Behold Other Scriptures I Would That Ye

8/17/2019 Behold Other Scriptures I Would That Ye

1/20

1

“Behold, Other Scriptures I Would that Ye ShouldWrite”:

Malachi in the Book of Mormon

By ol!y "o#nsend

"he years follo#in$ the return of the %e#ish capti&es from Ba!ylon #ere'lled #ith tension( While literal #alls #ere !ein$ !uilt around %erusalem tokeep the city safe, pious %e#ish leaders #ere constructin$ reli$ious #allsaround the %e#ish faith to ensure that Yah#eh #ould ne&er a$ain !ecomean$ry enou$h to allo# his holy city to !e destroyed( It #as durin$ this timeperiod that an unkno#n author kno#n later as “Malachi” produced the 'nal!ook of the )e&i*im or “+rophets(” Written to correct #hat the author

&ie#ed as improper reli$ious and social !eha&ior, Malachi Mal(- calls forthe post.e/ilic %e#ish community0particularly the priests0to see the e/ileas a di&ine punishment for failin$ to honor their sacred co&enant #ith Yah#eh and to correct their #ays(

espite its si$ni'cance as the 'nal !ook of the 2e!re# Bi!le, neither the)e# "estament nor the Book of Mormon BM-1 sho# e/plicit kno#led$e of the !ook of Mal( In the case of the BM this chan$es in 3 )e( 45 #ith theformal citation of Mal( !y %esus #hen he &isits the )ephites at the temple inBountiful( "he fact that the BM sho#s no direct kno#led$e of the te/t of Mal( is intri$uin$ !ecause there are many 6uotations, allusions, and echoes4

throu$hout the te/t prior to 3 )e( 45(3 "his is interestin$ in many #ays(

7irst, #ith this kno#led$e #e can study the places in the BM #here Mal( isused and analy8e the te/t throu$h source critical means to ans#er thefollo#in$ 6uestions: 1- 2o# does the te/t of the BM utili8e the te/t of Mal(94- 2o# is the te/t similar and ho# is it dierent9 3- ;re there anysi$ni'cant dierences in theolo$y or #orld&ie#9 Second, the use of Malachiin the BM is dependent solely on the


2/20

4

a “ti$ht control” translation theory,5 #hich has !een oered !y a num!er of scholars on the translation process of the BM(

"raditionally Malachi #as the last prophet to #rite in the Bi!lical canon,C

and the te/t and ministry of the prophet are $enerally dated to the 'rst half of the 'fth century BE, any#here from >> to 5> BE(A Scholars are in

a$reement that it is composed of si/ oracles, and that the structure of eachoracle is, as ;ndre# 2ill put it, “a prophetic declaration follo#ed !y thehypothetical audience re!uttal and concludin$ #ith the prophet*srefutation(” 2ill ends in commentin$ on the scholarly consensus of the si/oracles that “the same cannot !e said for the structure of the entire !ook

5 "he leadin$ proponent of this theory is Goyal Skousen, the leadin$ te/tual critic of theBM( See his “2o# %oseph Smith "ranslated the Book of Mormon: E&idence from theOri$inal Manuscript,” in Journal of Book of Mormon Studies AH1 1DD=-, 44.31@ and hisessay, of #hich the former is an updated, shorter &ersion, “"ranslatin$ the Book ofMormon: E&idence from the Ori$inal Manuscript,” in Book of Mormon Authorship

Reisited: The !idence for Ancient "ri#ins, ed( )oel B( Geynolds +ro&o: 7;GMS, 1DDA-,C1.D3(

