Probability and NHM

[DonBradley]

And Merry Grinchmas to you as we call mockery on this board!

Ah, and Merry Grinchmas to you too, Juliann! May your heart swell three sizes this season!

[juliann]

Ah, and Merry Grinchmas to you too, Juliann! May your heart swell three sizes this season!

I'm just hoping it won't be my other body parts that swell....

[juliann]

I really can't get over the double standards here...we have produced scholarly work and all we get in return is "no WAY!". Yet...look what is available:

From JBMS http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=jbms&id=255 describing the site:

The federally funded Deutches Archaeologisches Institut (DAI), headquartered in Berlin, initiated the excavation of the Ba'ran temple in 1988 as part of a larger project centered in the Marib province. Once excavation of the temple was completed in 1997, four seasons of restoration work followed, ending with the formal opening of the site to the public on November 18, 2000.

Are the naysayers claiming only Mormons have noticed and written about any of this? I can think of no other reason for them to not be burying us in information. It just seems odd, however, since the altar has been on tour with other artifacts from the site.

[asbestosman]

Thus, I find it entirely reasonable for believers to explore NHM as the probable burial place of Ishmael. I just think it's a mistake for them to expect nonbelievers to be strongly swayed toward belief by the find.

Merry Smithmas, as they're calling it on the ex-Mo boards,

I more or less agree with your point. The difference is that I'm not quite as dismissive of the possibility as you are. That's why I mentioned other factors.

Uh, Merry Solstice? Jesus probably wasn't born around Christmas time so I'm not really sure what the ex-Mos are complaining about. I don't care much for celebrating birthdays in the first place, whether it's my own or someone else's. However, I don't mind it when people do so and I've always thought it would stink to have a birthday around Christmas time because just about everyone is too busy with Christmas to notice if you happen to like celebrating it. Good thing Martin Luther King, George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and even the USA weren't born around Christmas time. It'd become all the more complicated to celebrate those things.

I wouldn't mind having my heart swell 3 sizes this season either.

[New Kid OTB]

So this is all fun, folks...but where are your published experts?

They're blissfully unaware of the whole BoM-NHM connection. Maybe someone should send them a gift subscription to JBMS.

[New Kid OTB]

I just think it's a mistake for them to expect nonbelievers to be strongly swayed toward belief by the find.

Does that even need to be said?

Absolutely. I know that you never make positive apologetic claims, Juliann, but others do.

[Calm]

I wouldn't mind having my heart swell 3 sizes this season either.

I would since it would mean instant death.

[DonBradley]

I more or less agree with your point. The difference is that I'm not quite as dismissive of the possibility as you are. That's why I mentioned other factors.

<my snippiness ;-) >...

Uh, Merry Solstice? Jesus probably wasn't born around Christmas time so I'm not really sure what the ex-Mos are complaining about.

I'm not sure what point you see me as "dismissive" of; but I'm not sure why one would put particular stock in the idea that the Lehites modified the name of the settlement they encountered. The hypothesis is ad hoc, neither verifiable nor falsifiable, and not obviously probable enough to tip the scales decidedly in any case. If weighing it accordingly is "dismissive," then "dismissiveness" is the proper attitude toward it.

As for "Smithmas," I find the term cute and amusing. I don't see anything wrong with celebrating JS's birthday. Why not? We celebrate George Washington's, Abraham Lincoln's, and MLK's; and I can imagine people celebrating Martin Luther's. Why not JS's?

A merry belated Smithmas to all,

Don Bradley

[DonBradley]

So this is all fun, folks...but where are your published experts?

Speaking of double standards, Juliann, "my" published experts on questions of what would the Israelites did and didn't believe c. 600 BC, which books of the Bible would have been available at the time, how the New World was peopled, and many other issues bearing strongly and directly on the historicity of the Book of Mormon are the scholarly communities of the respective fields at large. I largely follow their majority interpretations, whereas you pick and choose those who tout your pre-existing beliefs - i.e., mostly those who share your faith commitments.

As to the NHM issue in particular, I'll repeat the question I put to our friend with the skin condition, how do my arguments depend on expertise in Hebrew, Arabic, and the like? And if my arguments are so clearly irrelevant or wrong from the standpoint of such expertise, there should be more than enough experts here to demonstrate that, point by point.

Your question isn't a serious argument at all, but merely a red herring.

