Chiasmus in the BOM

[Dale]

Hi,

Who cares whether critics are impressed with Chiasmus or not? The issue that astounds me is that Joseph Smith Jr. could have produced genuine chiasmus without learning it from someone who knew the technique. The Book of Mormon isn't a dumb book but a beautiful book that I enjoy reading. I was reading 2nd Nephi today & the book is as beautiful as the Book of 1st Corrinthians which I finished reading today. I am reading a few pages out of the Bible & Book of Mormon every day & reccomend the experience to others.

As far as Community of Christ yes there are those who believe the Book of Mormon is a 19th century product. But they devoutly use the Book of Mormon. I respect people who use the Book of Mormon although I feel the case against the Book of Mormon on that grounds is flawed. Plus the credibility of Mormonism doesn't rest on the Book of Mormon just being a beautiful religious text, but rather does the book report a true history or not. If I believed the book had no evidences for ancient origins I wouldn't use it. Van Hale a respected LDS takes that view also & he's ok with me. I just feel the book must be viewed as ancient or the book has no credibility with me. I read scripture because I trust it not because it just makes me feel good to read it. Certainly I feel good when I read the Book of Mormon, but if I doubted the book intellectually I would doubt my feelings.

Sincerely,

Dale

[sr1030]

Dale: Who cares whether critics are impressed with Chiasmus or not?

Apparently the originator of the thread.

Dale: The issue that astounds me is that Joseph Smith Jr. could have produced genuine chiasmus without learning it from someone who knew the technique.

Who cares whether LDS are impressed with Chiasmus or not?

Dale: The Book of Mormon isn't a dumb book but a beautiful book that I enjoy reading.

And it came to pass that the BOM was not literally impressive.

Dale: I was reading 2nd Nephi today & the book is as beautiful as the Book of 1st Corrinthians which I finished reading today. I am reading a few pages out of the Bible & Book of Mormon every day & reccomend the experience to others.

I have read both books many times. I am very impressed with the depth of the bible, but not the least bit impressed by the BOM. It is obviously not inspired by God.

Dale: As far as Community of Christ yes there are those who believe the Book of Mormon is a 19th century product. But they devoutly use the Book of Mormon. I respect people who use the Book of Mormon although I feel the case against the Book of Mormon on that grounds is flawed. Plus the credibility of Mormonism doesn't rest on the Book of Mormon just being a beautiful religious text, but rather does the book report a true history or not. If I believed the book had no evidences for ancient origins I wouldn't use it. Van Hale a respected LDS takes that view also & he's ok with me. I just feel the book must be viewed as ancient or the book has no credibility with me. I read scripture because I trust it not because it just makes me feel good to read it. Certainly I feel good when I read the Book of Mormon, but if I doubted the book intellectually I would doubt my feelings.

Reality is that the bible is an ancient book and as far as the BOM, there exist no non-disputable evidence to show that it is an ancient book. There really should be some if it is ancient.

sr

[Bob Bennett]

I have read both books many times. I am very impressed with the depth of the bible, but not the least bit impressed by the BOM. It is obviously not inspired by God.

One is left to wonder why sr would spend so much time reading a book by which he was not the least impressed.

I have read both books many times and am continually impressed by both the Bible and the Book of Mormon. Both were obviously inspired by God. They both possess doctrines deep and profound and together have helped me gain a wonderful testimony of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. I find it difficult to understand how one could read the Book of Mormon several times and not be moved in the least by its teachings and tesitmony of the Savior. I suppose there's no accounting for taste.

[sr1030]

Bob: One is left to wonder why sr would spend so much time reading a book by which he was not the least impressed.

Don't spend too much time wondering. I read it so I could discuss the book. Initially I read the book at the request of missionaries.

Bob: I have read both books many times and am continually impressed by both the Bible and the Book of Mormon. Both were obviously inspired by God.

Of course if you are LDS, you must say this.

Bob: They both possess doctrines deep and profound and together have helped me gain a wonderful testimony of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

Have you ever compared the two literally? Looking for things such as fulfilled prophecies, types, shadows or wisdom? The two are so unalike in this regard that I totally disregard any argument to the contrary. It makes one look like a fool to compare the two as equal.

Bob: I find it difficult to understand how one could read the Book of Mormon several times and not be moved in the least by its teachings and tesitmony of the Savior.

I recommend to you to read the BOM and sincerely pray about it, asking God if it is true or not. If you are truly sincere, the Holy Spirit will show you that it is not inspired by God.

