Daniel Peterson's Series on Horses in the Book of Mormon

[stemelbow]

19 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

I think that maybe a further exploration of the nature of evidence might help: 

https://archive.bookofmormoncentral.org/content/power-evidence-nurturing-faith 

 

Thanks,  Ryan, interesting enough read.   I certainly do think the question of whether something is evidence for a certain proposition carries degrees of subjectivity, and that's likely the nature of the disagreement.   

Let's say my son wakes up in the morning and notices his tree house is torn down.  His mother and I have no idea what happened we respond.  He sets out to find out what happened.   His data points are these:  

- his mother has said from the time it was built that it was an eyesore.   She wished he and I never took the project on.   

- the neighbor has complained a few times that he and his friends throw garbage in his yard when they play up there.  

- his older sister was jealous he had a place of his own. 

- my wife's gardening gloves were found in the wreckage. 

- his friends shoes were also in the mess. 

- the neighbors axe was also found nearby.  

- his sisters bookbag was also outside.  

He concludes susie B and her friends came and did it.   They stole the axe from the neighbor's garage.   His sisters bookbag was a plant.  His mom left her gloves underneath while doing yardwork.  His mom would never hurt him, he concluded.  His sister wouldn't do it either.  She would not go to such lengths.  I wouldn't do it because I helped build it.  His friend wouldn't do it because it was their no girls allowed club hangout.  She and her friends must have snuck out in the middle of the night and did it. Because they stink and have coodies.  

To him all the data points were evidence of his conclusion.  That's his perception.  

So as it is Hebraisms in the BoM don't evidence that the book is authentically ancient writ, to nonbelievers because they appear in a decidedly, if the story is true, in a very removed Hebrew land, hundreds of years removed from the culture.  In a language said not Hebrew but a hebrew/Egyptian hybrid unknown to us.  There's no telling if the hybrid inherently included hebraisms.  The people in the book,  it was being argued last week in these parts,  were soon swallowed by the peoples here because the people here were many and the intruders from Lehis company were few.  

Hebraisms are more logically explained by the notion of Joseph and co pulling from their environment.  Or better explained as a relic of inspiration.  

Also nahom isn't evidence because it's not a very good match,  could have been found on maps, and it's far better explained as a biblical variant.  

[Rajah Manchou]

52 minutes ago, smac97 said:

That's a pretty fair question.  BYU is not, or should not be, nonpartisan when it comes to the "fundamental faith claims of the LDS Church."

You'd have to first read Owen's article that was published by MI. It was a great article, respectfully written so as to not offend the fundamental faith claims of the LDS Church. 

https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1558&context=jbms

Read through it and identify which points might have ran against the faith of those of us at BYU. We can discuss those points.

52 minutes ago, smac97 said:

How is it you transmute that into Hamblin asking "why engage with scholars (like Paul Owen)"?

Instead of engaging with Owen and his arguments, Hamblin is suggesting that Owen's article did not belong in an MI publication. I feel if your earlier comments above were accurate, then we would have seen several LDS scholars engaging with Owen in a fruitful discussion. It didn't happen. Instead the discussion was about whether MI should publish Owen, or not.

52 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't understand.  Are you saying Paul Owens' article is a "counter-argument"?  If so, it is a counter-argument to what. Also, you seem to be suggesting that Owens' article is a "most challenging" counter-argument.  Is that your position?  What do you mean by "most challenging"?

Again, it'd be easier if you first read Owen's article.

Edited January 24, 2020 by Rajah Manchou

[smac97]

15 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

You'd have to first read Owen's article that was published in MI. It was a great article, respectfully written so as to not offend the fundamental faith claims of the LDS Church. 

I don't understand.  Are you saying that Owen's article does not, as Hamblin argues, "undermine fundamental faith claims of the LDS Church: such as the reality of Joseph Smith’s prophetic calling (as opposed to him being a religious genius), the ontological existence of Golden Plates (as opposed to Joseph lying, or hallucinating about such things), and the historicity of the Book of Mormon"?  

I appreciate that Owen was tactful.  And I certainly don't begrudge him his right to publish whatever he wants about the Book of Mormon.  But that is not Hamblin's point.

I think it is not correct to suggest that Owen was not disputing "the fundamental faith claims of the LDS Church."  I think that is what he was attempting.  And he was facilitated by the Maxwell Institute in that regard.  I find that troubling.

15 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1558&context=jbms

Read through it and identify which points might have ran against the faith of those of us at BYU. We can discuss those points.

Well, Gee and Hamblin raised some points.  His "Option 4" (pp. 96-100), in which he posits a variation of the "Inspired Fiction" theory.

15 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Instead of engaging with Owen and his arguments, Hamblin is suggesting that Owen's article did not belong in MI.

Yes.  But Gee addressed Owen (as noted by Hamblin, with links provided), so it's not like the article has been ignored.

Hamblin's post was not intended to "engag{e} with Owen and his arguments," but instead to question the propriety of the Maxwell Institute turning itself into a venue for publishing "articles—by Mormons, non-Mormons, or anti-Mormons, it makes no difference—whose arguments and conclusions undermine fundamental faith claims of the LDS Church: such as the reality of Joseph Smith’s prophetic calling (as opposed to him being a religious genius), the ontological existence of Golden Plates (as opposed to Joseph lying, or hallucinating about such things), and the historicity of the Book of Mormon."

Hamblin precedes this by specifically noting:

Quote

No one I know of objects to non-Mormons or anti-Mormons published books and articles.  There are numerous venues in which such scholars can publish.  They often produce interesting and insightful work.

And Midgley chimed in in the comments:

Quote

The justification for publishing an essay such as the one by Paul Owen is that the new primary purpose–the “new direction”–of the Maxwell Institute is now (and should always have been) making friends and gaining credibility with non-LDS scholars, and hence not in defending and explicating the Book of Mormon (and the Book of Abraham), since doing this will annoy those not of our faith. The way of gaining credibility with non-LDS scholars is, in part, by providing them with an LDS venue to set out their criticisms of our founding texts and generative events, without an LDS rejoinder.

