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

[Meadowchik]

2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Pretty sure that's what you said. How am I misrepresenting it?

Here it is:

That's what you said. Sounds like everyone does it -- or if not everyone, it's something that happens a lot.  And if so, it should be detectable.  I have to say that I've not detected it. At all. YouTube is full of videos with people talking.  Can you find me any videos with inadvertant chiasmus?

And maybe I myself am no literary lion, because I wrote an entire book without using chiasmus even once.

Why do you represent my words as yours?

Chiasmus varies in length and complexity, and so far, the linguistic and text analysis studies I have seen measure chiastic structure on a scale of likelihood or fitness. So it is very possible that you have some level of chiasmus in your book, the question is how much of it is there, how complex it seems... I did find a Swedish study that claims true chiasms are very rare, but it worked with a definition different than the literary definition and different than that usually used in studying the Book of Mormon.

[Meadowchik]

2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Well, I'll tell you. 

I'd never heard of it before it was brought to my attention in connection with its use in the Book of Mormon.  

So, what's your point? 

The Texas sharpshooter fallacy comes to mind, especially given your apparent misunderstanding of chiasmus.

2 hours ago, longview said:

HISTORY.   Virtually nothing was discussed about chiasmus until the 1800s.  Many scholars over the centuries were familiar with Hebrew poetic structures, forms and parallelism, etc.  The discovery of chiastic form is VERY striking.  It is extremely unlikely for a country bumpkin like Joseph Smith to have become aware of this.  Thus adding stunning evidence to many of the divine origin of the Book of Mormon and the actual history of Hebraic people emigrating to the new world.

Personally I had NO inkling of chiasmus until I stumbled onto this video:

https://bookofmormoncentral.org/blog/video-on-the-discovery-of-chiasmus-in-the-book-of-mormon

passport photo of John Welch when he was a missionary to Germany -

If you've been reading any of my other comments, you'd have seen that I am arguing that chiasmus is commonly used naturally, and the conventional essay form is also symmetrical, as are quite frequently logical and mathematical proofs. In other words, compelling arguments will often tend to use symmetry which would lend itself to chiastic structures. Also, by the way, so do compelling narratives. We as humans recognize chiastic symmetry without calling it that, often when we say something has come "full circle." We use phrases that lend themselves to chiasmus, and repeat them because they are especially compelling.

Here are some common chiasms:

Don't let a fool kiss you and don't let a kiss fool you.

You must live to eat, not eat to live.

Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.

All for one and one for all.

William Shakespeare, by the way, was using complex chiastic structures long before the 1800s. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5325/style.39.3.237?seq=1&fbclid=IwAR1AHdMYRrxMJwCtDBOMjNoAA6-A2HECLin1PLEizhxUJt6LDEk5vtFMN2o

Also interesting is the chiastic structures in the Hobbit and Lord of the Rings. https://theopolisinstitute.com/the-chiastic-structure-of-lord-of-the-rings/?fbclid=IwAR0SHovXUC-t6TAh2Twun3ZpqXKlL1LEi7h7fXv1ptNtb8RXAXsWL1q35eg

[Meadowchik]

On 2/12/2020 at 5:06 PM, smac97 said:

As in "{a} logical relation between premises and conclusion in which it is very unlikely for the premises to be true and the conclusion false"?

No, I mean the consideration of the implications of inductive reasoning.  That is, if people can easily use chiasmus, this creates a norm, where simple chiasms are more common, but if they are common, then more complex chiasms above the norm are possible. Even if less likely, they are still possible to find. 

On 2/12/2020 at 3:25 PM, smac97 said:

I think the chiastic structure found in Alma 36 is difficult to wave off as merely being indicative of something that is "common in speech."  Would you agree?

Well I wouldn't wave it off as something Joseph Smith could not have created on his own. I found the paper by Edwards and Edwards discussing chiasmus detection, and they even mention their creation of a computer algorithm that they offer as a free download, but I haven't found a link for it yet. I would like to see how their program measures other writings. Without such comparisons, by the way, I think there is less scholarly weight in their claims. https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1565&context=physics_facpub

Edited February 13, 2020 by Meadowchik

[Ryan Dahle]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

I would like to see how their program measures other writings. Without such comparisons, by the way, I think there is less scholarly weight in their claims. https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1565&context=physics_facpub

 

Not sure what you mean by this. Obviously their article assessed a number of different proposed chiasms from various texts:

Edited February 13, 2020 by Ryan Dahle

[JarMan]

Chiasmus can be found in the early modern world. . . even extended chiasmus (like in Alma 36). The best example I know of is the Dutch national anthem which was written in the late 1500's. From widipedia:

Quote

The Wilhelmus, the national anthem of the Netherlands, has a structure composed around a thematic chiasmus: the 15 stanzas of the text are symmetrical, in that verses one and 15 resemble one another in meaning, as do verses two and 14, three and 13, etc., until they converge in the eighth verse, the heart of the song.

