sunstoned Posted July 5, 2018 Posted July 5, 2018 12 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: Are you asking for the degrees and dates rec'd by the scholars listed by Dahle? I was looking for evidence of scholarship from peer reviewed journal submissions.
Robert F. Smith Posted July 5, 2018 Posted July 5, 2018 24 minutes ago, sunstoned said: I was looking for evidence of scholarship from peer reviewed journal submissions. Dahle provided many citations to Bowen, whose detailed articles in Interpreter are all peer reviewed, and that applies to most of the articles by others that Dahle listed. The more important issue is whether those scholars cited by Dahle actually provide adequate sources. Generally, when a Mormon scholar says something, it is immediately suspect and likely to be discounted. So Mormon scholars naturally have to carefully provided "gentile" respectability (as Nibley used to say). That is patently unfair, but necessary.
jpv Posted July 5, 2018 Posted July 5, 2018 On 7/3/2018 at 8:27 PM, jkwilliams said: Thanks for that, Nevo. I once tried to find Danish etymology for Book of Mormon names and had quite a lot of success. It’s telling that at least one reputable scholar who is well-versed in the Book of Mormon is nonplussed by these alleged Hebrew and Egyptian names. Him being exmo is at least as biased as Bowen.
Thinking Posted July 5, 2018 Posted July 5, 2018 1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said: Maybe blind faith -- the sort of faith which does not require additional buttressing (additional evidence of some sort). I realize that there can never be a faith completely unaided or unaffected by other considerations. After all, we do live in the real world and are influenced by all manner of social and physical constraints. That is similar to how I would define it. I learned in seminary that faith is not blind (or naked). Quote But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right. But if it be not right you shall have no such feelings, but you shall have a stupor of thought that shall cause you to forget the thing which is wrong; therefore, you cannot write that which is sacred save it be given you from me. D&C 9:8-9 We were encouraged to try to figure out what the answer was before asking God.
jkwilliams Posted July 5, 2018 Posted July 5, 2018 7 hours ago, jpv said: Him being exmo is at least as biased as Bowen. Who said Bowen is biased? It's reasonable to ask that there be some corroboration for his findings. 1
Ryan Dahle Posted July 5, 2018 Author Posted July 5, 2018 21 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: You have provided a great many test cases. Perhaps too many for anyone to control in this conversation. But worst of all, you are making the assumption that Joseph Smith could somehow be an issue in all this. Yet we know that the BofM was generated initially a couple of centuries before Joseph when EModEnglish was in style and normally available to learned men of the time (that is, it was the style of English normal then, but which had become extinct by Joseph's day). So, it would seem that Joseph is not part of this discussion, and cannot be appealed to as either knowledgeable or ignorant of such things. The etymological and wordplay phenomena must therefore be considered in an Early Modern English context or milieu. As for the quantity of test cases. I'm not suggesting that anyone engage ALL of the evidence for wordplay in the Book of Mormon. I simply provided a list of examples, from which anyone is able to sample evidences. I thought that was fairly clear in the OP. As for EModE, I think, from past discussions, that you know I heartily endorse the pervasive presence of EModE in the Book of Mormon and that I believe Joseph Smith is not responsible for the English translation of the text (except in the sense that he read it off to his scribes). However, assuming that the text was "generated initially a couple of centuries before Joseph when EModEnglish was in style" is not, by any means, a reliable starting point. What we can be very confident in is that the EModE aspect of the text is supernatural in nature. What we can't be confident about is when and how this translation initially took place or by whom. We simply don't know enough about what is happening on the other side of the veil, how languages work there, and how God uses his post-mortal servants to influence things on this side of the veil. Was the text translated by Tyndale, Moroni, a team of eclectic translators, the Holy Ghost, a living, breathing, 16th/17 century mortal, or some other entity? We simply don't know. Was its target audience just for 19th century Americans or for English speakers on both sides of the veil from a variety of time periods? Again, we don't know. Until we know more, we don't have a good idea about when the "text was generated initially" or what its translation goals entailed. As for the idea that Joseph shouldn't be part of this discussion, that only works for those who hold to the assumption that the EModE features of the text require a supernatural explanation. I suspect that the people I want feedback from don't hold that assumption, and therefore Joseph Smith is very much a part of the discussion. The assumption held by most of the people I'm looking for feedback from is that Joseph spontaneously created the Book of Mormon on the fly using his own raw, creative abilities, perhaps after mulling the story of the Book of Mormon for years before the translation. So I'm meeting them on their grounds, not imposing my assumptions upon them from the start. I see EModE as a separate line of evidence that supports the same conclusion as the evidence that the author of the text was familiar with Hebrew and Egyptian--in both cases, it seems clear that the author of the text was familiar with linguistic knowledge that Joseph Smith simply wouldn't have had. 1
