Book of Mormon "Horses"

[Addictio]

Ben, I once had a discussion with Brant about horses over on ZLMB. He was arguing, if I recall correctly, that King Lamoni's chariot was actually a form of royal conveyance like a litter, which would have been borne, carried, by his servants. What do you think the item being referred to there in fact was? Is it possible for you to say? If it is some form of royal litter, why would "horses" be associated with it at all, much less be prepared for the journey as well? (Haven't read the entire thread, so just refer me if I missed something.)

Same question about the horse. What do you think the animal the Nephites named a "horse" looked like, and why? Or is it impossible to say? (See below, about naming.) Now, why would that animal be associated with the thing you believe is being referred to (in teh context of both king and commoner) as a "chariot"?

Note that in the Book, horses are not just owned by kings, but by commoners as well. They are as ubiquitous as cattle and other domestic animals. So they are not just associated with royalty in the text. Note also that the horses owned by commoners are also, in one instance at least, associated with, listed right before, chariots. So chariots too, are not just associated with kings. So how does invoking a special or unique association between kings and horses and chariots in scripture help? Don't the same words refer to the same things when Lamoni owns them as when a commoner owns them?

Also from your list, the chariot is associated with the horse again in the preaching of the risen Messiah. Why would the Messiah preach symbolically about taking away horses and their associated chariots from the Gentiles to a people who had neither? Or is this instead a reference to Nephite "horses" and "chariots"?

Also, regarding the initial naming. Nephi reports encountering the "horse and the ***" together. Does this mean there were two animals Nephi was unfamiliar with, but which looked sufficiently similar that he named one a horse and one an ***? Why should we suppose or guess, in any event, that when naming a group of newly-encountered animals as "horses" and "asses" Nephi relied only upon their similar physical appearance to "real" asses and horses, and not, for example, their use, their function? Looping back to the top, what do you think these "horses" and "asses" actually were, or is it impossible to say? Large mammals used for carrying burdens, or mammals of indefinite size used for food?

Are you saying the Nephites had no beasts of burden, or that they did, but they were not the animals they called "horses" and (at least in one instance) "asses"? Or is it impossible to say?

In that connection, would a person following the mosaic dietary laws consume horseflesh? What about er, donkeyflesh? (I thought it would have been proscribed, but don't know for sure.) If not, would Nephi be inclined to name an animal he raised for meat after one he couldn't eat? In any event, horses and asses were both primarily beasts of burden and transport for the Old World Israelites, weren't they? So wouldn't it make sense to think the Nephite naming of the encountered "horses" and "asses" would be based on their perceived and actual usefulness as burden-bearers, rather than how good they taste?

[Benjamin McGuire]

Addicto writes:

Ben, I once had a discussion with Brant about horses over on ZLMB. He was arguing, if I recall correctly, that King Lamoni's chariot was actually a form of royal conveyance like a litter, which would have been borne, carried, by his servants. What do you think the item being referred to there in fact was? Is it possible for you to say? If it is some form of royal litter, why would "horses" be associated with it at all, much less be prepared for the journey as well? (Haven't read the entire thread, so just refer me if I missed something.)

I have no idea what the item was. The text simply doesn't offer a description of what it was, or how it worked (beyond the specifics which you note above). I also want to remind everyone that I am not particularly attached to this notion. It wouldn't surprise me to learn of pre-Columbian horse remains.

I can't speak for Brant, but I can offer an observation or two. Once we get past the small plates of Nephi, the use of the horse and chariot in the text becomes almost formulaic (there are exceptions). Thus:

