THE SHAPE OF BIBLICAL LANGUAGE
by John Breck

It is the most complete and detailed introduction to the subject available today.

John Fowles #57, last paragraph.

A. JS intentionally built the chiasmus in, not unconsciously….this is the only viable alternative
B [Y]ou will likely not see my point and will continue believing that JS probably just somehow naturally “thought” in such rigid and perfected chiasms and that they thus somehow unconsciously appeared there.
C it would be ludicrous in the academy to assert that a writer unconsciously included such a rigidly formalistic structure
B’ So, the chiasmus must be intentional,
A’ [H]ow could it have been possible for JS the writer to invent such intricate formalistic structures that….perform the correct function internally within the text and within the isolated chiasm itself?

Note that I am not taking isolated words in finding these chiasms. I am taking whole phrases and sentences and finding the parallelisms. Chiasms truly are EVERYWHERE. All their existence means is that an intelligent person wrote the paragraph. Any reasonably intelligent person WRITES IN CHIASMS! And, regardless of what John Fowles or anyone else thinks about what their presence means, so does he (write in chiasms, that is).

Now, I am definitely a Book of Mormon believer. I also ‘believe’ in the presence of chiasms. What I do NOT believe in is the idea that the presence of chiasms is evidence which connects the BOM to an ancient writing or is a sole indication that the BOM is of divine origin (which I believe it IS.).

A. Vogel argued that reversals of exact, or near exact, words do not constitute “real” chiasmus
B of the forty-nine nonbiblical, simple (by which I take it he meant reversals of two elements only) chiasms in the Book of Mormon, only three are based on differing words and therefore can be said to be “real” chiasmus
C On what basis Vogel rejects antimetabole as “real” chiasmus is completely unclear to me
B’ Vogel himself acknowledged that Wilfred G. E. Watson accepts such structures as chiasmus
A’ Just because Vogel has found simple same-word reversals in modern advertising slogans does not mean that same-word reversals cannot constitute “real” chiasmus

Here, Kevin Barney is extracting someone elses comments, but wouldn’t you say that C is a statement of Barney’s position? And, typical of chiasms, you can read the entire chiasm from beginning to end, AND IN REVERSE ORDER and get the same basic message.

They’re Everywhere, they’re Everywhere!…..

Chiasms are ubiquitous and indicate nothing regarding the ancient nature of a document or of its divine source. While a skillful writer may enhance the chiasms if he makes an effort to do so, they are typically produced totally without the writer knowing that he is producing them.

That’s a fun comment. However, I don’t think that it proves that certain writers in certain traditions did NOT know that they were following a chiastic form. One can use just about any art form as an example. Those artists who have more training will tend to be more cognizant of the forms involved during the creative process while those who have an abundance of talent with less training will tend to get it “right” intuitively though they may be less cognizant of the forms.

. Oman said:
60. On the actual translation process I think that the basic problem is that the extra-textual sources underdetermine the process so we are constantly thrown back into the text itself, which carries a whiff of circularity. This problem, as Rosylnde points out is endemic not just to BofM studies but to textual studies generally. One might point out that this problem goes both ways. Consider something as simple as naturalistic explanations of the Iasiah passages. As I understand it (and it has been a while since I looked at this) Stan Larson argues that Joseph copied the passages from the bible adding textual variants when he encountered italicized word in the KJV. The problem is that, if I remember correctly, there is no extra-textual source suggesting that Joseph consulted extensively from the Bible in dictating the text.

A [T]he basic problem is that the extra-textual sources underdetermine the process
B This problem, as Rosylnde points out is endemic
C Consider …. naturalistic explanations of the Iasiah [sic] passages.
B’ Stan Larson argues that Joseph copied the passages
A’ The problem is that…. there is no extra-textual source suggesting that Joseph consulted extensively from the Bible

Hickory dickory dock,
the mouse ran up the clock.
The clock struck one,
the mouse ran down,
Hickory dickory dock.

Though someone who knows more about this stuff [than I do] might be able to point out flaws in his paper, I think it’s worth t[aking a look at it--if no other reason than the way he addresses the complexity in Nephi's text by virtue of chiasmus]. Interesting…

http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=jbms&id=147

“Nephi’s Convincing of Christ through Chiasmus” by David E. Sloan.

Though someone who knows more about this stuff might be able to point out flaws in his paper, I think it’s worth t