Linguistics and the Book of Mormon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 The neutrality of this article is disputed.
Please see the discussion on the talk page.(December 2007)
Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved.
The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ (softcover missionary edition)
The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ (softcover missionary edition)

According to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and other Latter Day Saint denominations, the Book of Mormon is a 19th century translation of a historical record of the inhabitants of the American continents, part of which was written in a script which the book refers to as "reformed Egyptian." Other parts are thought to be written in an altered form of Hebrew.[1]

There is generally no support for the historicity of the Book of Mormon, or acceptance that the characters referred to as "reformed Egyptian" relate in any way to Egyptian Hieroglyphic, Hieratic and Demotic writing, amongst non-LDS mainstream scholars.

Both critics and proponents of the Book of Mormon have used linguistic methods to analyze the text. Proponents have discovered stylistic forms that Joseph Smith and contemporaries are unlikely to have known about, as well as similarities to Egyptian and Hebrew. Critics of the Book of Mormon have pointed out places where the language could be anachronistic, and they generally dispute the methods and conclusions put forth by Mormon scholars.

Contents

[edit] Language development

LDS General Authority B. H. Roberts reviewed in depth the current research regarding language development and dialects among the native American peoples in the work published as Studies of the Book of Mormon. During his review, he noted that linguistic evidence among the native American peoples does not appear to support the Book of Mormon narrative, inasmuch as the diverse language stocks and dialects that exist would not have had enough time to develop from a single language dating from 400 A.D. (the date of the conclusion of the Book of Mormon record). He noted:

The facts...developed up to this point seem to be--
1. That there are a large number of separate language stocks in America that show very little relationship to each other--not more than that between English and German.
2. That it would take a long time--much longer than that recognized as "historic times"--to develop these dialects and stocks where the development is conceived of as arising from a common source of origin--some primitive language.
3. That there is no connection between the American languages and the language of any people of the Old World. New World languages appear to be indigenous to the New World.
4. That the time limits named in the Book of Mormon--which represents the people of America as speaking and writing one language down to as late a period as 400 A.D.--is not sufficient to allow of these divergences into the American language stocks and their dialects.[2]

[edit] Chiasmus

Chiasmus is a form of rhetorical parallelism wherein key ideas familiar to the reader are inverted, usually for some kind of emphasis. Chiasmus appears in many languages, including Ugaritic, Biblical Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, and Latin.[citation needed]. It is found in the Bible and other ancient Middle Eastern poetry; for example, Genesis 9:6:

Whoever sheds the blood of man,
by man shall his blood be shed.

Chiasmus is also prominent in modern poetry and prose in many languages. The first lines of Keats' On First Looking Into Chapman's Homer, for instance, run,

Much have I traveled in the realms of gold,
and many goodly states and kingdoms seen.

Here "realms of gold" and "goodly states and kingdoms" are bookended by the verbs "traveled" and "seen" to form an ABBA pattern.

[edit] The Book of Mormon

Examples of chiasmus can be found in the Book of Mormon. Some have argued chiasmus is evidence of the text's historical accuracy, because it reflects the Semitic background of Nephi, and other authors of the Book of Mormon. They claim that such findings support claims of Hebrew origins in the text because chiasmus is often found in Hebrew texts such as the Bible.

In 1969 John W. Welch, later LDS Law and religion scholar, discovered a variety of instances of chiasmus in the Book of Mormon and along with his discovery came attention to the phenomenon.[3] The longest and most commonly cited example of chiasmus in the Book of Mormon is the prophet Alma's religious experience, as recorded in Alma 36. John Welch claims that it is unlikely, although not impossible,[4] that Smith knew about chiasmus at the time of the Book of Mormon's publication[5] implicating that chiasmus could only be present in the text if indeed the text is a translation and not a fabrication.

Many though, argue against this being true chiasmus, and do not see a correlation between presence of chiasmus in the Book of Mormon and its authenticity. And still others disagree on the extent to which chiasmus occurs in the text. With regard to the Alma 36 chiasmus, one critic alleges that John Welch "fashioned a chiasm by selecting elements from repetitious language, creatively labeling elements, ignoring text, pairing unbalanced elements, and even including asymmetrical elements".[6]

Welch himself offers the following caution regarding a tendency of enthusiastic readers to see chiasmus where it is not actually present:

Some people, of course, have gone overboard with this search, and caution must be employed; otherwise, it is possible to find chiasmus in the telephone book, and the effort becomes meaningless…One must be careful in this quest, however, to avoid the problems of the "hammer syndrome"—to the person holding a hammer, everything looks like a nail. To the person who knows only chiasmus and no other form of literary composition, everything may start looking like a chiasm.[7]

Further, Hugh Pinnock, an LDS General Authority, stated:

"Because the study of Hebrew writing forms in the Book of Mormon can strengthen testimony and be quite exciting, a number of researchers and laypersons have become overly enthusiastic, much to the detriment of the subject and integrity of their studies."[8]

There is no evidence supporting or refuting whether Smith did in fact know about chiasmus, which leaves skeptics unconvinced. Further they argue that there is no correlation between the appearance of chiasmus and the authenticity of the Book of Mormon because among other things chiasmus appears in other literary traditions including a prominence in nineteen century English literature. Regardless it remains an important topic with regard to the texts because of the debate and interest.

