Book of Mormon "Horses"

[Addictio]

Ben said:

You are still avoiding the most significant issue for the rest of us right now. You have offered a notion of how you think the material should be evaluated. I want you to provide us with an example of this kind of process occurring in a scholarly work. I want to see someone doing what you say should be done.

Are you using the royal "we" here, Ben? Heh.

I'm gobbled up for a while with other stuff, but will get back to you eventually. (I also have to finish the analysis of Brant's approach by discussing Point 3, identified above.)

BTW, I think your request may be based upon a misunderstanding of the conceptual level my summary back to you is operating at. A better question might be: Is there any document-authenticity inquiry or debate that would fall outside this conceptual framework? It's a framework within which different proposed or adopted methodologies/approaches can be discussed, compared and appraised. Note it is general enough in scope to "encompass" the OT pseudepigrapha approach you gave examples of, as well as, for example, authenticity inquiries made in courtrooms every day. But to make it "say" anything useful or illuminating regarding a particular methodology or approach, one has to use it, not just describe it.

[beastie]

CI - in the "interest of civility" I will refrain from responding to you in kind and simply explain to you, once again, that I have never claimed to be an expert. If you have evidence otherwise, please produce it. What I did is accept that Brant had a valid point when he stated that people without any background knowledge of Mesoamerican history are not in a strong position to formulate informed opinions regarding the possible historicity of the BoM. So I did what he suggested - educate myself, and have grown extremely interested in the period aside from the BoM. By so doing, and being willing to talk about what I have learned in context of the BoM, you have determined that I am proclaiming myself an expert. This is the last time I will explain this to you, and instead will link you to this explanation the next time you make this accusation, which I have no doubt you will do, as you have demonstrated this binary view before and ignored this type of explanation before.

Ben - are you really not able to imagine the VoH as a narrative text? It provides plenty of assertions about the culture and history of the ancient americans to be able to do so. But if you are really not able to imagine the VoH as a narrative text, retaining the same assertions it currently does, I will try to put together a brief outline for you of what it could look like. It may take a few days, of course.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Addicto writes:

Are you using the royal "we" here, Ben? Heh.

Of course : )

I enjoy illusions of grandeur.

But to make it "say" anything useful or illuminating regarding a particular methodology or approach, one has to use it, not just describe it.

All I want is an example of someone else applying this method that you describe.

Beastie writes:

Ben - are you really not able to imagine the VoH as a narrative text? It provides plenty of assertions about the culture and history of the ancient americans to be able to do so. But if you are really not able to imagine the VoH as a narrative text, retaining the same assertions it currently does, I will try to put together a brief outline for you of what it could look like. It may take a few days, of course.

The problem is that if I "imagine" the narrative, then I am essentially going to make the whole thing up. Ethan doesn't give enough material there to really construct a narrative. And there isn't enough details - that if I have to provide them, I could (and would) produce whatever I wanted to in my imaginary text. And I am not sure that this would be at all helpful in the context of this current discussion. Do this make sense to you at all? I would be happy to take on any text of disputed origins (or at least attempt to) - if you would simply pick a text.

Ben

[Addictio]

Ben said:

All I want is an example of someone else applying this method that you describe.

I don't know how to say it any more clearly, I guess, Ben. Again, it's not a method (methodology), it's a way of describing the logical structure within which discussions of methodological issues relating to authentication occur. When Brant, in articulating his own method, distinguishes between information derived from the content of a text and independent, extra-textual information regarding a text's origin, he's recognizing a principal feature of that structure. When he then takes a position on the logical relationship between those two types of information for a group of texts he's using that distinction at the methodological level.

When at the beginning of his "Message of the JS Papyrii" Nibley remarks that both JS's translation method and facts about the JS-reported origin of and use of the plates can and should be ignored when testing the BoM's claim to be an authentic translation of an ancient text, he's announcing his own methodological position on the same distinction.

[Dan Vogel]

Ben,

I could reproduce all of them. But what becomes quite obvious in each of these discussions of provenance of a text is that provenance is derived from the contents.

Historians typically refer to provenance as the chain of custody of the physical document. The introductions to these pseudepigrapha are not attempting to determine the true origin of the documents as opposed to the claimed origin. They do so by searching out anachronisms and clues to probable authorship and date.

