Metal Swords?

[Robert F. Smith]

Smith would have transliterated, as he did with the metal "ziff," and the nonmetallic names "curelom," "cumom," "senine," "antion," "amnor," etc.

Since you mention ziff, perhaps it would be well to take a closer look at what it might be:

ZIFF common noun for material of value which was used (along with gold, silver, iron, brass, and copper) by King Noah to ornament buildings (Mosiah 11:3,8, from the “Record of Zeniff”)

This is most likely biblical Hebrew ṣippâ, the piel form of ṣāpâ “overlay (with gold or copper), to plate; stud (with gold, wood, or precious stones),”etc. (Exodus 25:11-12, 26:32, 1 Kings 6:15,20, 2 Chronicles 3:4,6,10,15, Proverbs 26:23), a ṣippûy being a silver or other “metal plating” on idols, capitals, or an altar (Exodus 38:17,19, Numbers 17:3-4, Isaiah 30:22, Daniel 2:31) – cognate with Ugaritic ṣpy “to cover,”^[1] Arabic ṣaff(a) “line, alignment, row,”^[2] Old Babylonian ṣippatu, zibatu “metal, alloy,” and Middle Babylonian ṣiptu “an ornament or mounting for a precious stone,” which is also used in descriptions of gold jewelry (ṣipati-ornaments); zibû, zībtu “a small metal object”^[3] – the gold mentioned being “red gold,” perhaps KÙ.GI.SA₅, ḫuraṣi sami, GUŠ.KIN; zaḫalu,^[4] and therefore possibly the red copper-gold alloy tumbaga.^[5] Cf. also Akkadian sippu A “decoration, coating, overlay (gold),”^[6]sipparu (ZABAR.MEŠ, UD.KA.BAR), “bronze,” used for metal plating.^[7]

------------------------------------------

^[1] C. Gordon Ugaritic Textbook, Glossary #2184; Koehler & Baumgartner, Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the OT, III:1045..

^[2]HALOT, III:1045.

^[3]Chicago Assyrian Dictionary, 16:203,205; 21:107 *zību E, saying that “the very small quantity of gold used for zību’s makes it likely that they are some kind of ornament, nails, or the like.”

^[4] M. Levey, Chemistry and Chemical Technology in Ancient Mesopotamia, 188.

^[5] R. Putnam, “Were the Plates of Mormon of Tumbaga?” paper delivered May 16, 1964, at the FIfteenth Annual Symposium on the Archaeology of the Scriptures (BYU/UAS, 1964), 101-109, citing Sperry on p. 106; see the full discussion of this proposal by R. F. Smith, “Weights and Measures à la Mosiah II,” Jerusalem, 1970, adapted for a FARMS Preliminary Report by FARMS Staff in 1983.

^[6]CAD 15:302.

^[7]CAD 15:296-298.

Edited May 31, 2012 by Robert F. Smith

[mfbukowski]

Although the ancient Egyptians did not discover how to produce iron from its ores, they already had a word for “iron” in Predynastic times (4th millennium B.C.), which was based on their use and working of meteoric iron biЗ n pt “metal of the sky” (= Coptic benipe),* and this remained their word for “iron, steel,” throughout Egyptian history. According to Lucas & Harris, based on the Brinell hardness of actual artifacts, steel was first produced in Egypt by carburizing of iron no earlier than 1200 B.C., and by carburizing and quenching no earlier than 900 B.C., although the artifacts could have been imports from Western Asia,** where Hittites had been making steel since at least the mid-2nd millennium B.C., or earlier. There is also a nickle-steel battle-axe from Ugarit with bronze hilt decorated with gold, dated to about 1450-1350 B.C., very much like the one found dating to ca. 2000 B.C. in a grave in Hattic Alaca Höyük.⁺

There are a number of iron gifts (including steel) which were received by Egyptians at that early period, including a steel-bladed dagger presented to Amenhotep III by King Tushratta of Mitanni, etc. The spectacular steel-bladed and gold-hilted dagger found in King Tut’s 18th dynasty tomb^# is not only of the same type as the sword described for Laban (I Nephi 4:9) nearly a millennium later, but may also have been an import.

