Horses and Chariots -

[Quantum See]

And here I will re-emphasize a point mentioned above that should pile drive the issue home for non-Mormons, and would for any Mormon who looked at a similar situation involving another religion. Non-Mormon scholarly scientific journals, were most of the significant scientific work in the world is done, will not publish Mormon work related to the Book of Mormon.

I can't state whether this is true or not, but I can tell you that it doesn't matter. Assuming that what you are stating is correct it would appear that the current bulk of scientific research does not agree with the Book of Mormon account. I fail to see the problem here unless someone is trying to teach a secular history course using the Book of Mormon as their subject guide.

Will future discoveries and research lend more support to the Book of Mormon? Perhaps they will, perhaps they won't. Should we change our belief system based on the latest archealogical discovery and consensus? If so then aren't we worshiping science, not religion?

In my mind the bottom line is that I wasn't present during the timeline of the Book of Mormon. Just like any other historical event there is no way for me to scientifically "prove" that the events occurred as the book states that they did. It can be "proven" or "disproven" as far as the currently known and understood data is concerned, but there is no way to prevent future discoveries or better understanding from changing the final verdict in the other way. Given my finite lifespan, I can't wait around to see what science decides at the end of it all, I need someway to know for myself now, and science and history can't give me that.

So you have a choice.

Do you spend your finite time on Mormonism's terms or your own?

Are you sure its on your own terms or did your culture convince you that you used your own agency to make the Mormon decision?

Maybe it doesn't matter to you but it does to many and there is nothing "wrong" with them.

Since there is no need for evidence (since there is not enough time to acquire any) you can simply believe whatever you want because the "shortcut tool" which you are using (Holy Ghost Confirmation - I assume) is rooted in evidence just as everything else. It's just a non-falsifiable kind of evidence based in social proof.

I assume you did not come up with the idea of a Holy Ghost witness. Someone(s) told you to use it and it worked. Instant evidence.

The fact that the idea of the Holy Ghost witness wasn't yours, I'm sure, doesn't trouble you at all. Since the idea is backed by almost two centuries of heritage is proof enough.

Is it possible that Holy Ghost witnesses are a natural human phenomenon that can occur within other religious contexts? Can you be certain that yours is more valid than theirs? No you can't -- because you can't falsify other people's internal experiences.

To me, the more likely conclusion is that the labels we assign to our internal experiences (i.e. spiritual confirmation via HG) are not absolute handles on reality. Spiritual experiences can be saddled with all kinds of labels and have been since man started having them.

Your shortcut may be enough for you but the logic of your shortcut is based within the bounded rationality of your culture.

[bob mccue]

Brant,

So, establishing a probable cultural connection between Hebrew culture circa 600 BCE and MesoAmerica would not be a big deal in academic circles? Think of what it would take to do that. New DNA evidence. New archeological evidence.

Since we are on the "horse" topic, lets use that as an example. What if evidence was found that tapirs were domisticated in huge numbers in mesoamerica? Or that tapirs pulled chariots? Or what if evidence of large number of real horses was found?

None of this would be big news?

We are indeed in different universes.

Mormon scholarship? That must be an oxymormon.

best,

bob

[Quantum See]

Bob, you need to get out more.

[Beowulf]

I was going to find the relevant sections of Bob McCue's essay and quote it, in order to respond appropriately, but the essay is just too long, and I cannot find the sections.

Therefore, I shall have to work from memory (how's that for intellectual power? ).

Bob seems to think that wheeled vehicles are too much of an innovation for a civilization to ever abandon it afterward. How do they ship goods around if they do not use wheeled vehicles, he asks rhetorically.

Well, I have an answer for you. In Japan (which I have studied for most of my adult life), wheeled vehicles have been known since before recorded history, because the idea came from China. However, they do not appear to have been used much for other than ceremonial purposes until well into medieval times. Rice for Heian-Kyo (modern Kyoto) from the outer provinces was carried by hand (and when possible, by boat). Never by wagon.

Why not? The answer lies in the topography of Japan. A rugged country with many ups and downs, and short fast rivers, is not conducive for building roads suitable for wagons. The roads were narrow and steep, and it was less trouble to hand out sacks of rice to human porters. (In an aside, horses were relatively rare, and thus not available as pack animals either.)

The similarities here with the rugged jungles of southern Mexico are quite clear. Wheels are just not useful enough to overcome the obstacles to their use.