Now if we could just identify an early modern Dutchman possessing all the characteristics of someone who could produce the Book of Mormon. . .

[Meadowchik]

12 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

Not sure what you mean by this. Obviously their article assessed a number of different proposed chiasms from various texts:

I mean that they said they were offering the detection computer program as a free download, but I couldn't find a link. I would like to test a (greater) variety of texts. Do you happen to know where to get the download?

[Meadowchik]

17 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Pretty sure that's what you said. How am I misrepresenting it?

Here it is:

That's what you said. Sounds like everyone does it -- or if not everyone, it's something that happens a lot.  And if so, it should be detectable.  I have to say that I've not detected it. At all. YouTube is full of videos with people talking.  Can you find me any videos with inadvertant chiasmus?

And maybe I myself am no literary lion, because I wrote an entire book without using chiasmus even once.

You still haven't corrected your misquote. Please do so, as you have represented my words as yours.

[Meadowchik]

On 2/12/2020 at 3:00 PM, Meadowchik said:

Regardless of what one believes of the Book of Mormon, chiasmus is still common in speech. That's what I said. 

Surely faith need not hinge on a magic trick.

@Stargazer

I said this, you did not, yet you represented a "quote" of yourself as saying the underlined.

[smac97]

21 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Quote

As in "{a} logical relation between premises and conclusion in which it is very unlikely for the premises to be true and the conclusion false"?

No, I mean the consideration of the implications of inductive reasoning.  That is, if people can easily use chiasmus,

That's a fairly significant "if," particularly as pertaining to Alma 36.

21 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

this creates a norm,

I don't understand what this means.  Are you suggesting that chiastic writing was "a norm" in Joseph Smith's day?

21 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

where simple chiasms are more common, but if they are common, then more complex chiasms above the norm are possible. Even if less likely, they are still possible to find. 

This sounds like you are brushing off chiasmus as mere happenstance.  Happenstance that a 19th-century author fabricated a long and complex text, a text represented as being a translation of a record of the descendants of Hebrews who had migrated to the Americas, and which just happens - not by design - to include extensive examples, including complex ones, of a form of ancient Hebrew poetic structure, which structure was not identified as such (as an ancient Hebrew writing style) until well after Joseph Smith's time.

You propose that we view chiasmus in the Book of Mormon as happenstance.  As mere coincidence.  As a big instance of dumb luck by a 19th century author.

John Welch proposes that we view chiasmus as an example of ancient Hebrew writing form, that this form was not formally described until well after Joseph Smith's time (1871), that there was "a very low probability that Joseph Smith knew anything about chiasmus in 1829, being careful not to imply, claim, or suggest complete ignorance of this literary form in America at that time," that "even assuming that Joseph Smith had known of chiasmus ... '[t]here would still have remained the formidable task of composing the well-balanced, meaningful chiastic structures...which are found in precisely those portions of the Book of Mormon in which one would logically and historically expect to find them,'" and that "the complexity of Alma 36 seems evidence enough of this point."

I find Welch's assessment more persuasive.

21 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Well I wouldn't wave it off as something Joseph Smith could not have created on his own.

Welch addresses this.  It's possible, but I don't think it's very probable, or very plausible.

I like this summary from FAIR (from the above link):

Quote

In other words, one does not just get up from being unable to talk or move for a few days and ‘spontaneously’ break into chiasmus, any more than one can ad-lib a Shakespearean sonnet. Chiasmus—especially one as rich and detailed as Alma 36—is a work of conscious creation.

That said, I also appreciate this restrained overall assessment by John Welch:

Quote

Too many people looking at chiasmus only wonder if it proves the Book of Mormon is true. It’s an important aid to us in taking the book seriously. And yes, it shows that the book is consistent with some ancient style that Joseph Smith probably had no idea of. But does it prove the Book of Mormon? Only by circumstantial arguments, yes. But it’s very valuable and one of the strongest arguments that we have. But beyond that I’m much more interested in other things that it proves. It proves that the book is not chaotic or devoid of form, it’s orderly. This is something even Mark Twain didn’t pick up. He thought you take all the “it came to passes” out and you have a small pamphlet. It appears to be carefully written. One may assume that planning went into that.

