Mayanisms in the Book of Mormon

[Olavarria]

The following insights are 100% my own. More than anything, I am thinking aloud. My knowledge of Mayan glyphs is limited to what I read in a dictionary. So take this for what it's worth.

You can CFR me here http://research.famsi.org/montgomery_dicti...y/mt_search.php

There are several statements in the Book of Mormon, that when viewed through a Mesoamerican lense make more sense. In Mayan glyphs, U B'A is a noun meaning: "his/her/its image", "the image of". It is also means "his/her/its doing," "the doing of." Keeping this in mind, we can see that Alma asked the people:"do you have a pure heart and clean hands? Can you honestly look at God and say that you have done the works of God?" Both the image and works are connected in the Book of Mormon.

Alma 5:19

19)I say unto you, can ye look up to God at that day with a pure heart and clean hands? I say unto you, can you look up, having the image of God engraven upon your countenances?

In Mayan glyphs, CHUM means:"to be seated"; it is a general verb meaning "accession", as in accession to the throne. In the Book of Mormon, "sat" is a synonym for "accession".

Alma 4: 17

17)Now this manâ??s name was Nephihah, and he was appointed chief judge; and he sat in the judgment-seat to judge and to govern the people.

Hel. 1: 9

9)Now when those people who were desirous that he should be their governor saw that he was condemned unto death, therefore they were angry, and behold, they sent forth one Kishkumen, even to the judgment-seat of Pahoran, and murdered Pahoran as he sat upon the judgment-seat.

One of the curious things about one warfare passage in the Book of Mormon is it's description of Nephite warriors throwing stones and arrows at their enemies, while other verses describe throwing stones and shooting arrows. Everyone knows arrows are shot from arrows and not thrown like stones. However, the Mayan glyph JUL means both "to throw" and "to shoot".

Alma 49:22

22)Now when they found that they could not obtain power over the Nephites by the pass, they began to dig down their banks of earth that they might obtain a pass to their armies, that they might have an equal chance to fight; but behold, in these attempts they were swept off by the stones and arrows which were thrown at them; and instead of filling up their ditches by pulling down the banks of earth, they were filled up in a measure with their dead and wounded bodies.

Hel.16:2

2) But as many as there were who did not believe in the words of Samuel were angry with him; and they cast stones at him upon the wall, and also many shot arrows at him as he stood upon the wall; but the Spirit of the Lord was with him, insomuch that they could not hit him with their stones neither with their arrows.

In the Book of Mormon, to die is to "go the way of all the earth". This idiom makes sense from a glyphic perspective. OCH B'I-ja means:"was entered the road"; and is a Mayan idiom meaning: "death". In both the Book of Mormon and Mayan glyphs, death is described as a grand journey.

2 Ne. 1: 14

14) Awake! and arise from the dust, and hear the words of a trembling parent, whose limbs ye must soon lay down in the cold and silent grave, from whence no traveler can return; a few more days and I go the way of all the earth.

Mosiah 1:9

9) And it came to pass that after king Benjamin had made an end of teaching his sons, that he waxed old, and he saw that he must very soon go the way of all the earth; therefore, he thought it expedient that he should confer the kingdom upon one of his sons.

Related to the previous idiom is the glyphic phrase:OCH JA'-ja, a verb meaning: "was entered, the water"; which inturn means "death". In some parts of the Book of Mormon, the dead are described as entering the water. Missing the glyphic meaning of such phrases may cause us to miss certain word play in the Book of Mormon.

Alma 44:22

22)And it came to pass that they did cast their dead into the waters of Sidon, and they have gone forth and are buried in the depths of the sea.

Alma 3:3

3)And now as many of the Lamanites and the Amlicites who had been slain upon the bank of the river Sidon were cast into the waters of Sidon; and behold their bones are in the depths of the sea, and they are many.

As far as I know, no one else has written on Mayanisms in the Book of Mormon. So whatever this post may be, it certainly isn't the last word

[beastie]

Youâ??re engaging in parallelomania. In order to identify a truly meaningful connection, you must not only show that the connection exists, but that the same connection cannot just as easily be made elsewhere. Iâ??ve seen this in BoM apologia before. For example, if one uses the existence of the importance of water as a religious symbol in the BoM and to the ancient Maya as a meaningful correspondence, one would have to demonstrate that itâ??s a somewhat unique correspondence - IOW, if lots of religions use water as a religious symbol, itâ??s not a unique or meaningful correspondence.

