

Lehi and Nephi seem to have known the designation of Jerusalem as both a city and the land it governed. The phrase *land of Jerusalem* is found in 1 Nephi 3:9-10; 7:2. We read that Lehi dwelt "at Jerusalem in all his days" (1 Nephi 1:4), but he evidently did not live in the city of that name. After coming to Jerusalem, where Laman visited Laban in his house (1 Nephi 3:11, 23), Lehi's sons, thinking to purchase the brass plates from Laban, "went down to the land of [their] inheritance" (1 Nephi 3:22) to gather up their wealth. They then "went up again" to Jerusalem (1 Nephi 3:23) and offered their wealt in exchange for the plates. Laban chased them away and, after a time, they returned to "the walls of Jerusalem" (1 Nephi 4:34), and Nephi "crept into the city and went forth towards the house of Laban" (1 Nephi 4:5). From this, it appears that Lehi dwelt in the "land" of Jerusalem, but not in the city itself, as did Laban.

The use of "land" in Alma 7:10 seems deliberate. In view of the biblical and non-biblical evidence that could be offered than what just has been given, such as keeping with ancient Near Eastern tradition. To the Nephites, whose society revolved around cities controlling larger lands, it would have been perfectly, logical to place Bethlehem in the land of Jerusalem. Bethlehem is only 5 km from Jerusalem, falling within its dominion. Furthermore, after five hundred years, I really doubt that most peoples would know of an insignificant suburb of Jerusalem in Old World geography, being separated from such for half a millennia, instead, only Jerusalem itself, within the frame-work of pre-critical understanding of such (the city and the area surrounding it).

There is no mistake in the text, nor any contradiction between the Bible and the Book of Mormon, only ignorance of facts and eisegesis of the Book of Mormon.

2. The alleged non-existence of "reformed Egyptian."

We would not expect to see caches of "reformed Egyptian" documents, as the term, "reformed Egyptian," according to Moroni in Mormon 9:32-34, was called *by the Nephites* "reformed Egyptian." From the context, it seems to have been a special way of writing important texts, like a priestly script. Notwithstanding, there have been many finds in the Old World that show that ancient Israelites wrote texts using a combined script of north-west Semitic (whether Hebrew or Aramaic) and an modified ("reformed") Egyptian script. For example, a number of north-west semitic texts are included in three Egyptian magical papyri from the 13th c. B.C.E.--the London Magical Papyrus, the Harris Magical Papyrus, and Papyrus Anastasi I. Another Egyptian document, Ostracon 25759, from the early 11th c. B.C.E. also has a Semitic text that reads like Hebrew but it written in Egyptian characters.

Papyrus Amherst 63, a document written in Egyptian demotic and dating to the fourth century B.C.E. was found in an earthen jar in Thebes, Egypt, during the second half of the nineteenth century. Though the script is Egyptian, the underlying language is Aramaic, which is closely related to Hebrew. Among the writings included in the text is a version of Psalms 20:2-6. Here, then, we have a bible passage in the Aramaic translation, written in Egyptian characters.

In 1967, Israeli archaeologists discovered at the ancient site of Arad an ostracon (pottery fragment) from shortly before 600 B.C.E., the time of Lehi. The text on the ostracon is written in a combination script of Egyptian hieratic and Hebrew characters, but can be read entirely as Egyptian. Of the seventeen words in the text, ten can be read entirely as Egyptian and seven in Hebrew. The discovery suggests that when Lehi's son Nephi spoke of writing in a language consisting of "the learning of the Jews and the language of the Egyptians," he may have used such a combination script. Two more examples of combination Egyptian-Hebrew script from the same period were discovered in the northern Sinai peninsula during the late 1970s.

Some critics have claimed that Egyptian and Hebrew are unrelated to one another, though that is false. Egyptian and Hebrew belong to the Afro-Asiatic language family, and many words in Hebrew have Egyptian etymologies, including some names, such as Aaron and there has been a proposed Egyptian etymology for Hebrew *Miriam* (Mary), being *Mer Ammun," "Beloved [of] Amun."

