Il Libro di Mormon/Anacronismi/Principi di base

PROSPETTIVE MEDIA DOMANDE RISORSE 2014 CONFERENZA

    Cos'è un anacronismo e che rapporto ha con il Libro di Mormon?

L'assenza di evidenza non è una prova. Ecco un piccolo esempio: Matthew Roper, nel blog di FairMormon del 17 giugno 2013, scrive di una critica ripetuta spesso negli anni riguardo al fatto che nel Libro di Mormon viene menzionato l'acciaio. Nel 1884, un critico scrisse: “ La spada di Labano era di acciaio, mentre si sa che gli Israeliti non vennero a conoscenza dell'acciaio se non centinaia di anni più tardi. Chi, se non una persona ignorante come Rigdon, avrebbe potuto perpetuare tali simili errori.” Più di recente, nel 1957, Thomas O'Dey dichiarò: “Ogni commentatore del Libro di Mormon ha sottolineato i molti anacronismi culturali e storici, come ad esempio l'acciaio. Una spada di acciaio di Labano nel 600 a.C.”
A quel tempo non avevamo risposte per quei critici, ma, come spesso accade in queste situazioni, nuove scoperte in anni successivi hanno fatto maggior chiarezza. Roper scrive: “è sempre più chiaro che la pratica di temprare il ferro consapevolmente attraverso cementazione e tempra era ben conosciuta nel mondo antico da cui Nefi proveniva.” Recentemente un esperto ha sottolineato: “Sembra evidente che dall'inizio del decimo secolo a.C. i fabbri tempravano intenzionalmente il ferro.” Nel 1987 la rivista Ensign ha riportato che degli archeologi avevano scoperto, nei pressi di Gerico, una lunga spada di acciaio risalente alla fine del settimo secolo a. C., probabilmente al regno del re Giosia, che morì poco prima che Lehi iniziasse a profetizzare. Questa spada è ora esposta al Museo d'Israele di Gerusalemme, e la targa che l'accompagna in parte dice: “ la spada è fatta di ferro temprato in acciaio.”
—Anziano D. Todd Christofferson, "The Prophet Joseph Smith", Devotional Address, BYU Idaho, 24 Settembre 2013.

Domande

Cos'è un anacronismo? Cosa dovremmo tenere a mente nel valutare il Libro di Mormon (o qualsiasi altro testo) per presunti “anacronismi”?

Risposta

During Joseph Smith's lifetime, most of the "archaeology" of the Book of Mormon did not match what was known about the early Americas. (Click to enlarge)

By 2005, a number of features of the Book of Mormon text were known in the ancient Americas. Yet, in 1842, many of these would have been seen as "errors" or "anachronisms". (Click to enlarge)

È importante notare che con l'accrescersi delle conoscenze ciò che un tempo era considerato anacronistico diviene caratteristica autentica del mondo antico. John Clark ha creato le tabelle, riportate qui a destra, che mostrano come nel tempo si sia giunti a confermare alcune affermazioni contenute nel Libro di Mormon.

Gli anacronismi, in un testo autentico, possono essere rappresentati da:

1. oggetti o fatti non ancora scoperti
2. l'uso di termini, da parte degli autori originali, in un modo che non ci aspettiamo
3. le scelte del traduttore del nostro tempo

Tutte queste tre possibilità devono essere valutate prima che un anacronismo possa essere usato per screditare il Libro di Mormon, o qualsiasi altro documento tradotto.

Analisi dettagliata

An "anachronism" is an element in a text that is "out of time." That is, it does not match the time and place of the text's claimed production.

For example, if Sherman tanks appeared in a supposed account of the fall of Jerusalem to the Babylonians, the tanks would be "anachronistic." They don't belong.

When anachronisms appear in a translated text (such as the Book of Mormon claims to be), the matter becomes more complicated, because a translator can introduce anachronisms that are not present in the original text.

For example, the King James version of the Bible often speaks about candles. "15 Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel," said Jesus, "but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house" (Matthew 5:15).

The problem is that candles were not used in Palestine in Jesus' day. Light came from oil lamps, not from candles. If we examine the Greek text, we see that this is so--the King James translators chose a term that was appropriate to their time and place. Jesus' meaning remains clear with the King James translation, even though he was speaking of a lamp, not a candle.