stemelbow Posted July 5, 2018 Posted July 5, 2018 On 7/3/2018 at 6:09 PM, Ryan Dahle said: Egyptian 1. Deseret “DESERET” online at https://onoma.lib.byu.edu/index.php/DESERET Nibley, Hugh W., “There were Jaredites III,” (Improvement Era, April 1965). Nibley, World of the Jaredites, (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book: 1988) p. 192. I'm not expert in any sense on this stuff. For sure. But I see nothing in this that provides any evidence for Joseph Smith's story. As is quoted from Nibley "If EGYPTIAN may be appealed to, dšr.t, “red (land),” the name of Upper EGYPT, of which the symbol was the bee, and the king’s crown (the dšr.t-crown) was an elongated beehive shape (and peasant houses were similarly shaped). So we start off with a big "If" and then by assuming that we get an Egyptian allusion to a king's crown that was shaped like a beehive? I would definitely invoke Wright's statement on this. It is no wonder there are possible connections to make...such would always be the case. On 7/3/2018 at 6:09 PM, Ryan Dahle said: 2. Giddianhi Matthew L. Bowen, “‘Swearing by Their Everlasting Maker’: Some Notes on Paanchi and Giddianhi,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 28 (2018): 155–170. from Bowen: Quote From the beginning of the abridged Book of Helaman, much of Mormon’s remaining narrative history details the formation, development, and proliferation of oath-bound secret combinations among the Nephites and their eventual fatal impact on Nephite society. The common Egyptian lexeme ʿnḫ — which as a verb means “to live” and as a noun denotes “life”1 — also denotes “to swear”2 as a verb and “oath”3 as a noun and constitutes a common onomastic element. Even in its primary meaning, “to live,” the use of ʿnḫ is attested abundantly in oaths during Lehi’s time (cf. the Late Egyptian oath-formula ʿnḫ n=i NN, “As NN lives for me”). http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/swearing-by-their-everlasting-maker-some-notes-on-paanchi-and-giddianhi/ So in Lehi's day there is evidence in Egyptian that 'nh' could in some cases at least, say something about "to swear" "oath" and "to live"/ I can't connect in my head how that has anything to do with names given to people who made oaths hundreds of years later? So this is the abridger of the work had in mind Egyptian meaning for a sound from perhaps a thousand years earlier and made up names for people who also lived some couple hundred years before the abridger so their names could provide some allusion to the story which their lives exhibited? That feels like more of a tenuous connection then the first one to me. again from Bowen: Quote He read and wrote the epistolary oaths of men like Giddianhi (and of course read and wrote much more!). He had also read the account of Cainitic oaths from the brass plates (see especially Helaman 6). Mormon had witnessed for himself the importance of Jesus’s charge to the Nephites and Lamanites at the temple in Bountiful: “swear not at all” (see 3 Nephi 12:33–37; cf. Matthew 5:33–37).40 Perhaps this is what led him to repent of his own oath. The oath (cf. ʿnḫ) first sworn in support of Paanchi (“the living one”) by his supporters, invoking the life of “their everlasting maker” [Page 170]culminated in the eventual death of the Nephites as a society. The “oaths” that the Nephites swore against their enemies differed little from the epistolary oaths of Giddianhi, and their fate differed little from his (compare 3 Nephi 4:14 with Mormon 4:5). The Nephites became like those Judahites who had violated the Lord’s covenant in Jeremiah 34:18– 20: “their dead bodies [became] meat unto the fowls of the heaven, and to the beasts of the earth” (cf. Mormon 6:15). I'm not saying that there's nothing interesting in this. What I am saying though is that this can't possible constitute evidence for Joseph's claim that the bom was written anciently in the americas On 7/3/2018 at 6:09 PM, Ryan Dahle said: 3. Irreantum Book of Mormon Central, “Why Would Nephi Call the Ocean ‘Irreantum’? (1 Nephi 17:5),” KnoWhy 20 (January 27, 2016). Paul Y. Hoskisson with Brian M. Hauglid and John Gee, “What’s in a Name? Irreantum,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 11, no. 1 (2002): 90–93, 114–15. Quote Robert Smith writes: The closest to Irreantum is the Egyptian name . . . for the “Orontes,” the largest river in Syria, site of the great battle of Ramses II against the Hittites, at Qadesh. https://knowhy.bookofmormoncentral.org/content/why-would-nephi-call-the-ocean-irreantum So we found an Egyptian name for a river that can loosely look like a word that means "many waters" in the BoM? Did Lehi know about this river? If so, why did he change the name of the river to name this place they happened upon? On 7/3/2018 at 6:09 PM, Ryan Dahle said: 4. Mary Matthew L. Bowen, “‘Most Desirable Above All Things’: Onomastic Play on Mary and Mormon in the Book of Mormon,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 13 (2015): 27–61. Quote The connection between “love” and “desire” in this instance may in fact turn on the polysemy (range of meaning) of the Egyptian lexeme mr(i) (“love,” “desire”) from which the name Mary is derived. http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/most-desirable-above-all-things-onomastic-play-on-mary-and-mormon-in-the-book-of-mormon/ Another big "if" we have to assume that there was Egyptian meaning