[edit] Occurrence in other LDS scriptures

Some claim writings in the form of chiasmus can also be found in the Doctrine and Covenants and The Pearl of Great Price, two other works of scripture in the LDS cannon written by Smith.[9] Critics believe this supports their claim that Joseph Smith knew about chiasmus, and that it may have been a characteristic of his personal writing style[citation needed].

Apologists argue these examples should be considered a type of sporadic repetition rather than the full fledged chiasmus (that is claimed to be found in Alma 36), Charles G. Kroupa and Richard C. Shipp are notable for publishing arguments for chiasmus in the Doctrine and Covenants in 1972.[10] Shipp also produced a masters thesis out of BYU titled "Conceptual Patterns of Repetition in the Doctrine and Covenants and Their Implications" in 1975 claiming that writings found in the Doctrine and Covenants had literary patterns similar to chiasmus.[11] In 2004, a study was published by LDS researchers which used statistical analysis to determine the likelihood that a chiastic structure in LDS works appeared by chance as opposed to being created deliberately. Mathematical formulas were used to calculate a set of probabilities that provided the ability to distinguish between strong and weak chiastic structures.[12] The authors concluded (as published by BYU):

Based on these estimates, we conclude that the likelihood is high that chiastic structure appeared by design in the Pentateuch and in the Book of Mormon. Our estimates do not support such a conclusion for the Doctrine and Covenants, the Book of Abraham… indicating instead that chiasms could have appeared in these works by chance.[13]

[edit] Other works containing chiasmus

Chiastic patterns have also been found in the Book of the Law of the Lord,[14] a purported translation of an ancient text by James J. Strang, who is considered by members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Strangite) to be the true successor to Joseph Smith. This book is not considered authentic by most Latter Day Saints.

Critics point out that the presence of chiasmus in Strang's writing as well as in the literature of other cultures implies that the source could be non-Hebrew. Additionally, they claim that the examination of a post-translation text might make identifying chiasmus in the original language difficult, and that the presence of chiasmus is not necessarily indicative of ancient origins.[15]

Chiasmus has also been identified in other non-Hebrew writings of antiquity and modern origins, including for example, Paradise Lost which has an overarching chiastic structure the spans the entire work.[citation needed]

[edit] Stylometry (Wordprint Studies)

[edit] Statistical analysis

Stylometry is a method of statistical analysis used to determine authorship of various texts. It has been used to analyze disputed works of Shakespeare, contrast books of the Bible, identify the authors of twelve disputed Federalist Papers, and compare styles of various authors such as Jane Austen. In 1980, researchers at Brigham Young University used stylometric techniques they called "wordprint analysis" to examine the possible authors of the Book of Mormon. They reached the conclusion that none of the Book of Mormon selections they studied resembled writings of any of the suggested nineteenth-century authors, including Joseph Smith.[16].

Jerald and Sandra Tanner challenged their findings on various points, most notably questioning the reliability of the data sources used and the methodology of the "wordprint analysis."[17]

Church leaders teach that readers should pray to find confirmation of the Book of Mormon's divinity. One prominent Mormon scholar, John Tvedtnes, has rejected the use of wordprint evidence as the foundation for a testimony of the Book of Mormon's validity.[18]

[edit] Parallels

Non-Mormon Thomas Donofrio claims to have found hundreds of parallels between peculiar wordings in the Book of Mormon and the writings of well-known historical and religious figures of the 18th and 19th centuries.[19] Unlike the earlier studies, Donofrio's research has not been peer-reviewed. Respondents to this study point out that the use of parallels to prove derivation can be used to illogical extremes. As an example, LDS apologist Jeff Lindsay composed a satirical documented essay "proving" the parallels between The Book of Mormon and Walt Whitman's Leaves of Grass, which was published 25 years after the Book of Mormon.[20]

LDS scholars, however, say that the Book of Mormon is a translation, not originally written by Smith, but translated into the language with which he was familiar. While wordprint studies (by the same team used to verify the identity of the Unabomber in court) may be compelling, the inclusion of modern phraseology shouldn't surprise anyone. The word book, for example, was not used by the ancient Hebrews. Yet both in the King James Version of the Bible and the Book of Mormon, the word appears anachronistically. Scholars point out that this could well be the logical result of an ancient work translated by a modern man using the wording best suited to convey the ideas to a modern reader.[citation needed]

[edit] Proper Names

The Book of Mormon contains over 300 proper names, which provide a potentially valuable line of evidence in attempting to determine the book's origins. Place names are commonly recognized in historical linguistics as some of the strongest preservers of earlier language, and they are often preserved phonetically by speakers of later languages even when the original meanings have been lost. Various proper names are also used by critics as evidence that the Book of Mormon is not authentic, identifying them as linguistic anachronisms.

