Many people have
discussed the significance of chiasmus in the Book of Mormon, and this discussion is primarily for readers who are already familiar with the basic ideas. If you aren't
familiar, chiasmus is a relatively simple yet elegant writing style in which
words or themes are presented and then repeated in reverse order. Using
letters, an easy example would be: “a-b-c-c-b-a.” Another example would be
“(a)Mary (b)had (c)a little lamb, (c)a little lamb (b)had (c)Mary.”
Ancient Hebrews
used this literary device frequently, to highlight themes. So, the fact that it
is found extensively in the Book of Mormon is evidence of authenticity. Someone
went to a lot of effort to put chiasmus in the Book of Mormon (yet this fact
was never cited by Joseph Smith or early Mormons as evidence).
Unfortunately,
both the critics and the chiasm hunters are missing something important. The
real test of authenticity is the hidden evidence – what was destroyed, what
became imperfect when the target language was imposed on the original source
language.
For instance, 2
Nephi 9:28 is a chiasm, beginning with “O the vainness and the
frailties and the foolishness of men!” That is a well-crafted line in English.
However, it breaks the chiasm so as to avoid the awkward English phrase, “O the
perishability and the vainness and the foolishness of men!” The word order and
the root were changed to create the delightful triad we have today. Something
Hebrew readers appreciate was sacrificed to make way for something comparable
that English readers appreciate and are able to remember. Notice the first
word, “vainness,” shares “ai” with the second word (creating assonance) as well
as number of syllables, and shares “ness” with the third word (end rhyme),
while the second and third words share “f” at the beginning (alliteration).
This is similar to the well known triad, “healthy, wealthy and wise.” Triads
like that are constructed intentionally, just as chiasmus is.
2 Nephi 9:28
A. O the vainness
B. and the
frailties
C.
and the foolishness of men
D.
When they are learned
E.
they think
F.
they are wise
G.
and they hearken not unto the
counsel of God
G.
for they set it aside
E.
supposing
D.
they know of themselves
F.
wherefore their wisdom
C.
is foolishness
A. and it profiteth them not
B. And they
shall perish
The first thing
we note is that the F element is seemingly out of place in the inverted half,
and so is the B element. The F element is in exactly the right place however,
as this is a profane chiasm. Since chiasm is considered sacred, authors
acknowledge subject matter dealing with unholy things by putting a standard
flaw or mark in the chiasmus, which is moving the element immediately after the
pivot and reinserting it after two intervening elements.
The precise
placement of the F element is evidence that the chiasm is carefully crafted by
someone who knew what they were doing. That initially makes the placement of
the B element all the more curious, as does the fact the words in the B element
are not from the same root. Until, that is, one realizes the changes necessary
in order to create the triad in English. The exact synonym was replaced by a
less exact word having the desired sounds to make the triad work. Two elements
switched places in order to put the right sounds in adjacent words.
The Book of
Mormon abounds with chiasmus, but critics have long complained that Mormons
ignore missing or out of place elements. Yet critics have not stopped to
seriously consider where these broken chiasms came from. What we have is what
we should expect to find in an authentic translation.
Critics, for
their part, could attempt to explain broken chiasmus as a result of multiple
authorship, wherein one person wrote the book and then another person came
along later and changed it without realizing they were disturbing well-ordered
chiasmus. The downside for critics is they would then be tied-down to a multiple
authorship theory, which can get complicated very fast.
As for me, I
would like to see future study of broken chiasms to determine how many of the
changes are attributable to a shift
from Hebrew to English grammar - something which cannot be explained away by
proposing multiple English authors.
For instance, 2
Nephi 9:23-24 has nine matching pairs of elements for a chiasm, but many of
them are out of order. It’s as though
the order was changed to represent the subject matter better in English.
Now here’s the
most interesting part: one of the matching elements is the phrase “in his
name,” but it appears three times instead of only twice. However, in Hebrew
grammar the phrase “in his name” would have only been used twice, once in the
top portion of the chiasm, and once in the bottom portion. That’s because in
Hebrew grammar a single word or phrase would have been used to state that both
“believe” and “be baptized” are “in his name.” In English, it was necessary to
repeat the phrase and thus repeat that element of the chiasm one too many times.
2 Nephi 23-24
A. And he commandeth all men
B. that
they must repent
C.
and be baptized
D.
in his name
E.
having perfect
F.
faith
G.
in the Holy One of Israel
H.
or they cannot be saved
B. And if
they will not repent
F.
and believe
D.
in his name
C.
and be baptized
D.
in his name
E.
and endure to the end
H.
they must be damned
G.
the Holy One of Israel
A. has spoken it.
The underlying source language is Egyptian. Egyptian texts exhibit chiasmus, so that may be a primary place to look before Hebrew
ReplyDelete