Iron smelting and iron working in Egypt came into its own during the 22nd to 26th dynasties, and was as common as bronze by the 26th dynasty (664 - 525 B.C.) – contemporary with Lehi & Nephi. And Petrie found furnaces and iron working in Palestine (Gerar) even earlier, from the 20th to 22nd dynasties (cf. I Kings 8:51).^##

Moreover, steel was being produced by the high culture and civilization in ancient South Arabia already by 1100 B.C.^■

The Hebrew word for “iron, steel” is barzel (Gen 4:22, Lev 26:19, Num 31:22, Deut 3:11, 4:20, 8:9, 28:48, Josh 17:16, Prov 27:17), and is the basis for the name or metonym of Barzillai “Iron-man/ Steel-man,” possibly due to his origin in Gilead (in Manasseh) where the best iron ores were to be found – at a time when the Philistine monopoly on iron & steel weapons was being quickly eroded (I Sam 13:19-21, 17:7, II Kings 24;14, I Chron 22:3, II Chron 2:7). Robert Coughenour even argues that Barzillai “was David’s chief metallurgist.” A steel short-sword (blade 12-16 inches long) with ivory hilt and bronze rivets was found at Philistine Ekron (Tel Miqne).^■■ The first actual steel implement known from Palestine, however, is an eleventh century B.C. pick from Upper Galilean Har Adir,§

The so-called “Iron Age” in which all this took place should, according to Robert Maddin, have been called the “Steel Age.”§§

------------------------------------

* Jaroslav Černý, Coptic Etymological Dictionary, 24-25; A. Lucas & J. R. Harris, Ancient Egyptian Materials and Industries, 4th ed., 235-237, 242.

** Lucas & Harris, 242; James Muhly, “Metallurgy,” in K. A. Bard, ed., Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt, 526; cf. http://www.reshafim....ades/metals.htm .

+ Richard Cowen, “Essays on Geology, History, and People,” chapter 5, online at http://mygeologypage...115/115CH5.html ; Muhly, “Metals,” in E. M. Meyers, ed., The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East, IV:14.

# Lucas & Harris, 240.

## Lucas & Harris, 239-240.

^■ Gus Van Beek, Hajar Bin Humeid: Investigations at a Pre-Islamic Site in South Arabia.

^■■ Seymour Gitin, “Excavating Ekron: Major Philistine City Survived by Absorbing Other Cultures,” Biblical Archaeology Review, 31/6 (Nov-Dec 2005), 40-56. See photo on p. 44.

§ Amihai Mazar, Archaeology of the Land of the Bible, 360-361, photo 8.32, citing D. Davis, et al., JNES, 44 (1985), 41-52.

§§ Coughenour, “Iron,” in P. Achtemeier, ed., Harper’s Bible Dictionary, 423-424.

Wow. Thanks.

[Robert F. Smith]

Anyone interested in witnessing the whole old-time process of turning iron ore into high carbon steel swords, ought to see “Secrets of the Samurai Sword,” Nova, Oct 9, 2007, PBS-TV, online at http://www.pbs.org/w...urai-sword.html .

Edited June 3, 2012 by Robert F. Smith

[Cobalt-70]

Cobal #113;

That Alma passage does indicate that the swords were to be grabbed for desense onthe spot but I think we're tryingto recostruct something we really know little to nothing about. Andy indication as to *how* they spelt upon their swords? I think justl ike a sheath you mentioned during your own posting, there's nothng to show contrary of the idea tha something was used as a covering for a macauhuitl.

I think the argument that they covered their macuahuitls with leather and literally slept "upon" them is the worst possible apologetic argument. Why would anyone do that? Not only are you making your macuahuitls inaccessible in a sudden emergency, but you are making your bed so lumpy that nobody could sleep on it.

[Cobalt-70]

You really are not listening are you?

Even if you said "orichalc" as some translations of the Bible do, no one would have a clue what you were talking about without looking it up. The word does not communicate anything to the modern world, except perhaps to a few weirdos like me who are into such things- and I don't "really" know what it means anyway.

You comment doesn't distinguish "orichalc" from "ziff." Nobody would have a clue about what "ziff" means without looking it up, either, and it communicates nothing to the modern reader. So why didn't Smith translate "ziff" into something that is grossly inaccurate, but at least understandable, as you are proposing that Smith did for the hypothetical hieroglyph that he translated as "steel"?

[Cobalt-70]

It's an expression, not an exact description. I tell one of my workers to go get a box of nails and they tell me they're "On It". They are not top of the box of nails, they're on the job.