But the fact is that those previously associated with the Maxwell Institute (earlier a.k.a. FARMS), who were three years ago either given the boot or brushed aside, were able to make numerous friends with non-LDS scholars without having to hide or compromise their faith commitments or by yielding to the opinions of our critics. We managed to do this with most everyone but the incorrigible Protestant countercult movement. In addition, evidence that LDS scholars need not compromise their faith to merit the respect of interested non-LDS scholars can be had by glancing at the contributors to the two volume Festschrift for Hugh Nibley published in 1990.

I think these are fair points, which can and should be raised (in addition to directly responding to Owen's article, which Gee did).

15 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

I feel if your comments above were accurate, then we would have seen several LDS scholars engaging with Owen in a fruitful discussion.

Well, perhaps, perhaps not.  Gee responded.  And Hamblin thinks that Owen's article is "so idiosyncratic that no one else accepts it."

Moreover, to the extent Owen presents a theory, it seems to be just a variation on the "Inspired Fiction" idea.  This concept has been extensively addressed by "LDS scholars," even to the point that an entire book was written pertaining to it: Historicity and the Latter-Day Saint Scriptures.

So it's not like Owen's theory is particularly novel, or even noteworthy in and of itself.  And while I would certainly not object to seeing more scholarly critiques of it, Hamblin chose to focus on what I think is a valid observation:

Quote

The first issue at hand is whether BYU, and by extension the LDS Church, should publish articles—by Mormons, non-Mormons, or anti-Mormons, it makes no difference—whose arguments and conclusions undermine fundamental faith claims of the LDS Church: such as the reality of Joseph Smith’s prophetic calling (as opposed to him being a religious genius), the ontological existence of Golden Plates (as opposed to Joseph lying, or hallucinating about such things), and the historicity of the Book of Mormon.  There are numerous venues such as Sunstone and Dialogue where such articles can be published; it’s not clear why we need another at BYU.  Be that as it may, the Maxwell Institute, is certainly free to publish whatever scholars or claims they’d like on these issues.  They are not free, however, to ignore the implications and ramifications that arise from their decision to publish articles whose conclusions reject fundamental LDS truth claims.

I think that issue deserves some attention and discussion.

15 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

It didn't happen.

It did happen.  John Gee critiqued Owen's article.

Also, Hamblin subsequently addressed Owen's article again:

Quote

Twelve days ago I issued a challenge to critics of John Gee‘s review of Paul Owen’s recent article on the Book of Mormon.  At that time I asked:

Quote

Is there anyone besides Paul Owen—Mormon, non-Mormon, or anti-Mormon—who accepts Owen’s theory and explanation for the origin of the Book of Mormon?

So far no one has responded to the challenge.  Of course I don’t read everything written on the Mormon Blogosphere (God help me!), so there may be someone out that that believes Owen’s theory is the best explanation, or at least a crucial component of an explanation for the origin of the Book of Mormon.  If anyone has seen someone who agrees with Owen, please let me know, and I’ll post a link here.

Here are Paul Owen’s defenses of his article.

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/scholar-to-scholar-owen-gee-bom/

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/scholar-to-scholar-owen-gee-p2/

In the meantime, I think it is safe to assume that Owen’s theory is essentially idiosyncratic.  He alone believes his overall theory.  No one else agrees with him.  In other words, whatever the merits of the specific criticisms made by Gee, and even if some of what Owen says is accurate, Owen’s overall theory is rejected by everyone.

The closest I’ve seen to someone supporting Owen’s theory is a fellow calling himself Yakov ben Tov (Jacob, the Son of “the Good”) from the anonymous crowd of bloggers over at the ironically named “Faith Promoting Rumor.” He has come to Owen’s defense, but to a very limited degree (Part 1; Part 2).

It is crucial to note that even “Yakov” does not agree with Owen’s overall argument in the last half of his paper.”  The best he can muster is saying that it is a “fascinating article that takes the BM very seriously.”  (Note to world: taking the Book of Mormon “seriously” is a minimum requirement for scholarship on the subject, not a sufficient merit for publication.)  While we can debate whether Owen’s study is “fascinating”or not; it must not be forgotten that an article can be “fascinating” and still be dead wrong.  And “fascinating” is generally considered an insufficient grounds for publication in a serious academic journal.

And a fundamental question remains:  Should the Maxwell Institute (and by extension BYU and the Church) publish articles (by Mormons, non-Mormon or anti-Mormons) that explicitly or implicitly reject fundamental truth claims of the Church?

Again, Hamblin is raising a legitimate issue.

15 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Instead the discussion was about whether MI should publish Owen, or not.

Not "instead."  "In addition."

15 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Again, it'd be easier if you first read Owen's article.

I read it (spent about 15 minutes, so more of a perusal than an in-depth scrutinizing of it).

Thanks,

-Smac

[Ryan Dahle]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

So as it is Hebraisms in the BoM don't evidence that the book is authentically ancient writ, to nonbelievers because they appear in a decidedly, if the story is true, in a very removed Hebrew land, hundreds of years removed from the culture.  In a language said not Hebrew but a hebrew/Egyptian hybrid unknown to us.  There's no telling if the hybrid inherently included hebraisms.  The people in the book,  it was being argued last week in these parts,  were soon swallowed by the peoples here because the people here were many and the intruders from Lehis company were few.  

Hebraisms are more logically explained by the notion of Joseph and co pulling from their environment.  Or better explained as a relic of inspiration.  

Also nahom isn't evidence because it's not a very good match,  could have been found on maps, and it's far better explained as a biblical variant.  

I'm not sure how you are reaching any of these conclusions, but those are interesting opinions.  

[stemelbow]

25 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

I'm not sure how you are reaching any of these conclusions, but those are interesting opinions.  

But wow.  You are hearing the latest from Dr. Skousen I presume?  Just read up some on Dr. Peterson's blog this morning:

Quote

Yet the evidence in The Nature of the Original Language (parts 3 and 4 of volume 3 of the critical text) argues that the Book of Mormon translation is tied to Early Modern English, and that even the themes of the Book of Mormon are connected to the Protestant Reformation, dating from the same time period. What this means is that the Book of Mormon is a creative and cultural translation of what was on the plates, not a literal one. Based on the linguistic evidence, the translation must have involved serious intervention from the English-language translator, who was not Joseph Smith. Nonetheless, the text was revealed to Joseph Smith by means of his translation instrument, and he read it off word for word to his scribe. To our modern-day, skeptical minds, this is indeed “a marvelous work and a wonder

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2020/01/from-the-skousen-presentation-1.html

To argue that Hebraisms is evidence that the book is ancient may argue in some measure against Skousen's theory.  But if Skousen is right, the presence of hebraisms could be a result of creativity by an unknown English translator from centuries before Joseph.  It likely won't reflect evidence for historicity at all, if that's the case.  