So the problem with your examples is that English actually provides a quite plausible and sensible meaning. Your examples donâ??t really show that the Mesoamerican lens makes more sense at all.

[Olavarria]

Youâ??re engaging in parallelomania. In order to identify a truly meaningful connection, you must not only show that the connection exists, but that the same connection cannot just as easily be made elsewhere. Iâ??ve seen this in BoM apologia before. For example, if one uses the existence of the importance of water as a religious symbol in the BoM and to the ancient Maya as a meaningful correspondence, one would have to demonstrate that itâ??s a somewhat unique correspondence - IOW, if lots of religions use water as a religious symbol, itâ??s not a unique or meaningful correspondence.

So the problem with your examples is that English actually provides a quite plausible and sensible meaning. Your examples donâ??t really show that the Mesoamerican lens makes more sense at all.

So which ones do you think are decent and which ones do you hink are garbage?

Im willing to can all but the thrown arrows and death journey. What do youthink about those?

[beastie]

I think that the first thing you should do is check the Bible for similar uses of the phrases. I seem to recall the Bible referring to death as a journey - but it may have been other literature. I don't think it is an unheard of metaphor in the English language.

The thrown arrows thing could just be due to the sentence construction, putting "stones and arrows" as a compound subject and then using a verb that made sense with one of those. It would make less sense to say the stones and arrows were shot at them. But I would rate that as your best one. Maybe Brant will have an opinion on the matter.

[JangoStango]

.

[Olavarria]

I think that the first thing you should do is check the Bible for similar uses of the phrases. I seem to recall the Bible referring to death as a journey - but it may have been other literature. I don't think it is an unheard of metaphor in the English language.

Check, the journey/death thing is biblical.

The thrown arrows thing could just be due to the sentence construction, putting "stones and arrows" as a compound subject and then using a verb that made sense with one of those. It would make less sense to say the stones and arrows were shot at them. But I would rate that as your best one. Maybe Brant will have an opinion on the matter.

i agree. The arrow one is the best.

[Anijen]

I like it. The parallels are there but you can argue about "parallelomania" with any connection. The more numerous the connections the higher probability that the connection has roots of authenticity.

Eliade one said "...certain myths and symbols have circulated throughout the world... this means that those myths and symbols are not, as such, spontaneous discoveries of archaic man, but creations of a well defined cultural complex, elaborated and carried on in certain human societies: such creations have been diffused very far from their original home and have been assimilated by peoples who would not otherwise have known them". Mercea Eliade, Images and Symbols: Studies in Religious Symbolism.

Though Beastie post does carry a point which is why the similarities call for investigation at the very least else all they remain just parallels.

I for one believe the Tree of Life and the mesoamerican World Tree is more than a mere coincidence. Though each mesoamerican polity appeared to have its own perspective twist on the cosmos, religion etc they had many similarities too, such as the ball game and like I said before the world tree. I can see how these similarities would migrate via trade routes throughout mesoamerica but crossing oceans is to me a fun and stimulating concept, and not exactly a unique concept only us "Mormons" hold to.

Other Parallels I find fascinating;

- Corn and fish symbolism in mesoamerica compared to the Old World .

- Ancestor veneration especially with divine kingship.

- Similarity between the Mayan referred as the First Father or Maize God and Adam in the Garden.

- Dogs (real and sculpted) buried in Mayan graves as a guide compared to Anubis of the Old World.

many others to think about

[beastie]

Hereâ??s another pitfall youâ??re going to have to be aware of in this exploration, and that is the various opinions about the translation process. Just as with the possible linguistic Hebraisms within the BoM, one of the possibly unintended consequences of emphasizing these as â??hitsâ? is that one is restricted to a tight translation model. So, in essence, you are taking one step forward and one step back. This can be demonstrate in your best example â?? the arrow. Scholars in the field do not believe the bow and arrow was introduced into the Mesoamerican region until post-BoM times â?? so it is yet another anachronism. Now, if youâ??re going to find a specific â??hitâ? within the sentence construction, ie, the use of the word â??throwâ?, then you are implicitly wedding yourself to the idea of Joseph as reader â?? he just read the words off the stone that someone else â?? God, or an angel - translated for him. Otherwise, Joseph would have used his native English to construct the sentence. So now youâ??re wedded to the literal existence of bows and arrows during the BoM time period â?? an anachronism.

