Another Book Of Mormon Bull's-eye

[LeSellers]

Wow an extra element not in the Bible from a list of general patterns from farewell addresses. That is a miracle.

Wrong. All of the elements are biblical or at least Semitic or regional â?? Akkadian, etc.

There are, as I recall from the article, 20 elements. No biblical example of a farewell address has all twenty. The most in any one biblical speech is 15 (plus two additional that are only implied). However, all 20 show up in one or more speeches in the Bible.

Benjamin's speech has 16 of those same 20 elements (plus a couple more that are also implied).

And, as I recall, the sequence was also important, and Benjamin also nailed this feature.

Lehi

[LeSellers]

Are you saying that no other ceremonies like this had occurred among the group until the one with King Benjamin?

I hope he is not, since there are additional speeches in the Book of Mormon (e.g., Lehi) that also match the pattern and the elements, albeit not to the same extent as found in Mosiah.

Lehi

[LeSellers]

I can totally understand preserving the Gospel, and Priesthood authority. But the claim in this thread is that the Lehites were also familiar with and preserved the Greco-Roman traditions of Kingship Farewell addresses, which as far as I can tell, have nothing to do with the Gospel.

We tend to forget that the ancient Mediterranean world is not very big. They shared significant portions of their cultures.

For instance (off track warning), the Egyptian and ante-Israelite Semitic gods show up in Greece and Rome. Adonis bears more than a faint resemblance to Ba`al, Kronos to El. (This list goes on, and on, and on, and on, and ... .)

Moreover, Greek culture left a strong imprint on Rome. And Greece (via Alexander and his father) pulled much of their knowledge and culture from their eastern conquests, not least of which was the Semitic regions north of Sinai to Asia Minor and west through Arabia. As Alexander demonstrated in adopting the dress and makeup of Persian rulers, to cement (or legitimate) their lordship over these people, it was common and expected that they used local customs to do so. Such farewell (and other related) speeches would naturally contain elements the Semites would recognize and accept.

So it may very likely not have been "Greco-Roman" speech patterns that Benjamin was using, but earlier Semitic patterns the Greeks and Romans adopted later. The fact that there is significant overlap between the two forms is indicative.

Lehi

[cinepro]

So it may very likely not have been "Greco-Roman" speech patterns that Benjamin was using, but earlier Semitic patterns the Greeks and Romans adopted later. The fact that there is significant overlap between the two forms is indicative.

Lehi

The important point being that the culture and language of the Nephites had been cut off from the Mediterranean world 400 years prior, and immersed in the New World languages and cultures for four centuries.

[Kevin Christensen]

Nice to see that someone found some useful information in "Paradigms Crossed." I wrote that in 1995.

In the meantime, a few critics have argued that the discourse is Joseph Smith's composition, based on 19th Century common places. The most recent commentator on Benjamin's discourse was Grant Palmer in Insider's View of Mormon Origins. There he cites personal correspondance with Metcalfe on his four step formula, not mentioning that the information had been published. He also cites a farewell address by a Minister that he sees as being the inspiration behind the Book of Mormon. He also cites Blake Oster's 1987 Dialogue article to argue for a 19th century provinance, but suppresses and mention of any of the potent body of scholarship favoring an ancient context that Ostler listed and discussed. As I recall, Mark Thomas had an essay on Revival Language in the Book of Mormon. Neither Palmer nor Thomas dealt with any of the then available apologetic studies, and did not anticipate the subsequent ones. I expect Vogel uses the revival approach in The Making of a Prophet, but I have not read it.

On the historicity side, we should also mention Hashbaz's obervation on this board, a few months back, about how the recently discovered temple murals in Mesoamerica that are not only contemporary with Benjamin's coronation, but which mesh nicely on many important details. Such as the Tower, the temple setting, creation themes, etc.

And even more recently, Alyson Von Feldt's recent Occasional Paper on "His Secret is With the Righteous: Instructional Wisdom in the Book of Mormon" adds yet another layer of complexity to the Book of Mormon. She shows that Benjamin's discourse demonstrates a form of Instructional Wisdom that that was not studied by moderns scholars until the mid to late 20th Century.