The discoveries listed above are significant, as critics since 1832, with the publication of Delusions by Alexander Campbell, the first anti-Mormon book review of the volume, slated the Book of Mormon for such.

For non-Mormon scholarly journal articles on the above, and related finds, see the following (all in my possession in PDF format):

The Excavations at Kadesh-barnea (1976-78) by Rudolph Cohen. The Biblical Archaeologist, Vol. 44, No. 2, (Spring, 1981), pp. 93-107.

The Seal of Smryw by R. B. Y. Scott. Vetus Testamentum, Vol. 14, Fasc. 1, (Jan., 1964), pp. 108-110.

A Hebrew "Receipt" from Arad by A. F. Rainey. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, No. 202, (Apr., 1971), pp. 23-30

http://www.jstor.org A Paganized Version of Psalm 20:2-6 from the Aramaic Text in Demotic Script by Charles F. Nims and Richard C. Steiner. Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 103, No. 1, Studies in Literature from the Ancient Near East, by Members of the American Oriental Society, Dedicated to Samuel Noah Kramer, (Jan. - Mar., 1983), pp. 261-274.

New Evidence for Hieratic Numerals on Hebrew Weights by Ivan Tracy Kaufman Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, No. 188, (Dec., 1967), pp. 39-41.

Three Hebrew Ostraca from Arad by Yohanan Aharoni. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, No. 197, (Feb., 1970), pp. 16-42

Northwest-Semitic Names in a List of Egyptian Slaves from the Eighteenth Century B. C. by W. F. Albright Source: Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 74, No. 4, (Oct. - Dec., 1954), pp. 222- 233

Kadesh Barnea: Judah's Last Outpost by Carol Meyers Source: The Biblical Archaeologist, Vol. 39, No. 4, (Dec., 1976), pp. 148-151

Toward a Precise Date for the Samaria Ostraca by: Anson F. Rainey Source: Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, No. 272, (Nov., 1988), pp. 69-74

The Use of Hieratic Numerals in Hebrew Ostraca and the Shekel Weights by Yohanan Aharoni. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, No. 184, (Dec., 1966), pp. 13-19

The Samaria Ostraca: An Early Witness to Hebrew Writing by Ivan T. Kaufman. The Biblical Archaeologist, Vol. 45, No. 4, (Autumn, 1982), pp. 229-239

The Aramaic Text in Demotic Script: The Liturgy of a New Year's Festival Imported from Bethel to Syene by Exiles from Rash Author(s): Richard C. Steiner. Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 111, No. 2, (Apr. - Jun., 1991), pp. 362 -363

Northwest Semitic Incantations in an Egyptian Medical Papyrus of the Fourteenth Century B. C. E. by Richard C. Steiner. Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Vol. 51, No. 3, (Jul., 1992), pp. 191-200

3. The section on plagiarism

Firstly, Joseph never claimed to have translated the Book of Mormon "infallibly." While the D&C refers to the translation as "correct," such does not mean "infallible." Indeed, it is *impossible* for an inerrant translation, as linguists and semiologists, such as Umberto Eco (see his Kant and the Platypus: Essays on Language and Cognition) will inform you. Further, Joseph made editions to the Book of Mormon for the 1837 Kirtland and 1840 Nauvoo edition of the Book of Mormon, chowing at the claim he viewed the translation as "infallible." Furthermore, note the Title Page of the Book of Mormon, where errata could be a possibility (cf. 1 Cor 1; 7:6, 12, 40 in the NT for parallels to such).

The work of Jerald and Sandra Tanner, Mormonism: Shadow or Reality? is mentioned. John A. Tvedtnes and Matthew Roper, in their review of the Tanner's claim of plagiarism from the KJV Apocrypha can be found at http://farms.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=8&num=2&id=230

It shows the methodological problems of the Tanners, and how seemingly impressive parallels between the Book of Mormon post-exilic portions of the KJV don't hold water. I would be more than happy to deal with this, and other details in more detail, if you want to. I have read the Tanner's work, MSOR, among other volumes they have published, and found great methodological problems with their approach to just about everything they discuss.