Alma 18:9 his horses and [his] chariots

Alma 18:10 his horses and his chariots

Alma 18:12 the horses and the chariots

Alma 20:6 his horses and his chariots

3 Ne. 3:22 their horses, and their chariots

The exceptions are that Alma 18:9 refers to horses without chariots (in the first instance in which it occurs), and there are four later references beyond 3 Ne. 3:22 which discuss horses without chariots. In these later instances, they seem to be considered as part of the "cattle" - or as a food source (this is significant since it would seem to me to preclude the notion that it might within certain contexts it could refer to slaves - but it there is sufficient text to suggest to me that it is also unlikely that the "horses" were being brought as part of the feast to which they were going). Now, whatever the chariot is, it is connected to horses (it is never used in a context which doesn't contain horses). One oddity is the fact that the text seems to indicate that they are distinct even though they are connected (i.e. "the horses and the chariots" instead of "the horses and chariots"). This however may be explained in any number of ways and certainly isn't sufficient to separate them in terms of concept. Also, preparing the horses for the journey consists of watering them. I am not familiar enough with Mesoamerica to go attempt to anticipate what might be referred to in this case. However, the same connection between horses and chariots is observed in the Old Testament texts which are either quoted or alluded to in the text. This is why I believe that it may be a lexical shift in the language.

Same question about the horse. What do you think the animal the Nephites named a "horse" looked like, and why? Or is it impossible to say? (See below, about naming.) Now, why would that animal be associated with the thing you believe is being referred to (in the context of both king and commoner) as a "chariot"?

I think that there are some guesses which could be made (and I do remember that this is all very hypothetical) - but ultimately, the only things that can be said with any certainty are those things which the text speaks to.

Take the example which I offered. Marco Polo called a rhinocerous a unicorn. Why? Because it was a quadruped, it had hair, and it had a horn in the middle of its forehead. It was not slender legged, it was dark not white, its hide was rough, and the hair was that of a buffalo and not similar to a horse. And it certainly wasn't persuaded by virginal maidens. And yet, Marco Polo, instead of using these differences to determine it was a different species from something he was familiar with (at least as a conceptual and semantic model), redefines the unicorn.

So, to what extent would it need to match the model which Nephi had? We can speculate as to what features we think Nephi observed in the creature to allow him to conclude that it was best described as a "horse". (Quadruped, hairy, etc.) But since we have no description of the animal which is described as a "horse", if we assume that it is not the "horse" that we generally imagine, then we have very little to go on. This is, as I will admit, largely a purely apologetic position. However, it needed to be made. The more important issue is the fact that the horse, as described in the text, is not detailed in any sense, nor does it follow the pattern which we would expect likely from an early 19th century position (using other early 19th century texts as examples). But this is also inconclusive.

If we assume that Nephi calls the creature a "horse", then any reference to it (within Nephite society) at a later period would be based strictly on the new conceptual and semantic model which Nephi provides. That is to say that once we lose anyone who may have known what a "horse" was in the Old World (and likely this occurs around the time of Jacob's and Joseph's deaths), then there is no familiarity with any other "horse" than the creature named as such by Nephi.

Because of this, when the Nephites read the Old Testament passages which deal with horses (and by extension with chariots), they can only apply the conceptual and semantic model which they have to the text. When kings are prevalent as leaders of the population (and this includes the Alma texts where, despite the fact that the Nephites had rejected the monarchy as a form of government, the Lamanites still had kings, and the kingship model would still have been fresh in their memory), the horse and chariot is soley mentioned within the context of the king. There isn't any textual connection, for example, in 3 Nephi 22 to the chariots being used as transportation (the context suggests something quite different there).

Note that in the Book, horses are not just owned by kings, but by commoners as well.

Sure, but this is not noted explicitly except in periods of time when there was no king. More than that, however, is the fact that Mosaic Law contains specific issues relative to kings and horses (and chariots). And it is quite likely that it is this connection which is part of the reason why in several places this issue even comes up.

They are as ubiquitous as cattle and other domestic animals. So they are not just associated with royalty in the text. Note also that the horses owned by commoners are also, in one instance at least, associated with, listed right before, chariots. So chariots too, are not just associated with kings. So how does invoking a special or unique association between kings and horses and chariots in scripture help? Don't the same words refer to the same things when Lamoni owns them as when a commoner owns them?

