Chiasmus

[Dan Vogel]

Bernard,

It can equally be argued that Joseph's later writing style was highly

influenced by his experience translating the the BoM, his first and

most successful literary accomplishment. I am unaware of any comparable

complex writing he did prior to the BoM.

There is no way to test this theory. If he could absorb it by reading the BOM, why not by reading the Bible?

How does one absorb literary and rhetorical forms by listening

to a few sermons? Doesn't the structure have to be revealed through

written analysis? What evidence do you have that Joseph engaged

in this kind of esoteric scholarship?

I think you didn't understand my statement. I believe JS picked up various forms of rhetorical repetition from hearing sermons and reading the Bible. It's not that hard. I don't believe he picked up the kind of chiasmus that takes deep analysis to reveal, but I also don't believe that kind of chiasmus is intentional and results largely by manipulating the text. The kind of chiasmus that I believe JS pocked up is called antimetabole, which uses exact words rather than synonyms. For example,

The first shall be last, and the last shall be first.

This is obviously intentional.

To me, your argument is akin to a neophyte composer writing

a symphony in sonata/allegro, minuet and trio, and theme and

variation forms after listening to a little Mozart and Haydn.

I don't believe your analogy fits what we are discussing.

[Confidential Informant]

The first shall be last, and the last shall be first.

This is obviously intentional.

It's also obviously not an chiasmus.

C.I.

[Dan Vogel]

CK,

Yeah, I've read Wunderli's analysis. He does a poor job of responding to Edwards and Edwards, though.

I can't say that I've spent a great deal of time analyzing the Edwardses' methodology, but I believe they beg the question by assuming the chiasmus is objectively present in the text and make inferences about intentionality based on the relationship of the chiasm to the surrounding text. Wunderli's analysis of Alma 36 parallels mine, which I gave to him while he was preparing his essay. The chiasm is created by ignoring the unchiastic features of the chapter.

[Dan Vogel]

CI,

You are going to have to explain yourself. There are many kinds of chiasms. This type is sometimes called literal chiasmus or mirror chiasmus, but it's also an antimetabole.

[Chris Smith]

CK,

I can't say that I've spent a great deal of time analyzing the Edwardses' methodology, but I believe they beg the question by assuming the chiasmus is objectively present in the text and make inferences about intentionality based on the relationship of the chiasm to the surrounding text. Wunderli's analysis of Alma 36 parallels mine, which I gave to him while he was preparing his essay. The chiasm is created by ignoring the unchiastic features of the chapter.

Actually, part of my ongoing evaluation involves exploring precisely the ways their analysis begs the question. I've already identified a couple. I'm also expanding on the point that I think Wunderli understated (though to his credit he did state it), which is that randomness does not accurately describe the situation, because chiasmus will naturally emerge in an Alma-style conversion story. So far, I have located conversion stories on the internet with values of L as low as .13, despite the fact that I haven't quite mastered E&E's technique of manipulating section length to produce optimal results. This technique is central to E&E's method (When I analyzed the central chunk of Alma 36 without creating any "sections", I got an L of .999). Further, I'm re-writing their program in order to overcome its limitations, make it easier to use, and address some inherent deficiencies.

Having said all that, though, I cannot dismiss the central tenet of their analysis: Alma 36 contains lengthy word strings that are parallel to each other in a roughly chiastic order. There are also strong conceptual ties between opposite sections of the passage. This does not appear to have been an accident, even when we allow for the natural chiastic pattern that will emerge in a conversion story. Alma 36 is much more chiastic than any conversion story I've been able to dig up, despite having read a lot of them in the past few days. I am fairly convinced that the author of the passage intentionally structured it this way; whether he did so in order to create a Hebrew literary form, however, is a whole different matter.

-CK

[Bernard Gui]

There is no way to test this theory. If he could absorb it by reading the BOM, why not by reading the Bible?

I think you didn't understand my statement. I believe JS picked up various forms of rhetorical repetition from hearing sermons and reading the Bible. It's not that hard. I don't believe he picked up the kind of chiasmus that takes deep analysis to reveal, but I also don't believe that kind of chiasmus is intentional and results largely by manipulating the text. The kind of chiasmus that I believe JS pocked up is called antimetabole, which uses exact words rather than synonyms. For example,

The first shall be last, and the last shall be first.

This is obviously intentional.

I don't believe your analogy fits what we are discussing.

Joseph did more than just read the Book of Mormon.

Other than his mother's statement to the contrary, what evidence do you

have of Joseph's early Bible reading?

Yes, I understood your statement, and, as you say, there is no way to test your theory.

I've heard lots of sermons and I've done a lot of scripture reading, but I don't write or

speak in parallelisms. Until I read Parry's BoM Text Reformatted, I didn't even recognize

them in the BoM.

Chiasmus is not the only form of parallelism in the BoM. I find other forms far more

interesting and compelling, for example, anadiplosis.

I do think the analogy fits. Joseph picks up simple and complex rhetorical devices

by hearing them in a few sermons. John Doe writes a symphonic movement in

sonata/allegro form after hearing a few Mozart and Haydn symphonies. Neither is

very plausible.

Bernard

[Dan Vogel]

Bernard,

Joseph did more than just read the Book of Mormon.

Yes, he read the translation from the stone. How is that different than reading the Bible?

Other than his mother's statement to the contrary, what evidence do you

have of Joseph's early Bible reading?