4. Glaring anachronisms:

Four-word parallels prove nothing when claiming (1) textual anachronisms or (2) textual plagiarism. Plagiarism is a technical term, and to show such, one needs a better methodology than showing parallels. There is a term in literary criticism and biblical scholarship for a long list of parallels between texts--Parallelomania. Without a discussion on methodology, showing a four-word parallel between Luke 2:10 and 1 Nephi 13:37, for instance, proves nothing. May I suggest *Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul* by Richard Hays and *A prophet reads Scripture* by Sommer? Such texts explain proper methodologies for examining intertextuality and literary dependence between texts (in the former; the OT and Paul's letters; the latter, Isaiah 40-66 with the rest of the OT).

(A) "The Lamb of God"--I did a BATh thesis on the Gospel of John and the "Lamb of God," so I can comment on this phrase ;-) The phrase, "Lamb of God" pre-dates the Gospel of John, appearing in the pseudepigraphic pre-Christian text, Testament of Joseph in the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs. For instance, in Testament of Joseph 19, the author learned of the coming Lamb of God in a dream who would scatter the twelve tribes of Israel who would be born of a virgin, being titled, the mother of the Lamb, with the Lamb being the Messiah, mirroring the use of such a phrase and its theology in the Book of Mormon, not just the Gospel of John.

For a more thorough discussion, see J.C. O'Neill, "The Lamb of God in the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs," Journal for the Study of the New Testament 2 (1979):2-30, and for a Latter-day Saint treatment, see John W. Welch, "The Lamb of God" in Pre-Christian Texts, in Pressing Forward with the Book of Mormon: The FARMS Updates of the 1990s (ed. John W. Welch and Marvin J. Thorne; Provo, UT.: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1999), 40-42.

(b) 3 Nephi 9:18--

(I) Alpha and Omega--The Book of Mormon purports to be a translation. Therefore, it stands to reason that the language into which it was rendered is not the language, according to its very own claims, it was translated from. "Alpha and Omega" and other words, such as "adieu" that have been picked upon for decades by critics are actually good English words (all three words appear in Webster's 1828 dictionary). Further, we have the (Hebrew) equivalent in places in the OT, such as Isaiah 44:6. "Alpha and Omega" would be a good translation of Hebrew "aleph w tau."

(ii) Greek names in the Book of Mormon--The Tanners in chapter 5 of Mormonism: Shadow or Reality? Point to names such as "Timothy" as anachronisms. Notwithstanding, such only shows how behind on scholarship on the Ancient Near East they are. In his book from 1964, *The Common Background of Greek and Hebrew Civilization*, Cyrus Gordon showed Greek names in northwest-semitic (same language family as Hebrew) onomasticon (list of names), such as the Ugaritic Tablets discovered in Ras Shamra in 1929. These tablets date to 1350-1150 B.C.E., significantly pre-dating the Book of Mormon, which traces its origins to 597 B.C.E. There is no anachronism for Greek names appearing in Book of Mormon onomasticon, contra the RMM piece and other critics.

(c) Isabel and Sam--The name "Jezabel" appears in the Old Testament. It is common for Hebrew "yod" to be transliterated as either "J" (as in Jesaiah) or "I" (as in Isaiah). There is no anachronism. Furthermore, "Sam" is a hypocoristic (i.e., a name without the divine element) form of Hebrew sh3muel, "Samuel," so the charge of anachronism is non sequitur. Is the author of this piece really this behind biblical studies, as well as Book of Mormon scholarship?

5. The origins of Amerindians

The arguments of Southerton and Thomas Murphy (I have read their works on the DNA issue) rests upon these assumptions--

(1) That the Book of Mormon took places all throughout the Americas.

(2) That Lehi et al., were the only ones in the entire American continents when they landed in the sixth century B.C.E.

