Do Hebraisms In The Late War Undermine The Ones In The Book Of Mormon?

[Glenn101]

 

 

 

It is and has always been bad scholarship to claim "Hebraisms" in the Book of Mormon which are also available in contemporary English literature or even in oral tradition from that time.

Mclellan is quite right to say that there are "many Latter-day Saint scholars who have argued that Book of Mormon Hebraisms are of no apologetic value if they can be shown to be found within the KJV."

Thus, any examples which can be found in contemporary literature should immediately be rejected as diagnostic.  As they say of good evidence, "less is more."

There are Hebraisms in the Book of Mormon, but only the ones unique to contemporary English usage are useful.  Since the Book of Mormon was translated from an Egyptian text, however, there are many more Egyptianisms.  The Hebraisms are a result of the bilingual scribes bringing their knowledge of Hebrew to an Egyptian text.

 

 

This is a point I touched upon in an earlier post but which no one has dealt with other than you that I am aware of. In fact, I think that I became aware of this fact, about the Egyptianisms from you. And the idea immediately made sense because the brass plates were written in Egyptian and the Book of Mormon records were written in "reformed" Egyptian.

 

To me, it is not just one thing that provides evidence of an ancient document but the amalgamation of different bits and pieces of evidence.

 

Glenn

[prismsplay]

Appealing to Smith's lack of education is no help here, as it doesn't take formal education to repeat grammatical patterns you have had ingrained in you your entire life. 

 

Let us suppose that Joseph Smith was already thoroughly familiar with the King James Version of Isaiah 53 prior to translating the Book of Mormon. While translating Abinadi's recitation of Isaiah 53, Smith might have allowed his familiarity with the King James Versiion of that chapter to influence his speaking for a scribe to record. Since the quote of Isaiah 53 in Mosiah 14 is practically identical with the KJV, we don't know how much was spoken from memory. Notice the words I have made bold in verses 3-4 of Isaiah 53 and Mosiah 14:

 

"He is despised and rejected of men, a man of sorrows and aquainted with grief. And we hid, as it were, our faces from him. He was despised and we esteemed him not. Surely he hath borne our griefs and carried our sorrows. Yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God and afflicted."

 

Yet when Joseph Smith was translating Alma 7:11-12, which seems to refer to Isaiah 53, Joseph Smith abandoned his King James Version familiarity and translated different terms for "sorrows" and "griefs":

 

"And he shall go forth, suffering pains and afflictions and temptations of every kind - and this that the word might be fulfilled which saith: He will take upon him the pains and the sicknesses of his people. And he will take upon him death, that he may loose the bands of death which binds his people. And he will take upon him their infirmities, that his bowels may be filled with mercy according to the flesh, that he may know according to the flesh how to succor his people according to their infirmities."

 

The Jewish Publication Society translations of 1955 and 1985 replace the "sorrows" and "griefs" in Isaiah 53:3-4 with "pains", "diseases", "sickness", and "suffering", very close to Alma's apparent reference to Isaiah 53. For me this is evidence that Joseph Smith's translation of the Book of Mormon could and sometimes did transcend whatever familiarity he had with the King James Bible.

Edited October 28, 2013 by prismsplay

[Jude2]

Let us suppose that Joseph Smith was already thoroughly familiar with the King James Version of Isaiah 53 prior to translating the Book of Mormon. While translating Abinadi's recitation of Isaiah 53, Smith might have allowed his familiarity with the King James Versiion of that chapter to influence his speaking for a scribe to record. Since the quote of Isaiah 53 in Mosiah 14 is practically identical with the KJV, we don't know how much was spoken from memory. Notice the words I have made bold in verses 3-4 of Isaiah 53 and Mosiah 14:

 

"He is despised and rejected of men, a man of sorrows and aquainted with grief. And we hid, as it were, our faces from him. He was despised and we esteemed him not. Surely he hath borne our griefs and carried our sorrows. Yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God and afflicted."

 

Yet when Joseph Smith was translating Alma 7:11-12, which seems to refer to Isaiah 53, Joseph Smith abandoned his King James Version familiarity and translated different terms for "sorrows" and "griefs":

 

"And he shall go forth, suffering pains and afflictions and temptations of every kind - and this that the word might be fulfilled which saith: He will take upon him the pains and the sicknesses of his people. And he will take upon him death, that he may loose the bands of death which binds his people. And he will take upon him their infirmities, that his bowels may be filled with mercy according to the flesh, that he may know according to the flesh how to succor his people according to their infirmities."