The whole point with these comments is not so much to reflect on the Nephite perception of the "horse" so much as it is to talk about the affects of naming something else as a "horse". Also, as I point out the one instance where the horse is listed with the chariot follows a specific pattern of usage in the text. I assume that it means the same thing in all contexts. However, a third of the instances of the word "horse" in the Book of Mormon come in the Lamoni narrative. And I think this is significant.

Also from your list, the chariot is associated with the horse again in the preaching of the risen Messiah. Why would the Messiah preach symbolically about taking away horses and their associated chariots from the Gentiles to a people who had neither? Or is this instead a reference to Nephite "horses" and "chariots"?

Actually, this is a quotation of other scripture. Micah 5:10 to be specific - which reads:

And it shall come to pass in that day, saith the LORD, that I will cut off thy horses out of the midst of thee, and I will destroy thy chariots:

How the Nephites were supposed to understand this may be a reasonable line of questioning, but, the way that it occurs in the Book of Mormon in translation is more likely a result of it occuring in that way in the KJV.

Also, regarding the initial naming. Nephi reports encountering the "horse and the ***" together. Does this mean there were two animals Nephi was unfamiliar with, but which looked sufficiently similar that he named one a horse and one an ***? Why should we suppose or guess, in any event, that when naming a group of newly-encountered animals as "horses" and "asses" Nephi relied only upon their similar physical appearance to "real" asses and horses, and not, for example, their use, their function? Looping back to the top, what do you think these "horses" and "asses" actually were, or is it impossible to say? Large mammals used for carrying burdens, or mammals of indefinite size used for food?

It's hard to say. It is possible. Certainly the "***" is a beast of burden as described in the text, but it occurs more rarely (four times). I am not willing to speculate on what they were. Others have done that.

Are you saying the Nephites had no beasts of burden, or that they did, but they were not the animals they called "horses" and (at least in one instance) "asses"? Or is it impossible to say?

This is a possibility.

In that connection, would a person following the mosaic dietary laws consume horseflesh? What about er, donkeyflesh? (I thought it would have been proscribed, but don't know for sure.) If not, would Nephi be inclined to name an animal he raised for meat after one he couldn't eat? In any event, horses and asses were both primarily beasts of burden and transport for the Old World Israelites, weren't they? So wouldn't it make sense to think the Nephite naming of the encountered "horses" and "asses" would be based on their perceived and actual usefulness as burden-bearers, rather than how good they taste?

This assumes a couple of things. But, ultimately, it doesn't mean anything. The Old Testament doesn't exclude horses from the menu explicitly. Horses were not included because they had cloven feet. Assuming that the new "horse" did not, it would be consumable.

Ben

[beastie]

Ben, I'll have to return later to most of your post, but wanted to quickly reply to one question.

I am not ignoring the effect. Are you suggesting that the inclusion of the hundred year notion of a Jubilee and the notion of an annual Jubilee are both insertions on the part of the translator? What is the basis for this assumption, and when did this insertion occur?

The extant texts are in Italian and Spanish, and date from the sixteenth century, correct? Obviously these were translations of another document - perhaps the original, perhaps another translation. We do not know this information, hence the uncertainty built into the translation process. But at the very least we know that some translation occured in the sixteenth century, and the translator in the sixteenth century could have inserted his own form of "presentism" in the portrayal of the Jubilee.

Keep in mind, Ben, that, like you, I believe the Gospel of Barnabas is fraudulent. But what's interesting is that, from what I've read, it's anachronisms like the one you cite here that helped to convince scholars it is fraudulent (with the exception of some Muslim scholars who insist it is authentic). IOW - anachronisms originating from a time period past the date when the original document would have been written are red flags that it is a forgery, a hoax. Yet, when critics poit to anachronisms in the BoM that clearly originate from the nineteenth century, it's excused as a translation error.

I'm not saying translations can't contain anachronisms of the original text. Of course they can. But I am saying that anachronisms matter when attempting to ascertain the authenticity of a given text, particularly when there is no original document and no clear provenance and record of translation. And my larger point is that the combination of the "translation artifacts" and "ethnocentricity" render the Book of Mormon, without original document, no clear provenance, and no record of translation, unfalsifiable.