[Ryan Dahle]

53 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

To argue that Hebraisms is evidence that the book is ancient may argue in some measure against Skousen's theory.  But if Skousen is right, the presence of hebraisms could be a result of creativity by an unknown English translator from centuries before Joseph.  It likely won't reflect evidence for historicity at all, if that's the case.  

You are simply misunderstanding Skousen's conclusions. That isn't at all what he is saying about the implications of Early Modern English or of a creative/cultural translation. Trust me, I have read Skousen's research thoroughly and have collaborated with Stanford Carmack on several projects. That's not what their research is pointing to.  

[stemelbow]

35 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

You are simply misunderstanding Skousen's conclusions. That isn't at all what he is saying about the implications of Early Modern English or of a creative/cultural translation. Trust me, I have read Skousen's research thoroughly and have collaborated with Stanford Carmack on several projects. That's not what their research is pointing to.  

Well I certainly see no reason to just trust you because you say so.  Skousen is the one who has concluded a "creative and cultural translation" and that the translation "must have involved" an English speaker that was not Joseph Smith--in a syntax from generations earlier.  There is no reason at all to assume that the creative and cultural translation from the plates was going to be able to pick up any Hebraisms.  It's possible I suppose, but then we're left with the problems of hebraisms found in a text supposedly written in a non-Hebrew culture nor language.  WHy is that a problem?  Because there's no reason to assume the BoM peoples long after Lehi favored Hebraisms like chiasmus.  

All of this points much more logically to any hebraisms found in the BoM as evidence of a creative and cultural translation carrying with it themes from the Protestant Reformation.  That is to say from the English speaking translator that was not Joseph Smith.  

[Ryan Dahle]

49 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Well I certainly see no reason to just trust you because you say so.  Skousen is the one who has concluded a "creative and cultural translation" and that the translation "must have involved" an English speaker that was not Joseph Smith--in a syntax from generations earlier.  There is no reason at all to assume that the creative and cultural translation from the plates was going to be able to pick up any Hebraisms.  It's possible I suppose, but then we're left with the problems of hebraisms found in a text supposedly written in a non-Hebrew culture nor language.  WHy is that a problem?  Because there's no reason to assume the BoM peoples long after Lehi favored Hebraisms like chiasmus.  

All of this points much more logically to any hebraisms found in the BoM as evidence of a creative and cultural translation carrying with it themes from the Protestant Reformation.  That is to say from the English speaking translator that was not Joseph Smith.

Well, I guess you will just have to trust yourself then. Best of luck. 

[Rajah Manchou]

10 hours ago, smac97 said:

I don't understand.  Are you saying that Owen's article does not, as Hamblin argues, "undermine fundamental faith claims of the LDS Church: such as the reality of Joseph Smith’s prophetic calling (as opposed to him being a religious genius), the ontological existence of Golden Plates (as opposed to Joseph lying, or hallucinating about such things), and the historicity of the Book of Mormon"?  

I'm saying that Owen's article was a thoughtful and well-articulated attempt to engage Book of Mormon scholarship. Owen argued that it is possible that Joseph Smith was not lying, hallucinating or mad and that he did receive and translate ancient physical golden plates. His proposal (as stated in his article) "allows traditional Latter-day Saints to continue to maintain that Joseph Smith was a prophet, that the Book of Mormon was ancient, and that gold plates were shown to Joseph Smith by the angel Moroni."

In short, there was zero wrong with Owen's article. It fit the bill of a "critic" willing to engage BoM scholarship without sarcasm, attacks or dismissals. 

Then Gee wrote a rebuttal that mischaracterised Owen's arguments and dismissed him as an anti-Mormon...within the first three sentences. It wasn't a respectful response to a good faith effort.

10 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think it is not correct to suggest that Owen was not disputing "the fundamental faith claims of the LDS Church."  I think that is what he was attempting.  And he was facilitated by the Maxwell Institute in that regard.  I find that troubling.

Where in the article does Owen dispute "the fundamental faith claims of the LDS Church."? Here's the part that you referenced:

The suggestive parallels between 2 Esdras 14 and 1 Nephi 13–14 could be explained in a number of ways:

1. they could be coincidental;
2. Nephi could have been given a prophetic glimpse of the future role of Ezra, as accurately described in 2 Esdras;
3. Joseph Smith (or someone in his circle) could have read 2 Esdras in the King James Version of the Apocrypha and perhaps had access to commentary on its meaning through libraries and cultural knowledge;
4. the Book of Mormon could be viewed as a restoration of an ancient Christian apocryphal text, which itself made use of earlier Jewish sources.

Owen then:

• Dismisses #1.
• Informs us that he's keeping #2 on the table, but recognising problems arising from the chosen geographies of BoM scholars.
• States that those who lean towards a 19th century provenance (like several faithful LDS on this board) will lean towards #3. 
• Expands on #4 as a  possibility

Providing four options for the reader does not, in my mind, count as disputing the faith of the LDS. Points for discussion is a tactful way of engaging and stimulating dialogue. This is what you are wanting from the "critics" correct?

Quote

Also, Hamblin subsequently addressed Owen's article again:

In the meantime, I think it is safe to assume that Owen’s theory is essentially idiosyncratic. He alone believes his overall theory. No one else agrees with him. In other words, whatever the merits of the specific criticisms made by Gee, and even if some of what Owen says is accurate, Owen’s overall theory is rejected by everyone.

That's just frustrating. Poison in the well? That is in no way a rebuttal or a response to an academic discussion. It is a curt dismissal.

More frustrating considering I messaged Hamblin two times to discuss Owen's article and #4 in particular. I never received a response.  In other words, Owen's theory is not rejected by everyone. I've mentioned it several times on this board. If you want to discuss it, I'd be happy to open another thread. I'm in communication with Paul Owen and could invite him.

