Chiasmus in the BOM

[Dan Vogel]

Ben,

A couple of comments Dan. First, your notion (that the situation is reversed) is reliant on your assumption that the Book of Mormon is not a translation. Second, I might suggest, for example, that narrative intended to be spoken might be a good alternative to purely poetics context for chiasmus. The Book of Mormon texts may well be poetic passages. And, just as the KJV often removes traces of the poetics from the text, so too might the Book of Mormon.

You not only assume the BofM is a translation, but also that the translation obscured the original poetic structure. Yet the chiasmus survives. Interesting theory.

Despite Smith

[cinepro]

Chiasmus/ apologist humor yonder way...

http://www.thesugarbeet.com/issue24/intheworld/chiasmus.html

FARMS Employee Sees Chiasmus Everywhere

By Eric Samuelsen

PROVO, UT

[Benjamin McGuire]

Dan writes:

You not only assume the BofM is a translation, but also that the translation obscured the original poetic structure. Yet the chiasmus survives. Interesting theory.

The Book of Mormon claims to be a translation. But this "interesting" comment is almost comical given the fact that we can demonstrate that the KJV is a translation which obscures the original poetic structure of the underlying Old Testament Hebrew text. That is, we know that translation can do this (based on observable evidence). The Book of Mormon claims to be a translation. And so it is not unreasonable to assume that if the Book of Mormon is a translation, that the poetic structure is obscured in the translation.

First, the chapters of Isaiah in the BofM were dictated after Helaman 14:23. Second, it is different to quote Isaiah directly and to use Isaiah to create new scripture.

You miss the point. You weren't just discussing the Helaman text, but also reoccurrences in the D&C (which occured after the production of 1 and 2 Nephi). The question still stands. Joseph was apparently willing to quote nearly verbatim large sections of the Bible. Why the need for you to assert (without justification - more mind reading on your part) that Joseph Smith was attempting to conceal the source?

So, do you agree with me, Brent, and anummaelish that chiasmus does not prove the BofM

[Dan Vogel]

Ben,

Your response was quite long for someone who basically agrees that chiasmus is not probative evidence for the BofM

[exegete]

Hi Dan,

Yes, I've been down this rabbit hole with Ben.

For interested readers, the ZLMB thread starts here. For my specific responses to Ben on most of the issues he has raised in this current thread, see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. (See also here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.)

Kind regards,

Brent

http://mormonscripturestudies.com

(

[exegete]

Hi Ben and helix,

Thanks for your respective replies (and for your patience

[Benjamin McGuire]

Brent writes:

To reiterate, this is a nice little chiasm flanked by two additional chiasms that are themselves parallel with each other, yet D&C 29 makes no claim of antiquity.

The one thing, Brent, which you never seem to have understood, is that a "claim for antiquity" is completely irrelevant to the discussion of chiasmus. It isn't just a little bit irrelevant. It is completely irrelevant. My position on this, after all these years, should be quite obvious to you. The fact that D&C 29 "makes no claim of antiquity" is merely a distractionl. It has no relevance. It doesn't matter whether it makes such a claim or not. Certainly, with modern texts, you cannot make your nonsensical claim that there is no "handbook" describing chiasmus. So, the fact that a text is modern should encourage us, perhaps, to examine the proposed chiasmus from a rhetorical standpoint and not from the purely structural nonsense which you offer.

The three chiasms have no mavericks. True, the words first and last appear in |x|, |'y|, and |'x| as well as in the first chiasm; but, significantly, the initial chiasm (which is based on Matt. 19:30 [cf. 20:16; Mark 10:31; Luke 13:30]) uses "first" only in |X| and |'X|, and "last" only in |Y| and |'Y|.

The "first chiasm" is probably a legitimate chiasm. But, going beyond your claim that it "is based on Matt. 19:30", it is quoting it, and explicitly references this in the text. This means that either the quote is essentially the chiasmus (in which case, claiming it to be part of a serial chiasmus is problematic) or it isn't (in which case, the identification of the chiasmus has problems with the natural boundaries of the text). But, in this case, it isn't unique text, it doesn't have to represented as intentional by the author of D&C 29, and so, it isn't necessarily (or even likely) to be a chiasmus in the current text.

Similarly, the words spiritual and temporal are used in |a|; but in the third chiasm, "spiritual" only appears in |x| and |'x|, and "temporal" only in |y| and |'y|. In short, although interrelated, the chiasms exhibit considerable

[Benjamin McGuire]

Dan writes:

Your response was quite long for someone who basically agrees that chiasmus is not probative evidence for the BofM

[Guest ScottieSLG]

I don't know what relevance this has, but you can find haiku in The Book of Mormon as well.

[Dan Vogel]

Ben,

Dan, the problem is, that you seem to somehow think that the issue of chiasmus is only significant in approaching the question of the Book of Mormon's historicity (Brent Metcalfe seems to suffer under this same illusion). This isn't the issue.

Well, it

[Benjamin McGuire]

Dan writes:

Well, it

[rameumptom]

Brent Metcalfe wrote on it, trying to show that it was just a normal way the brain functions. There are chiasmus everywhere, because people think in chiasmus.

Is there another explanation? Perhaps we could go into how chapters in Alma have embedded chiastic structures, something you don't normally see in regular writing. As for whether the D&C has chiasmus, I don't know. If there aren't any, then it would be a sign that these chiasmus aren't from Joseph Smith, but are an ancient art form used by Isaiah, and those that studied deeply the writings of Isaiah, which would definitely include the Nephites.

Butt for the minor a-b-b-a examples that Brent gives, he doesn't show any examples of complex chiasmus, as we find in the BoM.

Head of all issues isn't that chiasmus isn't the only argument that Mormons hang their hat on, but one of many. BTW, I just reviewed this prior to sending it, and I was amazed in finding that the first word in each paragraph makes a sentence! Perhaps Brent was right after all about coincidential things like chiasmus????

[Benjamin McGuire]

Gary -

Don't you think that this was more than a little uncalled for?

Ben

[Dan Vogel]

Ben,

Just wanted to clear up two issues so that there won

[Moksha]

Chiasmus is from the translating power of the Seer Stone in the Hat of the Prophet.