On cement:

Bob ridicules the use of cement in the Book of Mormon, saying there are altogether too many trees in the jungle anyway. Setting that argument aside for a moment, has he never read that there WAS cement used in ancient Mexico? This is not speculation. It is a known fact. And that it was used around modern-day Mexico City, exactly where the BofM authors say it is (in the land northward)?

But of course, Bob wants to take these above items and call it a pastiche that doesn't hold together. Good dismissal. But isn't his denials of things that plainly do go with a Mesoamerican worldview (such as the use of cement, and the strange paucity of wheeled vehicles in situations that Bob insists all civilizations MUST have in common, when plainly they do not), a pastiche that can no longer hold up?

I am no lawyer (thank heavens), but I do have training as a historian...

Beowulf

[bob mccue]

cjcampbell:

At the same time, I think there are serious flaws to the theory that there were no precolumbian horses. Even assuming that the Book of Mormon is wrong and that all the native Americans are really Asians that crossed the land bridge to Alaska, it is odd that anyone asserts that the Asians would not have brought horses with them. I will say it: it is flat-out ridiculous to aver that Mongols would not bring horses when migrating to America.

Most of your questions can be answered simply using probability theory and the available evidence.

The best evidence of reality is what science provides. At the moment science tells us that it is highly improbable that horses were in the Americas during the relevant time. Is it possible that they were? Sure. But the question people like you need to answer is why do you live your life according to the best information science can offer until you get to Mormonism, and suddenly you reject that information. See http://mccue.cc/bob/audio.htm for more information on this topic.

Why doesn't the Bible mention monkeys? Monkeys were indigenous to the Middle East, yet the Bible does not mention them. Why not? Was the Bible actually written by people unaquainted with monkeys?

How come the Bible mentions cockatrices, dragons, sea monsters, and other fabulous animals? Doesn't that prove that the Bible could not have been written by ancient Hebrews?

The Bible is mostly mythology, and is not a complete description of the reality around it.

Why would not a prophet seeing the future describe an automobile or other vehicle as a chariot? What other term would he use?

Hmmm. Flying entities with a base in the host culture are part of the mythology of the time and place; they find their way into a text made in the place about that time. Which is more likely, that the text reflects the mythic culture of the day or that it predicts the future on the basis of an analogy so loose that it is laughable?

You and your type shift automatically from thinking in probability terms when on the

[Pantsman]

There's no evidence Giants existed but EV's believe whole heartedly that David slew one.

A lot of what we find in science appears to discredit the Bible, turns out the Earth is really billions of years old not 6000. Men didn't walk with dinosaurs, and there appears to be no possibility of a global flood. Yet you can't convince nearly 2 billion Christians to stop believing.

I guess where I'm going with this, is what does one gain from this? I've been guilty in the past, but really all this time into trying to disproves someone elses belief system, could probably be better spent trying to validate your own, whatever that may be atheist, agnostic, Buddhist, Catholic, or Hindu (just in general, not directed at you Bob in particular)

Were there horses in Meso America? All evidence points to no right now. Will this have any impact on Mormons beliefs? No as long as the outside chance exists that something else was meant by horses, or that they haven't been found yet. Other than that, what's to really discuss about the horses anymore?

Sorry for the rant, but everything else has been covered on the horse topic.

[Brant Gardner]

Bob McCue:

The case you allege as parallel is not.

Interesting that you can dismiss it without engaging the arguments. Considering that you have made mistakes of fact (wheeled chariots in the Book of Mormon, for instance) I am not inclined to put too much faith in your quick opinions.

The language and other aspects of context are mostly unknown.

Language perhaps. Context can be tested. That is precisely what an ethnohistorian must do. For some reason, you seem to suggest that if we don't know something for sure - we can't find out. Fortunately, scholars do not share your opinion and forge ahead.

You are still espousing an opinion that is not supported by secular historians or ethnohistorians. I will continue to prefer their analysis.

BG: I think you have to determine a translation by examining the text against a context. That is what was done for the Historie du Mechique - which is accepted as a very valuable text in spite of the absence of an original. If you disagree, please indicate how. 

Thank you for making my point. The context includes the language. It also includes the empirical reality of the culture that produced the original text. We know nothing about the language. What we know close to nothing about the cultural reality, beyond what is in the text. Remember your accusation of Vogel of circularity? Here we have real circularity. The uncertain text becomes its own cultural context.

