Mythic Iron

[Analytics]

2- From a secularist perspective, an account of ancient legendary heroes working unknown metals in the Bible [Tubal-Cain] does not prove the Israelites did not exist. So why does an ancient legendary heroes [shule the Jaredite] working unknown metals in the BOM prove that Nephites didn't exist?

It seems to me we need a consistent standard in evaluating such things, and neither the inerrantists nor the secularists are willing to apply their standards consistently.

It sounds like you are retrenching and classifying the Jaredite stories as mere Nephite mythology. I suppose that is one way of looking at it, although you can hardly fault the secularists for following the believersâ?? lead and taking the claims of the Book of Mormon at face value.

Technically, I believe the argument of the secularists on this point is that putting steel into the hands of the Jaredites is indication that the Jaredite story is a myth written at a later time by somebody who knew what â??steelâ? was. Are conceding the point?

[Analytics]

In one form or another, the anachronism argument is probably the most common argument used by critics. Which part of this argument do you disagree with?

1- The BOM mentions X

2- There is no evidence for X in Precolumbian America.

3- Therefore: The mention of X in the BOM is an anachronism.

4- Therefore: the BOM is not an ancient book and is, instead, 19th century fiction.

5- Therefore: there were no Nephites.

If you want to be all formal-logically about it, here is your argument fixed to be more validish:

1- The BOM mentions X

2- If X existed in Precolombian America, there would be evidence of it.

3- There is no evidence for X in Precolumbian America.

4- Therefore X didnâ??t exist in Precolombian America.

5- Therefore: The mention of X in the BOM is an anachronism.

6- Therefore: the BOM is not an accurate translation of a Precolombian record.

The fact that Shakespeareâ??s Julius Caesar contains an anachronism doesnâ??t imply that Julius Caesar didnâ??t exist.

[cksalmon]

In one form or another, the anachronism argument is probably the most common argument used by critics. Which part of this argument do you disagree with?

These two propositions:

4- Therefore: the BOM is not an ancient book and is, instead, 19th century fiction.

5- Therefore: there were no Nephites.

Neither is entailed via (1^2).

3 is somewhat ambiguous and its equivocal nature would need to be resolved before I could definitively answer, but generally, the "therefore" in 3 seems also to be logically unentailed. While 1 and 2 may be true, they do not entail 4-5; nor, depending on other factors, 3.

CKS

[Bill Hamblin]

It sounds like you are retrenching and classifying the Jaredite stories as mere Nephite mythology. I suppose that is one way of looking at it, although you can hardly fault the secularists for following the believersâ?? lead and taking the claims of the Book of Mormon at face value.

Having a historical BOM does not mean everything in the BOM is history. The Vision of the Tree of Life or the Allegory of the Olive Tree, for example are not historical.

The problem with anachronism is that they are difficult to engage when a text is edited and/or translated, since editors and translators will necessarily introduce ideas from their own times. The BOM, if historical, is both edited and translated, which makes arguments from anachronism difficult.

Technically, I believe the argument of the secularists on this point is that putting steel into the hands of the Jaredites is indication that the Jaredite story is a myth written at a later time by somebody who knew what â??steelâ? was. Are conceding the point?

Of course not. It is, however, a possibility. Steel in the book of Mormon may be an anachronism. But if it is an anachronism, it could be introduced by the later BOM period editors of the book of Ether or in the JS translation.

Do you concede that the presence of steel in Jaredite story may not be a 19th century anachronism?

[Bill Hamblin]

If you want to be all formal-logically about it, here is your argument fixed to be more validish:

1- The BOM mentions X

2- If X existed in Precolombian America, there would be evidence of it.

3- There is no evidence for X in Precolumbian America.

4- Therefore X didnâ??t exist in Precolombian America.

5- Therefore: The mention of X in the BOM is an anachronism.

6- Therefore: the BOM is not an accurate translation of a Precolombian record.

The fact that Shakespeareâ??s Julius Caesar contains an anachronism doesnâ??t imply that Julius Caesar didnâ??t exist.

Your #2 and #4 are false claims. Many things existed for which no evidence survives; the lack of evidence for something does not prove it did not exist. Archaeologists even have a dictum for this: "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

These two propositions:

Neither is entailed via (1^2).

