Explanation for "Nephi and His Asherah"

[USU78]

I respectfully differ from The Dude, however,  in that I see that connection as established.  Grego mentions that he saw the connection when he was an undergrad at BYU in 1992.

consiglieri--

"Seeing" a connection is not the same as there being one in the author's mind. And since both Nephi and Joseph Smith are long dead, there is no way for you to know if this connection is real, and no way for anyone to take it to the bank as proof of ancient Hebrew influence.

This case brings to mind the common speculation about what influenced JRR Tolkien to craft The Lord of the Rings. Many people have "seen" connections between elements of his story and World War II, including the One Ring as an allegory about nuclear weapons, or the alliance between Sauron and Saruman as representative of Germany and Japan. You will still see people alleging these connections on internet forums because they "see" them so clearly. Tolkien, however, always insisted that his story was not an allegory of any kind and in fact Tolkien had already finished his book before the nuclear bombs were made known to the world and dropped on Japan.

In the case of "Nephi and His Ashera", you, grego, and Dan Peterson may be just as wrong as the Tolkien nerds are about LoTR connections. Seeing connections is not the same as there being such in the author's mind.

You misread Tolkien. He denies allegory. He happily admits thematic and/or symbolic connections.

USU "Don't mess with this nerd on Tolkien, man" 78

[Zakuska]

But which mind dude?

Was it subconcious underpinings that manifest them selfs?

And don't forget Narniah!

[The Dude]

You misread Tolkien. He denies allegory. He happily admits thematic and/or symbolic connections.

USU "Don't mess with this nerd on Tolkien, man" 78

Intentional connections?

[USU78]

You misread Tolkien.  He denies allegory.  He happily admits thematic and/or symbolic connections.

USU "Don't mess with this nerd on Tolkien, man" 78

Intentional connections?

A work can exceed an author's intentionality. And Tolkien was snarling at unschooled folks trying to establish one-to-one correspondences between characters and things in his books and persons and things in the real world.

Gandalf is a Christ figure. Tolkien plainly knew that. But Gandalf is not a stand-in for the Master. Frodo is a Christ figure. Tolkien plainly knew that. But Frodo is not a stand-in for the master. Some weapons (the one ring or the H Bomb) are too horrible to be used. Tolkien plainly knew that. But the one ring is not a stand-in for the H-Bomb.

Symbols, leitmotivs, and such establish multiple connections between persons and events which the schooled reader can unravel and the unschooled reader can enjoy.

The vocabulary of visions and dreams makes such connections all the time. Linking a tree which bears fruit which is the Love of G-d to a woman who bears the Master Who is also the Love of G-d is not exactly a huge leap here.

USU "Of course, I ain't as smart as consiglieri?" 78

[The Dude]

A work can exceed an author's intentionality. And Tolkien was snarling at unschooled folks trying to establish one-to-one correspondences between characters and things in his books and persons and things in the real world.

****

The vocabulary of visions and dreams makes such connections all the time. Linking a tree which bears fruit which is the Love of G-d to a woman who bears the Master Who is also the Love of G-d is not exactly a huge leap here.

USU "Of course, I ain't as smart as consiglieri?" 78

I think we agree on this topic.

[consiglieri]

And here I thought the Christ-figure in LoTR was Aragorn. After all, he is the guy who symbolically dies when passing through the halls of the dead (or whatever they were called) and reemerges to be crowned king and everything.

I have great respect for The Dude, and for his opinions. I just see a difference between rather far-fetched analogies between rings and h-bombs (which would never have occurred to me independently), and what appears to me to be a clear cut connection intended by the author of 1 Nephi 11 between the tree of life and the virgin (which did occur to me independently).

And for the record, I see no connection between Sauron/Saruman and Germany/Japan. (Who was Italy, by the way? Sam Gamgee?)

On a related note, I was reading the Hobbit to my 9-year old daughter earlier this year (yes, the same daughter who went to summer camp), and I was struck by an interesting parallel to the Book of Mormon. If anybody is interested, I can go dig it up.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[The Dude]

I have great respect for The Dude, and for his opinions.

And you are one of my favorite apologists. Really.

I just see a difference between rather far-fetched analogies between rings and h-bombs ... and what appears to me to be a clear cut connection intended by the author of 1 Nephi 11 between the tree of life and the virgin.