There are many senses of the word "on," but I'm waiting for someone to provide me with an example in 19th century English of someone using the phrase "slept upon" as meaning "slept near," or the word "upon" referring to "near" in other than a geographical sense.

[Cobalt-70]

Will the New Testament do?

Mark 16:19

"So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God."

That sense of "on" is a directional sense. It means "to." It's not the same sense as you are proposing for "slept upon their swords."

[mfbukowski]

Anyone interested in witnessing the whole old-time process of turning iron ore into high carbon steel swords, ought to see “Secrets of the Samurai Sword,” Nova, Oct 9, 2007, PBS-TV, online at http://www.pbs.org/w...urai-sword.html .

Very cool!

[Cobalt-70]

Although the ancient Egyptians did not discover how to produce iron from its ores, they already had a word for “iron” in Predynastic times (4th millennium B.C.), which was based on their use and working of meteoric iron biЗ n pt “metal of the sky” (= Coptic benipe),* and this remained their word for “iron, steel,” throughout Egyptian history. According to Lucas & Harris, based on the Brinell hardness of actual artifacts, steel was first produced in Egypt by carburizing of iron no earlier than 1200 B.C., and by carburizing and quenching no earlier than 900 B.C., although the artifacts could have been imports from Western Asia,** where Hittites had been making steel since at least the mid-2nd millennium B.C., or earlier. There is also a nickle-steel battle-axe from Ugarit with bronze hilt decorated with gold, dated to about 1450-1350 B.C., very much like the one found dating to ca. 2000 B.C. in a grave in Hattic Alaca Höyük.⁺

There are a number of iron gifts (including steel) which were received by Egyptians at that early period, including a steel-bladed dagger presented to Amenhotep III by King Tushratta of Mitanni, etc. The spectacular steel-bladed and gold-hilted dagger found in King Tut’s 18th dynasty tomb^# is not only of the same type as the sword described for Laban (I Nephi 4:9) nearly a millennium later, but may also have been an import.

Iron smelting and iron working in Egypt came into its own during the 22nd to 26th dynasties, and was as common as bronze by the 26th dynasty (664 - 525 B.C.) – contemporary with Lehi & Nephi. And Petrie found furnaces and iron working in Palestine (Gerar) even earlier, from the 20th to 22nd dynasties (cf. I Kings 8:51).^##

Moreover, steel was being produced by the high culture and civilization in ancient South Arabia already by 1100 B.C.^■

The Hebrew word for “iron, steel” is barzel (Gen 4:22, Lev 26:19, Num 31:22, Deut 3:11, 4:20, 8:9, 28:48, Josh 17:16, Prov 27:17), and is the basis for the name or metonym of Barzillai “Iron-man/ Steel-man,” possibly due to his origin in Gilead (in Manasseh) where the best iron ores were to be found – at a time when the Philistine monopoly on iron & steel weapons was being quickly eroded (I Sam 13:19-21, 17:7, II Kings 24;14, I Chron 22:3, II Chron 2:7). Robert Coughenour even argues that Barzillai “was David’s chief metallurgist.” A steel short-sword (blade 12-16 inches long) with ivory hilt and bronze rivets was found at Philistine Ekron (Tel Miqne).^■■ The first actual steel implement known from Palestine, however, is an eleventh century B.C. pick from Upper Galilean Har Adir,§

The so-called “Iron Age” in which all this took place should, according to Robert Maddin, have been called the “Steel Age.”§§

You have not provided either an Egyptian or Hebrew word that distinguishes between iron and steel (and also distinguishes bronze). Book of Mormon literalists require such a word to explain the instances in the Book of Mormon in which iron and steel are listed in the same sentence. (2 Ne. 5:15, Jarom 1:8 ).

Edited June 3, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[TAO]

Cobalt, I would suggest 'sleep upon their swords' means 'sleep by their swords', or 'sleep with their swords in arm's reach'.

[Cobalt-70]

CFR that I have in any way been "mischaracterizing what Owen and Mosser said." Perhaps you could quote their disagreements with what I said about their piece by citing their actual statements.

My reading of your statement that Owen and Mosser "concluded that the LDS apologists had done a very creditable and successful job of defending their faith and that the evangelicals had lost the debate" was to imply that Owen and Mosser had some respect for the conclusions of Mormon pseudoarchaeology (and by that, I mean any archaeological conclusions, such as that Lamanites could have been Mesoamericans, that have not been subject to, and passed, mainstream peer review within the archaeological community).