In Nibley's An Approach to the Book of Mormon, published in 1957, Nibley said that he thought that the coronation was the single best evidence for the antiquity of the Book of Mormon that he had found. What is interesting is that not only has the case been completely ignored by the Book of Mormon critics, but that the additional studies since then continually reveal layers of depth and complexity that even Nibley overlooked. The best evidence he saw is better evidence than even he thought. And it keeps getting better. Metcalfe at leasts mention the best LDS studies. Palmer ignores them, even when he cites Ostler, who does not. Technically, Benjamin's discourse is astonishing, as ritual, as combining poetic structures, and literary forms. I'm still powerfully impressed by Welch's observation on the 10 occurances of the expanded names (Lord God, Lord God Omnipotent) that seem to correspond to the High Priest on the Day of Atonement uttering the sacred name exactly 10 times. That it works so well simply as a sermon, brimming with powerful, memorable observations, impresses me as well. Given Joseph had all of a couple of hours to dictate it.

It's like a fractal, revealing more complexity, the closer you look. Which is why, I think, critics like Palmer, prefer not to look too closely. It's much tidier to simply imply that since Jesus warned of false prophets, (or, from the secular perspective, there are no prophets), that therefore, Joseph is a False Prophet. End of inquiry. Nothing to see here folks. Move along.

Such superficial dismissals are not at all persuasive to those who have really seen how amazing those few chapters are. Even by themselves.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[consiglieri]

I just think it's amazing that the Nephites were able to preserve the knowledge of these 16 elements of farewell speeches for over 400 years. They land in the New World, start converting and intermarrying with the natives, presumably mix with their language and culture, but are able to make sure that the knowledge of how to write a proper Greco-Roman farewell address is preserved.

And not just preserved, but preserved to such a degree that King Benjamin is able to surpass every other known speech from world history for the quality of this format.

That really is incredible.

Someone should make a list of all the knowledge that was preserved among the Nephites from Lehi to Moroni. Language, Hebraisms, Doctrine, Mosaic Law. All the details that were passed from generation to generation for 1000 years, all the while they were living as a minority subset of a larger pagan population.

Good points as always, cinepro.

But it is starting to get to the point where we either have to attribute the preservation of this knowledge to the Nephites or to Joseph Smith.

Which do you think is the more "incredible"?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Rommelator]

For the complexity of chiasmus in King Benjamin's Speech, consult the following:

http://farms.byu.edu/publications/bookscha...&chapid=124

Also, to check the validity of the claim that chiasmus in the Book of Mormon are there by random, see the following:

http://byustudies.byu.edu/shop/pdfSRC/43.2EdwardsEdwards.pdf

But really, all this King Benjamin stuff is unimpressive. It is obvious from Hypothetical Q. Person's 2nd hand recollection of his friend's statements that Oliver Cowdery's friend's uncle's brother-in-law's roommate gave Hyrum all that he needed from the local Palmyra Library, who in turn gave it to Joseph Smith who then memorized these complex details and was able to dictate an authentic ancient coronation speech (complete with chiasmus) to his dupe of a scribe Oliver Cowdery.

Duh.

rommelator "too bad that credit is not being given where it is due" 45

[LifeOnaPlate]

The important point being that the culture and language of the Nephites had been cut off from the Mediterranean world 400 years prior,[...]

Says who?

[LifeOnaPlate]

It's like a fractal, revealing more complexity, the closer you look. Which is why, I think, critics like Palmer, prefer not to look too closely. It's much tidier to simply imply that since Jesus warned of false prophets, (or, from the secular perspective, there are no prophets), that therefore, Joseph is a False Prophet. End of inquiry. Nothing to see here folks. Move along.

Such superficial dismissals are not at all persuasive to those who have really seen how amazing those few chapters are. Even by themselves.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

It's also easy for our secularist friends here to laugh at the parallels or call them coincidence without accounting for them, providing a better explanation for their occurring, or even apparently reading the published research thus far.

[Sargon]

The important point being that the culture and language of the Nephites had been cut off from the Mediterranean world 400 years prior, and immersed in the New World languages and cultures for four centuries.

However, they brought with them at least one book, which we can believe was very influential among the believers. That one book contained excellent examples of this type of speech. It is likely that the non-elite peasants had no idea of the complexity or depth of the speech, whilst King Benjamin poured over the hebrew records.

[Rommelator]

The important point being that the culture and language of the Nephites had been cut off from the Mediterranean world 400 years prior, and immersed in the New World languages and cultures for four centuries.