Um, maybe we agree then. I also think the tree-virgin connection is kinda obvious, and USU78 thinks it is "not exactly a huge leap." But as I understand Dr. Peterson's argument, the apologetic only works as proof of ancient authorship if the tree-virgin connection is such a huge leap that it would only occur to an ancient Hebrew with knowledge of the virgin-tree-goddess Asherah. Are we on the same page or completely different pages? If it is so obvious, then why would Dan go to all that work digging up Asherah to fill in the gap?

On a related note, I was reading the Hobbit to my 9-year old daughter earlier this year (yes, the same daughter who went to summer camp), and I was struck by an interesting parallel to the Book of Mormon.  If anybody is interested, I can go dig it up.

Well here's my BoM-LoTR connection to share:

I was visiting relatives a few weeks ago and had the opportunity to do family scripture reading with them. They were reading aloud about the Gaddianton robbers in 3 Nephi, specifically this:

7 And it came to pass that they did come up to battle; and it was in the sixth month; and behold, great and terrible was the day that they did come up to battle; and they were girded about after the manner of robbers; and they had a lamb-skin about their loins, and they were dyed in blood, and their heads were shorn, and they had head-plates upon them; and great and terrible was the appearance of the armies of Giddianhi, because of their armor, and because of their being dyed in blood.

After reading that passage, my mother-in-law said something to the effect of "Wow! That sounds just like the Orcs of Mordor!"

[Addictio]

Hey, folks. Some interesting and thoughtful comments, above.

I agree with a number of Kevin Graham's comments on the DCP article, and perhaps DCP will respond to them.

Anyway, here's some of my own. The verses from First Nephi 11 that DCP relies on for the Asherah connection are actually a small portion of a broader "apocalypse" of Nephi, spanning First Nephi 11-14.

That apocalypse is expressly connected to the book of Revelation. Near its end we read, in First Nephi 14:

[20] And the angel said unto me: Behold one of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

[24] And behold, the things which this apostle of the Lamb shall write are many things which thou hast seen; and behold, the remainder shalt thou see.

[25] But the things which thou shalt see hereafter thou shalt not write; for the Lord God hath ordained the apostle of the Lamb of God that he should write them.

[26] And also others who have been, to them hath he shown all things, and they have written them; and they are sealed up to come forth in their purity, according to the truth which is in the Lamb, in the own due time of the Lord, unto the house of Israel.

[27] And I, Nephi, heard and bear record, that the name of the apostle of the Lamb was John, according to the word of the angel.

Nephi's apocalypse, like that to be written by the "apostle John," is saturated with Christian concepts, imagery and doctrine. This shouldn't surprise the reader, the above passage explains, in part because "the things which this apostle of the Lamb shall write are many things which thou hast seen;...." Thus in an act of prophetic comity, as it were, Nephi is instructed to defer to the apostle John the composition of the remainder of the Christian vision regarding the world's (rather than the Lehites') end times.

So why doesn't the DCP (online) article acknowledge the evident linguistic and doctrinal connections between the Christian apocalypse of John the Revelator and the vision (and angelic colloquy) we find in Nephi's related composition? Not just secular critics would recognize or suggest such connections; the above-quoted section of First Nephi 14 itself does. I think the fundamentally Christian nature and content of this four-chapter segment of First Nephi, together with its express and implied connections to the genesis, literary form, language and imagery of the book of Revelation are significant features of the text that shouldn't simply be ignored. In my view, the type of text being analyzed and interpreted, along with its mature, Christian (not merely "pre-Christian" Jewish) doctrines, langauge and themes clearly bears upon the author's inferred compositional aims and purposes. That's particularly important under the ancient-authorship hypothesis (model) the article adopts because Nephi, the central human actor in the text, is also the person who composed it. (Though probably about 20 to 30 years after the event.)

Further, the article's claim that something Nephi "must" have understood through an ancient Israelite syncretic tradition, particularly one (the Asherah) so thoroughly repudiated by the reformist authors/editors of the Book of Deuteronomy, raises an additional difficulty. Since it appears that Nephi relied quite heavily upon that Book in structuring and composing his narratives (per Noel Reynolds and others) , it's not at all clear that he would have thought of Asherah veneration or worship in positive cultural or religious terms, rather than as an alien, corrupting influence. In fact, knowing that Jerusalem had indeed been destroyed, and perhaps having access through the brass plates to a pre-exilic version of the Deuteronomist History to influence his thinking, that might be the more reasonable inference. Or perhaps, when he etched his small plates, now an earnest Christian prophet who teaches his children and people constantly of Christ, Nephi would have had further grounds for considering such decades-old veneration or worship among the warned-and-unrepentant at Jerusalem, uhm, "anathema."

