Tweet
BUT WHERE ARE THE GOLDEN PLATES?
Deseret Morning News (Salt Lake City)
February 12, 2015 Thursday
Daniel Peterson For the Deseret News
Editor's note: Portions of this column were previously published at
maxwell institute.byu.edu.
Some argue that since we lack the original plates from which the
Book of Mormon was translated, it should be read as a 19th-century
English-language text rather than as an ancient one.
But scholars routinely test the claims to historicity of translated
documents for which no early original-language manuscripts exist
and then, if satisfied of their authenticity, regularly use them as
valuable scholarly resources for understanding the ancient world. I
offer a few illustrations:
"Slavonic Enoch" (2 Enoch) is probably the classic example. Coptic
fragments of this work, commonly dated to the first century, have
been found only recently. Although generally regarded as having been
written in Greek, or perhaps even originally in Hebrew or Aramaic,
the entire book survives only in Old Church Slavonic, in manuscripts
dating from the 14th to 18th centuries.
Similarly, 1 Enoch - "Ethiopic Enoch" or simply "the Book of Enoch" -
was probably written somewhere between 300 B.C. and the time of Jesus
Christ, in Aramaic or Hebrew or some combination of the two. Fragments
survive in Aramaic, Greek and Latin, but the entire text is preserved
today only in the Ge'ez language of Ethiopia, via manuscripts from
the 15th to 18th centuries.
The pseudepigraphic "Apocalypse of Abraham" was likely composed in
Hebrew, in roughly A.D. 70-150. It exists today, however, only in
medieval Slavonic - perhaps translated directly from the original or,
alternatively, from a Greek translation of the Hebrew. Some suggest
that the Book of Mormon, Book of Abraham and Book of Moses cannot
legitimately be read as ancient documents because we have them only
in purported 19th-century translations. But the Apocalypse of Abraham
is crucial to understanding the earliest roots of Jewish mysticism;
nobody argues that it's only valid evidence for the Slavic Middle Ages.
The Gospel of Thomas exists in a corrupt fourth-century Coptic
manuscript. Only a tiny fragment of it survives in its (likely)
original Greek. Scholars debate whether it's a first- or second-century
text, but nobody claims that it illuminates only fourth-century
Coptic Christianity.
The "Discourse of the Abbaton" exists solely in Coptic. While it
claims to be a translation of an original kept in Jerusalem, nobody
knows whether that's true.
The kabbalistic "Book of Secrets" was found in Cairo but was pieced
together and recognized at Oxford University in the mid-20th century.
It exists in Hebrew and Judaeo-Arabic fragments, as well as a
13th-century Latin translation. The original text almost certainly
dates to the late third or early fourth century.
Mesopotamia's Gilgamesh and Atrahasis epics are known from Akkadian
versions, but they derive from earlier lost Sumerian originals.
The biblical book of Daniel contains large portions in Aramaic that
were probably composed in Hebrew.
The (still unpublished) "Book of the Temple" was first discovered
in a Greek manuscript, but now there are copies in Demotic, hieratic
and hieroglyphs, and it's known to be genuinely Egyptian.
Several of the apocrypha (such as Ben Sirach) were once known only
from the Greek Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Bible. Still,
even before Hebrew manuscripts of them had been found, scholars argued
that they were originally composed in Hebrew.
Origen's "On First Principles" is known essentially only from the
Latin translation of Rufinus, done roughly 150 years later.
Only one of Irenaeus' works ("Against the Heresies") survives in his
original Latin.
Several works of the important early Greek-speaking Christian historian
Eusebius are known only through Armenian translations.
Likewise, approximately a quarter of the writings from the prolific
Greek-speaking Jewish thinker Philo of Alexandria come to us only
through Armenian versions from the late sixth century. Nobody imagines
that they have nothing to tell us about Philo (d. A.D. 50).
The third-century-B.C. Egyptian historian Manetho is known only from
later quotations, some in Armenian and Latin and only a few in his
original Greek.
Many scholars believe that the gospel of Matthew was originally
written not in the Greek form that we have today, but in either Hebrew
or Aramaic. Statements to this effect go back as early as the second
century. Yet nobody has seen the Semitic original, if it ever existed,
for many centuries.
The position that the Book of Mormon, the Book of Moses and the
Book of Abraham can legitimately be studied only in the context
of 19th-century America because they claim to be translations of
unavailable ancient texts is unreasonable. If a similar principle
were applied to Egyptian, Mesopotamian, Jewish and Christian history,
scholarship in those fields would be crippled.