However, they brought with them at least one book, which we can believe was very influential among the believers. That one book contained excellent examples of this type of speech. It is likely that the non-elite peasants had no idea of the complexity or depth of the speech, whilst King Benjamin poured over the hebrew records.

It is interesting to note, as Brant Gardner has done in his new Book of Mormon commentary series Second Witness, that King Benjamin's Speech also reflects the Mesoamerican November harvist festivles that were also connected to kingly coronation and New Year celebrations.

There is a great book on King Benjamin's Speech titled King Benjamin's Speech: That Ye May Learn Wisdom that is, in my opinion, the standard work on the subject.

[consiglieri]

I would like to thank all those who have posted so far on this interesting subject.

I am starting to get the feeling that one must be pretty determined to remain unimpressed by this.

It's sort of the flip-side of Mormons who brush aside the King James Isaiah quotations in the Book of Mormon with a shrug and a ho-hum.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[jadams_4242]

So some non-LDS scholar named William S. Kurz did some research published in 1985 on the subject of commonalities in farewell address in ancient texts such as the Bible as well as other texts from the ancient Greco-Roman world. Kurz comes up with a list of 20 common elements in farewell addresses. None of the texts he looks at have all 20, but the 20 are spread out among the group; some in one farewell address but not in another.

The maximum number of elements that any one farewell address contains is that of Moses, which has 15 elements, plus two more that are implied.

Then some Mormons get ahold of Kurz' study and compare it to King Benjamin's speech in Mosiah 1-6.

They find that King Benjamin's address has many of the same elements.

Not only does it have many of the same elements, it has 16 of the elements, plus two more that are implied.

What should we make of the fact that, when compared with a non-LDS analysis of ancient farewell addresses, King Benjamin's address ends up having more than any other?

In other words, King Benjamin's address is the best known example in the world of the type of literature characterized and documented by William S. Kurz as an ancient Farewell Address.

Source is King Benjamin's Speech, John Welch and Stephen Ricks, eds., (FARMS; Provo) 1998, pp. 89-118.

Source on Kurz' paper is: William S. Kurz, Luke 22:14-39 and Greco-Roman and Biblical Farewell Addresses, JBL 104 (1985): 251-68.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

And they claim thee is no evidence in support? jeesh i,m running out of storage room in my folder!

[LifeOnaPlate]

How quickly these excellent threads by consig fall by the wayside as soon as things get interesting.

[consiglieri]

How quickly these excellent threads by consig fall by the wayside as soon as things get interesting.

For those determined to see absolutely no probative value in such evidence, saying ho-hum doesn't lead to much discussion.

And perhaps, after all, that is the point.

(Hey! How come my little winkie-guy isn't winking anymore?)

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Sargon]

Edit: Whoops

[Kevin Christensen]

It is interesting to note, as Brant Gardner has done in his new Book of Mormon commentary series Second Witness, that King Benjamin's Speech also reflects the Mesoamerican November harvist festivles that were also connected to kingly coronation and New Year celebrations.

There is a great book on King Benjamin's Speech titled King Benjamin's Speech: That Ye May Learn Wisdom that is, in my opinion, the standard work on the subject.

That reminds me...Diane Wirth has a lovely chapter comparing a Mesoamerican ritual to the Feast of the Tabernacles. In Deconding Ancient America: A Guide to the Archeology of the Book of Mormon.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[emeliza]

For those determined to see absolutely no probative value in such evidence, saying ho-hum doesn't lead to much discussion.

And perhaps, after all, that is the point.

(Hey! How come my little winkie-guy isn't winking anymore?)

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

I don't think there is much one can say about it other than, wow, that is cool and interesting. I suppose people could say it is a coincidence, but if it is, it is a really surprising one. I personally appreciate these threads, but my brain is the size of a dinosaurs so most of the time the information goes a bit over my head.

And I think you broke the winkie guy with your high intellect or something like that.

[Uncertain]

However, they brought with them at least one book, which we can believe was very influential among the believers. That one book contained excellent examples of this type of speech. It is likely that the non-elite peasants had no idea of the complexity or depth of the speech, whilst King Benjamin poured over the hebrew records.

So King Benjamin was able to recognize and duplicate a pattern contained in scripture. But Joseph Smith was not?

Uncertain

[Sargon]

So King Benjamin was able to recognize and duplicate a pattern contained in scripture. But Joseph Smith was not?