Don Bradley

[Dale]

THe best counter-published experts I have on the Book of Mormon comes from the Signature Books camp. I read what they write & remain unconvinced.

[Bill Hamblin]

Don

how do my arguments depend on expertise in Hebrew, Arabic, and the like? And if my arguments are so clearly irrelevant or wrong from the standpoint of such expertise, there should be more than enough experts here to demonstrate that, point by point.

Bill

See below.

Don

Recall that "NHM" in the altar inscription is actually the name of a group of people - a tribe [and hence _possibly_ of their _place_ as well].

Bill

NHM is generally assumed to be a toponym, as can be seen from this inscription:

[Bill Hamblin]

Alf

The chances of a hit become greater than 50% after 13 guesses. What if there are only 200 historical targets? Then about 32. If there are only 100? 64.

This is very interesting information. Unfortunately, it is attempting to answer the wrong question. What Alf is describing is the probabilities of finding ANY match whatsoever. If I

[Bill Hamblin]

Don

Many BoM names are simply variants on biblical names, and "Nahom" can be seen as such as well - as a variant on "Nahum." Given the BoM penchant for Bible name variants, and given our ignorance of the actual vowels in "NHM," Nahom is a much a closer match to Nahum than to NHM.

Bill

Claiming that Nahom was created by filching from the Bible does not by any means resolve the probability questions in favor of the critics. It simply changes the probability questions.

There are 337 proper names in the BOM, of which 188 (56%) are non-biblical names. (Of these, 142 are Lehite, 41 Jaredite, and 5 common to both Lehites and Jaredites.)

149 (44%) of the names in the BOM are biblical, however, 96 of these occur in quotations of biblical passages. This leaves only 53 names BOM names that are taken from the Bible in non-quotations.

On the other hand, there are over 2600 proper names in the Bible. Even assuming that all the names in the BOM derive directly or indirectly from the Bible (which is manifestly not the case), there are only 241 BOM names not found in biblical quotations. This gives JS at most a 10% chance of picking Nahum/Nahom for one of his new names from the 2600 biblical names.

Added to this is the fact that JS could have placed the names he filched from the Bible anywhere in his text. Nahom did not have to be in southwestern Arabia. The site called Nahom in our BOM could have been called Nephi or Zarahemla or Gadianton; remember, according to the 19C theory Joseph is arbitrarily making all this up. Six BOM toponyms are associated with Arabia, so, there is at best a 1:40 (240/6) chance of Nahom actually ending up in Arabia as opposed to somewhere in the New World. I believe (and I hope someone will correct me if I

[DonBradley]

Hi Bill,

Thanks for your feedback on "the Bradley Method." (Cute name, btw. ) Application of the method resulted in a miscarriage of logic, and the method was abandoned some time ago.

If memory serves me right, my "Nihm"/"Nahom" argument that you criticized was part of a post I originally wrote in 2001. It was greatly overstated, and I made a mistake in posting my earlier write-up without revision. I used this old post to save time.

My over-stated argument from c. 2001, which you quoted, was:

"Since the place is now known to its people as "Nihm", we are safest in assuming that this was its name anciently as well - and we are positively unsafe in assuming that it was something else."

What I now think on this specific point was stated in the current thread in my response to asbestosman on December 24, 2005, 12:06 AM:

"Another consideration is the present-day name - Nihm. This is evidence against the ancient name having been "Nahom." Yes, names tend to change over millennia - plainly! But ask yourself this, if the present-day name were "Nahom," would this be taken as evidence for that having been the name anciently, as evidence against that having been the name anciently, or as non-evidence? I can't imagine BoM proponents taking it as anything other than favorable evidence; and I believe they would be right to do so. Certainly a place *now* called Nahom is more likely to have been called that in the past than a place now called something else. I think this is a fairly weak consideration, because of the vast timescales involved; but it is hardly irrelevant. For this reason, the probability of NHM having been known as Nahom anciently should be adjusted down slightly from the probability we would figure on the basis of vowel possibilities alone."

Note the shift to the view that this is a minor point of evidence, on the basis of which "the probability of NHM having been known as Nahom anciently should be adjusted down slightly" from what it would be without this evidence (the current pronunciation).

BTW, I think Dale(?) had an interesting point on looking at general vowel shifts in the area (if they can be determined). I ran into Dan Peterson the other day, and he gave me to understand that Brian Stubbs is looking at the overall pattern of vowel shifts from Hebrew to Uto-Aztecan (on the hypothesis that the latter grew out of the former). This rational, systematic method may have promise for the NHM find as well.