Most of the Book of Mormon is purportedly the work of Nephite authors of Israelite ancestry, who wrote in reformed Egyptian and whose spoken language, is thought by Mormon scholars to have been derived from Hebrew, perhaps with Egyptian or Native American influences.[original research?] The Nephites also had access to portions of the Hebrew Bible. The Book of Ether is a somewhat different case, purportedly being a Nephite translation and abridgment of an originally Jaredite record. The Book of Mormon states that the Jaredites' language was not confounded at the Tower of Babel. Mormon apologists assert that none of these languages was familiar to Joseph Smith at the time he wrote or translated the Book of Mormon.[citation needed][original research?] Critics note that he had access to numerous Hebrew and Greek proper names through his reading of the Bible, and may have lifted other names from people and places that he knew, such as Moroni and Cumorah (both on a map that Smith had access to)[citation needed] and Lemuel (one of Smith's neighbors).[citation needed]

[edit] Hebrew names

Many of the proper names in the Book of Mormon are Hebrew names found in the Bible (e.g. Lehi, Lemuel, Ammon, and Enos). Mormon scholars also argue that there are a number of attested Hebrew names found in the Book of Mormon which do not appear in the Bible. Examples of these are Aha, Ammonihah, Chemish, Hagoth, Himni, Isabel, Jarom, Josh, Luram, Mathoni, Mathonihah, Muloki, and Sam.[21] Richard Abanes, in his book One Nation Under Gods, suggests that there are Book of Mormon names that may have been taken by Joseph Smith from people or places that he knew, such as Lemuel, who "may refer to Lemuel Durfee, a neighbor [of the Smiths]"[22]

Noted linguist and critic of the church, Richard Packham has pointed out that several Biblical Hebrew names, including Aaron[23], Ephraim[24], and Levi[25] are listed as Jaredites in the Book of Ether. He argues that these are anachronisms, since the Jaredites are supposed to have originated from the time of the Tower of Babel, and did not speak Hebrew.[26]

Many non-biblical names found in the Book of Mormon resemble words from ancient Hebrew (e.g. Sariah, Jarom, and Josh).[27] Some, like Alma, are attested Hebrew names.

Mormon authors Milton Hunter and Thomas Ferguson allege that Hebraic fragments and roots appear discernible in Nephite / Mulekite names such as "Zarahemla".[28] These names are often interpreted as evidence in favor of the Book of Mormon, since Joseph Smith's knowledge of Hebrew was limited to names found in the Bible.[29]

The suffix -ihah or -hah is used in several names in the Book of Mormon and in other works written or purportedly translated by Joseph Smith. Mormon scholars[citation needed] have interpreted it as a variant of the Tetragrammaton, YHWH, often appearing as YAH or Jah, as in Hallelujah, and which sometimes appears in the form YHH among the 5th century B.C. Aramaic Jewish papyri found at Elephantine, Egypt.[30] However, -ihah does not appear in transliterations of Hebrew names outside of the Book of Mormon.

Examples in the Book of Mormon:

[edit] Mesoamerican Names

LDS archaeologist Bruce V. Warren has noted that some Jaredite names may have become a part of later Nephite culture, suggesting that there may have been survivors or refugees of the great Jaredite battle besides Coriantumr. He cites the names Kib, Kish, Shule, and Com as examples Jaredite names that have been found in ancient Mesoamerica.[31]

[edit] Egyptian names

Some Mormon scholars, including John Gee, Tvedtnes, and Hugh Nibley, argue that Book of Mormon names appear to be Egyptian. Tvedtnes, Gee, and Roper note that William F. Albright considered the names Paanchi and Pahoran to be Egyptian names.[32]

In his book Lehi in the Desert, Dr. Hugh Nibley compares names found in the Book of Mormon with ancient Egyptian names from Upper Egypt. The comparisons show that many names in the Book of Mormon are similar to names in a certain region and era of ancient Egypt. Nibley postulates that names do not match exactly due to the process of metathesis. Parallels drawn by Nibley between Egyptian names and Book of Mormon names include the aforementioned Paanchi and Pahoran, and further include several others including Korihor (Kherihor, a High Priest at Thebes[citation needed]) and Morianton (Meriaton, an Egyptian prince[33]), and Ammon (Amun, the most common name in ancient Egypt)[34]. Thomas Finley rebuts such claims by Nibley and other writers[35][36] Critics claim that the parallels drawn by Nibley and others ignore the possibility of simple coincidence, and lack a defined methodology for assessing the importance of the parallels. (See Parallelomania section below).