Bob: I suppose there's no accounting for taste.

Yawn.........

sr

[Bob Bennett]

Bob: One is left to wonder why sr would spend so much time reading a book by which he was not the least impressed.

Don't spend too much time wondering. I read it so I could discuss the book. Initially I read the book at the request of missionaries.

You seem to have profoundly misunderstood its message.

Bob: I have read both books many times and am continually impressed by both the Bible and the Book of Mormon. Both were obviously inspired by God.

Of course if you are LDS, you must say this.

Obviously I'm just another mind-deadened automaton. Actually sr, I say this because I believe it to be true, not because I'm LDS. I'm LDS because I believe it to be true, not vice versa.

Bob: They both possess doctrines deep and profound and together have helped me gain a wonderful testimony of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

Have you ever compared the two literally? Looking for things such as fulfilled prophecies, types, shadows or wisdom? The two are so unalike in this regard that I totally disregard any argument to the contrary. It makes one look like a fool to compare the two as equal.

Yes, I have compared the two and my findings are in direct contradiction to yours. It is obvious that you have disregarded any argument to the contrary of your belief. Calling someone that disagrees with you a fool (or looking like a fool) is to me the height of arrogance and close-mindedness.

Bob: I find it difficult to understand how one could read the Book of Mormon several times and not be moved in the least by its teachings and tesitmony of the Savior.

I recommend to you to read the BOM and sincerely pray about it, asking God if it is true or not. If you are truly sincere, the Holy Spirit will show you that it is not inspired by God.

You are assuming that I have not read the Book of Mormon and sincerely prayed about it, asking God if it is true or not. I have done so, and have been answered in the affirmative. It is true. Of that I am certain. Perhaps you question my sincerity in asking. I am also certain of that. I was and continue to be quite sincere in the matter, and continue to receive the affirming witness from the Holy Ghost of its truthfulness.

Bob: I suppose there's no accounting for taste.

Yawn.........

If you're really that bored, you could always ignore me.

[dragonslayer]

auteur55 writes:

A Hello friends,

B I am sure this

C topic has been debated

D before but I am really curious as to how antis have explained the discovery of chiasmus in the book of mormon.

d' I don't see how they could rationally explain it away and I was wondering what excuses they give.

c' This may have all been debated

b' but I am new to this board and don't see how this doesn't authenticate the book of mormon very strongly.

a' Cheers.

That's how we anti's explain it.

Exactly.

[Tchild2]

A Hello friends,

B I am sure this

C topic has been debated

D before but I am really curious as to how antis have explained the discovery of chiasmus in the book of mormon.

d' I don't see how they could rationally explain it away and I was wondering what excuses they give.

c' This may have all been debated

b' but I am new to this board and don't see how this doesn't authenticate the book of mormon very strongly.

a' Cheers.

That's how we anti's explain it.

Dr. Shades is no "ANTI", he is one of the three Nephites, come again and testing the saints with his chiasmatic (sp) abilities to believe by faith, else how could he perform such a feat?

Command Dr. Shades and I will obey....er...except for giving my money or time, but my wife you can have!

[Daniel Peterson]

It's easy to create a simple, short chiasm, either intentionally or by chance. But to leap from that fact alone to the conclusion that complex chiasms in the Book of Mormon are meaningless seems logically unjustifiable.

[sidewinder]

Has anyone looked for chiasms in the doctrine and covenants?

[enummaelish]

Have you ever compared the two literally? Looking for things such as fulfilled prophecies, types, shadows or wisdom? The two are so unalike in this regard that I totally disregard any argument to the contrary. It makes one look like a fool to compare the two as equal.

I seriously doubt that you have really read the entire Book of Mormon from cover to cover. You certainly haven

[enummaelish]

Of course if you are LDS, you must say this.

I love this comment. Never mind that Bob is a scientist. He must say that the Book of Mormon is true [insert brain dead metallic robotic voice here].

[Benjamin McGuire]

Dr. Shades writes:

auteur55 writes:

A Hello friends,

B I am sure this

C topic has been debated

D before but I am really curious as to how antis have explained the discovery of chiasmus in the book of mormon.

d' I don't see how they could rationally explain it away and I was wondering what excuses they give.

c' This may have all been debated

b' but I am new to this board and don't see how this doesn't authenticate the book of mormon very strongly.

a' Cheers.

That's how we anti's explain it.

And Dr. Shades illustrates my point.