3 is somewhat ambiguous and its equivocal nature would need to be resolved before I could definitively answer, but generally, the "therefore" in 3 seems also to be logically unentailed. While 1 and 2 may be true, they do not entail 4-5; nor, depending on other factors, 3.

CKS

So what is the correct argument from anachronism?

[cksalmon]

So what is the correct argument from anachronism?

First, the argument would be inductive rather than formally deductive and would represent, ultimately, logically-uncertain inference(s), yet would meet the Criterion of Adequacy (CoA) (from SEP):

As evidence accumulates, the degree to which the collection of true evidence statements comes to support a hypothesis, as measured by the logic, should tend to indicate that false hypotheses are probably false and that true hypotheses are probably true.

CKS

[Bill Hamblin]

First, the argument would be inductive rather than formally deductive and would represent, ultimately, logically-uncertain inference(s), yet would meet the Criterion of Adequacy (CoA) (from SEP):

CKS

Not extraordinarily helpful.

[cksalmon]

Not extraordinarily helpful.

I'm really not sure what else to say, then, Bill. It certainly seems straightforward to me: the argument against the historicity of BoM must be based on inductive reasoning, rather than deductive, simply because of the nature of historical analysis.

What, specifically, is unclear?

CKS

[A related, but tangential, note: I'd describe the argument to the bodily resurrection of Jesus (a positive truth claim) in terms of abductive reasoning and, I'd suggest, that the best argument for BoM historicity must also proceed along abductive lines. This is already what some LDS apologists are doing--DCP for example, on this board, with his argument that the best explanation for the coming forth of BoM and eyewitness testimonies is that BoM is what it claims to be.]

[Analytics]

Having a historical BOM does not mean everything in the BOM is history. The Vision of the Tree of Life or the Allegory of the Olive Tree, for example are not historical.

The problem with anachronism is that they are difficult to engage when a text is edited and/or translated, since editors and translators will necessarily introduce ideas from their own times. The BOM, if historical, is both edited and translated, which makes arguments from anachronism difficult.

Of course not. It is, however, a possibility. Steel in the book of Mormon may be an anachronism. But if it is an anachronism, it could be introduced by the later BOM period editors of the book of Ether or in the JS translation.

Do you concede that the presence of steel in Jaredite story may not be a 19th century anachronism?

Hypothetically. If the Book of Mormon is a 400 A.D. compilation of history and/or mythology, and if Moroni really had "steel" swords that were formed through a "molten" process, then Jaredite steel could be a Nephite anachronism rather than a 19th century anachronism.

But that hypothetical anachronism is anachronistic in its own right because (correct me if I'm wrong), there is no evidence that in 400 A.D. Moroni's culture was smelting "steel" weapons.

It makes sense to me that translating something into modern language will introduce subtle contemporary conceptions. However, a good translator should be able to minimize this. Joseph Smith is the one who established a black-and-white way of looking at it, with the claim that unlike the Bible, the Book of Mormon was without qualification translated â??correctlyâ?. In any case, one would think that when something was translated with the help of God, distortions would be minimal.

[Sethbag]

Sethbag has such a rigid view of the nature of language that this discussion seems rather pointless. He insists on interpreting steel in a limited literal sense, ignoring a wide range of other possible meanings. This is because, of course, if he doesn't his argument against BOM historicity fails.

And you have this need for the reader of the word "steel" to accept that it was not, in fact, an alloy of iron to which was referred. Your opinion of the malleability of language, when the need suits, should make one wonder whether "Jesus died for our sins" might possibly have, to you, some other meaning, like that perhaps Jesus just felt really bad for our sins.

Dr. Hamblin, the BoM authors, whether ancient or modern, referenced iron, copper, steel, and brass. They not only mentioned the elemental metals themselves, but an alloy of each. As I said in my most recent post, even if one were to graciously accept that "steel" doesn't have to have meant the alloy of iron that we comprehend by the term, you still haven't offered up any evidence that "iron" should not have meant smelted iron, of whatever form. You're still stuck. Is the "literary topos" means of simply dismissing the reference altogether to be your only defense? Or will you, with Zak, start pointing to the ochre, the polished hematite, and the lodestone compasses?