Let's deconstruct this for a moment. The comparison to the Histoire becomes invalid because we know that the original was Spanish. None of the issues of determining what the actual meaning of the text would be matters because we know that the non-extant original was a real language? It doesn't follow and isn't part of the scholarly repertoire. Take the Gospel of Thomas instead. It is in Coptic and is not known from any other language. Nevertheless, it is presumed to be a translation. You are suggesting it cannot be because we don't know what langauge it was translated from?

Now we move to the next issue, which is context. You are suggesting that we cannot test a context unless we already know for a fact that there is a context. That doesn't follow and obviates testing. We test against a context to determine the value of a text. The Histoire contains several bits of information that differ from other texts. How valid are they? Only comparisons to the context can tell.

In the case of the Book of Mormon, I agree that there isn't a pre-known context. That does not, and cannot, preclude the examination of the text to determine context. That process is exactly what was done with the Histoire to determine that it was a translation rather than just a late French invention.

One more time, the actual ways that historians and ethnohistorians use texts tell us that your statement is completely incorrect.

I agree with this method. In the case of the Book of Mormon, how do you test the translation?

Still not following? You test the text against context first. Once you have determined that the text is a translation because it fits into a context that cannot be fabricated, then you can work with the English and the known context to determine issues of translation.

For example, suppose a lack of supporting text for the KJV. We determine that it fits a historical context and therefore is a translation (since that is hardly in question, English not being that old a langauge). Then we examine that context to determine what the word "candle" means. We find that there are no candles but that there are oil lamps. The determination is pretty simple that since the text is historical that the anachronism must be in the translation. We can go a step further and indicate that the conceptual translation was accurate because it translated a light source and we can speculate that the particular form of "candle" was related to the current usage when the translators translated.

We do the same for the Book of Mormon. This is social science, quite simple. I wouldn't think you would be so much against standard procedure in the social sciences.

If it can

[Brant Gardner]

Bob McCue:

So, establishing a probable cultural connection between Hebrew culture circa 600 BCE and MesoAmerica would not be a big deal in academic circles?

You are anticipating meaning that I certainly didn't provide. I said nothing about finding a connection between Hebrew culture and Mesoamerica. My reading of the text is that a small group in a new land would do a lot more borrowing than loaning. In that case, there isn't much interesting.

So - no, I don't think that the new information will be all that interesting. I think you are still behind the times on your understanding of current LDS research on the Book of Mormon.

Think of what it would take to do that. New DNA evidence. New archeological evidence.

You are arguing an issue that I don't support. 100 years ago you would have had a good case. However, the LDS scholars beat you to it.

If you really want to have a discussion, you might consider engaging somthing I am actually talking about, instead of tilting at a windmill that I don't believe in.

Since we are on the "horse" topic, lets use that as an example. What if evidence was found that tapirs were domisticated in huge numbers in mesoamerica?

That would be interesting, of course. It wouldn't have anything to do with the Book of Mormon, so I won't be the one to suggest it. Would you please show me the domestication of tapirs in the Book of Mormon - or horses, if you like.

I really would like to insist that you discuss evidence instead of hypothesis.

Or that tapirs pulled chariots?

Since chariots are never pulled in the Book of Mormon, why would that even interest me? You are still arguing with a straw man of your own making. If you insist on misrepresenting the text so you can argue against it, you are welcome to do so. Please understand what you are doing and cease pretending it is something else.

Or what if evidence of large number of real horses was found?

Yes. That will be interesting - even a small number. You seem to be unaware of the evidence that is likely to do just that. I would be careful making too many hypotheses on the absence of evidence. It can turn on you.

We are indeed in different universes.

Clearly. I don't recognize the chimera you are suggesting I believe in. It is your fantasy and has nothing to do with anything I believe or any historical research that I do.

Mormon scholarship? That must be an oxymormon.

Do you really want to throw down that gauntlet? At this point in our discussion you have managed to misrepresent the way scholars deal with texts. You have misunderstood what I would have thought were clear examples. You have repeated unsupported assumptions about translations where those assumptions are contradicted by fact. You have repeated assumptions about the Book of Mormon that are not in the text.

Mormon scholarship is really doing quite well, if only in comparison.

[bob mccue]

Brant,

As I said in the beginning, I have read your exchange with Vogel. Your ability to speak past people and spin in tiny circles is something to behold. You emit A grade apologist fog.

We are done. Having seen Vogel and you dance and now having danced some myself, I decline further opportunity to interact.

I am sure you will claim victory on some basis. Help yourself.

best,

bob

[juliann]

We are done.

