mentalgymnast wrote:beastie wrote:
A. Joseph Smith, like most other literate people of his culture, grew up immersed in the Bible in a way modern Americans don’t grasp. The Bible was their primary form of literature and hence, entertainment. Children were often taught to read by memorizing sections of the Bible. Families read portions of the Bible to each other in the evening. Anyone so immersed in the Bible, when writing a text he means to sound scriptural, is going to naturally mimic the Biblical language and it won’t be difficult for him to do. in my opinion, this is a completely adequate explanation for something like chiasmus – even if no one had ever pointed out this Biblical style, it would be natural for someone immerse in the Bible to mimic it.
B. Joseph Smith, by his own admission, was in a religiously obsessed family who also participated in discussions and sermons about the Bible. Ancient Israel had been studied for hundreds of years by this point, and there were many educated traveling preachers who could have included elements in their preaching, which Joseph Smith could have been exposed to as well.
And, of course, there is no way to know for certain if Joseph Smith were the sole author of the Book of Mormon, anyway.
Chiasmus is only found sporadically throughout the Book of Mormon. This points towards intentionality of the writer. If little snippet chiasms were scattered throughout the whole book (JFK and
Dr. Suess kinds of stuff as far as simplicity), I'd agree with you. Mimicry of Bible language would seem be the answer. But for it to show up intermittently and in some cases in such complexity seems to point towards intentionality and purposefulness of a writer. Ancient or modern. I choose ancient because of the other Hebraisms that are also contained within the text.
Simple mimicry. I think that's a stretch.
Chiasmus is one of the more powerful evidences the Book of Mormon has going for it. I've read arguments pro and con and I haven't been convinced by the skeptics that chiastic structure in the Book of Mormon is of the same nature/complexity as the rather random simple occurrences of simple chiasms that show up in some of Joseph Smith's other writings and in the D&C. Those I could chalk up to familiarity and experience with biblical phraseology and such.
Translation issues dealing with tight vs. loose translation and how transmission of ancient text and meaning would be impacted through those processes doesn't negate the fact that these chiasms are there.
The million dollar question is how did they get there.
Regards,
MG
Incidentally the following was posted on PostMormon a couple of week ago.
John Larsen provided the following link:
http://content.lib.utah.edu/cdm4/docume ... 688&REC=19
to a brilliant Dialogue article by Robert Patterson on the chiastic structure of Green Eggs and Ham. Since the web link was not in a format that one can directly copy and paste into a word processor document, I took the trouble to run it through my OCR software. Here's the result for those who would like to retain the article in a .doc format (or any other text editor):
Hebraicisms, Chiasmus, and Other Internal Evidence for Ancient Authorship in Green Eggs and Ham
Robert Patterson1
THEODOR GEISEL WAS BORN IN 1904 in Springfield, Massachusetts. After an unremarkable adolescence, he attended Dartmouth College and later Oxford University in England where he studied literature. He then embarked on a career in writing and published numerous articles and cartoons in various magazines. During World War II he worked for Frank Capra's Signal Corps Unit and earned the Legion of Merit. In 1954, Geisel's publisher was struck by an article entitled Why Johnny Can't Read, concerning childhood illiteracy. In order to promote academic interest in the very young, the publisher asked Geisel to write a children's book, limiting the vocabulary to the level of a first grade student. The result was The Cat in the Hat, a short story that used only 220 different words. Acclamation and preeminent professional success followed, and Geisel went on under the nom de plume Dr. Seuss (his mother's maiden name) to author many more books, richly illustrated with his distinctive and quirky drawings. He eventually published 44 books, earning three Academy Awards and a Pulitzer Prize in the process. Geisel passed away in 1991, but over a decade after his death, he remains a top-selling author.
According to popular legend, circa 1960 an editor bet Geisel $50 that he couldn't write an entire book with a lexicon of only 50 words. Dr. Seuss accepted the challenge, and the result was the now classic Green Eggs and Ham.2
Upon an initial and cursory reading, the book appears to be a simple morality play. A zealous purveyor of an unusual gustatory selection hawks his wares to an Everyman, whose initial biases preclude his acceptance of the unfamiliar. By the end of the story, the Everyman has overcome his baseless prejudices and rejoices in his newfound knowledge. The book made perfect bedtime reading for the generation of youth later known as the baby boomers.