Language, all language, is inherently ambiguous. There is no such thing as a perfect translation. It is a logical impossibility. For example, as I noted in the article,

So, imagine you're God. How would you translate nechushah?

Ye gods! You're now insinuating that God Almighty was not up to the task? Elohim can create a whole universe, but can't find a good way of expressing a Hebrew word into some combination of words in English?

How about "copper or alloy of copper"? Is that not a reasonable translation? Did I just pull off something you couldn't imagine God doing? Nobody said that there need be a 1:1 correspondence between words in either language. I've learned another language too, and understand how from time to time a given word in one language requires more than one in the other language, to be properly understood.

To object that the BOM is not translated the way you want it to have been translated, only tells us about your limited understanding of the problems of translation.

It's not that my understanding of the problems of translation is limited. It's that you seem to think that God should feel constrained by such limitations, and hence unable to give something reasonably accurate to Joseph Smith through the oracles of revelation.

On the range of meaning for "steel" in 1828, see Webster:

http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/search/word,steel

Yes it did mean steeled iron, but it meant more than that, as well.

Not in the context of reference to the nature of a particular metal. Every one of the other references is to something else, and even most of the other references imply that the thing referred to as "steel" is actually made of steel. "He brandished his steel", for example, is clearly an allusion to the subject brandishing a steel sword or blade. Only in the most abstract alternate definition is the metallic steel not implied, and "he steeled his nerve" is hardly the kind of meaning one could compare with the verses in Nephi, wouldn't you agree? I think, far more, that this 1828 definition shows that, with reference to metal, that by the word "steel" was comprehended by Joseph Smith's contemporaries the same thing as it is today.

Why must the BOM be describing wrought iron?

It doesn't. It could be cast iron as well, or perhaps some other form of metallic iron. But there are only so many possibilities, and the most basic smelting of iron, in a bloomery, results in wrought iron, and I'm unaware of any iron-producing ancient society which didn't produce wrought iron before they produced any other form of smelted iron. But I think what you're really getting at here is that perhaps the "iron" reference is to unsmelted iron, ie: perhaps you wish to hold up the ochre, the hematite, and the lodestone compasses as sufficient?

But, whatever steel meant, how does that change the fact that the steel described in Ether might be legendary steel, just as the iron weapons and objects of the Pharaohs in the Pyramid Texts or Tubal-Cain's iron are generally assumed by scholars to be legendary? Do you agree?

I am more than happy to see you and other apologists for the Book of Mormon move in the direction of admitting that more and more of it might be "legendary", and not fact-based, as you will. By all means, please proceed to exlain to all and sundry just how many more such things recorded in the Book of Mormon are based on fiction, and not fact.

And no, I don't agree, because I have yet to see evidence that any of the peoples so far suggested as possibly having been the Nephites, ever had any knowledge and practice of iron-smelting, at any time during the Book of Mormon time period. Hence, I do not agree that people, who did not themselves possess the technology, could, or would impute that technology to their legendary heroes.

That the Nephites might have had, at the beginning, some knowledge of it from Nephi, but subsequently lost the technology, and retained only just enough cultural memory of it to have been able to describe it in their legends, I doubt as improbable, albeit not impossible, but in any case, as yet utterly unsupported by any evidence whatsoever.

(I note you are here diverting the discussion from the rather limited point I was trying to make.)

This is a good point. I'll quote the first part of your original point here.

1- For inerrantists, why do archaeologically unsubstantiated claims of metal-working in the BOM prove it is false, while similar claims in the Bible do not prove it is false. For an Evangelical to reject the historicity of the BOM because of metal-working issues seems a blatant double standard if one insists, at the same time, on the historicity of the Bible, despite its unverified claims of antediluvian metal-working.

I guess where I depart is that I am not a Biblical inerrantist by any stretch of the imagination, and regard the unsubstantiated claims of iron amongst pre-Iron Age peoples in the Old Testament to be further evidence, if such were needed, if the fictitious and mythological nature of that work.