Edited January 25, 2020 by Rajah Manchou

[sunstoned]

15 hours ago, stemelbow said:

But wow.  You are hearing the latest from Dr. Skousen I presume?  Just read up some on Dr. Peterson's blog this morning:

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2020/01/from-the-skousen-presentation-1.html

To argue that Hebraisms is evidence that the book is ancient may argue in some measure against Skousen's theory.  But if Skousen is right, the presence of hebraisms could be a result of creativity by an unknown English translator from centuries before Joseph.  It likely won't reflect evidence for historicity at all, if that's the case.  

I wonder if Skousen has published his "theory" in any peer reviewed journals.  I'm guessing no.

[nealr]

On 1/24/2020 at 12:36 PM, stemelbow said:

There is no reason at all to assume that the creative and cultural translation from the plates was going to be able to pick up any Hebraisms.

This strikes me as a strange conclusion to reach. What we call "Hebraisms" are features of the text that people have argued are more characteristic of Hebrew than English. The possibility that a translator carries over features of the original language into his/her translation exists anytime translation takes place. It is not something a translator needs to "pick up" on; it's usually unintentional. These kinds of accidents of translation can take place in any kind of translation, even "creative and cultural" ones. Based on my experience both as a translator of ancient (Latin) texts and as someone whose studied various translations of varying degrees of "literalness," I suggest the reality is just the opposite: there is no reason at all to assume that the creative and cultural translation from the plates would not transmit some Hebraisms. 

I suppose, if you simply mean we shouldn't assume Hebraisms are there, that would be true. There is, of course, no reason to simply assume any translation has carried over features of the original language into the target language. But if you start to notice features that are more characteristic of the original language, well, then there is nothing unreasonable in hypothesizing that they are relics from the original language carried over by the translation. This is, in fact, the reason many scholars believe that various apocryphal texts that are only extent in medieval languages were based on earlier Greek and Hebrew manuscripts--there were features in the text that were more characteristic of either Hebrew or Greek, deemed "Hebraisms" or "Hellenisms." There was, of course, no reason to assume these would be there: but they are there, and scholars noticed them.

Likewise, there are Hebraisms in the Book of Mormon. That is, there are features of the text that are more characteristic of Hebrew than English. The existence of these in the text is, for the most part, not in dispute. Their significance and meaning, of course, is very much in dispute. Scholars who believe the Book of Mormon is a translation of an ancient text naturally see these as relics of the translation, and have argued for such. Scholars who do not believe it is a translation have proposed other explanations, such as the influence of the KJV, etc. I'll gladly admit that at this point, better work needs to be done on the believing side to try sorting out potential influence from the KJV vs. legitimate relics of translation. Skousen's work should actually help us make some progress in this regard (especially since he thinks he has found some Hebriasms that are not in the KJV). But my point here that this isn't about assuming the translation has Hebraisms. Whatever the nature of the translation, the Hebraisms are there in the text.

Quote

It's possible I suppose, but then we're left with the problems of hebraisms found in a text supposedly written in a non-Hebrew culture nor language.  WHy is that a problem?  Because there's no reason to assume the BoM peoples long after Lehi favored Hebraisms like chiasmus.

There are a lot of problems with this comment here. First, what are typically called "Hebriasms" in Book of Mormon discourse are more properly termed "Semiticisms" in most academic literature, because they are generally characteristic of Semitic languages more broadly, and even non-Semitic ancient Near Eastern Languages, such as Egyptian. So the fact that the text claims to be written in Egyptian (rather than Hebrew) is not really a problem here. I assume that what you mean by "non-Hebrew culture," you are referring to the fact that the text was predominantly written generations after the migration to the Americas. I will grant that this does complicate the picture a bit. As with accounting for things like the KJV, better work needs to be done by the believers to try accounting for this factor. But this does not negate the possibility of genuine, Hebrew (or Egyptian)-like features were carried over by the translation. Is there reason to assume such features? Well, I suppose not. But then again, this isn't really about assuming such features are there. There are Hebraisms in the text. The issue is where they came from. Since it is entirely possible that the Nephites "reformed Egyptian" maintained features characteristic of ancient Near Eastern languages, the possibility that these are being carried over by the translation is a legitimate hypothesis (although, as I noted, it does need to be better argued, in my opinion).

Whether or not they "favored Hebraisms" makes no sense to me, because properly speaking, a Hebriasm or Semiticism is a linguistic feature inherent in the language. It's not something writers would consciously favor. Either things characteristic of ancient Near Eastern languages remained part of Nephite speech and writing, or they didn't, but it's not really something they would or wouldn't "favor." I can understand the confusion though, given your example of a "Hebraism" was chiasmus. I know a lot of people, including Latter-day Saint scholars, call chiasmus a "Hebraism," and it's a bit of a pet peeve of mine, but it is NOT a Hebraism. It is a literary device, not a linguistic feature, and therefore is not actually a Hebraism. 

This makes chiasmus a bad example for your argument for a number of reasons. The most obvious is that since it is not a Hebraism, it is not really relevant. But this also means that it's use is not really attached to how well-preserved their Old World language was. Their language could have lost all its distinctive ancient Near Eastern features they still could have used chiasmus. But there is also the fact that chiasmus is found in ancient Mesoamerican (specifically Mayan) texts. It's also, for what's worth, found in Egyptian. So it's a known literary device in Hebrew, Egyptian, and Mayan, which are--assuming there is an ancient text at all behind the Book of Mormon translation--the three most relevant literary traditions to the Book of Mormon. As far as I am concerned, that alone is plenty of reason to assume Book of Mormon peoples would have favored the use of chiasmus in their writing. 

I'll grant the unlike Hebraisms (the linguistic features), the presence of literary features like chiasmus are more in dispute as to their actual presence in the text. Personally, I am persuaded that there are genuine chiasms in the text. So for me, the issue again is not about assuming they "favored" chiasmus or the like. I can see right in the text that the chiasms are there. The question is where did they come from? I don't personally think it likely they came from the translation process or were intentional compositions of Joseph Smith or even "accidents" of his dictation, but there are plenty of people who would disagree. But I am not really interested getting into those arguments here. My point, once again, is simply that given that the chiasms exist in the text, it is perfectly reasonable to think Book of Mormon writers favored such literary devices.

So this is not really about "assuming" they favored literary devices such as chiasmus, or "assuming" their language maintained Hebraisms, or "assuming" the translation "picked-up" such Hebraisms. The existence of such features in the text as we have it is the evidence for reasonably believing these things. Not proof, mind you, and as I've said some work needs to be done on better analyzing that evidence from a believing point of view, but the point is this stuff isn't being blindly assumed. 

