tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post6736854238196093493..comments2023-11-02T07:25:45.884-05:00Comments on Mormanity - a blog for those interested in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: Chiasmus in Helaman 16? An Observation from My 16-Year-Old SonJeff Lindsayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08776493593387402607noreply@blogger.comBlogger40125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-50214276384280000702008-06-12T09:12:00.000-05:002008-06-12T09:12:00.000-05:00Great website. My family really enjoys it.Just ca...Great website. My family really enjoys it.<BR/><BR/>Just came across some research from an LDS gentlemen named Jared Demke. Mr. Demke has analyzed over 40 extant letters, writings and recorded speeches of Joseph Smith, all of which contain chiasmus. Some of these are very interesting and complex. You can read these chiasmus at: http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/3500/davow.html<BR/><BR/>My family's question to you is, did Joseph obtain his chiastic literary style from translating the Book of Mormon, or was it from being taught Hebrew?<BR/><BR/>Keep up the good work.Brother Richardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02474252839142424545noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-38427552757614705792008-03-18T18:18:00.000-05:002008-03-18T18:18:00.000-05:00I forwarded this blog link to Jack Welch (my uncle...I forwarded this blog link to Jack Welch (my uncle), and he suggested the Edwards & Edwards BYU Studies article on the statistical improbability of chiasmus occurring by chance in the Book of Mormon: http://byustudies.byu.edu/Products/MoreInfoPage/MoreInfo.aspx?Type=7&ProdID=2089&zoom_highlight=edwards+chiasmus<BR/>He also was glad to see Don Parry's Parallelistic B of M referenced and suggested the Chiasmus Bibliography for further reading.<BR/>What a great teenager to pay attention to all this! Jack himself was only 20 (on his mission) when he discovered chiasmus in the B of M, so your son is well on his way :-)<BR/>Anita WellsAnita Wellshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16850757077329787576noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-54111937143611410612008-03-18T08:25:00.000-05:002008-03-18T08:25:00.000-05:00I've read part of Chiasmus in Antiquity, and for s...I've read part of <I>Chiasmus in Antiquity</I>, and for someone without a strong background in literary criticism, it is a very technical read. However, I have gleened from it that chiasmus was probably developed in earlier semitic languages (sumero-akkadian and ugaritic were some examples) and by the time that biblical hebrew comes around, it is a full-blown literary device. There is not evidence of development of the device in the Bible, but it is also not solely a hebraic literary feature. <BR/><BR/>The scholars also seemed to be saying that chaisms are much more prevalent and complex in the earlier portions of the Old Testament and the use of this device seems to die out to a degree in the later biblical writings. Maybe there is a scholar in a later article in the book that contradicts this. I guess I'll find out if I can keep wading through it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-11731487759310975042008-03-18T07:42:00.000-05:002008-03-18T07:42:00.000-05:00"Don't worry - with a little luck they'll be impre..."Don't worry - with a little luck they'll be impressed enough by the Book of Mormon to seriously consider it and then join the Church. Then we can dismiss them as being biased Mormon scholars just trying to rationalized their faith."<BR/><BR/>Like the Catholic priest who was studying the 2nd/3rd Century early Christian Fathers' writings on deification, and noticed how similar they are to LDS beliefs, then joined the LDS church?Bookslingerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15077778974473538408noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-69594080152449617472008-03-17T21:29:00.000-05:002008-03-17T21:29:00.000-05:00Don't worry - with a little luck they'll be impres...Don't worry - with a little luck they'll be impressed enough by the Book of Mormon to seriously consider it and then join the Church. Then we can dismiss them as being biased Mormon scholars just trying to rationalized their faith.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-51291791986875912982008-03-17T00:47:00.000-05:002008-03-17T00:47:00.000-05:00Dr. Joseph Fraenkel, Senior Lecturer in Hallakhic ...Dr. Joseph Fraenkel, Senior Lecturer in Hallakhic and Aggadic Literature, Hebrew University, Jerusalem<BR/>Dr. David Noel Freedman, Director of Program on Studies in Religion, University of Michigan, and General Editor of the Anchor Bible and Biblical Archaeologist<BR/>Bezalel Porten, Senior Lecturer of Hebrew and Aramaic Ancient Literature, Hebrew University, Jerusalem<BR/>Dr. Yehuda T. Radday, Associate Professor of Bible and Hebrew, Technion, Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa<BR/>Dr. Wilfred G.E. Watson, Department of Hebrew, Trinity College, University of Dublin<BR/><BR/><BR/>O' you Mormons are always showing off using those non-Mormon experts to prove your points. That is just not fair.