I'll come back to your other points later.

[Saint Paul]

I've read a bit about various theories to explain the presence of "horses" in the Book of Mormon narrative

There appear to be three theories:

1. The "Horses" in the Book of Mormon Were Some Sort of Deer

[Magyar]

No, St. Paul, someone suggested that they MIGHT be. To which I personally don't subscribe.

Do you know for a fact that horses pulled Book of Mormon chariots? Or could you entertain the possibility that the Meso-American nobles COULD have been carried on a litter or in a human-powered rickshaw cart translated as chariot?

And does it really matter either way?

[Saint Paul]

I recall reading somewhere, but do not remember the source, that it wasn't until about 1988 that any evidence was discovered that lions had lived in Israel. That's a long time to wait, but I always believed the Bible. We've only had the Book of Mormon for 175 years so I figure we still have, oh, about 2700 more years to find horse remains in America before anybody can use that argument against us.

...but archaeology is not the Bible. A good magazine to read would be Biblical Archaeology Review.

Do not enter!

[emaughan]

Ooooo... I can never resist those "Don't enter", "Don't open", and "Don't read any further" links!

Is that a picture of you on that site St. Paul, or just someone else practicing Christlike picketing?

[Saint Paul]

Ooooo... I can never resist those "Don't enter", "Don't open", and "Don't read any further" links!

Is that a picture of you on that site St. Paul, or just someone else practicing Christlike picketing?

...you must not have listened to your parents! I tried to warn you!Get out of the street!

[beastie]

Missed response to USU _

Who cares about M. Coe and what he claims was or wasn't there? I, a lapsed Sunstonian and current Aggie, care not a whit for that boogerfied Sunstonians

Michael Coe is the pre-eminent expert in Mesoamerican history, the Mayans in particular. He is not a

[beastie]

I also have a comment on whether or not it matters that JS did not believe in LGT. (and no, lee and zak, just because JS thought that the nephites extended into mesoamerica, that does not mean he adhered to LGT)

The reason JS' interpretation of the BoM does matter is that, as translator, he obviously had a huge impact on shaping the text. Tiny little words like "steel" and "elephants" and "temple" and "horses" are evidence of JS' impact on the text, and, according to the loose translation theory, defy contemporary accounts which present JS as a reader, not a translator in any meaningful use of the term. So God is not controlling the words that JS uses - rather JS' understanding of the text is controlling the words. So whether or not JS adhered to LGT has great import for one question in particular - is LGT the most logical and natural reading of the text? Adherents to LGT insist that it is, and earlier prophets who adhered to the hemispheric model simply misunderstood the text, or did not let the text speak for itself. However, it's not only the TEXT speaking, but JOSEPH SMITH speaking in the text, due to translation effect. Therefore, it is illogical to insist that LGT is a natural or logical reading of the text. It's not how JS read the text, and his interpretation of that text is what had impact on the words he used for the text.

So whether or not LGTists can find other justifications for their theory, the idea that the BoM most logically supports LGT is not one of them.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Beastie writes:

The extant texts are in Italian and Spanish, and date from the sixteenth century, correct? Obviously these were translations of another document - perhaps the original, perhaps another translation. We do not know this information, hence the uncertainty built into the translation process. But at the very least we know that some translation occured in the sixteenth century, and the translator in the sixteenth century could have inserted his own form of "presentism" in the portrayal of the Jubilee.

The original text language was Spanish - and claimed (a fabrication) to be a translation of an Italian text. The Italian text comes later and is a translation of the Spanish.

