What is the Anti explanation of Chiasm in the Book of Mormon?

[_MCB]

chiasmus also appears in the Doctrine and Covenants (see, for example, 88:34-38; 93:18-38; 132:19-26, 29-36), the Pearl of Great Price (Book of Abraham 3:16-19; 22-28), and other isolated nineteenth-century works.

Thank you. I was aware of the D&C chiasmi. That pretty well takes care of it. Nevo linked to a Maxwell Institute article. I did not read it all. I was irritated at him because he was encouraging me to get involved in a debate on a subject that I have not examined thoroughly. And rumpole's use of the prefix anti.

[_Nevo]

Along those lines, it seems most LDS thinkers do not feel very secure in hanging their hats on chiasmus.

I probably don't qualify as an "LDS thinker," but I do think the presence of chiasmus in the Book of Mormon is one of the stronger evidences in favor of its historicity. At the very least, it points to a considerable literary sophistication on the part of the author(s)—which effectively rules out Spalding, Rigdon, Cowdery, et al.

A number of criticisms of John Welch's arguments for chiasmus in the Book of Mormon have been noted on this thread. It should be mentioned that Welch addresses several of those criticisms in his article, "What Does Chiasmus in the Book of Mormon Prove?":

Students of chiasmus in Mormon literature, on all sides of the issue, have naturally gone looking for chiasmus in other writings of Joseph Smith. On the one hand, some enemies of the Book of Mormon have purported to find chiasmus in the Doctrine and Covenants and in numerous other LDS writings, thereby attempting to prove that chiasmus can happen anywhere or was simply second nature to Joseph Smith or to Mormon rhetoric. On the other extreme, people supporting the divinity of the Book of Mormon have adopted another hypothesis—that chiasmus is to be found everywhere in divine literature and, in fact, is a sine qua non of all authentic revelations. I have examined numerous proposed examples of chiasmus in the writings of Joseph Smith and in other LDS sources. Perhaps my standards are wrong or too severe in the objectivity that I insist upon before I am willing to label a passage as chiastic, but I find very few of these proposed passages to be convincingly chiastic.* It is true that Joseph Smith's language tended to be repetitious, but a simple repetition does not create a chiasm. In particular, other rhetorical devices seem to be more dominant in the texts of the Doctrine and Covenants and elsewhere. Thus, I have found that chiasmus is not used nearly to the same degree or in the same way in the Doctrine and Covenants or in the Pearl of Great Price as it is in the Book of Mormon. Again, although no systematic study of this issue has been completed, my assessment is based on the careful examination of numerous structures from various sources. . . .

For the time being, chiasmus offers good evidence that the Book of Mormon is strongly plausible in its claim of Israelite origin. Where this evidence would land in terms of its degree or strength of probability, however, is open to subjective evaluation. While one should not overstate the force and effect of this evidence, neither should one understate it. Does the structure of Alma 36 give that text a thirty percent chance of having Israelite influence in its cultural background? A forty-five percent chance? A fifty-five percent chance? An eighty percent chance? Certainly, this remarkable structure raises considerably more than a zero percent chance but likewise something less than a hundred percent chance. The nature of evidence is such that it does not translate itself automatically into quantifiable percentages and probabilities.

A further element in this calculation is the degree to which Joseph Smith might have learned about chiasmus from sources in his so-called information environment in Palmyra, New York, or more precisely, in the neighborhood of Harmony, Pennsylvania, where he dictated most of the Book of Mormon to his scribe Oliver Cowdery in the spring of 1829. Since no library existed within that region of the Susquehanna Valley, one cannot assume that Joseph Smith would have had access to any of the British books that in the 1820s were beginning to comment on various forms of parallelism in biblical literature. . . . And even if Joseph Smith had somehow learned of the concept of chiasmus, he would still be presented with the formidable task of writing—or rather, dictating—extensive texts in this style that was unnatural to his world, while at the same time keeping numerous other strands, threads, and concepts flowing without confusion in his dictation. The low probability that Joseph Smith was conscious of chiasmus in any respect tends to enhance its evidentiary value as an indicator of other origins (presumably Israelite) for this aspect of the book's style.