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-55064366268914873812008-03-16T13:05:00.000-05:002008-03-16T13:05:00.000-05:00The Book of Mormon is only considered great litera...<I>The Book of Mormon is only considered great literature by Mormons; the rest of the world pays it no real attention. Forget the divine origins, if the book were a great example of literature, theology, etc., then it would be studied for its literary merits. As it is, the consensus seems to follow Mark Twain's review: chloroform in print.</I><BR/><BR/>This brings to mind Thomas O'Dea's quote: "The Book of Mormon has not been universally considered by its critics as one of those books that must be read in order to have an opinion of it."<BR/><BR/>His brilliant wit notwithstanding, I find that applicable to Mark Twain.<BR/><BR/>I find the criticism that the BoM is not great literature to be puzzling. Where does it make any claim to be such? Its authors even apologize at times for their weakness in writing. Instead, the book is simultaneously a written testimony and a history.<BR/><BR/>I suspect that the major reason why the rest of the world "pays it no real attention" is the very reason that kingm would have us casually dismiss: people cannot simply "forget the divine origins". The BoM and its origins cannot be separated.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-90754296404362995302008-03-15T22:41:00.000-05:002008-03-15T22:41:00.000-05:00"I highly recommend "Poetic Parallelisms in the Bo..."I highly recommend "Poetic Parallelisms in the Book of Mormon: The Complete Text Reformatted" by Donald W. Parry."<BR/><BR/>I second that! I am reading it right now - I like to read different versions and editions of the Book of Mormon now and then - and can only say that it is a great resource for those wishing to find out more about Hebraisms in the Book of Mormon.Steve Smoothttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00785226026604586090noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-84858426536920885122008-03-15T22:07:00.000-05:002008-03-15T22:07:00.000-05:00Houston, thanks. I suspect, though, that there are...Houston, thanks. I suspect, though, that there are examples of chiasmus that can be found in one searches diligently in the writings of Joseph, but they would probably be random or of a very short variety. If we did find artistic, poetically crafted examples in his writings or in the D&C, akin to that of Alma 36, then we'd have some more thinking to do.Jeff Lindsayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08776493593387402607noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-14898845282482215562008-03-15T20:48:00.000-05:002008-03-15T20:48:00.000-05:00I highly recommend "Poetic Parallelisms in the Boo...I highly recommend "Poetic Parallelisms in the Book of Mormon: The Complete Text Reformatted" by Donald W. Parry.<BR/><BR/>That there are great examples of chiasmi and other parallelisms in the Book of Mormon is of little dispute to anyone who really wants to know.Andrew I. Millerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13119240321588754796noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-83180269340368469172008-03-15T20:13:00.000-05:002008-03-15T20:13:00.000-05:00Good post. As I understand it, chiasmus can be re...Good post. As I understand it, chiasmus can be reversed order passages as well as sentences. Nice work, you guys!Joyce Ellen Davishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13494251587598676788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-77100733552974650522008-03-15T14:36:00.000-05:002008-03-15T14:36:00.000-05:00Thanks Houston =)Thanks Houston =)NMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17019089593824237385noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-65188403000054309082008-03-15T13:16:00.000-05:002008-03-15T13:16:00.000-05:00What changes have been made to the Book of Mormon ...What changes have been made to the Book of Mormon since its first publication? What are the really cotroversial changes? I understand some grammar has been changed.<BR/><BR/>Thanks,<BR/><BR/>DanielAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-47210175185016572502008-03-15T09:08:00.000-05:002008-03-15T09:08:00.000-05:00Nobody's responded to Ishamel's question yet, and ...Nobody's responded to Ishamel's question yet, and it's a decent one: if chiasmus appears in the D&C, might that be evidence that it's a reflection of Jospeh Smith's "style" more than evidence for ancient origins?<BR/><BR/>The answer is no for two reasons: first, chiasmus in the D&C can be expected because it is largely composed of revelations from Jesus Christ, who lived and spoke among a culture that used this technique frequently (see Matt. 13:13-18 for a good one). It would be surprising if Jesus DIDN'T use it! <BR/><BR/>Also, Joseph Smith and his contemporaries clearly weren't aware of it: there's absolutely none in Smith's sermons, letters, or diaries. That's a huge body of work; if Smith did it as fluently as in the Book of Mormon, you'd expect to see some somewhere. <BR/><BR/>By the way, all chiasms are not created equal. The examples in the Book of Mormon are far more complex and creative than those in the D&C. If Smith just made up both works, you'd expect to see a roughly equal level of use. <BR/><BR/>NM, regarding the "thousand of changes," you do understand that that's ultimately an evidence FOR the book, right? The Book of Mormon's English grammar is often awkward. Its original language was based on Hebrew, and is a very literal translation. For example, the first edition had several occurrences of "if-and" statements, such as, "if he should command me that I should say unto this water, be thou earth, and it shall be earth" from 1 Nephi 17:50. This "and" and many others like it were later deleted to make the language clearer; but the English "if-then" statement is rendered "if-and" in Hebrew. Makes sense if the Book of Mormon is true, but the critic will have a hard time explaining how Joseph Smith not only knew the rules of Hebrew grammar, but kept them straight as he dictated spontaneously.