I appreciate this.  Welch's training as a lawyer keeps him from overstating the probative weight of chiasmus.  It's very good, but not definitive.  It's persuasive, but not a smoking gun.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Meadowchik]

13 minutes ago, smac97 said:

That's a fairly significant "if," particularly as pertaining to Alma 36.

I don't understand what this means.  Are you suggesting that chiastic writing was "a norm" in Joseph Smith's day?

This sounds like you are brushing off chiasmus as mere happenstance.  Happenstance that a 19th-century author fabricated a long and complex text, a text represented as being a translation of a record of the descendants of Hebrews who had migrated to the Americas, and which just happens - not by design - to include extensive examples, including complex ones, of a form of ancient Hebrew poetic structure, which structure was not identified as such (as an ancient Hebrew writing style) until well after Joseph Smith's time.

You propose that we view chiasmus in the Book of Mormon as happenstance.  As mere coincidence.  As a big instance of dumb luck by a 19th century author.

John Welch proposes that we view chiasmus as an example of ancient Hebrew writing form, that this form was not formally described until well after Joseph Smith's time (1871), that there was "a very low probability that Joseph Smith knew anything about chiasmus in 1829, being careful not to imply, claim, or suggest complete ignorance of this literary form in America at that time," that "even assuming that Joseph Smith had known of chiasmus ... '[t]here would still have remained the formidable task of composing the well-balanced, meaningful chiastic structures...which are found in precisely those portions of the Book of Mormon in which one would logically and historically expect to find them,'" and that "the complexity of Alma 36 seems evidence enough of this point."

I find Welch's assessment more persuasive.

Welch addresses this.  It's possible, but I don't think it's very probable, or very plausible.

I like this summary from FAIR (from the above link):

That said, I also appreciate this restrained overall assessment by John Welch:

I appreciate this.  Welch's training as a lawyer keeps him from overstating the probative weight of chiasmus.  It's very good, but not definitive.  It's persuasive, but not a smoking gun.

Thanks,

-Smac

Chiasmus is not an exclusively Hebrew structure. It is used in other cultures and very, very extensively, by the way, in old Chinese literature.  

I am not saying that chiasmus is happenstance. I am saying that it is natural. In other words, human beings who are trying to be persuasive, create something beautiful, or to deliver a compelling narrative, will utilise patterns in speech and writing that make it more compelling. Thus, chiasmus is one pattern, a symmetrical one, that is a result of the human rhetoric. 

Anyways, there is more than one algorithm or computer program written to detect chiastic structures. I cited the one by the LDS researchers Edwards and Edwards above. Another one I found is by SeungJin Lim at Merrimack College: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7982257. 

I do think that people who hear about the chiasmuc in the Book of Mormon may not realise that it is not as esoteric as some make it out to be. If, for example, people knew about antimetabole and other kinds of chiasmus, and some common examples, they'd probably recognize it more in speech and media. Funny thing, one of my teaching assistants used it today in my tutorial, not in describing a math proof, but just conversationally.

[Ryan Dahle]

49 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Chiasmus is not an exclusively Hebrew structure. It is used in other cultures and very, very extensively, by the way, in old Chinese literature. 

The diversity of ancient texts that use chiasmus has long been a talking point in the Latter-day Saint research on this topic. 

49 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

I am not saying that chiasmus is happenstance. I am saying that it is natural. In other words, human beings who are trying to be persuasive, create something beautiful, or to deliver a compelling narrative, will utilise patterns in speech and writing that make it more compelling. Thus, chiasmus is one pattern, a symmetrical one, that is a result of the human rhetoric.

But this needs to be tempered by the fact that chiasmus was clearly not a dominant form in 19th century English literature. It may be natural, in a broad sense, that some cultures and people would use this symmetrical form. But that doesn't mean it was likely that Joseph Smith, specifically, would have used it in 1829, especially considering his background and also the nature of the production of the Book of Mormon. I happen to think that the quantity and quality of chiastic structures in the text are very unlikely to come from Joseph Smith. The reason Hebrew is often brought up is that the Book of Mormon purports to have been written by prophets who preserved the Hebrew literary tradition of their ancestors, and the degree of chiasticity in the Book of Mormon and the Bible seem to be much closer than between the Book of Mormon and 19th century texts. Thus, it isn't just the mere presence of the form, but the extent and quality of its implementation that needs to be accounted for.

49 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

I do think that people who hear about the chiasmuc in the Book of Mormon may not realise that it is not as esoteric as some make it out to be. If, for example, people knew about antimetabole and other kinds of chiasmus, and some common examples, they'd probably recognize it more in speech and media. Funny thing, one of my teaching assistants used it today in my tutorial, not in describing a math proof, but just conversationally.