If he thought of such things at all. When composing his apocalypse, Nephi would have been influenced far more heavily, seems to me, by his struggles to convert and wean a sizeable fraction of his people -- the indigenous maya-speakers -- from the alien, insidious influences of their corn god. Or perhaps from lesser, crueller spirits he had never imagined, back in his innocent days in the wilderness. Back when all he had to do was preach from the scriptures, in effortless Hebrew, to stubborn brothers who always knew, deep down, that what he was saying was true. Thinking back on his visionary experience, I suppose it's always possible Nephi could have decided to compose the small-plates account as if the earthly mother of the Son of God were best honored when presented as a symbol of fallen Jerusalem's religious syncretism, and diversity. Hmm, fond memories of which his current struggles with indigenous, alien deities might conceivably bring to mind?

So far as I can tell, the article treats Nephi as if he's merely an actor and interlocutor in a revelation-drama composed by someone else. What he "sees" and "sees as" and thinks as an actor within the drama and colloquy are thought to be accessible. Instead, he's the composer of a specific type of religious and literary work. An author with potentially text-relevant beliefs and a social context that he might have no reason to mention in a particular text segment, or mention at all. Anyway, I think his focus, aims and purposes in composing the text are highly relevant to making or asssessing claims about its contents. Hence certain of the above comments.

So how does Nephi's apocalypse begin? With seven verses the (online) article omits.

For it came to pass after I had desired to know the things that my father had seen, and believing that the Lord was able to make them known unto me, as I sat pondering in mine heart I was caught away in the Spirit of the Lord, yea, into an exceedingly high mountain, which I never had before seen, and upon which I never had before set my foot.

[2] And the Spirit said unto me: Behold, what desirest thou?

[3] And I said: I desire to behold the things which my father saw.

[4] And the Spirit said unto me: Believest thou that thy father saw the tree of which he hath spoken?

[5] And I said: Yea, thou knowest that I believe all the words of my father.

[6] And when I had spoken these words, the Spirit cried with a loud voice, saying: Hosanna to the Lord, the most high God; for he is God over all the earth, yea, even above all. And blessed art thou, Nephi, because thou believest in the Son of the most high God; wherefore, thou shalt behold the things which thou hast desired.

[7] And behold this thing shall be given unto thee for a sign, that after thou hast beheld the tree which bore the fruit which thy father tasted, thou shalt also behold a man descending out of heaven, and him shall ye witness; and after ye have witnessed him ye shall bear record that it is the Son of God.

So btw, who is the Spirit of the Lord? The ante-mortal Christ? The Holy Ghost? Anyone know or care to comment? Why the unexpected departure?

A few comments on the above verses. Note the Spirit's first question, after asking what Nephi wants. He focuses immediately on the tree in Lehi's vision, asking Nephi if he believes his father saw it. When Nephi affirms his belief that Lehi indeed saw the tree (by affirming his belief in all Lehi's words) the Spirit rejoices that by doing so Nephi has confessed his belief in "the Son of the most high God."

So what are the two important, connected things so far? The tree in Lehi's vision, and Nephi's belief in the Son of God.

Verse 7 conjoins the tree and the Son of God in the same manner, and in my view, explains one of the purposes of the entire aopocalypse. Because he believes in the Son of God, Nephi is rewarded by being able to "behold" the things he desires, and is promised a "sign" of this reward or privilege. After he beholds the tree, he is assured, "thou shalt also behold a man descending out of heaven" whom he is instructed or commanded to "witness" and then is further directed that he "shall bear record that it is the Son of God."

So at least until we arrive at verse 8, seems to me the Q and A has connected the tree and its future interpretation to the Son of God, and has also established Nephi's relationship of faith, witness and record-bearing to the divine being whose identity as God's redeeming Son is the central focus of all that is to come.

This is the first explicitly Christian revelation (well, apart from one jump-the-gun verse in Chapter 10) and also the future narrative's founding revelation. It transforms Nephi (fell swoop?) from faithful Israelite into a highly privileged (and responsible) Christian witness, like the apostle John will be, and inaugurates his role as prophet and "seer." Nephi has already recounted the founding covenant and promise "the Lord" has made with him regarding the destined land of promise. I'd say this is the "founding" revelation, since it willl also turn the Nephite-side of the Lehites into the Christian society, then civilization, which will endure fior nearly a thousand years, and whose fateful end Nephi will also witness and bear record of, from the beginning.