He focuses here, purely on a structural form. He demonstrates that a structural chiasmus can occur accidentally. But, since the chiasmus he points out is not going to bear up to the standards put in place for identifying a chiasmus as a rheotrical figure within a text, it doesn't really have any impact on the discussion about intentionality of chiastic structures in literature (including the Book of Mormon). Because of this, we still have to ask the question of whether or not Dr. Shades views all of the proposed chiastic structures in the Book of Mormon as accidental.

Ben

[Dr. Shades]

Tchild2 writes:

Dr. Shades is no "ANTI", he is one of the three Nephites, come again and testing the saints with his chiasmatic (sp) abilities to believe by faith, else how could he perform such a feat?

Actually, it wasn't me who performed the feat. It was auteur55 him/herself's opening post. Gotta love it: He/she who makes a post about chiasmus being unanswerable by critics makes a chiasm while doing so.

Command Dr. Shades and I will obey....er...except for giving my money or time, but my wife you can have!

Be careful, sir. I just might take you up on that offer . . .

Daniel Peterson writes:

But to leap from that fact alone to the conclusion that complex chiasms in the Book of Mormon are meaningless seems logically unjustifiable.

Methinks that "complex" is in they eye of the beholder. Even as a believer, I thought the book The Book of Mormon Reformatted According to Parallelistic Structures was extremely convoluted, arbitrarily forcing chiasms where none actually existed.

By the way, the buzz over at exmormon.org is that you are the heir apparent to Nibley's title of chief apologist. Is there any truth to that rumor?

Benjamin McGuire writes:

But, since the chiasmus he points out is not going to bear up to the standards put in place for identifying a chiasmus as a rheotrical figure within a text, . . .

What "standards" have been "put in place for identifying a chiasmus as a rhetorical figure?" Please list them for me, and tell me who made them the standard.

. . . it doesn't really have any impact on the discussion about intentionality of chiastic structures in literature (including the Book of Mormon).

Actually, it has an enormous impact. It tosses a monkey wrench into the notion that all chaisms are intentional and, by extension, "rhetorical figures."

Because of this, we still have to ask the question of whether or not Dr. Shades views all of the proposed chiastic structures in the Book of Mormon as accidental.

I don't know if all of them are--since chiasmus was known in Smith's millieu--but I think most if not the vast majority of them exist merely in the eye of the beholder.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Dr. Shades writes:

What "standards" have been "put in place for identifying a chiasmus as a rhetorical figure?" Please list them for me, and tell me who made them the standard.

Standards like this are generally adopted by consensus. Since Chiasmus is considered a legitimate field of study by both biblical scholars and literary theorists, it isn't hard to find quality references and discussion involving both examples as well as methodology. Here are a few (this list isn't complete, it isn't even the best list I have of stuff I have read, it was just one I had handy. I suspect that I have produced more complete lists of the material I have read over on ZLMB in the discussions I have had there over the last couple of years. But this ought to be a good start.):

Carpenter, Ronald H. "The Essential Schemes of Syntax: An Analysis of Rhetorical Theory's Recommendations for Uncommon Word Orders." Quarterly Journal of Speech 55 (1969): 161-68. Also "Stylistic Redundancy and Function in Discourse." Language and Style 3 (1970): 62-68.

Fahnestock, Jeanne. Rhetorical Figures in Science. New York: Oxford UP, 1999.

Nanny, Max. "Chiasmus in Literature: Ornament or Function." Word and Image 4 (1988): 51-59.

N. W. Lund, Chiasmus in the New Testament: A Study in Formgeschichte (Chapel Hill, N.C.: University of North Carolina Press, 1942); "The Presence of Chiasmus in the Old Testament," American Journal for Semitic Languages 46 (1929-30): 104-26; and "Chiasmus in the Psalms," American Journal for Semitic Language 49 (1932-33): 281-312.

J. R. Lundbom, Jeremiah: A Study in Ancient Hebrew Rhetoric (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1997)

P. Trible, Rhetorical Criticism: Context, Method, and the Book of Jonah (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994)

James, J. Paxson, Revisiting the Deconstruction of Narratology: Master Tropes of Narrative Embedding and Symmetry, Style, Spring2001, Vol. 35, Issue 1

O. S. F. S. Ceresco, "A Rhetorical Analysis of David's 'Boast' (1 Sam. 17:34-37): Some Reflections on Method," Catholic Biblical Quarterly 47 (1985): 58-74

I. M. Kikawada, "The Shape of Genesis 11:1-9," in Rhetorical Criticism: Essays in Honor of James Muilenburg, ed. J. J. Jackson and M. Kessler (Pittsburgh: Pickwick, 1974), 18-32

G. Ridoud, "The Rape of Tamar: A Rhetorical Analysis of 1 Sam. 31:1-22," in Rhetorical Criticism, 75-84

M. Butterworth, Structure and the Book of Zachariah, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament sup 130 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992).

