Whack a Mole, err. Horse

[_The Dude]

At least I can say this for David: he doesn't try to hide what he's doing. He'll admit it, as always, and at least in that he can feel some good, intellectually.

Now about those EVs who use DNA (or other science) against the Mormons but don't "consider" what it means for their own beliefs... ;)

[_beastie]

How can someone "feel good, intellectually" about such blatant opportunism from one page to the next? When there's an anachronism, David calls on "loose" translation where Joseph Smith studies it out in his mind and "oops!" inserts an anachronism. On the very next page of text where there's an opportunity to highlight an oh-so-subtle textual link to the ancient Near East, then he calls on the necessary "tight" translation where the seer stone gives Joseph Smith knowledge he couldn't have gotten by any other means (well, except that Joseph Smith was well-versed in the Bible which carries not a few links to the ancient Near East). In other words, cut loose from intellectual constraints and make it up as you go along.

This is really an interesting evolution in Book of Mormon apologetics. When I first became interested in the field, there seemed to be a pretty sharp division between the Hebraists (those interested primarily in Hebraic/biblical/Old World connections) and Mesoamerists (those interested primarily in the New World connections). The Hebraists adhered to the tight translation theory because many of their theories depended on a tight, word-for-word control of the text. But that doomed the Mesoamerists, who needed more leeway with anachronisms and preferred to have more of Joseph Smith' own "voice" in the text as a possible resolution. The two sides seemed at odds, and I often commented on that. I noticed immediately when the idea of a bastard offspring first popped up, although I can't remember who first mentioned it. I knew immediately that it would become popular, because it could appease both sides.

However, it makes no sense at all, and, as you say, screams of ad hoc opportunism of the worst sort. But it still makes many believers feel "intellectually good" because they are not predisposed to be skeptical of a theory that offers them a way to feel good about a belief that seemingly has so much evidence against it. So it may not be the type of "intellectual feel-goodism" that can be the result of stringent study and analysis, but it's enough to quell doubts they don't want to have anyway.

I think Nibley served much the same function. I would guess that the majority of believers who read or listened to Nibley has no background information that would enable them to even begin to think critically about his claims. But it sounded good, he was an academic, etc. You know, a variation of "really smart people believe in this, so it's good enough for me". in my opinion, that's all most believers really want. It's why Book of Mormon apologia gets away with so much, too.

well, except that Joseph Smith was well-versed in the Bible which carries not a few links to the ancient Near East

as well as the influence of authors who really did have more background in the subject. This is exactly why the Hebraic side of Book of Mormon apologia doesn't interest me in the least. It's pretty meaningless, in terms of measuring how likely historicity is, in my opinion.

[Guest]

At least I can say this for David: he doesn't try to hide what he's doing. He'll admit it, as always, and at least in that he can feel some good, intellectually.

Now about those EVs who use DNA (or other science) against the Mormons but don't "consider" what it means for their own beliefs... ;)

I appreciate that about David, as well. No remorse, no regrets. "Don't Look Back," to quote Pennebaker.

A priori theological truth claims have a peculiar way of sluicing through scientific methodology. I'm not into that, frankly. I don't think. Even when I'm doing it.

Best.

CKS

[_marg]

At least I can say this for David: he doesn't try to hide what he's doing. He'll admit it, as always, and at least in that he can feel some good, intellectually.

Now about those EVs who use DNA (or other science) against the Mormons but don't "consider" what it means for their own beliefs... ;)

Because I'm unfamiliar with what David writes, what does he admit? That he's irrational? He's mentioned he believes all truths are relative. If all truths are relative there is no need to use reason or be rational in argumentation. What I've seen so far of David is that he reasons to an improbable theory and doesn't care how improbable or convoluted it is, just as long as he can use it using some wild far fetched stretch of imagination. That's poor critical thinking. One should attempt to reason to a best fit theory given all the information not a convoluted theory which may fit in with some pre-existing notions.

Regarding EV's who cares in this discussion that they may hold irrational ideas yet argue rationally against Mormonism. That doesn't make arguments for Mormonism by someone such as D.B. any more probable or reasonable.

And CK Salmon could you translate your previous post for me..I didn't understand your point or if you were even attempting to make one.

