Quote:
Originally Posted by Chapel-Hill-Coug
Now you aren't saying Stendahl sees the BOM as an *ancient* targum are you? He is clear in an article related to this talk that he sees the KJV version of the bible as the source of this targumic expansion (a chapter in one of Truman Madsen's books that I can't remember off hand). He therefore sees the BOM as a 19th century document worthy of exegesis. If this was already assumed in your post then forgive me. I just wanted to clarify that in no way does Stendahl see the BOM as an ancient document.
|
You're right, in the chapter he called the BoM the KJV's "daughter." However, as he also noted, the Bible is also the source of the Pseudepigrapha's targum. And no one would deny the Pseudepigrapha's antiquity.
He may have, as you mentioned, just been being nice when not explicitly attributing a modern origin to the BoM. But If you read the chapter in conjunction with Charlesworth's chapter (which I found more compelling), even if there are modern elements in the BoM, it does not vitiate the Smith's claims. The OT Pseudepigrapha was redacted by later Christians, as Charlesworth stated. Mormon's or even JSmith's targums can be considered legitimate.
Stendahl's chapter's apologetic use is minimal and pales in comparison to its devotional use, as I mentioned in my post. It helps the devout LDS appreciate 3 Nephi's beauty and its differences from Matthew. Charlesworth's actually defends the BoM against charges of a modern origin (see other post). I didn't quote Charlesworth's article in entirety, but at the end he takes off his scholar's hat and bears his testimony in support of targum, while Stendahl does the same, with the opposite conclusion.