And we know all of this with a fair degree of certainty. (So much so, that there are only a few scholars of any sort who accept the notion that the text is erlier than a late 15th century text). The detailed information on the language of the original text and the translation into Italian can be found in these sources:

Luis F. Bernab

[Benjamin McGuire]

Beastie writes:

You read the words

[USU78]

Missed response to USU _

Who cares about M. Coe and what he claims was or wasn't there? I, a lapsed Sunstonian and current Aggie, care not a whit for that boogerfied Sunstonians

Michael Coe is the pre-eminent expert in Mesoamerican history, the Mayans in particular. He is not a

[beastie]

Ben,

If one presumes the authenticity of the orginal document, then Barnabas wrote the original document, just like Nephi, et al, wrote the original document. The Spanish document, in that case, would still have been a translation from the original text - or from an earlier translation - written by Barnabas. We can establish with 100% certainty that the original document for the BoM was produced by JS in the nineteenth century, after all - but he still claims it was a translation of a pre-existing ancient document. You and Brant insist that the BoM be approached from that viewpoint, then that is the viewpoint you must use to approach the Gospel of Barnabas. So when you say that is has been established that the Spanish text is the original document, you have already decided against the possible authenticity of the document. This is what you would protest against if it were the method applied to the BoM. In fact, there is more evidence to support the idea of the existence of an earlier text of the Gospel of Barnabas than the BoM, because it was at least referred to as early as the fifth century.

I'm certainly not an expert on the Gospel of Barnabas, however, but nothing I've read would indicate that even those who accept its authenticity believe the original document was written in spanish in the sixteenth century.

You are saying the Jubilee is an integral part of the text - so is metallurgy in the BoM, for example. This is why I agreed that translation errors only stretch so far - when you have an entire culture pictured around the idea of having metallurgy to make weapons and riches, then it is an integral part of the text. But I may be arguing with the wrong person again - do you believe that there actually WAS metallurgy since the time of the Jaredites, and science just has it wrong? If not, then your argument against the Gospel of Barnabas should also apply to the BoM. It's not just a vocabulary problem - it's something integral to the text that is the problem.

Re the horses - I apologize for misspeaking and saying JS used the word horse. It is very difficult for me to keep these different theories - as represented by you and brant in my mind - apart. However, the problem isn't eliminated just because Nephi used the word horse. There is still some animal X that he chose to use the word for, and the fact is that there was no large land mammal in the period at that time. So either he was using the term for a very small mammal, which certainly couldn't pull a chariot, or something other than a mammal.

You have pointed out what you think is Diamond's flaw before - but the corn issue just has to do with how the large population was sustained. It doesn't have to do with the other factors that resulted in the disadvantaged field for the Native Americans. (btw, did you read his book yet? I can't quite tell - you asked for a reference for my statement that the earlier american inhabitants most likely at the primitive horses to extinction, when that is one of Diamond's speculations in the book) They were disadvantaged due to reduced transportation speed (which makes a big differenc in a war), and they were disadvantaged due to the fact that they had not naturally developed immunities to diseases which originate in large domesticated animals and then transfer to the human population, like smallpox. It wasn't their population size that left them at a disadvantage, so the corn argument is besides the point and doesn't affect Diamond's assertions. They had quite a large population, as you know, until it began to be deccimated by smallpox which the two survivors of the spanish shipwreck spread among the natives. (how interesting that none of Nephi's party spread the germ beforehand. Lucky, eh? Just two spaniards was enough to start the plague later, but two plus family units with several generations wasn't enough during BoM times) By the time Cortez arrived, their population had already been drastically reduced due to the disease - yet they still vastly outnumbered the Spaniards. The Spaniards were extremely fearful when they first saw the numbers of the Indian population. But what gave the Spaniards the advantage? Horses and metal swords.

If you concede that the horses pulled the chariots (bravo for that, I don't think brant makes that concession, which I find bizarre - unless I have completely misunderstood his argument) - then obviously the Nephites used horses for transportation. Why are you making such a big deal over beast of burden? The use of a horse for transportation dramatically affects a population, and the Native Americans didn't have access to an animal that could serve that function. Europeans did.

I'll lay aside the loose translation/LGT problem until one of those proponents shows up for discussion.