You honestly doubt JS read the Bible and was not thoroughly acquainted with its contents? In 1832, he said:

At about the age of twelve years my mind become Seriously imprest [p. 1] with regard to the all importent concerns for the well=fare of my immortal Soul which led me to Search=ing the Scriptures believeing as I was taught, that they contained the word of God thus applying myself to them and my intimate acquaintance with those of differant denominations led me to marvel excedingly for I discovered that <they did not adorn> instead of adorning their profession by a holy walk and God=ly conversation agreeable to what I found contain=ed in that sacred depository this was a grief to my Soul thus from the age of twelve years to fifteen I pondered many things in my heart concerning the sittuation of the world of mankind the contentions and divi[si]ons the wicke[d]ness and abominations and the darkness which pervaded the of the minds of mankind my mind become excedingly distressed for I become convicted of my Sins and by Searching the Scriptures I found that mand <mankind> did not come unto the Lord but that they had apostatised from the true and liveing faith and there was no society or denomination that built upon the Gospel of Jesus Christ as recorded in the new testament and I felt to mourn for my own Sins and for the Sins of the world for I learned in the Scriptures that God was the Same yesterday to day and forever that he was no respecter to persons [Heb. 13:8; Acts 10:34-35] ...

Yes, I understood your statement, and, as you say, there is no way to test your theory.

It's your theory that can't be tested. You are the one trying to argue that JS changed by translating the BOM.

I've heard lots of sermons and I've done a lot of scripture reading, but I don't write or

speak in parallelisms. Until I read Parry's BoM Text Reformatted, I didn't even recognize

them in the BoM.

This tells us more about you than it does JS. You might not be able to speak in parallelisms. But how hard have you really tried? You should read some of Martin Luther King's unprepared sermons. They are rich in parallelisms. Listen closely to a good TV evangelist. Here is a passage from my own unpublished study:

Someone imitating Bible language would have naturally fallen into parallelism, so one should not be surprised to find it in the Book of Mormon. In fact, after recommending Bishop Lowthâ??s book and describing parallelism in Hebrew poetry, Hugh Blair, in An Abridgement of Lectures on Rhetoric (New York, 1819), then gave this advise to contemporary authors: "and all writers who attempt the sublime, might profit much by imitating, in this respect, the style of the Old Testament" (146-47).

If you want to see JS's use of various forms of repetition, read his letter from Liberty Jail.

Chiasmus is not the only form of parallelism in the BoM. I find other forms far more

interesting and compelling, for example, anadiplosis.

We discussed this several months ago. For those who don't know what this is.

Anadiplosis (â??doubling backâ?). Repetition of the last word or words of one clause at the beginning of the following clause. This is sometimes confused with simple chiasmus. Anadiplosis is often combined with climax.

John 1:1: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God ..."

2 Nephi 11:7: "For if there be no Christ there be no God; and if there be no God we are not ..."

D&C 76:59: "All are theirs, and they are Christâ??s, and Christ is Godâ??s.

Alexander Pope: The crime was common, common be the pain.

Unidentified (1809): "Prize wisdom, wisdom is a precious jewel."(Samuel Knox, A Compendious System of Rhetoric (Baltimore: Swain & Matchett, 1809), 110).

Here are three examples from the sermons of Charles Marford, circa 1818, a lay Methodist exhorter who lived in Victor, NY, only miles from JS (Department of Manuscripts and University Archives, Cornell University Libraries, Ithaca, New York (microfilm, #6184)):

... and one and an other of the Servants of the Lord has been sent to dig about our hearts by his words, in order to make <us> bring forth fruit - the fruits of the Spirit.

he has commanded all men every where to repent and believe the gospel and the gospel requires us to believe that we are sinners by nature and practice.

and you must continue as you are then to all eternity. Eternity, this is a solemn word and aught to strike our souls with dread.

I do think the analogy fits. Joseph picks up simple and complex rhetorical devices

by hearing them in a few sermons. John Doe writes a symphonic movement in

sonata/allegro form after hearing a few Mozart and Haydn symphonies. Neither is

very plausible.

Bob Dylan says he could learn songs by hearing them once or twice. Who are you to set limits on the gifted?

[David Bokovoy]

Bob Dylan says he could learn songs by hearing them once or twice. Who are you to set limits on the gifted?

I just saw Dylan in concert Saturday night. This marks the eighth time I've seen him live. The man is truly gifted beyond belief.

[urroner]

Bob Dylan says he could learn songs by hearing them once or twice. Who are you to set limits on the gifted?

Just because somebody does something that is outstanding and/or unbelievable, does that mean that they are gifted?

[Dan Vogel]

David,

I just saw Dylan in concert Saturday night. This marks the eighth time I've seen him live. The man is truly gifted beyond belief.

I have never seen him live, and I was out of town when he came here. I just spent hours watching some very interesting music and interview videos of Dylan on YouTube. The statement I'm referencing is in "No Direction Home," which I own.

[Dan Vogel]

urroner,

Just because somebody does something that is outstanding and/or unbelievable, does that mean that they are gifted?

Yes! Whatever you think of JS, a personality like his doesn't come along very often.

[Dan Vogel]

Bernard,

Here are a few examples of rhetorical repetition in JS's writings, especially from his 20 March 1839 letter from Liberty Jail. Parts of this letter are now D&C 121-23, but I also include other parts that were not included in D&C(see Dean C. Jessee, ed., The Personal Writings of Joseph Smith (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1984/2002). This letter was an impromptu dictation with very little revision.

I include his revelations since they were given "unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language" (D&C 1:24). When certain men hesitated to publish JS's revelations because of those "weaknesses" and a revelation challenged them to produce a better-worded revelation, it reminded the men: "... and his language you have known, and his imperfections you have known; and you have sought in your hearts knowledge that you might express beyond his language" (D&C 67:5).

Most of these rhetorical devices were discussed in books on rhetoric in JS's day. They are also found in the Bible, and easily picked up and imitated by someone with JS's abilities.

Alternate. Repetition of the same words, concepts, or phrases in the same order. This can take three forms: simple (AB/AB); repeated (AB/AB/AB); and extended (ABC ... / ABC ...).

D&C 10:37

A Therefore, care not for the body,

...B neither the life of the body;

A but care for the soul

...B and for the life of the soul.

