The State of the Evidence

[jkwilliams]

1 hour ago, Nevo said:

I understand how frustrating it must be that non-believers seem to ignore what you see as "the best evidence and best thinking of the defenders." I expect Bigfoot and UFO and hollow-earth enthusiasts feel the same way. The puzzles and solutions that they see are not, alas, generally recognized either.

Because the Book of Mormon can be read as a nineteenth-century work, with no difficulty at all really, most non-believers obviously don't feel that apologetic arguments (which are generally published by and for believers) are something that they need to bother with. The only people that have any skin in the game are current and former Mormons and Christians trying to proselytize Mormons. 

This is where Book of Mormon defenders have the advantage. There are now so many apologetic books and articles and blogs out there that probably no person alive has read all of it and only a small number of people have read most of it. Thus, it is now fashionable for defenders to argue that critics must engage with several dozen, if not hundreds, of apologetic books and articles if they are to "honestly" deal with the historicity question. Conveniently, most "critics"—that tiny subset of non-believers who care enough about Mormon truth claims to even entertain the notion of an ancient origin for the Book of Mormon—don't have the time or inclination or expertise to do so.

I have read and carefully considered a good deal of the apologetic scholarship in support of Book of Mormon historicity, including much of what has been cited in this thread. I have engaged this material both as a believer, as a doubter, and as an unbeliever. In my experience, the arguments supporting historicity lose much of their force once you stop taking for granted that the Book of Mormon is an ancient text.

Exactly. I've read a lot of apologetic stuff, as well, but it doesn't seem to matter because I haven't read all of it. A few years ago I started a thread here in which I asked for positive evidence in favor of the Book of Abraham. I had read a lot of the apologetic stuff, and most of it was either an explanation of why criticisms were wrong or it was an exposition of this or that parallel. I was told by a prominent apologist that I could have no opinion unless I engaged the apologetic arguments. In response, I asked for a reading list, which was provided. I had read most of the material on the list, so I read those I hadn't previously read. After that, I felt ready to engage, but that was pretty much the end of the thread. Often either critics are slammed for not engaging the apologetics, or if they do, they are slammed for being biased or bigoted or whatever. 

And I have to agree with you about not taking for granted the antiquity of the text. Reading the Book of Mormon without the assumption (let alone the desire) that it is ancient is a revelation (no pun intended). 

Edited July 11, 2016 by jkwilliams

[Kevin Christensen]

Quote

I expect Bigfoot and UFO and hollow-earth enthusiasts feel the same way. The puzzles and solutions that they see are not, alas, generally recognized either.

This is the kind of thing that John Charles Duffy does in the Sunstone essays, rather than directly engaging the arguments, he adopts a paradigmatic metaphor that does away with the need to engage any arguments.  Rather than provide a direct demonstration, he lets the metaphor do all the work.

Quote

In the World and the Prophets, Hugh Nibley quotes Payne:

There is always danger of a metaphor once adopted becoming the master instead of the servant¹⁵

And this:

Quote

One of the ruling illusions of Western metaphysics is that reason can somehow grasp the world without close attention to language and arrive at a pure, self-authenticating truth or method. Derrida’s work draws attention to the ways in which language deflects the philosopher’s project. He does this by focusing on metaphors and other figurative devices in the texts of philosophy…

His method consists of showing how the privileged term is held in place by the force of the dominant ]metaphor, and not, as it might seem, by any conclusive logic.³⁴

And of course, when looking at the famous picture of the old woman/young woman, once you shift from one interpretation to the other, the information that had been interpreted as a smile becomes just a necklace.   Obviously.  How could it be otherwise?  Facts are facts, and evidence is evidence.

Of course, my approach would be to test the validity of this Big Foot UFO and Pseudoscience metaphor compared to a different approach, a different way of framing the situation.  Which is better?   How good is it for puzzle definition and solution, accuracy of key predictions, comprehensiveness and coherence, fruitfulness (what do we see when we actually try it out), simplicity and aesthetics, and future promise.  The difference between the right word, and almost the right word, Sam Clemens has said, is the difference between a lightning bug, and lightning.   And that is undeniably an art, not a rule based situation, but value, and intersecting contexts.

I do have my own metaphors that help hold me in place of course, my own standard examples that provide the framework in which I operate.  But a comparison between say, Grant Palmer's case for a revival inspired Benjamin speech and the volume on King Benjamin's Discourse, which does not even include considerations regarding the physical setting, or San Bartolo murals, raises a question of which is better, as well as, is either sufficient?  We all get to choose our paradigms, methods problem fields, standards of solution.  But what happens if we pay very close attention to how, in all our messy diversity, decide for ourselves which is bettter?

For those who adopt them, metaphors can unify a community around a common mode of seeing, providing a background for both likeness and difference, and can be extended as far as we can imagine, in an open-ended way.

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

 

[Nevo]

1 hour ago, Kevin Christensen said:

But a comparison between say, Grant Palmer's case for a revival inspired Benjamin speech and the volume on King Benjamin's Discourse, which does not even include considerations regarding the physical setting, or San Bartolo murals, raises a question of which is better, as well as, is either sufficient? 

Honestly, as much as it pains to me to say it, I'm going to have to go with Grant Palmer. Given that the "big picture" suggests Joseph Smith as author, and that King Benjamin plainly uses nineteenth-century revival language and imagery, and that the entire sermon is a Christian homily, I think the odds are against a real-world pre-Columbian Mesoamerican setting. Then there are the unrealistic touches such as Benjamin having written copies of his speech "sent forth among those that were not under the sound of his voice" (Mosiah 2:8) and what Nibley called "the odd circumstance in which the people 'all cried aloud with one voice' (Mosiah 4:2) and proceeded to recite in unison an ecstatic statement of some fifty words." 

One of the interesting things that I noticed in re-reading Szink and Welch's article, "King Benjamin's Speech in the Context of Ancient Festivals," is how tentative they are in advancing their thesis. They candidly admit at the outset that "it is impossible to reconstruct with precision" the autumn festival in pre-exilic times, but "it appears that such Israelite celebrations probably included religious convocations, rituals, and festivals that served to renew the allegiance of the people to their heavenly and earthly kings, to purify the group from all unholiness, and to strengthen their commitment to revealed principles of personal and community righteousness." They also acknowledge that the Book of Mormon never mentions Nephites celebrating any Israelite religious festivals but add: "Whether expressly mentioned or not, evidence located in the Book of Mormon, particularly in King Benjamin’s speech, supports the claim that those particular festivals which were most likely known to Israel in Lehi’s day were indeed observed in the lands of Nephi and Zarahemla." But this is followed immediately by another caveat: "Of course—and we repeat—it is difficult to determine which festivals were observed in preexilic Israel before the destruction of Jerusalem in 587/586 BC, and how those religious feasts were celebrated in that era of Israelite history."