BTW, Ben, I never approach these discussions with the view of changing your mind, or Brant's, or whomever's. But I do realize that other people read these threads and can use information from them to form their own opinions. IMO - if you approach these conversations to change one another's minds, you are doomed to a lot of frustration.

[beastie]

Well, the fact remains that Coe and beastie both have ignored the Linne materials in arriving at the mid-to-late 1st Millenium CE date for iron smelting. I find it curious that beastie wishes to argue the point of Coe's credentials and nonboogerfication instead of the substance of his prior assertion:

You and other internet apologists repeat a footnote for a source you admittedly have never read, and when current scholars all assert that metallurgy did not originate till around 700AD, I'm supposed to refute the same source despite the fact that none of you even know what it says? You appear to scorn me for not finding a way to obtain the text, and don't mind apologists who use the text to make an assertion unsupported by other scholars have never read it, either?

You don't even KNOW if Coe is "ignoring" Linne's find or if Sorenson was not accurate in reporting Linne's find, do you? Because you don't know what Linne actually said.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Beastie writes:

If one presumes the authenticity of the orginal document, then Barnabas wrote the original document, just like Nephi, et al, wrote the original document. The Spanish document, in that case, would still have been a translation from the original text - or from an earlier translation - written by Barnabas.

And the studies which I listed indicate that a very high degree of certainty exists for the claim tht they were not translated, but that the original language of the text was Spanish, and that the Italian text was translated from the Spanish. The Spanish text of the Gospel of Barnabas makes the specific claim that it was translated from an Italian text. The claim made in that edition is that the Aragonian Morisco Mustaf

[USU78]

Well, the fact remains that Coe and beastie both have ignored the Linne materials in arriving at the mid-to-late 1st Millenium CE date for iron smelting. I find it curious that beastie wishes to argue the point of Coe's credentials and nonboogerfication instead of the substance of his prior assertion:

You and other internet apologists repeat a footnote for a source you admittedly have never read, and when current scholars all assert that metallurgy did not originate till around 700AD, I'm supposed to refute the same source despite the fact that none of you even know what it says? You appear to scorn me for not finding a way to obtain the text, and don't mind apologists who use the text to make an assertion unsupported by other scholars have never read it, either?

You don't even KNOW if Coe is "ignoring" Linne's find or if Sorenson was not accurate in reporting Linne's find, do you? Because you don't know what Linne actually said.

Burden of proof, my dear beastie, burden of proof.

Sorenson met it. You cannot rebut it. Sorenson wins.

[Saint Paul]

I'm interested in your thoughts as to which of these is the most plausible explanation for horses among the Nephites and Lamanites.

Why horses of course....

I wonder why the Smithsonian Institute or the National Geographic Society have not "discovered" these pictures? Probably because they are forgeries.Do not enter!

[Confidential Informant]

Because you don't know what Linne actually said.

Yes, we do. He said he found evidence of iron smelting on a very small scale in the preclassic era.

Or are you suggesting that Sorenson was dishonest?

C.I.

[beastie]

Ben,

I'm only going to spend about ten minutes on this right now, so will have to return to some points later.

Of course there are people who accept the Gospel of Barnabas as authentic, and make arguments to defend that stance. As far as I have seen, they are Muslims, who have obvious religious investment in the text being authentic. But if I were going to take Brant's approach, as I understand it of course, I would insist that the Gospel of Barnabas be treated as any other document, and that it be approached as if it were the ancient historical document it claims to be, and see how it can be measured within that assumption.

You have assumed that the arguments about the original text being in Spanish are conclusive enough to end that argument. The Muslims who argue for the authenticity of the Gospel of Barnabas would disagree with that. Then you state that the BoM is different because of Hebraisms, etc, as if that argument is also conclusive enough to end the discussion. Surely you must realize that this argument may appear conclusive to you, but falls short for many others (including some like Brant who cannot be so wed to a tight translation). So if we are going to take Brant's approach, and measure the text as if it were what it claims to be, then my original point is correct - there would have been a translation from the original document by Barnabas - in fact, more than one translation. The opportunities for translation artifact and presentism multiply.

