Simon Southerton's response to ....

[Brant Gardner]

Markk:

In which method was the BoM translated? If the words appeared before him and would not go away until they were written down correctly, as the first hand witnesses to the BoM story relate, then how would these problems even exist?

This is precisely a question that has to be answered before one can make much assessment of the lexical anachronisms in the text. The problem is that most of the answers that are given simply assume a method without discerning the method. For instance, you note the idea (from an early witness statement) that the words wouldn't go away until they were written down correctly. The evidence Royal Skousen finds in the original manuscripts tells us that this description is incorrect. Since it comes from someone who wasn't directly involved in the process, that isn't all that surprising. Nevertheless, one cannot base a theory of the Book of Mormon based on something for which there is contrary evidence.

Anticipating your question of how I think the translation occurred, this isn't the forum to present the arguments, but what I see in the evidence is what modern translators would term a conceptual translation rather than a literal one. I see faithfulness to plot, theme, meaning and structure without a similar faithfulness in vocabulary or grammatical structure.

Translation hurdles exist in other documents, such as the Bible, because men have to actually known at least two languages. Then they have to deal with the problems of customs and era related issues that would not be the same in their current era.

Precisely. Both the problems they face and the solutions they come up with are quite instructive for how a translation might occur - including those that are more faithful to the original vocabulary/syntax (such as the KJV) and others that prefer to communicate intent rather than idiom.

My point being, if JS did actually write the BoM from "Gold plates" , then it was 100% a God given translation, he didn't learn reformed Egyption as a second language.

Here you are making assumptions about the translation of the text based on nothing but your imagination. Data do not support your suggestion.

So...do you believe that God would just give Joseph words that are clearly misleading to a text?

You are asking an interesting theololgical question, and one that could lead to lots of debates about Bible translations. Which translation in English do we have because God dictated the translation?

My question to you Brant is, how was the BoM translated, and how does that translate into anachronisms and other clear problems with the BoM as a translation from and by God?

Joseph's only clear statement about the translation was that it came by the "gift and power of God." That is a description of inspriation, not process. The interesting explanation of Oliver Cowdery's inability to translation is found in DC 9:8 suggests that the text was not automatically dictated, but required the translator to work it out in his mind. Again, that doesn't give us much about the process, but it does strongly suggest that the idea that the translation was God-dictated should be abandoned.

At this point, I can suggest that the way to answer this question is to examine the text for the translation method. This requires some steps:

1) Determine that the text is a translation. That cannot be determined by discussing the text as a translation because it assumes the conclusion from the beginning. By virtual definition, this information must come from other data in the text.

2) Examine the text against the known sources. There are several sections that repeat KJV passages, sometimes with alterations. Those are places for examination.

3) Examine the rest of the text against time and place to determine the plausible relationship of the translation to an imputed original. That imputed original is a construct that is possible only after step one above.

I actually have gone through the process. As I said, this isn't the place for the analysis. Perhaps it will get published some day. However, the result of my analysis (including the determination of antiquity) supports the conceptual translation hypothesis. In that case, there is plenty of room for Joseph Smith as a translator to use the word "horse" just as the KJV translators used "candle."

[Markk]

Hi Brant,

Biblical translation has nothing to do with BoM translation, you cannot compare the two. we can test biblical translation, and correct it objectively, that is impossible with the BoM.

Men translated the Bible from the original texts at some point, JS Smith translated the BoM from a language he didn't even speak, nor study, it was 100% Gods translation or nothing, there is no room to compare "horse with candle", that is a straw man intended to bait a switch, whether intentionally or not. Men who translate the Bible did not stick their heads into a hat, and i don't mean that as a jab, but as a stated fact of the way the BoM was translated.

The first hand accounts from Martin Harris, David Whitmore, Emma Smith, William Smith, all would differ with your theory. You wrote:

Here you are making assumptions about the translation of the text based on nothing but your imagination. Data do not support your suggestion.

My 'Assumptions" are more than that, they are based on the very people who knew Joseph, people who knew him there whole lives, that were intimate with him, and did business with him, and I assume laughed, cried, and prayed with this man.

What was the purpose of the "stone" Brant? What do YOU believe it did? and what do the first account witnesses say it was used for?

The evidence Royal Skousen finds in the original manuscripts tells us that this description is incorrect

What original mss? I didn't even mention which source I chose to use? There are more than one.