It would be a mistake to conclude that the Bible text had been forged because the candles are an anachronism--the text itself did not refer to candles; the translators made that choice, and they introduced the anachronism. We would also be foolish to go looking for candles in the archaeology of Jersualem in the 1st century A.D.. They weren't there. But, whether we can find candle remains in the digs says nothing about whether the Bible is a genuine ancient document, or whether Jesus actually spoke about not hiding a light-giving device.

We can determine that this is so because we have the original Greek texts of the Bible. But, what are we to do when we have a translation, but no original? How can we be certain when an anachronism comes from the translator, and when it comes from the original? We cannot--or at least, not without a great deal of difficulty.

An example

This may be more clear if we consider a specific example. The Book of Mormon reports that the Nephites grew "barley" (e.g., Mosiah 7:22). Critics have, on occasion, claimed that barley is an anachronism, because it was not known in the New World prior to Columbus.

When confronted with barley in the Book of Mormon text, there are several possible explanations:

1. True barley was known to the Nephites. Archaeological study has simply not (yet) found evidence of barley in the New World. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, as the saying goes.
2. The Nephites gave an Old World name to a different New World crop. Thus, while the Nephite plate text did read "barley," the item to which the term barley referred is not the same as Old World barley. The Nephites would be, in a sense, "translating" their new cultural surroundings into their Old World language. (This could have been important religiously for items which were impacted by the law of Moses. Animals must be declared either "clean" or "unclean" for use as food--thus, if the Nephites discovered a New World animal, how they decided to label it would have implications for how they saw and used the animal.)
3. Joseph Smith translated into terms with which his own culture and time would be familiar. Thus, while the Nephite text named a different grain, Joseph translated the term as "barley." There is, in fact, a true anachronism--but that anachronism was introduced by Joseph Smith, and not the Nephite original. Thus, it is foolish to look for "true barley" in the New World, because the Nephites never claimed that barley was found there--that is an artifact of Joseph's translation.
4. Occasionally, some Jaredite terms are translated by Nephite authors. This adds yet another layer of transmission and translation--the Nephites have to translate a Jaredite term into a Nephite term, which Joseph Smith must then render into English. An anachronism can be added at any step.

In the case of barley, any of the these options could be true. Contrary to the critics' claims, domesticated barley has been found in the New World (it was discovered in the 1980s), so #1 is a distinct possibility.

But, options #2 and #3 could also be true (Jaredites do not mention barley, so #4 does not apply). We simply cannot tell which scenario is the correct one when all we have is the translation, and no original text.

We are often accustomed to thinking of #1 as the only option—and this is why critics crow when horses, for example, are not found in the Americas before Columbus. But, this criticism only has weight if #1 is the only viable option--but, that simply isn't true for a translated document.

Furthermore, not every supposed anachronism need have the same explanation. "Barley" could be a proper referent to New World barley, while "wheat" might be an approximation chosen from Joseph's environment. After all, the spiritual message or historical account of the Book of Mormon does not alter whether "wheat" is Old World wheat or another New World food crop. (In the same way, Jesus' message of the Sermon on the Mount doesn't really change much whether he's talking about oil lamps or candles.) The issue of anachronisms is only important because critics want to use anachronisms to "prove" that Joseph Smith fabricated the Book of Mormon. But, that's a very tall order with a translated document--so they hope that we don't realize this.

Much of the debate, then, hinges on how we see the process of Book of Mormon translation—and we know very little about it. Critics have insisted that God would not make an "erroneous" translation—but, that assumes that translation and prophets are inerrant, which the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith both denied. In any case, a perfect translation is an impossibility, even between closely-related languages.

Joseph Smith was also willing to revise the translation somewhat, which suggests that he did not see it as an iron-clad, fixed text that he had no role in creating.

Furthermore, #2 could still happen even if the translation was erroneous--the word is barley, but simply doesn't refer to Old World barley. Joseph could create an anachronism in case #2 by giving us a more literal translation of the text; he could create an anachronism in sense #3 by giving a more accessible translation of the text in cultural terms familiar to his audience. There is no perfect solution--either choice could lead to confusion and could lead to charges by critics that there is an anachronism. But, if any of these options could be true, then it should be obvious that we simply don't have enough evidence to make a determination.