BTW, you misunderstood my statement about the BoM being produced in the nineteenth century. Even you agree with this statement - it was produced in the nineteenth century, you just think it was a translation of a pre-existing ancient document, just like many Muslims view the Gospel of Barnabas.

Two more quick question (I'll come back tomorrow to the rest) -

QUOTE 

Re the horses - I apologize for misspeaking and saying JS used the word horse. It is very difficult for me to keep these different theories - as represented by you and brant in my mind - apart. However, the problem isn't eliminated just because Nephi used the word horse. There is still some animal X that he chose to use the word for, and the fact is that there was no large land mammal in the period at that time. So either he was using the term for a very small mammal, which certainly couldn't pull a chariot, or something other than a mammal.

Would you please provide evidence for this?

What are you asking evidence of? That there were no large land mammals that could be domesticated in Mesoamerica during the time period? Did you really read Diamond's book?

And please give me a link to show where I can buy paperback versions of Linne's book that contains this article. I searched for it for many hours.

CI -

Do I believe Sorenson was being dishonest? It depends on what you mean by "dishonest". Is Jeff Lindsay being dishonest with his reference to a site as support for the BoM when it actually dated the find to 700AD? Or is he being generous, or perhaps leaving unstated that what this means is that smelting existed during THAT time period (which no one contests) so there's hope it existed earlier (as U seems to suggest). Or was he being a bit sloppy? Or suffering from confirmation bias that colored his interpretation of the information?

IOW, do you really mean to suggest that every reference, footnote, offered by an author will reliably be interpreted to mean the exact same thing by everyone who reads it?

As for myself, if one lone article from 1942 makes a claim that seems to be contradictory to the assertions of all the other current scholars in the field, makes it suspect enough that I would actually want to read it.

U-

In my opinion, the fact that no current mesoamerican scholar that I have read accepts a BoM time period dating for smelting is refutation enough. The fact that the scholar viewed within the scholarly community as the pre-eminent authority on the Mayan categorically stated that there was no smelting during the BoM time period is refutation enough. I understand that it is not for you - but you didn't even seem to know who Michael Coe was, so your opinion about his statement is completely irrelevant to me. And, ironically, somehow this has become my burden of proof, and apologists are excused for not having read an article they so often cite. I see our logic differs enough on this issue to not be able to come to an agreement.

[beastie]

More comments, and I'm working on providing some citations for Ben on a couple points -

Me

You have pointed out what you think is Diamond's flaw before - but the corn issue just has to do with how the large population was sustained. It doesn't have to do with the other factors that resulted in the disadvantaged field for the Native Americans. (btw, did you read his book yet? I can't quite tell - you asked for a reference for my statement that the earlier american inhabitants most likely at the primitive horses to extinction, when that is one of Diamond's speculations in the book)

Ben

But this is speculation (as you point out). Is there evidence for this?

Again, evidence for what, exactly? Are you asking for evidence that horses and metal swords gave the Spaniards the huge advantage in the Conquest? Fine. Give me a day or two to locate and copy pertinent citations. Honestly, it strikes me very odd you

[Brant Gardner]

beastie:

The horses gave the Spaniards the huge advantage of speed and time, and their metal swords cut through their defenses like butter. The guns were useful more for shock value, because they were so inaccurate at that time period. The swords are what really mattered.

You are inventing history again. The swords were not that devastating. In fact, there are accounts of admiration for the native macuahuitls - one notes that a single blow cut off a horse's head. You won't find reports of Spanish swords doing that. The metal swords were more durable, but they were not as sharp. The natives had a lot more of them and could replace them fast enough that the metal swords' durability was not an issue.

Another issue was the form of battle. The Spaniards fought to the end and destruction. The Aztecs fought according to different rules. The Spaniards were supposed to know they were defeated and behave. They didn't follow the rules that were expected - cultural issues - not metal or horses.