Joseph Smith, in a letter written in 1843 to the Latter-day Saints' publication, The Millennial Star, wrote that the name "Mormon" came from "the Egyptian Mon, hence with the addition of more, or the contraction, mor, we have the word Mormon, which means, literally, more good."[37] Linguist Richard Packham criticizes this interpretation, stating that the English word "more" or "mor" is out of place in an Egyptian name.[38] Benjamin Urrutia suggests the name Mormon is derived from Egyptian Mor, "Love," and Mon, "firmly established" rendering Mormon as "Love is firmly established." [39]

[edit] Greek names

Joseph Smith stated in a letter to the editor of Times and Seasons, "There was no Greek or Latin upon the plates from which I, through the grace of the Lord, translated the Book of Mormon."[40] Nevertheless, the Book of Mormon contains some names which appear to be Greek, some of which are Hellenizations of Hebrew names (e.g. Antipas, Archeantus, Esrom, Ezias, Judea and Zenos). Some of these are found in the New Testament and would have been known to Joseph Smith. Others are non-biblical and their presence in the book is puzzling to both believers and skeptics, since neither Smith nor the Nephites spoke Greek. One explanation has been offered by Brian D. Stubbs, who said that though the language of the Mulekites isn't put forward in the Book of Mormon, it could have consisted of Phoenician, Greek, or Arabic.[41]

[edit] Word Choice in Translation

The mechanics of the method by which the Book of Mormon was claimed to have been translated have been examined by various scholars in order to determine how words were chosen. Various accounts from witnesses to the translation process exist, including David Whitmer and Martin Harris, two of the Three Witnesses. Statements of the exact methods used in translation vary depending upon the account. A number of these accounts were written many years after the events occurred.

[edit] Method of translation

Mormon Church authorities do not claim to know the exact method by which translation and word choice was accomplished. In an address given 25 June 1992 at a seminar for new mission presidents at the Missionary Training Center, Mormon Apostle Russell M. Nelson stated that “[t]he details of this miraculous method of translation are still not fully known.” In order to illustrate this, Nelson quoted the words of Book of Mormon witness David Whitmer (who had not served as a Book of Mormon scribe), who wrote regarding the use of a seer stone in the translation process over 50 years after it had occurred,[42]

Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing. One character at a time would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe, and when it was written down and repeated to Brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character with the interpretation would appear. Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, and not by any power of man.[43]

Nelson also noted statements made by Joseph's wife, Emma Hale Smith, who gave her account of the translation method in 1856:[44]

When my husband was translating the Book of Mormon, I wrote a part of it, as he dictated each sentence, word for word, and when he came to proper names he could not pronounce, or long words, he spelled them out, and while I was writing them, if I made any mistake in spelling, he would stop me and correct my spelling although it was impossible for him to see how I was writing them down at the time. Even the word Sarah he could not pronounce at first, but had to spell it, and I would pronounce it for him.[45]

Emma also claimed that Smith would translate with the plates in front of him, wrapped in a cloth. This suggests that the process of translation involved viewing the Urim and Thummim or the seer stone rather than viewing the actual plates themselves.[citation needed].

Martin Harris (as quoted by Edward Stevenson in the Deseret News in 1881) described the translation process as follows:

By aid of the seer stone, sentences would appear and were read by the Prophet... when finished [the Prophet] would say "Written," and if correctly written that sentence would disappear and another appear in its place, but if not written correctly it remained until corrected, so that the translation was just as it was engraven on the plates, precisely in the language then used.[46]

[edit] Word substitution

One challenge in performing a linguistic analysis of the Book of Mormon is that no original text is available for analysis; only handwritten printers' copies transcribed from the original handwritten copies of the original English text, and a few pages of the original translation produced by Joseph Smith are available. As with any translation, the influence of the translator is inextricably part of the translated text in matters of word choice. Some Mormon scholars have theorized that when words are found in the Book of Mormon that seem anachronistic, or that refer to items not known to have existed in the pre-Columbian Americas during the period of time covered by the Book of Mormon (e.g. horse, elephant, chicken, cattle, swine, barley, bull, calf, and hilt), these words could be an approximation in translation to things that did exist in pre-Columbian America.[47]

Contemporary accounts by Joseph Smith and his principal scribe, Oliver Cowdery, assert that inspiration, study, thought, and effort were required to translate the plates.[48]

Some[who?] believe that if these accounts of the translation process are accurate, then there is very little room for error in the word choices used in the translation of the Book of Mormon (since each word was reportedly divinely approved and could not be written incorrectly).[citation needed] "Steel" must mean steel, "hilt" must mean hilt, "elephant" must mean elephant, and so forth. However, as Whitmer was never directly involved in the translation and Harris was involved for only a brief period of time, LDS scholars consider it unlikely that either of these accounts is as accurate as the accounts of Smith and Cowdery.[49]