<BR/><BR/>Jeff, congrats on having such an awesome son. I told my very bright 11-year-old about this, and she was excited to read the post, too, so tell your boy he's inspiring another generation! And your "autodidact class" joke was appreciated by at least one of us!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-57057151860722206652008-03-15T05:06:00.000-05:002008-03-15T05:06:00.000-05:00Does chiasmus exist in Joseph's original 1830 insp...Does chiasmus exist in Joseph's original 1830 inspired version of the Book of Mormon? You know, before the thousands of ammendments were made? <BR/><BR/>=PNMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17019089593824237385noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-57062897929152982342008-03-14T17:46:00.000-05:002008-03-14T17:46:00.000-05:00Kingm: you sound like a disaffected or former Morm...Kingm: you sound like a disaffected or former Mormon. If so, then your logic against LDS apologists just looking for anything until they find something to back up their beliefs might just as well apply to you, in the other direciton.Bookslingerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15077778974473538408noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-48580392212621768672008-03-14T15:06:00.000-05:002008-03-14T15:06:00.000-05:00I think Joseph Smith wrote it and see no need to e...I think Joseph Smith wrote it and see no need to explain this as miraculous or cribbed from other sources. The Book of Mormon is only considered great literature by Mormons; the rest of the world pays it no real attention. Forget the divine origins, if the book were a great example of literature, theology, etc., then it would be studied for its literary merits. As it is, the consensus seems to follow Mark Twain's review: chloroform in print.<BR/><BR/>I would even argue that most Mormons don't think it's particularly interesting either, otherwise most people wouldn't have to force themselves to stay on a reading schedule.<BR/><BR/>Regardless, it's a book. People write them all the time. Some are good and some are bad and you can't predict which will be which based on the education level of the writer.Michael Carr - Veritas Literaryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04017030835398885411noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-48796756653589908052008-03-14T11:46:00.000-05:002008-03-14T11:46:00.000-05:00Again, the nay-sayers are trying to confuse the is...Again, the nay-sayers are trying to confuse the issue and raise a straw-man by pointing at LDS efforts of <I>presenting evidence of plausibility</I>, and falsely characterizing them as being <I>attempts to provide proof</I> of the Book of Mormon.<BR/><BR/>As others have said, these evidences of plausibility "give room for faith" and are not to supplant faith.<BR/><BR/>Chiasmus and other Hebraisms do not prove, but definitely lend support to the possibility that Joseph and his contemporaries did not cook up the Book of Mormon on their own.<BR/><BR/>CV and kingm: Relax. No one is trying get people to join the LDS church based on linguistic evidence and arguments.<BR/><BR/>By the way, a correlation study that I'd like to see is if the nay-sayers' purported sources of the Book of Mormon (The Golden Pot, View of the Hebrews, and the Spaulding story) also had any chiasmus, and to what degree if they did. <B>Jeff</B>: do you know if there are?<BR/><BR/>And since there are <A HREF="http://www.jefflindsay.com/bomsource.shtml" REL="nofollow">parallels between Walt Whitman's "Leaves of Grass" and the Book of Mormon</A>, and it appears that Walt Whitman extensively borrowed from the Book of Mormon, are there any chiastic passages in "Leaves of Grass"?Bookslingerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15077778974473538408noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-4037041755519676062008-03-14T10:52:00.000-05:002008-03-14T10:52:00.000-05:00I don't doubt that Jack Welch has excellent creden...I don't doubt that Jack Welch has excellent credentials, I just question where he's coming from. Here is a man who knows the church is true and is actively looking for support for that position.<BR/><BR/>It does not have anything to do with the scientific method, which is equally invested in discarding a theory. If Welch had not found chiasmus to support an ancient origin for the Book of Mormon, he would have kept searching until he found something that did.