You are asking an interesting theololgical question, and one that could lead to lots of debates about Bible translations. Which translation in English do we have because God dictated the translation?

No, it has nothing to do with the Bible Brant, we are talking about the BoM and reformed Egyptian, and a seer stone, not the Bible, and Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic. Don't switch the subject and context of what the BoM was translated from and by what means, again it has nothing to do with objective translation.

So again, what was the stone used for? And why would these people that were there get the translation process so wrong, why do you discard their testimony?

mark

john 1:12

[Brant Gardner]

Markk:

Biblical translation has nothing to do with BoM translation, you cannot compare the two.

Funny you should say so. Are you really suggesting that no text can possibly be a translation unless the original exists? If so, you are on very thin ice. There are lots of documents, even Christian documents, that exist only in translation (there are even arguments that some NT passages are translated out of Aramaic).

The process of translation is understood. It creates the translation using the source. Even without the source, the resulting translation exists. The question for any translation without an original is the way the translation occurred. The known translation principles are always used to make that determination.

we can test biblical translation, and correct it objectively, that is impossible with the BoM.

While your statement is true, your use of that statement is not. The idea that the original does not exist does not mean that we cannot examine a text without an original and make determinations about the methodology. Of course it is more difficult, which is why I outlined the process.

Men translated the Bible from the original texts at some point, JS Smith translated the BoM from a language he didn't even speak, nor study, it was 100% Gods translation or nothing, there is no room to compare "horse with candle", that is a straw man intended to bait a switch, whether intentionally or not.

Your assumption, not mine. It doesn't fit with the data, so I can't accept it. The fact that you accept it so you can reject the text based on that assumption doesn't strengthen it as an objective determination.

Men who translate the Bible did not stick their heads into a hat, and i don't mean that as a jab, but as a stated fact of the way the BoM was translated.

And therefore we have to know what happened in the hat. However, that still presupposes the question of whether or not it was a translation. As I noted, that has to be determined before the question of how it was done is even relevant. Rejecting the text as a translation because you don't understand the process of translation doesn't mean that it wasn't a translation - it means you have short-circuited the process.

If the text must be a translation, then it is relevant to examine the issue of how it was done. You are attempting a backwards logic. It can't work.

The first hand accounts from Martin Harris, David Whitmore, Emma Smith, William Smith, all would differ with your theory. You wrote:

Your opinion, again one that I don't share. Of course you understand that there are some subtle differences in the testimonies. The correspondencies can have multiple explanations. Your suggestion is only one, but one that is contradicted by evidence. I have another that is actually supported by both theory and evidence. Someday I'll publish it. Sorry to ask you to wait - but I doubt you will lose sleep over it. I strongly suspect that it won't change your mind.

My 'Assumptions" are more than that, they are based on the very people who knew Joseph, people who knew him there whole lives, that were intimate with him, and did business with him, and I assume laughed, cried, and prayed with this man.

Yes. Assumptions. You are interpreting the data according to your assumptions without questioning either the assumptions or the data. That is not accepted procedure. If you really accepted the testimony of those witnesses, wouldn't you accept their testimony of the text's divinity? Please explain how you know when to trust them and when you don't.

What was the purpose of the "stone" Brant? What do YOU believe it did? and what do the first account witnesses say it was used for?

You'll have to wait for the publication. There is no way I'd broach that topic on a board. Just as a teaser, however, I think there is a very rational and scientific explanation for it.

BG: The evidence Royal Skousen finds in the original manuscripts tells us that this description is incorrect

What original mss? I didn't even mention which source I chose to use? There are more than one.

The original manuscript of the English text of the Book of Mormon. There is only one of those. Knowing that, would you like to address the counter evidence?

BG: You are asking an interesting theololgical question, and one that could lead to lots of debates about Bible translations. Which translation in English do we have because God dictated the translation?

No, it has nothing to do with the Bible Brant, we are talking about the BoM and reformed Egyptian, and a seer stone, not the Bible, and Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic.

Excuse me, but your argument was that God dictated the text of a translation. I have suggested that he did no such thing and that we have multiple texts indicating that there can be multiple translations of the same original. None of that suggests that there is a single correlation between religious text and English translation. Why are you asserting that God would care more about the translation of the Book of Mormon than he has about the Bible? Why is your God inconsistent?