Like we couldn't see that coming. Very clever of Archon to force Bob to actually have to discuss one of his talking points.

[cjcampbell]

It seems there are a lot of people who are in serious denial about the very real evidence of precolumbian horses in America, including 40 Inca drawings of horses, the fact that Appaloosas are not Spanish in origin, at least one precolumbian skull, etc. And, please understand, these points were all brought up by people who study horses for a living, not 'Mormons' or their sympathizers. These people, rather than assigning a Book of Mormon origin for the horses, are suggesting they came here with Chinese traders. You have to wonder just who it is that wants us to exercise the most faith without evidence, the people who steadfastly refuse to believe in precolumbian horses, or those who accept the possibility that there were horses here before the Spanish arrived?

As for the ridiculous argument that the Book of Mormon can't be authentic because it does not mention monkeys, jaguars, etc.: there are monkeys in the Middle East, too, but they are not mentioned in the Bible. Neither are many other important animals, including cats (worshipped by the Egyptians), rats, deer, antelope, jackals, etc. The Bible also fails to mention such important features as the pyramids, the Sphinx, the hanging gardens of Babylon, the Colossus of Rhodes, and other contemporary wonders. The Bible does not mention Alexander the Great by name even once. Would those who criticize the Book of Mormon on such grounds insist that the Bible must be a forgery written by Europeans?

I am beginning to lose patience with being ignored on these issues. The critics right now have absolutely no credibility with me either as scholars or scientists. Their faulty arguments and refusal to discuss issues reveals that they are neither objective nor truthful.

[asbestosman]

As for the ridiculous argument that the Book of Mormon can't be authentic because it does not mention monkeys, jaguars, etc.: there are monkeys in the Middle East, too, but they are not mentioned in the Bible. Neither are many other important animals, including cats (worshipped by the Egyptians), rats, deer, antelope, jackals, etc.

deut. 14:5

http://scriptures.lds.org/query?words=hart

http://scriptures.lds.org/query?words=roe

[Aluwid]

So you have a choice.

Do you spend your finite time on Mormonism's terms or your own?

Absolutely. I've chosen to believe. As for spending time on whose terms, it's my choice so of course it's my terms.

Are you sure its on your own terms or did your culture convince you that you used your own agency to make the Mormon decision?

And herein lies the golden question for anyone that is born into Mormonism. Do I believe only because I was raised this way? Unfortunately there is no way to answer this. I can't relive my childhood as a different religion. Even if I study out many other religions earnestly, that doesn't change the fact that my first learnings were with Mormonism and will undoubtfully affect my thinking in some way. I don't think this is something that can be answered or resolved, one can believe that they would have converted to Mormonism later in life, but it's impossible to know. All you can do is choose what you want to believe today.

Since there is no need for evidence (since there is not enough time to acquire any) you can simply believe whatever you want because the "shortcut tool" which you are using (Holy Ghost Confirmation - I assume) is rooted in evidence just as everything else. It's just a non-falsifiable kind of evidence based in social proof.

I never said there was no need for evidence. I meant I don't put much stock in *scientific* evidence for religious questions.

I assume you did not come up with the idea of a Holy Ghost witness. Someone(s) told you to use it and it worked. Instant evidence.

The fact that the idea of the Holy Ghost witness wasn't yours, I'm sure, doesn't trouble you at all. Since the idea is backed by almost two centuries of heritage is proof enough.

"If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants".

One side note about what you said about the Holy Ghost. It's not that it provides you a yes or no answer. It's that it guides you in what to believe. It changes you. That is why a spiritual witness is so much stronger than a physical one. That's how I look at it.

Is it possible that Holy Ghost witnesses are a natural human phenomenon that can occur within other religious contexts? Can you be certain that yours is more valid than theirs? No you can't -- because you can't falsify other people's internal experiences.

Anything is possible. I can't see inside anyone else's head nor can they see inside mine. It's further reason why I feel it necessary to follow the guidance I feel rather than the opinions of others. Or to take a more secular view to it, in the words of the X-Files "Trust No One".

To me, the more likely conclusion is that the labels we assign to our internal experiences (i.e. spiritual confirmation via HG) are not absolute handles on reality. Spiritual experiences can be saddled with all kinds of labels and have been since man started having them.

Your shortcut may be enough for you but the logic of your shortcut is based within the bounded rationality of your culture.

I repeat, anything is possible. So what to do? I choose to believe. You have your choice as well.

[Aluwid]

Mormon scholarship?  That must be an oxymormon.

