Mormon Times Article on If/And Conditionals

[Brant Gardner]

I will, naturally, withhold judgment until after I read all of what you have to say on the matter. I

[mfbukowski]

Mmmmm

[Chris Smith]

It

[Glenn101]

No it's not, there is an entire branch of statistics (hypothesis testing) devoted to determining if a given series of observations are likely to be due to chance. In fact showing that an observation is likely not due to random chance is almost always included in any scientific manuscript. It is standard procedure. There are very good reasons for this and those reasons don't go away just because we start talking about the BOM.

So you could statistically show that the occurrence of if/and conditionals in the Book of Mormon is not coincidence by constructing models of their occurrence in the unedited writings of Joseph Smith and of other texts of the era?

The burden of proof is on the one making the claim. If an apologists is claiming a series of observations are not due to random chance they have to back this up. Again this is absolutely standard procedure and there are good reasons for this. Otherwise anyone can easily claim anything they wish without having to back up that claim with rigorous methodology. I would write up a manuscript claiming the more tigers in a zoo the higher the crime rate and conclude my article with "prove me wrong critics!". The literature would be littered with unsubstantiated claims waiting for someone to address each one and prove them wrong. It is far easier to make unsubstantiated claims than it is to rigorously evaluate such claims.

I think your analogy is inapt here. A more apt analogy is one where a person is proclaiming that tigers in a cage clearly marked "Tigers" is just a coincidence. The Book of Mormon claims that it is a document with ancient Jewish roots, and sure enough, different elements that have been identified as Hebraic in nature have been found in the text and this supports the claim that of ancient Hebrew roots. That is all that has been claimed. A critic who avers that the plethora of Hebraisms in the Book of Mormon are there by chance then must back up his claims.

More to the point if apologists can't show if/and conditionals are likely not due to random chance this greatly weakens their argument why in the world should I believe they are probably due to ancient Hebrews when reasonable alternative possibilities have not been ruled out?

You have no requirement to accept anything. However, it is not the apologist's requirement to rule out every possibility. He only has to present evidence to support his position. That evidence has been adduced by a body of scholars well versed in the pertinent fields especially Hebrew. Possible explanations of coincidence or the result of lengthy dictation have been posited without any supporting evidence to bolster such a scenario. Why should an apologist accept such a theory?

This is debatable a matter for reasoned discussion. It is certainly not a questioned settled by assertion.

Best,

Uncertain

Of course the matter is debatable. The Maxwell Institute has a ton of information on the subject, which offers many points of evidence. Feel free to point out any errors they may have made. And point out any counter evidence.

Glenn

[Uncertain]

So you could statistically show that the occurrence of if/and conditionals in the Book of Mormon is not coincidence by constructing models of their occurrence in the unedited writings of Joseph Smith and of other texts of the era?

Given suitable controls you could certainly statistically show the frequency of if/and conditionals matches or does not match the frequency found in your controls. Which if your controls are chosen wisely will amount to showing the frequency of if/and conditionals is greater than would be expected by random chance.

I think your analogy is inapt here. A more apt analogy is one where a person is proclaiming that tigers in a cage clearly marked "Tigers" is just a coincidence. The Book of Mormon claims that it is a document with ancient Jewish roots, and sure enough, different elements that have been identified as Hebraic in nature have been found in the text and this supports the claim that of ancient Hebrew roots. That is all that has been claimed. A critic who avers that the plethora of Hebraisms in the Book of Mormon are there by chance then must back up his claims.

The burden of proof is on the person claiming a given serious of observations are statistically significant. I have repeated ad nauseum this is standard practice. I am not treating BOM apologetics any different than I would any other claim that a given series of observations are significant and not due to random chance. And I am following established standards of evidence widely used. It has already been shown that Hebracisms can and do occur by random chance. Therefore even if the BOM was fraudulent Hebracisms would very likely be observed in the text. Therefore the mere presence of Hebracisms is not strong evidence in and of themselves that the BOM is an authentic ancient text more is needed. I am well aware the book claims to be ancient this does not change the fact Hebracisms would be present in the text even if it was a fraud.