to the name Mary that was in Joseph's day already identified as Christ's mother. I'm not sure how any believer is to take this as a serious piece of evidence for the BoM on such grounds. A lady named Mary is said to have been Christ's mother, not because of the anachronism found in the BoM. That seems silly. On 7/3/2018 at 6:09 PM, Ryan Dahle said: 5. Mormon Matthew L. Bowen, “‘Most Desirable Above All Things’: Onomastic Play on Mary and Mormon in the Book of Mormon,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 13 (2015): 27–61. I'm really struggling to see how this is evidence of anything at all. Quote The Egyptian element mr(i), from which the name “Mary” is derived, is also most plausibly the first element in the name “Mormon” as Hugh Nibley proposed long ago This is exactly backwards from what evidence is. Saying mr(I) is plausibly the first element...is suggesting that we are taking a BoM name and trying to figure out why and how it's used in the BoM what sound element in Egyptian might possibly have been in consideration when the name was given. That is only evidence that we can try our best to find any additional meaning to any words ever used, if you ask me. I would continue but this is tiring at this point. And, having been previously read up on some of this, I'm not sure there is anything in the rest that is worth debating. But I gave what I did above. It is likely as dismissed by a believer as the pieces describing these evidences are non-beleivers. On 7/3/2018 at 6:09 PM, Ryan Dahle said: 6. Nephi Matthew L. Bowen, “‘O Ye Fair Ones’ – Revisited,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 20 (2016): 315–344. Matthew L. Bowen, “Nephi’s Good Inclusio,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 17 (2016): 181–195. Matthew L. Bowen, “‘He Is a Good Man’: The Fulfillment of Helaman 5:6–7 in Helaman 8:7 and 11:18–19,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 17 (2016). Matthew L. Bowen, “‘O Ye Fair Ones’: An Additional Note on the Meaning of the Name Nephi," Insights 23, no. 6 (2003). Matthew L. Bowen, “Internal Textual Evidence for the Egyptian Origin of Nephi’s Name,” Insights 22, no. 11 (2002). John Gee, “Four Suggestions on the Origin of the Name Nephi,” in Pressing Forward with the Book of Mormon: The FARMS Updates of the 1990’s, ed. John W. Welch and Melvin J. Thorne (Provo, UT: FARMS, 1999), 1–5. John Gee, “Notes and Communications: A Note on the Name Nephi,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 1, no. 1 (1992): 189–191. 7. Paanchi Matthew L. Bowen, “‘Swearing by Their Everlasting Maker’: Some Notes on Paanchi and Giddianhi,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 28 (2018): 155–170. 8. Rod/Sword Matthew L. Bowen, “‘What Meaneth the Rod of Iron?’” Insights, 25, no. 2 (2005). Hebrew 1. Abish Matthew L. Bowen, “Father Is a Man: The Remarkable Mention of the Name Abish in Alma 19:16 and Its Narrative Context,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 14 (2015): 77–93. 2. Abraham Matthew L. Bowen, “‘In the Mount of the Lord It Shall Be Seen” and “Provided”: Theophany and Sacrifice as the Etiological Foundation of the Temple in Israelite and Latter-day Saint Tradition,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 5 (2013): 201–223. 3. Aminadab Matthew L. Bowen, “‘My People Are Willing’: The Mention of Aminadab in the Narrative Context of Helaman 5–6,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 19 (2016): 83–107. 4. Alma Matthew L. Bowen, “‘He Did Go About Secretly’: Additional Thoughts on the Literary Use of Alma’s Name,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 27 (2017): 197–212. Matthew L. Bowen, “The Scalp of Your Head: Polysemy in Alma 44:14–18,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 20 (2016): 39–45. Matthew L. Bowen, “Alma — Young Man, Hidden Prophet,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 19 (2016): 343–353. Matthew L. Bowen, “‘And He Was a Young Man’: The Literary Preservation of Alma’s Autobiographical Wordplay,” Insights 30, no. 4 (2010). 5. Benjamin Matthew L. Bowen, “Onomastic Wordplay on Joseph and Benjamin and Gezera Shawa in the Book of Mormon,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 18 (2016): 255–273. Matthew L. Bowen “Becoming Sons and Daughters at God's Right Hand: King Benjamin's Rhetorical Wordplay on His Own Name,” Journal of the Book of Mormon and Other Restoration Scripture 21, no. 2 (2012). 6. Cain Matthew L. Bowen, “Getting Cain and Gain,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 15 (2015): 115–141. 7. Cezoram Matthew L. Bowen, “‘See That Ye Are Not Lifted Up: The Name Zoram and Its Paronomastic Pejoration,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 19 (2016): 109–143. 8. Ephraim Matthew L. Bowen and Loren Blake Spendlove, “‘Thou Art the Fruit of My Loins’: The Interrelated Symbolism and Meanings of the Names Joseph and Ephraim in Ancient Scripture,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 28 (2018): 273–298. 9. Enos Matthew L. Bowen, “‘I Kneeled Down Before My Maker’: Allusions to Esau in the Book of Enos,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 27 (2017): 29–56. Matthew L. Bowen, “Wordplay on the Name ‘Enos’,” Insights 26, no. 3 (2006). 10. Esau Matthew L. Bowen, “‘I Kneeled Down Before My Maker’: Allusions to Esau in the Book of Enos,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 27 (2017): 29–56. 11. Garb of Secrecy John A. Tvedtnes and Matthew Roper, “One Small Step,” FARMS Review 15, no. 1 (2003): 147–99. 12. Giddianhi Matthew L. Bowen, “‘Swearing by Their Everlasting Maker’: Some Notes on Paanchi and Giddianhi,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 28 (2018): 155–170. 