[edit] Grammar

Evangelical author Richard Abanes argues that because the first edition of the Book of Mormon contained hundreds of grammatical errors (removed in later editions), the book was therefore fabricated by J. Smith and not divinely inspired.[50] Examples include (page numbers from 1830 edition):

  • "Adam and Eve, which was our first parents" (p. 15)
  • "This he done that he might subject them" (p. 225)
  • "They did not fight against God no more" (p. 290)

[edit] Word usage

Critics Jerald and Sandra Tanner and Marvin W. Cowan contend that certain linguistic properties of the Book of Mormon provide evidence that the book was fabricated by Joseph Smith.[51] [52] These critics cite linguistic anachronisms such as:

  • The Americanized name "Sam" (1 Nephi 2:5,17)
  • The french word "Adieu" (Jacob7:27)
  • Use of the word "Christ", which would not have been in use during the Book of Mormon timeframe (1 Nephi 10:3)
  • The word "synagogue", which would not have been in use during the Book of Mormon timeframe (Alma 16:13)
  • Exact copies of many verses of the King James Bible, which was not published until 1611

[edit] Concepts not believed to have existed during the Book of Mormon timeframe

The Book of Mormon deals with certain concepts for which some scholars believe no evidence exists either in pre-Columbian America or in the Jewish world of Lehi's time.[citation needed]

[edit] "Christ" and "Messiah"

The word "Christ" is the English transliteration of the Greek word Χριστός (transliterated precisely as Christós); it is relatively synonymous with the Hebrew word rendered "Messiah." Both words have the meaning of "anointed," and are used in the Bible to refer to "the Anointed One".[53] In Greek translations of the Old Testament (including the Septuagint), the word "Christ" is used for the Hebrew "Messiah", and in Hebrew translations of the New Testament, the word "Messiah" is used for the Greek "Christ".[54] If you take any passage in the Bible that uses the word "Christ", you can substitute for it the word "Messiah" or "the Messiah" with no change in meaning (e.g. Matthew 1:1, 16, 18).

The Book of Mormon uses both terms throughout the book. In the vast majority of cases, it uses the terms in an identical manner as the Bible, where it doesn't matter which word is used:

"And now, my sons, remember, remember that it is upon the rock of our Redeemer, who is (Christ/the Messiah), the Son of God, that ye must build your foundation; that when the devil shall send forth his mighty winds, yea, his shafts in the whirlwind, yea, when all his hail and his mighty storm shall beat upon you, it shall have no power over you to drag you down to the gulf of misery and endless wo, because of the rock upon which ye are built, which is a sure foundation, a foundation whereon if men build they cannot fall" (Helaman 5:12).
"And after he had baptized (Christ/the Messiah) with water, he should behold and bear record that he had baptized the Lamb of God, who should take away the sins of the world." (1 Nephi 10:10).

Apologists state that the original Reformed Egyptian text certainly used Hebrew forms of names and titles exclusively, but when translating Joseph Smith simply used whichever form of the name ("Christ" or "Messiah") was more appropriate in English.[55]

The Book of Mormon occasionally uses the word "Christ" in a way that is not interchangeable with "Messiah". For example in 2 Nephi 10:3, the Book of Mormon prophet Jacob says an angel informed him that the name of the Messiah would be Christ:

"Wherefore, as I said unto you, it must needs be expedient that Christ--for in the last night the angel spake unto me that this should be his name--should come among the Jews" (2 Nephi 10:3)

The word "Messiah" was used frequently before this point, but here Jacob says the term "Christ" is a new term, and from this point on the word "Christ" is used almost exclusively in the Book of Mormon.

Linguist Richard Packham argues that the Greek word "Christ" in the Book of Mormon challenges the authenticity of the work[56] since, Joseph Smith clearly stated that, "There was no Greek or Latin upon the plates from which I, through the grace of the Lord, translated the Book of Mormon."[57]

Hugh Nibley postulated that the word Messiah could have been derived from Arabic rather than Hebrew[58], although Arabic is not mentioned as one of the languages in which the gold plates were written.


[edit] "Church" and "Synagogue"

The word "church" first occurs in 1 Nephi 4:26, where a prophet named Nephi disguises himself as Laban, a prominent man in Jerusalem whom Nephi had slain:

"And he [Laban's servant], supposing that I spake of the brethren of the church, and that I was truly that Laban whom I had slain, wherefore he did follow me" (1 Nephi 4:26).

According to the Book of Mormon, this exchange happened in Jerusalem, around 600 B.C. The meaning of the word "church" in the Book of Mormon is more comparable to usage in the Bible than Modern English. The concept of a church, meaning a convocation of believers, existed among the House of Israel prior to Christianity. For instance, Psalms 89:5 speaks of praising the Lord "in the congregation of the saints"; the Septuagint contains the Greek word ecclesia for "congregation," which is also translated as "church" in the New Testament. The Book of Mormon using the word "church" in the same "style" as the Bible is seen by some apologists as support for the Book of Mormon.

