Sunday, July 04, 2010

The Book of Mormon and the Bible: The Intended Audience

This continues a series looking at a sample question about the Book of Mormon -- the question of whether the text mentions 'coins' and what that means. The focus is generally not so much on the coins, but on the resources for understanding the original text that are available for the Book of Mormon or for the Bible.

We're nearly done; this is the next-to-last entry in this series. Next time I make it a little clearer what was the point of this exercise.


If we were to look at the Bible and try to settle a question about their money at various points in the narrative – whether it was coins or weighted metal or anything else – we would still not have exhausted our options. If you look at the money discussed in the Bible, a drachma or a denarius and so forth – sure, we actually have samples that archaeologists have found. We know exactly what they look like. Dealers in ancient coins even have them for sale. For those whose pockets aren't so deep, the pictures can still be found on the internet. But consider this: the Bible actually has little direct information on the coins. The most detailed passage is probably when Jesus calls attention to the image and inscription of Caesar on some coins used in his day. But he does this to make a point about the coin's relationship to Caesar. For the most part, the coins aren't described; they are simply background to the financial transactions taking place.

Why are the coins in the Bible not described? The Biblical texts do not describe the coins because everybody knew what they were. I wouldn't describe a penny or a quarter to you; you already know what they are. I wouldn't tell you how many pennies in a quarter, or how many quarters to a dollar, because everyone in this culture already knows how many pennies to a quarter and how many quarters to a dollar.

Odd, odd, odd, that the Book of Mormon stops and explains their money system, how many of this goes into one of the next size up, and so forth.
5 Now the reckoning is thus -- a senine of gold, a seon of gold, a shum of gold, and a limnah of gold.
6 A senum of silver, an amnor of silver, an ezrom of silver, and an onti of silver.
7 A senum of silver was equal to a senine of gold, and either for a measure of barley, and also for a measure of every kind of grain.
8 Now the amount of a seon of gold was twice the value of a senine.
9 And a shum of gold was twice the value of a seon.
10 And a limnah of gold was the value of them all.
11 And an amnor of silver was as great as two senums.
12 And an ezrom of silver was as great as four senums.
13 And an onti was as great as them all.
14 Now this is the value of the lesser numbers of their reckoning --
15 A shiblon is half of a senum; therefore, a shiblon for half a measure of barley.
16 And a shiblum is a half of a shiblon.
17 And a leah is the half of a shiblum.
18 Now this is their number, according to their reckoning.
19 Now an antion of gold is equal to three shiblons.
(Book of Mormon, Alma 11:9-19)

It's tempting to get drawn into the details, but it's difficult to know where to start.
  • The money-unit suffixes contain a bizarre mix of endings. Some are Latin-looking suffixes (-um) and Greek-looking suffixes (-on) that, theoretically, shouldn't even be there in a book of supposedly Hebrew-ish origins. The few plurals are formed English-style on top of the Greek-looking or Latin-looking roots (-ons, -ums). There is no sign of any Hebrew-looking plurals (-ot, -im). It makes the observer wish even more keenly for a look at the supposed original language; it would be fascinating. The skeptic could easily imagine Joseph Smith's amateurish hand at work.
  • If it was just by weight, would there be a point to the table of how many silver this amounted to how many silver of the next unit, or how many gold of one unit equaled how many gold of the next unit? If it's twice as heavy it's worth twice as much, right? So the fact that there is an explanation suggests actual coins rather than weights.
  • Speaking of weights -- if it were by actual weights, you'd expect to see the measures re-used somewhere. We use ounces to weigh both gold and silver. If some of the units were weights, why would they have different units for gold and silver? Different values for gold and silver, sure. Different basic units of weight for gold and silver -- why in the world?

If our focus were coins or money, this would be a problem for the Book of Mormon's credibility, since several different lines of argument from the text converge on the units being actual coins rather than weights, and the ancient New World had no coins as best we can tell. (That's without the linguistic points of interest in the coin names, which pose an entirely different problem for the Book of Mormon's credibility.)

But our focus is on the bigger picture than the question of the money used. So let's step back a little and look at the context.

Some Bibles have little tables explaining ancient coin systems – but they are not part of the text; they do not have a chapter and verse. Those tables of the coin systems have been added as study aids because modern readers of our time and culture do not know the ancient coin systems. The original texts don't contain an explanation because everyone who shared that culture already knew their own coin system.

Why did the Book of Mormon stop and explain the money system in the middle of its narrative? What was its audience? The only book I can recall – aside from the Book of Mormon – that stops to explain the coin system in the middle of the narrative is the Harry Potter books explaining the knuts and sickles and galleons.
"The gold ones are Galleons," he [Hagrid] explained. "Seventeen silver Sickles to a Galleon and twenty-nine Knuts to a Sickle, it's easy enough." (Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, from their visit to Diagon Alley.)
The book stopped to explain the coin system precisely because the readers would not know what they were; in other words, precisely because they were made-up and imaginary coins that nobody in the real world had ever used. So why did the original authors of the Book of Mormon, a supposedly ancient text about a supposedly real culture, stop to describe the monetary system in the middle of the narrative?