"Yellow Flag!"

"10 yard penalty!"

"Fourth down - mormon critics!"

"Any bets on if they'll punt or not?"

[Dale]

Dale:

How did they carry goods for trade without such larger vehicles.

Human transport. They used a tumpline, which is a strap that counterbalances the weight by looping under the item on the back and being strapped across the forehead. It helps distribute the weight and makes it easier to carrier a heavier load a longer distance. It still doesn't match the carrying capacity of Old World beasts of burden, but that is how it was, and still is, done.

Thanks for your answer. I remember seeing a tumpline before.

[Aluwid]

Brant,

As I said in the beginning, I have read your exchange with Vogel.  Your ability to speak past people and spin in tiny circles is something to behold.  You emit A grade apologist fog. 

We are done.  Having seen Vogel and you dance and now having danced some myself, I decline further opportunity to interact.

I am sure you will claim victory on some basis.  Help yourself.

best,

bob

"And they're punting!"

"The apologists have the ball, how far will they run?"

[cjcampbell]

As for the ridiculous argument that the Book of Mormon can't be authentic because it does not mention monkeys, jaguars, etc.: there are monkeys in the Middle East, too, but they are not mentioned in the Bible. Neither are many other important animals, including cats (worshipped by the Egyptians), rats, deer, antelope, jackals, etc.

deut. 14:5

http://scriptures.lds.org/query?words=hart

http://scriptures.lds.org/query?words=roe

Okay, wrong about the deer. <sniff> Well, they have deer in Europe, too, so I supppose the Europeans might have included them when forging the Bible. I note that gnats are only mentioned once, despite the fact that on my visit to the area they seemed to be the most common animal in the area. And this, in a book more than twice the size of the Book of Mormon and covering a much longer period of history.

And fleas -- not mentioned at all. Neither in the Bible nor in the Book of Mormon. These are supposed to be Bedouins, for crying out loud. Where are the fleas?

Papyrus and paper making: not mentioned at all, although scrolls are.

And I am still demanding evidence of cockatrices and dragons to prove that the Bible is not a European forgery.

And what happened to elephants? Darius and Alexander had elephants. Pharoah had elephants. Hannibal had elephants. Where are the elephants in the Bible?

Don't even get me started on plants. Okay, I will start. Where are the citrus groves, the orange trees and lemon trees? What is this with 'corn' in the Bible? Don't tell me that it is wheat. It is like saying tapirs are horses. Corn is an American plant. Where are the date palms? And the dates? Aren't Middle Easterners supposed to eat a lot of dates? Where are the sweet potatos? Or yams?

What happened to volcanos? Didn't Biblical peoples think those were important? I could understand northern Europeans leaving them out when forging the Bible, but not people whose lives centered on the Mediterranean.

[gtaggart]

Brant,

As I said in the beginning, I have read your exchange with Vogel. Your ability to speak past people and spin in tiny circles is something to behold. You emit A grade apologist fog.

We are done. Having seen Vogel and you dance and now having danced some myself, I decline further opportunity to interact.

I am sure you will claim victory on some basis. Help yourself.

best,

bob

Funny how Bob's word count goes down--way down--when he has to respond. Nice job Brant.

[beastie]

It seems there are a lot of people who are in serious denial about the very real evidence of precolumbian horses in America, including 40 Inca drawings of horses, the fact that Appaloosas are not Spanish in origin, at least one precolumbian skull, etc. And, please understand, these points were all brought up by people who study horses for a living, not 'Mormons' or their sympathizers.

Please provide references and citations for these claims.

I am beginning to lose patience with being ignored on these issues. The critics right now have absolutely no credibility with me either as scholars or scientists. Their faulty arguments and refusal to discuss issues reveals that they are neither objective nor truthful.

Wait a minute, aren't you the same guy who made THIS statement on another thread?

Now, Joseph Smith knew very well that there were no elephants in America. He was uneducated, but he knew where elephants come from. If he was forging the Book of Mormon, why would anybody with an IQ above 50 include them? Joseph Smith was not a stupid man. He had no reason to include something in the Book of Mormon that would appear ridiculous on the face of it.

http://www.fairboards.org/index.php?showtopic=14159&st=165

That statement could only be made by someone who hasn't made the slightest attempt to verify his information, so I'm not particularly impressed by your ability to judge anyone's arguments.