A similar question regards the word "synagogue," found in Alma 16:13:

"And Alma and Amulek went forth preaching repentance to the people in their temples, and in their sanctuaries, and also in their synagogues, which were built after the manner of the Jews" (Alma 16:13).

Scholars have said that synagogues did not exist in their modern form before the destruction of the temple and the Babylonian captivity.[citation needed] The usage in the Book of Mormon, instead, is comparable to that of the KJV.[original research?] Psalms 74:8 reads "the synagogues of God in the land." Similar to the use of the word "church," the word "synagogue" in the Bible generally refers to a place of assembly for religious worship.[original research?]

[edit] The King James Bible

Main article: The Book of Mormon and the King James Bible

[edit] Hebraisms in the Book of Mormon

Hebrew idioms that are frequently found in the Book of Mormon are the repetitive use of the words yea, and, behold and the phrase it came to pass.[59] LDS scholar Royal Skousen offers the following caution when attempting to compare languages in order to determine if they are related:

Just because two languages have similar syntactic constructions does not demonstrate that they are related languages. For instance, both Hebrew and Russian as well as pidgin English omit the present tense form of the be verb (thus producing sentences like "he the man" and "she good"). But this is not evidence that Russian is derived from Hebrew—or that Hebrew is derived from Hawaiian pidgin. There are some close syntactic connections between Hebrew and the original language of the Book of Mormon, but some of these may be due to independent historical development rather than linguistic relationship.[60]

[edit] "And it came to pass"

In the present edition of the Book of Mormon, the phrase "it came to pass" occurs 1297 times. This phrase occurs 457 times in the KJV of the Old Testament. There, it is the English translation of the single Hebrew word, hâyâh. Jacob Weingreen, in his book Practical Grammar for Classical Hebrew, suggests that the phrase means "now it happened."[61] Strong's Hebrew dictionary suggests "to exist" or "to become" as possible translations of hâyâh.[citation needed] Royal Skousen suggests that in a number of cases the phrase "and it came to pass" is used as a "discourse marker facilitating narrative cohesion."[62] The Hebrew Old Testament has 1114 occurrences of the word hâyâh. Most of these have either been ignored or reduced to simply "and".[63]

[edit] Prepositions in the place of adverbs

The Book of Mormon often uses a prepositional phrase in place of an adverb, which is consistent with the Hebrew language. Several examples of this construct as found in the Book of Mormon are:[64]

"with harshness" instead of "harshly"
"with joy" instead of "joyfully"
"with gladness" instead of "gladly"
"with patience" instead of "patiently"
"with diligence" instead of "diligently"

John Tvedtnes states: "At least one adjective (harebeh, 'many, exceeding') is used adverbially, but more often a prepositional phrase is used. The Book of Mormon is replete with adverbial usage of the adjective 'exceeding' (as in 'exceeding great joy'--instead of 'exceedingly'--in 1 Nephi 8:12)."[65]

[edit] The cognate accusative construct

LDS scholars note that the Book of Mormon utilizes the "cognate accusative," a language construct "known from Hebrew and other ancient languages," which consists of a verb immediately followed by a noun that is derived from the same root.[66] For example, the phrase found in Genesis 37:5 "Joseph dreamed a dream" instead of the usual English method of phrasing "Joseph had a dream."[67]

The Book of Mormon contains many examples of the "cognate accusative" construct:[68]

Jacob 3:3: "they are cursed with a sore cursing" is used instead of "they are sorely cursed."
Mosiah 11:10: "work all manner of fine work" instead of "do fine work."
Mosiah 29:43: "and he did judge righteous judgments" instead of "he judged righteously."
1 Nephi 8:2: "Behold I have dreamed a dream" instead of "I had a dream."
Mosiah 7:15: "taxed with a tax" Instead of "taxed."

The cognate accusative is also a common feature in languages linguistically unrelated to the Semitic languages, such as Ancient Greek (e.g. ὁρᾶς ὄψιν, "you see a sight") and Latin (e.g. vitam vivere, "to live life").[69] The cognate accusative also appears very commonly in both colloquial and non-colloquial English (e.g. "He talks the talk, but does he walk the walk?", and "I sing a song.").[70]

[edit] Parallelomania

Critics of Book of Mormon linguistic studies often reject the claims of Mormon scholars on the grounds that the parallels they draw between Book of Mormon and other sources amounts to "parallelomania", which is defined as the "over use or improper use of parallels in the exposition of a text."