If one wants to learn about the BofM

[beastie]

The problem is that if I "imagine" the narrative, then I am essentially going to make the whole thing up. Ethan doesn't give enough material there to really construct a narrative. And there isn't enough details - that if I have to provide them, I could (and would) produce whatever I wanted to in my imaginary text. And I am not sure that this would be at all helpful in the context of this current discussion. Do this make sense to you at all? I would be happy to take on any text of disputed origins (or at least attempt to) - if you would simply pick a text.

No, this doesn't make sense, because there is no rule about how many details a text must hold. The VoH certainly provides a framework for an historical narrative, or, if you prefer, a brief historical summary. It would explain that members of the Lost Tribe of Israel moved to the American continent, that the people separated into two groups, one became savage and the other civilized, that they had tremendous wars until the civilized portion was exterminated, with the subsequent loss of its advanced technology, such as iron. It would explain that the religous beliefs and traditions of the civilized portion originated from ancient Israel, and that they build a great civilization complete with fortifications. It would include prophecies from Isaiah, and would include an instrument comprising of a breast plate with two white buckhorn butons attached, like the precious stones of Urim. It would assert that the original record was buried. It would assert that idolatry and human sacrifice existed in ancient america. It would describe how a portion of the ancient americans switched from a monarchial government to republican form of governments, and in this republic the same person held civil and religious power.

Of course it would contain anachronisms, just like the BoM, and it would contain exaggerations, because this could only be a very small population in a very limited geographical area, but the author would not mention the actual natives of the area due to ethocentricity. But this is because it is a translation, and because the original author did not think it necessary to include details that were too obvious at the given time period. Since it is not a book that includes references to known historical figures or sites, it cannot be pinpointed to a specific area, although people may speculate.

Why does it matter what details one adds to flesh out the story? What is it that matters, aside from this framework? They don't have to be historically accurate, it could also be partially fiction, or it could be so extraordinarily ethnocentric as to be a very weak history. If it contains anachronisms and ethnocentric distortions, then it is acting like an historical text - one that has been translated, that is.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Dan Vogel writes:

Historians typically refer to provenance as the chain of custody of the physical document. The introductions to these pseudepigrapha are not attempting to determine the true origin of the documents as opposed to the claimed origin. They do so by searching out anachronisms and clues to probable authorship and date.

The chain of custody of a particular document doesn't have anything to do with "provenance" in this situation. Provenance means "origins". And while, for artificats, provenance is exactly what you describe, for texts, this kind of provenance means very little. At best, provenance of this sort provides outside dates. Which is to say that if I find a text which can be connected to a specific date, then I know that it cannot be written later than that date. But since most texts - particular those which are translations or copies - are earlier (often much earlier) than any given manuscript copy, this kind of argument means very little.

The introductions to the Pseudepigrapha are in fact attempting to discover the origins of the texts - not the claimed origins. Joseph and Aseneth, for example, is a narrative which occurs in the mid second millenia BC. The earliest known text is in the 5th century AD. And as the material I quoted suggests, it is believed to have been authored in the 1st century BC. So, I think that you are making a mistake in these claims here.

If one wants to learn about the BofM

[Benjamin McGuire]

Beastie writes:

No, this doesn't make sense, because there is no rule about how many details a text must hold.

Of course there aren't. But then, demonstrating anything about a text which doesn't contain sufficient detail isn't possible. A single sentance can be a text (actually, when dealing with NT fragments, 6 letters from 4 words can be a text). But, such a text is incapable of revealing very much about itself. We could date it as an artifact perhaps (see my comments above to Dan) - but this wouldn't provide any significant information towards the issues you and I are discussing.

The VoH certainly provides a framework for an historical narrative, or, if you prefer, a brief historical summary. It would explain that members of the Lost Tribe of Israel moved to the American continent, that the people separated into two groups, one became savage and the other civilized, that they had tremendous wars until the civilized portion was exterminated, with the subsequent loss of its advanced technology, such as iron. It would explain that the religous beliefs and traditions of the civilized portion originated from ancient Israel, and that they build a great civilization complete with fortifications. It would include prophecies from Isaiah, and would include an instrument comprising of a breast plate with two white buckhorn butons attached, like the precious stones of Urim. It would assert that the original record was buried. It would assert that idolatry and human sacrifice existed in ancient america. It would describe how a portion of the ancient americans switched from a monarchial government to republican form of governments, and in this republic the same person held civil and religious power.

