Chiasmus -- Greg Welch Youtube Video And My Blog Write Up

[Kevin Christensen]

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.

You left out the text of the Book of Mormon as a significant factor. Indeed, a close reading of the text was the decisive factor. See Sorenson's Sourcebook for details. The first serious attempt to produce a comprehensive survey of the geographic details in the Book of Mormon to produce an internal map appeared in 1937. And it was the Washburns who did it. Roberts never did it.

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[churchistrue]

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.

Right.  i'm not talking about a specific point, re: horse/tapir.  The issue as stake here is my assertion that generally apologists favor a loose translation theory to handle many of the issues related to anachronisms, KJV, etc.

[Calm]

But Mike does not say which he favors himself, iirc; but rather presents two possibilities, one that agrees with the 'tight' approach and one that agrees with the 'loose'.

[Benjamin McGuire]

I am a proponent of a (very) tight translation model.

 

I have also defended the idea of something like a horse-tapir equivalency (on theses forums) in the past using the notion of lexical expansion, and providing real-world corollaries.

 

The two ideas are not mutually exclusive.

 

Ben McGuire

[churchistrue]

I get really confused on this board.  I'm sure as soon as I say most apologists favor the tight translation theory, I'll get hammered why that's not the case.

 

How are the Isaiah issues are tackled by someone favoring a tight translation?  Specifically, the overriding of the KJV italics.

[Robert F. Smith]

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.

If that is the case, he probably was replying to an anti-Mormon claim in the Letter to a CES Director.  Perhaps you could cite it for me so I can see it for myself.

 

However, you still haven't replied to my question:  "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."

Edited September 20, 2015 by Robert F. Smith

[Calm]

I get really confused on this board. I'm sure as soon as I say most apologists favor the tight translation theory, I'll get hammered why that's not the case.

How are the Isaiah issues are tackled by someone favoring a tight translation? Specifically, the overriding of the KJV italics.

Why do you feel the need to quantify positions? Majority does not prove right.

PS: not being an expert in the area myself, I find Ben and Brant to be the most persuasive. At this point if I had to choose, I'd go with Ben, but I need to update myself on Brant's stuff so I might change my mind later.

Isn't it a good thing that this topic demonstrates the experts involved are still turning over ideas and evidence, using the best methods in their field to examine what is there, trying to dig more out of the text and the context and that most other apologists are therefore keeping themselves educated and not locked into a definite position at this time?

Edited September 20, 2015 by Calm

[Robert F. Smith]

I get really confused on this board.  I'm sure as soon as I say most apologists favor the tight translation theory, I'll get hammered why that's not the case.

On the one hand, Mormons get hammered by those who claim that the BofM is too literal and too much like the King James Version of the Bible (Alexander Campbell among the first to do so).  Presumably, a loose translation would not have followed the KJV so closely in mode of expression.  On the other, Mormons get hammered by people for the BofM being too tight and literal, when some examples of ungrammatical usage are found.  You might want to have a look at this interesting 2015 Royal Skousen video on this very issue: http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/royal-skousen-on-a-theory-a-theory-we-have-already-got-a-theory-and-there-cannot-be-any-more-theories/ .

 

How are the Isaiah issues are tackled by someone favoring a tight translation?  Specifically, the overriding of the KJV italics.

Depends on which version of the KJV you refer to.  Different versions of the 1611 KJV place italics in different places, depending on whether they consider the italics to reflect a non-Hebrew or non-Greek interpolation by a translator (to smooth the translation).

 

Some KJV italicized words appear in the BofM as normal.  Some not at all.  However, when Joseph dictated the words to his scribes, they wrote what he said without any awareness of italics, and without any punctuation of any kind.  The typesetter of the 1830 edition inserted caps, periods, paragraphs, etc., but no italics in the main text.  Do you have any particular passage in mind?

[Robert F. Smith]

I am a proponent of a (very) tight translation model.

 

I have also defended the idea of something like a horse-tapir equivalency (on theses forums) in the past using the notion of lexical expansion, and providing real-world corollaries.

 

The two ideas are not mutually exclusive.

 

Ben McGuire

Yeh, but from where did you specifically get this horse-tapir equivalency?

[Robert F. Smith]

You left out the text of the Book of Mormon as a significant factor. Indeed, a close reading of the text was the decisive factor. See Sorenson's Sourcebook for details. The first serious attempt to produce a comprehensive survey of the geographic details in the Book of Mormon to produce an internal map appeared in 1937. And it was the Washburns who did it. Roberts never did it.

................................................

Not only that, but the state of anthropology (and archeology) was very inadequate in Roberts' day.  We have learned so much in the intervening years.

[Robert F. Smith]

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.

Not at all reactionary, but rather based on serious scholarship -- to which many of us were introduced through the voluminous writings of Hugh Nibley.  However, it hit me rather hard during a two semester class on Biblical History and Archeology taught at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem during the summer of 1966.  My first encounter with the subject, and I was the only non-Jew in that class.  I learned a lot, especially that one must read the Bible very carefully and in depth -- a lesson I then applied to the BofM.