First, you misquoted them. Owen and Mosser said "losing the battle," not "lost the battle." The "battle" they were referring to is not academic truth, but "spiritual warfare" for the hearts and minds of potential converts. And why did they think that their fellow Evangelicals were losing the battle? because, after citing many examples of apologetic Mormon claims (with which they clearly disagreed), they noted,

"There are many more studies which could be mentioned, but this should suffice to demonstrate that LDS academians are producing serious research which desperately needs to be critically examined from an informed evangelical perspective."

They were not saying that the Mormon apologetic conclusions held any water. They were only saying that these conclusions desparately needed to be rebutted from the (in their opinion) superior Evangelical perspective.

CFR that "These are some of the same people who come up with crazy mechanisms for how humans and dinosaurs coexisted prior to the Flood." Plenty of evangelicals take a very different view from some of that nonsense. That you are unaware of that indicates unfamiliarity with evangelical writings.

Just to be clear, I was not saying that "these" people include Owen and Mosser. I was referring to kind of Evangelical "scholars" who run websites like this one: http://www.creationtruth.org/. My point was that like literalistic Mormons, fundamentalist Evangelicals have their own issues with pseudoarchaeology, and that someone's qualifications as an Evangelical does not engender any credibility from the perspective of the broader community of archaeologists.

CFR that "these are the guys that academic Mormon apologists proudly compare themselves to these days."

I see no evidence that you have even read what Owen & Mosser wrote.

I was referring to your own comment. As I read it, you were using the Owen and Mosser article to compare Mormon apologetic research to Evangelical research, and you seemed to be rather proud of the idea that literalistic Mormon writers were more convincing than the evangelical writers criticized by Owen and Mosser.

CFR that there is any "non-Mormon scholar" who denies "anyone has found any archaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon as an ancient text," who has ever actually studied the Book of Mormon. This is akin to someone talking about Biblical authenticity without ever having actually studied it. Biblical scholars would guffaw long and hard at any upstart coming into their bailiwick making silly claims based on a complete lack of elementary knowledge as well as the lack of fundamental linguistic & archeological tools necessary to understand the Bible.

You are misquoting me. I said, "I am not aware of a single non-Mormon scholar that thinks that anyone has found any archaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon as an ancient text." I stand by that, and I think the CFR is on you to come up with a counterexample.

CFR the identity of "Mormon pseudoarchaeologists." Who are those guys for whom you have such contempt?

See the definition I provided above. Just to clarify, I'm not meaning to say that any Mormon archaeologist who concludes that horses are tapirs is a pseudoarchaeologist in everything that they do. I know some very respectable Mormon archaeologists who publish in peer reviewed journals, but just happen to have a pseudoarchaeology "hobby" on the side, which they share only in Mormon apologetic contexts. That doesn't detract from their fine mainstream work.

CFR the psychobiographical basis for your belief "that many Mormon scholars" don't "really think that, either," i.e., that they don't believe that there is "any archaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon as an ancient text."

This is not a psychobiographical claim. I'm just saying that nowadays, it is rare for Mormon apologetic writers to claim that they have "proof" that the Book of Mormon was a historical work. They present correlations, and patterns, and possibilities, but nothing that cannot also be explained by secular archaeology. If this weren't true, then Hugh Nibley never would have had to write this appendix to his book An Approach to the Book of Mormon explaining why, in his view, archaeology in general cannot be trusted.

CFR that whatever evidence Mormon scholars mention is only "evidence of non-impossibility, not evidence of actuality."

"Evidence of non-impossibility" means that the Mormon writer is providing evidence that in their view can, plausibly, be interpreted in a way consistent with a literalistic interpretation of the Book of Mormon. Evidence of actuality is evidence that the writer believes can only be plausibly interpreted as evidence of Book of Mormon historicity. I don't see much of the latter nowadays. Do you? And even if that is what the writer believes, no mainstream secular scholar has ever agreed, as far as I am aware. In any event, this is an impossible CFR, because it requires that I do a quantitative survey of all Mormon apologetic literature.

CFR that there are these mythic "Mormon pseudoarchaeologists" who accept "the same type of evidence that" they "typically reject when the parallels are applied to 19th century sources." Could you provide examples of this blatant double standard? "vague parallels" perhaps.