But none of these things are significant without a real context. (You seem to be suggesting that they are - and clearly you are attempting to make an argument based on the similarities - as you perceive them - between the Book of Mormon and VoH). Obviously, some of this could be tested. For example, Ethan is dealing with the lost ten tribes, who were removed from Palestine by the Assyrians about 700 BC. He asserts, for example, that the Israelites were strictly monotheistic. Modern scholarship recognizes that Israel was not monotheistic in any strict sense until after the return from the Babylonian exile - and that this stricter monotheism begins in the Josian reform about 625 BC. This then becomes an anachronism within the text. This is testable data. Although, I think in other areas, (which are not my expertise) it would be necessary to look at Ethan's claims of specific practices among the native americans. What was the nature of the Jubilee which Ethan discusses? This is important because the nature of the Jubilee has shifted considerably over time. What does Ethan view as the Jubilee - what was the actual practice observed within the Native American community - and how does that relate to the 7th century BC practice of the Jubilee? And so on. Now, of course, 7th century BC Israelite practices are something that I know a bit about and am current on the scholarship. I am not an expert in Mesoamerican studies. For this reason, I tend to focus on those issues related to the Israelite heritage in the Book of Mormon while Brant tends to focus on other issues.

Then there is the issue of a translation. Unless you actually provide me with a text, how am I supposed to imagine a text which may or may not be a translation. Either it will be or it won't. And since it is my imagination, I am going to know. Which pretty much reduces the effectiveness of the exercise in my opinion.

To put it more bluntly, you have an agenda here. And I am simply uninterested in pandering to that. What I want is a text. You offered me a text, and I showed how that text would be immediately disqualified. You then suggested I should be creative with that text. I am not interested. I want you to provide me with a text, and I will discuss that text. You can use an existing text if you want, or you can create one. I don't care. But I want you to provide the text.

Certainly there are enough texts out there which can provide a similar enough situation to be of value .... you could simply pull one off the internet.

Ben

[beastie]

But none of these things are significant without a real context. (You seem to be suggesting that they are - and clearly you are attempting to make an argument based on the similarities - as you perceive them - between the Book of Mormon and VoH). Obviously, some of this could be tested.

Yes. My point.

Ethan is dealing with the lost ten tribes, who were removed from Palestine by the Assyrians about 700 BC. He asserts, for example, that the Israelites were strictly monotheistic. Modern scholarship recognizes that Israel was not monotheistic in any strict sense until after the return from the Babylonian exile - and that this stricter monotheism begins in the Josian reform about 625 BC. This then becomes an anachronism within the text. This is testable data.

Yes, it is. Just like it is a testable assertion that there were horses, steel, metallurgy, etc, during the BoM time period. Brant says that these anachronisms are to be expected from a translated text. So the point I am trying to make is that one could use the same absolution with any text, including the claims of the VoH. IF it were a translated text, your objections in regards to monotheism and the jubilee can be explained as translation artifacts. As Brant says about the BoM, there is some connection between the text and the translation, but it is suspect to the cultural overlay of the translator. So if JS didn't know what a tapir was, and used the word "horse" instead, Ethan may not have known the correct name for whatever festival or feast was celebrated, and used a term familiar to himself instead. Likewise, Ethan's cultural expectations regarding the belief systems of the Jewish people overlayed his translation of their beliefs. The possibilities are endless. OR it could be argued that the later author (of the original historical text) engaged in presentism to portray his ancestors as monotheistic, because he and his culture were currently monotheistic.

To put it more bluntly, you have an agenda here. And I am simply uninterested in pandering to that. What I want is a text. You offered me a text, and I showed how that text would be immediately disqualified. You then suggested I should be creative with that text. I am not interested. I want you to provide me with a text, and I will discuss that text. You can use an existing text if you want, or you can create one. I don't care. But I want you to provide the text.

Everyone who posts here has an agenda, Ben. Don't fool yourself.

I have a text in mind, but it will take a day or two for me to post it. I'll be back.

[opmer]

Does anyone have the parody of some famous Western song that was based on Tapir in the book of Mormon? It was posted on RfM some time back, and I've seen it here before. It's a knee-slapper!

[Dan Vogel]

Ben,

And now I am going to repeat myself. This is not the provenance. This isn't how the provenance of a contested text is described. This is the provenance of a manuscript (an artifact as I mention above) but not a text. Do you see the difference?