Daniel Peterson teaches Arabic studies, founded BYU's Middle
Eastern Texts Initiative, directs MormonScholarsTestify .org, chairs
mormoninterpreter.com, blogs daily at patheos.com/blogs/dan peterson,
and speaks only for himself.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
Deseret Morning News (Salt Lake City)
February 12, 2015 Thursday
Daniel Peterson For the Deseret News
Editor's note: Portions of this column were previously published at
maxwell institute.byu.edu.
Some argue that since we lack the original plates from which the
Book of Mormon was translated, it should be read as a 19th-century
English-language text rather than as an ancient one.
But scholars routinely test the claims to historicity of translated
documents for which no early original-language manuscripts exist
and then, if satisfied of their authenticity, regularly use them as
valuable scholarly resources for understanding the ancient world. I
offer a few illustrations:
"Slavonic Enoch" (2 Enoch) is probably the classic example. Coptic
fragments of this work, commonly dated to the first century, have
been found only recently. Although generally regarded as having been
written in Greek, or perhaps even originally in Hebrew or Aramaic,
the entire book survives only in Old Church Slavonic, in manuscripts
dating from the 14th to 18th centuries.
Similarly, 1 Enoch - "Ethiopic Enoch" or simply "the Book of Enoch" -
was probably written somewhere between 300 B.C. and the time of Jesus
Christ, in Aramaic or Hebrew or some combination of the two. Fragments
survive in Aramaic, Greek and Latin, but the entire text is preserved
today only in the Ge'ez language of Ethiopia, via manuscripts from
the 15th to 18th centuries.
The pseudepigraphic "Apocalypse of Abraham" was likely composed in
Hebrew, in roughly A.D. 70-150. It exists today, however, only in
medieval Slavonic - perhaps translated directly from the original or,
alternatively, from a Greek translation of the Hebrew. Some suggest
that the Book of Mormon, Book of Abraham and Book of Moses cannot
legitimately be read as ancient documents because we have them only
in purported 19th-century translations. But the Apocalypse of Abraham
is crucial to understanding the earliest roots of Jewish mysticism;
nobody argues that it's only valid evidence for the Slavic Middle Ages.
The Gospel of Thomas exists in a corrupt fourth-century Coptic
manuscript. Only a tiny fragment of it survives in its (likely)
original Greek. Scholars debate whether it's a first- or second-century
text, but nobody claims that it illuminates only fourth-century
Coptic Christianity.
The "Discourse of the Abbaton" exists solely in Coptic. While it
claims to be a translation of an original kept in Jerusalem, nobody
knows whether that's true.
The kabbalistic "Book of Secrets" was found in Cairo but was pieced
together and recognized at Oxford University in the mid-20th century.
It exists in Hebrew and Judaeo-Arabic fragments, as well as a
13th-century Latin translation. The original text almost certainly
dates to the late third or early fourth century.
Mesopotamia's Gilgamesh and Atrahasis epics are known from Akkadian
versions, but they derive from earlier lost Sumerian originals.
The biblical book of Daniel contains large portions in Aramaic that
were probably composed in Hebrew.
The (still unpublished) "Book of the Temple" was first discovered
in a Greek manuscript, but now there are copies in Demotic, hieratic
and hieroglyphs, and it's known to be genuinely Egyptian.
Several of the apocrypha (such as Ben Sirach) were once known only
from the Greek Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Bible. Still,
even before Hebrew manuscripts of them had been found, scholars argued
that they were originally composed in Hebrew.
Origen's "On First Principles" is known essentially only from the
Latin translation of Rufinus, done roughly 150 years later.
Only one of Irenaeus' works ("Against the Heresies") survives in his
original Latin.
Several works of the important early Greek-speaking Christian historian
Eusebius are known only through Armenian translations.
Likewise, approximately a quarter of the writings from the prolific
Greek-speaking Jewish thinker Philo of Alexandria come to us only
through Armenian versions from the late sixth century. Nobody imagines
that they have nothing to tell us about Philo (d. A.D. 50).
The third-century-B.C. Egyptian historian Manetho is known only from
later quotations, some in Armenian and Latin and only a few in his
original Greek.
Many scholars believe that the gospel of Matthew was originally
written not in the Greek form that we have today, but in either Hebrew
or Aramaic. Statements to this effect go back as early as the second
century. Yet nobody has seen the Semitic original, if it ever existed,
for many centuries.
The position that the Book of Mormon, the Book of Moses and the
Book of Abraham can legitimately be studied only in the context
of 19th-century America because they claim to be translations of
unavailable ancient texts is unreasonable. If a similar principle
were applied to Egyptian, Mesopotamian, Jewish and Christian history,
scholarship in those fields would be crippled.
Daniel Peterson teaches Arabic studies, founded BYU's Middle
Eastern Texts Initiative, directs MormonScholarsTestify .org, chairs
mormoninterpreter.com, blogs daily at patheos.com/blogs/dan peterson,
and speaks only for himself.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress