churchistrue Posted September 18, 2015 Posted September 18, 2015 (edited) Did you guys see this video? Cool story. This prompted me to write up an analysis and put it up on my blog. http://www.churchistrue.com/blog/chiasmus-in-the-book-of-mormon/ Chiasmus opens up can of worms for BOM apologists. 1. Loose translation2. LGT3. other 19th century authors also mimicked the ancient style, including chiasmus Edited September 18, 2015 by churchistrue
Nevo Posted September 18, 2015 Posted September 18, 2015 3. other 19th century authors also mimicked the ancient style, including chiasmus Really? Unintended chiasms abound in ancient and modern writings alike, but how many 19th-century writers deliberately composed carefully planned chiastic structures? 1
churchistrue Posted September 18, 2015 Author Posted September 18, 2015 Really? Unintended chiasms abound in ancient and modern writings alike, but how many 19th-century writers deliberately composed carefully planned chiastic structures?Late War, for example, has at least one example of complex chiasmus. https://wordtreefoundation.github.io/thelatewar/
Nevo Posted September 18, 2015 Posted September 18, 2015 (edited) Late War, for example, has at least one example of complex chiasmus. https://wordtreefoundation.github.io/thelatewar/ That's pretty much a textbook example of unintentional chiasmus. There's no reason to think that the repetition of elements there is meaningful or intentional. Edited September 18, 2015 by Nevo 1
Crypto Posted September 18, 2015 Posted September 18, 2015 How do the chiasmuses hold up when you add hebraisms (hebrew grammatical structures) into the mix. That would be an interesting question.
Gray Posted September 18, 2015 Posted September 18, 2015 That's pretty much a textbook example of unintentional chiasmus. There's no reason to think that the repetition of elements there is meaningful or intentional. How do you distinguish intentional from unintentional chiasmus? What about a third category - unconscious mimicking of chiasmus?
Benjamin McGuire Posted September 18, 2015 Posted September 18, 2015 Late War, for example, has at least one example of complex chiasmus. Except this isn't an example of chiasmus. Chiasmus by definition is a rhetorical figure - meaning that it is intentional and plays a role in the rhetoric of the writing. And there are some easy to use guidelines to help distinguish between a real chiasmus, and someone who is just formatting the text in a way that makes it look chiastic. The first thing to do is to get rid of the ellipses. So, (and I am not going to do this for the entire thing from the link you provide, just some of it), we start with this list:Now it came to passThe 1st day of the month, the chief governor ... over the land of Columbia ...The Great Sanhedrim of the people ...of Columbia ...Nevertheless ...Great ...The Wise Men ...paper which James had ... To looking like this:1 Now it came to pass, in the one thousand eight hundred and twelfth year of the christian era, and in the thirty and sixth year after the people of the provinces of Columbia had declared themselves a free and independent nation;2 That in the sixth month of the same year, on the first day of the month, the chief Governor, whom the people had chosen to rule over the land of Columbia;3 Even James, whose sir-name was Madison, delivered a written paper to the Great Sanhedrim of the people, who were assembled together.4 And the name of the city where the people were gathered together was called after the name of the chief captain of the land of Columbia, whose fame extendeth to the uttermost parts of the earth; albeit, he had slept with his fathers.5 Nevertheless, the people loved him, forasmuch as he wrought their deliverance from the yoke of tyranny in times past: so they called the city Washington.6 Now, when the written paper was received, the doors of the chambers of the Great Sanhedrim were closed, and a seal was put upon every man's mouth.7 And the counsellors of the nation, and the wise men thereof, ordered the written paper which James had delivered unto them to be read aloud; and the interpretation thereof was in this wise: And in reverse, these same parts are shown as:paper which James had ...the wise men ...great ...nevertheless ...of columbia ...the great sandhedrim of the people ...the 17th day of the month ... the chief governor of the land of Columbia ...And it came to pass ...Chapter 21 Now when there was an end made of reading the paper which James had written, the Sanhedrim communed one with another touching the matter:2 And they chose certain wise men from among them to deliberate thereon.3 And they commanded them to go forth from their presence, for that purpose, and return again on the third day of the same month.4 Now, when the third day arrived, at the eleventh hour of the day, they came forth and presented themselves before the Great Sanhedrim of the people.5 And the chief of the wise men, whom they had chosen, opened his mouth and spake unto them after this manner:6 Behold ! day and night have we meditated upon the words which James hath delivered, and we are weary withal, for in our hearts we desired peace.7 But the wickedness of the kingdom of Great Britain, and the cruelty of the princes thereof, towards the peaceable inhabitants of the land of Columbia, may be likened unto the fierce lion, when he putteth his paw upon the innocent lamb to devour him.8 Nevertheless, the lamb shall not be slain; for the Lord shall be his deliverer.9 And if, peradventure, the people of Columbia go not out to battle against the king, then will the manifold wrongs committed against them be increased tenfold, and they shall be as a mock and a bye-word among all nations.10 Moreover, the righteousness of your cause shall lead you to glory, and the pillars of your liberty shall not be shaken.11 Therefore, say we unto you, Gird on your swords and go forth to battle against the king; even against the strong powers of Britain; and the Lord God of Hosts be with you.12 Now when the great Sanhedrim of the people heard those things which the wise men had uttered, they pondered them in their minds many days, and weighed them well;13 Even until the seventeenth day of the month pondered they in secret concerning the matter.14 And it was so, that on the next day they sent forth a Decree, making WAR upon the kingdom of Great Britain, and upon the servants, and upon the slaves thereof.15 And the Decree was signed with the hand writing of James, the chief Governor of the land of Columbia.16 After these things, the doors of the chambers of the Sanhedrim were opened.Chapter 31 And it came to pass, ... The reason why we have to get rid of the ellipses and look at the text in context is this - by separating out just the minimialist parts of the text that match up in the chiastic structure we are building, we make it look like that most important elements are in fact the elements that form the alleged chiasm. And what we see when we add all of the context back in is that the elements proposed here don't provide a framework for understanding the text. We couldn't, for example, read through just the elements listed and get some sort of sense of what the text is telling us. And many of the important elements are simply left out. A second clue is often found in natural barriers in the narrative. In this case, we know, for example, that the book is broken into chapters, and the chapters represent deliberate breaks in the material. And yet, this proposed chiasm crosses these barriers as if they weren't there. This is a real problem. It is actually a bigger problem than that in the narrative that proponents of the Late War offer, since it is supposed to be a school textbook. So not only are we including this complex chiasm for school kids to read, but to put it into a context in this way where chapters are unlikely to be read together is even a little further off the mark. It is an odd sort of mix of arguments that just doesn't go well. At any case, there is this problem. The third issue is a problem involving single (and relatively common) words as parallels in the structure. Perhaps the best illustration is this set of words (elements 5 and 6): Nevertheless ...Great ......great ...nevertheless ...And it represents this material in the text:Nevertheless, the people loved him, forasmuch as he wrought their deliverance from the yoke of tyranny in times past: so they called the city Washington. Now, when the written paper was received, the doors of the chambers of the Great Sanhedrim were closed, and a seal was put upon every man's mouth. And the counsellors of the nation, [ element 7 begins here] and the wise men thereof, ordered the written...Great Britain, and the cruelty of the princes thereof, towards the peaceable inhabitants of the land of Columbia, may be likened unto the fierce lion, when he putteth his paw upon the innocent lamb to devour him. Nevertheless, the lamb shall not be slain; for the Lord shall be his deliverer. And if, peradventure, the people ... We can see part of the issue here - particularly in the word "Great" which is used no less than six times just in the small section I quote (covering the first 8 elements in the matched pairs). And the problem crops up here more specifically in the fact that in the first part of element 6, the word 'Great' which is offered as a marker for the chiasmus is a part of the phrase 'Great Sanhedrim', which is found in that form in element 3. By presenting these parallels without context, we can create an illusion that the words are significant when they aren't, and we can conceal the fact that they exist in naturally occurring phrasing which disagrees with the artificial phrasing we are creating in the proposed chiasm. What this means is that it would be very hard for someone reading (or listening to) the text to pick out the word "great" in element 6 as significant, especially since we have many uses of the word in larger more recognizable phrasing (the Great Sanhedrim that is used frequently in the text, and also 'Great Britain' which is chopped in half in the second half of element 6 to create a match). On top of this, we have other phrases which cause problems. "It came to pass" is relatively common in the Hunt book. And it shows up as Element 1. What is interesting about "It came to pass" is that it functions as a temporal marker in the text (in this text, as well as in the Book of Mormon text). What this means is that it is an indicator that time is progressing in the narrative. This was an important function in Biblical Hebrew (not so much in the Hunt book), which uses this phrase (represented by a very short sequence of letters in Hebrew) to manage the time frame of a narrative. What this means is that there is an inherent role of "it came to pass" in a narrative to create narrative barriers. It comes at the beginning of a narrative unit, and never at the end of one. And so anytime we see a chiasm beginning (and ending) with this kind of phrase, we know with absolute certainty that it isn't meant to be a part of a chiasm. Because it is a temporal marker, there is always a block of text associated with it. And so the second half of element 1 is "and it came to pass" - but this cannot be connected to the material that comes before it (what we would expect with the last element in the second half of a chiasm) - it has to be connected with all of the material that follows, and which isn't a part of the chiasm. So we know that element 1 is simply an artificial and contrived sign for a chiasm. I could go on. It is very easy to make an argument look good by contrivance. We can do this process on any text using a computerized lexical tool (I know - I have). But it isn't a complex chiasm by any means. This is one of the reasons why, when we start to deal with literary analysis, that people should adopt widely used criteria for this sort of thing. Ben McGuire 4
Benjamin McGuire Posted September 18, 2015 Posted September 18, 2015 How do you distinguish intentional from unintentional chiasmus? What about a third category - unconscious mimicking of chiasmus? Let me ask you, what do you think unconscious mimicking looks like? Intentionality for a rhetorical figure which can either a stylistic component (an aesthetic design) or a design aimed at creating a specific interpretation (or both). You may get an aesthetic look on accident or through mimicry, but you won't get a design aimed at creating a specific interpretation. Consider the classic example:A Hickory, ****ory, dock. B The mouse ran up the clock. C The clock struck one, B The mouse ran down,A Hickory, ****ory, dock.It's a beautiful chiastic structure isn't it. On the other hand, it's also a well known limerick - a poetic form in which the first two lines and the fifth line (there are always five lines in a limerick) are longer than the middle two, and the rhyming pattern is always AABBA. Since there is no interpretative value in seeing the structure in a chiasmus (it doesn't create alternative meanings for us when we see it), we are left with the question of a potential chiasm or a potential limerick to explain the structure. And since the limerick fits the source better (in a number of ways) we conclude that the limerick form is intentional and the chiasm is accidental. The challenge that comes here in this case in particular is that accidental chiasms and deliberate mimicry will never produce complex chiasms. And when literature deals with chiasms (and I should not in passing that while we are enamored of the term chiasm with respect to these complex rhetorical figures, you will find literature on them that calls them ring forms or ring structures among other things) the go through a process to discuss intentionality as part of the identification process, and that process always looks at these issues of structure and the role it plays in the meaning of the text. And it is in this way that we distinguish between what is intentional and what is merely an echo (accidental or mimicry). Ben McGuire 3
Nevo Posted September 19, 2015 Posted September 19, 2015 (edited) Except this isn't an example of chiasmus. Nice analysis, Ben. I should have actually looked up the alleged chiasm before pronouncing it "a textbook example of unintentional chiasmus." As you point out, there is no actual chiasm there at all. John Welch noted many years ago that chiasmus "must be evidenced in the text itself and not imposed upon the text by Procrustean design or artifice by the reader." In this case, the artificial chiastic structure was imposed upon the text with the aid of a computer program. For those following along at home, here are some criteria for identifying bogus or questionable chiasms (some of which Ben already touched on): a. Errors in Symmetry1. Lopsided Design. In a structure concerned with symmetry, patterns are lopsided: length of units vary from half a verse to several (Emerton 1987: 406; 1988: 8, 17).2. Irregular Arrangement. If a structure is 'nearly regular' it 'must be treated with a great deal of reserve' (Watson 1981; Butterworth 1992: 58).3. Atypical Patterns. Chiastic structures which have been discovered in numerous passages are more reliable than one restricted to the particular passage at hand (Butterworth 1992: 60).b. Errors in Subjectivity1. Arbitrary Omission and Inclusion. Items are omitted that do not fit the scholar’s pattern: some words are arbitrarily deemed significant and others are not; items are chosen in related sections while the same item appears elsewhere and is deemed insignificant (Emerton 1987: 406-407; 1988: 4-5, 8-9, 18-19; Butterworth 1992: 59).2. Questionable Demarcation. The individual section limits as well as the passage limits are set to fit one’s pattern (Watson 1981; Emerton 1988: 4).3. Arbitrary Labelling. Items are labelled arbitrarily in order to fit into a chiastic pattern (Watson 1981; Emerton 198: 17-18; Butterworth 1992: 58, 60).4. Metrical Manoeuvering. Delineation of metre is too susceptible to the imposition of the individual reader (cf. Longman 1982; Watson 1986: 87-113; Koopmans 1990: 168-69), especially for the delineation of chiastic structure.5. Methodological Isolation. Questions and other reasons for the structure are bypassed which are irrelevant to one’s structure or lie outside rhetorical technique (Emerton 1988: 5, 20; Butterworth 1992: 59-61). An example of this is when patterns are identified that appear at a natural place in the narrative (e.g., entering/leaving the ark, Emerton 1987:406 ).c. Errors in Probability1. Frequency Fallacy. High frequency words or technical terms especially related to the subject matter of the section may be repeated because it is impossible not to repeat (Butterworth 1992: 59), while whole phrases, rare words, words used in characteristic ways, word-pairs and plays, clusters of related words are more reliable (Butterworth 1992: 60-61; Watson 1981 ).2. Accidental Odds. There are many features that can be utilized by an author to create an intended structure such as 'gender and number of nouns, part of speech, conjugation, theme, mood'. 'The chance that some of these will form regular patterns by accident is sometimes high, and should be recognized' (Butterworth 1992: 60).3. Metrical Consistency. The evenness of line length within any one composition increases the odds of having some matches in metre on each side of the centre.d. Errors in Purpose1. Purposeless Structure. One must confirm a structure by ascertaining 'the purpose and/or effect' (Butterworth 1992: 59; cf. Watson 1981). — M. J. Boda, "Chiasmus in Ubiquity: Symmetrical Mirages in Nehemiah 9," Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 71 (1996): 56–58. See also, John W. Welch, "Criteria for Identifying and Evaluating the Presence of Chiasmus," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 4, no. 2 (1995): 1–14 (summary here); Boyd F. Edwards and W. Farrell Edwards, "Does Chiasmus Appear in the Book of Mormon by Chance?" BYU Studies 43, no. 2 (2004): 103–130; "When Are Chiasms Admissible as Evidence?" BYU Studies 49, no. 4 (2010): 131–154. Edited September 19, 2015 by Nevo 2
SeekingUnderstanding Posted September 19, 2015 Posted September 19, 2015 Nice analysis, Ben. I should have actually looked up the alleged chiasm before pronouncing it "a textbook example of unintentional chiasmus." As you point out, there is no actual chiasm there at all. John Welch noted many years ago that chiasmus "must be evidenced in the text itself and not imposed upon the text by Procrustean design or artifice by the reader." In this case, the artificial chiastic structure was imposed upon the text with the aid of a computer program.For those following along at home, here are some criteria for identifying bogus or questionable chiasms (some of which Ben already touched on):Do you know how complex chiasmus (like Alma 36) in the Book of Mormon measure up to these criteria? (I've often wondered this). Perhaps someone can point me to some article somewhere?
Nevo Posted September 19, 2015 Posted September 19, 2015 (edited) Do you know how complex chiasmus (like Alma 36) in the Book of Mormon measure up to these criteria? (I've often wondered this). Perhaps someone can point me to some article somewhere? As you may know, there's an ongoing debate about the validity of the alleged chiasm(s) in Alma 36. I find Hardy's and Spencer's discussions especially valuable, but unfortunately they're not available online so I can't link to them.John W. Welch, “A Masterpiece: Alma 36,” in John L. Sorenson and Melvin J. Thorne, eds., Rediscovering the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City and Provo: Deseret Book and FARMS, 1991), 114–131.Earl M. Wunderli, "Critique of Alma 36 as an Extended Chiasm," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 38, no. 4 (2005): 97–112.Boyd F. Edwards and W. Farrell Edwards, "Response to Earl Wunderli’s 'Critique of Alma 36 as an Extended Chiasm,'" Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 39, no. 3 (2006): 164–169 (longer version here).Earl M. Wunderli, "Response to Boyd and Farrell Edwards's Response to My 'Critique of Alma 36 as an Extended Chiasm,'" Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 39, no. 3 (2006): 170–173 (longer version here).Boyd F. Edwards and W. Farrell Edwards, "When Are Chiasms Admissible as Evidence?" BYU Studies 49, no. 4 (2010): 131–154.Grant Hardy, Understanding the Book of Mormon: A Reader's Guide (New York: Oxford University Press, 2010), 137–142, 304n40.Joseph M. Spencer, "Of Conversion," in An Other Testament: A Typology (Salem, OR: Salt Press, 2012), 1–32.I'll provide excerpts from Hardy and Spencer tomorrow if I get a chance. Edited September 19, 2015 by Nevo 1
Benjamin McGuire Posted September 19, 2015 Posted September 19, 2015 (edited) Do you know how complex chiasmus (like Alma 36) in the Book of Mormon measure up to these criteria? (I've often wondered this). Perhaps someone can point me to some article somewhere? Alma 36 is sort of in a gray area - because it is clearly complex (and longer than most) and yet it isn't necessarily on the level of a macro-chiasm (this gray area has taken on the label of "extended chiasm" in the literature that Nevo links). The notion that it is chiastic fits well into the narrative unity of the piece, but, at the same time, as with any longer piece, many of the useful issues in identification don't work well. I am personally not much of a fan of wildly labeling things as macro-chiasm (and Alma 36 may not be an example of this). But macro chiasms clearly do exist. One of the challenges that I often see - particularly in LDS Scholarship, but really in biblical scholarship more generally, is a real absence of an awareness of literary studies that tend to look at the same phenomenon in other literary fields (biblical studies is only loosely a part of literary studies). Chiasmus isn't just a Hebrew rhetorical device. A recognition of the wider context tends to diminish certain kinds of arguments about the Book of Mormon (certainly), but, if we find real chiasmus in the Book of Mormon, then it adds a complexity to the text that is somewhat difficult for critics to deal with in many of the naturalistic proposals. That is, if we don't see this kind of complexity already in the alleged sources, then it makes it harder to see them as real sources (and this is why there is sometimes a push to find chiasmus in everything - and the need for a more rigorous method). Perhaps the most interesting recent discussions on macro chiasms that I have encountered comes from a source that I suspect very few here have ever read. Among the works of Giambattista Vico is his Liber Metaphysicus (the first volume of his De antiquissima Italorum sapientia, published in 1710). And it seems likely that the entire volume is an experiment in a ring form (a macro-chiasm). And this seems to be quite deliberate. http://www.ispf-lab.cnr.it/2014_301.pdf The challenges with macro chiasms (and to a lesser extent long complex chiasms like Alma 36), is that unlike their simpler counterparts, they cannot function in all of the same ways. That is, they are not helpful to a listening audience (they are too long for the audience to not only recognize it, but to go backward and re-understand the first of the match pairs in terms of the second). They are not as useful in identifying a central message to an audience who may not be able to see the larger context. That is, even in reading it, you don't understand the center of the macro-chiasm as the center until you are significantly past it (unless you analyze it structurally after the fact). And so on. Further, there is obviously the issue that they aren't necessarily as tight in terms of structure as we would like - because the structure of the chiasm itself cannot be as central to the message or to the rhetoric of the message as we get from much smaller ones. So, I tend to view these longer examples as something of a different animal, that resembles chiasmus is some ways, and doesn't in others (but that is just my personal affectation). Having said that, there is this appreciation of these kinds of structures of going through an argument (a logical progression) in which we return to the beginning, having first laid out a sequence of issues, and then responded to them in this structure. And so I think that we can make some decisions about the intentionality of them, and their use in rhetoric in that fashion. The challenge is that our rules (as we have them) that help us identify the intentionality of shorter chiasms don't always work as well on the larger complex chiasms and particularly on a macro-scale, and so I think that eventually we will have a different process of evaluating them (there will be some overlap - for example, in a short chiasm, the repetition of key terms out of order is always a major red flag, in a macro chiasm, a cluster of key terms - or the repeated use of a single key term within a specific subsection would have an entirely different kind of connotation). So I am somewhat on the fence with regards to Alma 36. I find the structure intriguing, and I lean towards it reflect an intentional design, but I am not yet fully convinced. Ben McGuire Edited September 19, 2015 by Benjamin McGuire 1
Robert F. Smith Posted September 19, 2015 Posted September 19, 2015 .....................................................................Chiasmus opens up can of worms for BOM apologists. 1. Loose translation......................................................3. other 19th century authors also mimicked the ancient style, including chiasmusIn your blog, you add this: The loose translation theory is the theory that most LDS apologists favor to explain why there are problems in the Book of Mormon text, such as anachronisms, KJV mistakes, etc. The idea is that Joseph had literary license to kind of “wing it” as he translated. And he plugged in his own language. For example, the Book of Mormon prophet might have meant tapir and Joseph described it as horse. Or he saw passages similar to the Bible, so he went ahead and plugged in sections from the KJV. Loose translation would seem to rule out the possibility of the existence of ancient Hebraisms preserved in the text, at least at this level of complexity. I'm not clear that most so-called "LDS apologists favor" some sort of loose translation theory. Perhaps you could cite a source showing this, but most assertions I have seen (on Hebraisms, for example) claim something other than a loose translation. Indeed, for many of the wooden, very ungrammatical English phrases, the assertion has been that the translation was typically word-for-word and rigid. Perhaps you are distinguishing low-brow apologists from actual scholars, but I still don't get it, and cannot agree with your claim. The same applies to the use of the tapir as a horse. The only claim along that line which I have heard is that by anthropologists noting that some native Mesoamericans used the term to refer to the horses of the Spanish Conquistadores, while the Conquistadores themselves referred to the tapirs as pigs. These are not apologists excuses, but formal ethnographic observations. Science. So, I am not clear why "chiasmus opens up a can of worms," since most Mormon scholars do not adhere to a loose translation theory.
Thinking Posted September 19, 2015 Posted September 19, 2015 Today, chiasmus is applied fairly broadly to any "criss-cross" structure, although in classical rhetoric it was distinguished from other similar devices, such as the antimetabole. In its classical application, chiasmus would have been used for structures that do not repeat the same words and phrases, but invert a sentence's grammatical structure or ideas. The concept of chiasmus on a higher level, applied to motifs, turns of phrase, or whole passages, is called chiastic structure.The elements of simple chiasmus are often labelled in the form A B B A, where the letters correspond to grammar, words, or meaning. For example, John F. Kennedy said, "ask not what your country can do for you — ask what you can do for your country". Chiasmus
churchistrue Posted September 19, 2015 Author Posted September 19, 2015 In your blog, you add this: The loose translation theory is the theory that most LDS apologists favor to explain why there are problems in the Book of Mormon text, such as anachronisms, KJV mistakes, etc. The idea is that Joseph had literary license to kind of “wing it” as he translated. And he plugged in his own language. For example, the Book of Mormon prophet might have meant tapir and Joseph described it as horse. Or he saw passages similar to the Bible, so he went ahead and plugged in sections from the KJV. Loose translation would seem to rule out the possibility of the existence of ancient Hebraisms preserved in the text, at least at this level of complexity. I'm not clear that most so-called "LDS apologists favor" some sort of loose translation theory. Perhaps you could cite a source showing this, but most assertions I have seen (on Hebraisms, for example) claim something other than a loose translation. Indeed, for many of the wooden, very ungrammatical English phrases, the assertion has been that the translation was typically word-for-word and rigid. Perhaps you are distinguishing low-brow apologists from actual scholars, but I still don't get it, and cannot agree with your claim. The same applies to the use of the tapir as a horse. The only claim along that line which I have heard is that by anthropologists noting that some native Mesoamericans used the term to refer to the horses of the Spanish Conquistadores, while the Conquistadores themselves referred to the tapirs as pigs. These are not apologists excuses, but formal ethnographic observations. Science. So, I am not clear why "chiasmus opens up a can of worms," since most Mormon scholars do not adhere to a loose translation theory.My understanding is that most LDS apologists: ie the folks in the FAIR-Interpreter-Old FARMs group explain some of the things like KJV errors in the BOM or some of the things critics call anachronisms (like horse) by adhering to a "loose translation" view. Am I wrong?