Well, yes, chiastic couplets often arise by chance. Even three-level chiastic structures are likely to occur by chance. If the Book of Mormon just had a dozen or so 2 and 3 level chiasms, that would be nothing remarkable. Even if it had several solid 4 or 5 level chiasms, they could still be explained away by chance. It is the combination of circumstances that matter.

When you have

1. a text that claims to be written by ancient prophets who preserved the literary tradition of their Hebrew ancestors,
2. and when this text has hundreds of proposed chiasms,
3. many of which are lengthy, sophisticated, and rhetorically meaningful,
4. along side numerous other poetic parallelisms that are typical of the Hebrew literary tradition
5. and all of these parallelisms are embedded in an already complex text
6. that multiple witnesses say was dictated without notes, outlines, or reference materials,
7. by a relatively uneducated farmer with no prior literary experience
8. in approximately 60 working days,
9. and when chiastic structures were not a commonly known or discussed feature in 19th century literature,
10. and when the pervasive presence of chiasmus in the Bible was only barely beginning to be discovered,
11. and when the literature discussing biblical chiasms was likely inaccessible to Joseph Smith,
12. it makes a pretty good case for the Hebrew origins of the Book of Mormon, especially when you add in the dozens of proposed Hebrew and Egyptian wordplays that can be found throughout the text.  

 

 

Edited February 14, 2020 by Ryan Dahle

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

Chiasmus is not an exclusively Hebrew structure.

That is true.  But it is an ancient Hebrew writing form.  And it is pretty unlikely that Joseph Smith and his contemporaries knew about that.  And it was used extensively and intentionally in the Book of Mormon.  And the Book of Mormon presents itself as having been written by ancient Hebrews and their descendants.  So the presence of chiasmus in the Book of Mormon is corroborative.  It is pretty good circumstantial evidence for Joseph Smith's explanation for the source of the text.  

Quote

It is used in other cultures and very, very extensively, by the way, in old Chinese literature.  

Yes.  But exclusivity is not a necessary component of Welch's argument.

Quote

I am not saying that chiasmus is happenstance. I am saying that it is natural.

I don't think that is a reasonable explanation for Alma 36.  Again, from the FAIR article: "In other words, one does not just get up from being unable to talk or move for a few days and ‘spontaneously’ break into chiasmus, any more than one can ad-lib a Shakespearean sonnet. Chiasmus—especially one as rich and detailed as Alma 36—is a work of conscious creation."

Quote

In other words, human beings who are trying to be persuasive, create something beautiful, or to deliver a compelling narrative, will utilise patterns in speech and writing that make it more compelling. Thus, chiasmus is one pattern, a symmetrical one, that is a result of the human rhetoric. 

I'm sorry, but this sounds like you are, in fact, attributing the presence of chiasmus in the Book of Mormon - particularly Alma 36 - to happenstance.  Dumb luck.  Sheer coincidence.

I think it is difficult to argue that Alma 36 is "naturally" chiastic.  It is much more plausible that it is intentionally chiastic.  And if intentional, who had that intent?  And how is it that this intentional writing style has roots amongst the ancient Hebrews?  And how is that this intentional writing style corroborates Joseph Smith's narrative about the text's origins?  That seems like a lot of coincidences.  Too many to call is "natural" (or happenstance).

Quote

Anyways, there is more than one algorithm or computer program written to detect chiastic structures. I cited the one by the LDS researchers Edwards and Edwards above. Another one I found is by SeungJin Lim at Merrimack College: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7982257. 

I do think that people who hear about the chiasmus in the Book of Mormon may not realise that it is not as esoteric as some make it out to be.

It's not esoteric now.  But it was not very well known at all in Joseph Smith's day (the FAIR article addresses that point fairly well).

Quote

If, for example, people knew about antimetabole and other kinds of chiasmus, and some common examples, they'd probably recognize it more in speech and media. Funny thing, one of my teaching assistants used it today in my tutorial, not in describing a math proof, but just conversationally.