[_Enuma Elish]

Hello Friends,

I don’t have much time, ending a semester with lots of papers to grade, etc. I did want to correct an important misunderstanding posted by Sethbag:

And I cannot see how it is viable in David's Old Testament examples either. I would challenge David to show where, in the Old Testament, "horsemen" actually referred to the drivers of chariots, and not mounted cavalry. I believe David's advisors, and Old Testaments scholars everywhere, would raise an eyebrow at the notion of "horsemen and chariots" meaning anything other than "mounted cavalry and chariots", two separate components of some ancient battle force.

I can assure you that no one would raise an eyebrow. Throughout the Hebrew Bible, the parash refers both to a horse and to a person who rides within and directs the chariot. In the ancient Near East, the phenomenon is not unusual to the Bible. For example, the Egyptian archer on this chariot would appropriately be described as a parash:

http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/prehistory/ ... iotguy.jpg

So would the parash in this relief:

http://www.institutoestudiosantiguoegip ... age016.jpg

Here is a modern stylized representation of an Assyrian chariot depicting the type of “horsemen” that my post describes:

http://strategicsimulations.net/catalog ... AT8124.jpg

Now, it just so happens that my friend and former professor William Hamblin happens to be one of the world’s foremost experts on the topic of Near Eastern military techniques. Here is what Professor Hamblin has to offer concerning the issue in his new book published by Routledge:

“The tightest interpretations of the evidence point to the beginning of the widespread use of mounted warriors in the Near East probably occurring in the early Iron Age, perhaps around the tenth or ninth centuries.” William J. Hamblin, Warfare in the Ancient Near East to 1600 BC (New York: Routledge, 2006), 121-132.

So as you can see, you’re really off in suggesting that the Old Testament references to “horsemen and chariots” means only “mounted cavalry and chariots.”

Best,

--DB

[_Enuma Elish]

Anyone who is seriously interested in additional evidence that supports my claims concerning Old Testament “horses” should certainly consider the discussion of the rise of cavalry "horsemen" as opposed to chariot "horsemen" by Robert Drews in his book Early Riders: The Beginnings of Mounted Warfare in Asia and Europe (New York: Routledge, 2004).

Professor Drews teaches at Vanderbilt University.

Concerning Dr. Hamblin’s work, Drews states, “Hamblin’s book is a goldmine of information—both textual and archaeological—on ancient Near Eastern warfare before the Late Bronze Age.”

I couldn’t agree more!

[_Runtu]

Anyone who is seriously interested in additional evidence that supports my claims concerning Old Testament “horses” should certainly consider the discussion of the rise of cavalry "horsemen" as opposed to chariot "horsemen" by Robert Drews in his book Early Riders: The Beginnings of Mounted Warfare in Asia and Europe (New York: Routledge, 2004).

Professor Drews teaches at Vanderbilt University.

Concerning Dr. Hamblin’s work, Drews states, “Hamblin’s book is a goldmine of information—both textual and archaeological—on ancient Near Eastern warfare before the Late Bronze Age.”

I couldn’t agree more!

Maybe I'm missing something, but whether there are chariots or cavalry, you still need horses to have "horsemen." For the life of me, I can't figure out how your argument works, David.

[_Benjamin McGuire]

Just a note for David -

I am in favor of an absolutely tight translation process. That is, I see Joseph most of all as a reader of the text and not as playing a significant role in the translation process. I am not sure where I fall into Beastie's spectrum, but my thoughts certainly are not typical.

[_Runtu]

Just a note for David -

I am in favor of an absolutely tight translation process. That is, I see Joseph most of all as a reader of the text and not as playing a significant role in the translation process. I am not sure where I fall into Beastie's spectrum, but my thoughts certainly are not typical.

I remember sitting in on a presentation from Royal Skousen in which he also said he thought that it was a very tight translation, which surprised me even then.

[_Benjamin McGuire]

I like to talk about texts. I am a fan of speech act theory as a way of describing them (I really like, for example, Goffman's Forms of Talk). I am perhaps most fascinated by the notion of authorless texts. (I discuss a lot of related issues as I get time on my blog). In any case, the approach to anachronisms and other textual challenges discussed here in this thread are dealt with in an entirely different way by proponents of a tight authorship theory than by those who include notions of a looser translation - and our views haven't been shown very clearly or even responded to in any substantive way here in this thread.