When we finally get to the main body of the article, a lot of the evidence adduced just doesn't seem very strong. The authors suggest, on the basis of late, post-exilic sources describing New Year rituals, that shofars may have been used—even though they aren't specifically mentioned in the Book of Mormon. They also note that the New Year is a day of judgment in ancient Near Easter and later Jewish sources. "Similarly," they write, "Benjamin’s people faced a day of judgment. In his speech, Benjamin lays bare the fate of those who remain and die in their sins—enemies to God (see Mosiah 2:37–38); he spells out the nature of God’s judgment, 'for behold he judgeth, and his judgment is just' (Mosiah 3:18); he makes it clear that all men are subject to this judgment (see Mosiah 3:17), except little children (see Mosiah 3:21); and he declares that these ceremonial words shall stand to judge the people (see Mosiah 3:24–25) 'like an unquenchable fire' (Mosiah 2:38)." 

But revival sermons were also occasions for judgment, and the language Benjamin uses is straight out of nineteenth-century sermons: "Therefore, if that man repenteth not, and remaineth and dieth an enemy to God, the demands of divine justice do awaken his immortal soul to a lively sense of his own guilt, which doth cause him to shrink from the presence of the Lord, and doth fill his breast with guilt, and pain, and anguish, which is like an unquenchable fire, whose flame ascendeth up forever and ever. And now I saw unto you, that mercy hath no claim on that man; therefore his final doom is to endure never-ending torment" (Mosiah 2:38–39).

Szink and Welch note the scholarly arguments that the autumn/New Year festival in Israel celebrated God's kingship and that enthronement psalms "were probably sung" on such occasions. They point out Benjamin's reference to God in Mosiah 2:19 as "your heavenly king" and his desire that his spirit "may join the choirs above in singing the praises of a just God" (Mosiah 2:28)—connecting, I guess, the themes of God's kingship, singing, and judgment. This seems a pretty weak comparison to the scholarly reconstruction of the pre-exilic autumn festival as involving "a celebration of Yahweh’s primeval victory over the chaos waters at creation and his subsequent enthronement as king" with "Yahweh’s presence being symbolized by the Ark, which was carried in procession up into the temple" (see John Day, Psalms [Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992], 69). Had those elements been clearly present in the sermon, I might be more inclined to see a historical kernel, but instead we have a distinctly Christian sermon throughout (and anachronistic angelic choirs too). And, no, I don't think Barker's work does anything to obviate that glaring anachronism.

Edited July 11, 2016 by Nevo

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

To be perfectly frank, the Book of Mormon is neither as simple as some of its critics believe nor as complex as some of its defenders believe. Nibley's comparison of the text to a Swiss watch is absolutely an exaggeration, IMO. 

In order to make that comparison one would have to at least make as careful a study of it as Hugh Nibley or Grant Hardy (to name only 2 noreworthy examples) have done.  Based on his own even-handed work, Grant Hardy has said:

 

Quote

If the Book of Mormon is a work of fiction, it is more intricate and clever than has heretofore been acknowledged.^[1]

[1] Hardy, Understanding the Book of Mormon: A Reader=s Guide, xv.

The suggestion by Nibley that it is as intricate as a Swiss watch may even be an understatement.  To my mind it is far more complex at so many levels as to beggar any sort of easy comparison.  By the preponderance of secular evidence alone, the BofM appears to be authentically historical.  Hands down.

[jkwilliams]

28 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

In order to make that comparison one would have to at least make as careful a study of it as Hugh Nibley or Grant Hardy (to name only 2 noreworthy examples) have done.  Based on his own even-handed work, Grant Hardy has said:

 

 

 

The suggestion by Nibley that it is as intricate as a Swiss watch may even be an understatement.  To my mind it is far more complex at so many levels as to beggar any sort of easy comparison.  By the preponderance of secular evidence alone, the BofM appears to be authentically historical.  Hands down.

Then I suppose I disagree with you, Nibley, and Hardy. I once agreed, though. Sometimes I wish I could still see it that way. 

On second thought, I don't think I'm far off from Hardy. As I said, the Book of Mormon is far more complex than many critics give it credit for. But it's not the "fine Swiss watch" some apologists believe it to be. 

Edited July 11, 2016 by jkwilliams

[mfbukowski]

On 7/10/2016 at 0:55 PM, James Tunney said:

You're correct in that it is hard to escape authority.  There certainly needs to be an organizational head.  However, power can be diffused among those at the top and those not, and a little more democracy in ideas and power seems to be a good thing.  One needs critics in order to flesh out strengths and weaknesses in ideas.  Changing local leadership seems to have worked.  Granting emeritus status to the Q12/FP might help in avoiding mistakes that men make?

Now, about defining "better" in terms of Kuhn, how does one get away from a predetermined conclusion?  It seems that taking the evidence as it is, trying to avoid bias through peer review or some other mechanism, and putting in as many safeguards as necessary in order to reach an unbiased conclusion or as close to it as possible, that this is the paradigm to find "truth."  Sure one needs to look at the evidence from many different angles, but that can be taken to the absurd.  At a certain point the evidence is what it is and paradigm shift seems to be used in order to avoid or discount certain anomalies that under Kuhn should lead to a conclusion against historicity.  Could you ever define "best" in a way that discounts historicity or proves historicity false?  Shouldn't the "best" paradigm be independent of whatever conclusion is reached?   

This view is just a re-assertion of a non-Kuhnian paradigm.

You are still looking for objective answers which do not exist.  There is no such thing as "unbiased"- that is the whole point!  There is no evidence for anything that "is what it is"- the whole point is that what "is" is subject to interpretation and therefore no "truth" in the sense you use the word.Perhaps this might be useful:

Quote

There are many implications of a theory of this sort for philosophical debate about the nature of truth. Philosophers often make suggestions like the following: truth consists in correspondence to the facts; truth consists in coherence with a set of beliefs or propositions; truth is the ideal outcome of rational inquiry. According to the deflationist, however, such suggestions are mistaken, and, moreover, they all share a common mistake. The common mistake is to assume that truth has a nature of the kind that philosophers might find out about and develop theories of. For the deflationist, truth has no nature beyond what is captured in ordinary claims such as that ‘snow is white’ is true just in case snow is white. Philosophers looking for the nature of truth are bound to be frustrated, the deflationist says, because they are looking for something that isn't there.

 

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-deflationary/

[mfbukowski]

10 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

Earlier in the thread, someone suggested that it was just unsupported assertion to believe that the Book of Mormon is pretty much what you would expect to see coming out of Joseph Smith's frontier American environment. Obviously, that's not the case, as the broad story lines, as well as the details, dovetail quite nicely with 1830 American mythology and religion. What some apologists seem to be doing is trying to divert attention away by pointing out tenuous parallels, such as the alleged presence of Hebrew feasts in King Benjamin's address (of course, which feast it is depends on the apologist). It's sort of like someone finding a menu from a Chinese restaurant and claiming it's an ancient Egyptian religious document. You point out the Chinese characters, the names of the dishes, and the prices, and they will point to a grease stain and say, "That looks exactly like Anubis! Explain that!"