I suppose someone could say the original Book of Mormon in the original language didn't contain that – that Joseph Smith added it to be helpful to modern readers. There would be no way anyone could prove that claim wrong, given that there are no manuscripts in the original languages. Then again, there would be no way the claimant could prove himself right, either.



Next time: the conclusion and the point of this exercise.

12 comments:

Jeff Roberts said...

"The book stopped to explain the coin system precisely because the readers would not know what they were; in other words.."

Misinformation!! The book of Mormon did nothing. A writer of either historical or religious context wrote this. It may or may not have been for some future audience. The book like the bible is a compilation of many writers, written for a multitude of purposes. We can only subjectively speculate as to Gods purposes. Like the Bible, the Book of Mormon had to be translated into ideas, concepts and materials understood in Joseph Smiths day.

Weekend Fisher said...

Let me ask you, Jeff: Why do you say that's misinformation to say the book explained the coin system because the readers wouldn't know what they were? Especially when you turn around and say "It may or may not have been for some future audience" -- doesn't that mean that you know the readers didn't know what they were?

Though you bring up comparison with the Bible. Bear in mind that the authors of the Bible didn't have to explain the coin system -- even given the future audience -- because they were talking about real coins, and everybody of that day knew what they were, and students of history can easily find out what they were. Check out an ancient coin dealer sometime; you can buy copies of many of the coins discussed in the Bible.

The Bible was translated into ideas from real languages that we can re-translate as needed; we know what was in the original because we still have copies.

What do you think was in the original Book of Mormon?

Take care & God bless
Anne / WF

Jeff Roberts said...

"Jeff: Why do you say that's misinformation to say the book explained the coin system because the readers wouldn't know what they were"....

Your arguement is pretty weak. The Bible like the Book of Mormon is full of historical data that simply expresses the culture, the times. The Bible like the Book of Mormon didn't have an editor to delete or modify information to make it user friendly for us in our time. Much is left for our speculation and interpretation. Given the multitude of Christian Churches is evidence of the diversity of interpretation. Each time the Bible was translated from one language into another truth can be lost even though translated by holy men who meant well. Nonetheless human bias is a powerful factor. The multitude of different Bibles is evidence. We have become far removed from the orginal church established by our brother Jesus. We believe that the original church has been restored to the earth in our day by our Savior and by the very Apostles that established it originally. Argue we can endlessly do. It comes down to faith and the confirmation of the spirit..... It is a wonder and puzzling to me why someone like you would put forth precious time and energy condemning a church and a wonderful belief system that uplifts millions and bring them to the very Christ that you yourself worship. Its mindless to me when there is so much more to be done in serving our fellow men. There is already too much hate, too much misery, too much greed, too much lonliness and too much hunger for you and I not to be touching the lives of others. Therein our purposes are the same. To lift others and to point them to a Christian purposeful life.

Martin LaBar said...

I agree. This coin explanation is odd, for sure.

There are a number of coins mentioned in the Bible, and few, if any explanations of how they relate to each other.

Weekend Fisher said...

Hi Jeff

I'm thinking you may not have read the posts leading up to this one; understandable enough, but I had already given the background and answered some of your questions about why I bother writing this.

Look, if I remember right about Mormons, you believe in the Bible insofar as it's correctly translated from the original languages, right?

Just help me remember if I've got that much right; it'll help me decide how to explain myself better.

Take care & God bless
Anne / WF

Weekend Fisher said...

Hi Martin

There are so many places in the Book of Mormon that strike me like that to some degree. But that one passage ... as I say, it's easy for the skeptic to imagine an amateurish inventor rather than an inspired text.

The "coin" passage reminds me of when Christopher Paolini tried to make up languages for his Eragon books; he really should have left it to professional philologists like Tolkien.

Take care & God bless
Anne / WF

Weekend Fisher said...

Hi Jeff

It looks like you haven't read the earlier posts where I answer many of the questions you raised. Understandable, but I did consider those. You're welcome to check those out if you're interested.

The Mormons are very good at putting their morality into practice (kind of like Muslims in that respect). Morality has intrinsic value, and you'll find the benefits of morality wherever it is practiced. That doesn't by itself make the Mormon faith (or Islam) true.

When you say that the Mormons have a "wonderful belief system" I wonder if there are any benefits besides community and morality -- which have value in themselves, regardless of whether they are based on Mormonism, Islam, Judaism, Christianity, etc., but are no unique recommendation for their faith in particular.

It's not enough to have "faith and the confirmation of the spirit" -- they're both too easy to imagine. Thinking you have "the confirmation of the spirit" is not a strong reason to believe that God's spirit is involved. See the abuses in the Pentecostal church and you'll know what I mean: self-delusion is rampant and, in some cases, encouraged by the leadership as a sign of true faith.

What God has given us in Jesus is a dose of reality: a real historical person as a touchstone for our faith, as a grounding to make sure that what we know is real.

