Book of Mormon Language Structure

[xixxvmcm85]

Pardon post #99, I hadn’t realized that ThurferAcolyte beat me to the chase.

Take a look at the strang site. It is a little crazy. And yes, he would copy certain structures from the book of mormon. But the strang site is not very convincing. Now take a look at the mormon sites that I linked. Quite in depth in their research and difficult to refute. And that makes all the difference.

Now of course, you case would be much more stronger if their were no hebraisms and chiasmus. But a bull’s eye is a bull’s eye. You still have not commented on what the experts have said.

This is special pleading WhyMe. You want us to lend more credibility to Brighamite sources over Strangite sources simply by your say so and your unqualified quantification of “depth and research”.

Do you have anything substantive?

 

[LDSGuy]

Now let’s not be purposefully obtuse. I used my niece in a more simplistic analogy. She’s five years old, of course she cannot come up with such prose on her own.

I’ve seen chiasmi in rap songs, and I’d put money on those uneducated rappers not knowing what chiasmi are. The point is, one need not actually understand the scholastic implications or the inner workings of a convention, task, or talent in order to perform it.

Have you ever witnessed a savant play the piano? I’ve had the privilege of watching three, all of whom brought tears my eyes. What was more surprising was that not a single one knew how to sight read, they all played by ear. I wouldn’t be so quick to invoke divine revelation as the cause.

It’s already been pointed out that chiasmi exist in not only the Bible but in other English works. Elizabethan English is filled with it. Ever read any works by Shakespeare?

So there are hypotheses as to where Joseph Smith could have gotten the intuition to use chiasmi, including the Divine Revelation hypothesis. Due to the grandiosity of said hypothesis, I think a great deal of evidence will be necessary to demonstrate that it’s more likely than the more parsimonious hypotheses.

I agree, there is chiasmus found in many pieces of literature today, ranging from the simplistic to the complex. The point I was making is that the chiasmus is complex in the Book of Mormon. Could Joseph Smith have come up with that, especially in the time frame that we see given for production of the Book of Mormon?

So there are examples of chiasmus that were out there during Joseph Smith’s time. Could he have recognized such examples? Joseph Smith was not an educated person. It is highly unlikely that he could be able to determine such structures and then put them in the Book of Mormon. When we take in the time frame of production of the Book of Mormon, the complexity of the text (not just chiasmus or Hebraisms, but other literary devices that were brought up), and Joseph Smith’s education (or lack thereof), could Joseph Smith really have just written the Book of Mormon? This ignores of course the backstory which some claim are found in View of the Hebrews, for one example. What I’m looking at is the complexity of the language used, which is not found in View of the Hebrews, which is written in modern English.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I don’t believe the evidence is in favor of a lone authorship by Smith.

 

[xixxvmcm85]

I agree, there is chiasmus found in many pieces of literature today, ranging from the simplistic to the complex. The point I was making is that the chiasmus is complex in the Book of Mormon. Could Joseph Smith have come up with that, especially in the time frame that we see given for production of the Book of Mormon?

So there are examples of chiasmus that were out there during Joseph Smith’s time. Could he have recognized such examples? Joseph Smith was not an educated person. It is highly unlikely that he could be able to determine such structures and then put them in the Book of Mormon. When we take in the time frame of production of the Book of Mormon, the complexity of the text (not just chiasmus or Hebraisms, but other literary devices that were brought up), and Joseph Smith’s education (or lack thereof), could Joseph Smith really have just written the Book of Mormon? This ignores of course the backstory which some claim are found in View of the Hebrews, for one example. What I’m looking at is the complexity of the language used, which is not found in View of the Hebrews, which is written in modern English.

By what standard are we judging complexity?

 

[LDSGuy]

By what standard are we judging complexity?

As why me posted:

The parallel nature of biblical writing is apparent to most readers. However, the study of Hebrew poetics—the classification and analysis of many different kinds of parallel structures—began in the first half of the nineteenth century. Not until the turn of the twentieth century did scholars introduce specific definitions of the various parallelisms. A critic might say that the Prophet Joseph Smith could have been able to imitate the parallel nature of biblical writing; but it is extremely unlikely that he could have produced such a huge number of parallelisms—sometimes several per verse—of more than twenty-five types. Only the Book of Mormon prophets, who used the structural forms of ancient Hebrew poetry and who were inspired from on high, could have written such beautiful poetic structures.