Extended Alternate

D&C 41:5

A - He that receiveth my law

...B - and doeth it,

......C - the same is my disciple;

A - and he that saith he receiveth it

...B - and doeth it not,

......C - the same is not my disciple ...

Anabasis ("to go up"). Repetition of ideas with an increase of sense (positive) in successive phrases. Also called "staircase parallelism."

D&C 45:66

And it shall be called the New Jerusalem,

...a land of peace,

......a city of refuge,

.........a place of safety for the saints of the Most High God.

Anadiplosis ("doubling back").

JS to the Elders of the Church, 1 September 1835(DHC 2:254).

... the upbuilding of an "holy city," which should be called Zion--Zion, because it is a place of righteousness, ...

[Note this could easily be mistaken as a chiasm]

Anaphora ("to bring again"; like sentence beginnings).

Liberty Jail, 20 March 1839, D&C 121:4-5

O Lord God Almighty ...

let thine eye pierce;

let thy pavilion be taken up;

let thy hiding place no longer be covered;

let thine ear be inclined;

let thine heart be softened, and thy bowels moved with compassion toward us.

Let thine anger be kindled against our enemies.

Antithetic Parallelism. (The second line is antithetical to the first.)

Liberty Jail, 20 March 1839 (see Jessee).

thy mind O Man,

A - if thou wilt lead a soul unto salvation must streach as high as the utmost Heavens,

B - and sear[c]h in to and contemplate the lowest conside[r]ations of the darkest abyss ...

A - how much more dignified and noble are the thoughts of God,

B - than the vain immaginations of the human heart[?]

Catabasis ("going down"). Repetition of ideas with a decrease in sense (negative) in successive phrases. Also known as "staircase parallelism."

D&C 45:2

............And again I say, hearken unto my voice,

.........lest death shall overtake you;

......in an hour when ye think not the summer shall be past,

...and the harvest ended,

and your souls not saved.

Epistrophe ("like sentence endings").

Liberty Jail, 20 March 1839 (see Jessee).

... that God is true

that the constitution of the united States is [true]

that the Bible is true

that the book of [mor]m[on] is true

that the book of covenants [is] tru[e]

that the ministering [angels sen]t forth from God are true

Paradiastole. Repetitive use of either/or or neither/nor at the beginning of successive phrases.

D&C 3:2

For God doth not walk in crooked paths,

neither doth he turn to the right hand

nor to the left,

neither doth he vary from that which he hath said ...

Polysyndeton ("many bound together").

Liberty Jail, 20 March 1839 (see Jessee).

And may faith

and virtue

and knowledge

and temperance

and pationce

and Godlines

and Brotherly kindness

and charity be in you

and abound ...

Polyptoton ("many cases"; "many inflections").

Liberty Jail, 20 March 1839 (see Jessee).

It will draw out all the corruption of a corrupt heart. ...

We brethren are deprived of the protection of this glorious principal by the cruelty of the cruel.

Scesis Onomaton. Repetition of generally synonymous phrases or statements.

Liberty Jail, 20 March 1839 (see Jessee).

... and again

thou moon

thou dimmer light

thou luminary of night

shall turn to blood.

Concerning JS's speaking abilities, Howard Coray said:

I sat and listened to his preaching at the stand in Nauvoo a great many times when I have been completely carried away with his indescribable eloquence--power of expressing--speaking as I have never heard any other man. (quoted in Mark E. McConkie, Remembering Joseph, 199)

Relating events in Ohio, Lydia Knight said:

The Prophet then arose and pured forth a golden stream of words, many of which were verily pearls without price. (McConkie, 201)

Describing JS's address to a Philadelphia congregation, Parley P. Pratt said:

Brother Joseph arose like a lion about to roar; and being full of the Holy Ghost, spoke in great power ... The entire congregation was astounded, electrified, as it were, and overwhelmed with the sense of the truth and power by which he spoke ... (McConkie, 203-4)

I would not expect JS to be a very good public speaker in a formal sense on the level of someone like Rigdon, especially at first. But as he became for comfortable in that medium, his natural eloquence would become more apparent, although still not in a trained and formal sense. I think we need to pay more attention to the sources of JS's charisma such as language ability, as well as physical stature (including perceived virility), legend (real or claimed), and personality.

[Chris Smith]

An excellent post, Dan.

[Jerubaal]

Well Dan, I'm no expert on parallelistic structures, but one of yours, D&C 45:2, I noticed is actually a rephrasing of a Bible verse, Jeremiah 8:20.

[Benjamin McGuire]

I like Psalm 82 as a chiasmus. Only in reading the text through does what is initially an ambiguity in the Hebrew resolve itself as the chiasmus unfolds.

Lengthy rhetorical devices in the Old Testament are not unknown. The 176 lines of Psalm 119 are a classic example. Structured as an acrostic, with 22 sections each associated with a letter of the Hebrew alphabet (in consecutive order) and each of the 8 lines in each section beginning with that letter, indicates an aesthetic structure that cannot be viewed as anything but intentional.

Dan makes a good argument - at least on the surface. After all, of the 900 and some odd chiastic structures which have been identified, are there any that he believes are intentional chiasmus which do not fit the bill of being simple antimetable or or similar structures? That is are there some chiasmus which reflect a degree of sophistication which follow along the same lines as other sophisticated chiasmus from known ancient sources? He uses the standard set of deflections -

While Welch and other chiasmists point to symmetry and complexity as signs of conscious design, most (about 85%) exhibit imbalance, questionable demarcation, mixed parallel styles, arbitrary omission and inclusion of key elements.