Which point is irrelevant of course if one believes in revelation and some sort of "catalyst theory"

Essentially what we are talking about is not unlike using a crystal ball or reading tea leaves, and believing that the message comes from a supernatural source.

I really do not know why this is so hard for some to fathom.  Revelation requires a religious paradigm where the universe opens itself up through intuition and unconventional practices, like meditation etc. and words are found which change lives and give life meaning.   It is not supposed to be about how to build a rocket ship to the moon.  And if the "translator" sees it as a legitimate "translation" that assertion is part of the entire idea that receiving such words of wisdom by intuition is possible.

It's fine if you don't believe that, but it is useless to argue against someone who does.  It becomes a "yes it is", " no it's not" discussion precisely like this one.

[mfbukowski]

10 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

 

Note, finally, that Kuhn defines "truth" only in the sense of " the scientist’s conviction that incompatible rules for doing science cannot coexist except during revolutions when the profession’s main task is to eliminate all sets but one." You dismiss the work of Coe and Wright as naive positivism (and you've accused me of it, as well, but that's neither here nor there). I do not know about you, but I am not looking for "some one full, objective, true account of nature," nor do I believe science (or religion, for that matter) provides that account. I am dubious of your paradigm not because I don't believe in angels or God (I actually do believe in those) but because it doesn't fulfill the most basic requirement of a valid paradigm: it must solve identifiable problems that are not accounted for by the prevailing paradigm.

Pardon me for butting in, but we all know I have a big mouth.

First of all, Kuhn is ONE of many many theorists who reach the same conclusions- briefly put, which is essentially, as Nietzsche put it, "There are no facts, only interpretations".   This overall perspective simply pervades all of contemporary philosophy on both sides of the Atlantic, both in Anglo-American philosophy departments and in Europe in what is known as Continental philosophy.   No one has effectively refuted this point of view.

So the specifics of Kuhn's position become irrelevant to the overall argument.  He is one theorist among many who hold similar views.  My favorite happens to be the later work of Wittgenstein who in my opinion delineate similar views of "truth" through his discussion of language games, which make discussions of meanings of propositions, and therefore their perceived "truth" entirely contextual within a community of inquiry - and clearly religion is not the same community of inquiry as science.  That position is backed up by Rorty and others as well, in variations going back to Kant.   I cannot imagine anyone debating that seriously except on message boards where there are few if any specialists in such matters. 

BUT I ALSO think Kuhn's position is fine.

It is "fine" precisely because it DOES solve an identifiable problem which is not accounted for in the prevailing paradigm.  We are looking for the "best" paradigm and clearly the "best" paradigm for LDS apologetics is putting together a paradigm which creates a way to see both contexts at once- that is, the spiritual and moral valuable truths found in the Book of Mormon and seeing those as "historical".  My personal paradigm is that we place the social context of BOM historicity NOT in the scientific side of the equation, but on the religious side from the beginning.

In other words, my personal belief is that the question of BOM historicity is a RELIGIOUS question based in faith, not in science.   We do the exact same thing with the Bible- certainly the resurrection of Christ cannot be made credible in any way through science, so the very belief that it is a "historic fact" that Jesus rose from the dead is itself a testimony- an assertion of a religious belief in an event in the past, so also is the assertion that the BOM is "true" and "historical". 

THAT to me is the Kuhnian "identifiable problem" which has not adequately been accounted for in apologetics - how to harmonize assertions of religious truth about historical events of religious importance with the scientific evidence for or against them.  The truth lies in the eyes of the religious community making the claim, which defines the context of the assertion, and thereby creates the paradigm

But again, the religious argument does not need Kuhn per se because there are so many other theorists who fill in the blanks, in the event there ARE "blanks" or soft spots in Kuhn's theory

[Robert F. Smith]

7 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

Then I suppose I disagree with you, Nibley, and Hardy. I once agreed, though. Sometimes I wish I could still see it that way. 

On second thought, I don't think I'm far off from Hardy. As I said, the Book of Mormon is far more complex than many critics give it credit for. But it's not the "fine Swiss watch" some apologists believe it to be. 

And you base that conclusion on what analysis or analyses?  Surely someone has provided us with a survey of the complexity which shows it to be something less that a Swiss watch in fine workmanship.  I have yet to read such an appraisal, but I am willing to be properly advised.   Perhaps you have some reading recommendations, John.

[jkwilliams]

6 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

And you base that conclusion on what analysis or analyses?  Surely someone has provided us with a survey of the complexity which shows it to be something less that a Swiss watch in fine workmanship.  I have yet to read such an appraisal, but I am willing to be properly advised.   Perhaps you have some reading recommendations, John.

Not really. I've read a lot of analyses over the years, and in my view, Nibley et al. vastly overstate the complexity of the Book of Mormon, and some critics grossly underestimate it. Being someone who can read, I can make my own assessment.

[Robert F. Smith]

 

21 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Not really. I've read a lot of analyses over the years, and in my view, Nibley et al. vastly overstate the complexity of the Book of Mormon, and some critics grossly underestimate it. Being someone who can read, I can make my own assessment.

So I am to be forever disappointed in trying to imagine what it is that such claims are based on?  No matter, herewith is an example of real up-to-date archeology, in context.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSwifGaSYaA&feature=youtu.be .

[jkwilliams]

3 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

So I am to be forever disappointed in trying to imagine what it is that such claims are based on?  No matter, herewith is an example of real up-to-date archeology, in context.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSwifGaSYaA&feature=youtu.be .

I'm not sure what you're expecting. I thought we were talking about the complexity of the text, which I think is debatable. 

[MosiahFree]

14 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

This view is just a re-assertion of a non-Kuhnian paradigm.

You are still looking for objective answers which do not exist.  There is no such thing as "unbiased"- that is the whole point!  There is no evidence for anything that "is what it is"- the whole point is that what "is" is subject to interpretation and therefore no "truth" in the sense you use the word.Perhaps this might be useful:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-deflationary/

I'm having a hard time following some of this. I'm not sure what is being said here:

 

Quote

It is for this reason that some deflationists use a version of (Gen) to formulate their theory of truth.

(Gen) For all x, x is true if and only if there is some p such that x = <p>, and p.

There are two things to notice about (Gen). First, unlike (ES-prop) it is not a schema, but a universally quantified formula. For this reason, it is possible to derive (Conjunction) from it. That (Gen) is universally quantified also means it can be used as an explicit definition of truth. So although deflationists often only implicitly define truth, it is possible for a deflationist to offer an explicit definition. Thus we have another dimension along which deflationary theories can vary.

Second, the existential quantifier in (Gen) must be a higher-order quantifier that quantifies into sentential position. Wolfgang Künne (2003) takes the existential quantifier to be an objectual (domain and values) quantifier ranging over propositions. A different approach would be to take the existential quantifier as a substitutional quantifier where the substitution class consists of sentences. Christopher Hill (2002) offers a further, idiosyncratic, alternative and treats the existential quantifier as a substitutional quantifier whose substitution class is the set of all propositions. However, all these approaches have drawn criticism on the grounds that the use of higher-order quantifiers to define truth is circular (Platts 1980, Horwich 1998b, McGrath 2000), and may get the extension of the concept of truth wrong (Sosa 1993). 

