A Dynasty Of One

[stemelbow]

He's explained how the scholarly approach works, given references and examples of how it works properly and how it contrasts with pseudo-scholarship. It's not as if his description of archaeological and historical methodology is out of left field or in any way related to his religious beliefs. The NHM example you use is illustrative, as it's a question of parsimony: given that Nehem appears on numerous maps available in Joseph Smith's day, is it more likely that the name came from one of those maps or from a supernatural translation of a lost record on gold plates? But even then, Jenkins was asking for New World evidence, so Nehem doesn't apply. In the absence of any such evidence, there's no evidence to reject, so willful Evangelical blindness doesn't come into play.

I don't think Jenkins has done a good job, not that Hamblin has fared better (probably worse on the whole), in painting anything associated with BoM as pseudo-scholarship. He certainly has a point in terms of lack of evidence. But with Nehem, as you have done with your "given", he takes liberties to explain it away. Of course it's much easier to dismiss it because something like nahom could have been found somewhere. But when you try to place it, there doesn't seem to be any available maps for Joseph, why would Joseph use one random location when he could have picked from many, the attempt to dismiss doesn't quite address it as a whole.

I will say, it could be that Joseph found it. it could be that it was made up. It could be all of these things, but that just means the evidence is weaker than it could be. not that it is something other than evidence. This is a good example, though, in that, it really won't matter what is found. There will always be a certain set who rejects it as evidence.

[Gray]

I don't think Jenkins has done a good job, not that Hamblin has fared better (probably worse on the whole), in painting anything associated with BoM as pseudo-scholarship. He certainly has a point in terms of lack of evidence. But with Nehem, as you have done with your "given", he takes liberties to explain it away. Of course it's much easier to dismiss it because something like nahom could have been found somewhere. But when you try to place it, there doesn't seem to be any available maps for Joseph, why would Joseph use one random location when he could have picked from many, the attempt to dismiss doesn't quite address it as a whole.

I will say, it could be that Joseph found it. it could be that it was made up. It could be all of these things, but that just means the evidence is weaker than it could be. not that it is something other than evidence. This is a good example, though, in that, it really won't matter what is found. There will always be a certain set who rejects it as evidence.

 

Nahum is a name in the Bible. Wouldn't that be a more plausible explanation than an obscure map?

[stemelbow]

Nahum is a name in the Bible. Wouldn't that be a more plausible explanation than an obscure map?

yes.

[jkwilliams]

He certainly has a point in terms of lack of evidence.

Well, that is his entire point: he's asked for evidence, and none is forthcoming.

But with Nehem, as you have done with your "given", he takes liberties to explain it away. Of course it's much easier to dismiss it because something like nahom could have been found somewhere. But when you try to place it, there doesn't seem to be any available maps for Joseph, why would Joseph use one random location when he could have picked from many, the attempt to dismiss doesn't quite address it as a whole.

There's a nice Maxwell Institute article that shows about a dozen "available maps for Joseph," so no liberties need to be taken. The burden is on Mormon apologists to make a case that the angel/plates explanation is more likely than the map explanation. It's not. As to why Joseph picked a random location, beats me. Font size? Who knows? But that's not the issue.

I will say, it could be that Joseph found it. it could be that it was made up. It could be all of these things, but that just means the evidence is weaker than it could be. not that it is something other than evidence. This is a good example, though, in that, it really won't matter what is found. There will always be a certain set who rejects it as evidence.

Given two propositions, I would hope historians would choose the one that is infinitely more likely. I would worry about a certain set who doesn't reject the highly unlikely.

[jkwilliams]

yes.

So, there are two possible sources, both of which are degrees of magnitude more likely than the supernatural explanation. That's why Jenkins rightly rejects NHM as evidence.

[stemelbow]

Well, that is his entire point: he's asked for evidence, and none is forthcoming.

There's a nice Maxwell Institute article that shows about a dozen "available maps for Joseph," so no liberties need to be taken. The burden is on Mormon apologists to make a case that the angel/plates explanation is more likely than the map explanation. It's not. As to why Joseph picked a random location, beats me. Font size? Who knows? But that's not the issue.