It's like Paul said: I don't care if you think an angel of God told you differently than what the apostles have said about Jesus; stick with Jesus as proclaimed by those who knew him.

Take care & God bless
Anne / WF

Weekend Fisher said...

Hi Martin

I know; many of the passages of the Book of Mormon kind of ... lack verisimilitude. But this one ... it really leaves you scratching your head. It reminds me of Christopher Paolini trying to make up languages for the Eragon series; he really should have left it to professional philologists like Tolkien.

Take care & God bless
Anne / WF

Weekend Fisher said...

Wow, blogger is eating my comments; though after the first time I did save off to a separate file. Let's try this again.

Hi Jeff

It looks like you haven't read the earlier posts where I answer many of the questions you raised. Understandable, but I did consider those. You're welcome to check those out if you're interested.

The Mormons are very good at putting their morality into practice (kind of like Muslims in that respect). Morality has intrinsic value, and you'll find the benefits of morality wherever it is practiced. That doesn't by itself make the Mormon faith (or Islam) true.

When you say that the Mormons have a "wonderful belief system" I wonder if there are any benefits besides community and morality -- which have value in themselves, regardless of whether they are based on Mormonism, Islam, Judaism, Christianity, etc., but are no unique recommendation for their faith in particular.

It's not enough to have "faith and the confirmation of the spirit" -- they're both too easy to imagine. Thinking you have "the confirmation of the spirit" is not a strong reason to believe that God's spirit is involved. See the abuses in the Pentecostal church and you'll know what I mean: self-delusion is rampant and, in some cases, encouraged by the leadership as a sign of true faith.

What God has given us in Jesus is a dose of reality: a real historical person as a touchstone for our faith, as a grounding to make sure that what we know is real.

It's like Paul said: I don't care if you think an angel of God told you differently than what the apostles have said about Jesus; stick with Jesus as proclaimed by those who knew him.

Take care & God bless
Anne / WF

Jeff Roberts said...

Well said,

"What God has given us in Jesus is a dose of reality: a real historical person as a touchstone for our faith, as a grounding to make sure that what we know is real."

We are called the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Why? He appeared to Joseph to begin the restoration of his Church. Paul talks about authority. Likewise those who last held the Priesthood powers also appeared and restored those various keys to the Kingdom (Peter, James, John, Elias, Elijah, John the Baptist...to mention a few. The savior you may have read made his appearance likewise in the New World as recorded in the Book of Mormon. So we believe Jesus to be the center of Mormonism. We believe that he continues to speak to man through his chosen prophets today. By their fruits ye shall know them. I very much believe God speaks to each of us through the Holy Ghost. You say this is not so. That God does not speak to man with assurity. That I find sad that each cannot know for ourselves the truth of a matter. By their fruits ye shall know them...the key words "Ye shall know.." Not speculate, not imagine, but shall KNOW!! The Bible is the lasting record of the Savior but it is not the Church of Christ. The Kingdom of God is so much more than an ancient record. Well like I said before....We can argue our various points but what we should both do is look at that which we have in common. Bringing mankind to a knowledge of Christ. That essential truth we share. With basic love, care and faith so much in need in our day, to this end we should march together. To bring mankind to the peace that the atonement offers. To this end our purposes unite.

Weekend Fisher said...

Hi Jeff

Let me be more plain: The Spirit does work with anyone who hears the message of Christ, as he said, "The words I speak to you are spirit and they are life." But many who believe they hear the Spirit are deceived. "Test the spirits," we are told. So let's test some spirits here.

The sweet Mormon "elders" (teenagers; good kids) who came by my place told me to read a portion of the Sermon on the Mount (as found in the Book of Matthew and partially in the the Book of Mormon) and see if there was a "burning in my bosom." Of course there was; it was the true words of Jesus. But isn't it interesting that these "elders" (bless their dedication) chose -- were probably instructed to choose -- one of the passages that a skeptic could easily imagine was copied from the Bible into the Book of Mormon? I wonder very much whether you could get the same results with any of the material in the Book of Mormon that is *not* basically identical to what's already in the Bible.

So here's a test of spirits for you: can you find any passage in the Book of Mormon that is NOT basically identical to something found in the Bible, that creates that "burning in the bosom" sensation? If so, are you / your friends using that when you tell people to check for the burning sensation? If not, why not?

I'll be glad to take the test with you. Find me a passage in the Book of Mormon that you think is 1) Spirit-laden so that you get that "burning in the bosom" sensation if you have any sensitivity to the Spirit at all, and 2) *not* found basically word-for-word in the KJV, of which Joseph Smith surely had access to a copy.

Test the spirits, man. I don't think the Jesus you preach is the Jesus the apostles preached (excepting the parts that look very much like they were copied verbatim from the KJV Bible). That's even without going into the historical background / historical reality bit that you seem to avoid as irrelevant.

Take care & God bless
Anne / WF

Jeff Roberts said...

We can do this!!