Deeper analysis, however, reveals that the book has complex subtexts comprehensible only when the factual nature of its real authorship is known. Indeed, there is overwhelming evidence that the manuscript did not originate with Geisel, who likely fallaciously claimed credit for an archaic work that he or someone else surreptitiously translated from an ancient language into modern English. In the absence of uncontested external proof, the true origins of Green Eggs and Ham only become clear with an analysis of the text itself, i.e., through internal evidences present in the body of the work. When preconceptions are cast aside, a strong case can be made for the antiquity of this fascinating and complex work. In particular, the narrative is rich in Hebraicisms, chiasmus, biblical themes, and cultural references familiar to the pre-Common Era Israelites.
Hebraicisms may be defined as writings that reflect a Semitic influence in cognates, syntax, or grammatical accent. Chiasmus, also known as inverted parallelism, is an ancient poetic method that states a series of ideas (ABC. . .) and then repeats them in reverse order (...CBA). Green Eggs and Ham may read awkwardly in English, but its inelegant articulation is immediately pardonable when it is properly understood to be the translation of an ancient Asian text.
The first six words of the manuscript send a chill of recognition through the spine of any scholar familiar with Near Eastern religious documents:
I am Sam.
Sam I am.3
This opening couplet immediately demonstrates a simple chiasmus, a hallmark of biblical Hebrew stylistics. Of significance also is the meaning behind the words. "I am" is the classic Old Testament tetragrammaton. "Sam" is English for the Hebrew word "Shem," meaning name. The word Shem itself is one of the Hebrew names for deity. Thus, the informed reader will immediately recognize that this is a work of divine importance, commencing with two names of deity, each presented twice in an inverted parallel fashion.
The next few verses demonstrate another literary device from antiquity. Echolalia is the instantaneous repetition of a phrase; examples are found in both the Hebrew Old Testament and the Greek New Testament. Inclusion of echolalic phrasing early in the text again reflects its ancient roots.
That Sam-I-Am.
That Sam-I-Am.
I do not like
That Sam-I-Am.4
Numerous other Hebraicisms are found throughout the text. One striking example is the commencement of a sentence with a negative conjunction or negating adverb. In English, it is grammatically improper to start a phrase with "No" or "Not," such as "Not in my backyard." The omniscient word processor will immediately highlight such a phrase as a sentence fragment. However, in Hebrew it is common to start a sentence with the word "lo" (meaning "no" or "not"); seven of the Ten Commandments begin in this way. It is, therefore, of significance to note the multiple, sequential sentences initiated in the negative, as in this passage:
Not in a box.
Not with a fox.
Not in a house.
Not with a mouse.5
Although this phrasing would be crossed out in red ink by any vigilant high school English teacher, the citation makes perfect grammatical sense in Hebrew.
An uninformed skeptic could argue that interpretation of segments of the text, as Hebraicisms is a subjective and inexact science. However, the definitive presence of chiasmic phrasing is not so easily dismissed, and numerous examples are found scattered through the body of the manuscript. Some are straightforward and easy to recognize, as in this excerpt:
I do not like them, S a m-I-a m.
I do not like green eggs and ham.
Would you like them here or there?
I would not like them here or there.
I would not like them any where.
I do not like green eggs and ham.
I do not like them, Sam-I-am.6
Other chiasmi are more complex and woven cunningly into the narrative. For example, Sam-I-Am poses a number of non-rhetorical questions to the anonymous other character in the narration in a lengthy passage similar in construct to the interrogation of Job by his three friends. From the depths of despair, the unnamed protagonist summarizes his stance on the relevant culinary issues with a forceful, yet eloquent plea. A careful reading of his declaration reveals that his poetic soliloquy is a twelve part (twelve is a sacred number to the Hebrews) perfect inverse parallelism reflecting the preceding protracted dialogue from Sam-I-Am, in which he is queried concerning preferential selections of transportation, ungulates, meteorology, diurnal rhythms, habitat, and small furry rodents.