The Spanish won because they took advantage of the disastisfaction among the Aztec hegemony. In particular, they fought with the Tlaxcallans - who actually won the war for them.

[beastie]

Give me a day or two, Brant, to provide more references for my assertions. I already have a couple, but given the level of skepticism being demonstrated about the advantage that the steel weaponry (which included armor) and horses gave the Spaniards, I want to find more.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Beastie writes:

I'm only going to spend about ten minutes on this right now, so will have to return to some points later.

Do you ever find yourself amazed at how ten minutes here turns into an hour?

Of course there are people who accept the Gospel of Barnabas as authentic, and make arguments to defend that stance. As far as I have seen, they are Muslims, who have obvious religious investment in the text being authentic. But if I were going to take Brant's approach, as I understand it of course, I would insist that the Gospel of Barnabas be treated as any other document, and that it be approached as if it were the ancient historical document it claims to be, and see how it can be measured within that assumption.

Exactly. And as I keep pointing out, the actual investigation, from the text, demonstrates that it is a document written in the 15th or 16th century in Spanish.

The really beautiful thing about this is that there isn't anyone who is claiming to have discovered the author, and using personal biographical data about that author to interpret the text.

You have assumed that the arguments about the original text being in Spanish are conclusive enough to end that argument. The Muslims who argue for the authenticity of the Gospel of Barnabas would disagree with that.

No. There isn't a single Muslim who believes the text is authentic who has addressed this issue. (This is, by the way, noted in the summary which I referenced). At the same time, there are a number of Muslim scholars who completely reject the text as a forgery, and there are several Muslim scholars who claim that while it is a late creation, it may contain elements from an earlier source. Given these facts, while Muslims may like the fact that the Gospel of Barnabas is hyper-critical of Paul, calls Jesus a prophet, and Muhammad the Mesiah, it doesn't appear to be a text which Muslims stand behind in any kind of uniform fashion. Some of the pro-Gospel of Barnabas claims are far enough out there to be ignorable. For example, there us Yusseff, who contends that not only was the Gospel of Barnabas co-penned by Matthew, but also that it is in fact identical in many places to Q. (M. E. Yussef, The Dead Sea Scrolls, The Gospel of Barnabas and the New Testament [indianapolis: American Trust Publications, 1990]). Now, I am not interested in critiquing the Muslim position. But it seems to me, at this point, that your interest is in being argumentative. The reality is that making appeals like this isn't going to help your position. Why don't you instead try defending the text from the text, instead of getting off on tangents which you clearly are not equipped to deal with. This is not a parallel situation. While there are Muslims who accept the text as authentic on theological grounds, these are not scholars who are addressing the issues. How many scholars within the LDS community reject the Book of Mormon as a forgery? If that number becomes most of them, then we have a corollary.

In any case, let's get back to the Jubilee -

What do you propose was the original text which was modified by the translator to become the three chapters dealing with the Jubillee?

What are you asking evidence of? That there were no large land mammals that could be domesticated in Mesoamerica during the time period? Did you really read Diamond's book?

The Bison was a large land mammal that was known of in mesoamerica.

Now, Diamond's speculations aside, what is the evidence?

And please give me a link to show where I can buy paperback versions of Linne's book that contains this article. I searched for it for many hours.

I found it on Amazon.com. In fact, there's a listing there now for $22.00. I did a search using the string "Mexican Highland Culture" which is the name of one of the two sources from Linne that is referenced. There was a trade paperback edition which was republished not too long ago for the entire series. They have nice covers.

Again, evidence for what, exactly?

No, that the horse was eaten to extinction.

Are you asking for evidence that horses and metal swords gave the Spaniards the huge advantage in the Conquest?

No, just that horses did. After Cortez had that huge army with less than twenty horses. Tell me, just what kind of tactical advantage did twenty horses provide?

Honestly, it strikes me very odd you

[Benjamin McGuire]

As part of your research Beastie, I particularly want a detailed assessment of how the less than twenty horses which Cortex brought with him, were used to give such a great tactical advantage.

Ben