So hey, we're not in the Book of Genesis, are we? Peering forward into Malachi, or even Revelation? ;-)

I'll have to come back later and say some more about the article. Like maybe what I think happens at verse 8 and beyond. ;-) As you can probably tell, despite all the compositional tasks and other distractions I've provided, I think even by verse 7 some will sense Nephi's stylus-hand quivering a bit with anticipation. Helpless before the looming opportunity to etch a few code-words closer to the Deutero-busting, Canaan-scented presence of his lovely Asherah.

PM to Nephi: Please meditate first upon how to get a grip. Then think of chaste, thin-lipped young Josiah, and all he did for you. Finally, if need be, remember how we cheered and cast flowers toward him from the roadside that day, as he rode off toward Megiddo.

[consiglieri]

I have great respect for The Dude, and for his opinions.

And you are one of my favorite apologists. Really.

I just see a difference between rather far-fetched analogies between rings and h-bombs ... and what appears to me to be a clear cut connection intended by the author of 1 Nephi 11 between the tree of life and the virgin.

Um, maybe we agree then. I also think the tree-virgin connection is kinda obvious, and USU78 thinks it is "not exactly a huge leap." But as I understand Dr. Peterson's argument, the apologetic only works as proof of ancient authorship if the tree-virgin connection is such a huge leap that it would only occur to an ancient Hebrew with knowledge of the virgin-tree-goddess Asherah. Are we on the same page or completely different pages? If it is so obvious, then why would Dan go to all that work digging up Asherah to fill in the gap?

On a related note, I was reading the Hobbit to my 9-year old daughter earlier this year (yes, the same daughter who went to summer camp), and I was struck by an interesting parallel to the Book of Mormon.

[USU78]

I also think the tree-virgin connection is kinda obvious, and USU78 thinks it is "not exactly a huge leap." But as I understand Dr. Peterson's argument, the apologetic only works as proof of ancient authorship if the tree-virgin connection is such a huge leap that it would only occur to an ancient Hebrew with knowledge of the virgin-tree-goddess Asherah. Are we on the same page or completely different pages? If it is so obvious, then why would Dan go to all that work digging up Asherah to fill in the gap?

I didn't make myself clear. I didn't see the connection at all until Herr Professor Doktor Peterson made it.

"Of course!" sez I to me at that point.

Some things are like that: they're obvious once somebody else points it out.

Like I said, I ain't as smart as consiglieri.

USU "I'm a businessman. Blood is a big expense." 78

[Daniel Peterson]

It will take me a while to read through this thread, if I ever actually do, but I'm amused by the notion that some seem to be advancing here that the virgin-tree connection is obvious and trivial.

I just finished reading Simon Singh's Big Bang: The Origin of the Universe a few weeks ago. At one point, he cites a little item from the British geneticist J. B. S. Haldane (d. 1964) on four stages in the acceptance of a theory:

1) This is worthless nonsense.

2) This is an interesting, but perverse, point of view.

3) This is true, but quite unimportant.

4) I always said so.

[William Schryver]

I just finished reading Simon Singh's Big Bang: The Origin of the Universe a few weeks ago.  At one point, he cites a little item from the British geneticist J. B. S. Haldane (d. 1964) on four stages in the acceptance of a theory:

1)  This is worthless nonsense.

2)  This is an interesting, but perverse, point of view.

3)  This is true, but quite unimportant.

4)  I always said so.

I suspect a similar, albeit accelerated, process will be at work when the following scripture is fulfilled:

Mosiah 27

31  Yea, every knee shall bow, and every tongue confess before him.

[grego]

Ah, critics. "Prove the connection that doesn't exist" on one hand; "prove there's more to the connection that obviously exists" on the other. No wonder apologetics is so fun and time-consuming.

The Dude wrote: "Seeing" a connection is not the same as there being one in the author's mind. And since both Nephi and Joseph Smith are long dead, there is no way for you to know if this connection is real, and no way for anyone to take it to the bank as proof of ancient Hebrew influence.

USU 78 wrote: A work can exceed an author's intentionality.

What one intentionally writes, and what actually gets written, can often be different. When dealing with thinking, language, and writing, the subconscious does quite a bit more than one thinks.