You have no requirement to accept anything. However, it is not the apologist's requirement to rule out every possibility.

Well if he wants to make a convincing case he better address reasonable alternative possibilities.

He only has to present evidence to support his position. That evidence has been adduced by a body of scholars well versed in the pertinent fields especially Hebrew. Possible explanations of coincidence or the result of lengthy dictation have been posited without any supporting evidence to bolster such a scenario. Why should an apologist accept such a theory?

Again the burden of proof is on the person claiming a given series of observations are significant.

And there certainly has been supporting evidence offered for the critical hypothesis. For example Brant Gardner a fellow believer claims to have located an example of a if/and conditionals in some of JS other writings. I also have repeatedly pointed out the fraction of if/and conditionals is much less than that found in an authentic Hebrew text. The fact if/and conditionals are found rarely and for the most part scattered is absolutely evidence they are due to grammar mistakes or dictation artifacts. The critical argument explains the observation that if/and conditionals are far outnumbered by correct conditionals contrary to what is seen in at least one authentic Hebrew text. While the apologetic argument does not explain this observation. Look I am not necessarily claiming if/and conditionals are due to dictation artifacts or grammar mistakes. But I am saying this is a reasonable possibility and in order to build a convincing apologetic argument reasonable alternative possibilities should be addressed and ruled out.

Of course the matter is debatable. The Maxwell Institute has a ton of information on the subject, which offers many points of evidence. Feel free to point out any errors they may have made. And point out any counter evidence.

Glenn

(bold added by me)

Well this is exactly what I am doing with regards to if/and conditionals.

In any case I am starting to feel we are repeating ourselves. I will read you response but will probably not respond further.

Best,

Uncertain

[William Schryver]

And that is the reason that I don't try to discuss more than I have without the full argument being laid out. One cannot judge whether a hypothesis accounts for all of the salient evidence without seeing the examination of the salient evidence. I really hope that I get to show all my cards soon.

I sincerely look forward to it. I hope you didn't take my comment as being unduly critical. I only meant to express my skepticism at this point; skepticism that is largely borne of my personal opinion of having reconciled the notion of "tight control" of the translation with the bulk of the arguments/apparent evidence against such a scenario.

And, believe me, having been the target of an exceedingly large amount of criticism since my FAIR conference presentation (which was, of necessity, nothing more than a summary exposition of my findings) I, too, look forward to "showing all my cards." My problem, at the moment, is that I keep finding more and more and more "cards"!

Anyway, I really do look forward to the "full argument" of your translation theory.

[William Schryver]

The EAG was the furthest thing from my mind when I posted that.

Really? That's funny--because I immediately drew the conclusion that your comment was intended as a set up to EA/GAEL-related argument. Interesting.

You make an interesting point, though. The EAG does follow something like that pattern.

I understand that you believe "something like that"--hence my having drawn the conclusion that your comment was referring to the EA/GAEL.

As a sidenote, I'm not at all sure what "critical apologetic" means ...

Well, I consent that it was probably worded a little clumsily. But I think you know what I meant: critics of Mormonism are enthusiastic apologists for their own interpretations. Vogel's stunningly speculative (and consistently comical) Joseph Smith bio is a prime example of that reality.

... or whether it's bad or good to be accused of such a thing.

It's judgment neutral.

It is, however, a frequently denied reality, hence the conventional wisdom (among Mormon apostates, apostates-in-progress, and the ever-so-rare instances of never-been-Mormon Mormon critics) that critics of Mormonism engage in "objective scholarly analysis," whereas LDS apologetics consist of "mental gymnastics" and "linguistic legerdemain."

[Mortal Man]

As a sidenote, I'm not at all sure what "critical apologetic" means or whether it's bad or good to be accused of such a thing.