Actually, it has an enormous impact. It tosses a monkey wrench into the notion that all chaisms are intentional and, by extension, "rhetorical figures."

I don't know if all of them are--since chiasmus was known in Smith's millieu--but I think most if not the vast majority of them exist merely in the eye of the beholder.

Now, to adress your real points.

First, the definition of chiasmus is that of a rhetorical figure. Your statement is problematic. You claim that "it tosses a monkey wrench into the notion that all chiasms are intentional ..." It doesn't do this. I define chiasmus as being a rhetorical device - and by rhetorical device I mean intentional. Thus what is not intentional, what does not function as a rhetorical device, is not chiasmus. Much the same is the issue over other rhetorical devices. Take the allusion, for example. If I use a stock phrase in my language repretoire, and you take it as an allusion to something else, you have misunderstood what I said. What appears to you to be an allusion, is nothing more than an accidental echo - caused by stock phrases in the language and environment. Being "rhetorical" implies intent.

And demonstration involves demonstrating this intent. Sometimes, for some issues in Hebrew poetry, this is not a problem. Take a Psalm where there is a separate section for each letter of the Hebrew alphabet, and each of the lines in any particular section start with the same letter, and these sections run so that the poem moves through the entire alphabet. Such a construction can only be by design. The rhetorical value is pretty clear (in this case, it is largely aesthetic). Chiasmus, on the other hand, being a little more subtle, can be harder to demonstrate. But, once intentionality has been demonstrated to a reasonable level (that is, once we arrive at the conclusion that the structure occurs by design), then we can call it a chiasmus.

This is why, independant of the value of the proposed chiastic structures in the Book of Mormon, your fabrication clearly is not a chiasmus. And in fact, if we decide that you can call this a chiasmus, then the defintion of chiasmus has been expanded to be useless as a literary term. After all, given your mode of operation, any sufficiently large text can yield any number of chiastic structures. But as should be self-evident, unless the structure is intentional, it has absolutely no value in interpreting a work (that is, as long as we are assuming that the intentions of the author are the objective of the interpretation - if we don't value any particular meaning over any other particular meaning, then they can become of value, of course, to the interpreter).

There is no monkey wrench.

And finally, from the Wikipedia:

Chiasmus is a figure of speech based on inverted parallelism. It is a rhetorical figure in which two clauses are related to each another through a reversal of terms in order to make a larger point.

Today, chiasmus is applied fairly broadly to any "criss-cross" structure, although in classical rhetoric, it would have been distinguished from other similar devices, especially antimetabole. In its classical application, chiasmus would have been used for structures that do not repeat the same words and phrases.

According to this definition, chiasmus is a "figure of speech", a "rhetorical figure" which makes "a larger point".

As noted, the word can be used in a narrower and a wider sense. It doesn't seem to me that your fabricated structure even meets the wider sense. Although, you are certainly welcome to attempt to justify it.

Ben

[Daniel Peterson]

Methinks that "complex" is in they eye of the beholder.

Of course it is. It takes a human intelligence to recognize or affirm complexity or simplicity. It is a human judgment. Neither mud nor the desert tortoise nor helium makes such a distinction.

By the way, the buzz over at exmormon.org is that you are the heir apparent to Nibley's title of chief apologist.  Is there any truth to that rumor?

There is extraordinarily little truth over there on any subject. They're not even right about my alleged passion for Krispy Kremes and Chuck-a-Rama.

In any event, I'm still waiting for the formal Church announcement of my official succession to Professor Nibley. Perhaps it will come at April conference. Just after daily potato casseroles are declared mandatory and Martha Beck is named Church Life Coach and Spiritual Advisor.

[wenglund]

What "standards" have been "put in place for identifying a chiasmus as a rhetorical figure?" Please list them for me, and tell me who made them the standard....

...Actually, it has an enormous impact. It tosses a monkey wrench into the notion that all chaisms are intentional and, by extension, "rhetorical figures."

This is what I find amazing about certain critics. In one breath they expose their profound ignorance of elementary aspects of the issue, and then in the next breath think themselves in a position to make sweeping declarations that baselessly dismiss the observations of those clearly educated and informed on the subject.

Breath-taking!