Except that Alma 36 is exemplary of ancient chiasmus.  And an intentional one at that.  From Welch (emphases added):

Quote

It is difficult to imagine a more paradigmatic or a more effective use of chiasmus than this. Alma 36 is worthy in form to the best of any ancient chiastic writer. Two further points deserve particular attention: first, as if to remove any doubt concerning the fact that this chiastic arrangement was intended to accentuate the contrast between the agony and the joy which Alma had experienced, he makes that contrast explicit in verse 20 when he states: "My soul was filled with joy as exceeding as was my pain." Second, it says much for Alma's artistic sensitivities that he succeeds in placing the turning point of his life at the turning point of this chapter. Such effects, it would appear, do not occur without design. As natural as it might seem to use chiasmus as a literary device in contrasting opposites such as those Alma had experienced or in emphasizing the turning point of one's conversion, its usage is not at all obvious or automatic, as is evidenced by the fact that Alma did not use it when he described his conversion as a young man {in Mosiah 27}. Such a use of chiasmus is, rather, a conscious creation of an imaginative and mature artist {such as Alma was by the time this was written, just prior to his passing}.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 14, 2020 by smac97

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, Ryan Dahle said:

The diversity of ancient texts that use chiasmus has long been a talking point in the Latter-day Saint research on this topic. 

But this needs to be tempered by the fact that chiasmus was clearly not a dominant form in 19th century English literature. It may be natural, in a broad sense, that some cultures and people would use this symmetrical form. But that doesn't mean it was likely that Joseph Smith, specifically, would have used it in 1829, especially considering his background and also the nature of the production of the Book of Mormon. I happen to think that the quantity and quality of chiastic structures in the text are very unlikely to come from Joseph Smith. The reason Hebrew is often brought up is that the Book of Mormon purports to have been written by prophets who preserved the Hebrew literary tradition of their ancestors, and the degree of chiasticity in the Book of Mormon and the Bible seem to be much closer than between the Book of Mormon and 19th century texts. Thus, it isn't just the mere presence of the form, but the extent and quality of its implementation that needs to be accounted for.

Well, yes, chiastic couplets often arise by chance. Even three-level chiastic structures are likely to occur by chance. If the Book of Mormon just had a dozen or so 2 and 3 level chiasms, that would be nothing remarkable. Even if it had several solid 4 or 5 level chiasms, they could still be explained away by chance. It is the combination of circumstances that matter.

When you have

1. a text that claims to be written by ancient prophets who preserved the literary tradition of their Hebrew ancestors,
2. and when this text has hundreds of proposed chiasms,
3. many of which are lengthy, sophisticated, and rhetorically meaningful,
4. along side numerous other poetic parallelisms that are typical of the Hebrew literary tradition
5. and all of these parallelisms are embedded in an already complex text
6. that multiple witnesses say was dictated without notes, outlines, or reference materials,
7. by a relatively uneducated farmer with no prior literary experience
8. in approximately 60 working days,
9. and when chiastic structures were not a commonly known or discussed feature in 19th century literature,
10. and when the pervasive presence of chiasmus in the Bible was only barely beginning to be discovered,
11. and when the literature discussing biblical chiasms was likely inaccessible to Joseph Smith,
12. it makes a pretty good case for the Hebrew origins of the Book of Mormon, especially when you add in the dozens of proposed Hebrew and Egyptian wordplays that can be found throughout the text.  

 

 

The lack of scholarly recognition of chiasmus in the Bible does not preclude it being adopted into linguistic structure of people who read the Bible. The standard of it being used "by chance" when not used intentionally seems to ignore this, and in my opinion, it seems linguistically naive. (Most of language-learning occurs subconsciously, and is known as implicit language learning.) 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

That is true.  But it is an ancient Hebrew writing form.  And it is pretty unlikely that Joseph Smith and his contemporaries knew about that.  And it was used extensively and intentionally in the Book of Mormon.  And the Book of Mormon presents itself as having been written by ancient Hebrews and their descendants.  So the presence of chiasmus in the Book of Mormon is corroborative.  It is pretty good circumstantial evidence for Joseph Smith's explanation for the source of the text.  

Yes.  But exclusivity is not a necessary component of Welch's argument.

I don't think that is a reasonable explanation for Alma 36.  Again, from the FAIR article: "In other words, one does not just get up from being unable to talk or move for a few days and ‘spontaneously’ break into chiasmus, any more than one can ad-lib a Shakespearean sonnet. Chiasmus—especially one as rich and detailed as Alma 36—is a work of conscious creation."

I'm sorry, but this sounds like you are, in fact, attributing the presence of chiasmus in the Book of Mormon - particularly Alma 36 - to happenstance.  Dumb luck.  Sheer coincidence.

I think it is difficult to argue that Alma 36 is "naturally" chiastic.  It is much more plausible that it is intentionally chiastic.  And if intentional, who had that intent?  And how is it that this intentional writing style has roots amongst the ancient Hebrews?  And how is that this intentional writing style corroborates Joseph Smith's narrative about the text's origins?  That seems like a lot of coincidences.  Too many to call is "natural" (or happenstance).