 

The Jewish Publication Society translations of 1955 and 1985 replace the "sorrows" and "griefs" in Isaiah 53:3-4 with "pains", "diseases", "sickness", and "suffering", very close to Alma's apparent reference to Isaiah 53. For me this is evidence that Joseph Smith's translation of the Book of Mormon could and sometimes did transcend whatever familiarity he had with the King James Bible.

 

Interesting 

[canard78]

So you find nothing comical about this:

 

"... the chief Governor, whom the people had chosen to rule over the land of Columbia; even James, whose sir-name was Madison, delivered a written paper to the Great Sanhedron of the people, who were assembled together. And the name of the city where the people were gathered together was called after the name of the chief captain of the land of Columbia, whose fame extendeth to the uttermost parts of the earth; albeit, he had slept with his fathers."

 

Such pompous language, saying in about 80 words, what could have been said in about 20 words, is comical. Calling persons, places, and things by names other than their own is more amusing than informing.

 

You find it funny? And yet the majority of those words/phrases/sentence structures are found in the Bible, Book of Mormon (and D&C/POGP). Do you find those comical too?

 

"...the chief governor..." (1 Chronicles 29:22 and 3 others, Alma 61:1 and 9 others)

"...the land of XYZ..."  (dozens in both)

"...were assembled together..." (Acts 4:31, Mosiah 25:4 and 3 more)

"...name of the city..." (Genesis 4:17 and 9 more, Alma 50:14 and 1 more)

"...after the name of..." (Judges 18:29 and 6 more, Alma 8:7 and 4 more)

"...the chief captain..." (Acts 22:26 and 19 more, Alma 43:16 and 2 more)

"...the uttermost parts of..." (Mark 13:27 and 19 more, 2 Nep 17:18)

 

There are a couple of phrases in your quote that's only found in the Bible and not in the Book of Mormon, e.g.:

 

"...slept with his fathers..." (1 Kings 22:50 and 35 more)

 

If you read the introduction and endorsement for the book you'll see that this in no way intended to be a piece of comedy.

[canard78]

Is there any historical evidence JS came into contact with The Late War?  No.

Did JS have an extensive education?  No.

Could it be said that the Bible compares well in this same way to The Late War? Yes.

If the Bible was not recognized as an ancient work, would it be subject to this criticism?  Yes.

Is it likely that people of the time appreciated writing "In the ancient historical style" (On the front cover of The Late War)?  Yes.

If they wrote in such a style, is it likely that Hebraisms would inadvertently appear in their works?  Yes.

JS was familiar with the Bible so is it reasonable that he might adopt this style in a translation process?  Yes.

If JS was familiar with That Late War is it reasonable that he might adopt this style in a translation process?  Yes.

 

So is this criticism just a rehash of the JS copied the Bible criticism?  Yes.

 

Conclusion: The Late War confirms JS's style of translation and there is no evidence he was influenced by it in anything more substantial than style at most.

 

Therefore... if Joseph was influenced by The Late War/the Bible or books similar to it then we can't claim Hebraisms as evidence for an ancient document. They may just as easily be "Joseph Smith's style of translation."

[canard78]

This is a point I touched upon in an earlier post but which no one has dealt with other than you that I am aware of. In fact, I think that I became aware of this fact, about the Egyptianisms from you. And the idea immediately made sense because the brass plates were written in Egyptian and the Book of Mormon records were written in "reformed" Egyptian.

 

To me, it is not just one thing that provides evidence of an ancient document but the amalgamation of different bits and pieces of evidence.

 

Glenn

 

Equally, for a lot of people, it is not just one thing that provides evidence for a modern document but the amalgamation of different bits and pieces of evidence.

 

The Late War does not, alone, prove anything. But sits in among different bits and pieces against and also acts as a nullification of some of the evidence for (Hebraisms).

 

What I read from this thread is that a lot of people really are now moving away from Hebraisms.