It obviously cannot disprove that Israelites existed, because we have independent evidence that they did. But it does speak strongly to the mythological nature of their ancient religious texts.

I will agree with your very specific point that Biblical inerrantists are in quite a quandary when faced with the mythological or legendary nature of the steel weapons attributions amongst the oldest named people in the Old Testament. In this sense, I wholly agree with you.

[Bill Hamblin]

I'm really not sure what else to say, then, Bill. It certainly seems straightforward to me: the argument against the historicity of BoM must be based on inductive reasoning, rather than deductive, simply because of the nature of historical analysis.

What, specifically, is unclear?

CKS

[A related, but tangential, note: I'd describe the argument to the bodily resurrection of Jesus (a positive truth claim) in terms of abductive reasoning and, I'd suggest, that the best argument for BoM historicity must also proceed along abductive lines. This is already what some LDS apologists are doing--DCP for example, on this board, with his argument that the best explanation for the coming forth of BoM and eyewitness testimonies is that BoM is what it claims to be.]

I agree with you on the entire argument for or against historicity.

That does not help understand the specific nature of an argument related to anachronism. These are two different things, you know.

Hypothetically. If the Book of Mormon is a 400 A.D. compilation of history and/or mythology, and if Moroni really had "steel" swords that were formed through a "molten" process, then Jaredite steel could be a Nephite anachronism rather than a 19th century anachronism.

But that hypothetical anachronism is anachronistic in its own right because (correct me if I'm wrong), there is no evidence that in 400 A.D. Moroni's culture was smelting "steel" weapons.

All it requires is they have a cultural memory of the use of steel weapons from the ancient Near East, a memory that would have been found on the brass plates.

So, we are agreed?

[Sethbag]

The implication of this claim is that KJV English would not have made sense to a 19C audience.

Dr. Hamblin, might I enquire of you, what do you think that 19C readers thought was being referred to be the word "steel" in the relevant Old Testament passages?

Do you believe that they understood that what was actually being referred to was "nechushath" from the Hebrew language, and therefor actually some alloy of copper?

I rather doubt it. Just as the average, modern LDS audience, quite familiar with KJV English, would most likely read "bow of steel" and believe that it was talking about a bow made from an alloy of iron.

I very much doubt that 19C readers, however well-read in the Bible, had a compartmentalized understanding of "steel", understanding by it an iron alloy in non-Biblical contexts, and some alloy of copper when used in a religious setting.

[Analytics]

All it requires is they have a cultural memory of the use of steel weapons from the ancient Near East, a memory that would have been found on the brass plates.

So, we are agreed?

That's problematic in its own right, but yea, in principle we agree.

[Bill Hamblin]

And you have this need for the reader of the word "steel" to accept that it was not, in fact, an alloy of iron to which was referred. Your opinion of the malleability of language, when the need suits, should make one wonder whether "Jesus died for our sins" might possibly have, to you, some other meaning, like that perhaps Jesus just felt really bad for our sins.

Does "steel" in the KJV refer to iron?

Is the KJV part of the cultural and linguistic milieu of early 19C America?

Does the BOM use Jacobean language in its description of metals? (i.e. brass and steel bow)?

[Bill Hamblin]

As I said in my most recent post, even if one were to graciously accept that "steel" doesn't have to have meant the alloy of iron that we comprehend by the term, you still haven't offered up any evidence that "iron" should not have meant smelted iron, of whatever form.

Did the Olmecs work iron?

Let me help:

"Although the Olmecs had a Stone Age technology, they did work the iron ores magnetite, hematite, and ilmenite into beads, mirrors, and at least one marvelous little human figurine" At San Lorenzo there were two workshops "containing tons of smalll rectangular 'beads' perforated with conical holes" (Diehl, The Olmecs, 93-4)

That's problematic in its own right, but yea, in principle we agree.

It's so nice to get along. Now go try to get Sethbag to understand.

[Bill Hamblin]

How about "copper or alloy of copper"? Is that not a reasonable translation? Did I just pull off something you couldn't imagine God doing?