Compare, for example, this article by John Welch with this chapter by John Welch. It's okay to make vague parallels between Book of Mormon weights and measures and the weights and measures of ancient Old World kingdoms, but it is not okay to make vague parallels between the Book of Mormon and A View of the Hebrews.

I really wish that you would take seriously my suggestion that you read serious literature on these questions by disinterested third parties. You would find yourself quite surprised at how divergent from reality your claims are. In addition, a real dialogue is only possible when there is mutual respect and adherence to fundamental norms of logic and critical thinking. You might take a cue from Rob Bowman, who is always a gentleman and who can disagree without being disagreeable and disrespectful.

The only "disinterested parties" are secular archaeologists. Mormons (be they fundamentalist or liberal, and I include myself in that latter category) are not disinterested, and neither are Evangelicals. But in any event, I am fairly well versed in the literature on all sides, and I have never heard of a non-Mormon having any scholarly respect for the Book-of-Mormon-as-history conclusions of Mormon pseudoarchaeology. Respect for methods and presentation, yes. Respect for conclusions, no.

Edited June 3, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[mfbukowski]

You have not provided either an Egyptian or Hebrew word that distinguishes between iron and steel (and also distinguishes bronze). Book of Mormon literalists require such a word to explain the instances in the Book of Mormon in which iron and steel are listed in the same sentence. (2 Ne. 5:15, Jarom 1:8 ).

Oh gosh.

Edited June 3, 2012 by mfbukowski

[cdowis]

I think the argument that they covered their macuahuitls with leather and literally slept "upon" them is the worst possible apologetic argument. Why would anyone do that?

To prevent someone from stealing it, to have it readily at hand if needed. Such as placing your gun under your pillow.

[blackstrap]

Scientists are constantly looking at evidence and drawing conclusions and respectfully(usually) disagreeing about those conclusions.For some reason they don't claim that conclusion X is based on pseudobiology,or pseudophysics or pseudoastronomy.As more evidence accumulates,conclusions change or re- refined.One would think that archeology is a fixed and unchangable science. Sorry,but archeologists make educated conclusions about the inconclusive on a regular basis.

[Stargazer]

I don't think you slept on your M16s, though, right? You could sleep on a real sword, because it has a sheath (1 Ne. 4:9), but you could not sleep on a macuahuitl without waking up with severe lacerations.

Getting back to this after many days....

No, in the process of sleeping in the confined space of the sleeping bag, I definitely remember waking up briefly on occasion to shift position having overlain the darned thing. Fortunately, the bayonet (which wasn't particular edge-sharp) was not kept fixed but in its scabbard on my utility belt and definitely NOT in the sleeping bag with me.

I am sure that if a soldier kept his macuahuitl next to him while sleeping, he might have slept on it for the purpose of keeping only minimally asleep. The whole point of sleeping ON one's sword is, after all, to keep at a heightened state of alert, and ready for immediate combat.

I don't know why this is a foreign concept to you. Never serve in the infantry?

[Robert F. Smith]

You have not provided either an Egyptian or Hebrew word that distinguishes between iron and steel (and also distinguishes bronze). Book of Mormon literalists require such a word to explain the instances in the Book of Mormon in which iron and steel are listed in the same sentence. (2 Ne. 5:15, Jarom 1:8 ).

Your point is well taken only to the extent that we do not have such specialized ancient terms available in the Bible, even though they probably existed among metallurgists. We do have such distinguishing terms for "iron" and "steel" in Akkkadian cuneiform, which is indicative.

Perhaps Israelites and Egyptians did not distinguish "iron" from "steel" for the reason that they are essentially the same, except for certain carburizing and quenching treatments. They probably understood them as existing along the same continuum of improvement for already extant pieces of iron ore as well as meteoric iron. If you watch the video on the making of Samurai swords which I cite above, you might begin to understand the concept.

The same seems to have been true for "copper" and "bronze," both described as Hebrew nechoshet, even though bronze is an alloy of copper with tin. I am not here concerned with 1611 (or earlier) KJV translations, which describe what we call "bronze" today as KJV "brass," or even sometimes translated "bronze" as KJV "steel." These are clearly erroneous translations and need not concern us.