13. Gad[d]ianton Matthew L. Bowen, “‘Swearing by Their Everlasting Maker’: Some Notes on Paanchi and Giddianhi,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 28 (2018): 155–170. John W. Welch and Kelly Ward, “Thieves and Robbers,” in Reexploring the Book of Mormon: A Decade of New Research, ed. John W. Welch (Salt Lake City and Provo, UT: Deseret Book and FARMS, 1992), 248–249. 14. Heshlon Matthew L. Bowen, “Place of Crushing: The Literary Function of Heshlon in Ether 13:25-31,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 14 (2015): 227–239. 15. Irreantum Book of Mormon Central, “Why Would Nephi Call the Ocean ‘Irreantum’? (1 Nephi 17:5),” KnoWhy 20 (January 27, 2016). Paul Y. Hoskisson with Brian M. Hauglid and John Gee, “What’s in a Name? Irreantum,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 11, no. 1 (2002): 90–93, 114–15. 16. Isabel Gordon C. Thomasson, “What’s in a Name? Book of Mormon Language, Names, and [Metonymic] Naming,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 3, no. 1 (1994): 15. 17. Ishmael Matthew L. Bowen, “‘If Ye Will Hearken’: Lehi’s Rhetorical Wordplay on Ishmael in 2 Nephi 1:28–29 and Its Implications,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 25 (2017): 157–189. 18. Jacob Matthew L. Bowen, “Jacob’s Protector,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 27 (2017): 229–256. 19. Jershon Matthew L. Bowen, “‘They Were Moved with Compassion’ (Alma 27:4; 53:13): Toponymic Wordplay on Zarahemla and Jershon,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 18 (2016): 233–253. Stephen D. Ricks, “A Nickname and a Slam Dunk: Notes on the Book of Mormon Names Zeezrom and Jershon,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 8 (2014): 191–194. 20. Judah/Jews Matthew L. Bowen, “‘What Thank They the Jews’? (2 Nephi 29:4): A Note on the Name “Judah” and Antisemitism,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 12 (2014): 111–125. 21. Joseph Matthew L. Bowen and Loren Blake Spendlove, “‘Thou Art the Fruit of My Loins’: The Interrelated Symbolism and Meanings of the Names Joseph and Ephraim in Ancient Scripture,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 28 (2018): 273–298. Matthew L. Bowen, “‘Their Anger Did Increase Against Me’: Nephi’s Autobiographical Permutation of a Biblical Wordplay on the Name Joseph,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 23 (2017): 115–136. Matthew L. Bowen, “Onomastic Wordplay on Joseph and Benjamin and Gezera Shawa in the Book of Mormon,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 18 (2016): 255–273. Matthew L. Bowen, “‘He Shall Add’: Wordplay on the Name Joseph and an Early Instance of Gezera Shawa in the Book of Mormon,” Insights 30, no. 2 (2010). 22. Laban Taylor Halverson, “Reading 1 Nephi With Wisdom,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 22 (2016): 279–293. Gordon C. Thomasson, “What’s in a Name? Book of Mormon Language, Names, and [Metonymic] Naming,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 3, no. 1 (1994): 15. 23. Mosiah “MOSIAH,” online at https://onoma.lib.byu.edu/index.php/MOSIAH John W. Welch, “What Was a ‘Mosiah’?” in Reexploring the Book of Mormon, ed. John W. Welch (Provo, UT: FARMS, 1992), 105–107. John Sawyer, “What Was a Mošiaʿ?” Vetus Testamentum 15 (1965): 475–86. 24. Nahom (also works in ancient Arabic and may be a bilingual wordplay) Alan Goff, “Mourning, Consolation, and Repentance at Nahom,” in Rediscovering the Book of Mormon: Insights You May Have Missed Before, ed. John L. Sorenson and Melvin J. Thorne (Salt Lake City and Provo, UT: Deseret Book and FARMS, 1991), 92–99. 25. Noah Matthew L. Bowen, “‘This Son Shall Comfort Us’: An Onomastic Tale of Two Noahs,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 23 (2017): 263–298. 26. Rameumptom Matthew L. Bowen, “‘See That Ye Are Not Lifted Up: The Name Zoram and Its Paronomastic Pejoration,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 19 (2016): 109–143. 27. Rabbanah “RABBANAH” online at https://onoma.lib.byu.edu/index.php/RABBANAH. 28. Sebus Paul Y. Hoskisson, “What’s in a Name? Sebus,” Insights 32, no. 1 (2012): 3–4. 29. Seezoram Matthew L. Bowen, “‘See That Ye Are Not Lifted Up: The Name Zoram and Its Paronomastic Pejoration,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 19 (2016): 109–143. 30. Shilom Matthew L. Bowen, “‘Possess the Land in Peace’: Zeniff’s Ironic Wordplay on Shilom,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 28 (2018): 115–120. 31. Word/Things David E. Bokovoy, “The Word and the Seed: The Theological Use of Bibilical Creation in Alma 32,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 23 (2014): 12. 32. Zarahemla Matthew L. Bowen, “‘They Were Moved with Compassion’ (Alma 27:4; 53:13): Toponymic Wordplay on Zarahemla and Jershon,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 18 (2016): 233–253. 33. Zedekiah/Lord John W. Welch, “Chiasmus in Helaman 6:7–13,” Reexploring the Book of Mormon: A Decade of New Research, ed. John W. Welch (Salt Lake City and Provo, UT: Deseret Book and FARMS, 1992), 130–132. 34. Zeezrom Stephen D. Ricks, “A Nickname and a Slam Dunk: Notes on the Book of Mormon Names Zeezrom and Jershon,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 8 (2014): 191–194. Gordon C. Thomasson, “What’s in a Name? Book of Mormon Language, Names, and [Metonymic] Naming,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 3, no. 1 (1994): 15–16. 35. Zoram Matthew L. Bowen, “‘See That Ye Are Not Lifted Up: The Name Zoram and Its Paronomastic Pejoration,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 19 (2016): 109–143.