It may come as a surprise, after all of that, to know that I am not particularly invested in the Hebraism argument. At the present, in most cases I don't think it's been sufficiently illustrated that the proposed Hebraisms are not a result of translating in the KJV-esq language. There are a few interesting exceptions to this, that suggest to me there's some potential here, but as I said better work needs to be done on this issue, and I since personally lack the linguistic background to do it, there isn't much I can do about that. So, for now I don't really put much stock in Hebraism arguments. (Chiasmus, on the other hand, I do find significant, but I'll save that for another time.) So I am not really trying to "defend" Hebraisms in the Book of Mormon so much as clarify what I see as misunderstandings of the issues here.

 

 

[stemelbow]

12 hours ago, nealr said:

This strikes me as a strange conclusion to reach. What we call "Hebraisms" are features of the text that people have argued are more characteristic of Hebrew than English. The possibility that a translator carries over features of the original language into his/her translation exists anytime translation takes place. It is not something a translator needs to "pick up" on; it's usually unintentional. These kinds of accidents of translation can take place in any kind of translation, even "creative and cultural" ones. Based on my experience both as a translator of ancient (Latin) texts and as someone whose studied various translations of varying degrees of "literalness," I suggest the reality is just the opposite: there is no reason at all to assume that the creative and cultural translation from the plates would not transmit some Hebraisms. 

I suppose, if you simply mean we shouldn't assume Hebraisms are there, that would be true. There is, of course, no reason to simply assume any translation has carried over features of the original language into the target language. But if you start to notice features that are more characteristic of the original language, well, then there is nothing unreasonable in hypothesizing that they are relics from the original language carried over by the translation. This is, in fact, the reason many scholars believe that various apocryphal texts that are only extent in medieval languages were based on earlier Greek and Hebrew manuscripts--there were features in the text that were more characteristic of either Hebrew or Greek, deemed "Hebraisms" or "Hellenisms." There was, of course, no reason to assume these would be there: but they are there, and scholars noticed them.

Likewise, there are Hebraisms in the Book of Mormon. That is, there are features of the text that are more characteristic of Hebrew than English. The existence of these in the text is, for the most part, not in dispute. Their significance and meaning, of course, is very much in dispute. Scholars who believe the Book of Mormon is a translation of an ancient text naturally see these as relics of the translation, and have argued for such. Scholars who do not believe it is a translation have proposed other explanations, such as the influence of the KJV, etc. I'll gladly admit that at this point, better work needs to be done on the believing side to try sorting out potential influence from the KJV vs. legitimate relics of translation. Skousen's work should actually help us make some progress in this regard (especially since he thinks he has found some Hebriasms that are not in the KJV). But my point here that this isn't about assuming the translation has Hebraisms. Whatever the nature of the translation, the Hebraisms are there in the text.

There are a lot of problems with this comment here. First, what are typically called "Hebriasms" in Book of Mormon discourse are more properly termed "Semiticisms" in most academic literature, because they are generally characteristic of Semitic languages more broadly, and even non-Semitic ancient Near Eastern Languages, such as Egyptian. So the fact that the text claims to be written in Egyptian (rather than Hebrew) is not really a problem here. I assume that what you mean by "non-Hebrew culture," you are referring to the fact that the text was predominantly written generations after the migration to the Americas. I will grant that this does complicate the picture a bit. As with accounting for things like the KJV, better work needs to be done by the believers to try accounting for this factor. But this does not negate the possibility of genuine, Hebrew (or Egyptian)-like features were carried over by the translation. Is there reason to assume such features? Well, I suppose not. But then again, this isn't really about assuming such features are there. There are Hebraisms in the text. The issue is where they came from. Since it is entirely possible that the Nephites "reformed Egyptian" maintained features characteristic of ancient Near Eastern languages, the possibility that these are being carried over by the translation is a legitimate hypothesis (although, as I noted, it does need to be better argued, in my opinion).

Whether or not they "favored Hebraisms" makes no sense to me, because properly speaking, a Hebriasm or Semiticism is a linguistic feature inherent in the language. It's not something writers would consciously favor. Either things characteristic of ancient Near Eastern languages remained part of Nephite speech and writing, or they didn't, but it's not really something they would or wouldn't "favor." I can understand the confusion though, given your example of a "Hebraism" was chiasmus. I know a lot of people, including Latter-day Saint scholars, call chiasmus a "Hebraism," and it's a bit of a pet peeve of mine, but it is NOT a Hebraism. It is a literary device, not a linguistic feature, and therefore is not actually a Hebraism. 

This makes chiasmus a bad example for your argument for a number of reasons. The most obvious is that since it is not a Hebraism, it is not really relevant. But this also means that it's use is not really attached to how well-preserved their Old World language was. Their language could have lost all its distinctive ancient Near Eastern features they still could have used chiasmus. But there is also the fact that chiasmus is found in ancient Mesoamerican (specifically Mayan) texts. It's also, for what's worth, found in Egyptian. So it's a known literary device in Hebrew, Egyptian, and Mayan, which are--assuming there is an ancient text at all behind the Book of Mormon translation--the three most relevant literary traditions to the Book of Mormon. As far as I am concerned, that alone is plenty of reason to assume Book of Mormon peoples would have favored the use of chiasmus in their writing. 

I'll grant the unlike Hebraisms (the linguistic features), the presence of literary features like chiasmus are more in dispute as to their actual presence in the text. Personally, I am persuaded that there are genuine chiasms in the text. So for me, the issue again is not about assuming they "favored" chiasmus or the like. I can see right in the text that the chiasms are there. The question is where did they come from? I don't personally think it likely they came from the translation process or were intentional compositions of Joseph Smith or even "accidents" of his dictation, but there are plenty of people who would disagree. But I am not really interested getting into those arguments here. My point, once again, is simply that given that the chiasms exist in the text, it is perfectly reasonable to think Book of Mormon writers favored such literary devices.

So this is not really about "assuming" they favored literary devices such as chiasmus, or "assuming" their language maintained Hebraisms, or "assuming" the translation "picked-up" such Hebraisms. The existence of such features in the text as we have it is the evidence for reasonably believing these things. Not proof, mind you, and as I've said some work needs to be done on better analyzing that evidence from a believing point of view, but the point is this stuff isn't being blindly assumed. 