Your citations of II Nephi 5:15, and Jarom 8, tell us that the Nephites did understand the difference between iron & steel, and between copper & bronze (brass) just as we should expect they would based on the ancient Near Eastern archeological findings (which I summarized above). This lends all the more credence to John Tvedtnes' stated belief that Lehi and Nephi were metallurgists of some sort. See:

J. Tvedtnes, “Was Lehi a Caravaneer?” FARMS preliminary report TVE-84 (Provo: FARMS, 1984), reprinted as chapter 10 in Tvedtnes, The Most Correct Book (Cedar Fort, 2004).

[Robert F. Smith]

You comment doesn't distinguish "orichalc" from "ziff." Nobody would have a clue about what "ziff" means without looking it up, either, and it communicates nothing to the modern reader. So why didn't Smith translate "ziff" into something that is grossly inaccurate, but at least understandable, as you are proposing that Smith did for the hypothetical hieroglyph that he translated as "steel"?

You're not making a whole lot of sense to me here, but I can say that the ancient Egyptian hieroglyphic spelling for "iron, steel," is not hypothetical, and you need only go to the page I cited in the Coptic Etymological Dictionary to see the hieroglyphs along with the Demotic (bnpy) and Coptic forms. You are expected to make at least a modicum of effort here.

[Stargazer]

Cobalt-70, your desperation to not give one millimeter to the notion that sleeping on one's sword is nothing more than a picturesque way of being very alert even in sleep, and being able at a moment's notice to spring up ready to fight, is a real "tell". Give it up, you've tipped your hand.

I remember nights in training when, even without a sleeping bag to sleep in, I kept that rifle snugged in tight against me while I slept, and marked very carefully in my mind where all my other essential equipment was, such as my grenades with the straightened pins and flare launcher, so I could lay hand on them immediately, especially when in a defensive position or laying in ambush. You can't convince me that Achilles, Alexander, Hannibal, Sun Tzu, Scipio Africanus, Genghis Khan, David ben Jesse, Tamerlane, Charlemagne, and Robert the Bruce would not have instantly recognized that turn of phrase. Why not Nephi, Moroni, and Ether? Because they didn't really exist? Please, even I can recognize a circular argument when I hear it.

[Robert F. Smith]

My reading of your statement that Owen and Mosser "concluded that the LDS apologists had done a very creditable and successful job of defending their faith and that the evangelicals had lost the debate" was to imply that Owen and Mosser had some respect for the conclusions of Mormon pseudoarchaeology (and by that, I mean any archaeological conclusions, such as that Lamanites could have been Mesoamericans, that have not been subject to, and passed, mainstream peer review within the archaeological community).

Here and below, with your consistent poisoning of the wells, I see nothing to indicate that you understand how important it is to show respect for academic work by others when merited. Owen & Mosser at least understood the concept and conducted themselves appropriately, i.e., were evenhanded and fair in their estimation of the relative merits of the evangelical and Mormon academic product. They are by no means the first scholars to call into question the intellectual capacity of their own religious movement (see Mark Noll, The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind [Eerdmans, 1995]). I think that they showed considerable honesty in their overall appraisal.

First, you misquoted them. Owen and Mosser said "losing the battle," not "lost the battle." The "battle" they were referring to is not academic truth, but "spiritual warfare" for the hearts and minds of potential converts. And why did they think that their fellow Evangelicals were losing the battle? because, after citing many examples of apologetic Mormon claims (with which they clearly disagreed), they noted,

"There are many more studies which could be mentioned, but this should suffice to demonstrate that

LDS academians

are producing serious research which desperately needs to be critically examined from an informed evangelical perspective."

They were not saying that the Mormon apologetic conclusions held any water. They were only saying that these conclusions desparately needed to be rebutted from the (in their opinion) superior Evangelical perspective.

You provide only one quote, and it is one which supports completely my understanding of Owen & Mosser, who go out of their way to be fair and not to use prejudicial terms nor to engage in invective.

Just to be clear, I was not saying that "these" people include Owen and Mosser. I was referring to kind of Evangelical "scholars" who run websites like this one: http://www.creationtruth.org/. My point was that like literalistic Mormons, fundamentalist Evangelicals have their own issues with pseudoarchaeology, and that someone's qualifications as an Evangelical does not engender any credibility from the perspective of the broader community of archaeologists.