In the independent journal Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, one scholar, Douglas F. Salmon, alleged that Mormon scholar's work in drawing parallels between the Book of Mormon and other sources fits this classification.[71] Salmon notes:

There has been an exegetical trend during the last several decades to draw endless parallels to text from the ancient Near East and beyond in an attempt to validate the writings in the Book of Mormon and Pearl of Great Price. The pioneer and leader in this effort has been the great LDS scholar Hugh Nibley. In recent years the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (FARMS) has continued this legacy. The number of parallels that Nibley has been able to uncover from amazingly disparate and arcane sources is truly staggering. Unfortunately, there seems to be a neglect of any methodological reflection or articulation in this endeavor.[72]

Douglas also notes that Nibley himself was a critic of parallelomania where it is used to disparage the Book of Mormon, despite his extensive scholarship on the subject in defense of the Book of Mormon, noting that Nibley "ignores" the fact that parallels may suggest a unity of religious thought, or simple coincidence[73]. He also goes on to demonstrate several instances where Nibley misrepresented the parallels, and jumped to conclusions regarding the significance of his examples.

[edit] Importance to Latter-day Saints

Although some have spent significant time searching for historical evidence concerning the Book of Mormon, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints discounts the utility of such in determining the book's legitimacy. Dallin H. Oaks, one of the Twelve Apostles of the LDS Church, stated:

Our individual, personal testimonies are based on the witness of the Spirit, not on any combination or accumulation of historical facts. If we are so grounded, no alteration of historical facts can shake our testimonies.[74]

Book of Mormon linguistic and textual issues are not discussed in missionary lessons or in Sunday School, but are typically addressed in LDS institute classes and religion classes at BYU, as well as in books and magazine articles published by the Church.[75]