It may come as a surprise, after all of that, to know that I am not particularly invested in the Hebraism argument. At the present, in most cases I don't think it's been sufficiently illustrated that the proposed Hebraisms are not a result of translating in the KJV-esq language. There are a few interesting exceptions to this, that suggest to me there's some potential here, but as I said better work needs to be done on this issue, and I since personally lack the linguistic background to do it, there isn't much I can do about that. So, for now I don't really put much stock in Hebraism arguments. (Chiasmus, on the other hand, I do find significant, but I'll save that for another time.) So I am not really trying to "defend" Hebraisms in the Book of Mormon so much as clarify what I see as misunderstandings of the issues here.

 

 

Thanks nealr.  That was very helpful.   As much as anything what I was getting at was just what you arrived at in your final paragraph-- hebraisms may not have ever been found in an unknown language at all,  but appear, given their presence,  as a result of the translation from this unknown character, hundreds of years before JS.  Its less likely these semitic features were unknowingly carried over across language and across cultures, surviving the proposed few semitic peoples getting incorporated into a larger group already found in the land (itself being nothing more than wishful thinking).  

 

 To call it evidence is only to declare one's assumptions.  

[Stargazer]

On 1/26/2020 at 2:35 AM, nealr said:

I know a lot of people, including Latter-day Saint scholars, call chiasmus a "Hebraism," and it's a bit of a pet peeve of mine, but it is NOT a Hebraism. It is a literary device, not a linguistic feature, and therefore is not actually a Hebraism. 

This makes chiasmus a bad example for your argument for a number of reasons. The most obvious is that since it is not a Hebraism, it is not really relevant.

This is a cogent observation, but it occurs to me that, nevertheless, how likely is it that a back-country hick like Joseph Smith (or any of his associates) is going to use such a literary device, either consciously or unconsciously? 

Although I guess you raised this in your comment, too.

Edited February 2, 2020 by Stargazer

[williamsmith]

On 1/20/2020 at 6:32 PM, smac97 said:

Interesting stuff.  Any thoughts?

Thanks,

-Smac

This video was good...

 

[Meadowchik]

On 2/2/2020 at 11:34 AM, Stargazer said:

This is a cogent observation, but it occurs to me that, nevertheless, how likely is it that a back-country hick like Joseph Smith (or any of his associates) is going to use such a literary device, either consciously or unconsciously? 

Although I guess you raised this in your comment, too.

Chiasmus is a common way to speak. You've probably done it without thinking about it.

[Stargazer]

6 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Chiasmus is a common way to speak. You've probably done it without thinking about it.

Really?  Is it that common?  Do you do it often? In your experience is this a common form of speech utilized by people with 4th grade educations?  I must say that I highly doubt that I have ever unconsciously spoken in chiasmus form.  I listen to a lot of books and YouTube videos. I will have to listen more carefully to see if this is as casually common as you say it is.

But in any case, the complex chiasmi in the Book of Mormon do not by any stretch of the imagination look like the casual speech that people commonly use in their conversations.

With all due respect, your minimization of the significance of this subtle poetry found the Book of Mormon looks to me like nothing more than an earnest attempt to avoid the distinct possibility that the book is what it says it is. I suppose it's possible that Joseph Smith was a genius who stumbled upon it all by himself and composed these things all on his own in real time while he was dictating from his hat, but I highly doubt it. I say stumbled upon it all by himself because I'd be very surprised if chiasmus was in his frontier school's syllabus of study.

[Meadowchik]

19 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Really?  Is it that common?  Do you do it often? In your experience is this a common form of speech utilized by people with 4th grade educations?  I must say that I highly doubt that I have ever unconsciously spoken in chiasmus form.  I listen to a lot of books and YouTube videos. I will have to listen more carefully to see if this is as casually common as you say it is.

But in any case, the complex chiasmi in the Book of Mormon do not by any stretch of the imagination look like the casual speech that people commonly use in their conversations.

With all due respect, your minimization of the significance of this subtle poetry found the Book of Mormon looks to me like nothing more than an earnest attempt to avoid the distinct possibility that the book is what it says it is. I suppose it's possible that Joseph Smith was a genius who stumbled upon it all by himself and composed these things all on his own in real time while he was dictating from his hat, but I highly doubt it. I say stumbled upon it all by himself because I'd be very surprised if chiasmus was in his frontier school's syllabus of study.

The point is that chiasmus is a common way to speak. It doesn't require literary training. It is rhetorical symmetry, it can also flow naturally from a logical line of thought. Like a seven-year-old saying, "If God created everything, then who created God?" I personally see it constantly in mathematical proofs, and to me that just confims how easily logical thinking lends itself to chiasmus. Take it however you want, but that's observation of language and its use.

[Calm]

16 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

The point is that chiasmus is a common way to speak. It doesn't require literary training. It is rhetorical symmetry, it can also flow naturally from a logical line of thought. Like a seven-year-old saying, "If God created everything, then who created God?" I personally see it constantly in mathematical proofs, and to me that just confims how easily logical thinking lends itself to chiasmus. Take it however you want, but that's observation of language and its use.

At what point do you see complexity of chiamus indicating its use is most likely intentional?

Or do you not see it as a problem if intentional?

Edited February 9, 2020 by Calm

[Meadowchik]

8 minutes ago, Calm said:

At what point do you see complexity of chiamus indicating its use is most likely intentional?

Or do you not see it as a problem if intentional?

I think that persuasive writing or speech frequently follows patterns. (The typical essay, for example is symmetrical: intro, body, conclusion, where the conclusion is often almost a restatement of the introduction. Conversations are often symmetrical: like when you say hello, catch up on news, then discuss something of import if necessary, then plan another meeting, then say goodbye.) Patterns naturally flow from connecting with each other socially and communicating.

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

I think that persuasive writing or speech frequently follows patterns. (The typical essay, for example is symmetrical: intro, body, conclusion, where the conclusion is often almost a restatement of the introduction. Conversations are often symmetrical: like when you say hello, catch up on news, then discuss something of import if necessary, then plan another meeting, then say goodbye.) Patterns naturally flow from connecting with each other socially and communicating.

I agree, but I don't think you have answered my question.  This isn't relevant imo to determining who the author it, just curious if you see complex chiamus as intentionally crafted or something someone would be unconscious of.