It is the opinion of this author that #e can discuss the datin$ of the te/t of the BMthrou$h historical critical means independent of our theolo$ical assumptions( "he Book ofMormon can !e read like any other !ook of scripture in the S, hristian, and %e#ishcanons, or any other canon of literature for that matter( "his is important !ecause Malachihas in?uenced at least forty &erses in the BM directly, some more su!stantially than others(Once a $roup has an understandin$ of the !ack$round and $eneral history and in?uenceson a $i&en te/t, then they can mo&e for#ard and make theolo$ical interpretations in the#ay that they and their faith.!ased community choose( "he !ook of Malachi comes from amuch later time than #hen ehi, aman, and )ephi #ere still in %erusalem, "he te/t,therefore, #ould not ha&e !een on the !rass plates( Brant Jardner makes a similar

statement #hen he says, “Malachi #as a later prophet #ho ?ourished a!out 5> B((2ence, his prophecies did not appear on the !rass plates,” in Second $itness: Analyticaland Conte%tual Commentary on the Book of Mormon Salt ake ity: Jre$ >A-, 1:514(

C aniel #as the last #ritten historically, around the 1C>s BE( See %ohn %( ollins, &aniel: A Commentary Minneapolis: 7ortress +ress, 1DD3-, 3=@ and )orman W( +orteous, &aniel: A Commentary "he Old "estament i!rary@ Jottin$en: SM +ress, 1DC-, 13@ andaniel ( Smith.hristopher, “"he Book of aniel,” in eander E( .5> BE@ and armody, armody, and ohn, !%plorin# the *e(rew

Bi(le )e# %ersey: +rentice 2all, 1D==-, 4A, #ho assi$n >>.5> BE@ and a&id )oel7reedman, et al, !erdmans &ictionary of the Bi(le Michi$an: Wm( B( Eerdmans +u!lishin$o(, 4>>>-, =5=, #ho oer dierent dates ran$in$ from ca( C>.> BE, 1.5C BE, orinto the late +ersian period, !ut these earlier dates are hi$hly unlikely !ecause of Malachi*sainities #ith other post.e/ilic te/ts@ and Michael ( oo$an, The "ld Testament: A

*istorical and +iterary Introduction to the *e(rew Scriptures )e# York: O/ford Kni&ersity+ress, 4>11-, 53C, #ho says “a date in the 'fth century BE is likely(”


3/20

3

itself(”= ;lthou$h almost all scholars a$ree that there are si/ oracles or unitsin the te/t,D they do not a$ree on #hether or not one can assi$n 'rmstructures to each of these units(1>

Mal( has suered little from additions or alterations to the te/t, as far ashistorical.critical methods can discern( "here ha&e !een &oices #ho ha&e

called for dou!ts concernin$ the authenticity of some of the dierentsections of the !ook of Malachi, !ut the $eneral consensus is that only Mal(4:11.14 and 5:5.C are thou$ht to !e non.$enuine(11 "here ha&e !eendissentin$ &oices o&er #hether or not the superscription at 1:1, the“uni&ersalist” intrusion at 1:11.15, the shift to third person narrati&e at 3:1.5, or the smoothin$ o&er of 4:1.1C are at all ori$inal to the te/t( 14 It is 6uitepossi!le that any or all of these are correct( It appears that at least ten of the forty &erses in the BM are in?uenced !y t#o of those places in Mal( thatmay or may not !e ori$inal to the !ook( "hese sections support my thesis!ut ultimately they are not technically necessary to consider for the presentin&esti$ation since the entire !ook of Mal( post.dates ehi and )ephi in

%erusalem(

Interte%tuality and Te%tual &ependence

In order to fully descri!e the relationship !et#een the te/t of the BM andMal( I #ill !rie?y descri!e current methods in !i!lical criticism inesta!lishin$ dependence and la!elin$ the intersection of t#o te/ts( "hereha&e !een numerous studies o&er the last three decades that ha&e re&ie#edho# 1- the !ooks in the Old "estament in?uenced one another, 4- the!ooks in the Old "estament in?uenced later %e#ish apocryphal andpseudepi$raphic te/ts, 3- the Old "estament in?uenced the )e#

"estament, 5- the !ooks of the )e# "estament in?uenced on another, and- ho# the )e# "estament in?uenced the 'rst fe# centuries of hristianthou$ht and !eyond( "hese studies ha&e created a storehouse of information on ho# to correctly approach the 6uestions of a&aila!ility andin?uence of one author on another(