It's technically equivalent to an "apologetic criticism", except that one is acceptable English, whereas the other is is a bona fide "polemicism" which hints at an originally polemical author.

[William Schryver]

It's technically equivalent to an "apologetic criticism", except that one is acceptable English, whereas the other is is a bona fide "polemicism" which hints at an originally polemical author.

Thus saith the polemical author.

!

Edit: Incidentally, it is NOT equivalent to "an apologetic criticism." See my elaboration as posted above.

[Glenn101]

Well this is exactly what I am doing with regards to if/and conditionals.

In any case I am starting to feel we are repeating ourselves. I will read you response but will probably not respond further.

Best,

Uncertain

I'll not continue to beat this horse either, although it is evidently not dead yet. I don't agree with your points too much. You have not shown where any of the scholarship on if/and conditionals is in error. You just contend that they can indeed be there by coincidence, but have offered little in the way of evidence to support the contention.

Brant Gardner, as you noted, is a believer yet skeptical of the if/and conditionals and has said he thinks he has found one in Joseph's writings. He has not identified the source as of yet. When he presents his theories and evidence we will have more to talk about.

Thanks for you input.

Glenn

[Chris Smith]

Really? That's funny--because I immediately drew the conclusion that your comment was intended as a set up to EA/GAEL-related argument. Interesting.

I'm as surprised as you are that I didn't make the connection. But I haven't really thought about the BoA for a while.

But I think you know what I meant: critics of Mormonism are enthusiastic apologists for their own interpretations.

I thought that was probably what you meant, but the phrase had so many possible lexical meanings that I was afraid picking the wrong one might produce a Hebraism.

It is, however, a frequently denied reality, hence the conventional wisdom (among Mormon apostates, apostates-in-progress, and the ever-so-rare instances of never-been-Mormon Mormon critics) that critics of Mormonism engage in "objective scholarly analysis," whereas LDS apologetics consist of "mental gymnastics" and "linguistic legerdemain."

Yes, even diehard "critics of Mormonism" do defend their ideological views, and even diehard "apologists for Mormonism" do criticize others and/or their views. Furthermore, apologists may sometimes criticize the Church, and critics may sometimes defend it. So yes, the terms do falsely dichotomize the kinds of activities in which the two groups engage. However, they are really just terms of convenience, and I don't think that either could be construed as implying scientific objectivity.

Peace,

-Chris

[Robert F. Smith]

Just plain incorrect. The BOM itself states that it was written in Hebrew using the characters of Reformed Egyptian. Any statements that it was written in "Reformed Egyptian" are understood that way as a kind of short hand rather than saying "written in Reformed Egyptian text", but that is the meaning.

Are you sure that the Book of Mormon says that? Cite me the source.

[Robert F. Smith]

The discovery of Hebraic structures, idioms, etc. is still ongoing. This work has been put forth as evidence that the Book of Mormon has Hebraic roots. Not proof, just evidence. Right now, the preponderance of evidence points towards Hebraic roots for the Book of Mormon. It is up to the critic to show otherwise, by a preponderance of evidence. That is what the critics have failed to do.

Glenn

Hebraisms aplenty have been posited for the Book of Mormon, and many of them are very interesting, non-English ways of putting things. Of course, no one odd idiomatic phrase is conclusive evidence of anything. We need a pattern of evidence, systematic evidence covering a broad-range of phenomena.

So, even though all the Hebraisms in the Book of Mormon are very interesting, the problem is that most of them are also very good Egyptianisms. Perhaps instead of Semiticisms we could speak of Hamito-Semiticisms (Afro-Asiaticisms).

Indeed, a more pressing and serious problem is that there are complex systems and expressions in the Book of Mormon which are good evidence of Egyptian culture and of Egyptianisms, but not Hebraic at all. This is not to say that Hebrew culture and language has had no impact. Only that the discriminant factors present are those which are foreign to that Hebrew culture, and could have been acquired only via the use of Egyptian language as well as script.