<BR/><BR/>That's why they call it apologetics.Michael Carr - Veritas Literaryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04017030835398885411noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-63881240382107608722008-03-14T08:42:00.000-05:002008-03-14T08:42:00.000-05:00The leading work of scholarship on such chiasmus i...The leading work of scholarship on such chiasmus is <I>Chiasmus in Antiquity</I>, edited by John Welch (Provo, Utah: Research Press, Brigham Young University, 1981). Yes, John Welch is LDS and it's a BYU publication, but before you make the instant assumption that you can dismiss the evidence because a Mormon was involved, please note that this volume brings together the scholarship of some significant non-LDS writers, all of whom recognize the existence of ancient chiasmus that goes well beyond the very simple forms of introverted parallelism you might encounter in Wikipedia or in the relatively obscure works dealing with parallelism in the Bible that existed in Joseph Smith's day (and which were probably completely unavailable to him). The scholars writing in <I>Chiasmus in Antiquity</I> include:<BR/><BR/>Dr. Joseph Fraenkel, Senior Lecturer in Hallakhic and Aggadic Literature, Hebrew University, Jerusalem;<BR/><BR/>Dr. David Noel Freedman, Director of Program on Studies in Religion, University of Michigan, and General Editor of the Anchor Bible and Biblical Archaeologist;<BR/><BR/>Bezalel Porten, Senior Lecturer of Hebrew and Aramaic Ancient Literature, Hebrew University, Jerusalem;<BR/><BR/>Dr. Yehuda T. Radday, Associate Professor of Bible and Hebrew, Technion, Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa; and<BR/><BR/>Dr. Wilfred G.E. Watson, Department of Hebrew, Trinity College, University of Dublin.<BR/><BR/>Impressive as that seems to me, I recognize that one might argue that their credentials are also "lacking," but even if you feel that way, I suggest you examine the evidence they provide and see if there actually is a reasonable argument against extended chiasmus. I think they offer a compelling case.Jeff Lindsayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08776493593387402607noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-10894027621798769042008-03-14T06:33:00.000-05:002008-03-14T06:33:00.000-05:00By the way, I am all for autodidacticism. I even s...By the way, I am all for autodidacticism. I even signed up for a course on the topic, but the teacher never showed up.Jeff Lindsayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08776493593387402607noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-73130003366064547582008-03-14T00:09:00.000-05:002008-03-14T00:09:00.000-05:00I deleted a comment that was a bit too ad hominem ...I deleted a comment that was a bit too ad hominem against CV Rick. He's raising a worthwhile issue and I don't think people should get too upset about that or about his approach. Let's examine the merit of the arguments and welcome the chance to explore and maybe debate. <BR/><BR/>There was a jab about the misspelling of autodidactic, which is what I think CV Rick intended - but I object to that. If it's wrong to make a man "an offender for a word," then for a letter is even worse. I hope you'll all be patient with my frequent typos, and we should accept them from others, especially on a casual medium like a blog.Jeff Lindsayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08776493593387402607noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-54699310098977223662008-03-13T23:22:00.000-05:002008-03-13T23:22:00.000-05:00CV Rick, you can nitpick at the easy-to-access art...CV Rick, you can nitpick at the easy-to-access article I pointed out (just one of many examples one could point to) which provides multiple examples of lengthy chiasmus, and cites a variety of scholars who find evidence for lengthy chiasmus - but what evidence do you offer for your original assertion that chiasmus is limited to short phrases, not entire passages?<BR/><BR/>You said, "Chiasmi are reversed order clauses, not entire passages. And while relatively ancient, they are prevelant in Latin and only incidentally found in older languages." But beyond Wiki and whatever you recall from past coursework, what evidence can you cite to support you statement? I can cite numerous other respected authorities who find chiasmus to be much more extensive - and the article I cited provides some mapped out examples that I think you would be hard press to deny as chiasmus. So please, what is the basis for your assertion? There is prima facie evidence for longer, more complex passages. Have they been refuted as simply coincidence?Jeff Lindsayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08776493593387402607noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-22464247583954365872008-03-13T23:19:00.000-05:002008-03-13T23:19:00.000-05:00Jeff, maybe you can explain something to me that I...Jeff, maybe you can explain something to me that I've always wondered about regarding chiasmus. If the D&C is full of it as well, then why is chiasmus in the Book of Mormon so significant?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-81970063733763705462008-03-13T22:15:00.000-05:002008-03-13T22:15:00.000-05:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Droobleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00118065752751611121noreply@blogger.com