Don't switch the subject and context of what the BoM was translated from and by what means, again it has nothing to do with objective translation.

I haven't changed my subject at all. You are the one suggesting that the Book of Mormon can't be a translation because you don't understand how it could be. I don't find that a very persuasive argument.

So far, in this conversation, you have made several mistakes of fact:

1) You have asserted that one cannot have a legitimate translation without an extant original. This is rather obviously incorrect. Of course you can suggest that the Book of Mormon is different, but we are back to your opinion. I don't share that opinion and I cite evidence that contradicts it.

2) You have asserted that the witness testimonies must mean that the text is God-dictated. Unfortunately, there is evidence that contradicts those witnesses that you seem to reject in favor of supporting a conclusion that you find more favorable to your theory. That is hardly correct process.

3) You have suggested that the witnesses must have been reliable, but then you clearly reject their more important testimony that the text was a translation. So, you are contradicting the very position you are taking -without any analysis save the one that fits your beginning theory. That simply doesn't make sense.

4) You have suggested that because you don't understand how the Book of Mormon was translated that it couldn't be a translation. I can't see how your lack of imagination at all dictates how I see and analyze data. On the basis of quite a bit of research on this topic, I can tell you that I disagree with you completely. I have yet to see you support any of your suggestions with any kind of acceptable logic or authoritative support. I remain unimpressed and unmoved. The data I have seen is much more compelling.

So again, what was the stone used for?

That is your strongest reason for doubting the text? Not very good. As I mentioned above, I have a perfectly rational and scientific explanation for the way the stone was used. I assume that you will be unimpressed with that particular information - and would find some reason to disagree with the data if I did present it here. Nevertheless, my suggestions are based on research rather than just opinion.

And why would these people that were there get the translation process so wrong, why do you discard their testimony?

I don't discard their testimony. As any historian does, I examine it to determine the value it has. Since they witnessed the visible aspects of the translation but not the precise process (only Joseph did that fully and Oliver made an attempt) they cannot have first hand knowledge of the actual process. That tells us that their testimony is second hand at best. When elements are contradicted by demonstrable fact, then we know that part of the testimony is not correct.

However, I would ask you the same question. How do you reject their testimony of the divine nature of the translation if you insist that they have an accurate testimony. If you are going to assert that first hand witnesses must be believed, you must believe the 3 and 8 witnesses, and we don't need to have this conversation.

Why apply a double standard?

[Dan Vogel]

Bernard,

QUOTE

It isn't used to ride. It isn't used in warfare. It plays a minor part in the text. If it wasn't for the artwork of certain artists, we wouldn't even view the horse as being particularly relevant.

QUOTE DAN V.

What do you expect? It

[Dan Vogel]

Brant,

By the way, for the fifth time I might ask for any justification for treating the Book of Mormon differently from any other text. I notice that you keep missing that request.

Here is my answer, which you keep missing:

It

[Markk]

Hi Brant,

Your twisting this like a pretzel Brant, it's beyond logic. I'll try again.

Funny you should say so. Are you really suggesting that no text can possibly be a translation unless the original exists? If so, you are on very thin ice. There are lots of documents, even Christian documents, that exist only in translation (there are even arguments that some NT passages are translated out of Aramaic).

The process of translation is understood. It creates the translation using the source. Even without the source, the resulting translation exists. The question for any translation without an original is the way the translation occurred. The known translation principles are always used to make that determination.

My point is JS did not translate anything, LDS history demands that God did it for him. Either by the hat in the stone, the U&T, or pure inspiration beyond any knowledge or ability of his, JS, to academically provide a translation from reformed Egyptian to 19th century English with a Elizabethan tone.

Again, don't twist my words.

While your statement is true, your use of that statement is not. The idea that the original does not exist does not mean that we cannot examine a text without an original and make determinations about the methodology. Of course it is more difficult, which is why I outlined the process.

Who cares if the original exists or not, you have missed my point, which is, that JS did not have the ability to academically translate the purported plates. are you saying that he could read R.E. on his own abilities? No, I don't think you believe that, so therefore the BoM would have to have been written and translated directly by God, there is no other option unless JS studied and was taught R.E.

Your assumption, not mine. It doesn't fit with the data, so I can't accept it. The fact that you accept it so you can reject the text based on that assumption doesn't strengthen it as an objective determination.