BoM scholars who focus on the Mesoamerican aspect of the text tend towards loose translation. They need it to explain all the myriad anachronisms in the text.

Though Beastie post does carry a point which is why the similarities call for investigation at the very least else all they remain just parallels.

As long as believers recognize the limitations for such parallels, they can be entertaining. But it should be understood they canâ??t be construed as some sort of proof or evidence of the historicity of the BoM.

[Anijen]

Still you cast or use a throwing motion to propel the atlatl and in the Annals of the Cakchiquels and the Title of the Lords of Totonicapan were translated in the early 1500's and speaking of their ancestors they distinctly use the word arrows and bows.

the Annals of the Cakchiquels translated from the Cakchiquel Maya by Adrian Recinos and Delia Goetz and also from Title of the Lords of Totonicapan translated from the Quich text into spanish by Dioisio Jose Chonay

[beastie]

Still you cast or use a throwing motion to propel the atlatl and in the Annals of the Cakchiquels and the Title of the Lords of Totonicapan were translated in the early 1500's and speaking of their ancestors they distinctly use the word arrows and bows.

the Annals of the Cakchiquels translated from the Cakchiquel Maya by Adrian Recinos and Delia Goetz and also from Title of the Lords of Totonicapan translated from the Quich text into spanish by Dioisio Jose Chonay

And, VOILA - you have just switched to loose translation, in which the linguistic relevance of "throw" is lost.

Linguistic "evidences" are only pertinent under the tight translation model. Under the loose translation model - which allows JS to use "arrow" instead of "atlatl" - Joseph would also have used his natural English linguistics to construct the sentence using "throw" - so it becomes just an accidentally awkward sentence (like others in the BoM, some of which were fixed in editing).

[Anijen]

And, VOILA - you have just switched to loose translation, in which the linguistic relevance of "throw" is lost.

Linguistic "evidences" are only pertinent under the tight translation model. Under the loose translation model - which allows JS to use "arrow" instead of "atlatl" - Joseph would also have used his natural English linguistics to construct the sentence using "throw" - so it becomes just an accidentally awkward sentence (like others in the BoM, some of which were fixed in editing).

I believe that the atlatl, bow and arrow was there pre columbian, with the atlatl being the preferred choice. I also think tight and loose translations can make up for differing parts the Book of Mormon it does not have to be one or the other. Yes you will probably scoff and say something flippant like "whatever, any linguistic device used to make it fit into your belief system". I can accept that criticism without shame.

Just a side note my post (#9) was not about the translation of the Book of Mormon but the translation by the Spanish monks of the two Quiche books I mentioned, were bows and arrows are what they translated from the Quiche. You turned it into a criticism of my post and of Joseph Smiths translation of the Book of Mormon.

[beastie]

I believe that the atlatl, bow and arrow was there pre columbian, with the atlatl being the preferred choice. I also think tight and loose translations can make up for differing parts the Book of Mormon it does not have to be one or the other. Yes you will probably scoff and say something flippant like "whatever, any linguistic device used to make it fit into your belief system". I can accept that criticism without shame.

Certainly the arrow was used in Mesoamerican prior to the European arrival. However, scholars also state that it was only used post-BoM time period.

Iâ??ve watched the debate between tight and loose translation for years, and predicted long ago that eventually apologists would attempt to merge them, and use whatever allowed them to claim a â??hitâ?. It has happened. In this instance, you are willing to use loose and tight translation within the same sentence. That is too convenient by half.

Just a side note my post (#9) was not about the translation of the Book of Mormon but the translation by the Spanish monks of the two Quiche books I mentioned, were bows and arrows are what they translated from the Quiche. You turned it into a criticism of my post and of Joseph Smiths translation of the Book of Mormon.