In reality, once we get away from the simple forms that Dan admits to the existence of, we find the same challenges in ancient Hebrew chiasmus. Of course, in Hebrew there are additional features that clue us in to the intentional use of this rhetorical form. When poetry (or prophetic material - definitions can be a bit loose) dramatically shifts form into what we would call a chiastic structure, and then reverts back, the intentionality of the form seems rather non-controversial, even when there are imbalances, questionable demarcation, mixed parallel styles, arbitrary omission and inclusion of key elements, and so on. And of course, if we suppose that the Book of Mormon is a translation, we would only expect these issues to be exascerbated by the shift in language. Further, Psalm 119 as a complex rhetorical trope loses something if the aesthetics of the form is lost by a line without the necessary starting letter, chiasmus, if seen as a purely aesthic form, would of course be damaged by these imbalances missing elements and so on. But we aren't talking about pure poetics for the most part. The Book of Mormon is a narrative text. And in the Bible we don't get perfect chiastic structures in narrative texts - because the focus isn't on the aesthetic appeal of the trope but on its value to the author as a means of conveying his intentions. An excellent scholary discussion of this comes in Elie Assis's "Chiasmus in Biblical Narrative: Rhetoric of Characterization" in Prooftexts 22 (2002), pp. 273-304. And he presents us with lots of chiastic structures, lopsided, without a central theme in the middle, and so on. Simply focusing on structure and not on the rhetoric always leads to a discussion of chiasmus which is relatively meaningless. We can always artifically create structures. It is the rhetorical arguments which makes us able to comment on the intentionality of the trope.

Additionally, many proposed Book of Mormon chiasms ignore and disrupt more dominant literary patterns and serve no discernable literary purpose. When one or more of these characteristics are present, it is much easier to assign these problems to apologetic ingenuity, manipulation, and wishful thinking than to buy into the ad hoc hypothesis offered by Welch and others that the ancient authors "simply took some liberty with the form" (John W. Welch, "Introduction," in John W. Welch, ed., Chiasmus in Antiquity: Structure, Analyses, Exegesis (Hildersheim, Germany: Gerstenberg Verlag, 1981), 13, 14).

To put it bluntly, however, Metcalfe's notion of chiastic interference is for the most part nonsense. And even Wright's adoption of this notion was, in my view, problematic (I sent David B. a critique on the article). There are a couple of issues here. First, in texts where there isn't competition or interference, we can find liberties taken with the "forms". We can do this even in the poetic material where chiasmus is much easier to identify. Second, when offering competing forms, the same degree of rigor needs to be used to defend the various competing forms, or there isn't real interference. A non-rhetorical form (accidental and not intentional) cannot compete with an intentional one. This has always been my biggest sticking point with Metcalfe. More often than not, he merely presents what appears to be contrived structures, and never argues for the legitimacy of these structures based on issues of rhetorical value or intentionality. The fabrication of competing structures is at least as disengenuous as what he claims LDS apologists are doing in creating chiasmus where none exists.

Personally, I don't find chiasmus in the Book of Mormon to be very good evidence of antiquity. I certainly am very skeptical of macro-chiasmus. But, I do find from time to time, fairly complex examples of it in the Book of Mormon, indicating intent and some forethought in the text. But Chiasmus itself is only one of the several kinds of tropes used in the Book of Mormon, and many of the other rhetorical figures are much more interesting to me and much more telling in the discussion about the authorship of the text - literary allusions, quotation, reinscription, and so on. There is certainly a richness to the text which defies simplistic explanations.

[The Dude]

Personally, I don't find chiasmus in the Book of Mormon to be very good evidence of antiquity.

[Dan Vogel]

Jerubaal,

Well Dan, I'm no expert on parallelistic structures, but one of yours, D&C 45:2, I noticed is actually a rephrasing of a Bible verse, Jeremiah 8:20.

D&C 45:2

And again I say, hearken unto my voice,

.........lest death shall overtake you;

......in an hour when ye think not the summer shall be past,

...and the harvest ended,

and your souls not saved.

Jeremiah 8:20

......The harvest is past,

...the summer ended,

and we are not saved.

I still give JS credit for this one since he adapted and expanded it.

[Chris Smith]

Also an excellent post, Ben.

[Dan Vogel]

Hi Ben,

I like Psalm 82 as a chiasmus. Only in reading the text through does what is initially an ambiguity in the Hebrew resolve itself as the chiasmus unfolds.

I think it's difficult to dismiss some extended chiasms as unintentional. The tighter the structure, the more likely intentionality. But the looser and more abstract chiasms are problematic. I think we agree on this.

Lengthy rhetorical devices in the Old Testament are not unknown. The 176 lines of Psalm 119 are a classic example. Structured as an acrostic, with 22 sections each associated with a letter of the Hebrew alphabet (in consecutive order) and each of the 8 lines in each section beginning with that letter, indicates an aesthetic structure that cannot be viewed as anything but intentional.

I have no argument with this.

Dan makes a good argument - at least on the surface. After all, of the 900 and some odd chiastic structures which have been identified, are there any that he believes are intentional chiasmus which do not fit the bill of being simple antimetable or or similar structures? That is are there some chiasmus which reflect a degree of sophistication which follow along the same lines as other sophisticated chiasmus from known ancient sources? He uses the standard set of deflections -

Yes, but they are relatively short, tightly constructed, and either literal or very nearly literal.

