Wow. There's a lot that could be said here. In a very straightforward way I could answer just the issues the SAB brings up with this chapter (ignoring the cross references to the Book of Mormon) and call it a day. But of course, I'm not going to do that. This is a very important chapter of the Bible, if for no other reason than it's commonly believed to be so.
Which is definitely one of the issues that needs to be discussed. Some people have suggested that what we commonly call the "Ten Commandments" are not the real Ten Commandments. Well, it depends on what you mean by "real". In one sense, it is true, and important to note that the words "Ten Commandments" don't appear in this chapter of the Bible. You can judge for yourself how vital that is to their understanding, but for myself, I think the vital aspect of this passage isn't about the label one puts on it, but its context. "Ten Commandments" is a phrase that, while the Bible lacks it in this immediate context, still refers to this passage. I'm a firm believer in the concept that usage determines meaning, and when a person says the phrase, 99% of the time, they are referring to Exodus 20, even if they aren't fully familiar with the ins and outs of the content of it. (Check out this post in Steve Wells' blog, which I just discovered the other day. If you're wondering about the claim made in the title of the post, my short answer is that Jesus wasn't attempting to name them all.) Arguing that it is not acceptable to refer to this passage as the "Ten Commandments" is just a non-issue, as far as I'm concerned.
As to the numbering of the commandments, I think that's also a red herring. Although my preferred understanding is essentially in line with the Protestant numbering system (and I'll use it to refer to the individual commandments in the future), I don't think numbers matter so much as understanding them well. Is there one commandment to not covet, or is there two? I don't care; so long as you understand that coveting is considered wrong, you can subdivide it into eight coveting commandments (Don't covet your neighbor's (A) wife, (B) house, (C) land, (D) manservant, (E) maidservant, (F) ox, (G) donkey, (H) various other possessions that are none of the above). There are various commandments and sub-commandments here, and the numbering of them is not important, only the meaning. Jesus of course claimed to have summed up all of God's law in two commandments (Matt. 22:36-40).
Tempting though it may be to just leave the accusations towards the Book of Mormon dangling here (I don't personally believe in the book, nor in the faith built upon it) there is something that I think should be said in the book's defense. Steve Wells' commentary on the Book of Mormon adds two categories that are not found in the Biblical commentary. Those two categories are "Plagiarism" and "Changes in the BOM". I can find no commentary on the nature of these two categories, but as far as I can tell, the former is concerning passages in the Book of Mormon that completely synch up with passages in the Bible, while the latter is passages that have been changed from the original version of the BoM. I'm not sure what to make of the latter category, as some of the changes quoted seem rather minor, but I can see that some are indeed significant. The former category is one I have a big problem with. Sure, as skeptics, we can approach the BoM as nothing but a cheap knock-off off the Bible, and as such, we can point out some striking similarities and call it "plagiarism"; but if the BoM is really in essence written by the same God that wrote the Bible, then can't it be chalked up to similarity in writing style? I've got reasons for doubting the validity of the Book of Mormon, but its similarity to the Bible is not one of them.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
2 comments:
"If the BoM is really in essence written by the same God that wrote the Bible, then can't it be chalked up to similarity in writing style? I've got reasons for doubting the validity of the Book of Mormon, but its similarity to the Bible is not one of them."
So it doesn't seem strange to you that hundreds of verses in the BoM are nearly identical to verses in the King James Version? The BoM was supposedly written between 600 BCE and 400 CE, yet is quotes verbatim from the 1611 KJV? It even includes verses (such as Mark 16:9-20 / Mormon 9:22-24) which are thought to be later scribal additions.
If you were engraving a document on gold plates, would you copy whole chapters (18 or so from Isaiah) into your new book? Seems a bit wasteful (and redundant) to me.
Here is a good summary of problems with the BoM and the KJV.
"So it doesn't seem strange to you that hundreds of verses in the BoM are nearly identical to verses in the King James Version? The BoM was supposedly written between 600 BCE and 400 CE, yet is quotes verbatim from the 1611 KJV?"
If Joseph Smith was most familiar with the KJV, and/or it was the most popular version of the day (which I'm guessing it was), then it makes sense to emulate the style in his "translation", whether genuine or not.
"It even includes verses (such as Mark 16:9-20 / Mormon 9:22-24) which are thought to be later scribal additions."
That certainly seems suspicious in particular, I would have to agree.
"If you were engraving a document on gold plates, would you copy whole chapters (18 or so from Isaiah) into your new book? Seems a bit wasteful (and redundant) to me."
Yeah, it does, but the Bible does have a lot of redundancy already. I once heard someone say (and while I'm not sure it's literally true, the concept holds, I think) that you could give someone a Bible with two or three pages ripped out at random, and they'd still have sufficient information to understand the overall doctrine. A second kidney is redundant, after all, but some people need one.
"Here is a good summary of problems with the BoM and the KJV."
Yeah, some of those are more convincing, that's true. While mere similarity seems to actually make sense in the way I stated above, passages where the KJV has poor translation that's parroted by the BoM tend to weigh against the idea that the BoM's translation was divinely inspired, if not the book itself.
Note that I certainly don't want to give the impression that I'm pro-BoM. All I am saying is that the points brought up specifically in Exodus 20 don't convince me of anything. I'm sure there are better points I will see in the future.
Post a Comment