jkwilliams Posted July 5, 2018 Posted July 5, 2018 33 minutes ago, stemelbow said: I would continue but this is tiring at this point. And, having been previously read up on some of this, I'm not sure there is anything in the rest that is worth debating. But I gave what I did above. It is likely as dismissed by a believer as the pieces describing these evidences are non-beleivers. What is interesting to me is how different people approach the evidence, and what is "average to strong" to some, and why. For me, every time I delve into these things, they end up being much weaker and problematic than they are presented to be. Thus, "Jershon" is a "slam-dunk" to Stephen Ricks, whereas it seems pretty tenuous to me. Does being unimpressed by such evidence mean one's mind is closed?
Exiled Posted July 5, 2018 Posted July 5, 2018 11 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: What is interesting to me is how different people approach the evidence, and what is "average to strong" to some, and why. For me, every time I delve into these things, they end up being much weaker and problematic than they are presented to be. Thus, "Jershon" is a "slam-dunk" to Stephen Ricks, whereas it seems pretty tenuous to me. Does being unimpressed by such evidence mean one's mind is closed? Of course one's mind isn't closed if one doesn't view questionable evidence as others want. This bias issue can get abused as one can always claim any disagreement with a particular view is the result of bias. Bias creeps into who is called biased and it becomes like calling someone an anti for mere disagreement.
stemelbow Posted July 5, 2018 Posted July 5, 2018 19 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: What is interesting to me is how different people approach the evidence, and what is "average to strong" to some, and why. For me, every time I delve into these things, they end up being much weaker and problematic than they are presented to be. Thus, "Jershon" is a "slam-dunk" to Stephen Ricks, whereas it seems pretty tenuous to me. Does being unimpressed by such evidence mean one's mind is closed? It feels to me each one of these listed are tenuous connections at best. But it seems Dahle would say all of them added together makes them more powerful. On that I'd disagree. If they are all tenuous at best, then the sum of them are tenuous at best. Breaking each one down it seems each is an effort to say some word and name in the BoM could possibly have ancient connections, in part, to some word or concept found anciently. And yet, to even make the match from the BoM to the ancient terms is a stretch. mr(I), for instance, being meaningful to both Mary and Mormon feels like someone's connecting any two letters in any word to make the word mean something similar to what those two letters might represent. It's a whole bunch of "ifs" and "mights" and "possiblies" trying to be turned into evidence. It's circumstantial if anything. But these feels more tenuous than that.
jkwilliams Posted July 5, 2018 Posted July 5, 2018 2 minutes ago, stemelbow said: It feels to me each one of these listed are tenuous connections at best. But it seems Dahle would say all of them added together makes them more powerful. On that I'd disagree. If they are all tenuous at best, then the sum of them are tenuous at best. Breaking each one down it seems each is an effort to say some word and name in the BoM could possibly have ancient connections, in part, to some word or concept found anciently. And yet, to even make the match from the BoM to the ancient terms is a stretch. mr(I), for instance, being meaningful to both Mary and Mormon feels like someone's connecting any two letters in any word to make the word mean something similar to what those two letters might represent. It's a whole bunch of "ifs" and "mights" and "possiblies" trying to be turned into evidence. It's circumstantial if anything. But these feels more tenuous than that. I'm reminded of a line from a song: "Every girl that I've seen since looks just like you when I squint." In the same way, these evidences require a lot of squinting.