 

[Meadowchik]

40 minutes ago, Calm said:

I agree, but I don't think you have answered my question.  This isn't relevant imo to determining who the author it, just curious if you see complex chiamus as intentionally crafted or something someone would be unconscious of.

 

Okay, sorry, I thought I had answered it I guess. I'd say that complex chaismus is possible just by a logical procedure of asking a question, talking about it, and then restating it with a conclusion. That doesn't mean that procedure makes it inevitable, but just that it is already symmetrical and thus lends itself to patterns of chaismus or similar.

So there's not necessarily a cutoff of complexity where it then must be intentional.  I see lots of patterns in the natural world which are complex and not necessarily intentional. 

[smac97]

On 1/24/2020 at 7:19 PM, Rajah Manchou said:

Quote

I don't understand.  Are you saying that Owen's article does not, as Hamblin argues, "undermine fundamental faith claims of the LDS Church: such as the reality of Joseph Smith’s prophetic calling (as opposed to him being a religious genius), the ontological existence of Golden Plates (as opposed to Joseph lying, or hallucinating about such things), and the historicity of the Book of Mormon"?  

I'm saying that Owen's article was a thoughtful and well-articulated attempt to engage Book of Mormon scholarship.

And Hamblin is questioning the propriety of BYU as a venue for Owen's article.

Quote

Owen argued that it is possible that Joseph Smith was not lying, hallucinating or mad and that he did receive and translate ancient physical golden plates. His proposal (as stated in his article) "allows traditional Latter-day Saints to continue to maintain that Joseph Smith was a prophet, that the Book of Mormon was ancient, and that gold plates were shown to Joseph Smith by the angel Moroni."

No, I don't think it does.  Owen's proposed explanation for the origins of the Book of Mormon are at odds with the explanation given by Joseph Smith.  I don't think they can be reconciled.

Quote

In short, there was zero wrong with Owen's article.

Not sure what this means.

Quote

It fit the bill of a "critic" willing to engage BoM scholarship without sarcasm, attacks or dismissals.

What "bill" are you referencing here?

Quote

Then Gee wrote a rebuttal that mischaracterised Owen's arguments and dismissed him as an anti-Mormon...within the first three sentences.  

I don't understand.  What was disrespectful about Gee's rebuttal?  How is noting Owen's opposition to the Church and its doctrines disrespectful?

If he had avoided the label, would that have been acceptable?

Gee states: "Paul Owen is a fairly nice guy. I know him. He is, nonetheless, an anti-Mormon. He has written books explicitly attacking Mormonism in general and the Book of Mormon in particular. His latest article also attacks the Book of Mormon. He concludes that the Book of Mormon is a 'fictional (though ancient) narrative.'"

That seems factually correct.  Do you disagree?

Quote

It wasn't a respectful response to a good faith effort.

I dunno.  Perhaps I'm more acclimated to adversarial writing than you are.  Gee's article is pointed, but not disrespectful.

Quote

Quote

I think it is not correct to suggest that Owen was not disputing "the fundamental faith claims of the LDS Church."  I think that is what he was attempting.  And he was facilitated by the Maxwell Institute in that regard.  I find that troubling.

Where in the article does Owen dispute "the fundamental faith claims of the LDS Church."?

He theorizes the Book of Mormon as a "fictional (though ancient) narrative."

Quote

Here's the part that you referenced:

The suggestive parallels between 2 Esdras 14 and 1 Nephi 13–14 could be explained in a number of ways:

1. they could be coincidental;
2. Nephi could have been given a prophetic glimpse of the future role of Ezra, as accurately described in 2 Esdras;
3. Joseph Smith (or someone in his circle) could have read 2 Esdras in the King James Version of the Apocrypha and perhaps had access to commentary on its meaning through libraries and cultural knowledge;
4. the Book of Mormon could be viewed as a restoration of an ancient Christian apocryphal text, which itself made use of earlier Jewish sources.

Owen then:

• Dismisses #1.
• Informs us that he's keeping #2 on the table, but recognising problems arising from the chosen geographies of BoM scholars.
• States that those who lean towards a 19th century provenance (like several faithful LDS on this board) will lean towards #3. 
• Expands on #4 as a  possibility

Providing four options for the reader does not, in my mind, count as disputing the faith of the LDS.

Again, he theorizes the Book of Mormon as a "fictional (though ancient) narrative."

While serving as an apostle and as a member of the presidency of the Church's European Mission, Amasa Lyman "preached a sermon in Dundee, Scotland, which all but denied the reality of and the necessity for the atonement of Jesus Christ," a concept he continued to preach years later even after being corrected and after he apologized for it.  He was subsequently released as an apostle, and within a few years was affiliating with an apostate sect, and was then excommunicated (his membership and status as an apostle were posthumously reinstated).

Surely we can agree that a publicly-preached sermon in which the speaker - an apostle, no less - was saying something contradicting "the fundamental faith claims of the LDS Church."

I'm not sure where precisely the ancient origins of the Book of Mormon fits into the "faith claims" of the Church.  But I think the origins of it are pretty fundamental.  As Elder Oaks put it: "The argument that it makes no difference whether the Book of Mormon is fact or fable is surely a sibling to the argument that it makes no difference whether Jesus Christ ever lived."  

And Kent P. Jackson (emphasis added):

Quote

Can the Book of Mormon indeed be 'true,' in any sense, if it lies repeatedly, explicitly, and deliberately regarding its own historicity? Can Joseph Smith be viewed with any level of credibility if he repeatedly, explicitly, and deliberately lied concerning the historicity of the book? Can we have any degree of confidence in what are presented as the words of God in the Doctrine and Covenants if they repeatedly, explicitly, and deliberately lie by asserting the historicity of the Book of Mormon? If the Book of Mormon is not what it claims to be, what possible cause would anyone have to accept anything of the work of Joseph Smith and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints given the consistent assertions that the Book of Mormon is an ancient text that describes ancient events?" (Historicity and the Latter-day Saint Scriptures, edited by Paul Y. Hoskisson, pp. 137-138.)

Paul Owen is presenting a theory that the text "lies repeatedly, explicitly, and deliberately regarding its own historicity."

Paul Owen is presenting a theory that Joseph Smith "repeatedly, explicitly, and deliberately lied concerning the historicity of the book."