It is moments like this that make me glad the Shades of the world are not on my side.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Dr. Shades]

Benjamin McGuire writes:

This is why, independant of the value of the proposed chiastic structures in the Book of Mormon, your fabrication clearly is not a chiasmus.

How much value do the proposed chiastic structures in the Book of Mormon carry?

After all, given your mode of operation, any sufficiently large text can yield any number of chiastic structures.

Which is what I believe is the case with the Book of Mormon.

But as should be self-evident, unless the structure is intentional, it has absolutely no value in interpreting a work[.]

Ditto.

Daniel Peterson writes:

It takes a human intelligence to recognize or affirm complexity or simplicity.

I agree, but my point is that human intelligence can be sharply divided over whether a chiastic [chiasmic?] structure is random or intentional.

There is extraordinarily little truth over there on any subject. They're not even right about my alleged passion for Krispy Kremes and Chuck-a-Rama.

Then how did those rumors get started?

In any event, I'm still waiting for the formal Church announcement of my official succession to Professor Nibley. Perhaps it will come at April conference. Just after daily potato casseroles are declared mandatory and Martha Beck is named Church Life Coach and Spiritual Advisor.

C'mon. Who is better suited to fill his intellectual shoes than yourself?

Wade Englund writes:

This is what I find amazing about certain critics. In one breath they expose their profound ignorance of elementary aspects of the issue, . . .

Such as what?

. . . and then in the next breath think themselves in a position to make sweeping declarations that baselessly dismiss the observations of those clearly educated and informed on the subject.

When did that happen?

Breath-taking!

Indeed.

It is moments like this that make me glad the Shades of the world are not on my side.

Your "side?" I thought Jesus loved everyone.

[Daniel Peterson]

Daniel Peterson writes:

It takes a human intelligence to recognize or affirm complexity or simplicity.

I agree, but my point is that human intelligence can be sharply divided over whether a chiastic [chiasmic?] structure is random or intentional.

Human intelligence can be sharply divided over almost any topic, and there is at least an element of subjectivity in virtually every human opinion and decision. Nonetheless, rational argument is possible.

For instance, in a careful statistical study of chiasmus in the Book of Mormon, a pair of Stanford- and Caltech-trained physicists argue that the chiasm in Alma 36 is 99.98 percent certain to have been deliberately designed, concluding that it did not arise by random chance.

See Boyd F. Edwards and W. Farrell Edwards,

[Blink]

By the way, the buzz over at exmormon.org is that you [Dr Peterson] are the heir apparent to Nibley's title of chief apologist. Is there any truth to that rumor?

Makes me want to burst out in song: Oh Lord, it's hard to be humble... when he's perfect in ev-ery way...

Warbling appropriately, of course.

[Dr. Shades]

For instance, in a careful statistical study of chiasmus in the Book of Mormon, a pair of Stanford- and Caltech-trained physicists argue that the chiasm in Alma 36 is 99.98 percent certain to have been deliberately designed, concluding that it did not arise by random chance. . . They also examine other chiasms in the Book of Mormon, and find them likely to be deliberate, as well.

Are the two physicists non-Mormons?

[Daniel Peterson]

Are the two physicists non-Mormons?

Nope. Shoot. I should have thought of that. Obviously that invalidates their argument and renders their article unworthy of attention.

Nothing like a frank ad hominem to liven up the thread!

[USU78]

Are the two physicists non-Mormons?

Ad hominem fallacy and well-poisoning in 5 (or is it 6?) little words. My compliments.

[Dr. Shades]

Ad hominem fallacy and well-poisoning in 5 (or is it 6?) little words. My compliments.

Aren't you the same one who immediately and automatically dismisses anything critical as "anti-Mormon?" Is that not ad hominem and well-poisoning?

[jerm]

Has anyone asked auteur55 if the chiasmus in the origional post was intentional? I don't see how anyone could say that Alma 36 was not intentional whether JS knew about them or not. How old was he when he translated the plates? How much schooling did he have?

[Dan Vogel]

Several years ago, I gave a paper on chiasmus at Sunstone. I have not finished my research, but offer some of my findings preliminarily.

Ben has mentioned criteria. I made a list of criteria, partially from Welch and partly from other sources, some of which Ben listed above. This is what I came up with:

Criteria for Assessing Proposed Complex Chiasms

Applying the criteria of a growing number of Bible scholars to complex chiasms proposed by Welch and others at FARMS, particularly Donald Parry, one can easily see that the vast majority depart from what the chiasmists themselves call