Olavarria Posted August 16, 2011 Posted August 16, 2011 (edited) As I read the thread started by Bokovoy about Brant's book, I wonder. Since Nibley, faithful scholars have read the BoM through an Ancient Near Eastern lens. Non-Mormon scholars have read it through a 19th century American lens. Here is my question:Are we beginning to see a paradigm shift among faithful scholars wherein some are starting to read the book through a Mesoamerican lens? If so, why would a Mesoamerican lens be better or worse? Edited August 16, 2011 by Pedro A. Olavarria
JeremyOrbe-Smith Posted August 16, 2011 Posted August 16, 2011 (edited) Personally, I think we should read it through an "all three of those and probably more" lens. The 19th-century American vernacular and conceptual milieu influenced the translation of a Mesoamerican compilation of ancient near eastern-style records, which were all filtered through numerous perspectives from all these different time periods and places. Edited August 16, 2011 by JeremyOrbe-Smith 3
volgadon Posted August 16, 2011 Posted August 16, 2011 Personally, I think we should read it through an "all three of those and probably more" lens. The 19th-century American vernacular and conceptual milieu influenced the translation of a Mesoamerican compilation of ancient near eastern-style records, which were all filtered through numerous perspectives from all these different time periods and places. I completely agree with you. The BoM is a product of all three. Personally, I am more inclined to view it through an ANE lens, since I am more knowledgeable in that field than I am with Mesoamerica.
Joseph Antley Posted August 17, 2011 Posted August 17, 2011 Put both in a cage and let 'em duke it out.I also agree with Jeremy and volgadon.
David T Posted August 17, 2011 Posted August 17, 2011 Put both in a cage and let 'em duke it out.I also agree with Jeremy and volgadon.Me too. Although all my rep points for the day have been distributed.
Brant Gardner Posted August 17, 2011 Posted August 17, 2011 Nibley's shadow has been long and wide--and beneficial. I suspect that as a direct result of Nibley's work we now have LDS scholars who handle ANE languages and culture. The quality of their scholarly contributions to understanding the Book of Mormon are immeasurable.On the other hand, we have Sorenson, whose influence has been important, but less productive in fostering a generation of scholars interested in the New World. I would love to see more LDS scholars enter the Mesoamerican field, even if they elect not to publish on the Book of Mormon. The field needs good people and is fascinating. Unlike the ANE, there is still a lot of new ground to cover and it is not inconceivable that one can make important contributions (and that is the end of the commercial!).What has happened in scholarly studies of the Book of Mormon is that the lens of one's field naturally shapes what we see in the text. Because the Book of Mormon begins in the ANE, there is every reason to apply that perspective to the text. That will not change in the future.I believe that we are finding that seeing the New World portion of the text through a Mesoamerican perspective is similarly yielding depth of understanding to the text. I certainly hope that process increases in the future. Unfortunately, there are too few taking that approach and those who attempt to pick it up overnight sometimes muddy the waters rather than help clarify them.If there is any "vs" in the perspective that David Bokovoy and I bring to the text, it is related to how well the ANE informs the New World portion of the text. Gordon Thomasson has talked a lot with me about information in the text that he sees being related to Hebrew festivals. I agree that such things can be in the text, and I readily profess that I will not see them. Subtle allusions require the appropriate background to recognize them. There should be no suggestion that only one perspective works, though I suspect that there will be more usefulness for an ANE background in the New World than a Mesoamerican perspective in the Old World.What I do see happening is a refining of all of the arguments we use in support of the Book of Mormon. Somewhere in the future that will yield a much more consistent and solid reading of the Book of Mormon against time and place.
morgan.deane Posted August 17, 2011 Posted August 17, 2011 Nibley's shadow has been long and wide--and beneficial. I suspect that as a direct result of Nibley's work we now have LDS scholars who handle ANE languages and culture. The quality of their scholarly contributions to understanding the Book of Mormon are immeasurable.On the other hand, we have Sorenson, whose influence has been important, but less productive in fostering a generation of scholars interested in the New World. I would love to see more LDS scholars enter the Mesoamerican field, even if they elect not to publish on the Book of Mormon. The field needs good people and is fascinating. Unlike the ANE, there is still a lot of new ground to cover and it is not inconceivable that one can make important contributions (and that is the end of the commercial!).What has happened in scholarly studies of the Book of Mormon is that the lens of one's field naturally shapes what we see in the text. Because the Book of Mormon begins in the ANE, there is every reason to apply that perspective to the text. That will not change in the future.I believe that we are finding that seeing the New World portion of the text through a Mesoamerican perspective is similarly yielding depth of understanding to the text. I certainly hope that process increases in the future. Unfortunately, there are too few taking that approach and those who attempt to pick it up overnight sometimes muddy the waters rather than help clarify them.If there is any "vs" in the perspective that David Bokovoy and I bring to the text, it is related to how well the ANE informs the New World portion of the text. Gordon Thomasson has talked a lot with me about information in the text that he sees being related to Hebrew festivals. I agree that such things can be in the text, and I readily profess that I will not see them. Subtle allusions require the appropriate background to recognize them. There should be no suggestion that only one perspective works, though I suspect that there will be more usefulness for an ANE background in the New World than a Mesoamerican perspective in the Old World.What I do see happening is a refining of all of the arguments we use in support of the Book of Mormon. Somewhere in the future that will yield a much more consistent and solid reading of the Book of Mormon against time and place.There is actually a fourth avenue of approach. Hugh Nibley suggested reading the Book of Ether from an Asian perspective and did so impressively in one of his books. Sorenson has also put together a bibliography of pre Columbian contact with significant material from East Asian and my upcoming book has two chapters which discuss it.