What data doesn't it fit Brant, the witnesses said it was from the stone, not of JS, what data are you referring too?

And therefore we have to know what happened in the hat. However, that still presupposes the question of whether or not it was a translation. As I noted, that has to be determined before the question of how it was done is even relevant. Rejecting the text as a translation because you don't understand the process of translation doesn't mean that it wasn't a translation - it means you have short-circuited the process.

First of all I believe that it is the product of JS mind, but in context of LDS historical facts, and this conversation, I never said it was not a translation Brant, i said God would have to have been the translators, making Joseph the medium for this "translation". The stone told JS what to tell the scribes, and if it was not written down correctly as it appeared to JS, then the process was stalled until it was written down correctly.

Your opinion, again one that I don't share. Of course you understand that there are some subtle differences in the testimonies. The correspondencies can have multiple explanations. Your suggestion is only one, but one that is contradicted by evidence.

What differences, what multiple explanations, what evidence contradicts that DW, MH, ES, WS, and others said that JS used the stone for the translation.

I have another that is actually supported by both theory and evidence. Someday I'll publish it. Sorry to ask you to wait - but I doubt you will lose sleep over it. I strongly suspect that it won't change your mind.

Yea right,, if you had something it would have been published long ago, but your correct that I won't lose any sleep, but you never know if it could change my mind unless you let us know this theory.

If you really accepted the testimony of those witnesses, wouldn't you accept their testimony of the text's divinity? Please explain how you know when to trust them and when you don't.

That

[Brant Gardner]

Dan Vogel:

Here is my answer, which you keep missing:

It

[cdowis]

In my post regarding your ignoring evidence, Dan responds:

>However, there is no positive connection to ***Mesoamerica***.

Hmmmm. Wow, I did not know the rules of the game.

>Also, the BOM

[Dan Vogel]

Brant,

So, the question for you is: since you have repeatedly claimed that your methodology is standard scholarship and have cited Blass (and implied that there are others) for support, does Blass (or anyone else) handle anachronisms (in translations) the way you suggest?

Yes. This is precisely how scholars deal with the issue of anachronisms in a text that is presumed to be a translation but for which there is no original. There is no other method that isn't circular.

Since your whole argument comes down to -

[Dan Vogel]

Cdowis,

In my post regarding your ignoring evidence, Dan responds:

>However, there is no positive connection to ***Mesoamerica***.

Hmmmm. Wow, I did not know the rules of the game.

Who is talking about rules of the game but you? I made a simple statement of fact to put the type of evidence we are dealing with in proper perspective. My whole statement was:

However, there is no positive connection to Mesoamerica. No matter how many or impressive positive correlations might be, one solid negative evidence renders them meaningless.

I could not make the second statement if the first was not true.

>Also, the BOM

[Brant Gardner]

Dan Vogel:

Fascinating post. Completely unresponsive, but fascinating. It is a virtual repeat of the last time I asked you to defend any part of your methodology. I am amazed that you have the temerity to ask me to support my methodology when (I believe in this post it will be six times) I have asked you for any scholarly support for your assumptions at all, and I have still seen none.

Clearly there is no reason to continue.

[Brant Gardner]

A post on methodology - if someone else might be interested.

I was thinking earlier today of a possible example in a completely secular context where we could look at issues surrounding texts, translations, and terms. One of the problems in discussing the Book of Mormon comes when one insists that examples be directly parallel. Most examples of scholarly techniques come in the application of specifics and we don't have a Book of Mormon to analyze everyday. However, techniques are valuable if they are flexible and applicable to similar issues.

One similar issue I worked on with a noted linguist was the linguistic identification of the Coxoh (reported on a volume of the New World Archaeological Foundation. The question has nothing to do with the Book of Mormon, so perhaps we can discuss the methodology without getting sidetracked into religious issues.

The problem comes from Spanish texts that declare that a certain people spoke Coxoh. There is no known language by that name. The question was whether it was a lost language or whether it was simply a different name for a known language.

It is very difficult to have direct proof of a langugage for which there is no description, only a lexical descriptor (analogous to the lexical "horse" in a translation with no original). The process was to examine the texts and determine anything that could bear on the question of Coxoh.