 

[Robert F. Smith]

On 7/11/2016 at 6:27 AM, jkwilliams said:

Earlier in the thread, someone suggested that it was just unsupported assertion to believe that the Book of Mormon is pretty much what you would expect to see coming out of Joseph Smith's frontier American environment. Obviously, that's not the case, as the broad story lines, as well as the details, dovetail quite nicely with 1830 American mythology and religion. What some apologists seem to be doing is trying to divert attention away by pointing out tenuous parallels, such as the alleged presence of Hebrew feasts in King Benjamin's address (of course, which feast it is depends on the apologist). It's sort of like someone finding a menu from a Chinese restaurant and claiming it's an ancient Egyptian religious document. You point out the Chinese characters, the names of the dishes, and the prices, and they will point to a grease stain and say, "That looks exactly like Anubis! Explain that!"

Such dismissive comments are my reason for seeking the sources you have consulted, since the scholarly sources do none of the nonsense you describe.  The message I get from your disdain here is that you have not read any serious work on the BofM.  Or, if you have, you have automatically discounted it based on a serious lack of familiarity with the ancient world.  That leaves any sort of comparison lopsided and inequitable, but it also simplifies the discussion immeasurably for you -- and we all seek the path of least resistance (it's human nature)..

You dismiss any valid comparison with Israelite feasts based on the failure of the apologists to agree on which it may have been.  If you knew solid biblical scholarship, you would realize how difficult it is for the best biblical scholars to establish the pre-exilic Israelite festal sequence and content.  Such scholars are agreed that there was a Fall Feast of Ingathering (later divided into the current Jewish New Year, High Holy Days, Day of Atonement, and Tabernacles).  You take that weakness in good non-Mormon scholarship as a weakness of the contemptible "apologists," when it is really the nature of the beast.  Indeed, Prof Joseph Schultz (my teacher at the Univ of Misssour - Kansas City, and a Jewish rabbi) read the Book of Mormon and concluded that the occasion of Benjamin's Speech was in fact the Fall Israelite Festival (or that at least all its features fit that pattern).  A good form critic would go even further and note that both American revival patterns and such ancient festal patterns have something in common just by the nature of the occasion.  Thus, one must do far more than just read at a surface level, which is what most people do when reading the Bible or Book of Mormon.  I don't expect a CES instructor like Grant Palmer to go beyond that, but I had assumed that you are a man of letters and cut from different cloth.

Edited July 12, 2016 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

I'm not sure what you're expecting. I thought we were talking about the complexity of the text, which I think is debatable. 

I did not ask for a CFR, but had hoped for a set of serious sources from you.  Everything is debatable, and endlessly so -- especially in the presence of poor quality sources.

[jkwilliams]

51 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Such dismissive comments are my reason for seeking the sources you have consulted, since the scholarly sources do none of the nonsense you describe.  The message I get from your disdain here is that you have not read any serious work on the BofM.  Or, if you have, you have automatically discounted it based on a serious lack of familiarity with the ancient world.  That leaves any sort of comparison lopsided and inequitable, but it also simplifies the discussion immeasurably for you -- and we all seek the path of least resistance (it's human nature)..

You dismiss any valid comparison with Israelite feasts based on the failure of the apologists to agree on which it may have been.  If you knew solid biblical scholarship, you would realize how difficult it is for the best biblical scholars to establish the pre-exilic Israelite festal sequence and content.  Such scholars are agreed that there was a Fall Feast of Ingathering (later divided into the current Jewish New Year, High Holy Days, Day of Atonement, and Tabernacles).  You take that weakness in good non-Mormon scholarship as a weakness of the contemptible "apologists," when it is really the nature of the beast.  Indeed, Prof Joseph Schultz (my teacher at the Univ of Misssour - Kansas City, and a Jewish rabbi) read the Book of Mormon and concluded that the occasion of Benjamin's Speech was in fact the Fall Israelite Festival (or that at least all its features fit that pattern).  A good form critic would go even further and note that both American revival patterns and such ancient festal patterns have something in common just by the nature of the occasion.  Thus, one must do far more than just read at a surface level, which is what most people do when reading the Bible or Book of Mormon.  I don't expect a CES instructor like Grant Palmer to go beyond that, but I had assumed that you are a man of letters and cut from different cloth.

It would be foolish to summarily dismiss any valid comparison with Israelite feasts. The parallels are quite tenuous--as apologists such as John Welch point out--because there is so little known about pre-exilic feasts in the first place. That your professor saw the features of a Hebrew festival in the Book of Mormon is interesting; it would be rather arrogant to dismiss his assessment or yours. It's another piece of the puzzle, as are the American revivalist elements. I brought up the disagreement over "which feast it is" simply because it illustrates the tenuous nature of the parallels. 

I should mention that I absolutely do not consider apologists "contemptible" (where the heck is that coming from?). It's true I think some apologists have shown themselves to be untrustworthy, but you left out "some" in my statement, as if it were a blanket condemnation of all apologists. I know a lot of people I would call apologists (heck, I used to consider myself one), and with very few exceptions, they are honest, bright, scholarly people whose work I respect. That group would include you, Robert. There are only two kinds of apologists I don't respect: those who engage in dishonesty, and those who pretend there are no valid issues. I wouldn't put you in either category. Fortunately, those who fit those definitions are a very small group. Likewise, I have no respect for critics who are dishonest or pretend there is no positive evidence. 

I'm not sure why Grant Palmer keeps coming into the discussion. I've said many times that Palmer's work is aimed at a general audience, much like Jeremy Runnells' stuff. I don't expect scholarship from those sources, and I am mystified as to why you think I rely on them at all. I read Palmer's book about 5 years ago and thought it was decent enough as a compilation of issues for an audience unfamiliar with the subject but have never referred to it or recommended it, as far as I can remember. And since I mentioned Runnells, I have read enough of the CES letter to know it's pretty much doing the same thing Palmer was attempting to do, only on a wider scale. I am not sure of the relevance of either to this thread.

As for being a "man of letters," I have never claimed that. I have 3 degrees (not of glory, of course): a BA in Latin American Studies, a BA in English, and an MA in English. I've poked around church history and doctrine for many years, but I am no expert, nor do I claim to be. I do know a few things about language and philosophy, but every time that subject comes up around here, it gets ugly, so I avoid comment these days.

Edited July 12, 2016 by jkwilliams

[jkwilliams]

38 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I did not ask for a CFR, but had hoped for a set of serious sources from you.  Everything is debatable, and endlessly so -- especially in the presence of poor quality sources.

Which sources do you imagine I am relying on? I expressed my opinion from my own reading of the Book of Mormon, nothing more. I've never felt the need to write out a systematic discussion of the Book of Mormon as literature or history, though I have read a lot on that subject, from Nibley to Sorensen to Gardner to Givens. You seem to think that my conclusions come from a reflexive need not to believe, which is odd given all the time and effort I put into faith and belief over many years. Oh, well, you don't really know me, so I don't blame you.