Robert F. Smith Posted September 19, 2015 Posted September 19, 2015 ................................................... Chiasmus opens up can of worms for BOM apologists. ................................................2. LGT...............................................Also in your blog, you said: The Limited Geography Theory is the theory LDS apologists favor to explain why Israelite DNA is not found in Native Americans. The theory goes that the Lehites quickly intermarried with natives and assimilated into a preexisting culture, dumping their culture, language, and technology. Everything that could identify them as Israelites quickly vanished. Chiasmus and Hebraisms in the Book of Mormon go against this theory, The LGT has been around since before John Sorenson adopted it in the early 1950s, and it became the dominant theory among LDS scholars long before DNA could be analyzed for any purpose whatsoever. The claim that Israelite DNA is not found among Amerinds is false because the work needing to be done to demonstrate that claim has yet to be done. The anti-Mormon assumption was that, if so-called "Native Americans" currently and generally show Asian DNA then all of them must show such DNA, and that analysis of ancient DNA is unnecessary since all so-called "Native Americans" are the direct descendants of the Lamanites -- and all must therefore show the same Israelite DNA today. In fact, there are no "Native Americans." All are immigrants at some point in time. Set up a convenient straw man, and you get fallacious straw man results. That the so-called LGT was adopted so broadly at such an early date among LDS scholars is because (1) time-distance of travel inside the Book of Mormon is very limited, (2) very large populations are required, (3) a highly-developed and literate civilization is required, at least among the elite scribal class, and (4) many other details require it. In other words, the Book of Mormon requires that it could only have taken place in one location in the Western Hemisphere, the only place where such populous high culture developed. DNA was never a consideration. I know. I was there in the midst of the discussion in the early 1970s, and DNA was not on the agenda. There was no point -- DNA analysis was not possible. Moreover, the LGT does not require that the Nephites quickly intermarried with the locals, nor that they immediately assimilated into surrounding culture(s), nor that they dumped their language, culture, and technology, nor that their identity as Israelites quickly vanished. The Nephites surely changed in the thousand years from 587 BC to around 400 AD, but you are stark raving mad to draw that from the actual text of the Book of Mormon. You are the first I have found to make such radical claims.
Calm Posted September 19, 2015 Posted September 19, 2015 (edited) "Am I wrong?"Yes. There is a lot of variation among FairMormon at least. Some is a much better description than most. I have not taken a body count but both sides and mixes are well represented.And then there is a problem with what loose or tight translation means. I will try and find the posts that talk about how many people areusing them wrong so misunderstanding the discussions.http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/60169-royal-skousen’s-lecture/?p=1209291251You might be interested in reading the whole thread Edited September 19, 2015 by Calm
Robert F. Smith Posted September 19, 2015 Posted September 19, 2015 My understanding is that most LDS apologists: ie the folks in the FAIR-Interpreter-Old FARMs group explain some of the things like KJV errors in the BOM or some of the things critics call anachronisms (like horse) by adhering to a "loose translation" view. Am I wrong? The only people making the horse-tapir connection (and falsely attributing it to LDS scholars) are anti-Mormon commentators upset that the Maya called Spanish horses "tapirs." As far as I know, a horse in the Book of Mormon is most likely an equine, and all equines are native to the Americas. It is likely that equines continued to exist in the Americas into Book of Mormon times. You mention KJV errors in the BofM which are supposed to be explained via loose translation, but I would have thought the opposite to be the case -- rigid adherence to Hebraic form would produce ungrammatical problems. Perhaps you have an example in mind which shows loose translation.
churchistrue Posted September 19, 2015 Author Posted September 19, 2015 Calm and RS. I'm seeking to understand here. For example, the Isaiah problems. And I understand it's impossible to group all apologists together as everyone has unique views, but can we make a general stab at the aggregate view? I think it is most often explained with a loose translation.
Calm Posted September 19, 2015 Posted September 19, 2015 "but can we make a general stab at the aggregate view"If there is no aggregate view, it would be wise not to try and stab it as it will always be a miss.