It's not esoteric now.  But it was not very well known at all in Joseph Smith's day (the FAIR article addresses that point fairly well).

Except that Alma 36 is exemplary of ancient chiasmus.  And an intentional one at that.  From Welch (emphases added):

Thanks,

-Smac

The language of someone with exposure to the Bible is not statistically independent of the language of the Bible, they are connected. Thus, this, added to the natural ability and tendency people have to produce chiasmus, increases the chances of 18th-century people using chiasmus. And by merely trying to imitate a style of speech, a person can use structural features of it without understanding them at a scholarly level.

Edited February 14, 2020 by Meadowchik

[Ryan Dahle]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

The lack of scholarly recognition of chiasmus in the Bible does not preclude it being adopted into linguistic structure of people who read the Bible. The standard of it being used "by chance" when not used intentionally seems to ignore this, and in my opinion, it seems linguistically naive. (Most of language-learning occurs subconsciously, and is known as implicit language learning.)

Literary scholars have been carefully analyzing the literary forms used by hundreds of English authors for many decades now. And yet, out of all their research, chiasmus has been identified relatively infrequently if at all in most well-studied English texts. And yet, the feature has been identified again and again in a variety of ancient literary traditions. I highly doubt such a disparity would exist if typical 19th century authors, many of whom were well-versed in the Bible, were subconsciously soaking up its chiastic forms and using the feature liberally in their own writing. If your assumption is valid, you (as well as the hoards of people out there attempting to cast doubt on the authenticity the Book of Mormon) would surely be able to find at least one 19th century text that is truly comparable to the Book of Mormon in its overall degree of chiasticity? 

Can you point to even one 19th century text that you think is truly comparable? 

 

Edited February 14, 2020 by Ryan Dahle

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

The lack of scholarly recognition of chiasmus in the Bible does not preclude it being adopted into linguistic structure of people who read the Bible.

"Does not preclude {chiasmus} being adopted into linguistic structure" sounds an awful lot like "happenstance."

Again, I don't think this accounts for Alma 36, which looks very much like an intentionally-crafted and complex example of chiasmus.

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

The standard of it being used "by chance" when not used intentionally seems to ignore this, and in my opinion, it seems linguistically naive. (Most of language-learning occurs subconsciously, and is known as implicit language learning.)

I'm sorry, but I still do not understand your position.  

Are you positing that Alma 36's chiastic structure was intentional or unintentional?  Was your proposed 19th-century author of Alma 36 acting intentionally or unintentionally when crafting that structure?

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

The language of someone with exposure to the Bible is not statistically independent of the language of the Bible, they are connected. Thus, this, added to the natural ability and tendency people have to produce chiasmus, increases the chances of 18th-century people using chiasmus.

Okay.  Are you suggesting that this 19th-century writing process was intentional or unintentional?  It's increasingly sounding like you are advocating the latter.  

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

And by merely trying to imitate a style of speech, a person can use structural features of it without understanding them at a scholarly level.

You are characterizing the chiastic structure of Alma 36 as unintentional, as having been written "natural{ly}" rather than deliberately, as the 19th-century author having created that long and complex form "without understanding {it} at a scholarly level."  All of this sounds a lot like "happenstance."  And yet earlier you said "I am not saying that chiasmus is happenstance."

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

37 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

I highly doubt such a disparity would exist if typical 19th century authors, many of whom were well-versed in the Bible, were subconsciously soaking up its chiastic forms and using the feature liberally in their own writing

Especially given the frequent biblical allusions in literature, I would expect relatively frequent appearance if naturally absorbed.

[Meadowchik]

On 2/14/2020 at 9:22 PM, Ryan Dahle said:

Literary scholars have been carefully analyzing the literary forms used by hundreds of English authors for many decades now. And yet, out of all their research, chiasmus has been identified relatively infrequently if at all in most well-studied English texts. And yet, the feature has been identified again and again in a variety of ancient literary traditions. I highly doubt such a disparity would exist if typical 19th century authors, many of whom were well-versed in the Bible, were subconsciously soaking up its chiastic forms and using the feature liberally in their own writing. If your assumption is valid, you (as well as the hoards of people out there attempting to cast doubt on the authenticity the Book of Mormon) would surely be able to find at least one 19th century text that is truly comparable to the Book of Mormon in its overall degree of chiasticity? 

Can you point to even one 19th century text that you think is truly comparable? 

Joseph Smith produced chiasmus in his own religious writings, like the King Follett Discourse.

John Milton's Paradise Lost (though earlier) is said to have chiastic soteriology.