It seemed to me that the only possible reason for sharing that would be to insinuate the Joseph could also reasonably used â??arrowâ? for â??atlatlâ? - which is the loose translation model. Was there some other reason for sharing it, particularly when you noted the word â??throwâ? could be used with an atlatl as well?

[Anijen]

Certainly the arrow was used in Mesoamerican prior to the European arrival. However, scholars also state that it was only used post-BoM time period.

It is my opinion that the bow/arrow were used in BoM times but not as accepted and used as much as the atlatl.

Iâ??ve watched the debate between tight and loose translation for years, and predicted long ago that eventually apologists would attempt to merge them, and use whatever allowed them to claim a â??hitâ?. It has happened. In this instance, you are willing to use loose and tight translation within the same sentence. That is too convenient by half.

I'm sure I wasn't the first or the last. It would seem to me that with a book of multi authors, a huge time span, and more than a few translators one would find both loose and tight translations.

It seemed to me that the only possible reason for sharing that would be to insinuate the Joseph could also reasonably used â??arrowâ? for â??atlatlâ? - which is the loose translation model. Was there some other reason for sharing it, particularly when you noted the word â??throwâ? could be used with an atlatl as well?

I felt that throw, cast or whatever term you want to use to propel an obsidian tipped weapon worked either with the atlatl, spear or arrows. I do not think Joseph knew what an atlatl was yet he still used the word cast and throw in the translation which is what the Mayan glyph JUL means.

[beastie]

It is my opinion that the bow/arrow were used in BoM times but not as accepted and used as much as the atlatl.

Do you have any evidence, provided by experts in the field, to support that opinion?

I'm sure I wasn't the first or the last. It would seem to me that with a book of multi authors, a huge time span, and more than a few translators one would find both loose and tight translations.

No, you're not the first nor the last. It is merger that, IMO, is deliberately constructed to try and avoid the problems each theory presents.

What does the number of authors have to do with how Joseph Smith translated the text? When he translated this sentence:

22)Now when they found that they could not obtain power over the Nephites by the pass, they began to dig down their banks of earth that they might obtain a pass to their armies, that they might have an equal chance to fight; but behold, in these attempts they were swept off by the stones and arrows which were thrown at them; and instead of filling up their ditches by pulling down the banks of earth, they were filled up in a measure with their dead and wounded bodies.

..was he reading words off the stone, that someone else - either God or an angel - translated for him? This is JS as reader. This would make linguistic evidences important, because JS' native English wasn't affecting the process. But then "arrow" can only mean "arrow".

Or was he putting into his own native language some sort of gestalt idea or image, a process that left the details of wording entirely up to Joseph? This would mean "arrow" could mean "atlatl", but it would also mean that the use of the word "throw" had nothing to do with the Mayan language.

I felt that throw, cast or whatever term you want to use to propel an obsidian tipped weapon worked either with the atlatl, spear or arrows. I do not think Joseph knew what an atlatl was yet he still used the word cast and throw in the translation which is what the Mayan glyph JUL means.

You're still conflating the two possible translation processes in the course of one sentence.

Joseph used the word "arrow" instead of "atlatl", because he didn't know what an atlatl was. This means he received some sort of holistic idea or image, and translated it into his own words. That means he would have no idea what the Mayan glyph JUL means, and it would be entirely irrelevant, because the Mayan language was not involved in the process in any way.

Conversely, with Joseph as reader, God or the angel knows perfectly well what an atlatl is, and provides the word "atlatl" on the stone, because it doesn't really matter if Joseph understood the word, like it didn't matter with "curelom". Then the Mayan glyph "throw" matters.

Of course, it has to be noted that the BoM was written in reformed Egyptian, so there's a bit of uncertainty why Mayan glyphs would matter at all.

[Jeff K.]

QUOTE

It is my opinion that the bow/arrow were used in BoM times but not as accepted and used as much as the atlatl.

Do you have any evidence, provided by experts in the field, to support that opinion?