 

On the other thread I said:

 

There are also multiple examples of "Hebraisms" in The Late War which have been long used as evidence for the Book of Mormon's tight translation of an ancient Hebrew book (written in reformed Egyptian). I'd say many of those evidences have been challenged by these finds.

 

And cdowis answered:

 

I remember the name "Alma" for a male was touted as BOM evidence, until it was pointed out that this name was also found for males in the NY 1830 Census.

 

New research gives us new information.

 

[canard78]

Is the rate at which the Hebraisms are found in the Last War (LW) comparable to the rate at which they are found in the Book of Mormon (BoM)?

 

If the rate in the LW is considerably less than in the BoM, then might that suggest enough of a difference so that the Hebraism argument for the BoM may still be of some force?

 

I ask because things like prepositional phrases aren't non-existent even in modern English, but they may occur less frequently (I don't really know if they do or not), as a general rule, to act as a differentiator from ancient Hebrew.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

It's a good question - I don't know. 

 

There are approximately 270,000 words in the Book of Mormon (BoM) and approx 50,000 in The Late War (LW).

 

"came to pass"

1407 times in BoM - frequency of once every 191 words

81 times in LW - frequency of once every 617 words

 

"from before"

21 times in BoM - frequency of once every 12,875 words

5 times in LW - frequency of once every 10,000 words

 

"the hand of/the hands of"

57 times in BoM - frequency of once every 1,942 words

17 times in LW - frequency of once every 2,941 words

 

"the mouth of"

28 times in BoM - frequency of once every 9,642 words

4 times in LW - frequency of once every 12,500 words

 

 

Caution: I've done the search on the text version of LW, so some words haven't scanned into the document properly. For example, the search for "from before" missed the following result: from be-*fore. I've not manually been able to add the missed ones back in. So this probably is an underestimate of the phrase frequency of LW. I wonder whether the analysis done by the original project took the bad scanning into account or whether it was just accepted as a reasonable margin for error?

 

Taking into account the scanning margin for error for LW, it would still appear that BoM has a slightly higher frequency of some compound prepositions (slightly less than "from before" and a much lower frequency of "it came to pass." I don't know how we'd run a test for the Adverbials.

[prismsplay]

The Late War does not, alone, prove anything. But sits in among different bits and pieces against and also acts as a nullification of some of the evidence for (Hebraisms).

 

It may act as a nullification in your own mind of "some [but not all] of the evidence" for Hebraisms in the Book of Mormon. For me it is an example of someone fond of King James Version language who attempted to employ it in describing a recent war in an amusing way (at least to himself). My assessment was and is: 

 

Such pompous language, saying in about 80 words, what could have been said in about 20 words, is comical. Calling persons, places, and things by names other than their own is more amusing than informing.

 

"Comical" is not the same thing as "comedy". Although The Late War is not a comedy, it is comical in its ridiculous, superficial, and uneconomical use of antiquated language.

 

My assessment was and is:

 

What is in the Book of Mormon was in some manner seen by Joseph Smith. Whether or not the words he dictated to scribes were influenced by what little he had already read is a minor question. Hebraisms were not even intended by Joseph Smith, for some of his 1837 revisions of the Book of Mormon eliminated or ruined some of them. The fact that they are there says more about the nature of the plates he was translating than it does about what he had read, which was not very much at the time he was translating (although he later became an avid reader).

[Stargazer]

It's not plagiarism that's the question here. The question is whether or not The Late War is an indication that Hebraisms can crop up in modern non-Hebrew compositions that are being patterned after the linguistic style of the KJV, and I think the answer is certainly yes. There have been many Latter-day Saint scholars who have argued that Book of Mormon Hebraisms are of no apologetic value if they can be shown to be found within the KJV. They can arise just from the couching of new ideas in KJV-sounding language. The Late War certainly shows that, since many of the putative Hebraisms that people have pointed to before as an indication of the Book of Mormon's ancient provenance are also found there. Appealing to Smith's lack of education is no help here, as it doesn't take formal education to repeat grammatical patterns you have had ingrained in you your entire life. 

 

On the other hand, if the Hebraisms had not shown up, then that would possibly be evidence against the BoM.