[Robert F. Smith]

18 hours ago, Nevo said:

Honestly, as much as it pains to me to say it, I'm going to have to go with Grant Palmer. Given that the "big picture" suggests Joseph Smith as author, and that King Benjamin plainly uses nineteenth-century revival language and imagery, and that the entire sermon is a Christian homily,

So, a CES instructor is given the power to provide an authoritative "big picture," such that the revival language and imagery are solely and only based from cribbing by Joseph, even though it is equally likely that his translation language could be the source of such similar language derived from similar occasions.

 I think the odds are against a real-world pre-Columbian Mesoamerican setting. Then there are the unrealistic touches such as Benjamin having written copies of his speech "sent forth among those that were not under the sound of his voice" (Mosiah 2:8) and what Nibley called "the odd circumstance in which the people 'all cried aloud with one voice' (Mosiah 4:2) and proceeded to recite in unison an ecstatic statement of some fifty words." 

So, when the same "unrealistic" phenomenon occurs in the Bible, it is to be discounted the same way?

Quote

Ex 24:3,
Then Moses came and recounted to the people all the words of the LORD and all the ordinances; and all the people answered with one voice and said, "All the words which the LORD has spoken we will do!"

Ezra 10:12
Then all the assembly replied with a loud voice, "That's right! As you have said, so it is our duty to do.

One of the interesting things that I noticed in re-reading Szink and Welch's article, "King Benjamin's Speech in the Context of Ancient Festivals," is how tentative they are in advancing their thesis. They candidly admit at the outset that "it is impossible to reconstruct with precision" the autumn festival in pre-exilic times, but "it appears that such Israelite celebrations probably included religious convocations, rituals, and festivals that served to renew the allegiance of the people to their heavenly and earthly kings, to purify the group from all unholiness, and to strengthen their commitment to revealed principles of personal and community righteousness." They also acknowledge that the Book of Mormon never mentions Nephites celebrating any Israelite religious festivals but add: "Whether expressly mentioned or not, evidence located in the Book of Mormon, particularly in King Benjamin’s speech, supports the claim that those particular festivals which were most likely known to Israel in Lehi’s day were indeed observed in the lands of Nephi and Zarahemla." But this is followed immediately by another caveat: "Of course—and we repeat—it is difficult to determine which festivals were observed in preexilic Israel before the destruction of Jerusalem in 587/586 BC, and how those religious feasts were celebrated in that era of Israelite history."

Well, as I pointed out to John Williams, the nature of biblical scholarship makes such tentativeness essential.  If BofM scholars were not tentative, then they would be pilloried for not being scholarly and labeled as foolish apologists who adopt a conclusion before beginning their research.  Real scholars are damned for practicing real scholarship -- is that what we really want?

When we finally get to the main body of the article, a lot of the evidence adduced just doesn't seem very strong. The authors suggest, on the basis of late, post-exilic sources describing New Year rituals, that shofars may have been used—even though they aren't specifically mentioned in the Book of Mormon.

Ah, but they may well be mentioned several times in the BofM.  See the recent discussion:  Book of Mormon Central, “Why Did Alma Wish to Speak ‘with the Trump of God’? (Alma 29:1),” KnoWhy #136, July 5, 2016, https://knowhy.dev-bookofmormoncentral.org/content/why-did-alma-wish-to-speak-“with-the-trump-of-god” . .

They also note that the New Year is a day of judgment in ancient Near Easter and later Jewish sources. "Similarly," they write, "Benjamin’s people faced a day of judgment. In his speech, Benjamin lays bare the fate of those who remain and die in their sins—enemies to God (see Mosiah 2:37–38); he spells out the nature of God’s judgment, 'for behold he judgeth, and his judgment is just' (Mosiah 3:18); he makes it clear that all men are subject to this judgment (see Mosiah 3:17), except little children (see Mosiah 3:21); and he declares that these ceremonial words shall stand to judge the people (see Mosiah 3:24–25) 'like an unquenchable fire' (Mosiah 2:38)." 

But revival sermons were also occasions for judgment, and the language Benjamin uses is straight out of nineteenth-century sermons: "Therefore, if that man repenteth not, and remaineth and dieth an enemy to God, the demands of divine justice do awaken his immortal soul to a lively sense of his own guilt, which doth cause him to shrink from the presence of the Lord, and doth fill his breast with guilt, and pain, and anguish, which is like an unquenchable fire, whose flame ascendeth up forever and ever. And now I saw unto you, that mercy hath no claim on that man; therefore his final doom is to endure never-ending torment" (Mosiah 2:38–39).

Again, that is the very point we ought to most strongly consider:  Similar occasions call for similar translation language. If you are a translator, you will understand the implications.

Szink and Welch note the scholarly arguments that the autumn/New Year festival in Israel celebrated God's kingship and that enthronement psalms "were probably sung" on such occasions. They point out Benjamin's reference to God in Mosiah 2:19 as "your heavenly king" and his desire that his spirit "may join the choirs above in singing the praises of a just God" (Mosiah 2:28)—connecting, I guess, the themes of God's kingship, singing, and judgment. This seems a pretty weak comparison to the scholarly reconstruction of the pre-exilic autumn festival as involving "a celebration of Yahweh’s primeval victory over the chaos waters at creation and his subsequent enthronement as king" with "Yahweh’s presence being symbolized by the Ark, which was carried in procession up into the temple" (see John Day, Psalms [Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992], 69). Had those elements been clearly present in the sermon, I might be more inclined to see a historical kernel, but instead we have a distinctly Christian sermon throughout (and anachronistic angelic choirs too). And, no, I don't think Barker's work does anything to obviate that glaring anachronism.

How is that you see anachronisms at the drop of a hat, where David Bokovoy sees authentic markers based on his detailed familiarity with biblical texts?  See 

David E. Bokovoy, “‘Thou Knowest That I Believe’: Invoking The Spirit of the Lord as Council Witness in 1 Nephi 11,” Interpreter 1 (2012):1-23.

David E.  Bokovoy, AIn Principio Creavit Deus: The Theological Use of Creation Imagery in the Book of Mormon,@ paper delivered Sept 20, 2012, at annual meeting of the Society for Mormon Philosophy and Theology (SMPT) at USU in Logan, Utah.

David E. Bokovoy, "Temple Imagery in the Book of Mormon," BYU Education Week lectures, Aug 16 - 19, 2011.

David E. Bokovoy,  “Holiness to the Lord: Biblical Temple Imagery in the Sermons of Jacob the Priest,” Interpreter, Jan 17, 2015, lecture given at the “The Temple on Mount Zion” Conference, Provo, Utah, September 22, 2012, video and podcast available online at http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/david-bokovoy-on-holiness-to-the-lord-biblical-temple-imagery-in-the-sermons-of-jacob-the-priest/ .