The reason I don't see that it's necessary to make Asherah a virgin, is that connections and symbols are not just used in one way, for one purpose. For example, symbols can be used "in bono" and "in malo", where the same thing is used in both positive and negative ways--maybe even in the same work. One example of this is the color green: hope, verdant grass, life, vs. gangrene, nausea, seasickness. Same color, different meaning of the symbol.

Let's say--just to make this point in a short and basic way--that Asherah is idolatry/adultery worship, and never a virgin--far from it. Nephi knows it. He sees the tree, and Mary. He understands how the symbol is used "in malo" and makes the connection using the same symbol "in bono". Done. The importance in symbols is not what they are, but that the person observing them understands the point one wanted to communicate by using them. Would it be stronger if Asherah is shown to be part of "true" religion? Probably so, esp. in most people's minds.

[by the way--I went back to check (had a slightly biting feeling), and while it was in 1992 that I saw the connection, it was probably in Fall semester 1993--not in 1992--that I made the comment in class.]

[Olavarria]

It seems to me that the more we know about the ancient world the more the BoM appears to be ancient. This whole conversation would not have been possible 50 years ago, much less 150.

The same thing goes for Lehi's trail; the fact that we even debate such things is telling.

[consiglieri]

I tend to agree with Her Amun that the more we learn about the ancient world, the more the Book of Mormon appears ancient. Which is exactly the opposite of what I would expect if the Book of Mormon were a production of early 19th century America. If that were the case, I would think that the fraud of the book would have been manifestly proven by now to the agreement of all parties, and it could have been placed on the shelf to gather dust as a quaint relic of frontier Americana.

The very fact that so much discussion from intelligent persons from different perspectives on the issue takes place just on this message board indicates to me that we are dealing with something remarkable in the Book of Mormon; something that cannot easily be accounted for as the production of the ploughboy from Palmyra, or even his more literate companeros.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[consiglieri]

I hope that Daniel Peterson will indeed find the time to peruse this thread and post his comments, inasmuch as it is his most excellent piece of scholarship that we are discussing.

Brown-nosingly yours,

--Consiglieri

[cinepro]

I tend to agree with Her Amun that the more we learn about the ancient world, the more the Book of Mormon appears ancient. Which is exactly the opposite of what I would expect if the Book of Mormon were a production of early 19th century America. If that were the case, I would think that the fraud of the book would have been manifestly proven by now to the agreement of all parties, and it could have been placed on the shelf to gather dust as a quaint relic of frontier Americana.

If the BoM were a production of early 19th century America, and were written using the Bible and then-current cultural ideas about the ancient americans as a reference, what would you expect to be different?

[bentleye]

It seems to me that the more we know about the ancient world the more the BoM appears to be ancient.

This seems like a fertile contention for discussion in its own thread, as this thread is really too narrow in scope. Maybe you should propose it. I think that you will find people on both sides of this, so it would make a good discussion.

David

[consiglieri]

I tend to agree with Her Amun that the more we learn about the ancient world, the more the Book of Mormon appears ancient. Which is exactly the opposite of what I would expect if the Book of Mormon were a production of early 19th century America. If that were the case, I would think that the fraud of the book would have been manifestly proven by now to the agreement of all parties, and it could have been placed on the shelf to gather dust as a quaint relic of frontier Americana.

If the BoM were a production of early 19th century America, and were written using the Bible and then-current cultural ideas about the ancient americans as a reference, what would you expect to be different?

A significant dearth of "if/and" constructs, possibly? :^)

All the Best, Cinepro!

--Consiglieri

[Mighty Curelom]

A significant dearth of "if/and" constructs, possibly? :^)

You mean, like the Bible?

I always knew there was something fishy about that thing.

[Daniel Peterson]

A significant dearth of "if/and" constructs, possibly? :^)

You mean, like the Bible?

I always knew there was something fishy about that thing.

Poor Might-C.

"If/and" conditional sentences occur in the Hebrew Bible. (Have we perhaps not been clear enough?) They simply didn't make it into any English translation thereof. (Which is part of the reason why The Dude's blanket assertion is wrong and untenable.) But they were present in the earliest versions of the English Book of Mormon. (Which is another part of the reason why The Dude's assertion is wrong and untenable.)

[Olavarria]

The very fact that so much discussion from intelligent persons from different perspectives on the issue takes place just on this message board indicates to me that we are dealing with something remarkable in the Book of Mormon; something that cannot easily be accounted for as the production of the ploughboy from Palmyra, or even his more literate companeros

I couldnt have said it better myself

[Mighty Curelom]

"If/and" conditional sentences occur in the Hebrew Bible.