Abraham Lincoln and the Gettysburg address. Goerge Washington's Prayer for the Nation. Tolstoy's Anna Karenina. Jane Austen's Persuasion.

I've already pointed to Shakespeare, which though centuries earlier, is still relevant because of the Biblical influence. Did you check out the link to Structural Secrets, Shakespeare's Complex Chiasmus? 

Here is its abstract:

Quote

This essay examines the presence and stylistic development of Shakespeare's large-scale, biblical chiastic structures. These intricate schemes, built using a combination of classical rhetorical principles and complex biblical patterns, appear in a wide range of structural variations and play an important role in Shakespeare's approach to composition.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5325/style.39.3.237?seq=1

Like I said twice now, I would like to be able to use the free download offered by Edwards and Edwards to test texts myself. I would say that a computer program, though imperfect, would be perhaps the most efficient way to detect relative similarities of detectable symmetries.

[Meadowchik]

On 2/14/2020 at 9:43 PM, smac97 said:

"Does not preclude {chiasmus} being adopted into linguistic structure" sounds an awful lot like "happenstance."

Again, I don't think this accounts for Alma 36, which looks very much like an intentionally-crafted and complex example of chiasmus.

I'm sorry, but I still do not understand your position.  

Are you positing that Alma 36's chiastic structure was intentional or unintentional?  Was your proposed 19th-century author of Alma 36 acting intentionally or unintentionally when crafting that structure?

Okay.  Are you suggesting that this 19th-century writing process was intentional or unintentional?  It's increasingly sounding like you are advocating the latter.  

You are characterizing the chiastic structure of Alma 36 as unintentional, as having been written "natural{ly}" rather than deliberately, as the 19th-century author having created that long and complex form "without understanding {it} at a scholarly level."  All of this sounds a lot like "happenstance."  And yet earlier you said "I am not saying that chiasmus is happenstance."

Thanks,

-Smac

I am not arguing for Alma 36 being intentional or unintentional. People like Welch seem to be arguing that it appears to be the deliberate, conscious use of chiastic structures known to ancient Hebrews. I am pointing out what seems to me to be holes in these arguments, especially the implication that chiasmus is some esoteric device that was inaccessible to 19th century minds.

[Stargazer]

On 2/13/2020 at 6:37 PM, Meadowchik said:

Why do you represent my words as yours?

I quoted your words.  The words happened to be within my own post at the time, so they appeared attributed to me. But they were your words.

On 2/13/2020 at 6:37 PM, Meadowchik said:

Chiasmus varies in length and complexity, and so far, the linguistic and text analysis studies I have seen measure chiastic structure on a scale of likelihood or fitness. So it is very possible that you have some level of chiasmus in your book, the question is how much of it is there, how complex it seems... I did find a Swedish study that claims true chiasms are very rare, but it worked with a definition different than the literary definition and different than that usually used in studying the Book of Mormon.

If you're trying to show that there's nothing "magical" (your idea) about chiasmus in the Book of Mormon, feel free, it's a free country. But do you really think that that very complex chiasm in Alma which I have mentioned a couple of times is an example of conversational chiasmus?  That Joseph happened to compose offhandedly while his face was in a hat?  You're free to think so, if you want.  Or come up with any other way to minimize it (and other things). 

[Stargazer]

On 2/13/2020 at 7:13 PM, Meadowchik said:

The Texas sharpshooter fallacy comes to mind, especially given your apparent misunderstanding of chiasmus.

Let's state the fallacy: "The Texas sharpshooter fallacy is an informal fallacy which is committed when differences in data are ignored, but similarities are overemphasized."

Now, please explain how I am a victim of the Texas sharpshooter fallacy in this instance. I am genuinely interested in knowing how this fallacy affects me.

And, you might care to explain why you think I don't understand chiasmus. 

On 2/13/2020 at 7:13 PM, Meadowchik said:

If you've been reading any of my other comments, you'd have seen that I am arguing that chiasmus is commonly used naturally, and the conventional essay form is also symmetrical, as are quite frequently logical and mathematical proofs.

Yes, you've asserted this bolded claim several times.  I will grant you that logical and mathematical proofs might in some cases exhibit chiasmus (I'd have to see this to believe it, however), but this would only because of the nature of logical proofs and are far from any kind of natural conversation.

On 2/13/2020 at 7:13 PM, Meadowchik said:

In other words, compelling arguments will often tend to use symmetry which would lend itself to chiastic structures. Also, by the way, so do compelling narratives. We as humans recognize chiastic symmetry without calling it that, often when we say something has come "full circle." We use phrases that lend themselves to chiasmus, and repeat them because they are especially compelling.