 

Edited July 12, 2016 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

34 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Which sources do you imagine I am relying on? I expressed my opinion from my own reading of the Book of Mormon, nothing more. I've never felt the need to write out a systematic discussion of the Book of Mormon as literature or history, though I have read a lot on that subject, from Nibley to Sorensen to Gardner to Givens. You seem to think that my conclusions come from a reflexive need not to believe, which is odd given all the time and effort I put into faith and belief over many years. Oh, well, you don't really know me, so I don't blame you.

Sorry that I seem to have been berating you.  Just ignore my wild pontifications, John.  For some reason, I actually like you.

[jkwilliams]

24 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Sorry that I seem to have been berating you.  Just ignore my wild pontifications, John.  For some reason, I actually like you.

I'm more concerned about being understood than liked. If I worried about whether people liked me around here, I'd probably be pretty depressed.

 

[Kevin Christensen]

Regarding, "I think the odds are against a real-world pre-Columbian Mesoamerican setting" in light of "unrealistic touches" such as those Robert S. commented on (recognition of the importance divine council in the Ancient Near East religions, and Biblically speaking, the sod, the secret knowledge of which certified that a prophet was a prophet, and the Hosts which happened to stand behind the title, Lord of Hosts--a title only rarely retained in Deuteronomist histories), does seem relevant to a concern about "anachronistic angelic choirs".    But what about these realistic touches, such as those I mention in my little essay?

Quote

 I’ve also read in online discussions that LDS Mesoamericanists have compared elements of King Benjamin’s speech to recently discovered Mesoamerican temple murals that date close to Benjamin’s time, not far removed from the area that most LDS scholars see as the most likely setting for Book of Mormon events.

In a discussion of the content of the murals, a non-LDS scholar, Laura Harbold writes: ¹³

The murals, which depict the Maya creation myth, run along two walls of the nine-by-four-meter chamber. “One of the things that’s neat about these murals is that they imply a sort of narrative tradition,” Saturno says. “It looks like a Maya screenfold book just unfolded and painted on the wall. You see the page breaks; you can tell where the gutter is.” Because the murals depict a cyclical, epic tradition, Saturno says, you can start at any corner and read from left to right.

According to Karl Taube, iconographer for the San Bartolo project, the murals represent an early version of a myth that dominated Maya culture for fifteen hundred years. In the first scene, a man stands in water, sacrificing a fish to the principle bird deity, who perches in the first “world tree.” In the second scene, a man stands on land, offering a deer to a second bird in the second world tree; in the third, he floats in the air, presenting a turkey; in the fourth, he hovers in a field of flowers, offering incense. The four trees represent the four cardinal directions or levels of the cosmos: the underworld, the earth, the sky, and the afterlife.

In the final scene, the Maya maize god stands in front of a fifth world tree, establishing the center of the universe. The bird deity lies slain at the bottom of the tree, dispatched for his arrogance and vanity. The maize god crowns himself king, wearing a headdress made from the body of the bird. The wooden scaffold upon which he sits is the same throne depicted in the coronation of Maya kings for centuries, Taube says.

Another series of murals depicts the life cycle of the maize god — his birth in water, his emergence from the earth bearing the harvest, his death represented by diving back into the water, and his resurrection and second coronation. “The whole narrative leads to the coronation of a named individual,” Saturno says, establishing the maize god as the foundation of Maya kingship.

Those familiar with King Benjamin’s account should notice the reference to the Tower associated with the coronation (see Mos. 2:7).  Other points of interest include the reference to the Mayan “screenfold books,” which are “unfolded.”  LDS scholars have urged us to remember that Benjamin tells the attending multitude that “the mysteries of God may be unfolded to your view.”  (see Mos. 2:9). 

Professor’s Szinc and Welch have compared the references to “drive him away, and cast him out” (Mos. 5:14) to the action in the scapegoat ritual form the Day of Atonement.  This in turn, resonates with the imagery of the defeated Bird God at San Bartalo. None of these parallels ought to be seen as proof, but as demonstration that major elements and themes from the Mosiah account fit comfortably with both the roots in Ancient Israel but also in the ancient American setting that it claims for itself.

Professor Allen Christenson has written of the Maya Harvest Festivals in comparison to Book of Mormon accounts.

Benjamin’s address closely parallels the ancient Mesoamerican pattern of harvest festivals in which the life god, or his earthly representative, descends into the underworld and is overcome by evil powers of death and sacrifice. Benjamin begins by declaring to the people that he intends to unfold “the mysteries of God … to [their] view” (Mosiah 2:9). He announces his imminent death and “descent” into the grave (Mosiah 2:26-30). In his absence, he warns the people to beware of the “evil spirit,” “the enemy of all righteousness,” the “enemy to God” who brings destruction upon mankind (Mosiah 2:32-33, 37-38).

It is precisely the descent of the king into the underworld in the Mesoamerican festival at the end of the calendar year which permits the forces of death and evil to reign upon the earth. Although this is usually only a temporary ritual death on the part of the king, the prospect of his actual death was cause for great concern. ¹⁴

Mark Wright more recently published an essay that formally discusses the San Bartolo murals, which happen to be contemporary with the purported reign of King Benjamin, though a bit outside of Sorenson's Grijalva setting.

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/axes-mundi-ritual-complexes-in-mesoamerica-and-the-book-of-mormon/

And there is the business of the physical and cultural setting that fits best.

Quote

The location of Zarahemla in the Grijalva River valley ²² not only fits the geography and topography, but it links the major linguistic groups. The Nephites entered a Mayan-speaking area. The Mulekites entered a Mixe-Zoque speaking area. The movement of the Mulekites/Zarahemlaites up the Grijalva valley parallels the known movement of Zoque (a daughter language of Mixe-Zoque) up that valley.

This explains why the Nephites and the Zarahemlaites spoke different languages when there was insufficient time for an unintelligible divergence from Hebrew to have occurred. (In only four hundred years some vocabulary would change, but the languages would still have been mutually intelligible.) ²³

For a proposed site for Zarahemla, see John Sorenson, An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book and FARMS, 1985), 148-161.

²² For the Grijalva as the only river in the Western Hemisphere that fits the textual description of the Sidon in the Book of Mormon, see Larry Poulson’s page here: http://www.poulsenll.org/bom/grijalvasidon.html

²³ Brant Gardner, quoted in Kevin Christensen “Truth and Method” in FARMS Review 16:1.