Right you are, Brother P.!

They simply didn't make it into any English translation thereof.

And that's the point I was making.

How many English translations of the Bible are there, by the way? 10? 20? 50? Did "if/and" conditional sentences "make it into" ANY of them?

[Daniel Peterson]

"If/and" conditional sentences occur in the Hebrew Bible.

Right you are, Brother P.!

They simply didn't make it into any English translation thereof.

And that's the point I was making.

How many English translations of the Bible are there, by the way? 10? 20? 50? Did "if/and" conditional sentences "make it into" ANY of them?

Such sentences made it into none, so far as anybody has yet shown.

And, as was proper, they were very soon removed from the English Book of Mormon, as well.

Which seems to indicate that they represented a Hebraism that made its way into an English translation but, for stylistic reasons, was removed.

Anybody who has ever translated to any great extent knows that it is fairly common for structures and word order from the original language to creep into the target language, leading to hybrid mixes of German and English, or Arabic and English, or English and Greek, or whatever the case may be. Often, it requires a subsequent reading, distinct from the process of translation (perhaps substantially later, or by a different person), to find them and fix them.

In other words, with "if/and" conditional sentences, we seem to have an excellent example of a Hebraism that did not enter the English Book of Mormon from any English translation of the Bible -- thus proving false The Dude's confident assertion that all Book of Mormon Hebraisms are derivable from the English Bible.

You can wiggle all you want, but, unless you can come up with evidence of English-biblical "if/and" conditionals, that's where the case stands.

It's simple: Propositions A and B, below, cannot simultaneously be true.

A. All Book of Mormon Hebraisms are derivable from the English Bible.

B. One Book of Mormon Hebraism (the "if/and" conditional sentence) is not derivable from the English Bible.

Since you yourself now concede that B is true, you seem to agree with me that A (which was the claim asserted by The Dude) is false.

I'm satisfied. I hope you are, too.

[Mighty Curelom]

B. One Book of Mormon Hebraism (the "if/and" conditional sentence) is not derivable from the English Bible.

Since you yourself now concede that B is true, you seem to agree with me that A (which was the claim asserted by The Dude) is false.

I'm satisfied. I hope you are, too.

You're assuming that the if/and sentences in the BoM are, in fact, Hebraisms. You're begging the question by assuming that which you wish to prove. "If/and statements in the Book of Mormon are Hebraisms, therefore if/and statements in the Book of Mormon are proof that the Book of Mormon contains Hebraisms."

So no, I don't concede that B is true. I "concede" that Hebrew may contain if/and constructions, but that doesn't mean that any use of an if/and construction is a Hebraism, any more than every use of a double negative is a "Spanishism".

Anybody who has ever translated to any great extent knows that it is fairly common for structures and word order from the original language to creep into the target language, leading to hybrid mixes of German and English, or Arabic and English, or English and Greek, or whatever the case may be. Often, it requires a subsequent reading, distinct from the process of translation (perhaps substantially later, or by a different person), to find them and fix them.

Yes, yes. I understand your argument just fine. The point I'm trying to make (apparently unsuccessfully) by bringing up the Bible is that this particular "ideomatic contamination" doesn't manifest itself in the largest body of indisputably authentic Hebrew-to-English translations. Your argument is that if/and constructions can (and in the Book of Mormon, did) make it into the English translation. But in the tens, if not hundreds of thousands of pages of extant Hebrew-to-English Bible translations, it didn't. So there's a difference, then, between the Bible and the BoM. If the Book of Mormon if/and constructions are genuine artifacts of translational "contamination," why don't Bible translations have them? If if/and constructions are the kind of "common structure and word order" that "creeps into the target language" why didn't they creep into the Bible translations?

You might cry foul, in that this question creates a catch 22 situation. That is, if the Bible has the same type of a particular "Hebraism" as one found in the Book of Mormon, then the Bible is potentially the source of that Hebraism. But if the Book of Mormon contains a "Hebraism" that the English translations of the Bible don't then said "Hebraism" probably isn't a genuine translational artifact--otherwise it would be present in Bible translations.

But that's not my problem. It just means Hebraisms are evidentially useless. Whether they're genuine or not is irrelevent, because it's impossible to demonstrate that they are genuine, and not either derivations from the Bible, bad (but apologetically useful) grammar, dictation errors, copy errors, or any of the other excuses commonly given for the 3000 BoM errors.