On the other hand, it may be suggested that Joseph Smith could have sensed intuitively the nature and importance of chiasmus as a reader of the Bible. This factor, however, is not very persuasive for several reasons. First, it is rarely the case that the Hebrew or Greek chiastic patterns have been preserved rigorously through the process of English translation. In many cases, the English translators preferred to correct the inverted verb orders and to restructure them in more natural English word orders. Moreover, many biblical scholars who work regularly with the texts do not naturally write in chiastic forms themselves, and many of them are not aware, either consciously or subconsciously, of the chiastic structure of biblical text. . . . Consequently, it assumes too much to believe that the young Joseph Smith's reading of the King James English adequately explains the extensive and objectively rigorous instances of chiasmus in the Book of Mormon. I am not aware of anyone who seriously contends that Joseph Smith or anyone associated with him knew or could have known of chiasmus or had the training or time or academic inclination to discover this principle for himself. The evidence is overwhelming against such a claim.

— John W. Welch, "What Does Chiasmus in the Book of Mormon Prove?" in Book of Mormon Authorship Revisited: The Evidence for Ancient Origins, ed. Noel B. Reynolds (Provo, UT: FARMS, 1997), 216–219.

* For a discussion of criteria for determining the presence of chiasms, see here.

Another important article on chiasmus in the Book of Mormon is Boyd F. Edwards and W. Farrell Edwards, "Does Chiasmus Appear in the Book of Mormon by Chance?," BYU Studies 43, no. 2 (2004): 118–123.

For a good summay of the issues, see the FAIR Wiki page.

[_Rumpole]

Well quoted Nevo, thank you for your acumen and kudos.

[_honorentheos]

... I do think the presence of chiasmus in the Book of Mormon is one of the stronger evidences in favor of its historicity. At the very least, it points to a considerable literary sophistication on the part of the author(s)—which effectively rules out Spalding, Rigdon, Cowdery, et al.

First, thanks for the links, Nevo. I plan on reading through them when I have some time.

I'm curious why you would include the three above in your list? I assume that Joseph Smith is implied. I find your remark curious given that the examples of their writing we have is not as pedestrian as you imply. Cowdery was anything but an illiterate, awkward writer.

Perhaps you could explain?

[_Rumpole]

Can I presume that chiasm is the best evidence for the Book of Mormon?

[_MCB]

Can I presume that chiasm is the best evidence for the Book of Mormon?

Your presumptions assume too much, given the full context of the book. I would have to say that the best evidence for any historicity in the Book of Mormon would be the parallels with Clavigero and Maccabees. And possibly the Norse on Greenland timeline. Those validate the hemispheric model, in the 1000 AD to 1472 window of time. Any more questions?

Oh, by the way, do you call "anti,"anyone who is non-Mormon and chooses not to convert or revert?

[_honorentheos]

Rumpole -

I think part of your question has to become more specific to be answerable. Is Chiasmus the best evidence for the Book of Mormon...

...being an ancient document rather than the product of a 19th century author or authors?

...being of hebrew origin rather than American?

...being more than Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, and/or Sidney Rigdon could have concocted on their own?

The specificity of the question is important. I would suggest that more current apologetics looking for Hebraisms in the text would be considered stronger evidence of the second (and by default the third) possibility I listed. From my interactions at MADB I believe that the NHM discovery is considered much stronger evidence of the third point. Nevo may be best able to elaborate on if he feels it is the best evidence for the first example, or if there are others he feels are stronger.

I think most LDS who are familiar view the writings of Sorenson and Gardner as better evidence of the Book of Mormon's authenticity as a history written in a pre-Columbian American setting.

[_Nevo]

I find your remark curious given that the examples of their writing we have is not as pedestrian as you imply. Cowdery was anything but an illiterate, awkward writer.

Perhaps you could explain?

I am not an expert, but I would describe Oliver Cowdery's writing style as self-conscious, effusive, and flowery; pretentious rather than sophisticated. The late Arthur Henry King, who was a stylistician, called it "journalese." In any case, I don't think Cowdery the writer had the discipline to create complex, tightly structured forms.

Next to Spalding, though, Cowdery's prose is a model of subtlety and understatement. Spalding's writing is comically bad. It's so garish that it would give the Bulwer-Lytton fiction contest winners a run for their money.

[_truth dancer]

How could chiasmus be unknown during the time of Joseph Smith?

Chiasmus is all over literature... from the Old Testament to Shakespeare, from Pliny the Younger to Nietzsche. Anyone who read anything would have been familiar with it.

It baffles me that anyone would see chiasmus in the Book of Mormon as evidence of historicity or an ancient work.

~td~

[_honorentheos]

Thanks for the explanation, Nevo.

I guess I don't see the Book of Mormon, including the examples of chiasmus, being tightly written or sophisticated. Too many, "It came to pass...and...and...and..."

It's interesting to me that so many examples of "Hebraisms" that I've seen pointed out often read like poorly written english. I'm sure it's very much a matter of perspective.