In reality, once we get away from the simple forms that Dan admits to the existence of, we find the same challenges in ancient Hebrew chiasmus. Of course, in Hebrew there are additional features that clue us in to the intentional use of this rhetorical form. When poetry (or prophetic material - definitions can be a bit loose) dramatically shifts form into what we would call a chiastic structure, and then reverts back, the intentionality of the form seems rather non-controversial, even when there are imbalances, questionable demarcation, mixed parallel styles, arbitrary omission and inclusion of key elements, and so on. And of course, if we suppose that the Book of Mormon is a translation, we would only expect these issues to be exascerbated by the shift in language. Further, Psalm 119 as a complex rhetorical trope loses something if the aesthetics of the form is lost by a line without the necessary starting letter, chiasmus, if seen as a purely aesthic form, would of course be damaged by these imbalances missing elements and so on. But we aren't talking about pure poetics for the most part. The Book of Mormon is a narrative text. And in the Bible we don't get perfect chiastic structures in narrative texts - because the focus isn't on the aesthetic appeal of the trope but on its value to the author as a means of conveying his intentions. An excellent scholary discussion of this comes in Elie Assis's "Chiasmus in Biblical Narrative: Rhetoric of Characterization" in Prooftexts 22 (2002), pp. 273-304. And he presents us with lots of chiastic structures, lopsided, without a central theme in the middle, and so on. Simply focusing on structure and not on the rhetoric always leads to a discussion of chiasmus which is relatively meaningless. We can always artifically create structures. It is the rhetorical arguments which makes us able to comment on the intentionality of the trope.

True, some Bible scholars have looser definitions of chiasmus, just as some BOM apologists do. Welch tried to reign in some of the over-zealous chiasmists. The same situation exists in Bible studies. Welch has given a list of criteria for assessing "chiasticity", which is nearly identical to those proposed by Bible scholars. It works like this: to the degree that one can claim a passages is chiastic is the same degree to which it adheres to the assumed form. The further a proposed chiasm strays from the ideal form, the less evidence for intentionality.

To put it bluntly, however, Metcalfe's notion of chiastic interference is for the most part nonsense. And even Wright's adoption of this notion was, in my view, problematic (I sent David B. a critique on the article). There are a couple of issues here. First, in texts where there isn't competition or interference, we can find liberties taken with the "forms". We can do this even in the poetic material where chiasmus is much easier to identify. Second, when offering competing forms, the same degree of rigor needs to be used to defend the various competing forms, or there isn't real interference. A non-rhetorical form (accidental and not intentional) cannot compete with an intentional one. This has always been my biggest sticking point with Metcalfe. More often than not, he merely presents what appears to be contrived structures, and never argues for the legitimacy of these structures based on issues of rhetorical value or intentionality. The fabrication of competing structures is at least as disengenuous as what he claims LDS apologists are doing in creating chiasmus where none exists.

You might be right about Metcalfe's competing forms argument in a particular case, but it is still a consideration when assessing whether a proposed chiasm was intended by the author or a manipulation of the researcher. How does one know when an author takes "liberties" with a form, or when the researcher is forcing the text into a predetermined pattern?

Personally, I don't find chiasmus in the Book of Mormon to be very good evidence of antiquity.

Why? Please explain.

I certainly am very skeptical of macro-chiasmus.

Me too.

But, I do find from time to time, fairly complex examples of it in the Book of Mormon, indicating intent and some forethought in the text.

There are some interesting patterns, to be sure, but I'm not surprised to find some in a richly parallelistic and repetitive (and redundant) environment. Hence, my reference to the fallacy of favorable circumstances.

But Chiasmus itself is only one of the several kinds of tropes used in the Book of Mormon, and many of the other rhetorical figures are much more interesting to me and much more telling in the discussion about the authorship of the text - literary allusions, quotation, reinscription, and so on. There is certainly a richness to the text which defies simplistic explanations.

The BOM is complex, but so was JS. I too think chiasmus should be seen as part of the larger poetic environment of the BOM as well as in the context of his other literary productions.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Vogel writes:

It works like this: to the degree that one can claim a passages is chiastic is the same degree to which it adheres to the assumed form. The further a proposed chiasm strays from the ideal form, the less evidence for intentionality.

And this is the gist of the discussion. If we view chiasmus as being purely structural - i.e. as being purelyaesthetic, there is no doubt that this is true. And this is why a lot of the examples culled from the Book of Mormon have significant enough problems to call into question their identification as chiasmus. Those arguing for the existence of chiasmus rarely go beyond structural arguments. But, once we start talking about the rhetoric of a passage, and the writing styles, and the several other issues which are used to identify chiasmus, the "assumed form" issue takes a back seat. We can narrowly define chiasmus if we want to, and eliminate Book of Mormon and Biblical proposals based on that narrow definition, but this wouldn't change the fact that there are similarities between what appears to be tropes in the Bible and tropes in the Book of Mormon. But realistically once we get to this level of discussion, we lose most of the apologists anyways.

You might be right about Metcalfe's competing forms argument in a particular case, but it is still a consideration when assessing whether a proposed chiasm was intended by the author or a manipulation of the researcher. How does one know when an author takes "liberties" with a form, or when the researcher is forcing the text into a predetermined pattern?

Well, I think this is where we start eliminating proposals. Rhetorical devices by nature are intentional. They may be purely aesthetic. They may serve a rhetorical function. If we are dealing purely with aesthetics, then all of the issues you raised earlier are completely relevant. If we choose to talk about intentionality, then we have to present a case for intentionality which goes beyond the mere assertion of chiastic form. And a simple assertion of a significant point at the middle of the chiasmus is insufficient. That is an argument for aesthetics as much as anything else - and is unconvincing as an argument for intentionality because it isn't falsifiable. Ah here is the middle - it must be the intended most important thought. And I think you would agree with this.

Why? Please explain.

Because real evidence of antiquity isn't going to depend much on structural elements of a text unless we can point out that they are unique to a period or place or time. Chiasmus itself (at least as we define it) was apparently quite widely used in ancient literature. But at the same time, we don't have any guides explaining it anciently (this isn't a real issue, since we don't have any guides explaining most rhetorical figures and structures, including the basic sentance). And it can be found in other places and in other times. And whether or not we connect early 19th century instances as being patterned on scriptural texts like the Bible, we can still find them in the 19th century. On the other hand, they aren't out of place in such a text as an alleged translation of an ancient text (as the Book of Mormon claims to be), and so their appearance isn't entirely unexpected. At best, chiasmus makes us look at the authorship of the text, at the intentionality displayed in the text, and at its complexity. But Chiasmus isn't the best route to the intentions of the author. I am much more interested in other things like biblical interpretation in the Book of Mormon.