[maklelan]

Let us suppose that Joseph Smith was already thoroughly familiar with the King James Version of Isaiah 53 prior to translating the Book of Mormon. While translating Abinadi's recitation of Isaiah 53, Smith might have allowed his familiarity with the King James Versiion of that chapter to influence his speaking for a scribe to record. Since the quote of Isaiah 53 in Mosiah 14 is practically identical with the KJV, we don't know how much was spoken from memory. Notice the words I have made bold in verses 3-4 of Isaiah 53 and Mosiah 14:

 

"He is despised and rejected of men, a man of sorrows and aquainted with grief. And we hid, as it were, our faces from him. He was despised and we esteemed him not. Surely he hath borne our griefs and carried our sorrows. Yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God and afflicted."

 

Yet when Joseph Smith was translating Alma 7:11-12, which seems to refer to Isaiah 53, Joseph Smith abandoned his King James Version familiarity and translated different terms for "sorrows" and "griefs":

 

"And he shall go forth, suffering pains and afflictions and temptations of every kind - and this that the word might be fulfilled which saith: He will take upon him the pains and the sicknesses of his people. And he will take upon him death, that he may loose the bands of death which binds his people. And he will take upon him their infirmities, that his bowels may be filled with mercy according to the flesh, that he may know according to the flesh how to succor his people according to their infirmities."

 

The Jewish Publication Society translations of 1955 and 1985 replace the "sorrows" and "griefs" in Isaiah 53:3-4 with "pains", "diseases", "sickness", and "suffering", very close to Alma's apparent reference to Isaiah 53. For me this is evidence that Joseph Smith's translation of the Book of Mormon could and sometimes did transcend whatever familiarity he had with the King James Bible.

 

Interesting when seen in isolation, but the word "pains" occurs 22 times in the Book of Mormon, and the word "afflictions" occurs 74 times. "Sorrows" and "grief" occur 6 and 5 times, respectively. So it is more likely, in my mind, that the former terms were quite a bit more ingrained in Smith's personal lexicon, and in paraphrasing some concepts from Isaiah 53, these are the words that came out. The fact that two of them happen to coincide with two revisions of a single translation of the Hebrew Bible doesn't mean much. 

[maklelan]

On the other hand, if the Hebraisms had not shown up, then that would possibly be evidence against the BoM.

 

I wouldn't agree. It's my impression that the Hebraisms arise almost entirely from the mimicking of biblical prose. The presence or absence of a Hebraism from any given segment of text is a function of the proximity of Smith's choice of prose to particularly Hebraic constructions from the KJV.

[Stargazer]

Is there any reason it wouldn't have been in the biblical style? All of the revelations received through Joseph Smith are in the biblical style. The first revelation we have documented (D&C 3) is written in the biblical style.

 

In fact, you could argue that D&C 6 (received a year before the Book of Mormon was published and to a "19thC farmboy") is a revelation "teeming with literary and Semitic complexity." The inverted sentence is sometimes given as an example of a Hebraism in the Book of Mormon, and yet there it is in a modern revelation to someone who, at this point, if 'prismplay' is to be believed is entirely unread and ignorant of any literary or narrative style:

 

And then again, there is Emma Smith commenting about her husband that he couldn't put together a educated English sentence in writing in the beginning.  And of course you couldn't say he was entirely unread, since he read the Bible, and ignorant of a style, since the Bible has a style.  The question is not that he never read anything, but that he was sufficiently ignorant of writing styles that he couldn't have put the Book of Mormon together without assistance, particularly divine assistance.  I like think of myself as reasonably competent as a writer, but I quail before the challenge of producing anything as complex and profound as the Book of Mormon.  I refuse to believe that an essentially ignorant farm boy in New England with no better education could do so all by himself.  I don't care how smart he eventually turned out to be, and I believe he was pretty smart. 

[Stargazer]

I wouldn't agree. It's my impression that the Hebraisms arise almost entirely from the mimicking of biblical prose. The presence or absence of a Hebraism from any given segment of text is a function of the proximity of Smith's choice of prose to particularly Hebraic constructions from the KJV.

 

Given the mechanism of translation which we have been provided descriptions for, I don't think your theory holds water.  Joseph wasn't being given concepts to render in his choice of words or style, he was being given the text word-for-word.  But I suppose that you can argue that, absent divine intervention, he was imitating a style. 

 

But I see that one might consider the presence of Hebraisms alone to be insufficient evidence of divine authenticity to use in an apologetic sense.