I see what you are getting at. I didn

[Benjamin McGuire]

Beastie writes:

IF it were a translated text, your objections in regards to monotheism and the jubilee can be explained as translation artifacts.

Not really (even assuming I had made an objection regarding a jubilee). You might notice that issues over vocabulary (i.e. what is steel, what is a horse, etc.) are the kinds of things which translation layers typically deal with. But practices, like the practice of monotheism in a society, are not translation issues in anything like steel or horses.

So if JS didn't know what a tapir was, and used the word "horse" instead, Ethan may not have known the correct name for whatever festival or feast was celebrated, and used a term familiar to himself instead.

Perhaps you should go back and read my comments on the notion of a "horse" in this thread. What you present is a caricature of the claims which I make - and doesn't even begin to interact with my discussion.

One of the things which is worth pointing out is that anachronisms like "steel" and the issue over "horses" occur in other texts and translations. Whether or not Ethan (to use your example) used a familiar term for a feast within the culture, if Ethan is merely a translator, then descriptions of that feast should occur within the text (or else we can easily assume that Ethan didn't have a basis for making that assumption in the translation). It is these descriptions - the function that the feast plays within the text, that will determine whether or not Ethan is right in his translation.

OR it could be argued that the later author (of the original historical text) engaged in presentism to portray his ancestors as monotheistic, because he and his culture were currently monotheistic.

Sure. This happens quite regularly. But then, this is all taken into consideration when dating the text.

I have a text in mind, but it will take a day or two for me to post it. I'll be back.

I'm looking forward to it.

Ben

[Benjamin McGuire]

Dan wrote:

You are going to have to refresh my memory on this one.

Sure. On Dec. 22, 2004 you wrote:

I haven

[beastie]

Ben,

I realize that you do not adhere to the exact same apologetics as Brant does - IIRC, you believe in a tight translation process, which must mean that science is simply wrong on these fundamental issues. To be honest, I find this less interesting than brant's theory, because I think yours - with tight translation - is pretty doomed. Certainly study is ongoing and revision of theories occurs, but some of these issues - the presence of horses and metallurgy - seem pretty established. So I think sometimes I am not clear with you because I tend to respond along the lines of how I understand brant's theory. I apologize for that.

I do agree with your statement about vocabulary, versus content. And I think that is a problem Brant has never resolved. The passages in the BoM that refer to horses are referring to them in conjunction with travel, so to preserve the content, then there must be an animal X that served that function in Mesoamerica. And there wasn't - horse or animal X. In addition, the passages that refer to metallurgy also sometimes refer to the process - which means that to preserve the content, there must be an explanation of the process matching some real Mesoamerican process - and it doesn't.

Anyway, I haven't had the time to delve into this particular text much to point you to specific areas, but perhaps you're already familiar with The Sealed Portion of the Brother of Jared? I learned about it on Z. It's online now, here's the website.

http://www.sealedportion.com/

I've also wondered if the Gospel of Barnabas could successfully be defended using Brant's approach.

http://www.barnabas.net/

[Confidential Informant]

<sigh>

Certainly study is ongoing and revision of theories occurs, but some of these issues - the presence of horses and metallurgy - seem pretty established.

Linnes found evidence of smelting.

Even as we speak, they are carbon dating equine bones found the proper strata to indicate the presence of pre-coumbian horses, and rumor has it the preliminary evidence is supportive (I'll defer to Brant on that).

So what, exactly, is established? All it takes is to find one horse to blow that assertion out of the water. And the evidence of small-scale smelting has already been found.

C.I.

[Zakuska]

CI,

All it takes is to find one horse to blow that assertion out of the water.

I don't think this is correct.

They've already found 3-4 bones which show pre-columbian post ice age horses here in the US. What was the cry from the other side of the fence?

Anomoly

[beastie]

CI,

The day you actually find Linne's article, read it, and can accurately summarize what it stated is the day you are justified using it as a reference. I have yet to see one apologist able to do so, despite referring to it so often. For all you know, it could be like Linsday's reference to a dig that, once I looked it up, actually dated the smelting activity to about 700 AD.

They've already found 3-4 bones which show pre-columbian post ice age horses here in the US. What was the cry from the other side of the fence?

Reference?