No, it's not. First, it is not a translation, it is a commentary. A translation that needs to include the word "or" when translating a single word is rather inadequate. Second there is a great deal of ambiguity here. Copper alloy with what? Anything? Silver? Gold? Tin? Zinc? Raw copper? Smelted copper? Bronze? Brass? All of these, or only some? Third, how does this help KJV readers of the early 19C recognize the literary allusion to "steel bow" in the Psalms. Any translation must be contextualized in a specific language and culture.

[Sethbag]

Does "steel" in the KJV refer to iron?

Is the KJV part of the cultural and linguistic milieu of early 19C America?

Does the BOM use Jacobean language in its description of metals? (i.e. brass and steel bow)?

Actually, I asked a question, probably while you were composing this or reading other posts, that is part of this discussion. What do you think that 19C English speakers comprehended by the term "steel" in the Old Testament? Do you think your average Bible reader understood that what was being referred to was actually, more correctly, an alloy of copper? Or do you agree that probably most 19C Bible readers read "steel" and most likely would have thought of an alloy of iron?

I agree that the BoM uses Jacobean language in many places, and Joseph might very well have been aping the Bible when he made specific reference to brass (which he'd read about in the OT) and steel (likewise). However, I very much doubt that Joseph Smith understood that "steel" in the Old Testament wasn't really an alloy of iron. I find it far more probable that Joseph Smith read things like "bow of steel" in the Old Testament, and actually envisioned a bow (for shooting arrows) made from an alloy of iron, and gave one to Nephi in his story.

Far from excusing him in any way, I rather think this damns him, as not only being an imposter, but of his imposture being transparent.

[Bill Hamblin]

It's not that my understanding of the problems of translation is limited. It's that you seem to think that God should feel constrained by such limitations, and hence unable to give something reasonably accurate to Joseph Smith through the oracles of revelation.

Sorry, these types of statements are so utterly speculative and unverifiable that there is simply nothing to say about it.

Actually, I asked a question, probably while you were composing this or reading other posts, that is part of this discussion. What do you think that 19C English speakers comprehended by the term "steel" in the Old Testament? Do you think your average Bible reader understood that what was being referred to was actually, more correctly, an alloy of copper? Or do you agree that probably most 19C Bible readers read "steel" and most likely would have thought of an alloy of iron?

So you won't answer my questions?

Yes, language is ambiguous. So?

[Bill Hamblin]

I am more than happy to see you and other apologists for the Book of Mormon move in the direction of admitting that more and more of it might be "legendary", and not fact-based, as you will. By all means, please proceed to exlain to all and sundry just how many more such things recorded in the Book of Mormon are based on fiction, and not fact.

This is hardly something new we are at last "admitting" under duress. We've been saying it for decades. The BOM itself says there might be "errors" in it. How does the fact that the BOM might contain errors, misunderstandings, ancient conceptions, etc. demonstrate in the slightest that it is not historical. All ancient texts contain such things. All.

[Sethbag]

No, it's not. First, it is not a translation, it is a commentary. A translation that needs to include the word "or" when translating a single word is rather inadequate. Second there is a great deal of ambiguity here. Copper alloy with what? Anything? Silver? Gold? Tin? Zinc? Raw copper? Smelted copper? Bronze? Brass? All of these, or only some? Third, how does this help KJV readers of the early 19C recognize the literary allusion to "steel bow" in the Psalms. Any translation must be contextualized in a specific language and culture.

Now who's the one with problems understanding the nature of translation? Since when must a translation only include a one to one correspondence between words in two languages? Why must a proper "translation" in one language not include, say, a descriptive phrase to be rendered into the other?

Dr. Hamblin, your side argue incessantly that "translate" can mean almost anything, up to an including seeing Egyptian characters having to do with spells to enable a dead person to take up life again in the afterlife, and by revelation from God, "translating" that into the Book of Abraham. And you cannot allow me a "translation" that renders one Hebrew word into a phrase in English which carries the same meaning?

Or are you still objecting because "copper or an alloy of copper" doesn't include all of the possible alloys that "nechushath" might mean in Hebrew? Ok, how about "copper, or an alloy of copper with either tin or zinc"? Is that better? Have I not now "translated" the word "nechushath" into English?

[Sethbag]

So you won't answer my questions?