 

Before that, I had the same generic opinions of most Mormons, even believing in a hemispheric geography of the BofM (Orson Pratt's 1879 notion that the Land Southward was South America, and the Land Northward was North America).  I felt pretty silly when I discovered that such a notion could not work at all.

[PeterPear]

Yeh, but from where did you specifically get this horse-tapir equivalency?

From Dr. John L. Sorenson: quote:

"She assumes that the "Jaredites and Nephites ... were well-acquainted with horses" in the Old World, hence they would not "have mistaken a deer or a tapir for a horse" (pp. 307-. But we do not know whether or not the Jaredite party were "well-acquainted with horses." The text says nothing about the subject in relation to their land of origin. No one knows from exactly what part of the Near East they began their journey to America. In general we suppose it was Mesopotamia, but even if that should be correct, were horses common, rare, or unknown there, or were they domesti- cated at all at ca. 3000 B.C.? Whatever the case for their home- land, the Jaredite party's trip across Eurasia and the ocean con- sumed years, after which few if any of the pioneering generation

in the new land may have survived long enough to tap their memories regarding animals in their original land as they encountered fauna in the New World. (The only mention of "horses" in their record, in Ether 9: 19, comes generations after the landing.) As we have the Book of Ether through Moroni's translation, I assume that the term "horse" in Ether 9: 19 is from him and refers to the same. beast to wh ich the name is applied in Mormon's record.

Of course Nephi and his cohorts certainly knew horses, yet keep in mind that the Hebrew term for horse, sus, means basi- cally "to leap," and other ("leaping") animals, including the swallow, bore related names.122 The fact that deer are also leapers might have justified the early Nephites in applying to them a Hebrew name that had been applied to the horse in Nephi's Jerusalem. (Compare Egyptian n, "horse," and shs, antelope; note also, in the Mixtecan language of Mexico, yi-sll, "deer.")123 But nowhere in the scripturallext do we get a defi- nite answer to the question of how the lareditelNephite "horse" relates to the animal kingdom as we know it."

http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/6/1/S00010-51b10a39a975910Sorenson.pdf

(The word "tapir" appears thrice in the article. I copied the first.)

So Dr. Sorenson is stating due to the long journey across land and the waters, the Jaredites forgot in their memory of what a horse looks like, if they had had horses in the "Old World," that is.

And the Nephites knew horses, but could have mistaken a Mesoamerica deer for a horse.

The conclusion, to summarize, is the Jaredites and Nephites were idiots.

Edit: the little bubble-gum blowing emoticon was due to text copied from the article. I did not insert it. Thank you.

Edited September 20, 2015 by PeterPear

[Robert F. Smith]

From Dr. John L. Sorenson: quote:

"She assumes that the "Jaredites and Nephites ... were well-acquainted with horses" in the Old World, hence they would not "have mistaken a deer or a tapir for a horse" (pp. 307-8 ). But we do not know whether or not the Jaredite party were "well-acquainted with horses."............................................

..............................................

http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/6/1/S00010-51b10a39a975910Sorenson.pdf 

(The word "tapir" appears thrice in the article. I copied the first.)

In none of his uses here of "tapir" did Sorenson term it a horse or a substitute for a horse.  I checked all three occurrences, and Sorenson never uses it to refer to a horse.  In the instance, above it is young Diane Matheny who speaks of not mistaking "a deer or a tapir for a horse."  Those are her words, not Sorenson's.  He is responding to her irresponsible critique of his book.  You probably should have looked in his book for direct information.

 

So Dr. Sorenson is stating due to the long journey across land and the waters, the Jaredites forgot in their memory of what a horse looks like, if they had had horses in the "Old World," that is.

And the Nephites knew horses, but could have mistaken a Mesoamerica deer for a horse.

The conclusion, to summarize, is the Jaredites and Nephites were idiots.................................................

No.  The conclusion is that you got confused as to who was speaking within the quotes.

 

P.S.  I fixed the emoticon for you.

Edited September 20, 2015 by Robert F. Smith

[Kenngo1969]

... 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. ...

 

That reminded me of this:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_PZPpWTRTU

 

Sorry.    Couldn't resist!

[Benjamin McGuire]

Yeh, but from where did you specifically get this horse-tapir equivalency?

 

I don't remember any more who first proposed it - in the one major thread from a decade ago where we discussed it, I think a couple of FARMS sources were introduced. The primary reason why it seems to have potential value to me is in the nature of the two animals. Both have certain similarities that could stem from a classification approach to them using the Law of Moses as a guideline - that is, they are both odd toed ungulates. And given this, the idea of expanding the lexical term for horse to include what we refer to as a tapir isn't that unreasonable (but it is still a wild guess).

 

Mind you, I don't mind the idea of real horses either.

 

The two challenges that lie under these ideas are the problems in the historical record for the existence of horses and the challenge in the text that the horses don't seem to do what we might expect, and aren't referred to where we might expect.

 

Ben McGuire

Edited September 21, 2015 by Benjamin McGuire

[Gray]

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.

 

 

How can it be "likely" that they continued to exist in BOM times when the evidence points to the traditional extinction timeline? 