"The study of Maya agricultural life is based on existing methods, archaeological finds, botanical and geographical observations, and sixteenth-century sources, many of which are quite detailed, but tell of customs in a less populous time. Some of the customs can be projected to the Classic period, but allowances must be made for a great deals of change. Although many observations and studies have been made, the overall pictures is still unclear. The Maize was prepared by boiling or soaking it in lime water and then draining it in a gourd colander. While it was still wet, it was ground on a metate--as small stone table--with a mano, a cylindrical handstone. The resulting paste was most commonly mixed with water to make pozole, a thin gruel, or formed into cakes, the still familiar tortillas, which were roasted on a flat pottery griddle and eaten with beans or chili. On special occasions chocolate was mixed with ground maize and spiced with chili. Beans and squash were often planted in the same hole with the maize or the rows between. There were numerous varieties of squash and pumpkin, and two varieties of beans, a red one and a black one. A traveler in the area today is aware of the ubiquitous frijole. Chili peppers, tomatoes, yucca, and sweet potatoes were also sometimes planted in the same field. Many of the foods of the Maya, both ancient and modern, are strange to us, such as manioc, chaya, and jicama; but other fruits and vegetables are found in today's supermarkets--avocados, sweet potatoes, guavas, and tomatoes--or are the sources of such familiar foods and seasonings as vanilla beans, chili peppers...chocolate. Several important food plants my have been developed by the Maya--cacao, manioc, the papaya, and the avocado pear...Most of the secondary food crops of the Central area were fruits...The breadnut tree...is frequently found around ruins. Other trees, both wild and domesticated, found in the area included hog plums, nance plums and guavas...The Maya hunted in the grassy savannas that dot the Lowland jungle, using traps and spears; the bow and arrow were not introduced until after the Classic period. The Maya was a considerate hunter, killing only what he needed...In addition to deer, the ancient Maya hunted birds...wild turkeys, curassows, wild boar*, rabbits, peccaries, and armadilows. Other sources of protein were fish, turtles, iguanas, and insects. There were fresh-water fish, and Yucatan, with its long seacoast, provided salt-water fish that could be dried or salted for shipment...Landa described the diet of the sixteenth-century Maya...In the evening they ate stews of vegetables and deer meat, fish, or the meat of wild or tame birds. For special feasts they had roasted fowl, bread, and a drink made from cacao."

Classic period was from 300 to 900 AD

Mayan food timeline

The larger mammals, such as deer and peccary, were hunted with the bow and arrow in drives (though in Classic times the atlatl and dart must have been the principal weapon), aided by packs of dogs. Birds like the wild turkey, partridge, wild pigeon, quail, and wild duck were taken with pellets shot from blow-guns. A variety of snares and deadfalls are shown in the Madrid Coda, especially a trap for armadillo.

In the Yucatan fishing was generally of the offshore kind, by means of sweep and drag nets and hook and line, but fish were also shot with bow and arrow in lagoons. Inland, especially in the highland streams, stupefying drugs were pounded in the water, and the fish taken by hand once they bad floated into artificial dams; one of the beautifully incised bones (figure a~) from Late Classic Tikal shows that this was also the practice in the Pet

[beastie]

Exactly, Jeff. Thanks for doing my work for me. Although I am a bit confused, your reply seems to insinuate this is evidence as per my request.

The Maya hunted in the grassy savannas that dot the Lowland jungle, using traps and spears; the bow and arrow were not introduced until after the Classic period.

after = post 900 AD

So, once again I ask, does Anijen have any evidence to support his opinion that the arrow was used in the BoM time frame?

BTW, I've seen other authors use earlier dates than 900 AD, but nothing within the BoM time frame.

[Anijen]

I have never said I have evidence of bow and arrow use during BoM times but said it was my opinion. Any evidence I have would be anecdotal.

As far as translation goes I subscribe to a tight translation but as almost anyone knows who has done any translating (I have did my share of translating) there are words that just do not have the equivalent and thus an idea similar to the needed word would be used hence a loose translation in certain parts.

I know Royal Skousen and Benjamin Mcguire like the tight translation and from what Ive read of Brant Gardner he seems to imply that Joseph used his own thoughts and words for the translation ie loose. I subscribe to both because there is obvious evidence that shows a tight theory from spelling of names and words showing up in the stone or U&T. Another example would be Joseph not knowing there was a wall around Jerusalem etc.