I have been arguing since 1970, and the late Hugh Nibley long before me, that the language and script on the Brass Plates of Laban and upon the Book of Mormon plates (as edited by Mormon & Moroni) is Egyptian. Not Hebrew in Egyptian characters. That is what the preponderance of evidence shows. Perhaps William Schryver and Larry Poulsen agree with me (http://www.mormonapo...tes-in-egyptian ).

[LeSellers]

Are you sure that the Book of Mormon says that? Cite me the source.

32 And now, behold, we have written this record according to our knowledge, in the characters which are called among us the reformed Egyptian, being handed down and altered by us, according to our manner of speech. 33 And if our plates had been sufficiently large we should have written in Hebrew; but the Hebrew hath been altered by us also; and if we could have written in Hebrew, behold, ye would have had no imperfection in our record.

Enjoy,

Lehi

[Glenn101]

Hebraisms aplenty have been posited for the Book of Mormon, and many of them are very interesting, non-English ways of putting things. Of course, no one odd idiomatic phrase is conclusive evidence of anything. We need a pattern of evidence, systematic evidence covering a broad-range of phenomena.

So, even though all the Hebraisms in the Book of Mormon are very interesting, the problem is that most of them are also very good Egyptianisms. Perhaps instead of Semiticisms we could speak of Hamito-Semiticisms (Afro-Asiaticisms).

Indeed, a more pressing and serious problem is that there are complex systems and expressions in the Book of Mormon which are good evidence of Egyptian culture and of Egyptianisms, but not Hebraic at all. This is not to say that Hebrew culture and language has had no impact. Only that the discriminant factors present are those which are foreign to that Hebrew culture, and could have been acquired only via the use of Egyptian language as well as script.

I have been arguing since 1970, and the late Hugh Nibley long before me, that the language and script on the Brass Plates of Laban and upon the Book of Mormon plates (as edited by Mormon & Moroni) is Egyptian. Not Hebrew in Egyptian characters. That is what the preponderance of evidence shows. Perhaps William Schryver and Larry Poulsen agree with me (http://www.mormonapo...tes-in-egyptian ).

That is an interesting concept. I read through the thread and have to agree that there is more than a little evidence for at least a dualism in the language. The evidence that Egyptian was the spoken language, as William Schryver contends is much more tenuous, but that Egyptian, or at least a form of it, is the written language is hardly disputable.

I would be interested to know the Egyptianisms that can be found in the Book of Mormon and would appreciate a pointer to where I can find something on the subject.

Thanks,

Glenn

[mfbukowski]

Are you sure that the Book of Mormon says that? Cite me the source.

I'll man up to it. I think I was mistaken. It was a quick response, I should know better.

[Robert F. Smith]

That is an interesting concept. I read through the thread and have to agree that there is more than a little evidence for at least a dualism in the language. The evidence that Egyptian was the spoken language, as William Schryver contends is much more tenuous, but that Egyptian, or at least a form of it, is the written language is hardly disputable.

I would be interested to know the Egyptianisms that can be found in the Book of Mormon and would appreciate a pointer to where I can find something on the subject.

Thanks, Glenn

I agree that Egyptian among the Nephite scribal elite was a written language (even if Lehi and Nephi could speak it), and that Hebrew was the common speech among them, and probably the Mulekites.

My forthcoming piece on "Egyptianisms in the Book of Mormon" deals with the question in detail from a number of viewpoints. It is currently being read and critiqued by a few of my colleagues.

Some simple examples of Egyptianisms, which are not Hebraisms, include the double negative, which is found in Egyptian but not in Hebrew, Egyptian-style colophons, making an abridgment (unknown to Hebrew), whiteness of fruit in Lehi's vision, the land southward, etc. Nibley called attention to many of these, and there are other, complex systems which depend on known Egyptian cultural effects on Israelite culture -- but which were virtually unknown to the Bible, and have only become known to us via archeology or some other modern analytic techniques.