[maklelan]

Given the mechanism of translation which we have been provided descriptions for, I don't think your theory holds water.  Joseph wasn't being given concepts to render in his choice of words or style, he was being given the text word-for-word.  But I suppose that you can argue that, absent divine intervention, he was imitating a style. 

 

But I see that one might consider the presence of Hebraisms alone to be insufficient evidence of divine authenticity to use in an apologetic sense.

 

I disagree that the evidence insists Brother Joseph was being given a letter-for-letter translation. If so, he wasn't a translator, but a dictator, and he took an awful lot of liberties with that divinely revealed text after it was put to paper––a text that happens to show a ton of 19th century conceptual and linguistic influence. I'm not willing to insist on that tight a form of accommodationism just to give priority to a small handful of second- and third-hand accounts of exactly how the text was produced.

[jkwilliams]

Do these "Hebraisms" undermine the Book of Mormon? No, but they undermine the attempts by some apologists to point to such Hebraisms as "bullseyes" in favor of the Book of Mormon, IMO.

[canard78]

And then again, there is Emma Smith commenting about her husband that he couldn't put together a educated English sentence in writing in the beginning. And of course you couldn't say he was entirely unread, since he read the Bible, and ignorant of a style, since the Bible has a style. The question is not that he never read anything, but that he was sufficiently ignorant of writing styles that he couldn't have put the Book of Mormon together without assistance, particularly divine assistance. I like think of myself as reasonably competent as a writer, but I quail before the challenge of producing anything as complex and profound as the Book of Mormon. I refuse to believe that an essentially ignorant farm boy in New England with no better education could do so all by himself. I don't care how smart he eventually turned out to be, and I believe he was pretty smart.

Why do you call him an ignorant farm boy? He was in his mid-20s and married when the BoM was published. That's hardly a farm boy. But I suppose it makes the story more impressive.

In 1828 Joseph was already dictating other prose/revelations in the biblical style, containing hebraisms. Are these hebraisms evidence that the D&C is a translation of an ancient text? That would lack credibility.

He also started work on the revision of the bible in 1830 (Moses has lots of hebraisms. Is that because it was translated from ancient Hebrew or because that was Joseph's preferred narrative style). By the time the BoM was published we had over a dozen D&C revelations (and others that were not published). Joseph went on to show that he could preach at length spontaneously without notes (just have a read through Lectures on Faith) and showed he had an outstanding memory (consider his ability to re-dictate section 132 from memory as soon as Emma had burned the first copy). It didn't matter how much he could write. He could dictate. That's why he ha a scribe insite most of the time.

Joseph was a prolific genius who accomplished more in his 36 years than I will in double if I live that long. I have huge admiration for him. To call him an "ignorant farm boy" in 1830 is belittling - even if it serves your purpose.

[Gervin]

Such pompous language, saying in about 80 words, what could have been said in about 20 words, is comical. Calling persons, places, and things by names other than their own is more amusing than informing.

 

 

Inefficient language seems to be a hallmark of the Book of Mormon, among other problems related to verbosity and imprecision.  How many words does it take to say "Fifty nine years passed"?

 

6 And thus did the thirty and eighth year pass away, and also the thirty and ninth, and forty and first, and the forty and second, yea, even until forty and nine years had passed away, and also the fifty and first, and the fifty and second; yea, and even until fifty and nine years had passed away.

[Tacenda]

Inefficient language seems to be a hallmark of the Book of Mormon, among other problems related to verbosity and imprecision. How many words does it take to say "Fifty nine years passed"?

6 And thus did the thirty and eighth year pass away, and also the thirty and ninth, and forty and first, and the forty and second, yea, even until forty and nine years had passed away, and also the fifty and first, and the fifty and second; yea, and even until fifty and nine years had passed away.

This is precisely why I could never keep my mind from wandering when reading the BoM.

[cdowis]

In 1828 Joseph was already dictating other prose/revelations in the biblical style, containing hebraisms. Are these hebraisms evidence that the D&C is a translation of an ancient text?

 

 

Interesting.  Never heard of any "hebraisms" in the D&C.

 

I guess this requires a CFR, preferably from a hebrew scholar.