A loose translation comes into play when words are not known or available for example the word for airplane is balloon in Marshallese over time it stuck, obviously a airplane is not a balloon or vice verse but it is accepted now as the correct translation.

Those who say you have to stick to one type, tight or loose, but not both IMO seem to be restricting themselves. Critic's of the BoM obviously will say you cannot have both because it strengthens their argument you cannot have chiasmus or Hebraisms without a tight translation and you cannot account for horse, arrows etc without a loose translation therefore it must be false...

I just cant make up my mind, perhaps I should leave the church because its obviously false (not).

Anijen

[beastie]

So how do you explain "curelom"?

[Jeff K.]

Exactly, Jeff. Thanks for doing my work for me. Although I am a bit confused, your reply seems to insinuate this is evidence as per my request.

QUOTE

The Maya hunted in the grassy savannas that dot the Lowland jungle, using traps and spears; the bow and arrow were not introduced until after the Classic period.

after = post 900 AD

So, once again I ask, does Anijen have any evidence to support his opinion that the arrow was used in the BoM time frame?

BTW, I've seen other authors use earlier dates than 900 AD, but nothing within the BoM time frame.

You seem to miss the point, the Mayans use of the bow and arrow do not show evidence of post Columbian time period, only post classical which was 900AD not 1492AD. It reflects an influence of using the bow and arrow that was not European influenced, but something else.

Think about it.

[Jeff K.]

1. Bow and Arrow

A projectile weapon used for long range combat. This weapon was created approxamatly 2,500 years ago.

Maya Weapons and Warfare

Might I suggest Elizabeth Boone's excellent book, 'Stories in Red and Black:

Pictorial Histories of the Aztecs and Mixtecs' (Austin: University of Texas

Press, 2000) as a good place to follow up the idea of a transition from the

'savage' use of bows and arrows, to more the 'civilised' weapons of the

atlatl and spear. As Jerry mentioned, this is a well-known trope in Central

Mexican imagery, particularly in Aztec migration douments. Those using bows

and arrows are traditionally depicted as Chichimecs in clothes of skins and

often with unkempt hair whilst the settled urban 'Toltec' peoples bear the

atlatl etc and are depicted in cotton dress with neatly styled hair. The

distinction being made is between 'barbarous' hunter gatherers and the

'high', settled, agricultural culture of the Toltecs which was idealised by

the later indigenous peoples of the Valley of Mexico. Boone has an excellent

collection of the narratives (helpfully listed in the index under 'bow and

arrow, to designate Chichimecs', but to give just a few examples of relevant

documents for those who don't have access to the book, such transitions can

be seen in Codex Xolotl, Cuauhtinchan Map, Historia Tolteca-Chichimeca, and

Mapa-Tlotzin. According to Paul Kirchoff (1948), the Texcocan pictorial in

particular focus on the process of acculturation, or the 'civilizing [of]

the Chichimecs'.

Foundation for the advancement of Mesoamerican studies

[Jeff K.]

The current estimate has it reaching the northern southwest in the period of AD 200-300 but not reaching present US-Mexico border until AD 500. This bow was the self bow, one that was not terribly powerfule and probably more useful for funting than for warfare. Nevertheless, it seems to have soon almost completely replaced the atlatl in the Southwest. The self bow spread throughout Mesoamerica prior to the Spanish conquest, althought the timing is far from clear. Using the rate it took the bow to disperse over North American, it is unlikely the bow reading the Valley of Mexico until after AD 600 and the Yucatan until after AD 800. Sheets implies the bow was in El Salvador by around AD 800. Clearly, using a guess date based on diffusion rates is of limited use. However, no synthetic consensus based discussion of the spread and adoption of the bow in Mesoamerica seems to exist.

Ancient Mesoamerican Warfare

[beastie]

Jeff,

Nothing you are posting contradicts what I've said in this thread. If you think it does, you need to read my posts over again. Perhaps you misread this statement, from post 8:

Scholars in the field do not believe the bow and arrow was introduced into the Mesoamerican region until post-BoM times â?? so it is yet another anachronism.