[Benjamin McGuire]

Beastie writes:

I've also wondered if the Gospel of Barnabas could successfully be defended using Brant's approach.

http://www.barnabas.net/

Are you going to try?

Some comments on the Gospel of Barnabas should be forthcoming in a couple of days. Then I will tackle the other text (although I do appreciate the fact that you have chosen such lengthy works - I won't be attempting to make my comments comprehensive).

Ben

[Benjamin McGuire]

Actually, I figured I could start on one point right away - giving Beastie a chance to defend it (using Brant's method of course).

In chapters 82 and 84 of The Gospel of Barnabas from the English translation on the web site which Beastie linked to, we get this text (shortened to the essential parts for my argument):

Jesus answered: "I am indeed sent to the House of Israel as a prophet of salvation; but after me shall come the Messiah, sent of God to all the world; for whom God has made the world.

And then through all the world will God be worshipped, and mercy received, insomuch that the year of jubilee, which now comes every hundred years, shall by the Messiah be reduced to every year in every place." Then the woman left her waterpot and ran to the city to announce all that she had heard from Jesus.

...

After the prayer of midnight; the disciples came near to Jesus, and he said to them: "This night shall be in the time of the Messiah, Messenger of God, the jubilee every year that now comes every hundred years. Therefore I will not that we sleep, but let us make prayer, bowing our head a hundred times, doing reverence to our God, mighty and merciful, who is blessed for evermore, and therefore each time let us say: "I confess you our God alone, that has not had beginning, nor shall ever have end; for by your mercy gave you to all things their beginning, and by your justice you shall give to all an end; that has no likeness among men, because in your infinite goodness you are not subject to motion nor to any accident. Have mercy on us, for you have created us, and we are the works of your hand."

Under Jewish practice, a Jubilee occured every fifty years (it was considered a year, although it was actually very short, and was used to correct the calendar which would drift over time otherwise - even with the inclusion of the leap month in the Jewish calendar - one of the problems with following a lunar calendar). A hundred year Jubilee doesn't occur until Pope Boniface VIII instituted a one hundred year Jubilee in 1300 (it was also the first time that the Jubilee was observed by Christians apart from any observances in Jewish-Christian circles in the infancy of the Christian faith). This was quickly reduced - and by 1475, the Jubilee was observed every 25 years. Pope Sixtus V declared both 1590 and 1600 as Jubilee years. And it is quite likely that this is being referred to in the text as reducing the period of the Jubilee.

Jesus would not have recognized a 100 year Jubilee. Such a thing does not occur in any Jewish text. Nor is there ever any consideration given for a reduction in the length of the Jubilee to "every year", nor would this seem reasonable given the function of the Jubilee year in Jewish culture. Clearly the author of the Spanish and Italian editions of this text are mistaken. More than this, there is no Jewish practice celebrating 100 year cycles.

This, by the way aims at establishing my claim (shared by others) that the Gospel of Barnabas is a late work written in the 16th or 17th century by a Moriscan in Spain (perhaps Gibralter). But then, if you recall the discussion we had a couple years (or more) ago on ZLMB on this topic, you might remember.

Ben

[Benjamin McGuire]

Beastie writes:

I do agree with your statement about vocabulary, versus content. And I think that is a problem Brant has never resolved. The passages in the BoM that refer to horses are referring to them in conjunction with travel, so to preserve the content, then there must be an animal X that served that function in Mesoamerica. And there wasn't - horse or animal X. In addition, the passages that refer to metallurgy also sometimes refer to the process - which means that to preserve the content, there must be an explanation of the process matching some real Mesoamerican process - and it doesn't.

I did want to add a few comments here. There are only a limited number of references to horses in the Book of Mormon. So, it doesn't hurt to provide all of them.

1 Ne. 18:25 And it came to pass that we did find upon the land of promise, as we journeyed in the wilderness, that there were beasts in the forests of every kind, both the cow and the ox, and the *** and the horse, and the goat and the wild goat, and all manner of wild animals, which were for the use of men. And we did find all manner of ore, both of gold, and of silver, and of copper.

2 Ne. 12:7 Their land also is full of silver and gold, neither is there any end of their atreasures; their land is also full of horses, neither is there any end of their chariots.

2 Ne. 15:28 Whose arrows shall be sharp, and all their bows bent, and their horses

[USU78]

The day you actually find Linne's article, read it, and can accurately summarize what it stated is the day you are justified using it as a reference. I have yet to see one apologist able to do so, despite referring to it so often. For all you know, it could be like Linsday's reference to a dig that, once I looked it up, actually dated the smelting activity to about 700 AD.

