FAIR is a non-profit organization dedicated to providing well-documented answers to criticisms of the doctrine, practice, and history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Array
Chiasmus in the Book of Mormon: Difference between revisions
mNo edit summary |
|||
| Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
Idea A repeated | Idea A repeated | ||
|} | |} | ||
Because chiasmus relies, to an extent, on relationships between ideas or concepts, rather than between words (e.g. such as rhymes or meter) it can survive translation. John W. Welch was the first to notice chiastic structures in the Book of Mormon.{{ref|welch2}} Little was known of this poetic form in Joseph Smith's era.{{ref|joseph1}} | Because chiasmus relies, to an extent, on relationships between ideas or concepts, rather than between words (e.g. such as rhymes or meter) it can survive translation remarkably intact, even if the translator is unaware of its presence. John W. Welch was the first to notice chiastic structures in the Book of Mormon.{{ref|welch2}} Little was known of this poetic form in Joseph Smith's era.{{ref|joseph1}} | ||
===Coincidence?=== | ===Coincidence?=== | ||
| Line 40: | Line 40: | ||
|} | |} | ||
To be sure, this is a trivial example. If this was the only sort of chiasmus to be found in the Book of Mormon, then it would be weak evidence, at best, of any sort of ancient origin. Such simple examples of chiasmus are well known in English speech. | To be sure, this is a trivial example. If this was the only sort of chiasmus to be found in the Book of Mormon, then it would be weak evidence, at best, of any sort of ancient origin for the text. Such simple examples of chiasmus are well known in English speech. | ||
{| border="2" cellpadding="1" | {| border="2" cellpadding="1" | ||
| Line 49: | Line 49: | ||
:B' - and the first | :B' - and the first | ||
A' - shall be last. | A' - shall be last. | ||
:''From: [http://scriptures.lds.org/matt/9/30#30 Matthew 9:30], [http://scriptures.lds.org/matt/20/16#16 Matthew 20:16]'' | |||
|} | |} | ||
{| border="2" cellpadding="1" | {| border="2" cellpadding="1" | ||
| Line 59: | Line 60: | ||
:B' - and foul | :B' - and foul | ||
A' - is fair. | A' - is fair. | ||
:''From: Macbeth, Act I, scene 1, lines 11–12.'' | |||
|} | |} | ||
However, the "hickory dickory dock" theory is a [[Logical fallacies#Straw_man| strawman]]. Such simple examples do exist in the Book of Mormon, (''examples'') but they are not the most impressive ones. Critics try to pretend that the simple, trivial parallelisms represent ''all'' such chiastic samples in the Book of Mormon. If Joseph Smith was writing the Book of Mormon himself, he might well compose simple parallelisms intentionally, or even accidentally. | However, the "hickory dickory dock" theory is a [[Logical fallacies#Straw_man| strawman]]. Such simple examples do exist in the Book of Mormon, (''examples'') but they are not the most impressive ones. Critics try to pretend that the simple, trivial parallelisms represent ''all'' such chiastic samples in the Book of Mormon. If Joseph Smith was writing the Book of Mormon himself, he might well compose simple parallelisms intentionally, or even accidentally. | ||
But, the complex examples within the Book of Mormon show much greater sophistication that a child's nursery rhyme. | But, the complex examples within the Book of Mormon show much greater sophistication that a child's nursery rhyme. | ||
* [[Chiasmus:Alma 36| Alma 36]] | |||
* ''etc'' | |||
=== | To argue that these complex, subtle structures are accidental can only be met with incredulity. One might honestly debate the merit of some proposed "chiasmus" in the Book of Mormon, but these examples are not arbitrary, are detailed, enhance the meaning of the text when appreciated, and require no 'special pleading' for anyone to notice them. | ||
Arguing that chiasmus is a result of chance or observer bias cannot explain these examples. | |||
===Knowledge of chiasmus in Joseph Smith's era=== | |||
''enter'' | |||
Neither Joseph Smith or his contemporaries ever remarked upon chiasmus. | |||
===Chiasmus in the Doctrine and Covenants?=== | |||
===Chiasmus in Joseph Smith's writings?=== | |||
==Conclusion== | ==Conclusion== | ||
The small, "trivial" chiastic structures containing only a few elements might well arise through chance or English rhetoric. However, critics ignore numerous complex, subtle, and meaningful chiamus when they pretend that ''all'' of the Book of Mormon's inverted parallel structures are so simple. | |||
''continue'' | |||
==Endnotes== | |||
#{{note|welch1}} John W. Welch, ''Chiasmus In Antiquity'' (Provo, Utah: FARMS, Research Press, 1981), 5. | |||
#{{note|welch2}} ''Need ref for Welch's first paper'' | |||
==Further reading== | ==Further reading== | ||
Revision as of 02:27, 14 November 2005
This article is a draft. FairMormon editors are currently editing it. We welcome your suggestions on improving the content.