I never said scholars believe it was introduced by the Europeans.

[juliann]

Beastie says:

Nothing you are posting contradicts what I've said in this thread. If you think it does, you need to read my posts over again.

This is your claim:

Scholars in the field do not believe the bow and arrow was introduced into the Mesoamerican region until post-BoM times â?? so it is yet another anachronism.

However, scholars also state that it was only used post-BoM time period.

So, once again I ask, does Anijen have any evidence to support his opinion that the arrow was used in the BoM time frame?

BTW, I've seen other authors use earlier dates than 900 AD, but nothing within the BoM time frame.

The quote given clearly contradicts what you have claimed.

However, no synthetic consensus based discussion of the spread and adoption of the bow in Mesoamerica seems to exist.

The Berkely reviewer seems to think these scholars are credible and yet they can find no consensus. How did you manage to?

Hereâ??s another pitfall youâ??re going to have to be aware of in this exploration, and that is the various opinions about the translation process.

What ancient languages have you translated?

[beastie]

The Berkely reviewer seems to think these scholars are credible and yet they can find no consensus. How did you manage to?

I specifically stated that I'd seen earlier dates given for the use of the arrow. Jeff provided examples of the range that scholars normally give. Scholars are asserting dates from 500 AD to 900 AD. This is the lack of consensus. I have never seen a scholar propose an earlier date. Perhaps someone else has and will offer it. Noting the lack of consensus, which results in the spread given, does not justify postulating the existence of the arrow over 1,000 years prior to even the earliest proposed date.

What ancient languages have you translated?

I haven't translated any ancient languages, but it isn't necessary to do so to understand the proposed scenarios, and since this translation process isn't normal, it is especially not necessary. I served a mission in France and am quite familiar with how the process works in general. In the normal translation process, the translator knows both languages. The translator is reading or hearing words in one of the known languages, and then providing words in the second known language that provides the same meaning. Sometimes this involves "word for word", and sometimes it involves alterations which preserve meaning (such as the use of metaphors).

The scenarios proposed for JS do not resemble known translation methods. JS did not know the two involved languages - he only knew English. Much of the time he wasn't even looking at the reformed egyptian text. The two proposals are entirely outside the normal translation process. Scenario one is Joseph as reader. He is not acting as a translator in this process at all. He is simply reading the words off the stone which the real translator provided. This is the "tight" translation process. Since the real translator in this process would be God or an agent of God who knows both languages, the real translator is the one using either "word for word" or preserving meaning. The real translator doesn't mind using words or concepts that JS does not understand or recognize.

The loose translation is somewhat unknown, but the idea rests upon some sort of transfer of knowledge in a more gestalt fashion - perhaps through images, or the entire concept appearing in Joseph's mind. Proponents of this theory, since they're not relying on contemporary descriptions, omit details, but clearly JS still is not acting as a normal translator. He still does not know reformed Egyptian, and isn't even looking at the plates most of the time. This is the scenario that allows for translation artifacts. Joseph "sees", somehow, Nephites using tapirs for food, and since the animal is not familiar to him, writes "horses and chariots". Joseph "sees", somehow, an atlatl, but since he has no idea what that is, uses the most proximate description he can think of - bows and arrows.

For years in this debate, believers would choose one or the other scenario. As the weaknesses involved in each became apparent, in terms of explicative power, believers are now adapting and saying both scenarios were used. In this particular example of the arrow, both scenarios would have to be used in the course of one sentence. I think this example makes it particularly clear that this is a theory developed out of convenience and need.

[Jeff K.]

Jeff,

Nothing you are posting contradicts what I've said in this thread. If you think it does, you need to read my posts over again. Perhaps you misread this statement, from post 8:

I never said scholars believe it was introduced by the Europeans.

Thank you for the clarification.

My point is that the widespread introduction may have come later, but not that it need not be present prior. The reports show at this point no one is sure when the first introduction was made in known cultures. Not that the bow and arrow did not exist prior to the given time period.

The same view was once held for cement, which of course in recent decades was overturned. I would venture that "not yet proven" might be a more accurate term.