Edited October 28, 2013 by cdowis

[prismsplay]

And then again, there is Emma Smith commenting about her husband that he couldn't put together a educated English sentence in writing in the beginning.  And of course you couldn't say he was entirely unread, since he read the Bible, and ignorant of a style, since the Bible has a style.  The question is not that he never read anything, but that he was sufficiently ignorant of writing styles that he couldn't have put the Book of Mormon together without assistance, particularly divine assistance.  I like think of myself as reasonably competent as a writer, but I quail before the challenge of producing anything as complex and profound as the Book of Mormon.  I refuse to believe that an essentially ignorant farm boy in New England with no better education could do so all by himself.  I don't care how smart he eventually turned out to be, and I believe he was pretty smart. 

 

These comments are reasonable. Theories suggesting that Joseph Smith was influenced by books that he never read are not reasonable. We know that the gift and power to translate had a visual component to it, sometimes even down to spelling out unfamiliar names. The complexities of the Book of Mormon, especially in the multiple overlapping narratives in the Book of Mosiah, spilling over into the Book of Alma would require an elaborate chart to figure out. There is no way Joseph Smith could have kept track of such complexities while dictating to scribes. One manuscript was produced and a printer's copy made from it. No mortal can compose a complex narrative without constantly checking to make sure that overlapping sub-narratives are compatable with each other. Emma Smith testified that her husband did not have printed materials at hand while dictating.

[cdowis]

Inefficient language seems to be a hallmark of the Book of Mormon, among other problems related to verbosity and imprecision.  How many words does it take to say "Fifty nine years passed"?

 

6 And thus did the thirty and eighth year pass away, and also the thirty and ninth, and forty and first, and the forty and second, yea, even until forty and nine years had passed away, and also the fifty and first, and the fifty and second; yea, and even until fifty and nine years had passed away.

 

I personally find this impressive, along with the detailed list of authors in the Plates of Nephi.  It is the mark of a careful archivist -- on the one hand he carefull tracks what is going on, and on the other he has to skip some potentially interesting details (such as a discussion of the "others")

 

What really blows me away is where Mormon says:

 

3 Ne [1] And now it came to pass that according to our record, and we know our record to be true, for behold, it was a just man who did keep the record -- for he truly did many miracles in the name of Jesus; and there was not any man who could do a miracle in the name of Jesus save he were cleansed every whit from his iniquity --

 

Here he is actually vouching for the record keeper before telling us what happened.  This is really authentic, the mark of a real historian.

[canard78]

I should clarify that this isn't aiming to be a thread arguing there is no evidence for the BoM's ancient origins. Nor am I arguing that TLW alone proves that the BoM is modern.

My question was whether Hebraisms can still be considered "admissible evidence" when there are examples of them in books that are contemporary to 1820s.

[omni]

Inefficient language seems to be a hallmark of the Book of Mormon, among other problems related to verbosity and imprecision. How many words does it take to say "Fifty nine years passed"?

6 And thus did the thirty and eighth year pass away, and also the thirty and ninth, and forty and first, and the forty and second, yea, even until forty and nine years had passed away, and also the fifty and first, and the fifty and second; yea, and even until fifty and nine years had passed away.

Odd that someone writing on one of the rarest materials on the planet would choose such a wordy and inefficient way to express an idea when we know space on the plates were at a premium.

[canard78]

Odd that someone writing on one of the rarest materials on the planet would choose such a wordy and inefficient way to express an idea when we know space on the plates were at a premium.

I've often thought that if someone were dictating a book with no notes there would be examples like this. With no opportunity to go back and restate something there would instead be the need to edit "on the fly" which would be an alternative explanation for parts like "or in other words."

Notice, for example, that when the BoM is quoting the KJV there are never errors in the inscribing/dictation.

[jkwilliams]

I've often thought that if someone were dictating a book with no notes there would be examples like this. With no opportunity to go back and restate something there would instead be the need to edit "on the fly" which would be an alternative explanation for parts like "or in other words."

Notice, for example, that when the BoM is quoting the KJV there are never errors in the inscribing/dictation.

That's an excellent point. Looking at the Isaiah quotes, you might just say that Nephi was a careful scribe when copying from the brass plates, but Mormon is abridging from the same plates when he's quoting the NT/Jesus. Hmmm. Something more to chew on.