As I wrote to another critic on the issue of DNA recently--

This argument is based on a number of a priori assumptions that have been passe in LDS circles since the 1950s, and even as early as 1842 from Joseph Smith himself in the early LDS periodical, The Times and Seasons--(1) that the Book of Mormon encompasses north, central, and south America and (2) Lehi et al., were the only ones there on the entire American continent when they arrived in the sixth century BCE. Both are disproven from the text itself. See, for instance, John L. Sorenson, An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City, UT.: Deseret Book and the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1985).

According to LDS scholars, myself included, the Book of Mormon occured in a limited geographical scope in pre-classical Mesoamerica, with Lehi et al., having encountered indigenous natives who they adopted into their groups (the terms Nephite and Lamanite are used all throughout the Book of Mormon, not in a genetic-marker type of sense, but in a generic sense--e.g., Jacob 1).

mtDNA and y-chromosomal DNA only gives a fraction of the picture of a groups' genetic history and geneaology. mtDNA is passed down from mother to children and y-chromosomal DNA is passed down from father to children. After six generations, one person will have 32 male ancestors and 32 female ancestors. Only one of those 32 males is the source of their y-chromosomal DNA and one of the 32 female ancestors the source of their mtDNA, though s/he is equally related to the other sixty-two who are not the source of her mt or y-chromosomal DNA.

There is no reason to believe that Lehi's genes should be easily traced today using genetic studies. Indeed, the Book of Mormon makes it rather clear, from a careful reading of the text itself and not pop-cultural readings from the 19th century, that Lehi's small group entered an already existing population of millions in the American continent, and, as a result, would have lost such DNA markers through inter-marriage.

Notwithstanding, there is DNA evidence conducive to Book of Mormon claims. For instance, the 1-C y-chromosomal haplotype is found among Semitic peoples and Amerindians, and HLA evidence also shows correspondences between Eurasians (including Israelites) and Amerindians.

HLA (human leukocyte antigen) DNA is produced in the lymph nodes of the body, and unlike mtDNA and y-chromosomal DNA, is not passed on only solely through maternal and paternal lineages, thus not obscuring population history as mtDNA and y-chromosomal DNA does. While DNA evidence from HLA studies supports the scholarly view that Amerindians are predominately Asiatic, evidence for non-Asiatic populations, such as Israeli, is also revealed in such studies, giving plausibility to Book of Mormon claims. Non-LDS scholar, James Guthrie, discusses the HLA evidence among Amerindian populations at http://www.neara.org/Guthrie/lymphocyteantigens01.htm

Other evidences from language and material culture could be cited, but the above should add food for thought, and show that critics, such as Thomas Murphy and Simon Southerton, are not being completely honest about the relationship between the Book of Mormon's historicity and DNA evidence of Amerindian origins.

[Me again]

6. Joseph Smith as "Author and Proprietor" of the Book of Mormon

Firstly, a number of critics reject this as a valid argument, admitting that Smith only had those two options to receive copyright of the Book of Mormon. See Fawn Brodie, No Man Knows my History: The Life of Joseph Smith, the Mormon Prophet and Dave Shepherd's essay in the 2002 anthology, The New Mormon Challenge: Responding to the Latest Defences of a Fast-Growing Movement. At the time, Abner Cole, working under the nom de plume of Obadiah Dogberry, was illegally publishing portions of the Book of Mormon, so Joseph was forced to obtain copyright.

That Joseph referred to himself as the translator of the Book of Mormon can be seen even on the introduction page and title page of the Book of Mormon (e.g., pp. iii-iv of the 1830 edition), and in the earliest, pre-1830 revelations, such as the following:

And when thou deliveredst up that which God had given thee sight and power to translate, thou deliveredst up that which was sacred, into the hands of a wicked man, who has set at nought the counsels of God, and has broken the most sacred promises, which were made before God, and has depended upon his own judgement, and boasted in his own wisdom, and this is the reason that thou hast lost thy privileges for a season, for thou hast suffered the counsel of thy director to be trampled upon from the beginning. (1833 A Book of Commandments, ii:5; cf. I:5; IV:2, 10; V:11, etc).