David Bokovoy Posted August 17, 2011 Posted August 17, 2011 Nibley's shadow has been long and wide--and beneficial. I suspect that as a direct result of Nibley's work we now have LDS scholars who handle ANE languages and culture. The quality of their scholarly contributions to understanding the Book of Mormon are immeasurable.On the other hand, we have Sorenson, whose influence has been important, but less productive in fostering a generation of scholars interested in the New World. I would love to see more LDS scholars enter the Mesoamerican field, even if they elect not to publish on the Book of Mormon. The field needs good people and is fascinating. Unlike the ANE, there is still a lot of new ground to cover and it is not inconceivable that one can make important contributions (and that is the end of the commercial!).What has happened in scholarly studies of the Book of Mormon is that the lens of one's field naturally shapes what we see in the text. Because the Book of Mormon begins in the ANE, there is every reason to apply that perspective to the text. That will not change in the future.I believe that we are finding that seeing the New World portion of the text through a Mesoamerican perspective is similarly yielding depth of understanding to the text. I certainly hope that process increases in the future. Unfortunately, there are too few taking that approach and those who attempt to pick it up overnight sometimes muddy the waters rather than help clarify them.If there is any "vs" in the perspective that David Bokovoy and I bring to the text, it is related to how well the ANE informs the New World portion of the text. Gordon Thomasson has talked a lot with me about information in the text that he sees being related to Hebrew festivals. I agree that such things can be in the text, and I readily profess that I will not see them. Subtle allusions require the appropriate background to recognize them. There should be no suggestion that only one perspective works, though I suspect that there will be more usefulness for an ANE background in the New World than a Mesoamerican perspective in the Old World.What I do see happening is a refining of all of the arguments we use in support of the Book of Mormon. Somewhere in the future that will yield a much more consistent and solid reading of the Book of Mormon against time and place.I felt this was very well said. I am very grateful for Sorenson's contributions to Book of Mormon scholarship and always enjoy gaining new insights into the Book of Mormon via the Mesoamerican lens that Brant brings to the table. It's that guy Mark Wright that I hold suspect. Other than that, I don't see the methodology we're professing as ancient Near East vs. Mesoamerica. I believe the Book of Mormon reflects both of these backgrounds.
Brant Gardner Posted August 17, 2011 Posted August 17, 2011 There is actually a fourth avenue of approach. Hugh Nibley suggested reading the Book of Ether from an Asian perspective and did so impressively in one of his books. Sorenson has also put together a bibliography of pre Columbian contact with significant material from East Asian and my upcoming book has two chapters which discuss it.I think that has merit (and I have seen some of your work on this). I think that the reason that it has merit may not have to do with the Old World heritage of the Book of Mormon and more with the New World, but that doesn't diminish the importance of the information for understanding. It continues the idea that the Book of Mormon took place in a location in the New World that was informed by East Asian cultures. While that is currently not well accepted, I suspect we will see that change in the next few decades. There is too much information indicating cultural connections. What is currently missing is the mechanism to transfer them at an appropriate time period. However, the kinds of correlations are strongly suggestive of common origin/cultural importation.