That larger community of archeologists includes all sorts of people, from maximalists to minimalists, from religious to non-religious, but there are certain common denominators of training, experience, and publication which they must adhere to, and debates in which they will inevitably have to participate. Such usually take place in a collegial manner, with good humor and mutual respect. They all must learn to take their hits in sometimes harsh reviews of their books and articles. Discovery and interpretation can be both exhilirating and risky. Basic research an endless and unforgiving task. Withal, I never hear complaints that this or that guy is an evangelical or a Mormon. Scholars are judged instead by other scholars on the quality of their production of true scholarship. You apparently don't understand that, and wish to damn a priori those with whom you want to disagree. Is that fair?

I was referring to your own comment. As I read it, you were using the Owen and Mosser article to compare Mormon apologetic research to Evangelical research, and you seemed to be rather proud of the idea that literalistic Mormon writers were more convincing than the evangelical writers criticized by Owen and Mosser.

I am not sure who these imaginary "literalistic Mormon writers" are, and I don't think you do either. When I CFR you, I rarely get a substantive reply.

I thought I made it clear that Owen & Mosser's assessment was of value because it posed a very simple notion for comparison: Did the LDS scholars actually cite their sources, and did their descriptions of archeological and historical realia comport with those citations; did they use good logic and draw reasonable conclusions? These are, after all, the sorts of criteria by which most of them obtained their doctorates at standard, secular universities.

You are misquoting me. I said, "I am not aware of a single non-Mormon scholar that thinks that anyone has found any archaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon as an ancient text." I stand by that, and I think the CFR is on you to come up with a counterexample.

I had no choice but to rephrase since your statement begged the question and poisoned the wells -- you improperly sought to insert impossible and unproven assumptions. Why don't you just say, "heads I win, tails you lose"? Owen & Mosser did exactly the opposite and sought to be completely fair.

You are unable to respond to my rephrased question because it removes the bias and prejudice your statement contains, and places the discussion on a realistic ground.

See the definition I provided above. Just to clarify, I'm not meaning to say that any Mormon archaeologist who concludes that horses are tapirs is a pseudoarchaeologist in everything that they do. I know some very respectable Mormon archaeologists who publish in peer reviewed journals, but just happen to have a pseudoarchaeology "hobby" on the side, which they share only in Mormon apologetic contexts. That doesn't detract from their fine mainstream work.

Once again, CFR. Who are these guys you mention?

This is not a psychobiographical claim. I'm just saying that nowadays, it is rare for Mormon apologetic writers to claim that they have "proof" that the Book of Mormon was a historical work. They present correlations, and patterns, and possibilities, but nothing that cannot also be explained by secular archaeology. If this weren't true, then Hugh Nibley never would have had to write this appendix to his book An Approach to the Book of Mormon explaining why, in his view, archaeology in general cannot be trusted.

I'm not sure why one should expect Mormon or non-Mormon scholars to argue "that they have 'proof' that" either the Bible or Book of Mormon is "historical." I have seen recent statements that there is not much difference between claims about Moses and the Tablets of the Law in the Ark and about Joseph Smith and the Gold Plates in a stone box. How can such claims be verified? Does one obtain "proof" of the Resurrection through secular archeology? Proof may be the wrong word here. Most historians and archeologists deal in interpretation not proof. History is not facts, but the interpretation of facts.

"Evidence of non-impossibility" means that the Mormon writer is providing evidence that in their view can, plausibly, be interpreted in a way consistent with a literalistic interpretation of the Book of Mormon. Evidence of actuality is evidence that the writer believes can only be plausibly interpreted as evidence of Book of Mormon historicity. I don't see much of the latter nowadays. Do you? And even if that is what the writer believes, no mainstream secular scholar has ever agreed, as far as I am aware. In any event, this is an impossible CFR, because it requires that I do a quantitative survey of all Mormon apologetic literature.

You do go to extremes. Wouldn't it be more reasonable to take a look at actual evidence and evaluate it? Moreover, why not allow mainstream secular scholarship to be the measure by which we judge our own conclusions pro or con? Instead of twisting yourself and this thread in knots trying to avoid coming to grips with realia, why not try allowing disinterested third party scholarship to have some normative value?

Compare, for example, this article by John Welch with this chapter by John Welch. It's okay to make vague parallels between Book of Mormon weights and measures and the weights and measures of ancient Old World kingdoms, but it is not okay to make vague parallels between the Book of Mormon and A View of the Hebrews.

So, you are saying that both sets of comparison here are equally vague and meaningless?