To avoid confusion, Joseph referred to himself as the "translator" for subsequent copyrights for the Book of Mormon (see the Kirtland 1837 Book of Mormon, v, 621) when he could do such.

For more historical considerations, consider the following, based on Miriam A. Smith and John W. Welch, "Joseph Smith: 'author and proprietor,'" in Reexploring the Book of Mormon: a decade of new research, ed. John W. Welch (Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Books and FARMS, 1992), 154-57:

(1) Joseph Smith compiled with the law by the depositing the required information with the district clerk and by publishing the clerk's record on the back of the Title Page of the Book of Mormon. The need for protection was real. Indeed, the book's copyright was soon violated by Abner Cole's Palmyra Reflector, forcing Joseph to return to Palmyra to assert his copyright.

(2) The wording of the statue did not require him to claim to be the author, but simply claim "the *right* wherof..*as* author." Moreover, the statue only allowed two options: the claimant had to identify himself either as "author" or as "proprietor." Since the word "proprietor" referred to those who purchased materials from authors, Joseph Smith could not claim to be a proprietor since he had not purchased the book from anyone else. Thus he had to declare himself as "author" for official purposes. Where he had the choice, he followed the statutory language and called himself *both* "author and proprietor," perhaps because Joseph felt that neither of these legal categories applied squarely to his case, or perhaps to prevent any other person (e.g., printer E.B. Grandin) from claiming an assigned copyrightable interest in it as a proprietor.

(3) Joseph fits comfortably, in any event, within the broad legal meaning of the word *author*. Musical composes, cartographers, etchers, engravers, and designers were all authors within the meaning of that term in this statue. A *translator* also qualified, for copyright purposes, as the author of a book he had translated (e.g., Lesser vs. Sklarz, Federal Case No. 8276a [C.C.S.-N.Y. 1859]) Indeed, other translators called themselves "authors." An 1824 printing of the King James Bible (Huddersfield, England) listed the Reverend B. Boothroyd as "the author."

I could go on discussing other mistakes within the piece, and even building up on the mistakes contain in your piece on the Book of Mormon. Notwithstanding, it is very clear that the author of the piece simply does not have much grasp of (1) the Book of Mormon text itself and (2) is utterly unaware of the scholarship supporting the volume and the evidences for the authenticity and antiquity of the text. If one wishes to actually examine the Book of Mormon's credibility, one has to deal with the other side of the coin. The paper did not deal with issues such as the discoveries of Nahom/NHM and Bountiful in the Arabian Peninsula, work on the onomasticon of the text, non-KJV Hebraisms in the volume such as the "if . . and" conditional clause from the Original and Printer's Manuscritpt and 1830 ed. of the Book of Mormon; Daniel Peterson and Kevin Christensen's work on the pre-exilic theology of the Book of Mormon; the work of John Tvedtnes et al., on the Old World origins of the Book of Mormon or the work of John L. Sorenson et al., on the pre-Classical Mesoamerican setting for the Book of Mormon. I could go on and on.

I suggest pursuing the following texts and Web sites to get some idea of the scholarship on the Book of Mormon:

Books:

Echoes and Evidences of the Book of Mormon (ed. Donald W. Parry, John W. Welch and Daniel C. Peterson; Provo, Utah: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 2002).

Book of Mormon Authorship Revisited: The Evidences for Ancient Origins (ed. Noel B. Reynolds; Provo, Utah: FARMS, 1997).

Terryl Givens, By the Hand of Mormon: The American Scripture that Launched a New World Religion (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002).

John L. Sorenson, An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City: FARMS and Deseret Book, 1985)

Websites:

Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship (PKA "Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies) http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu

Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research (FAIR) www.fairlds.org (main Website) and www.fairmormon.org (FAIR WIKI)

Jeff Lindsay's Web Page offering a summary of some BOM evidences - www.jefflindsay.com/BMEvidences.shtml

Robert Boylan

Note: RMM has not responded to the above refutation of their piece.