Hashbaz Posted August 17, 2011 Posted August 17, 2011 It's that guy Mark Wright that I hold suspect. I hear he believes cureloms are actually chupacabras. 1
David Bokovoy Posted August 17, 2011 Posted August 17, 2011 I hear he believes cureloms are actually chupacabras.And there you have it! I know for a fact those birds are indigenous to Australia and sit on old gum trees!
volgadon Posted August 17, 2011 Posted August 17, 2011 There is actually a fourth avenue of approach. Hugh Nibley suggested reading the Book of Ether from an Asian perspective and did so impressively in one of his books. Sorenson has also put together a bibliography of pre Columbian contact with significant material from East Asian and my upcoming book has two chapters which discuss it.While Nibley's steppe nomad theory has some merit, he grossly overdid it.
morgan.deane Posted August 18, 2011 Posted August 18, 2011 While Nibley's steppe nomad theory has some merit, he grossly overdid it.Perhaps "impressive" was an overstatement on my part. If you had a link to the major critiques of his theory I would love to read them. I originally mentioned him because his Asian essay was a neglected part of the "Nibley shadow" theme this thread was discussing. And because his research inspired mine, although instead of nomads I look at dominant Chinese themes in Jaredite society.
morgan.deane Posted August 18, 2011 Posted August 18, 2011 I think that has merit (and I have seen some of your work on this). I think that the reason that it has merit may not have to do with the Old World heritage of the Book of Mormon and more with the New World, but that doesn't diminish the importance of the information for understanding. It continues the idea that the Book of Mormon took place in a location in the New World that was informed by East Asian cultures. While that is currently not well accepted, I suspect we will see that change in the next few decades. There is too much information indicating cultural connections. What is currently missing is the mechanism to transfer them at an appropriate time period. However, the kinds of correlations are strongly suggestive of common origin/cultural importation.Thanks Brant. I appreciated your feedback last year a great deal.
volgadon Posted August 18, 2011 Posted August 18, 2011 Perhaps "impressive" was an overstatement on my part. If you had a link to the major critiques of his theory I would love to read them.I haven't written them yet! The biggest problem for me is that attempts to force the Jaredites who come from an ancient Mesopotamian society into models drawnfrom later steppe cultures. I originally mentioned him because his Asian essay was a neglected part of the "Nibley shadow" theme this thread was discussing. And because his research inspired mine, although instead of nomads I look at dominant Chinese themes in Jaredite society.The Chinese model sounds interesting.
morgan.deane Posted August 18, 2011 Posted August 18, 2011 The Chinese model sounds interesting.Great! Right now it is chapter one of my manuscript. Hopefully the publishers think it's interesting as well.
Robert F. Smith Posted September 27, 2011 Posted September 27, 2011 I haven't written them yet! The biggest problem for me is that attempts to force the Jaredites who come from an ancient Mesopotamian society into models drawnfrom later steppe cultures.I haven't even been able to convince some of my colleagues that the Jaredites come from an ancient Mesopotamian society!!
zerinus Posted September 27, 2011 Posted September 27, 2011 As I read the thread started by Bokovoy about Brant's book, I wonder. Since Nibley, faithful scholars have read the BoM through an Ancient Near Eastern lens. Non-Mormon scholars have read it through a 19th century American lens. Here is my question:Are we beginning to see a paradigm shift among faithful scholars wherein some are starting to read the book through a Mesoamerican lens? If so, why would a Mesoamerican lens be better or worse?The Book of Mormon will make sense only if read through the Holy Spirit Lens.
Nathair/|\ Posted September 27, 2011 Posted September 27, 2011 The Book of Mormon will make sense only if read through the Holy Spirit Lens. How is that mutually exclusive with what Gardner et al. are doing?
zerinus Posted September 27, 2011 Posted September 27, 2011 How is that mutually exclusive with what Gardner et al. are doing?Well, that is the only way to really know that it is true. Without it, the other "lenses" will not help anyone; and with it they become superfluous.
Calm Posted September 27, 2011 Posted September 27, 2011 and with it they become superfluous.only if you disregard the whole study it out directive.
zerinus Posted September 27, 2011 Posted September 27, 2011 (edited) only if you disregard the whole study it out directive.Study it out means in the light of the Spirit. The other considerations are of academic interest, but not of much use otherwise. Edited September 27, 2011 by zerinus
Ron Beron Posted September 28, 2011 Posted September 28, 2011 Great! Right now it is chapter one of my manuscript. Hopefully the publishers think it's interesting as well.I have to plead ignorance here. What exactly is the Asian model?
morgan.deane Posted September 28, 2011 Posted September 28, 2011 I have to plead ignorance here. What exactly is the Asian model? The conversation started with a discussion of both Near Eastern and Mesoamerican influences in the BoM. I pointed out that Nibley offered a third source of influence in his book "The World of the Jaredites". As a Sinologist I agree with some of them and offered many more in what will hopefully be the first chapter in my book.
Ron Beron Posted September 28, 2011 Posted September 28, 2011 The conversation started with a discussion of both Near Eastern and Mesoamerican influences in the BoM. I pointed out that Nibley offered a third source of influence in his book "The World of the Jaredites". As a Sinologist I agree with some of them and offered many more in what will hopefully be the first chapter in my book.Thanks for the info and good luck on your book. I assume you served a mission in Taiwan? Mine was in Japan.
Recommended Posts