"here are t#o classic te/ts on interte/tuality and #hat has !een termed“inner.!i!lical e/e$esis(” Michael 7ish!ane*s study, Bi(lical Interpretationin Ancient Israel,13 e/hausti&ely in&esti$ated ho# the te/ts of the 2e!re#Bi!le interpreted and e/panded on one another( 2e found e&idence of e/e$esis similar to the later de&elopment of e/e$esis in the Ga!!inic andearly hristian periods( ;lthou$h his study #as e/hausti&e and has mo&ed

= 2ill, Malachi, 4C(D See armody, et al, !%plorin# the *e(rew Bi(le, 4A( "hey state that the “traditional

di&ision of the !rief te/t is into ei$ht sections,” citin$ Eric M( Meyers, “Malachai, the Bookof,” *arper's Bi(le &ictionary , D=(

1> See 2ill*s discussion of the dierin$ &ie#s in 2ill, Malachi, 4C(11 See 2ill, Malachi, 1D(14 2ill, Malachi, 1D.4>(13 Bi(lical Interpretation in Ancient Israel O/ford: larendon +ress, 1D=-(


4/20

5

for#ard the 'eld of inner.!i!lical e/e$esis, the terms that he chose arecum!ersome( I #ill therefore rely more on Gichard 2ays* #ork on theletters of +aul15 and a more recent study !y hristopher Beetham1 fordescri!in$ the relationships that #e #ill 'nd !et#een the BM and the >=-(

1C 2ays, !choes of Scripture,

1A Beetham, !choes of Scripture, 1A(1= Beetham, !choes of Scripture, 4>(1D Beetham, !choes of Scripture, 45(4> )icholas 7rederick, “ine Within ine: ;n Interte/tual ;nalysis of Mormon

Scripture and the +rolo$ue of the Jospel of %ohn,” Knpu!lished +h dissertation,laremont Jraduate Kni&ersity, 4>13-, 14.13(

41 Many of the studies since 7ish!ane and 2ays ha&e !een dependent on either ofthese t#o scholars, !ut more ha&e follo#ed 2ays* terms than 7ish!anes( "here ha&e !een anum!er of studies that ha&e challen$ed 2ays* terminolo$y and criteria, !ut e&en those


5/20

The -resence of Malachi in the Book of Mormon

I #ill !e$in !y e/aminin$ the claim that the BM is dependent on the >-, 1=.3C@ and Shiu.un Shum, -aul's 1se of

Isaiah in Romans Wisseschaftliche Kntersuchun$en 8um )euen "estmament 4(Geihe, 1C@"u!in$en: Mohr Sie!eck, 4>>4-, .11@ and +atricia "ull Willey, Remem(er the .ormerThin#s: The Recollection of -reious Te%ts in Second Isaiah SB issertation Series,)um!er 1C1@ ;tlanta: Scholars +ress, 1DDA-, =1.=5(

44 7rederick, “ine Within ine,” 3>(43 Jardner does note the similarity here, !ut ar$ues that 1 )e( 44:1 is dependent on

Isa( 5A:15 instead( Jardner*s assessment is also pro!lematic as Isa( 5A:15 #ould fall intothose chapters rou$hly 5>.CC- that are la!eled post.e/ilic !y modern scholarship andassi$ned to eutero.Isaiah( We #ill discuss Jardner*s ar$uments more !elo#( See Jardner,Second $itness, 1:511:514(


6/20

C

which do wickedly2 shall (e as stu((le3 and the day cometh thatthey must (e (urned(”

Mal( 5:1 “ .or2 (ehold, the day cometh, that shall !urn as an o&en@ andall the proud2 yea2 and all that do wickedly2 shall (e as stu((le:and the day that cometh shall (urn them upP”