More Parallelisms in the Book of Mormon
Simple synonymous: 1 Ne. 1:15; 1 Ne. 17:47; 2 Ne. 9:52; 2 Ne. 25:2; 2 Ne. 30:11; Alma 34:32; 3 Ne. 5:21; 3 Ne. 20:42; 3 Ne. 29:5; Ether 6:10

Simple synthetic: 2 Ne. 4:35; Mosiah 23:21; Alma 37:35; 3 Ne. 10:15

Contrasting: 2 Ne. 26:25; Alma 5:40 and Alma 41; Alma 9:28; Alma 36:21; Hel. 10:6; 3 Ne. 27:33

Antithetical: 1 Ne. 17:45; Jacob 4:10; Mosiah 4:24; Ether 12:26; Moro. 10:6

Simple alternate: 1 Ne. 5:1; 1 Ne. 11:25; 1 Ne. 17:19, 36, 39; 1 Ne. 20:18–19; 2 Ne. 4:17, 28; 2 Ne. 6:6; 2 Ne. 10:25; 2 Ne. 26:12; 2 Ne. 27:4; 2 Ne. 30:17; Mosiah 4:8; Alma 1:26; Alma 2:29; Alma 28:11; Alma 63:2; Hel. 3:21

Repeated alternate: 1 Ne. 19:9; Alma 30:24–26; Alma 30:10

Extended alternate: 1 Ne. 8:24; 1 Ne. 9:3–4, 11–12; Alma 5:19

Repetitive numerical: Alma 23:5; Alma 28:11; Alma 36:10; Morm. 6:10–15

A fortiori numerical: 1 Ne. 4:1; Alma 3:26; Hel. 3:24–26; 3 Ne. 3:22; 3 Ne. 4:21

Circular repetitive: Mosiah 3:25–26; Mosiah 11:21; Alma 3:15–16; Alma 14:29; Alma 24:7–10; Alma 60:20; Alma 62:41; Hel. 11:10–16; Morm. 7:2–5

Climactic: 2 Ne. 2:25; Alma 42:22–23; Morm. 9:12–13

library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1989.htm/ensign%20october%201989.htm/research%20and%20perspectives%20hebrew%20literary%20patterns%20in%20the%20book%20of%20mormon%20.htm?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0

 

[LDSGuy]

I don’t believe the evidence is in favor of a lone authorship by Smith.

Can you expand? Who do you and critics believe wrote the Book of Mormon?

 

[xixxvmcm85]

I don’t believe the evidence is in favor of a lone authorship by Smith.

I haven’t honestly spent any considerable amount of time pondering the idea. What leads you to believe that multiple authors is most likely? Who might those other authors be?

This is a personal question so if you don’t feel like spending a lot of time on a detailed response I’ll accept stand-alone links.

Thanks Rebecca.

ETA: It seems to have piqued the interest of LDSGuy too, so I guess details are desired

 

[xixxvmcm85]

LDSGuy: What are these “parallelisms” spoken of? Synonymous to “chiasmi”? Or paralleled in actual content?

I’m a scientist, not a linguist by trade so you’ll have to break it down for this noob.

 

[ThuriferAcolyte]

LDSGuy: What are these “parallelisms” spoken of? Synonymous to “chiasmi”? Or paralleled in actual content?

I’m a scientist, not a linguist by trade so you’ll have to break it down for this noob.

what kind of scientist are you?

 

[RebeccaJ]

I haven’t honestly spent any considerable amount of time pondering the idea. What leads you to believe that multiple authors is most likely? Who might those other authors be?

This is a personal question so if you don’t feel like spending a lot of time on a detailed response I’ll accept stand-alone links.

Thanks Rebecca.

ETA: It seems to have piqued the interest of LDSGuy too, so I guess details are desired

see here

adding: since that thread the full article has become available, here:

llc.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/fqn040

 

[LDSGuy]

LDSGuy: What are these “parallelisms” spoken of? Synonymous to “chiasmi”? Or paralleled in actual content?