Uncertain

I think rather that King Benjamin was taught it by his father, who learned if from his father, who learned it from his father......

[Kevin Christensen]

Benjamin had better education, and far more maturity (probably in his 70s) than Joseph Smith. Plus Benjamin lived in a temple-centered culture that actually practiced the key rituals as part of a living tradition. Imagine the difference between Hugh Nibley in his prime, with an elementary school educated farmer, day laborer, and part-time money digger, whose neighbors depicted him at best as a fair exhorter (Tucker), and at worst as "the ignoramus" (Dogberry).

It's not like the differences in maturity, capacity, education, and oportunties are unrealistic, or unfair to mention.

And then consider that even Hugh Nibley did not make all the connections. Others have extended his insights in ways he did not forsee, from both the Old and New World sides, from ritual, cultural, and literary approaches. The effort required to compose this single discourse, while carrying out normal farming and family responsibilites, warding off mobs, and convincing the people who know you best that you don't know much, does call for recognition.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[cinepro]

And they claim thee is no evidence in support? jeesh i,m running out of storage room in my folder!

The important question is this:

Which specific claim is this evidence supporting?

Also, can someone point me to some ancient kingly farewell speeches that don't have these characteristics? You know, as kind of a "control group" so I can get an idea of how unique these characteristics are?

[Uncertain]

I think rather that King Benjamin was taught it by his father, who learned if from his father, who learned it from his father......

I myself have some of the same concerns raised by Cinepro. The most popular version of the LGT seems to be that a small handful of Hebrews (a couple dozen at most). Is shortly after landfall subsumed within a vastly larger population of natives. The Hebrew immigrants within a comparatively short period of time completely adopt the material culture of the existing natives. To the point of co-opting the natives religious iconography. And yet this handful of immigrants retain for hundreds of years a vast and eclectic knowledge of ancient semitic writing styles and forms of address? You were apparently arguing that this feat was accomplished due to a diligent study of scripture. And it seems to me if King Benjamin could do it why not Joseph Smith? But I could have been misunderstanding your argument.

Myself I am curious if there are any examples of a couple dozen Hebrew immigrants completely cutoff from their mother culture. Who adopt whole sale the existing material culture and religious iconography of the surrounding natives and extensively intermarry. To the point that they are from a archaeological standpoint completely invisible (i.e. indistinguishable from the surrounding native culture). Keeping alive for hundreds of years distinctive semitic writing styles and modes of address. To me such a thing appears unlikely but I will freely admit I do not have the necessary training in the relevant fields to have an informed opinion on this matter. I would love to hear from someone who does.

Or even better a controlled study in which examples of texts written by individuals attempting to copy "scriptural" language are examined for parallels with the ancient near east. So that a "baseline" can be constructed and the significance of a given parallel can be estimated. Instead of the current "every man for himself" methodology.

Uncertain.

[Tarski]

(Hey! How come my little winkie-guy isn't winking anymore?)

Didn't your mother warn you that your face would stick that way if you kept making faces??

[Uncertain]

Benjamin had better education, and far more maturity (probably in his 70s) than Joseph Smith. Plus Benjamin lived in a temple-centered culture that actually practiced the key rituals as part of a living tradition. Imagine the difference between Hugh Nibley in his prime, with an elementary school educated farmer, day laborer, and part-time money digger, whose neighbors depicted him at best as a fair exhorter (Tucker), and at worst as "the ignoramus" (Dogberry).

It's not like the differences in maturity, capacity, education, and oportunties are unrealistic, or unfair to mention.

Hi Kevin,

I think this is a reasonable response. Essentially you appear to be arguing the same thing as Sagon (correct me if I am wrong). That King Benjamin was embedded to some extent in a semitic culture. And he did not learn the given pattern by examination of the scriptures only but by a "passing down" of knowledge from previous generations. I am concerned with the probablility of passing down such an obscure and seemingly unimportant bit of knowledge given the parameters of the LGT (see my response to Sargon).

When you couple the seeming improbability of preserving for hundreds of years the given pattern. With no attempt to estimate significance using appropriate controls. I am unsure how much evidentiary value to give the purported parallel. To be honest in my field if no attempt to estimate significance was provided for a given observation. It is unlikely such a study would be accepted for publication.

Uncertain