Here are some common chiasms:

Don't let a fool kiss you and don't let a kiss fool you.

You must live to eat, not eat to live.

Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.

All for one and one for all.

Those are lovely chiasms. If I gave some thought to the matter, I could probably come up with similar chiasms myself. That is not the issue here, though.

You are seriously claiming that the complex chiasms in the Book of Mormon are things that one can just whip out off the top of one's head while one's face is in a hat.  I don't buy it. 

On 2/13/2020 at 7:13 PM, Meadowchik said:

William Shakespeare, by the way, was using complex chiastic structures long before the 1800s. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5325/style.39.3.237?seq=1&fbclid=IwAR1AHdMYRrxMJwCtDBOMjNoAA6-A2HECLin1PLEizhxUJt6LDEk5vtFMN2o

Also interesting is the chiastic structures in the Hobbit and Lord of the Rings. https://theopolisinstitute.com/the-chiastic-structure-of-lord-of-the-rings/?fbclid=IwAR0SHovXUC-t6TAh2Twun3ZpqXKlL1LEi7h7fXv1ptNtb8RXAXsWL1q35eg

William Shakespeare and J. R. R. Tolkien were not country bumpkins pumping out the texts of their writings freestyle while burying their faces in their hats.  They were not declaring these things in casual conversations down at the pub, either.  They took great amounts of effort and time coming up with literary masterpieces, and in Tolkien's case at least he only did so after a prodigious amount of education. 

Why do you even bring up these red herrings, anyway?  I would EXPECT chiasms in the writings of famous men and women of letters.  I do understand your problem, however. Because barely literate Joseph Smith inserts some very deep and complex chiasms into the Book of Mormon, in text that he is dictating freehand to a scribe, you really must assert that it's something everyone does on a casual basis, because otherwise there might be something "magical" about what happened. 

[Peppermint Patty]

It looks like Daniel Peterson's next installment of Hard Evidences for Pre-Columbian Horses is now up. The comments are interesting and there are some comments challenging Daniel on some of his basic claims. It will be interesting if Daniel decides to address these challenges in Part 8. Very fascinating discussion on this thread.

PART 7

[Meadowchik]

21 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Let's state the fallacy: "The Texas sharpshooter fallacy is an informal fallacy which is committed when differences in data are ignored, but similarities are overemphasized."

Now, please explain how I am a victim of the Texas sharpshooter fallacy in this instance. I am genuinely interested in knowing how this fallacy affects me.

And, you might care to explain why you think I don't understand chiasmus. 

Yes, you've asserted this bolded claim several times.  I will grant you that logical and mathematical proofs might in some cases exhibit chiasmus (I'd have to see this to believe it, however), but this would only because of the nature of logical proofs and are far from any kind of natural conversation.

Those are lovely chiasms. If I gave some thought to the matter, I could probably come up with similar chiasms myself. That is not the issue here, though.

You are seriously claiming that the complex chiasms in the Book of Mormon are things that one can just whip out off the top of one's head while one's face is in a hat.  I don't buy it. 

William Shakespeare and J. R. R. Tolkien were not country bumpkins pumping out the texts of their writings freestyle while burying their faces in their hats.  They were not declaring these things in casual conversations down at the pub, either.  They took great amounts of effort and time coming up with literary masterpieces, and in Tolkien's case at least he only did so after a prodigious amount of education. 

Why do you even bring up these red herrings, anyway?  I would EXPECT chiasms in the writings of famous men and women of letters.  I do understand your problem, however. Because barely literate Joseph Smith inserts some very deep and complex chiasms into the Book of Mormon, in text that he is dictating freehand to a scribe, you really must assert that it's something everyone does on a casual basis, because otherwise there might be something "magical" about what happened. 

Joseph Smith also produced complex chiasmus in the King Follett discourse. 

[Meadowchik]

22 hours ago, Stargazer said:

I quoted your words.  The words happened to be within my own post at the time, so they appeared attributed to me. But they were your words.

Please attribute correctly.

[Stargazer]

2 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Joseph Smith also produced complex chiasmus in the King Follett discourse. 

That's interesting and I will have to check that out. Thanks for mentioning it.

But I don't think it disqualifies my initial point, which is that an uneducated and inexperienced Joseph Smith was unlikely to have produced complex chiasms off the top of his head while producing the text of the Book of Mormon.

[Stargazer]

2 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Please attribute correctly.

I will do so in future. Note that I do usually attribute correctly, but your text was there in my post and it was convenient (or lazy of me) to pull it from there. I figured you would recognize your own words, but I can see that it might have been confusing. My apologies.