Ryan Dahle Posted July 5, 2018 Author Posted July 5, 2018 12 hours ago, jkwilliams said: I took him at his word, but he has responded with a glib dismissal. I think these kinds of issues can be discussed reasonably without appeal to naked faith, but I’m not seeing an attempt to do that. That’s fine. I have other things to do. I'm not sure what you mean by "glib dismissal." My response to your appraisal of Jershon was at least commensurate to your appraisal itself. You don't seem like you have taken any real time to understand how biblical scholars discuss wordplay in the Bible. Nor was your analysis of Jershon in any way serious or substantive. Let me dig a little deeper, though, since you seem to think your response merits a more substantive reply. Other than general lands of inheritance, by my count only three specific toponyms are discussed as being lands of inheritance in the Book of Mormon. We have Nephi, Ishmael, and the third, of course, is Jershon. However, Jershon is rather unique in that it is the only time a land that belonged to one group of people was being specifically set aside for another group and then given a toponymic designation. In other words, a major narrative theme arises with the unusual story about Jershon, which deals with taking in "others" and giving place for them. Yet, as Bowen notes, there seems to also be a wordplay dealing with the name Zarahemla ("seed of compassion"). So what we have is the Nephites in the land of Zarahemla ("seed of compassion") showing compassion and pity on the people of Ammon and giving them a place for inheritance which they call Jershon ("place of inheritance"). The same thing happens again when the people of Ammon in turn, give up lands of inheritance in Jershon ("land of inheritance") for the outcast Zoramites. So when you look at the question of probability, you have to take into account the narrative details of the story, and not just start crunching numbers for how often the phrase "land of inheritance" shows up in the Book of Mormon. There is definitely something unique and narratively significant in the text dealing with Jershon as a land of inheritance. In order for your analysis to be fair, you have to take this into consideration. For instance, you could ask your question this way: how many lands of inheritance were specifically set aside for outcast groups in the Book of Mormon? Just one: Jershon. The fact that this happens twice in Jershon increases the likelihood that the name is meant to evoke what happened there. And the fact that only three specific toponyms are associated with a place of inheritance, to begin with, makes the potential for false positives even less likely. Sure, you could argue that we can't prove that the author labeled this place Jershon because the Hebrew name enhanced its associated narrative theme. But you could make the same case against many other toponymic wordplays in the Bible. The reality is that this is exactly the type of thing we see in Biblical wordplays, and the unique features of the story make it an unlikely coincidence. When you look at the many other wordplays I brought up, you will find the same thing--a lot of unlikely coincidences stacking up in favor of the notion that whoever wrote this text was familiar with Hebrew and Egyptian.
Ryan Dahle Posted July 5, 2018 Author Posted July 5, 2018 1 hour ago, stemelbow said: I would continue but this is tiring at this point. And, having been previously read up on some of this, I'm not sure there is anything in the rest that is worth debating. But I gave what I did above. It is likely as dismissed by a believer as the pieces describing these evidences are non-beleivers. Your full response was definitely interesting. Thanks.
jkwilliams Posted July 5, 2018 Posted July 5, 2018 Just now, Ryan Dahle said: I'm not sure what you mean by "glib dismissal." My response to your appraisal of Jershon was at least commensurate to your appraisal itself. You don't seem like you have taken any real time to understand how biblical scholars discuss wordplay in the Bible. Nor was your analysis of Jershon in any way serious or substantive. Let me dig a little deeper, though, since you seem to think your response merits a more substantive reply. Other than general lands of inheritance, by my count only three specific toponyms are discussed as being lands of inheritance in the Book of Mormon. We have Nephi, Ishmael, and the third, of course, is Jershon. However, Jershon is rather unique in that it is the only time a land that belonged to one group of people was being specifically set aside for another group and then given a toponymic designation. In other words, a major narrative theme arises with the unusual story about Jershon, which deals with taking in "others" and giving place for them. Yet, as Bowen notes, there seems to also be a wordplay dealing with the name Zarahemla ("seed of compassion"). So what we have is the Nephites in the land of Zarahemla ("seed of compassion") showing compassion and pity on the people of Ammon and giving them a place for inheritance which they call Jershon ("place of inheritance"). The same thing happens again when the people of Ammon in turn, give up lands of inheritance in Jershon ("land of inheritance") for the outcast Zoramites. So when you look at the question of probability, you have to take into account the narrative details of the story, and not just start crunching numbers for how often the phrase "land of inheritance" shows up in the Book of Mormon. There is definitely something unique and narratively significant in the text dealing with Jershon as a land of inheritance. In order for your analysis to be fair, you have to take this into consideration. For instance, you could ask your question this way: how many lands of inheritance were specifically set aside for outcast groups in the Book of Mormon? Just one: Jershon. The fact that this happens twice in Jershon increases the likelihood that the name is meant to evoke what happened there. And the fact that only three specific toponyms are associated with a place of inheritance, to begin with, makes the potential for false positives even less likely. Sure, you could argue that we can't prove that the author labeled this place Jershon because the Hebrew name enhanced its associated narrative theme. But you could make the same case against many other toponymic wordplays in the Bible. The reality is that this is exactly the type of thing we see in Biblical wordplays, and the unique features of the story make it an unlikely coincidence. When you look at the many other wordplays I brought up, you will find the same thing--a lot of unlikely coincidences stacking up in favor of the notion that whoever wrote this text was familiar with Hebrew and Egyptian. The one thing I appreciate about this discussion is that it's motivated me to look at actual research on Biblical examples of such wordplay. The difference here seems to lie in the difficulty of divining the original Hebrew or Reformed Egyptian from the English.