Yes, language is ambiguous. So?

I'm sorry, our posts have been leap-frogging each other, and you've also had post exchanges with others, so that I'm not sure anymore to which question you are referring. If you will restate it, I'll do my best to respond to it.

I'd also be curious to know your opinion about what 19C readers would have understood by the term "steel" in the Old Testament. Do you not agree that they most probably thought it actually meant steel, as in the alloy of iron?

Do you not find it likely that Joseph Smith would have read the word "steel" in the Old Testament and understood by it the alloy of iron, which otherwise in his cultural milieu was signified by that term?

[cksalmon]

Do you not find it likely that Joseph Smith would have read the word "steel" in the Old Testament and understood by it the alloy of iron, which otherwise in his cultural milieu was signified by that term?

Note that this is an example of inductive reasoning, rather than deductive.

CKS

[/clarifying derailment]

[Bill Hamblin]

Now who's the one with problems understanding the nature of translation? Since when must a translation only include a one to one correspondence between words in two languages? Why must a proper "translation" in one language not include, say, a descriptive phrase to be rendered into the other?

Dr. Hamblin, your side argue incessantly that "translate" can mean almost anything, up to an including seeing Egyptian characters having to do with spells to enable a dead person to take up life again in the afterlife, and by revelation from God, "translating" that into the Book of Abraham. And you cannot allow me a "translation" that renders one Hebrew word into a phrase in English which carries the same meaning?

Or are you still objecting because "copper or an alloy of copper" doesn't include all of the possible alloys that "nechushath" might mean in Hebrew? Ok, how about "copper, or an alloy of copper with either tin or zinc"? Is that better? Have I not now "translated" the word "nechushath" into English?

I'm the one who has been saying there often can't be a one-to-one translation.

Your new "copper, or an alloy of copper with either tin or zinc" is not better, since "brass, an alloy of copper and zinc, did not become common until the Roman period and plays no role in the OT" (Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, 9:372). See the problem. You're still trying to translate it according to 21st century concepts, not ancient.

At any rate what the translation of "steel bow" is doing is telling the early 19C audience that the BOM is referring to the same weapon mentioned in the OT. It is a cultural translation to correlate ideas, not words, and not technical scientific metallurgy. If the BOM had said Nephi had a "copper, or an alloy of copper with either tin or zinc bow" the idea would have been very poorly conveyed.

[cksalmon]

Sethbag--

To answer a suggestion that has been raised by Bill:

Do you believe that it is possible that BoM is true? Or, do you believe that BoM, deductively, has been proven false?

Bill--

I am not particularly interested in framing an inductive argument against the historicity of BoM, at least not tonight. I'm much more interested in theological issues than I am in archaeological ones.

I only wished to highlight the contours of a valid argument against BoM historicity.

I suppose, logically, we're on the same page.

Sethbag and Bill--

I agree with Sethbag insofar as I would suggest that the absence of archaeological evidence for the use of steel as far back in time as the Bible posits is inductive evidence against the historicity of those portions of the Bible, as it is interpreted inerrantly.

CKS

[Bill Hamblin]

I'd also be curious to know your opinion about what 19C readers would have understood by the term "steel" in the Old Testament. Do you not agree that they most probably thought it actually meant steel, as in the alloy of iron?

Do you not find it likely that Joseph Smith would have read the word "steel" in the Old Testament and understood by it the alloy of iron, which otherwise in his cultural milieu was signified by that term?

I don't know. Do you have any evidence to indicate that they would?

Here's what Adam Clarke's commentary (somewhat earlier than the publicaiton of the BOM) has to say about Ps 18:34

A bow of steel is broken by mine arms. ] All the versions render this: "Thou hast made my arm like a brazen bow." A bow of steel is out of the question. In the days of David it is not likely that the method of making steel was known. The method of making brass out of copper was known at a very early period of the world; and the ancients had the art of hardening it, so as to work it into the most efficient swords. From his own account David was swift, courageous, and strong.

Here's his comment on Jer 15:12

Verse 12. Shall iron break the northern iron and the steel?] Shall our weak forces be able to oppose and overcome the powers of the Chaldeans? t