Criticism
Critics claim that the presence of chiasmus in the Book of Mormon is either coincidental, an artifact of the observer, or not impressive since examples of chiastic patterns have been found in the Doctrine and Covenants or other 19th century writing.
Source(s) of the Criticism
Response
What is chiasmus?
Chiasmus is a poetical or rhetorical form used by many languages, including Sumero-Akkadian [Sumeria, Assyria, Babylon], Ugaritic [Syrian area circa. 2000 B.C.] , Biblical Hebrew, Aramaic, the Talmud, the New Testament, Greek, and Latin.[1]
Chiasmus is a form of parallelism, in which related or contrasting ideas are placed in juxtaposition for emphasis. Chiasmus uses "inverted parallelism," and takes its name from the Greek letter chi (χ) which looks like an English "X". This name was chosen to reflect the pattern of chiasmus:
Idea A
Idea A repeated |
Because chiasmus relies, to an extent, on relationships between ideas or concepts, rather than between words (e.g. such as rhymes or meter) it can survive translation remarkably intact, even if the translator is unaware of its presence. John W. Welch was the first to notice chiastic structures in the Book of Mormon.[2] Little was known of this poetic form in Joseph Smith's era.[3]
Coincidence?
Critics have proposed what might be called the "hickory dickory dock" theory of chiasmus. They point out that the children's nursery rhyme Hickory Dickory Dock is chiastic:
A - Hickory dickory dock
A' - Hickory dickory dock |
To be sure, this is a trivial example. If this was the only sort of chiasmus to be found in the Book of Mormon, then it would be weak evidence, at best, of any sort of ancient origin for the text. Such simple examples of chiasmus are well known in English speech.
A - The last
A' - shall be last.
|
A - Fair is
A' - is fair.
|
However, the "hickory dickory dock" theory is a strawman. Such simple examples do exist in the Book of Mormon, (examples) but they are not the most impressive ones. Critics try to pretend that the simple, trivial parallelisms represent all such chiastic samples in the Book of Mormon. If Joseph Smith was writing the Book of Mormon himself, he might well compose simple parallelisms intentionally, or even accidentally.
But, the complex examples within the Book of Mormon show much greater sophistication that a child's nursery rhyme.
- Alma 36
- etc
To argue that these complex, subtle structures are accidental can only be met with incredulity. One might honestly debate the merit of some proposed "chiasmus" in the Book of Mormon, but these examples are not arbitrary, are detailed, enhance the meaning of the text when appreciated, and require no 'special pleading' for anyone to notice them.
Arguing that chiasmus is a result of chance or observer bias cannot explain these examples.
Knowledge of chiasmus in Joseph Smith's era
enter
Neither Joseph Smith or his contemporaries ever remarked upon chiasmus.
Chiasmus in the Doctrine and Covenants?
Chiasmus in Joseph Smith's writings?
Conclusion
The small, "trivial" chiastic structures containing only a few elements might well arise through chance or English rhetoric. However, critics ignore numerous complex, subtle, and meaningful chiamus when they pretend that all of the Book of Mormon's inverted parallel structures are so simple.
continue
Endnotes
- [note] John W. Welch, Chiasmus In Antiquity (Provo, Utah: FARMS, Research Press, 1981), 5.
- [note] Need ref for Welch's first paper
Further reading
FAIR wiki articles
- Links to related articles in the wiki
FAIR web site
- FAIR Topical Guide:
External links
- John W. Welch, “Chiasmus in the Book of Mormon,” New Era (Feb. 1976): 6.
Printed material
- Noel B. Reynolds, "Nephi's Outline," BYU Studies 20:2 (1980): 131–49, reprinted in Noel B. Reynolds and Charles D. Tate (eds.), Book of Mormon Authorship: New Light on Ancient Origins (Provo, Utah : Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University ; Salt Lake City, Utah : Distributed by Bookcraft, 1996 [1982]), 53–74.
- John W. Welch, "A Masterpiece: Alma 36," in John L. Sorenson and Melvin J. Thorne (eds.), ‘'Rediscovering the Book of Mormon’' (Salt Lake City, Utah : Deseret Book Co. ; Provo, Utah : Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1991), 114–31. ISBN 0875793878.[4]
- John W. Welch, "Chiasmus in the Book of Mormon," BYU Studies 10:1 (1969): 69–84; revised slightly for Noel B. Reynolds and Charles D. Tate (eds.), Book of Mormon Authorship: New Light on Ancient Origins (Provo, Utah : Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University ; Salt Lake City, Utah : Distributed by Bookcraft, 1996 [1982]) 33–52.
- John W. Welch, "Chiasmus in the Book of Mormon," in Chiasmus in Antiquity: Structures, Analyses, Exegesis, edited by John W. Welch, (Hildesheim: Gerstenberg, 1981).
- John W. Welch, "Chiasmus in Hel. 6:7-13" (Provo: FARMS, 1987).