Ryan Dahle Posted July 5, 2018 Author Posted July 5, 2018 14 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: The one thing I appreciate about this discussion is that it's motivated me to look at actual research on Biblical examples of such wordplay. The difference here seems to lie in the difficulty of divining the original Hebrew or Reformed Egyptian from the English. The difficulty is obviously obviated, however, when it comes to transliterated terms like Jershon and Zarahemlah. And this concern is especially irrelevant when the BofM evokes wordplay for biblical names like Noah, Mary, Joseph, Jacob, etc.
jkwilliams Posted July 5, 2018 Posted July 5, 2018 2 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said: The difficulty is obviously obviated, however, when it comes to transliterated terms like Jershon and Zarahemlah. And this concern is especially irrelevant when the BofM evokes wordplay for biblical names like Noah, Mary, Joseph, Jacob, etc. It's the same problem, though. Take Jershon for example. First you have to decide that Jershon is likely to be a specific Hebrew derivation, and then you have to decide that the English word "inheritance" is a reference back to that proposed Hebrew derivation. It's interesting, yes, but I'm with Stem that it's not much of a slam-dunk.
Robert F. Smith Posted July 5, 2018 Posted July 5, 2018 2 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said: .............................................. What we can be very confident in is that the EModE aspect of the text is supernatural in nature. What we can't be confident about is when and how this translation initially took place or by whom. We simply don't know enough about what is happening on the other side of the veil, how languages work there, and how God uses his post-mortal servants to influence things on this side of the veil. As for the idea that Joseph shouldn't be part of this discussion, that only works for those who hold to the assumption that the EModE features of the text require a supernatural explanation. I suspect that the people I want feedback from don't hold that assumption, and therefore Joseph Smith is very much a part of the discussion. ..................................... LDS theology rejects supernaturalism. So whatever method is used may be very advanced, but it is sure to be naturally based. We used to think that the translation was inspired in Joseph's own time. Nothing has changed in that assumption, except that we now place the translation a couple centuries earlier. The method would presumably be the same. 2 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said: Was the text translated by Tyndale, Moroni, a team of eclectic translators, the Holy Ghost, a living, breathing, 16th/17 century mortal, or some other entity? We simply don't know. Was its target audience just for 19th century Americans or for English speakers on both sides of the veil from a variety of time periods? Again, we don't know. Until we know more, we don't have a good idea about when the "text was generated initially" or what its translation goals entailed. Since God normally works through human agents, I doubt that he would utilize a resurrected being -- except to deliver the plates and the means of translation to someone chosen for that task. That's how God works. The same applies, for example, to temple work. Humans have to do it here and now.
Robert F. Smith Posted July 5, 2018 Posted July 5, 2018 13 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: It's the same problem, though. Take Jershon for example. First you have to decide that Jershon is likely to be a specific Hebrew derivation, and then you have to decide that the English word "inheritance" is a reference back to that proposed Hebrew derivation. It's interesting, yes, but I'm with Stem that it's not much of a slam-dunk. There are several names in the BofM which are specifically defined in the text. Would it be better to present all of those for examination? Would that be more diagnostic? I recall Brent Metcalfe making that request at an SEHA meeting at BYU in about 1983, and I thought it a legitimate idea at the time. Probably only professional Hebraists would find the case for Jershon convincing, and we don't have many Hebraists on this board. 1
Ryan Dahle Posted July 5, 2018 Author Posted July 5, 2018 17 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: It's the same problem, though. Take Jershon for example. First you have to decide that Jershon is likely to be a specific Hebrew derivation, and then you have to decide that the English word "inheritance" is a reference back to that proposed Hebrew derivation. It's interesting, yes, but I'm with Stem that it's not much of a slam-dunk. Well, I'm not the one deciding whether or not it is a likely Hebrew designation. I'll leave that to those who have training in Hebrew. Are you saying that you don't think this transliterated term works very well in this case? Do you have some other Hebrew term that you think is a more likely fit?