churchistrue Posted September 19, 2015 Author Posted September 19, 2015 Also in your blog, you said: The Limited Geography Theory is the theory LDS apologists favor to explain why Israelite DNA is not found in Native Americans. The theory goes that the Lehites quickly intermarried with natives and assimilated into a preexisting culture, dumping their culture, language, and technology. Everything that could identify them as Israelites quickly vanished. Chiasmus and Hebraisms in the Book of Mormon go against this theory, The LGT has been around since before John Sorenson adopted it in the early 1950s, and it became the dominant theory among LDS scholars long before DNA could be analyzed for any purpose whatsoever. The claim that Israelite DNA is not found among Amerinds is false because the work needing to be done to demonstrate that claim has yet to be done. The anti-Mormon assumption was that, if so-called "Native Americans" currently and generally show Asian DNA then all of them must show such DNA, and that analysis of ancient DNA is unnecessary since all so-called "Native Americans" are the direct descendants of the Lamanites -- and all must therefore show the same Israelite DNA today. In fact, there are no "Native Americans." All are immigrants at some point in time. Set up a convenient straw man, and you get fallacious straw man results. That the so-called LGT was adopted so broadly at such an early date among LDS scholars is because (1) time-distance of travel inside the Book of Mormon is very limited, (2) very large populations are required, (3) a highly-developed and literate civilization is required, at least among the elite scribal class, and (4) many other details require it. In other words, the Book of Mormon requires that it could only have taken place in one location in the Western Hemisphere, the only place where such populous high culture developed. DNA was never a consideration. I know. I was there in the midst of the discussion in the early 1970s, and DNA was not on the agenda. There was no point -- DNA analysis was not possible. Moreover, the LGT does not require that the Nephites quickly intermarried with the locals, nor that they immediately assimilated into surrounding culture(s), nor that they dumped their language, culture, and technology, nor that their identity as Israelites quickly vanished. The Nephites surely changed in the thousand years from 587 BC to around 400 AD, but you are stark raving mad to draw that from the actual text of the Book of Mormon. You are the first I have found to make such radical claims.I don't mention anything about timing or specific causality of LGT. I think the portion you quoted is accurate. At any rate, I think you would agree LGT was reactionary. Not to DNA, but to other issues such as language evolution and cultural or archaeological issues in the BH Roberts era.
churchistrue Posted September 19, 2015 Author Posted September 19, 2015 The only people making the horse-tapir connection (and falsely attributing it to LDS scholars) are anti-Mormon commentators upset that the Maya called Spanish horses "tapirs." As far as I know, a horse in the Book of Mormon is most likely an equine, and all equines are native to the Americas. It is likely that equines continued to exist in the Americas into Book of Mormon times. You mention KJV errors in the BofM which are supposed to be explained via loose translation, but I would have thought the opposite to be the case -- rigid adherence to Hebraic form would produce ungrammatical problems. Perhaps you have an example in mind which shows loose translation.Michael Ash just used the horse-tapir connection in his CES Letter review.
SeekingUnderstanding Posted September 19, 2015 Posted September 19, 2015 As you may know, there's an ongoing debate about the validity of the alleged chiasm(s) in Alma 36. I find Hardy's and Spencer's discussions especially valuable, but unfortunately they're not available online so I can't link to them.John W. Welch, “A Masterpiece: Alma 36,” in John L. Sorenson and Melvin J. Thorne, eds., Rediscovering the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City and Provo: Deseret Book and FARMS, 1991), 114–131.Earl M. Wunderli, "Critique of Alma 36 as an Extended Chiasm," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 38, no. 4 (2005): 97–112.Boyd F. Edwards and W. Farrell Edwards, "Response to Earl Wunderli’s 'Critique of Alma 36 as an Extended Chiasm,'" Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 39, no. 3 (2006): 164–169 (longer version here).Earl M. Wunderli, "Response to Boyd and Farrell Edwards's Response to My 'Critique of Alma 36 as an Extended Chiasm,'" Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 39, no. 3 (2006): 170–173 (longer version here).Boyd F. Edwards and W. Farrell Edwards, "When Are Chiasms Admissible as Evidence?" BYU Studies 49, no. 4 (2010): 131–154.Grant Hardy, Understanding the Book of Mormon: A Reader's Guide (New York: Oxford University Press, 2010), 137–142, 304n40.Joseph M. Spencer, "Of Conversion," in An Other Testament: A Typology (Salem, OR: Salt Press, 2012), 1–32.I'll provide excerpts from Hardy and Spencer tomorrow if I get a chance.Thanks!
Calm Posted September 19, 2015 Posted September 19, 2015 Michael Ash just used the horse-tapir connection in his CES Letter review.He points that out as one possibility. He also states: "1) Ancient examples of some of these items haven’t yet been discovered but might be discovered some day. While this may sound like a cop-out, it does regrettably describe the state of archaeology—especially Mesoamerican archaeology. In the humid jungles of Central America most things tend to rot or become overgrown. Cloth rots, metal rots, and even bones can rot. Lack of funding often delays (by years or decades) the excavation of known or newly discovered sites (which are often looted by the time archaeologists get there). " I will put up a link when it gets put on FairMormon Bookstore, which should be shortly.
Recommended Posts