"he entire &erse of 1 )e( 44:1 is dependent on Mal( 5:1( ;lthou$h notnamed, the prophet, Malachi, is formally 6uoted #ith the use of the citationformula, “7or !ehold, saith the prophetP” 1 )e( 44:1 is dependent on the


7/20

A

cal&es of the stall(” "hese four connections, alon$ #ith the uni6ue &er!ia$eand conte/t that is only found in Malachi, make it certain that the 1 )e(44:43.45 formally 6uotes Mal( 5:1a, 4(

4 )e( 4C:5 N Mal( 5:1!4C

4 )e( 4C:5 “Wherefore, all those who are proud, and that do wickedly ,the day that cometh shall (urn them up2 saith the +ord of *osts2 for they shall (e as stu((le(”

Mal( 5:1 “Pand all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly2 shall (estu((le: and the day that cometh shall (urn them up2 saith the +ord of *ostsP”

"his is &ery similar to other passa$es I ha&e e/amined( "he dependencehere is so stron$ it #ould !e hard to deny that 4 )e( 4C:5 is not dependenton Mal( 5:1, especially due to the fact that 4 )e( 4C:5 uses 4= #ords from

the ,” in “Ge&ie# ofWalters,” 443(

3> "&edtnes, “Ge&ie# of Walters,” 443(31 Jardner notes that this may !e a reference to Mal( 5:1( "he inconsistent

ar$umentation of dependence on Isa( 5A:15 and Mal( 5:1 in the BM !y Jardner is


8/20

=

4 )e( 4C:C! “Pand they shall (e as stu((le, and the day that comethshall consume them2 saith the +ord of *osts(”

Mal( 5:1 “Pand all the proud2 yea2 and all that do wickedly , shall (estu((le: and the day that cometh shall (urn them up2 saith the

+ord of *ostsP”

"his &erse is a continuation of 4 )e( 4C:5, and is further e&idence thatthis section of the BM, the !e$innin$ of 4 )e( 4C, is dependent on Malachi5( "he similarities are the same in this &erse in re$ards to &erse 5 a!o&e,and the pronoun “they” is referrin$ !ack to “they that are proud, and thatdo #ickedly” in &erse 5, and therefore “they” is the e6ui&alent of that partof Mal( 5:1( "his entire section of the &erse is dependent on Mal( 5:1 for it*sphraseolo$y and conte/t, althou$h the BM updates a num!er of the detailsin !et#een &erses 5.D( 4 )e( 4C:C! is dependent on the te/t of Mal( 5:1( ueto its use of 1D #ords from the


9/20

D

Mal( 5:4 “ But unto you that fear my name shall the Sun of ri#hteousness arise with healin# in his win#sP”

ontinuin$ on from #here 4 )e( 4C:C left o, &erse D picks up in Mal(5:4( "he hristiani8ed &ie# of the “Son” of ri$hteousness, rather than the

“Sun” of ri$hteousness is apparent here, as in other restoration scriptures#hich make this chan$e( In this &erse the Son of ri$hteousness is“appearin$” rather than arisin$( "his is reminiscent of use of “appeared” inthe $ospels of Mark and uke in descri!in$ ho# “%esus #as risen early the'rst day of the #eek, he appeared 'rst toP” Mark 1C:D@ cf( uke 45:35-("he author of 4 )e( 4C:D has taken Malachi and updated it, interpretin$ it in &ie# of these )e# "estament $ospel teachin$s( "he only part of the te/tthat does not seem to match up as nicely here is “unto them” and “unto youthat fear my name(” Ferse = actually descri!es for us #ho these people are:“Pthe ri$hteous, that hearken unto the #ords of the +rophets, and destroythem not, !ut look for#ard unto hrist #ith steadfastness for the si$ns

#hich are $i&en, not#ithstandin$ all persecutionsP” It appears that e&enthe pronoun “them” is dependent on Mal( 5:4 !ecause they are theri$hteous, those that “fear my name(” ue to the use of 13 #ords from the