Here's that Sorenson reference again:

"Mexican highland cultures," Ethnographical Museum of Sweden, Stockholm, Publ. 7, n.s., 1942, p. 132.

Quaere 1: Is the ca. 700 CE date firm or +/-?

Quaere 2: If the smelting evidence appears in the +/- 700 CE stratum in site "A", how ridiculous is it to conclude it was present at earlier times (remembering, of course, that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence)?

Quaere 3: If all it takes is one more find of steel/smelting/horses in situ in the right stratum of the right real estate to debunk your worldview (it does, BTW), how solid is your footing?

[beastie]

US-

You're confusing two references. I do not know anything about the Linne reference, and neither does anyone else that I've discussed it with on the internet, because none of them, including brant, have read the actual article. They're just repeating Sorenson's footnote. I spent hours looking for the article or a summary of it on the internet with no success. The book which contains the article is 300 dollars, beyond my budget. Look at the date of the footnote - 1942. If Linne had found something that seriously moved the current date of metallurgy in Mesoamerica, I think other scholars would have picked up on that within the last sixty plus years. Instead, scholars, including Michael Coe, date the beginnings of metallurgy in Mesoamerica to around 700-900 AD. In fact, in his Sunstone article, Coe specifically states there was no metallurgy in Mesoamerica during the BoM period.

Now, the Lindsay reference - I should have taken the time to explain more thoroughly, but I was talking to someone who, IIRC, I had already pointed this out to. Lindsay refers to a new dig as containing possible evidence for earlier smelting in Mesoamerica. Yet when I looked the results of that dig up on famsi, it dated the smelting to 700 AD. This is not earlier than what is already accepted, it is within that range. If you want the specifics of this information, tell me and I will provide the reference and link later tonight.

My point is that apologists shouldn't use Linne's footnote unless they actually know what Linne said. As the Lindsay case demonstrates, there are times when apologists may be mistaken, or overlook information, in their citations. Considering how much is vested in that Linne refernce, I think it behooves apologists to actually find and read the article.

What would it take to change "my" world view? It would take enough evidence for Mesoamerican scholars to alter their current stance on horses/steel/smelting in Mesoamerica. No, evidence of smelting in 700 AD is not sufficient when the BoM claims a date of 600 BC for smelting (and even earlier if one does not view the book of Ether as myth).

[beastie]

Ben, regarding Jubilee-

You're ignoring the effect that the translator has on the translation. This is particularly true when the actual translation process is unknown. So the translator of the Barnabas text understood the timing of the Jubilee as it was in his lifetime. So the timing error is a translation effect.

Regarding horses - the assertion that the Nephites did not use the horse as a beast of burden or for transportation is, IMO, one of the most bizarre stances of BoM apologetics. It's particularly odd that such a strict understanding of the text is demanded in this case - ie, if the text does not actually state that the Nephites rode the horses or used them as beasts of burden, then we cannot assume that they did, when in another case - the existence of the pre-existing others - a HUGE item is extrapolated from the text with much less support.

So can you provide an example of a culture that had horses for centuries, but did NOT use them for transportation or as beasts of burden?

[USU78]

beastie:

I do not know anything about the Linne reference, and neither does anyone else that I've discussed it with on the internet, because none of them, including brant, have read the actual article. They're just repeating Sorenson's footnote.

I quite agree that everybody repeats it. Does that make it necessarily wrong? Was Sorenson lying?

I spent hours looking for the article or a summary of it on the internet with no success.

I share your frustration. I wish Sorenson had done more than summarize.

The book which contains the article is 300 dollars, beyond my budget. Look at the date of the footnote - 1942. If Linne had found something that seriously moved the current date of metallurgy in Mesoamerica, I think other scholars would have picked up on that within the last sixty plus years.

A nice assertion, wholly counterexampled by my own experience in academe.

Instead, scholars, including Michael Coe, date the beginnings of metallurgy in Mesoamerica to around 700-900 AD. In fact, in his Sunstone article, Coe specifically states there was no metallurgy in Mesoamerica during the BoM period.

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.