[Benjamin McGuire]

Churchsitrue asked:

 

How are the Isaiah issues are tackled by someone favoring a tight translation?  Specifically, the overriding of the KJV italics.

 

And later Calm wrote:

 

PS: not being an expert in the area myself, I find Ben and Brant to be the most persuasive. At this point if I had to choose, I'd go with Ben, but I need to update myself on Brant's stuff so I might change my mind later.

 

The challenge has always been about how we understand what happens. I favor a tight process, Brant favors a loose process, and Skousen (to introduce a third) also favors a tight explanation. But, I am far closer to Brant in terms of the outcome of my expectations than I am to Skousen. So, this isn't exactly the simplest issue, and the approach you take makes a difference. And generally, I find that because of my background, I approach the text very differently than many who are LDS. I start with Speech Act theory:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speech_act

And what I do is I start by identifying a series of roles involved in the production of the speech act (the Book of Mormon is the speech act - and its the Book of Mormon in translation, not the original Gold Plates that conceptually fills this place). Normally, we deal with three major roles: author, principle, and the animator. The principal is the person whose intentions are being expressed in the speech act. The author is the person who chooses the words. And the animator is the individual who either writes it down or says the words. And the classic example is a speech from the U.S. President -

If the President of the U.S. had to deliver a speech. The President is the principal, while his speechwriter is the author, and supposing he had a scheduling conflict and arranged for the Vice President to deliver it on his behalf, the Vice President would then become the animator. Three separate roles played by three individuals. Regularly (dare I say most of the time) all of these roles are played by the same person. But it helps for us (when they aren't) to distinguish which role is which. And of course we could add more roles if necessary (as many as is practical). But you can see right away, I suspect, why, from where I sit, this discussion is central to the issue of Book of Mormon translation (even for those views that are different from my own) and why some of the roles aren't quite as clear as we normally might think. Is Joseph Smith the author (under these definitions - that would be loose) or is he merely the animator (which would be tight). And if he is the author, is the scribe the animator? And how do we understand the Principal? By framing it in these terms we are also immediately confronted with the question of whose intention is being displayed - is it the various authors of the Gold Plates? It is God's intention (and can it be both simultaneously), and so on. You might see how this would lead to discussions like my last publication on narrative reading in the Book of Mormon. But by starting here (instead of starting immediately with the text), we create one of many potential frameworks for evaluating the text in terms of its intention. And virtually every theory of authorship out there (Brant and Skousen are not exceptions) these roles are included as assumptions for the most part, and this sort of thing isn't articulated.

In deciding (as I do) that Joseph is merely an animator of the text, I then can speak to the question of who the primary is, who the author is, and by extension begin to explore the text from a frame of looking at intention and the intended audience. And if Joseph represents that intended audience, then Joseph's knowledge, language, education, understanding, and so on - all play a role in how the author frames the ideas of the primary. In other words, Joseph can be only the animator, but Joseph as a theoretical construct becomes a huge influence on the ways in which the author expresses the intentions of the primary, beginning with the most fundamental decision of language choice (that is, English) and moving through word choice, the presentation of scripture in the King James language, and so on. And for me, this leads me to recognize that as we struggle to understand the meaning of the text of the Book of Mormon, our struggle recognizes that the intentions are inseparably connected to a worldview that is represented by the theoretical audience (which I believe is to some extent embodied in Joseph Smith and his contemporaries). And so we go from there.

These are the questions that drive my literary approaches. And my contributions to date have revolved around the notions of exploring intention in the text, and with that intention revealing complexity in the language. Despite sharing with Skousen the view of a tight translation where Joseph is merely an animator, we go in almost immediately different directions. I find no value in Skousen's push for an early modern English roots for the language (I find a lot of evidence to the contrary). In placing the theoretical audience (and my last essay really explains these terms for those who are confused over this) close to Joseph Smith, we make the views of Joseph Smith, his language, and his understanding central to what the author does (whoever plays that role), and so my outcome is not so distant from Brant's. And from my perspective, it allows in particular for Joseph to misread the text or to misunderstand it at times, because he isn't actually the author, he is (like the rest of us) merely a reader, although to the extent that he is closer to that intended audience that the author had in mind, he may be a much more competent reader than we are today in many ways.

 

Rarely do we (outside of narrow academic discussions) really try to analyze texts in these ways, so these kinds of ideas are often quite foreign to those who don't have a lot of exposure to language and literary studies. But the Book of Mormon, with the relative complexity of the tradition of its production (and the counter narratives provided by critics) provides in many ways a sort of fertile ground for this sort of approach, since each theory can be broken up in these ways, and this sort of approach strips away a lot of discussion to point to embedded assumptions that are rarely explicitly stated but which really need to be answered - and answered I think long before we get directly to issues of interpretation of particular passages.

 

I realize that I haven't answered thechurchistrue's question entirely, but I have laid out where I start from in answering that question.

 

Ben McGuire

[Robert F. Smith]

How can it be "likely" that they continued to exist in BOM times when the evidence points to the traditional extinction timeline? 

What evidence?  CFR