10/20

1>

similar phraseolo$y and conte/t( ue to the more loose le/ical link 1 )e(4:43 echoes Mal( 3:D(

Ether D:44 N Mal( 5:4

Ether D:44 “Pand he e&en sa# the son of ri#hteousness, and did reoiceand $lory in his day P”Mal( 5:4 “Pshall the Sun of ri#hteousness arise #ith healin$P”Mal( 5:3 “Pin the day that I shall do thisP”

"he reference to the “son of ri$hteousness,” especially in thiseschatolo$ical conte/t, in Ether D:44 cannot !e understood #ithout the!ack$round of Mal( 5:4( We #ould !e left to #onder #ho this “son of ri$hteousness” is, and #hat tradition the Book of Ether #as alludin$ to( It isclear, #hen one takes into account the fact that each of the places inrestoration scripture that 6uote from Mal( 5:4 make this same chan$e:

“Sun” to “Son(” In this passa$e the “Sun” has not only !een chan$ed to thefamilial “Son,” !ut has also !een speci'ed as an indi&idual in history( "his &erse is clearly dependent on Mal( 5:4( Brant Jardner discusses thispassa$e and the chan$in$ of the phrase “Sun of ri$hteousness” to “Son of ri$hteousness” in this li$ht:

R"his phrase is either a ne# term used in the )e# World, or itis %oseph*s phrase that is used in translation, and is the result of his speakin$ the phrase from Malachi and assumin$ that itrefers to the “son” #ithout checkin$ the spellin$( I lean to#ardthis latter possi!ility(3A

I a$ree #ith Jardner in ar$uin$ that this latter possi!ility is the morepro!a!le( "he phrase “Sun of ri$hteousness” is speci'c to Mal( 5:4( Where Idier #ith Jardner, #hich #ill !e discussed more !elo#, is in ho# %osephcame to this ne# spellin$( I think he #as fully a#are that the te/t in Mal(5:4 #as spelled “Sun,” and that he altered the spellin$ !ecause he sa# Mal(5:4 as a prophecy of %esus(4 )e( 33:11! N Mal( 4:53=

4 )e( 33:11! “Pand ye shall know that I hae !een commanded of himto #riteP”

Mal( 4:5 “ And ye shall know that I hae sent this commandment unto

youP”

"his &erse seems a little more strained, !ut upon closer re&ie# the t#oare &ery similar( If #e are to follo# Beetham*s de'nition pro&ided a!o&e this &erse #ould !e classi'ed as an informal ,uotation, due to 4 )e( 33:11!

3A Jardner, Second $itness, 4:3A(3= Jardner makes no mention of similarity here( See Jardner, Second $itness, 4:5D(


11/20

11

!orro#in$ “and ye shall kno# that I ha&e,” and “commanded” from Mal( 4:5here, a total of ei$ht #ords(

)icholas 7rederick re&ises Beetham*s de'nition for his dissertation,#hich also 'ts our discussion here( 7rederick de'nes a 6uotation as, “Raphrase from restoration scripture #hich can !e determined in all likelihood

to ha&e ori$inated in a speci'c te/t due to its uni6ueness #ithin the Bi!le,re$ardless of len$thP”3D ;lthou$h the dependence here is not as apparentas in other &erses #e ha&e e/amined, follo#in$ !oth Beetham*s and7rederick*s de'nitions, 4 )e( 33:11! is dependent on Mal( 4:5(

1 )e( 3:A N Mal( 3:15>

1 )e( 3:A “sa&e he shall prepare a way for them that they mayaccomplish the thin$P”

Mal( 3:1 “I #ill send my messen$er, and he shall prepare the way !efore meP”