Metcalfe had argued for 19th Century setting in New Approaches like this:

Quote

“the apex of the narrative … depends … fundamentally on a nonbiblical pattern contemporary with Smith” ¹⁵  He sees the four-step pattern as “(1) Revival Gathering (Mosiah 2); (2) Guilt-Ridden Falling Exercise (4:1-2a); (3) Petition for Spiritual Emancipation (v. 2b); and (4) Christological Absolution and Emotional Ecstasy (v. 3).” ¹⁶

So a bit of my direct response has this:

Quote

Notice that in developing labels for this four-step pattern, he uses language designed to invoke a 19th century setting and neglects the vocabulary of Book of Mormon text.  For example, the gathering in Mosiah in centered around Benjamin’s declaration that Mosiah is to succeed him as King (Mosiah 1:10).  Finding a Burnt-Over District revival that met at a temple for the purpose of announcing the succession of the next king would be difficult, to say the least. ¹⁷

The occasion for “falling” in Mosiah has distinct ritual theological contexts. The petition for to apply the atoning blood of Christ fits as comfortably in an ancient setting as any 19th century setting. Margaret Barker’s ongoing recovery of Temple Theology has opened up new horizons to consider the frequent claim that the Book of Mormon (and hence, Benjamin), is too Christian before Christ.¹⁸ And step four can be matched not only in the 19th century conversion accounts, but by conversion accounts throughout history and across many cultures. ¹⁹

One interesting thing here is to note how Metcalfe's language and labeling uses non-Book of Mormon language in defining and specifying his four-step pattern.  That is a very good example of how data (King Benjamin's discourse) becomes "theory-laden." 

And of course, is considering which is best, whether a four step pattern discovered in a translation into Joseph Smith's language (19th century) explains more better than, say Nibley's 36 step coronation pattern?  The language there becomes theory-laden as well.  And much else.  How to measure that?  And which problems are more important to have solved? 

It also makes a difference whether we are looking to absolutely "know" a thing, to resolve all uncertainties, or just enough to justify opening or closing a particular door, encouraging or discouraging effort in one direction or another, or whether we are looking for "cause to believe" that expands our understanding, enlightens our mind, expands the soul, is delicious, fruitful, and promising.

Regarding Barker, here is an essay on Atonement that she wrote in 1994, five years before I contacted her.  We could use it as one test of the relevance of her work for the Book of Mormon, say by comparing it to Mosiah 1-5 to see what, if anything, stands out in comparison.

http://www.margaretbarker.com/Papers/Atonement.pdf

Best,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Edited July 12, 2016 by Kevin Christensen
Correction

[Nevo]

7 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

So, a CES instructor is given the power to provide an authoritative "big picture," such that the revival language and imagery are solely and only based from cribbing by Joseph, even though it is equally likely that his translation language could be the source of such similar language derived from similar occasions.

The "big picture" that points to Joseph Smith as the author of the Book of Mormon was covered here, here, here, and here. It has nothing to do with Grant Palmer. I think Grant Palmer's contributions are next to worthless and I've never relied on his work in any way (I'm not a fan). Kevin asked whether a revival-inspired setting (as argued by Grant Palmer) was a better fit for King Benjamin's speech than the ancient settings proposed in the FARMS volume. I replied that I thought it was and stated some of my reasons for thinking so.

 

Quote

So, when the same "unrealistic" phenomenon occurs in the Bible, it is to be discounted the same way?

Yes, the (much shorter!) biblical texts you quoted are also unrealistic. I don't see any reason to think that "the people" and "all the assembly" actually said the words attributed to them in Exodus 24:3 and Ezra 10:12. These are literary compositions, not court transcripts. Likewise, the lengthy, carefully worded theological statement allegedly uttered "with one voice" by Benjamin's hearers isn't likely to be historical.

 

Quote

Well, as I pointed out to John Williams, the nature of biblical scholarship makes such tentativeness essential.  If BofM scholars were not tentative, then they would be pilloried for not being scholarly and labeled as foolish apologists who adopt a conclusion before beginning their research.  Real scholars are damned for practicing real scholarship -- is that what we really want?

I wasn't criticizing their tentativeness. I applaud it. Maybe I was being too subtle, but my point in mentioning their repeated cautions and caveats was to contrast it to the way Kevin is using their work. Kevin seems to have much more confidence in the authors' arguments than they do themselves. He seems to think that the evidence for an ancient setting is very strong indeed—he's mentioned his "little essay" probably a dozen times now in this thread—and has essentially dared "critics" to try to refute it. 

 

Quote

Again, that is the very point we ought to most strongly consider:  Similar occasions call for similar translation language. If you are a translator, you will understand the implications.

So you're suggesting that Joseph recognized that Benjamin's speech was set during at a pre-exilic version of the feast of Tabernacles, noticed the similiarities between the feast of Tabernacles and the camp-meetings that he was familiar with, and therefore decided to render Benjamin's speech in the idiom of Methodist circuit-riders and structure the story around typical camp-meeting patterns (falling to the earth, ecstatic speech, etc.)? But if you strip away all of the nineteenth-century trappings in terms of language and content, I'm not sure that there is much left. Take away the parts that resemble a revival sermon and what's the remainder?

 

Quote

How is that you see anachronisms at the drop of a hat, where David Bokovoy sees authentic markers based on his detailed familiarity with biblical texts?

I suppose I could turn this around. How is it that you see evidences confirming the ancient origin of the Book of Mormon at the drop of a hat, where David P. Wright sees anachronisms based on his detailed familiarity with biblical texts?  

I do think that Benjamin's explicit Christianity, informed as it is by the New Testament and centuries of Christian theological reflection, is a glaring anachronism.

 

Edited July 12, 2016 by Nevo

[Robert F. Smith]

7 hours ago, Nevo said:

The "big picture" that points to Joseph Smith as the author of the Book of Mormon was covered here, here, here, and here. It has nothing to do with Grant Palmer. I think Grant Palmer's contributions are next to worthless and I've never relied on his work in any way (I'm not a fan). Kevin asked whether a revival-inspired setting (as argued by Grant Palmer) was a better fit for King Benjamin's speech than the ancient settings proposed in the FARMS volume. I replied that I thought it was and stated some of my reasons for thinking so.

The sources and discussion you provide here is rather narrow.  I had a true "big picture" in mind as including a very wide array of issues about King Benjamin's Speech, not merely restricted to 19th century parallels (revival language and the American historical scene among them).  Unless a broader purview is taken, I doubt that any headway can be made in distinguishing valid from invalid judgments.

Yes, the (much shorter!) biblical texts you quoted are also unrealistic. I don't see any reason to think that "the people" and "all the assembly" actually said the words attributed to them in Exodus 24:3 and Ezra 10:12. These are literary compositions, not court transcripts. Likewise, the lengthy, carefully worded theological statement allegedly uttered "with one voice" by Benjamin's hearers isn't likely to be historical.

That's what I thought, and both Bible and Book of Mormon share the same question of authenticity in that respect.  Both Bible and Book of Mormon are already acknowledged to be literary compositions and not court transcripts, and it is unfair to demand that either of them be more than that.  However, so saying does not mean that ancient peoples did not engage in very complex and set rituals.  We know they did.  At the Esagila Temple in Babylon, for example, there was the annual recitation of the Creation Story (Enuma elish) as a pageant -- the content closely paralleling Genesis 1, which non-Mormon biblical scholars see as a temple text.  How odd that the Mormons do the same thing the ancients did in their mystery religions, going through set rites and ordinances which closely parallel the ancient rites.  In the end, Nevo, you have merely equivocated by ignoring that crucial point:  What should be a mark of authenticity is converted by you to a mark of inauthenticity ("unrealistic").