That's the point. An angel explanation will never be more credible sounding to anyone. But, surely if dozens of maps were available for Joseph one could point out one. So far, it appears no such maps were available for Joseph. of all the maps not one says Nahom on it.

Given two propositions, I would hope historians would choose the one that is infinitely more likely. I would worry about a certain set who doesn't reject the highly unlikely.

From an historians perspective it is more likely that someone told Joseph to say nahom and spell it that way, than being inspired by God, even if there were no maps available. Why? Because for historians the claims of being inspired to tell a historical story is silly on the face of it. on such grounds we'd get no where, no matter what happens.

[CA Steve]

So, there are two possible sources, both of which are degrees of magnitude more likely than the supernatural explanation. That's why Jenkins rightly rejects NHM as evidence.

A third possibility is random chance, given the amount of names in both the Book of Mormon and the corresponding areas described in the Old World.

[stemelbow]

So, there are two possible sources, both of which are degrees of magnitude more likely than the supernatural explanation. That's why Jenkins rightly rejects NHM as evidence.

And that will always be the case, no matter what. you will never come close to being able to say a supernatural explanation is plausible from an historians perspective. A shot in the dark guess is more likely. If some sign said Zarahemla was found, a guess is more likely from an historians perspective, because, after all, if a sign was found that means someone could have found it before Joseph, told Joseph and he included it in story. That is more likely than Joseph hearing it from God, from an historians perspective.

But on such grounds there'll never be a perspective to seriously consider the BoM.

Also, keep in mind I'm not dogmatic about anything anciently historical about the BoM. For me, it wouldn't really matter. I'm just pointing out the flaw in the position, as I see it.

[jkwilliams]

That's the point. An angel explanation will never be more credible sounding to anyone.

Jenkins is talking about scientific evidence, not the supernatural, and he asked Hamblin for valid evidence that meets the Daubert standard. Multiple times in his series of posts, he's said he has no opinion on matters of LDS faith. Hamblin is the one putting forward NHM as evidence. If you have to resort to supernatural explanations, it isn't evidence that can be discussed or falsified.

But, surely if dozens of maps were available for Joseph one could point out one. So far, it appears no such maps were available for Joseph. of all the maps not one says Nahom on it.

Yes, most of them say "Nehem," and IIRC, all the English-language maps have it as "Nehem." Are you suggesting that "NHM" is a better match for "Nahom" than "Nehem" is? Could you clarify why?

From an historians perspective it is more likely that someone told Joseph to say nahom and spell it that way, than being inspired by God, even if there were no maps available. Why? Because for historians the claims of being inspired to tell a historical story is silly on the face of it. on such grounds we'd get no where, no matter what happens.

It's not a matter of it being "silly" to historians. Claims of the supernatural are by nature not subject to falsification, so they are outside the realm of scholarly discussion.

[jkwilliams]

A third possibility is random chance, given the amount of names in both the Book of Mormon and the corresponding areas described in the Old World.

Indeed. The point here is that Hamblin asserted that NHM is solid evidence. As long as there are alternative explanations (including random chance), it just doesn't hold up. It's not because Jenkins is anti-Mormon or thinks religion is silly. It's that NHM was put forward as solid evidence, and it's not.

[stemelbow]

Jenkins is talking about scientific evidence, not the supernatural, and he asked Hamblin for valid evidence that meets the Daubert standard. Multiple times in his series of posts, he's said he has no opinion on matters of LDS faith. Hamblin is the one putting forward NHM as evidence. If you have to resort to supernatural explanations, it isn't evidence that can be discussed or falsified.

Yes, most of them say "Nehem," and IIRC, all the English-language maps have it as "Nehem." Are you suggesting that "NHM" is a better match for "Nahom" than "Nehem" is? Could you clarify why?

It's not a matter of it being "silly" to historians. Claims of the supernatural are by nature not subject to falsification, so they are outside the realm of scholarly discussion.