And as I know that you are interested in the intentions of the author (even though we disagree over the issue of authorship), you probably also agree with me here. And that is that even if we see chiasmus as we read, or have it pointed out to us, as a rhetorical trope, it usually doesn't add anything to our understanding of the text.

There are some interesting patterns, to be sure, but I'm not surprised to find some in a richly parallelistic and repetitive (and redundant) environment. Hence, my reference to the fallacy of favorable circumstances.

I need to spend some time with the recent statsistical analysis which in theory deals with this issue. But again, this argument tends to deal mostly with form and structure and not so much with the rhetorical strategy.

Ben

[Benjamin McGuire]

Dan Vogel writes:

I still give JS credit for this one since he adapted and expanded it.

I wonder if this is an example of Seidel's Law.

[Bernard Gui]

Yes, he read the translation from the stone. How is that different than reading the Bible?

Being involved in writing and editing a major work would have a profound influence, especially

since this was his first and greatest attempt at writing. His magnum opus came at the

beginning of his career, not after extensive training, tutorage, apprenticehip or study.

Handel learned to compose by hand copying the works of other composers.

You honestly doubt JS read the Bible and was not thoroughly acquainted with its contents? In 1832, he said:

It's your theory that can't be tested. You are the one trying to argue that JS changed by translating the BOM. This tells us more about you than it does JS. You might not be able to speak in parallelisms. But how hard have you really tried? You should read some of Martin Luther King's unprepared sermons. They are rich in parallelisms. Listen closely to a good TV evangelist.

I have no doubt that he read the Bible. I do doubt he was thoroughly acquainted with its contents at

the time in consideration. We all know his mother's statement that he had not read the book through.

He only hqe an elementary reading ability at best at the time and having worked

with 12 through 17 year olds all my life, I can vouch for their lack of cognitive skills sufficient to

encorporate their learning into a mature, complex work. Subtle allusions to obscure biblical passages

abound in the BoM, in addition to the "word for word" passages. I can't believe you

are seriously comparing the mature Martin Luther King with the young and inexperienced Joseph Smith.

I listen to good and bad TV and radio evangelists all the time. I also sit in on Young Life meetings in my school

and listen to the young wannabe kid preachers. There is a wide gulf of difference in knowledge and delivery

styles between them and their more experienced and prosperous elders. It would be more productive for you to compare like with like, kind with kind.

It is far more parsimonious to attribute Joseph's post-BoM writing and speaking style to his profound

seminal experience with the production of the Book of Mormon than supposing some sort of exposure to

the works of Bishop Lowth and Hugh Blair, et al ad nauseum. Talk about unprovable theories....

If you want to see JS's use of various forms of repetition, read his letter from Liberty Jail.

We discussed this several months ago.

Yet these do not compare with the quantity, quality, and variety of those in his first work, the BoM.

This is evidence that he was influenced by that work, not the master of the forms you

seem to believe he was before he produced it. How about some examples of his use of

complex parallelism before the BoM?

Anadiplosis (â??doubling backâ?). Repetition of the last word or words of one clause at the beginning of the following clause. This is sometimes confused with simple chiasmus. Anadiplosis is often combined with climax.

I assume your are giving these details for other readers and not just being condescending.

I am more impressed by this from the BoM,which is one of many:

Alma 42:17...

Now, how could a man repent except he should sin? How could he sin if there was no law? How could there be a law save there was a punishment? Now, there was a punishment affixed, and a just law given, which brought remorse of conscience unto man.

Now, if there was no law given (if a man murdered he should die) would he be afraid he would die if he should murder? And also, if there was no law given against sin men would not be afraid to sin. And if there was no law given, if men sinned what could justice do, or mercy either, for they would have no claim upon the creature?

But there is a law given, and a punishment affixed, and a repentance granted; which repentance, mercy claimeth; otherwise, justice claimeth the creature and executeth the law, and the law inflicteth the punishment;

if not so, the works of justice would be destroyed, and God would cease to be God. But God ceaseth not to be God, and mercy claimeth the penitent, and mercy cometh because of the atonement; and the atonement bringeth to pass the resurrection of the dead; and the resurrection of the dead bringeth back men into the presence of God; and thus they are restored into his presence,

to be judged according to their works, according to the law and justice.

Bob Dylan says he could learn songs by hearing them once or twice. Who are you to set limits on the gifted?

I remember when Dylan's voice was compared with a coyote with his hind feet caught in barbed wire.

Yes, and Mozart wrote symphonies after composing them entirely in his head. He was limited only by how

fast he could write and how much time he had to compose. However, this was the mature Mozart, not

the wunderkind. His early works were immature and obviously written by a child. He also had the benefit

of rigorous and constant training from his very competent father. From a young age he was able to hear music once, remember it perfectly, and reproduce it in written or performed form. This kind of mind comes around once in a hundred years. I have seen no evidence that Joseph Smith manifested this kind of prodigy before the BoM. In fact, those who knew him best certified that he was incabable of any activity similar to this. In fact, his closest friends constantly maintained that he was "tutored from above."

Bernard

[Bernard Gui]

An excellent post, Dan.

Yes, but entirely beside the point. This is all post-BoM. Joseph was already doing this

in the BoM. I believe that is where he learned it.

Bernard

[Dan Vogel]

Bernard,

Being involved in writing and editing a major work would have a profound influence, especially

since this was his first and greatest attempt at writing. His magnum opus came at the

beginning of his career, not after extensive training, tutorage, apprenticehip or study.