Paul Owen was materially assisted in presenting this theory by the Maxwell Institute, a part of BYU, the Church's flagship school.

Hamblin finds that troubling.  So do I.

Quote

Points for discussion is a tactful way of engaging and stimulating dialogue. This is what you are wanting from the "critics" correct?

Quote

Also, Hamblin subsequently addressed Owen's article again:

In the meantime, I think it is safe to assume that Owen’s theory is essentially idiosyncratic. He alone believes his overall theory. No one else agrees with him. In other words, whatever the merits of the specific criticisms made by Gee, and even if some of what Owen says is accurate, Owen’s overall theory is rejected by everyone.

That's just frustrating. Poison in the well?

No.  I think it's a fair assessment.

Quote

That is in no way a rebuttal or a response to an academic discussion. It is a curt dismissal.

A dismissal based in part on the theory being "essentially idiosyncratic" (the remainder of the dismissal, I think, relying on Gee's critique).

Quote

More frustrating considering I messaged Hamblin two times to discuss Owen's article and #4 in particular. I never received a response.  In other words, Owen's theory is not rejected by everyone. I've mentioned it several times on this board. If you want to discuss it, I'd be happy to open another thread. I'm in communication with Paul Owen and could invite him.

Sure.  I've crtiqued variations on the "inspired fiction" theory plenty of times before.  Happy to do so again.

But this is quite separate from Hamblin's point, which pertains to the propriety of the venue in which Owen's article was published.

I think the Inspired Fiction folks have not really thought through the ramifications of their proposal.   The "fake but accurate," "I can reject what The Book of Mormon claims to be and what Joseph Smith represented it to be, but still accept it as scripture" type of reasoning is a fundamentally flawed line of reasoning. Elder Oaks aptly described it as "not only reject(ing) the concepts of faith and revelation that The Book of Mormon explains and advocates, but it is also not even good scholarship." This is why I find advocacy of this approach problematic. Such advocates are steering others up a spiritual blind alley; a path, I think, which sooner or later will culminate in a crisis of faith and/or a rejection of The Book of Mormon. After all, one who rejects its historicity has already rejected a substantive, even vital, part of the book. Rejecting the rest of it would seem to be just a matter of time.  I think an affirmative denial of the book's historicity will, sooner or later, become fatal to a testimony of the book. Ambivalence about historicity is perhaps possible, but affirmative denial is, I think, not compatible with an enduring and efficacious testimony of The Book of Mormon.

Hamblin's point was to express concern about the Maxwell Institute publishing and advancing the "inspired fiction" theory.  He found that troubling.  So do I.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 10, 2020 by smac97

[Rajah Manchou]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Owen's proposed explanation for the origins of the Book of Mormon are at odds with the explanation given by Joseph Smith. 

Which proposed explanation? He offered four possible explanations for the similarities between 2 Esdras, the History of the Rechabites and 1 Nephi. He said, the suggestive parallels between 2 Esdras 14 and 1 Nephi 13–14 could be explained in a number of ways:

1. The similarities could be coincidental;
2. Nephi could have been given a prophetic glimpse of the future role of Ezra, as accurately described in 2 Esdras;
3. Joseph Smith (or someone in his circle) could have read 2 Esdras in the King James Version of the Apocrypha and perhaps had access to commentary on its meaning through libraries and cultural knowledge;
4. the Book of Mormon could be viewed as a restoration of an ancient Christian apocryphal text, which itself made use of earlier Jewish sources.

Gee then responded by saying that Owen, being an anti-Mormon, "attacked the Book of Mormon" by pushing his inspired fiction theory through the MI.

You'd said that "when a well-informed person (like Daniel Peterson or Ryan Dahle) argues for the plausibility of the LDS position, we don't get reasoned responses and rebuttals.  We get glib sarcasm.  We get curt dismissals.  We get anything but an engagement of the evidence."

I don't think that's always true. Paul Owen's article in MI was my example. I think it is possible to discuss without sarcasm and dismissals, it happens in this forum all the time, almost daily.

 Which of Owen's four explanations seem most likely to you, and why? 

[Rajah Manchou]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Paul Owen is presenting a theory that the text "lies repeatedly, explicitly, and deliberately regarding its own historicity."

Paul Owen is presenting a theory that Joseph Smith "repeatedly, explicitly, and deliberately lied concerning the historicity of the book."

Nah, that's not at all what he was presenting. Can you point to the part where you think he does?

[smac97]

10 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Which proposed explanation? He offered four possible explanations for the similarities between 2 Esdras, the History of the Rechabites and 1 Nephi. He said, the suggestive parallels between 2 Esdras 14 and 1 Nephi 13–14 could be explained in a number of ways:

1. The similarities could be coincidental;
2. Nephi could have been given a prophetic glimpse of the future role of Ezra, as accurately described in 2 Esdras;
3. Joseph Smith (or someone in his circle) could have read 2 Esdras in the King James Version of the Apocrypha and perhaps had access to commentary on its meaning through libraries and cultural knowledge;
4. the Book of Mormon could be viewed as a restoration of an ancient Christian apocryphal text, which itself made use of earlier Jewish sources.

Gee then responded by saying that Owen, being an anti-Mormon, "attacked the Book of Mormon" by pushing his inspired fiction theory through the MI.

You'd said that "when a well-informed person (like Daniel Peterson or Ryan Dahle) argues for the plausibility of the LDS position, we don't get reasoned responses and rebuttals.  We get glib sarcasm.  We get curt dismissals.  We get anything but an engagement of the evidence."

I don't think that's always true.

It is overwhelmingly true, though.

10 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Paul Owen's article in MI was my example.

I'll concede the point.  He engages the evidence.  Without glib sarcasm or curt dismissals.

Hamblin's point is about the propriety of the venue.

10 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

I think it is possible to discuss without sarcasm and dismissals, it happens in this forum all the time, almost daily.

An informal and ephemeral discussion board is not quite what I had in mind.

And to be honest, this board's "reasoned responses and rebuttals" to "glib sarcasm {and} curt dismissals" ratio is not that impressive.  

10 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Which of Owen's four explanations seem most likely to you, and why? 

None seem particularly plausible, based on the text and the historical record pertaining to the origins of the text.

As Gee notes: "Owen skirts the issue of whether his proposal that it is authentically ancient and still modern fiction is logically coherent..."

Yep.

Thanks,

-Smac