That's it, particularly your last line. That which is "evidence" then will always have a better explanation than supporting the BoM if that's the realm we live in. As I said, even a sign found for Zarahemla is better explained by Joseph having to have been told about it from someone before he wrote the book, than by revelation. Under these rules there will never be any sort of evidence possible for the Book of Mormon because no matter what it is, it'll be better explained by something else.

I think we're agreeing more than we might have thought.

[jkwilliams]

That's it, particularly your last line. That which is "evidence" then will always have a better explanation than supporting the BoM if that's the realm we live in. As I said, even a sign found for Zarahemla is better explained by Joseph having to have been told about it from someone before he wrote the book, than by revelation. Under these rules there will never be any sort of evidence possible for the Book of Mormon because no matter what it is, it'll be better explained by something else.

I think we're agreeing more than we might have thought.

 

I don't think so. Jenkins is on record saying that he'd accept a place name, a sherd of pottery, a document, anything that correlates to the Book of Mormon in the New World. Zarahemla, for example, would be remarkable because, unlike Nehem, it wasn't on any map and is unique to the Book of Mormon. A match for Zarahemla would be a game-changer, indeed. 

[stemelbow]

I don't think so. Jenkins is on record saying that he'd accept a place name, a sherd of pottery, a document, anything that correlates to the Book of Mormon in the New World. Zarahemla, for example, would be remarkable because, unlike Nehem, it wasn't on any map and is unique to the Book of Mormon. A match for Zarahemla would be a game-changer, indeed.

Well surely the goal posts were changed at some point. it started it seemed that Jenkins decried the idea that there is anything consider serious scholarship regarding the BoM. It kind of went to show me one thing. When one thing was brought up, it was dismissed because, as it turns out, there is a better explanation than revelation (even though in that better explanation there are no connections made).

Surely if anything remotely identified Zarahemla came up, somehow, then it'd be dismissed similarly. But we'll have to agree to disagree because we dont' have an example outside of Nahom.

[jkwilliams]

Well surely the goal posts were changed at some point. it started it seemed that Jenkins decried the idea that there is anything consider serious scholarship regarding the BoM. It kind of went to show me one thing. When one thing was brought up, it was dismissed because, as it turns out, there is a better explanation than revelation (even though in that better explanation there are no connections made).

Nope, the goal posts never moved. He asked from the beginning, and is still asking, for evidence in favor of the Book of Mormon that a) comes from the New World and b) meets the Daubert standard. The NHM thing doesn't meet the Daubert standard and doesn't come from the New World.

Surely if anything remotely identified Zarahemla came up, somehow, then it'd be dismissed similarly. But we'll have to agree to disagree because we dont' have an example outside of Nahom.

If it met the standard he's set out, he'd have to deal with it. Now, you might agree with Hamblin that evidence is subjective and therefore doesn't have to meet any standard. I find that highly problematic.

[stemelbow]

Nope, the goal posts never moved. He asked from the beginning, and is still asking, for evidence in favor of the Book of Mormon that a) comes from the New World and b) meets the Daubert standard. The NHM thing doesn't meet the Daubert standard and doesn't come from the New World.

Haven't seen anything about the Daubert standard being mentioned in the conversation myself. I thought that had more to do with expert witness admissibility in legal proceedings. The goal posts moved around in the discussion, ti seemed to me in that one wanted to see a piece of "evidence" while the other wanted to discuss the expectations from the text. Nahom was mentioned, it seems, to help describe expectations.

He started the attack by suggesting that there is not one single line in the BoM that can be supported.

before he posed his question his complaints were about the BoM generally suggesting there is nothing in the Book at all to be corroborated. I read his initial blog as his attack and the requirement of finding one thing in the New world as the conclusion of his initial attack. But that detail doesn't matter.

If it met the standard he's set out, he'd have to deal with it. Now, you might agree with Hamblin that evidence is subjective and therefore doesn't have to meet any standard. I find that highly problematic.

I think Hamblin feels pretty misunderstood by Jenkins on some of this. I'd let him speak for himself.