The analysis was an argument (which has been accepted as far as I can tell - certainly the emminent linguist accepted it - he put his name on it) was that Coxoh was a name for a known language. Some of the evidence came from scraps of texts written in baptismal books in the area where Coxoh was to have been spoken. Much of the evidence came from analysis of the documents about Coxoh.

Part of the analysis required not only that the hypothesis be formed (on the basis of evidence, primarily linguistic even though circumstantial) that there was no evidence for a different language (the analogy being that "horse" doesn't act horse-like in the Book of Mormon).

However, even with that hypothesis, it was important to explain the evidence that did exist. If there was no Coxoh language, why did texts say there was? This required a further argument about what Coxoh actually meant and how that meaning (which turned out to be politico-geographic) led to the use of the word for a language even though it was not technically appropriate (the analogue being the requirement, once the "horse" is determined to not be horse-like and the text is determined to be a translation, it is incumbent to find reasonable explanations for the presence of the term "horse" in the English text of the Book of Mormon.

That example is purely secular, and while not absolutely identical, If find it appropriately parallel. It is an example of an analysis accepted by one of the top Mesoamerican linguists and published in a respected journal.

That should give some grounding to the secular methodologies that I am borrowing to examine the Book of Mormon.

[Markk]

HI Brant,

How did JS translate the BoM, what "method" did he use, this will help me understand your position?

Mark

John 1:12

[Brant Gardner]

Markk:

The last time I tried to answer that question it took about 90 pages, double spaced.

The short answer is that I believe he participated in the production of the English words and syntax that was used to represent the structures and meaning on the plates.

[Markk]

Hi Brant,

Are you saying you believe that JS, more or less, with God, chose what english words to use, from the reformed Egyption text and chose the construct of the arrangment of the text?

Mark

John 1;12

[Benjamin McGuire]

Dan writes:

Of course, the word

[Confidential Informant]

Markk,

I'm curious: In your opinion, what would a translation from God look like? Is God a "word-for-word" translator? Or does he translate "concept-for-concept."

If, during the process of His translation he encounters an ancient concept with no modern corallary, does He nonetheless use the ancient concept thus obscuring the meaning for a modern reader, or does He use a modern equivalent, thus introducing an anacronism into the text?

What if He encounter an allusion in the original text to another ancient text, does He retain the allusion despite the fact that modern readers will have no clue that it is there and are likely to be confused by the reference or does he simply omit it? Or does he make the point explicit thus destroying the original allusion?

When He runs into a concept in the ancient document that has no modern corallary, does he insert material to explain it, thus adding to the text additional text not found in the original?

More importantly, if God find an error in the ancient text, does he correct that error in His translation or does he let it stand?

Please, Markk, tell me, how does God do it?

C.I.

[Confidential Informant]

Assuming the BOM is ancient or modern for the purposes of interpretation is not what we are talking about. We have assumed the BOM is ancient to see if it fits. We have found anachronisms, as Blass suspected. That

[Allintime]

Having just barely registered for the FAIR message boards this morning, I was somehow drawn to this particular topic. Yet, after having casually perused what is apparently passing as intellectual repartee between several of the participating parties, I find myself reluctant to even enter the fray -- notwithstanding its mild attraction as meaningless entertainment.

I am almost irresistibly tempted to seek some subject upon which to provoke the self-esteemed Mr. Vogel, if only to draw him out in such a way as to expose the true depth of his rage. Perhaps another time.

Now, as regards DNA and the pre-columbian presence of equus in Mesoamerica, I find none of the arguments (pro and con) very compelling. In the first place, there were horses in Mesoamerica. The fossil record is indisputable on that account. WHEN they lived remains an unsettled question, but no one denies that there were, indeed, horses. And, of course, the shamans of archaeology can't find horse fossils in Genghis Khan's homeland, either. But no one has yet suggested that Mr. Khan and his hordes traversed the steppe with two halves of a coconut, now have they?

As to Mr. Southerton's specious DNA arguments, I should think that it is now clear to all that his true motivation for renouncing his former faith was his overwhelming desire to expand the scope of his personal genetic imprint -- or at least engage in an exercise tending to that end. Let's see how much of the Southerton DNA survives in a thousand years as meanwhile he wantonly casts his seed on the barren ground of his harlot du jour.

Anyway, with this handful of taunts I hereby announce my entrance into what appears to be a forum of but few. Whether it attracts my attention for any length of time remains to be seen.