I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on these (admittedly minor) points.

I'll try to discuss your other thoughts on my NHM posts this evening.

Don Bradley

[Bill Hamblin]

Don

Note the shift to the view that this is a minor point of evidence, on the basis of which "the probability of NHM having been known as Nahom anciently should be adjusted down slightly" from what it would be without this evidence (the current pronunciation).

We are dealing with 2600 years of language development and at least four languages (One or more Old South Arabian dialects, Hebrew, Arabic and English).

The question is not what was the ancient pronunciation of Nahom which can never be known. The question is should we expect NHM to have been pronounced by a modern Arab the same in each of four different languages over 2600 years ago. The answer is definitively no. We should expect pronunciation change. This claim is therefore an irresolvable non-issue, and in essence a fallacy of distraction.

(Are London (English) and Londres (French) and Londra (Italian) the same places or different places? These are, of course, all contemporary pronunciations.)

[DonBradley]

Hi again Bill,

My thinking on this issue is shaped by Bayesian probability and does not depend on any assumption that the stability of the name over 26 centuries is more likely than not. I don't assume that at all.

My argument is that if the modern pronunciation of NHM were "Nahom," this would increase, however slightly, the probability that the ancient pronunciation was "Nahom" as well; and that, in parallel fashion, the modern pronunciation being "Nihm" increases, however slightly, the probability that the ancient pronunciation was "Nihm" as well, thereby decreasing, accordingly, the probability that it was "Nahom."

Since this applies relevant probabilistic thinking to a problem of probability, it engages, rather than distracts from, the issue at hand.

I'm curious whether you have any thoughts on the "vowel shift" idea.

Don Bradley

[Bill Hamblin]

My argument is that if the modern pronunciation of NHM were "Nahom," this would increase, however slightly, the probability that the ancient pronunciation was "Nahom" as well; and that, in parallel fashion, the modern pronunciation being "Nihm" increases, however slightly, the probability that the ancient pronunciation was "Nihm" as well, thereby decreasing, accordingly, the probability that it was "Nahom."

In which language?

In which dialect?

With what value assigned to the vowels?

In reality Nahom and Nihm are not "pronunciations," but spellings. Different people will pronounce these spellings differently, right?

This is the basic problem; you are confusing spelling and pronunciation, and ignoring language and dialect variations.

I'm curious whether you have any thoughts on the "vowel shift" idea.

I'm not a philologist, so I'll have to leave that to people with substantial knowledge of Semitic philology.

[DonBradley]

Bill,

In the case of "Nihm" we have a living, speaking people involved, so there is a pronunciation to go along with the spelling. I have not, obviously, heard these people speak the name, but I would think the transliteration "Nihm" is intended to convey much of this pronunciation in English.

Can we say nothing regarding the pronunciation of the BoM "Nahom" on the basis of its spelling? If, for instance, there is no vowel sound between the "H" and the "M" in the modern pronunciation of "Nihm," is this consistent with "NahOm"? Do we have reason to believe that persons of a varying dialect would add an otherwise absent vowel sound between the consonants of a newly encountered place name?

Also, if the BoM transliteration "Nahom" suggests an English pronunciation badly and unnecessarily at variance with the intended Hebrew pronunciation, why transliterate it thus?

Don Bradley

[Bill Hamblin]

In the case of "Nihm" we have a living, speaking people involved, so there is a pronunciation to go along with the spelling. I have not, obviously, heard these people speak the name, but I would think the transliteration "Nihm" is intended to convey much of this pronunciation in English.

The transliteration "Nihm" is intended to transcribe the Arabic spelling. There are numerous dialects in modern Arabic which could have different pronunciations of this Arabic term. (Unless you

[DonBradley]

Hi Bill,

I'm not ignoring the other issues you raised. I stated that I would try to post on them this evening, which I still intend to do.

Based on the information and arguments you've provided, it appears to me that the "Nihm" vs. "Nahom" spelling difference is probably of vanishingly little consequence. Your point about the "Nehem" spelling in early maps is particularly well taken.

I'll try to get to the other points in your posts late tonight, and if not tonight, then no later than tomorrow night.