Handel learned to compose by hand copying the works of other composers.

Well, we don't know much about what he did before the BOM project, but we do have some evidence that he sometimes acted in the role of a Methodist exhorter and participated in the local debating club (according to Orsamus Turner, that is). By his own confession, he was very familiar with the Bible and various theological debates of his time. He was also quite a story teller, and held his family spell-bound night after night with stories about the Nephites. I think it's wrong to assume the BOM came out of nowhere.

I have no doubt that he read the Bible. I do doubt he was thoroughly acquainted with its contents at the time in consideration. We all know his mother's statement that he had not read the book through.

I think it's obvious that JS was thoroughly acquainted with the Bible. I think his mother was exaggerating his ignorance for rhetorical purposes, especially since she contradicts JS's own statement. Some apologists explain the BOM's anachronistic use of the Bible as part of the translator's vocabulary. That would imply an intimate familiarity with the Bible. His own revelations are also peppered with Biblical allusions. The letter he wrote the Colesville saints in August 1830 has a similar weaving of Bible passages.

He only hqe an elementary reading ability at best at the time

I don't know where you get that. I think the evidence contradicts this assertion. He may not have had high literary and writing skills, but that doesn't preclude him from having verbal and rhetorical skills.

and having worked with 12 through 17 year olds all my life, I can vouch for their lack of cognitive skills sufficient to encorporate their learning into a mature, complex work.

I don't think JS can be compare to the average kid out there. At the time he was dictating the BOM, he was 23.

Subtle allusions to obscure biblical passages abound in the BoM, in addition to the "word for word" passages. I can't believe you are seriously comparing the mature Martin Luther King with the young and inexperienced Joseph Smith.

I wasn't comparing JS to MLK. I referred to MLK as an example of how preachers can use rhetorical repetition similar to what is found in the BOM. My point was that such things are not indications of the BOM's antiquity.

I listen to good and bad TV and radio evangelists all the time. I also sit in on Young Life meetings in my school and listen to the young wannabe kid preachers. There is a wide gulf of difference in knowledge and delivery styles between them and their more experienced and prosperous elders. It would be more productive for you to compare like with like, kind with kind.

Again, you are comparing JS to average people. Because the average person can't do it, therefore JS couldn't do it? My reference to TV evangelists was to show that their impromptu sermons have patterns of repetition in them similar to the BOM. If I were to compare JS to this, I would choose some of the kid preachers I have seen who have been utterly remarkable and well beyond their elders. I can't remember the kid's name. But many years ago he astounded audiences with his mature preaching style, but he finally grew up and rebelled claiming his parents had exploited him.

It is far more parsimonious to attribute Joseph's post-BoM writing and speaking style to his profound

seminal experience with the production of the Book of Mormon than supposing some sort of exposure to

the works of Bishop Lowth and Hugh Blair, et al ad nauseum. Talk about unprovable theories....

I don't claim JS read Lowth or Blair. but rather that the preachers around him were trained in rhetoric and employed by them in their sermons and camp meetings. I would suggest that JS had a good ear for these forms and could easily imitate them. The BOM uses revival language, which is explained by some apologists as part of JS's language used in the translation. So, either way, I think you are stuck admitting JS had a hand in creating the BOM and he's obviously not the nit wit you portray him as.

Yet these do not compare with the quantity, quality, and variety of those in his first work, the BoM.

This is evidence that he was influenced by that work, not the master of the forms you

seem to believe he was before he produced it. How about some examples of his use of

complex parallelism before the BoM?

You are arguing in circles here. It doesn't make sense to argue that JS could learn this skill by translating the BOM and not by reading the Bible. If JS had the ability, he had it before the BOM. Many people (like you) read both the Bible and BOM, but can't write something like his letter from Liberty Jail.

We also differ, because I think the Liberty Jail letter is superior in language power than most parts of the BOM.

I assume your are giving these details for other readers and not just being condescending.

I am more impressed by this from the BoM,which is one of many:

Actually, I'm cutting and pasting from my notes. It's for whoever needs them, but I don't know how familiar you are with them either.

I remember when Dylan's voice was compared with a coyote with his hind feet caught in barbed wire.

And I remember when the BOM was compared to chloroform in print. But no one can do what Dylan does as well as Dylan does it, because there is only one Dylan. The same is true for JS.

Yes, and Mozart wrote symphonies after composing them entirely in his head. He was limited only by how fast he could write and how much time he had to compose. However, this was the mature Mozart, not the wunderkind. His early works were immature and obviously written by a child. He also had the benefit of rigorous and constant training from his very competent father. From a young age he was able to hear music once, remember it perfectly, and reproduce it in written or performed form. This kind of mind comes around once in a hundred years. I have seen no evidence that Joseph Smith manifested this kind of prodigy before the BoM. In fact, those who knew him best certified that he was incabable of any activity similar to this. In fact, his closest friends constantly maintained that he was "tutored from above."

You expect farmers to be able to accurately assess JS's abilities? These were the same people who believed he could see treasures in the ground with a magic stone and believed his stories about slippery treasures. Your argument that there is "no evidence" for us to assess JS's abilities before the BOM is meaningless, because there is no definitive evidence either way. Your theory that JS changed after dictating the BOM is not only untestable, but highly improbable.

[Bernard Gui]

Well, we don't know much about what he did before the BOM project, but we do have some evidence that he sometimes acted in the role of a Methodist exhorter and participated in the local debating club (according to Orsamus Turner, that is).

Unfortunately, Turner's statement gives no details from which to draw any conclusions about Joseph's

early abilities. Many of his contemporaries portrayed Smith as the village idiot. We have nothing with which to compare the production of his magnum opus which truly appeared out of nowhere. It is a long stretch from a juvenile debating club and an youth exhorter to a creator of a lengthy and complex religious work.