I wasn't criticizing their tentativeness. I applaud it. Maybe I was being too subtle, but my point in mentioning their repeated cautions and caveats was to contrast it to the way Kevin is using their work. Kevin seems to have much more confidence in the authors' arguments than they do themselves. He seems to think that the evidence for an ancient setting is very strong indeed—he's mentioned his "little essay" probably a dozen times now in this thread—and has essentially dared "critics" to try to refute it. 

Such tentative knowledge must be taken in context with many other types of data (which are less tentative) leading to a conclusion that the preponderance of evidence is very convincing -- providing overall the impact of likelihood, which Benjamin's Address by itself could not carry.  The whole is more than the sum of its parts, Nevo.  Your taking an isolated and atomistic approach spells major difficulty since that excludes so much that is relevant.

So you're suggesting that Joseph recognized that Benjamin's speech was set during at a pre-exilic version of the feast of Tabernacles, noticed the similiarities between the feast of Tabernacles and the camp-meetings that he was familiar with, and therefore decided to render Benjamin's speech in the idiom of Methodist circuit-riders and structure the story around typical camp-meeting patterns (falling to the earth, ecstatic speech, etc.)? But if you strip away all of the nineteenth-century trappings in terms of language and content, I'm not sure that there is much left. Take away the parts that resemble a revival sermon and what's the remainder?

That idiom includes the KJV, the Book of Common Prayer, and the Methodist and Presbyterian revival preaching, a language natural to the ear, and which automatically finds its way into any translation of that era (not just Joseph's), and likely also applicable in Early Modern English (if that is the time when the translation was actually made).  The content and mode of presentation could certainly be adapted to an ancient temple scene without much difficulty, which is the whole point.  Thus, rather than speaking loosely of "ecstatic speech," etc., one would need to understand the formulaic behavior of people anciently in that same circumstance, which was why I cited the biblical parallels which you ignored the first time around.

I suppose I could turn this around. How is it that you see evidences confirming the ancient origin of the Book of Mormon at the drop of a hat, where David P. Wright sees anachronisms based on his detailed familiarity with biblical texts?  

I suppose that the answer is that I do not see such parallels at the drop of a hat.  Unlike Dan Vogel, I look at both sides carefully.  I knew David P. Wright at BYU, and we had several discussions at a scholarly level.  I have attended a presentation by him at an annual Society of Biblical Literature meeting, and have tremendous respect for his scholarship.  I know his student David E. Bokovoy,, and likewise respect him.  I do not base my evaluation of the BofM on some narrow or shallow basis, as I have shown in my “The Preposterous Book of Mormon: A Singular Advantage,” lecture, August 8, 2014, at the annual FAIRMORMON Conference, Provo, Utah, online at http://www.fairmormon.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/PREPOSTEROUS-BOOK-OF-MORMON.pdf .  That is merely a teaser for a much more encompassing and multifaceted approach to the BofM.

I do think that Benjamin's explicit Christianity, informed as it is by the New Testament and centuries of Christian theological reflection, is a glaring anachronism.

Again, a question of language and idiom.  The NT terminology to which you refer is based on KJV translation committee work which was not shared with the separate OT translation committees.  This was exacerbated by centuries of English Bible translation work by Wycliffe, Tyndale, and others.  There was actually no reason for there to have been a separate set of technical religious terms used for the OT and NT -- which now leads well-meaning readers to understand them so differently.  Certainly Jesus did not use a separate lingo or idiom, and he did not speak the NT Greek texts which now attempt  to quote him.  The upshot is that what Benjamin says is in no way anachronistic due to that language already being inherent in ancient pre-exilic Judaism.  It is "glaring" on the surface, and many articles have mentioned it, but what was needed was a closer and systematic look.

 

[Nevo]

7 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

But what about these realistic touches, such as those I mention in my little essay?

You mention a scene in the San Bartolo mural, circa 100 BC, where the Maize God sits enthroned on a "wooden scaffold . . . the same throne depicted in the coronation of Maya kings for centuries." You then write: "Those familiar with King Benjamin’s account should notice the reference to the Tower associated with the coronation (see Mos. 2:7)." But the Book of Mormon doesn't associate the tower with coronation. When the people assemble at the temple "to hear the words which king Benjamin should speak unto them" (Mosiah 2:1)—which will include proclaiming Mosiah as the new king (1:10)—there is no tower. Apparently there are no plans for a tower. According to Mosiah 2:7, Benjamin only decides to build a tower after he sees that he won't be able to teach everyone from within the walls of the temple. The tower is Plan B: "For the multitude being so great that King Benjamin could not teach them all within the walls of the temple, therefore he caused a tower to be erected, that thereby his people might hear the words which he should speak unto them." The tower isn't presented as having a ceremonial function; it's simply a speaker's platform.

So I see your 

and raise you a

 

As another possible point of contact, you note that Mayans had "screenfold books" and that King Benjamin invited his hearers to "open . . . your minds that the mysteries of God may be unfolded to your view" (2:9). I can't tell if you're being serious here or not, but I would point out that the expression "unfolded to your view" isn't out of place in early nineteenth-century sermons.

You write: "Professors Szink and Welch have compared the references to 'drive him away, and cast him out' (Mos. 5:14) to the action in the scapegoat ritual form the Day of Atonement. This in turn, resonates with the imagery of the defeated Bird God at San Bartalo." Even if one accepts Szink and Welch's suggestion that scapegoat imagery may lie behind Mosiah 5:14 (which I do not), I'm not sure how that relates to the slain Bird God. In any case, the animal in question in Mosiah 5:14 isn't a goat or a bird—it's a neighbor's stray *** (another anachronism). Szink and Welch acknowledge that an *** isn't a goat and that the *** doesn't bear away the community's sin but they hasten to add that "asses were commonly used in covenant-making ceremonies during the second-millennium B.C. in Mesopotamia." What's two millennia and different hemispheres among friends, right?

You summarize as follows: "None of these parallels ought to be seen as proof, but as demonstration that major elements and themes from the Mosiah account fit comfortably with both the roots in Ancient Israel but also in the ancient American setting that it claims for itself." I agree with the first part of your statement. But, in my view, the arguments you've advanced fall well short of demonstrating that major elements and themes from King Benjamin's sermon fit comfortably within an ancient context.

I'll get to Nibley's "36 step coronation pattern" tomorrow. Time for bed.

[Tacenda]

On 7/11/2016 at 4:03 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

In order to make that comparison one would have to at least make as careful a study of it as Hugh Nibley or Grant Hardy (to name only 2 noreworthy examples) have done.  Based on his own even-handed work, Grant Hardy has said:

 

 

 

The suggestion by Nibley that it is as intricate as a Swiss watch may even be an understatement.  To my mind it is far more complex at so many levels as to beggar any sort of easy comparison.  By the preponderance of secular evidence alone, the BofM appears to be authentically historical.  Hands down.

Would it still be that complex if the over 100 thousand changes to the Book of Mormon had not taken place?