Don Bradley

[Restformationist]

"Nahem" is noted on a map published in 1780. It is quite possible JS saw this map, as critics have suggested. There are better arguments in favor of the LDS position. Here is an interesting devo talk I listened to last night:

http://byubroadcasting.org/devotionals/?se...lectedYear=2004

Titled: Archaeology, Relics, and Mormon Belief

[Beowulf]

Completely off the topic of South Arabian languages, but Bill's comments about differing spellings at differing times reminds me of an early (19thC) European Orientalist who embarrassed himself terribly when he wrote a treatise comparing the works of Li Po with Rihaku.

Explanation: Li Po was a poet circa 800 C.E. in Tang China (probably the greatest in all of China's long history). So was Rihaku. In fact, they are the same person, with the latter being the pronunciation as he is known in Japan.

A person versed in Chinese and Japanese (like myself) would know that these are in fact spellings of the same word. But who not trained in linguistic shifts would ever guess?

(And of course Li Po in modern Chinese Romanization is Libo, for yet another alteration. His name as pronounced in Tang era Chinese was probably something like Lipak. But no one knows for sure, not even the Chinese.)

Therefore, as someone with a smattering of philological training, I am capable of appreciating just how much of a hit NHM is for the BofM.

Beowulf

[charity]

Restformationist wrote "Nahem is noted on a map published in 1780. It is quite possible JS saw this map, as critics have suggested."

And this map was available in the Mancehester Lending Library? Or maybe it was in the 6,000 volume private library the Smith's had in their barn?

[Daniel Peterson]

In the case of "Nihm" we have a living, speaking people involved, so there is a pronunciation to go along with the spelling. I have not, obviously, heard these people speak the name, but I would think the transliteration "Nihm" is intended to convey much of this pronunciation in English.

Can we say nothing regarding the pronunciation of the BoM "Nahom" on the basis of its spelling?  If, for instance, there is no vowel sound between the "H" and the "M" in the modern pronunciation of "Nihm," is this consistent with "NahOm"? Do we have reason to believe that persons of a varying dialect would add an otherwise absent vowel sound between the consonants of a newly encountered place name?

In a spirit of helpfulness, I'd like to point out for the non-Semiticists among us that the "H" in "NHM" is almost certainly "voiced" -- that is, that it is pronounced much the same way in the middle position as it would be if it began the word. Non-Arabists often make the mistake, for example, of pronouncing the Arab name Ahmad as if the ah merely represented an "ahh" sound instead of something more like (but not so strong as) "akh."

With that in mind, Nihm wouldn't be pronounced as nim but as something on the order of "NiHem" (where the "e" represents a rather minimal vowel that I simply can't show in the script available to me here). (The insertion of such a "zero-grade" vowel is very common in modern Arabic dialects, for example, and is, indeed, almost unavoidable.) And we needn't assume that Book of Mormon Nahom is to be pronounced Nay-home. It might well indicate a pronunciation not really all too distant from "NiHem."

In other words, I don't see the spelling variation from Nihm to Nahom as, necessarily, all that significant.

"Nahem" is noted on a map published in 1780. It is quite possible JS saw this map, as critics have suggested.

"Quite possible"? Well, it's conceivable, and cannot absolutely be ruled out as a very distant possibility. But there is no evidence that Joseph Smith or anybody in his circle had access to any map containing the toponym NHM, let alone that Joseph Smith or somebody in his circle actually consulted such a map. In fact, there is considerable reason to suspect otherwise.

John Pinkerton's A Modern Atlas from the Latest and Best Authorities (London: 1815) has sometimes been mentioned as a possible source for either Joseph or one or more of his hypothetical co-conspirators. After all, the Dartmouth College Library has a copy -- and not only was Oliver Cowdery from New Hampshire but Hyrum Smith briefly attended a school connected with Dartmouth, and Solomon Spalding even graduated from the College. However, the Dartmouth College Library has just informed a colleague of mine that they acquired their copy only in early 1931 or late 1930 (which is somewhat too late for it to have been used in the composition of the Book of Mormon). While a copy may have existed somewhere else in North America by the late 1820s, I've not yet seen any evidence demonstrating that.

[Restformationist]

Restformationist wrote "Nahem is noted on a map published in 1780. It is quite possible JS saw this map, as critics have suggested."

And this map was available in the Mancehester Lending Library? Or maybe it was in the 6,000 volume private library the Smith's had in their barn?

The point is, anti's will use ANYTHING they can get to discredit your faith. But there are some things which would have been impossible for JS to know, such as facts mentioned in that devo I linked to.