[edit] Notes

  1. ^ Mormon 9:33
  2. ^ Roberts, B. H. Studies of the Book of Mormon. Signature Books, Inc. Salt Lake City. 2nd Edition. 1992. pg.91-92.
  3. ^ Welch 1969
  4. ^ John W. Welch, "How Much Was Known about Chiasmus in 1829 When the Book of Mormon Was Translated?," FARMS Review 15/1 (2003): 47–80.
  5. ^ Welch 2003
  6. ^ Earl M. Wunderli, "Critique of Alma 36 as an Ex tended Chiasm", published in Dialog: A Journal of Mormon Thought
  7. ^ Welch 1997, p. 200, 202
  8. ^ Hugh Pinnock, "Finding Biblical Hebrew and Other Ancient Literary Forms in the Book of Mormon," Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (1999): 11.
  9. ^ Possible chiasmus in other LDS scripture: Doctrine and Covenants 88:34-38, Doctrine and Covenants 18:-38, Doctrine and Covenants 132:19-26, and Abraham 3:16-19
  10. ^ Kroupa & Shipp 1972
  11. ^ Shipp 1975
  12. ^ Edwards & Edwards 2004, p. 107
  13. ^ Edwards & Edwards 2004, p. 123
  14. ^ Chiasmus.
  15. ^ See Ancient Chiasmus Studied (scroll to p 147) or Chiasmus and the Book of Mormon.
  16. ^ Larsen, Rencher & Layton 1980
  17. ^ Tanner & Tanner 1993
  18. ^ Barney 2000, pp. 85-87
  19. ^ PostMormon.org: Tories.
  20. ^ Was the Book of Mormon Plagiarized from Walt Whitman's Leaves of Grass?.
  21. ^ Tvedtnes, Gee & Roper 2000
  22. ^ Abanes 2003, p. 72 Abanes's reference for this information is a footnote in Vogel's Early Mormon Documents, vol. 1, p. 321, footnote #128
  23. ^ Ether 1:15-16
  24. ^ Ether 7:9
  25. ^ Ether 1:20-21
  26. ^ Packham, Richard. "A Linguist Looks at Mormonism". April 30, 2007. Online version can be found here
  27. ^ Since Cumorah, pp. 171, Nibley discusses non-biblical Hebrew names present in the Book of Mormon
  28. ^ Milton R Hunter and Thomas Stewart Ferguson, Ancient America and the Book of Mormon, pp. 151-52, offer a possible Hebraic derivation: “zara-hamullah”
  29. ^ Tvedtnes, Gee & Roper 2000
  30. ^ papyri 1:2, and 13:14, in A. E. Cowley, Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century B.C. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1923/ reprint Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2005), 1-2, 37.
  31. ^ Warren, Bruce. "Surviving Jaredite Names in Mesoamerica". Meridian Magazine.  See also Blaine M. Yorgason, Bruce W. Warren, and Harold Brown. New Evidences of Christ in Ancient America, Book of Mormon Research Foundation. Provo: 1999, Chaper 2, “Jaredite Connections with Mesoamerica,” pp. 17-19).
  32. ^ Tvedtnes, Gee & Roper 2000
  33. ^ Nibley makes the comparison in Lehi in the Desert, page 27. His source for the Egyptian name is Die Agyptischen Personennamen ("The Egyptian Personal Names"), by Hermann Ranke, Gluckstadt: Augustin, 1935.
  34. ^ See Lehi in the Desert, pages 25 through 31.
  35. ^ Finley, Thomas "finley does the book of mormon reflect a near eastern background" in Beckwith, Mosser and Owen, New Mormon Challenge: Responding to the Latest Defenses of a Fast-Growing Movement, Zondervan, 2002,
  36. ^ http://www.irr.org/mit/New-Mormon-Challenge-review.html "Rising to the Challenge"
  37. ^ Gallacher, Stuart A, "Mormon: An example of folk etymology, Western Folklore, Vol 8, No 1, January 1949, p. 23
  38. ^ Packham, Richard. "A Linguist Looks at Mormonism: Notes on linguistics problems in Mormonism". Published on the web in April 2003, available here
  39. ^ Urrutia, "The Name Connection," New Era, June 1983, page 39.
  40. ^ Times and Seasons, Vol.4, No.13, May 15, 1843, p.194
  41. ^ Stubbs 1996, p. 1
  42. ^ Nelson 1993, p. 61
  43. ^ David Whitmer, An Address to All Believers in Christ, Richmond, Missouri: n.p., 1887, p. 12
  44. ^ Nelson 1993, p. 61
  45. ^ (Edmund C. Briggs, “A Visit to Nauvoo in 1856,” Journal of History, Jan. 1916, p. 454.)
  46. ^ Edward Stevenson, "One of the Three Witnesses," reprinted from Deseret News, 30 Nov. 1881 in the Millennial Star, 44 (6 Feb. 1882): 86-87
  47. ^ Sorenson 1985, pp. 293-294
  48. ^ Joseph Smith History and D&C 9
  49. ^ Ricks 1986
  50. ^ Abanes, Richard (2003). One Nation Under Gods: A History of the Mormon Church. Thunder's Mouth Press, 73. ISBN 1568582838. 
  51. ^ Beckwith, Francis (2002). The New Mormon Challenge. Zondervan, 367-396. ISBN 0310231949. 
  52. ^ Cowan, Marvin (1997). Mormon Claims Answered. 
  53. ^ JewishEncyclopedia.com - MESSIAH
  54. ^ BibleGateway.com: A searchable online Bible in over 50 versions and 35 languages
  55. ^ LDS FAQ/Mormon Answers: Questions about Book of Mormon Problems and Alleged Contradictions
  56. ^ Packham, Richard. "A Linguist Looks at Mormonism". April 30, 2007. Online version can be found here
  57. ^ Times and Seasons, Vol.4, No.13, May 15, 1843, p.194
  58. ^ Hugh Nibley, Since Cumorah, pp. 167-68, discusses the origin, interchangeability, and translated use of the terms “Messiah” and “Christ” as they appear in scripture. Dr. Nibley points out that the Arabic word al-masih, for instance, could be translated using the Hebrew term “Messiah” or the New Testament term “Christ” depending on the context and translator. See also “Meshiach” (מָשִׁיחַ), “anointed”, Hebrew-Aramaic Lexicon
  59. ^ Tvedtnes 1970, p. 52
  60. ^ Skousen 1994
  61. ^ Weingreen 1959
  62. ^ Skousen 1994
  63. ^ Hebraisms in the Book of Mormon
  64. ^ Tvedtnes 1970, p. 55-56
  65. ^ Tvedtnes 1970, p. 55
  66. ^ Tevdtnes 1997
  67. ^ Parry 2002
  68. ^ Hebraisms in the Book of Mormon
  69. ^ Additional accusatives in Latin and Ancient Greek: Arguments against arguments
  70. ^ LINGUIST List 9.1757: Cognate Objects
  71. ^ Salmon, Douglas F., Parallelomania and the Study of Latter-day Saint Scripture: Confirmation, Coincidence, or the Collective Unconscious?, Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Volume 33, Number 2, Summer 2000, pg. 131 - online version available here
  72. ^ Salmon, Douglas F., Parallelomania and the Study of Latter-day Saint Scripture: Confirmation, Coincidence, or the Collective Unconscious?, Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Volume 33, Number 2, Summer 2000, pg. 129 - online version available here
  73. ^ Salmon, Douglas F., Parallelomania and the Study of Latter-day Saint Scripture: Confirmation, Coincidence, or the Collective Unconscious?, Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Volume 33, Number 2, Summer 2000, pg. 130 - online version available here
  74. ^ "1985 CES Doctrine and Covenants Symposium," Brigham Young University, Aug. 16, 1985, page 26
  75. ^ Bitton 1994

[edit] References

id="CITEREFHansenError: invalid time">Hansen, Klaus (Summer 1970), "Reflections on The Lion of the Lord", Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought (Dialogue Foundation) 5 (2): 110, <http://content.lib.utah.edu/u?/dialogue,7167>

[edit] External links

[edit] See also

Book of Mormon Portal
Languages