Now, the Lindsay reference - I should have taken the time to explain more thoroughly, but I was talking to someone who, IIRC, I had already pointed this out to. Lindsay refers to a new dig as containing possible evidence for earlier smelting in Mesoamerica. Yet when I looked the results of that dig up on famsi, it dated the smelting to 700 AD. This is not earlier than what is already accepted, it is within that range. If you want the specifics of this information, tell me and I will provide the reference and link later tonight.

I've seen what you refer to.

My point is that apologists shouldn't use Linne's footnote unless they actually know what Linne said. As the Lindsay case demonstrates, there are times when apologists may be mistaken, or overlook information, in their citations. Considering how much is vested in that Linne refernce, I think it behooves apologists to actually find and read the article.

And it behooves not the antiapologist, after a prima facie case is made, to cross-examine that prima facie case with more than, "Did not!"?? With the scores of antiapologists out there, if each donated $1, surely within your budget (if not mine), you could raise enough to get the original reference via interlibrary loan to check up on Sorenson? I daresay it has stood unrefuted by antiapologists because of its relative ease of access precisely because it is irrefutable. And the prima facie case remains and shall remain unrebutted.

What would it take to change "my" world view? It would take enough evidence for Mesoamerican scholars to alter their current stance on horses/steel/smelting in Mesoamerica. No, evidence of smelting in 700 AD is not sufficient when the BoM claims a date of 600 BC for smelting (and even earlier if one does not view the book of Ether as myth).

So . . . your antiapologist Weltanschauung requires more than evidence debunking your debunkings?

[Benjamin McGuire]

Beastie writes:

You're ignoring the effect that the translator has on the translation. This is particularly true when the actual translation process is unknown. So the translator of the Barnabas text understood the timing of the Jubilee as it was in his lifetime. So the timing error is a translation effect.

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?

Somehow, I come away from your comments completely confused as to how this is applying Brant's method to the text.

Regarding horses - the assertion that the Nephites did not use the horse as a beast of burden or for transportation is, IMO, one of the most bizarre stances of BoM apologetics. It's particularly odd that such a strict understanding of the text is demanded in this case - ie, if the text does not actually state that the Nephites rode the horses or used them as beasts of burden, then we cannot assume that they did, when in another case - the existence of the pre-existing others - a HUGE item is extrapolated from the text with much less support.

So can you provide an example of a culture that had horses for centuries, but did NOT use them for transportation or as beasts of burden?

Let's start with the first comment - all that we know is contained in the text. Your comments here are completely contrary to your earlier assertion. You made this claim:

The passages in the BoM that refer to horses are referring to them in conjunction with travel, so to preserve the content, then there must be an animal X that served that function in Mesoamerica.

So, we start from the Book of Mormon which claims that horses were used for X and look for an animal which served that function within the appropriate culture.

But now, you come right out and state that independant of the claims made about horses in the Book of Mormon, we need to consider the horse as it was used in other settings to determine what kind of animal to look for in Mesoamerica. Perhaps you don't even see the conflict which these two statments create ....

More than this, it seems that you obviously do not understand my argument which I have forwarded in this thread - so it bears repeating. I introduced my position in this thread with the following statement:

-----

I am reminded of some comments written by Marco Polo when he traveled to Java. Since the context is appropriate, I want to quote an essay by Umberto Eco relative to Polo's comments -

Often, when faced with an unknown phenomenon, we react by approximation: we seek that scrap of content, already present in our encyclopedia, which for better or worse seems to account for the new fact. A classic example of this process is to be found in Marco Polo, who saw what we now realize were rhinoceroses on Java. Although he had never seen such animals before, by analogy with other known animals he was able to distinguish the body, the four feet, and the horn. Since his culture provided him with the notion of a unicorn - a quadruped with a horn on its forehead, to be precise - he designated these animals as unicorns. Then, as he was an honest and meticulous chronicler, he hastened to tell us that these unicorns were rather strange - not very good examples of the species, we might say - given that they were not white and slender but had "the hair of the buffalo" and feet "like the feet of an elephant." He went on to give even more detail:

It has one horn in the middle of the forehead very thick and large and black. And I tell you that it does no harm to men and beasts with its horn, but only with the tongue and knee, for on its tongue i has very long spines and sharp ...