"his &erse is dependent on Malachi in the phrase “he shall prepare a#ay(” "his is &ery similar to Mal( 3:1, #hich says, “he shall prepare the#ay,” speakin$ of the messen$er the ord #ould send !efore the comin$eschaton( "his is not merely a semantic similarity, or similar terminolo$yone can 'nd throu$hout the Bi!le and the BM( "here are '&e &erses inE8ekiel that share this phraseolo$y, and none of them 't 1 )e( 3:A the #aythat Mal( 3:1 does(51 In Malachi a messen$er is !ein$ prophesied of in thefuture tense #ho “shall prepare the #ay !efore me(” In 1 )e( )ephi isdeclarin$ his faith that Jod “shall prepare a #ay for them that they mayaccomplish the thin$ #hich he commandeth them(” "he only dierences are

the &ariants “a #ay” and “the #ay,” and “for them” and “!efore me(” ;lthou$h this is not $rounds enou$h to ar$ue for strai$ht literarydependence in the #ay that %oseph and Oli&er #ould ha&e taken out a Bi!leand copied onto the ori$inal manuscript of the BM, this passa$e appears toha&e pro&ided the conceptual frame#ork for this phrase in 1 )e( 3:A( Weare to therefore conclude that 1 )e( 3:A echoes Mal( 3:1(

1 )e( 15:1A N Mal( 3:1@ 5:154

1 )e( 15:1A “;nd #hen the day cometh that the #rath of Jod is pouredout uponP”

Mal( 5:1 “7or, !ehold, the day cometh, that shall !urn as an o&enP”

3D )icholas 7rederick, “ine Within ine,” 14(5> Jardner makes no mention of the similarity here( See Jardner, Second $itness,

1:1>3(

51 cf( E8ek( 5:1A, 43, 45@ 5C:A, 14(54 Jardner makes no mention of the similarity here( See Jardner, Second $itness,

1:4>(


12/20

14

1 )e( 15:1A “in preparin# the way for the ful5llin# of his coenantsP”Mal( 3:1 “I #ill send my messen$er, and he shall prepare the way

(efore mePthe messen#er of the coenantP”

"he dependence here is found in t#o phrases, “the day cometh,” and

“preparin$ the #ay for the ful'llin$ of his co&enants(” ;t 'rst $lance theseappear to ha&e little dependence on Malachi, !ut upon closer re&ie# it!ecomes apparent that this &erse has synthesi8ed Mal( 3:1 to$ether into onephrase, #ith the !e$innin$ of &erse 1A taken from Mal( 5:1( Mal( 5:1 !e$ins,“7or !ehold, the day comethP” and shares this phrase #ith no other &ersein the


13/20

13

;lma 5:15a N Mal( 5:

;lma 5:15a “Pthat #reat and dreadful day P”Mal( 5: “the comin$ of the #reat and dreadful day P”

"his &erse clari'es for us the dependence of ;lma 5:13a, 15a on Mal(5:( "he phrase, “$reat and dreadful day” is completely uni6ue to Mal( 5:,and a re&ie# of literature that employ this term sho#s that most, if not all,te/ts that ha&e this phrase are also dependent on the


14/20

15

means that the BM &ersion of Mal( a$rees #ith the -@ and The6 holie6

Bi(le6 conteynyn# the olde Teftament and the newe6 1C=-(


15/20

1

"he fourth &ariant is found in 3 )e( 45:1( "he #here the has “that thereshall not (e room enou$h to receie it6” "he fact that the BM does not alterthis line is surprisin$, !ut at the same time it 'ts into the cate$ory of theA3A of the A53 #ords the BM uses directly from the

"ther )ariants

;lon$ #ith the &ariants in?uenced !y the italics found throu$hout the


16/20

1C

Smith and Oli&er o#dery purchased a Bi!le printed in 1=4= !y 2( and E(+hinney in oopersto#n, )e# York, from the E( B( Jrandin !ookstore in+almyra, )e# York on Octo!er =, 1=4D(1 ;lthou$h this e/act printin$ #ouldha&e !een purchased too late to !e used in the translation of the BM, in thisprintin$ the &ariant found in the BM at 3 )e( 45:1> 'nds a$reement at Mal(