jkwilliams Posted July 5, 2018 Posted July 5, 2018 Just now, Robert F. Smith said: There are several names in the BofM which are specifically defined in the text. Would it be better to present all of those for examination? Would that be more diagnostic? I recall Brent Metcalfe making that request at an SEHA meeting at BYU in about 1983, and I thought it a legitimate idea at the time. Probably only professional Hebraists would find the case for Jershon convincing, and we don't have many Hebraists on this board. Indeed, as I said at the outset, it's not anywhere near my area of expertise. That said, I think I have a grasp of the argument Bowen et al. are making. And I am indebted to Ryan for getting me interested in Hebrew wordplay in the Bible. Interesting stuff. 1
Robert F. Smith Posted July 5, 2018 Posted July 5, 2018 2 hours ago, jkwilliams said: Who said Bowen is biased? It's reasonable to ask that there be some corroboration for his findings. Isn't everyone biased to some extent? And how do we corroborate any of Bowen's claims? Hugh Nibley always recommended that we find corroboration in the writings of non-Mormon scholars ("gentile respectability"). However, do we actually know whether a non-Mormon opinion is justified? Without being conversant with the special field of inquiry, how would we know? 1
jkwilliams Posted July 5, 2018 Posted July 5, 2018 Just now, Ryan Dahle said: Well, I'm not the one deciding whether or not it is a likely Hebrew designation. I'll leave that to those who have training in Hebrew. Are you saying that you don't think this transliterated term works very well in this case? Do you have some other Hebrew term that you think is a more likely fit? Actually you are the one deciding that because you are accepting at face value the explanation from another person, despite your not having any expertise in the area. Bowen may well be spot on. I don't know. That's been my point all along: you trust scholars who reinforce your beliefs, and that's natural. I find this kind of stuff interesting, but peripheral to the bigger picture of situating the text of the Book of Mormon in time and place. 1
jkwilliams Posted July 5, 2018 Posted July 5, 2018 Just now, Robert F. Smith said: Isn't everyone biased to some extent? And how do we corroborate any of Bowen's claims? Hugh Nibley always recommended that we find corroboration in the writings of non-Mormon scholars ("gentile respectability"). However, do we actually know whether a non-Mormon opinion is justified? Without being conversant with the special field of inquiry, how would we know? Again, my point exactly. All we have is one person's statements, and we have no way of knowing whether they are justified, let alone a slam dunk. They are interesting and may merit further research, but at this stage, they are tenuous assertions.
Ryan Dahle Posted July 5, 2018 Author Posted July 5, 2018 9 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: LDS theology rejects supernaturalism. So whatever method is used may be very advanced, but it is sure to be naturally based. We used to think that the translation was inspired in Joseph's own time. Nothing has changed in that assumption, except that we now place the translation a couple centuries earlier. The method would presumably be the same. I think you know what I meant: supernatural (miraculous, outside the bounds of known natural law, etc.). I'm sure there are laws that explain it, they just aren't laws known to mortals. The miracle isn't necessarily the nature of the translation itself (although there may be aspects of it still that are beyond any mortal), but how such a translation would flow out of Joseph Smith's mouth, day after day, in a rapid paced dictation, apparently without notes or reference materials. There is a reason why Welch's book Opening the Heavens is subtitled "Accounts of Divine Manifestations." 14 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: Since God normally works through human agents, I doubt that he would utilize a resurrected being -- except to deliver the plates and the means of translation to someone chosen for that task. That's how God works. The same applies, for example, to temple work. Humans have to do it here and now. Again, an unnecessary assumption. God usually uses human beings for mortal tasks. However, when it comes to profound miracles, angelic beings are often involved, sometimes resurrected, sometimes translated, and sometimes as spirits. Humans are only responsible for the human aspect of temple work, but how many stories have we heard about people getting help from the other side in such projects. Joseph Smith was responsible for protecting the plates and dictating the translation. However, it seems quite unnecessary and premature to assume that the translation of the text was accomplished in the EModE period. It's possible, certainly, but definitely not a necessary, or in my opinion, even a likely assumption.
CA Steve Posted July 5, 2018 Posted July 5, 2018 (edited) Since I have not seen anyone contesting the presence of EMod in the Book Of Mormon, I am fine with accepting that it occurs. But in no way does the fact it occurs in the Book of Mormon prove a previous translation. To suggest that it does is such a radical claim that it would require extraordinary evidence that rejected all other possibilities, no mater how remote.One such possibility, as I have mentioned, is that in trying to mimic Biblical style Joseph unintentionally wrote/translated in EMod. That explanation does not require that EMod be known or anyone be familiar with it, it just means Joseph spoke that way when he was trying to mimic biblical sounding text. It is a much more reasonable explanation than suggesting a spirit world translation. And, given that numerous Book of Mormon defenses depend on remote possibilities or as of yet, undiscovered evidences or explanation, such an explanation, that Joseph was unintentionally mimicking EMod, is just as likely, if not more likely, than some of the other Book of Mormon defenses we are asked to consider. If a spirit world translation is such a slam dunk, could we not expect Skousen and others who have found the EMod in the Book of Mormon, to present that explanation to the world at large? As far as I know he isn't even making such a claim and rightly so in my view. Secondly, if there was indeed such an English translation already available, why is Joseph staring at the reformed Egyptian on the plates? If he wasn't translating reformed Egyptian, what translation did he send with Martin Harris to show to Charles Anthon? Why make Joseph work out in his mind what the Reformed Egyptian said when he was going to be given words that were translated by someone else? And I do not buy the "God does not make it easy" reasoning, at least in the case of Joseph Smith. What with all the Joseph went through at this time, Moroni could have handed him a paper copy of the EMod translation and it still would have been an incredibly difficult period in Joseph's life. One cannot simply present evidence of something, make some sort of Deus ex machina claim for that evidence, and then demand others disprove it by providing other explanations. Edited July 5, 2018 by CA Steve
Recommended Posts