I’m a scientist, not a linguist by trade so you’ll have to break it down for this noob.

“Parallelism” is a repeating structure in a sentence(s). Mosiah 16:10 has one example:

Even this mortal shall put on immortality,
and this corruption shall put on incorruption.

There are many different types of such parallelisms, and the website linked earlier goes through those found in the Book of Mormon.

The Catholic Encyclopedia has an article on it:

newadvent.org/cathen/11473a.htm

 

[ThuriferAcolyte]

has anyone read Studies of the Book of Mormon by B.H. Roberts? I know it’s pretty controversial, and apparently touches on origins of the Book of Mormon, which could explain the recent (i.e. 1800s) origin of the book. Is it available anywhere online?

 

[zaffiroborant]

Here I go again. -]James Strang/-] Joseph Smith had the -]book of mormon/-] Bible as an example of structure. He copied some of the structure used in the -]book of mormon/-] Bible.

Fixed

 

[ThuriferAcolyte]

Fixed

Yeah, he doesn’t get that the same criteria he’s using to dismiss Strang’s chiasmus can be used to dismiss the Book of Mormon’s chiasmus.

 

[ThuriferAcolyte]

A quick Internet search reveals that the vast majority of sites talking about chiastic phenomena are Mormon. Few others seem to think it is particularly interesting. Pretty soon, Mormons may have an obsessive monopoly on chiasm–we may all end up having to pay them a penny any time we use the word

YES, I noticed this too! It seems to be an obsession, pointing to chiasmus as evidence of ancient origin, when we clearly have examples of chiasmus from the years surrounding the “translation” (dictation if anything) of the Book of Mormon.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Even this mortal shall put on immortality,
and this corruption shall put on incorruption.

%between%

1 Cor 15

53For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. 54So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.

---

Just another plagiarism.

 

[Harpazo]

What do actual Hebrew scholars have to say about this? That’s what I would be interested in hearing.

The case for “hebraisms” smacks of revisionist history. If you want to see Hebraisms in full force today, read some Orthodox prayers, or better yet attend Divine Liturgy. It’s obvious that the phrase εις τους αιονάς των αιονών (unto ages of ages) is a Hebraism. It’s definitely not a “hellenism.”

I’ve yet to see something like this from Mormon scholarship. It has been interpolations of the KJV Bible to the BoM. Does not help the LDS case at all

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[Arandur]

What do actual Hebrew scholars have to say about this? That’s what I would be interested in hearing.

The case for “hebraisms” smacks of revisionist history. If you want to see Hebraisms in full force today, read some Orthodox prayers, or better yet attend Divine Liturgy. It’s obvious that the phrase εις τους αιονάς των αιονών (unto ages of ages) is a Hebraism. It’s definitely not a “hellenism.”

I’ve yet to see something like this from Mormon scholarship. It has been interpolations of the KJV Bible to the BoM. Does not help the LDS case at all

In Christ,
Andrew

Indeed, look at the old liturgies of the Orthodox and Catholics (I’ll give points to the Orthodox here; you have preserved your practice of the old liturgies better). The various Smithians claim Hebrew descent and to be inheritors of a sort of modern Hebraic Christian nature, and love making any connection to Hebrews that they can. Yet they totally lack anything resembling true liturgy and festivals. Look at the Orthodox and the Catholics and you will see a far greater connection down through the ages to Hebraic practices and culture. The evidences of it are many and varied and would be a fascinating book.

 

[why_me]

Wait a minute. Earlier you said that chiasmi wasn’t known by your typical 19th century American, and now you’re claiming that Strang (your typical 19th century American) recognized chiasmi in the Book of Mormon and deliberately copied them?

James Strang knew of the book of mormon. He was a member of the mormon church. He probably had no idea of what chiasmus was but he did copy the structure of the book of mormon and so, it would make some sense if some chiasmus was found in his work. See the point?

 

[why_me]

Yeah, he doesn’t get that the same criteria he’s using to dismiss Strang’s chiasmus can be used to dismiss the Book of Mormon’s chiasmus.

He copied sentence structure from the book of mormon. If any chiasmus is to be found in his work, he most likely did not know it or recognize it.