[beastie]

Brant,

I hope you are not minimizing the "horses and chariots" issue. You are still left with the challenge of attempting to construct a possible explanation for the formulaic expression that is consistent with Mesoamerican history and, at the same time, doesn't sound like too much of a stretch. I recall your attempt to address this by speculating that perhaps this really was a reference to the litter (on which human porters would transport the king into battle) and the way, or the animal spirit companion, of that same king. I believe you later conceded that this was probably too much of a translation stretch.

So what are the other possibilites?

[beastie]

However, chariots were well known in the Old World during Lehi

[Dan Vogel]

Brant,

I am surprised that you speak other languages and can be so completely illogical about the translation process. The reason that I asked for some academic support for your logic is that in this case, your logic won't do at all. Your "logic" contradicts known facts and practices.

Not at all. Your reductionist conclusion ignores scholarly literature that directly contradicts it.

Are you suggesting that scholars don't know what they are doing, but you know better?

You keep claiming academic support for your methodology, but have yet to cite any scholar who handles a disputed text the way you do. It would be extremely helpful if you would demonstrate our non-conformity with established practice by citing these other scholars.

The last time I asked you this question, you were evasive. This is what happened.

18 March:

Brant: I have asked you before to defend your contention that the Book of Mormon must be analyzed in ways that no other text has ever been examined by reputable scholars. I have suggested that you might use the methods for determining a forgery that Friedrich Blass wrote a book about.

Instead of any of these scholarly avenues, you return to the assumption that unless a text is know to be ancient one cannot demonstrate that it is ancient.

Of course, this represented what I said, but you suggested that you were merely handling the BOM like any ancient document. I was only responding to your methodology, critiquing it, but made no claims about methodology or whether the standards of scholarship. Nevertheless, my response was (18 March):

Dan: Can you show where a disputed document is handled in the manner you suggest? So far the documents you have discussed, as far as I know, are not disputed. As I have repeatedly said, I have no problem with correcting an authentic text with outside information. The BOM is not that kind of document.

On Blass, you mentioned Nibley

[Brant Gardner]

beastie:

I hope you are not minimizing the "horses and chariots" issue. You are still left with the challenge of attempting to construct a possible explanation for the formulaic expression that is consistent with Mesoamerican history and, at the same time, doesn't sound like too much of a stretch.

I haven't minimized anything. I have suggested that there is a process that one must go through. One of the requirements, prior to resolving what the logical referent of "horse" or "chariot" might have been is to determine if the text is actually representing history.

Once that is established, speculation about the plausible referent can be made. However, since I don't see you accepting the historical part, I see no reason to speculate on what the "horse" or "chariot" might have been, since you are obviously inclined to see that issue very differently from the way I do.

I can tell you that I have changed my mind over the last number of years. Nevertheless, I'll keep my counsel and prefer to speak on things that have a better substantive basis. If we are really examining historicity, endulging in speculation doesn't seem appropriate.

I think this is an important point, particularly under Brant's understanding of the translation process - ie, that at least some of these significant translation errors originated with JS, which entails a rejection of JS as "reader", and instead apparently (although not explicitly articulated, as far as I have seen) relying on some gestalt image/impression which he then put into specific words. Under this paradigm, Joseph Smith's understanding of the BoM is crucial. He wasn't some reader, who could read off words without truly understanding what he was reading - the entire translation was a result of his understanding of the gestalt impression he had received. JS' own understanding of the book originated from the same source.

No, you have missed the way this works. I posit Joseph as a translator who uses his own words and understanding as part of the translation - nevertheless retaining structures and meanings from the original text. In that scenario, Joseph's world influences his vocabulary. The underlying text influences structure, content and meaning. Joseph's expectation that certainly everyone would have had a horse could easily influence his translation of the lexeme - but it would not influence the way that animal acted in the text.

[beastie]

First, I should explain, I'm responding as I read the original essay, so if something is later answered I'll be embarassed and recant, but this seems the easiest way for me to handle the amount of material presented.

The fallacy in Gardner

[beastie]

No, you have missed the way this works. I posit Joseph as a translator who uses his own words and understanding as part of the translation - nevertheless retaining structures and meanings from the original text. In that scenario, Joseph's world influences his vocabulary. The underlying text influences structure, content and meaning. Joseph's expectation that certainly everyone would have had a horse could easily influence his translation of the lexeme - but it would not influence the way that animal acted in the text.

So he's not getting some sort of gestalt impression, but rather.... what? words?

I also don't see how my gestalt image necessarily denies that the underlying text influences structure, content, and meaning. They would still be impressions/images following a certain sequence.