I could not, would not, on a boat.
I will not, will not, with a goat.
I will not eat them in the rain.
I will not cat them on a train.
Not in the dark! Not in a tree!
Not in a car! You let me be!
I do not like them in a box.
I do not like them with a fox.
I will not cat them in a house.
I do not like them with a mouse.
I do not like them here or there.
I do not like them anywhere!7
A plethora of Semitic cultural references is also found in the text. For example, the goat and the fox are both Old Testament animals. Also, the "green eggs" referred to repeatedly can be understood in the light of the times. Without modern-day refrigeration techniques, putrefaction would quickly have commenced in unconsumed food, resulting in moldy (green) eggs. In the worldview of the ancient Israelites, one can, therefore, certainly understand the reluctance of the unnamed central character to consume a meal that is potentially pathogenic and also non-kosher.
Finally, multiple traditional Old Testament themes flow through Green Eggs and Ham, including the chronicle of the flood. According to the book of Genesis, Noah had three sons-Shem, Ham, and Japheth. As already discussed above, Shem is the Hebrew equivalent of the English name Sam, which appears in the text a total of 19 times. The word "ham" appears 10 times. Japheth is never mentioned specifically but may be the enigmatic unnamed character in the story. Also of significance, the word "rain" appears four times while the word "boat" (a synonym for "ark") is mentioned three times. And although not part of the written text, an illustration near the end of the manuscript shows a bleak image of apparently endless water, on which there floats a solitary vessel filled with animals. Taken all together, this cumulative evidence must be accepted as being far more than merely coincidental.
To summarize to this point, the rich presence of complex chiasmi, multiple Hebraicisms, Israelite cultural references, and Old Testament themes supports the theory that Green Eggs and Ham is, in tact, an ancient text of Semitic origin. Theodor Geisel, though a clever and charismatic man, was not a student of Near Eastern history or languages and would not be familiar with these writing techniques. He simply did not have the knowledge or resources to produce such a work and clearly is not the author of the book.
Part of the solution to the mystery as to the true source of the manuscript may lie hidden within the text itself. In 1997, a former Wall Street Journal reporter named Michael Drosnin published an astounding book entitled The Bible Code, in which he examined equidistance letter sequences in the Bible.8 Using the original Hebrew characters, every fifth letter was placed into a matrix, which was then analyzed for meaning. The resulting revelations have shed new light on the scriptures. A similar study was carried out on the text from Green Eggs and Ham, employing standard Word Search Puzzle techniques. Up/down, backwards/forwards and diagonals were all permitted. The study is ongoing, but preliminary results have yielded tantalizing clue words and phrases such as STATS, NINNY, and the cryptic message IDONOTOUX (possibly "I do not owe you anything").
In conclusion, this paper is the first to reveal the true origins of an ancient complex manuscript that for too long has been cavalierly dismissed as a mere twentieth century work of fiction. Although we have arrived at a better understanding of the roots of this crucial work, many critical questions remain unanswered. If Geisel was not the author, as he claimed, then who was? Is the book entirely allegorical, or was the shadowy Sam-1-Am an actual historic personage? What geographic hints in the text allude to the location of the physical setting for the events described? What possible anomaly in the arcane process of translation would account for the apparent anachronistic mention of cars and trains? And what moral and spiritual lessons does Green Eggs and Ham hold for us today in our lives? No doubt, inspired scholars will soon research and discover the answers to these and many other questions as this complicated but vital narrative finally receives the serious academic scrutiny it so richly merits.
1. The author wishes to thank Dr. Salvatore Federico, a friend and Linguist, teaching in Phoenix, who reviewed the manuscript and provided invaluable assistance in preparing this article.
2. Dr. Seuss., Green Eggs and Ham (New York: Random House, Inc., 1960).
3. Ibid., 5, 7.
4. Ibid, 9.
5. Ibid.. 24.
6. Ibid.,12-16.
7. Ibid., 46.
8. Michael Drosnin. The Bible Code (New York Simon and Schuster, 1997).