It has the top of the head made like a wild boar ... It is a very ugly beast to see and unclean. And they are not so as we here say and describe, who say that it lets itself be caught in the lap by a virgin girl: but I tell you that it is quite the contrary of that which we believe that it was. (Polo, The Description of the World, ed. and trans. A. Moule and P. Pelliot, London: Routledge, 1938)

("Kant, Pierce, and the Platypus", in Kant and the Platypus: Essays on Language and Cognition, translated by Alistair McEwan, 1999, pp. 57ff.)

A little later, Eco notes:

While it can be maintained that semiosic processes are involved in the recognition of the known, because it is precisely a matter of relating sense data to a (conceptual and semnatic) model, the problem, which has been debated for a long time now, is to what extent semiosic process plays a part in the understanding of an unknown phenomenon.

To bring this back to the discussion, we then have an issue. Joseph can only mean horse, because that is what the text says. And the text certainly means "horse" as we traditionally understand the term in at least one instance (when Isaiah is quoted).

But, if we presume, for a moment, the historicity of the text, then we are left with a different problem. If there was no horse, then we are left with the realization that, much like Marco Polo, Nephi was describing an unknown using a conceptual and semantic model which he had. Which means, that the "horse" which he experienced in the New World did not even have to so much resemble the horse of the Old World, as it had to resemble at least in part the conceptual and sematic model of the horse in the Old World. Nephi then, intends to use the word "horse" to describe the unknown - rather than to introduce a new name for a creature in his text. And this brings us back to translation. Nephi would understand that while he calls this unknown a horse, it is certainly not a horse in the traditional sense. (And while, I suppose, it could be argued that Marco Polo had never experienced a unicorn, that certainly did not stop him from apparently really believing that they existed, and in having a specific conceptual and semantic model by which to classify them). Yet, Nephi knowing that this isn't a horse in the same way that he perhaps knew horses in the land of Jerusalem, that doesn't stop him from using the term. So, we then ask - how do we translate this?

Do we translate it literally (as a horse) even if we know (along with Nephi) that this "horse" conceptually and sematically follows only the model of the traditional horse? Do we expect to find literal translation replaced by an actual translation for Joseph Smith representing to him the creature that Nephi was viewing (which may in itself be problematic if Joseph does not have a conceptual and semantic model of that creature in his repretoire). And what of later writers. Certainly, Nephi had a conceptual and semantic model of an old world horse. But, does Jacob (who could have been at most 8 years old when he leaves the Old World)? Do any of Nephi's children (or Laman's, or Lemuel's, or Sam's, etc.)? And when the use the word horse, following Nephi's redefining of the word "horse" (at least a redefinition for Nephi), and applying that notion backwards on the references to "horses" in the Brass Plates, for example (and they are almost certainly referred to in places with reference to Deuteronomy 17), those persons have no conceptual or semantic model of anything different from the new model created by Nephi.

-----

The challenge is different. We know, from Marco Polo's description that he had not encountered a unicorn. We know that he had encountered a rhinocerous. But, we determine this from the text and from the fact that what Marco Polo describes fits a different conceptual and semantic model for us (in part because we are all familiar with the rhinocerous) than it did for Marco Polo. But, we are still reliant on the description which Marco Polo left to determine what he was referring to (and we assume, of course, that he hadn't actually discovered a "unicorn" simply because most of us believe that they are mythological in nature).

Which brings us back to your comments. You make this oh, so interesting claim:

the assertion that the Nephites did not use the horse as a beast of burden or for transportation is, IMO, one of the most bizarre stances of BoM apologetics.

It is interesting because I have provided every single reference to the "horse" in the Book of Mormon. And rather than making an appeal to the text to establish your point, you instead resort to a different approach:

So can you provide an example of a culture that had horses for centuries, but did NOT use them for transportation or as beasts of burden?

When have I asserted that they had "horses" which fit the conceptual and semantic model which you are using? So, why on earth should I need to provide that information?

I also don't understand this comment -

the existence of the pre-existing others - a HUGE item is extrapolated from the text with much less support.

What do you mean by "much less support"? Less support than what? I find no evidence in the Book of Mormon that the "horse" of the Book of Mormon was used as a beast of burden. None. There is quite a bit of support for the notion of "others". But getting into debates over that evidence is getting away from this topic, so I won't. (But I will point out that the first phase of the domestication of the horse was its use as a food source and not as a means of transportation or as a beast of burden. Do an internet search on the history of the domesticated horse - the challenge once more is that you are reading the text with your own conceptual and semantic model).

Ben