The only "disinterested parties" are secular archaeologists. Mormons (be they fundamentalist or liberal, and I include myself in that latter category) are not disinterested, and neither are Evangelicals. But in any event, I am fairly well versed in the literature on all sides, and I have never heard of a non-Mormon having any scholarly respect for the Book-of-Mormon-as-history conclusions of Mormon pseudoarchaeology. Respect for methods and presentation, yes. Respect for conclusions, no.

Once again, as an admittedly interested party, you insist on phrasing the problem in such a way that the conclusion is predetermined. Wouldn't it be better to examine the unstated assumption, which is that the non-Mormon scholar (who has the qualifications) has actually studied the Book of Mormon in the same way a biblical archeologist has already intensively studied the Bible before ever setting out to dig and interpret a Tel. Perhaps you know of such a person. I do not. And you appear to be asking the impossible.

Large numbers of students of the Bible have been mastering the tools of exegesis and archeology since the 19th century, and have been systematically comparing their work with that of Egyptologists and Mesopotamian archeologists during that entire time. They have subjected themselves to mutual criticism (review) and have slowly learned to hone their craft. It is upon that basis that you should be making your demands.

[mfbukowski]

I don't know why this is a foreign concept to you. Never serve in the infantry?

As if direct experience in a perfectly similar situation has any relevance. Cheesh- what do you know about it?

[Cobalt-70]

You're not making a whole lot of sense to me here, but I can say that the ancient Egyptian hieroglyphic spelling for "iron, steel," is not hypothetical, and you need only go to the page I cited in the Coptic Etymological Dictionary to see the hieroglyphs along with the Demotic (bnpy) and Coptic forms. You are expected to make at least a modicum of effort here.

Again, the issue is that there has to be two different hieroglyphs, one for "iron" and one for "steel." But the source of such a distinction is not, as far as you have provided any evidence, derived from either Egyptian or Hebrew.

So suppose that Lehi and Nephi were metallurgists, and they actually taught their descendants to make actual steel (traces of which are heretofore undiscovered by archaeologists) and invented some newfangled word for actual steel that did not exist in either Egyptian or Hebrew, which Smith correctly translated as "steel." Then why didn't Joseph Smith correctly provide the proper English word for whatever "ziff" is, or whatever "cureloms" or "cumoms" are, or what "sheum" is?

Also, if Lehi and Nephi were metallurgists, then they weren't very good metallurgists, because they made a steel bow so poorly that it broke during use (1 Ne. 16:18).

[Cobalt-70]

Cobalt-70, your desperation to not give one millimeter to the notion that sleeping on one's sword is nothing more than a picturesque way of being very alert even in sleep, and being able at a moment's notice to spring up ready to fight, is a real "tell". Give it up, you've tipped your hand.

I remember nights in training when, even without a sleeping bag to sleep in, I kept that rifle snugged in tight against me while I slept, and marked very carefully in my mind where all my other essential equipment was, such as my grenades with the straightened pins and flare launcher, so I could lay hand on them immediately, especially when in a defensive position or laying in ambush. You can't convince me that Achilles, Alexander, Hannibal, Sun Tzu, Scipio Africanus, Genghis Khan, David ben Jesse, Tamerlane, Charlemagne, and Robert the Bruce would not have instantly recognized that turn of phrase. Why not Nephi, Moroni, and Ether? Because they didn't really exist? Please, even I can recognize a circular argument when I hear it.

But nobody is going to snuggle up with a macuahuitl the way you did with your gun. Achilles, Alexander, and all the rest, would think they were crazy to snuggle up with an obsidian-studded club. They were much smarter, and used real swords with sheaths, and would have assumed the Book of Mormon characters did likewise--as do essentially all readers of the Book of Mormon (such as Joseph Smith, apparently) who are unaware that real swords are an anachronism and therefore have no need to invent an ingenious work-around.

[altersteve]

Also, if Lehi and Nephi were metallurgists, then they weren't very good metallurgists, because they made a steel bow so poorly that it broke during use (1 Ne. 16:18).

Even a steel bow can break from excess use and poor maintenance. It doesn't mean the person who made it wasn't very good.

[altersteve]

Achilles, Alexander, and all the rest, would think they were crazy to snuggle up with an obsidian-studded club.

Cobalt, a macuahuitl is not a club. Everyone has told you this.

[thesometimesaint]

Cobalt70:

A picture may speak a thousand words, but your picture is not accepted by the Church as authoritative.