By his own confession, he was very familiar with the Bible and various theological debates of his time. He was also quite a story teller, and held his family spell-bound night after night with stories about the Nephites. I think it's wrong to assume the BOM came out of nowhere.

I disagree. His knowledge of the Nephites was gained from periodic visits with Moroni before receiving

the plates. I suppose his mother could have been lying when she said he was the least of her children

to be interested in reading.

I think it's obvious that JS was thoroughly acquainted with the Bible. I think his mother was exaggerating his ignorance for rhetorical purposes, especially since she contradicts JS's own statement. Some apologists explain the BOM's anachronistic use of the Bible as part of the translator's vocabulary. That would imply an intimate familiarity with the Bible. His own revelations are also peppered with Biblical allusions. The letter he wrote the Colesville saints in August 1830 has a similar weaving of Bible passages.

Again, you cite material that appears years after the production of the BoM. I am asking for hard

pre-BoM evidence that he had the ability to produce such a work. There simply is none.

He may not have had high literary and writing skills, but that doesn't preclude him from having verbal and rhetorical skills. I don't think JS can be compare to the average kid out there. At the time he was dictating the BOM, he was 23.

Prior to the age of 23, are there any contemporary descriptions of him as a wunderkind scriptorian

with a prodigious memory who was capable of narrating off the cuff a 500+ page book? Are there any

letters, stories, manuscripts, journals, articles, memories, recollections, anything, that could be brought into evidence? If he had such abilities, someone would have noted them, IMO. Furtive debates and a bit of exhorting don't fit the bill.

I wasn't comparing JS to MLK. I referred to MLK as an example of how preachers can use rhetorical repetition similar to what is found in the BOM. My point was that such things are not indications of the BOM's antiquity.

IMO, the rhetorical parallelism in the BoM is derived from the Nephite experience in the Old World and

their possession of the Brass Plates. I believe they consciously adapted it for their own use in their

own way. It is a window into how they thought and reasoned.

Again, you are comparing JS to average people. Because the average person can't do it, therefore JS couldn't do it?

Considering all the contemporary descriptions of Joseph pre-BoM, which ones portray him as being

a prodigy? What percentage of them describe him as an average kid or even below average?

How many describe him as the village dunce?

If I were to compare JS to this, I would choose some of the kid preachers I have seen who have been utterly remarkable and well beyond their elders. I can't remember the kid's name. But many years ago he astounded audiences with his mature preaching style, but he finally grew up and rebelled claiming his parents had exploited him.

I remember the story, too, but I am unaware of anyone who described Joseph to be this precocious.

I don't claim JS read Lowth or Blair. but rather that the preachers around him were trained in rhetoric and employed by them in their sermons and camp meetings. I would suggest that JS had a good ear for these forms and could easily imitate them. The BOM uses revival language, which is explained by some apologists as part of JS's language used in the translation. So, either way, I think you are stuck admitting JS had a hand in creating the BOM and he's obviously not the nit wit you portray him as.

Do you have some examples of those sermons that Joseph heard? I would like to study them.

I have not portrayed Joseph as a nit wit. Those are your words. I have presented examples of truly

gifted youngsters such as Mozart to serve as a model with which to compare Smith. Mozart's phenomenally good ear and

memory were highly touted by his father and recognized by the community at a very early age. There is no

comparison. Smith bloomed later in life. I am sure Smith had nascent capabilities that, were he to have been

raised in other circumstances, may have manifested themselves earlier and in other ways. From what

I have read of his life, he was an ordinary American frontier child who produced a remarkable book

without the abilities, tutoring, mentoring, and study that would seem to be required. The child genius

Mozart had early and rigorous training before he produced mature works.

You are arguing in circles here. It doesn't make sense to argue that JS could learn this skill by translating the BOM and not by reading the Bible. If JS had the ability, he had it before the BOM. Many people (like you) read both the Bible and BOM, but can't write something like his letter from Liberty Jail.

I would argue that his intellectual abilities were jump-started by his experience with the Book of Mormon.

I would not argue that he had some sort of prodigious knowledge of the Bible gained from some cursory

reading and listening to some hick preachers. Again, you appeal to a later mature work to prove your

point. I make no claims to being a great writer. Why the insult?

We also differ, because I think the Liberty Jail letter is superior in language power than most parts of the BOM.

As should be expected of a later, more mature writing. How about something comparable pre-BoM?

But no one can do what Dylan does as well as Dylan does it, because there is only one Dylan. The same is true for JS.

Well, if they did Dylan as well as Dylan, he wouldn't be selling as many records and living in his mansion. He is a good pop artist, no doubt. He lost my loyalty when he sold out to The Man.

You expect farmers to be able to accurately assess JS's abilities? These were the same people who believed he could see treasures in the ground with a magic stone and believed his stories about slippery treasures. Your argument that there is "no evidence" for us to assess JS's abilities before the BOM is meaningless, because there is no definitive evidence either way. Your theory that JS changed after dictating the BOM is not only untestable, but highly improbable.

Books have been written using those farmers' assessments. Some of them by you, correct?

The young Joseph's neighbors and friends described him as nothing but average or below, or worse.

The men who knew him most intimately, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, and Brigham Young all verified

this assessment, but they saw the change and described his growth in detail in their writings and sermons.

"He was taught by the administration of angels from heaven, by the voice of God and by the inspiration and power of the Holy Ghost."

"Joseph Smith was quite an uneducated man. He was uneducated when he was a boy. He was brought up in the green Mountains of Vermont, and he did not have any of the advantages of what we call an education. The Lord took him into His school, and He taught him things that I have seen puzzle many of the...profoundest thinkers of this world..."

"What could the Lord do with such a pack of ignorant fools as we were? There was one man that had a little good sense, and a spark of faith in the promises of God, and that was Joseph Smith - a backwoods man."

Bernard