3:1>( "he 1=4A and 1=4= printin$s !oth a$ree #ith the BM in ha&in$ “myhouse(” "herefore the BM follo#s the spellin$ in the printed editions of the and Mal( 3:1>( "his istherefore pro!a!ly not a &ariant, !ut a$rees #ith the printed edition kno#nat the time of the translation(4

"he second &ariant is found in 3 )e( 45:15( "he >5-, 5.(4 It is also possi!le that the scri!e could ha&e misheard “mine” for “my,” !ut this

seems unlikely due to the hi$h percenta$e of e/act correspondence !et#een 3 )e( 45.4and


17/20

1A

I #ill no# e/amine one of those places in the te/t of the BM that #e ha&eesta!lished as !ein$ dependent on Malachi( I #ill 'rst discuss #hat the!ook claims re$ardin$ its use of Malachi #here it uses it e/plicitly, namely 3)e( "hen I #ill turn to other places in the BM in?uenced !y the


18/20

1=

the departure of )ephi from %erusalem( 2e assumes in his assessment of the e&idence that %oseph Smith and Oli&er o#dery ne&er checked Oli&er*sspellin$ a$ainst the spellin$ found in

"here are a num!er of pro!lems #ith Jardner*s assessment of the te/t

a!o&e( 2e !e$ins !y notin$ the fact that this &erse “echoes” Mal( !ecausethe phrase “sun of ri$hteousness” is only found there, thus the need that it#ould “al#ays follo# Malachi(” Jardner makes a pro!lematic assertion instatin$ that Ether D:44 should ha&e “sun” #hen it is o!&ious that the use of “Son of Gi$hteousness” is meant speci'cally as that, and is actually theinterpretati&e key for understandin$ Mal( 5:4 in the BM( In Ether D:44 the“Son of Gi$hteousness” is an indi&idual person, and there is no #ay tounderstand the &erse if #e are to chan$e “Son” to “Sun(” It #ould read,“yea, and Roriantum sa# the Sun of Gi$hteousness, and did reoice and$lory in his day@ and he died in peace(” "he key here is #hether the pronounin the phrase “in his day” is pointin$ to oriantum or to the Son of

Gi$hteousness, and it seems to apply to the latter !etter than the former(With the tendency to hristiani8e the 2e!re# Bi!le, I #ould ar$ue that thisis the most direct e&idence that the BM deli!erately chan$ed Mal( 5:4 from“Sun of Gi$hteousness” to “Son of Gi$hteousness” !ecause of the &ie# thatMalachi #as predictin$ %esus* second comin$( "his e/plains #hy in almoste&ery instance in S scripture the te/t of Mal( 5:4 is chan$ed in this #ay(

"o ar$ue that this chan$e is someho# !ased on the !rass plates isunnecessary@ #e ha&e the source in our possession: the


19/20

1D

"his paper has ar$ued that there are many places in the te/t of the BMthat are dependent on the te/t of Mal( !oth literarily and te/tually( Some of these places in our preliminary list sho# direct 6uotation and e/actduplication of the te/t of Mal(, #hile others seem to !e more alludin$ to or

echoin$ Mal( 7or many e/e$etes this presents a pro!lem for discussin$ thehistoricity of the BM, #hich in many #ays has !ecome a deterrent for acritical study of the te/t(C1 "his kind of &ie#point should !e a!andoned( 7oranta$onistsC4 it is a pro!lem for the te/t, #hich su$$ests to them that the!ook #as a for$ery( 7or apolo$ists it is ne$ati&e !ecause, accordin$ to anum!er of them, it #orks a$ainst the historical settin$ that the !ook claims(Both parties are ri$ht in sayin$ that the )ephites #ould not ha&e had thete/t of Mal(, !ut this does not indicate that the


20/20

4>

throu$h comparati&e studies, utili8in$ recent methods that ha&e !eenemployed in comparin$ the )e# "estament, 2e!re# Bi!le, and BM(

Behold Other Scriptures I Would That Ye

Documents

Transcript of Behold Other Scriptures I Would That Ye