[The Dude]

I am almost irresistibly tempted to seek some subject upon which to provoke the self-esteemed Mr. Vogel, if only to draw him out in such a way as to expose the true depth of his rage.  Perhaps another time.

Is this what we can expect from your posts? Casting bait to draw out the big-time anti-Mormons ?

As to Mr. Southerton's specious DNA arguments, I should think that it is now clear to all that his true motivation for renouncing his former faith was his overwhelming desire to expand the scope of his personal genetic imprint -- or at least engage in an exercise tending to that end.  Let's see how much of the Southerton DNA survives in a thousand years as meanwhile he wantonly casts his seed on the barren ground of his harlot du jour.

Unfortunately Simon does not post here. You will have to find out personal details of someone else's life and try and bait them.

Anyway, with this handful of taunts I hereby announce my entrance into what appears to be a forum of but few. 

And the forum will be fewer by one [you] if you proceed from the start with taunting and baiting. Maybe try and contribute first. I suggest you start a thread exposing the indisputable fossil evidence for the Mesoamerican horses.

[Gervin]

Anyway, with this handful of taunts I hereby announce my entrance into what appears to be a forum of but few. Whether it attracts my attention for any length of time remains to be seen.

Please, stay the whole day if you'd like

[Allintime]

Is this what we can expect from your posts?  Casting bait to draw out the big-time anti-Mormons ?

I hadn't previously recognized a category of "big-time anti-Mormons". Is a more deferential approach required when taunting them as opposed to the "run-of-the-mill" anti-Mormon crowd? How about the frothing-at-the-mouth, black-faced mobsters? Are they fair game? You have to understand that I'm just learning the ropes here, as it were. And I certainly missed the caveat about showing appropriate respect to the "published" antis. Does this apply to the whole Signature Books stable?

And the forum will be fewer by one [you] if you proceed from the start with taunting and baiting.  Maybe try and contribute first.   I suggest you start a thread exposing the indisputable fossil evidence for the Mesoamerican horses.

I would much rather start a thread to debate the presence of coconut fossils in Mongolia.

[Dunamis]

I am almost irresistibly tempted to seek some subject upon which to provoke the self-esteemed Mr. Vogel, if only to draw him out in such a way as to expose the true depth of his rage. Perhaps another time.

Perhaps you should choose a different place. We value Mr. Vogel's participation on this board. Do not provoke posters.

Anyway, with this handful of taunts I hereby announce my entrance into what appears to be a forum of but few. 

You will not last long here if you "taunt". Please read our board policy before you post again.

[Dunamis]

This thread is too long to manage. That is usually when the brawling begins. Please break off into new threads so I can close this one.

[Addictio]

Let me break into the hushed, awestruck silence resulting from Allintime's dramatic entrance to make a few comments. (It remains to be seen, apparently, (1) whether he will deign to address the Board further and (2) whether he will ever be able to get over himself. The latter, in some cases, is a lifetime project.)

As I've mentioned to Ben and Brant before, the "horse" problem is perhaps less difficult than the "***" problem. As Matheny noted in passing in her response to Sorenson, the word "***" is used later in the text (see Mosiah 12:5, 21:3) exactly as we would expect if it were indeed a commonly-used beast of burden. I'm curious if Brant thinks that passes his test for being an "anachronism" rather than a mere lexical (vocabulary) issue.

Without re-quoting all the passages re the horse and chariot, the two that seem most problematic are the prepararatory behavior in Alma (Alma 18: 9-10; 20:6), when considered in light of the pairing of horse and chariot in the Nephites' movement preceeding the battle with the Gadiantons at 3 Ne 3:22. In the latter instance, horses are suggested to be owned by everyone, not merely royalty, and the "chariot" can't be a form of royal litter or conveyance device, as I believe Brant has suggested it is in the Alma passages. In any event, I think the most reasonable interpretation of these Alma/3 Nephi passages, read consistently, is Matheny's: that they "indicate that horses functioned in several areas to pull conveyances of some sort." "Does the Shoe Fit" at 305.

It's true that this creates an arguable anomaly regarding the lack of references to the use of the horse as a ridden animal and in the battle scenes, but that can be explained (or explained away?), perhaps, in other ways.

There's clearly a broader set of issues regarding "anachronisms" in the BoM but I don't have time to address them here just now, and may not any time soon.

Edit: did not see mod's comment before posting this.