Hebraisms in the Book of Mormon

[maklelan]

These matters don't typically involve either/or dichotomies.

[Daniel Peterson]

I want to top this for the benefit of The Dude.

I had one very specific topic in mind for this thread.  Much irrelevancy has been committed here, but the bottom line appears to be this: 

Conditional sentences of "if/and" structure occur in the earliest versions of the Book of Mormon text.  That structure is characteristically Hebrew -- and, thus, is appropriately termed a "Hebraism" -- but nobody, to this point, has been able to locate instances of it in English (whether in an English translation of the Bible or anywhere else) for any period of the existence of the English language.

All that is required in order to disprove a universal negative proposition is the demonstrated existence of a single counterexample.  (More such counterexamples may well exist, but, strictly speaking, their existence is logically redundant.)

The Dude's assertion that all Hebraisms in the Book of Mormon can be accounted for by the influence on its text of the English Bible lacks support in the evidence, and, consequently, appears to be false.

QED

[Olavarria]

I've noticed that when TBM cite hebraisms in the BoM, some anti's act as if those are the onlys ones in the BoM and thus wave them of as sheer chance. I might do the same if "If/then" was the only one. Here are some others. They are identified by Donald Parry http://asiane.byu.edu/hebrew/index.php?con...e/donald_parry:

1) None of the BoM names begin with F or contain q,x,w. Biblical names are the same.

2)Use of parrallelisms including but not limited to chiasmus, Synonmous parallels, anti thetic parrallels and repeated alternates.

3)Profetic speech formulas:the proclamation formula, oath formula, revelation formula, woe oracle

4)simile curses

5)compund prepositions:from before, from behind and to behind.

6)plural amplification: the English Bible transkaters turn these into the singual tense but Joseph Smith didn't. 2 Nephi 1:12, Moroni 1:19 and many more.

7)profetic perfect tense

8)Like biblical Hebrew the BoM lacks bi-, di-,multi- and poly- when numbering things. Rather it uses cardinals, ordinals, multiplicatives and fractions.

9)number without the noun: 1 Nephi 3:31, Alma 57:19, 2 Nephi 11:3, Alma 57:25

Often in biblical hebrew an expected noun does not follow a number. In order to fix this awkwardness, King James tranlaters inserted words like "pieces" or "shekels".

10) Construct state: "rod of Iron" not iron rod

11)Repitition of the defininate article: Unlike English, Hebrew repeats the definiate

for every noun. 2 Nephi 5:10

12) Cognate accusative: "dreamed a dream", "fear exeedingly with fear", "will curse even with a sore curse"

13)Many ands: Biblical Hebrew uses the conjunction "and" much more than english does, especially in historical narrative and prose but also in poetry and prose and direct speech.

14)repetition of the possesive pronoun: 3 Nephi 30:2, Mosh 11:3, Mosh 4:30, Alma 32:42, Alma 38:3, Helaman 3:14. The hebrew language repeats the possesive pronoun before each noun to which it refers.

15)Emphatic pronoun: Mosh 2:26, "amd I, even I,"

now I realize that I didn't insert a scriptural example for every cae. Why? Because I'm not getting paid for this and it would take too long. I plaigerized alot(but since I admit to it is it plaigerism?) from Donald Parry's Hebraisms and other peculiarities in the BoM.

I'm not a scholar. BUT when I was learning classical chinese in college I learned from first hand experience that translating an ancient language without retaining that languages idioms in the translated text, is very difficult. My Professor tought us to start with the most ugly, literal noun for verb translation of the text and then work from there. To translate a text and not keep the idiums is to run the risk of losing the original meaning.

So I would expect the BoM to have hebrew idiums, given that the Nephite record keepers were hebrews.

If you want to critcize these hebraisms, I recommend you buy a copy of Echoes and Evidences for the Book of Mormon. That is weher I got all this stuff

[The Dude]

Thanks Dan. I'm on vacation and won't be able to carry my end of this discussion for at least a week.

Conditional sentences of "if/and" structure occur in the earliest versions of the Book of Mormon text.  That structure is characteristically Hebrew -- and, thus, is appropriately termed a "Hebraism" -- but nobody, to this point, has been able to locate instances of it in English

I came into this having never heard of if/and structure. As Juliann habitually notes, the critics who participate on this board are not experts on what is/is-not characteristically Hebrew. I also do not have access to the original article and what you wrote is only the briefest review of the issue. I'm stuck with your word on this.

All that is required in order to disprove a universal negative proposition is the demonstrated existence of a single counterexample.

That is one way to disprove it. It is also appropriate to question the logic of your proposition, as we have been doing. Juliann mistakes this for an IS NOT narrative. LOL. When I review scholarly work as a peer reviewer, it is appropriate to question the logic of a claim...I have no idea why she finds that unacceptable here, or why Daniel speeds past those criticisms as irrelevant.

The Dude's assertion that all Hebraisms in the Book of Mormon can be accounted for by the influence on its text of the English Bible lacks support in the evidence, and, consequently, appears to be false.

I'm stuck with your word on this.

[The Dude]

The apologists (Bill Hamblin, David Bokovoy, & others) have already conceded that Joseph Smith had the opportunity and the will to interpolate his "ancient translation" with text from the King James Bible.

Did they make the "concession" in the exact same terms and context you are here?

I believe so.

Did they "concede" that this adaption of KJ language accounts for all cases of apparent 'ancientness' in the BoM?

No. Only that it accounts for some things.

The Dude's assertion that all Hebraisms in the Book of Mormon can be accounted for by the influence on its text of the English Bible lacks support in the evidence, and, consequently, appears to be false.

I wish I could go back and point to the instances and the contexts, but my wife is really frustrated with me for posting when the family is on vacation..

[urroner]

I wish I could go back and point to the instances and the contexts, but my wife is really frustrated with me for posting when the family is on vacation..

Well Dude, get your priorities straight. Tell your wife to mind her own business!!!!

[grego]

The Dude wrote:

All that is required in order to disprove a universal negative proposition is the demonstrated existence of a single counterexample.

That is one way to disprove it. It is also appropriate to question the logic of your proposition, as we have been doing. Juliann mistakes this for an IS NOT narrative. LOL. When I review scholarly work as a peer reviewer, it is appropriate to question the logic of a claim...

Here's a question for you:

When you review scholarly work as a peer reviewer: if you find the existence of a single example that does not fit, do you throw the paper away because it is disproved? When you find the existence of a single anomoly that CANNOT fit into a scientific model, is that model proven wrong, and to be thrown away?

[Daniel Peterson]

grego:

I think you may be confusing my position (which is Correct) with The Dude's (which is Incorrect). I'm the one who said that a single counterexample is all that is needed to disprove a universal proposition.

This is a point in logic, not a point concerning theories in empirical science as such.

And it's non-controversial. It's been around since at least Aristotle, and is still taught in the first weeks of introductory logic classes. See, for example, the following discussion ("Lesson 1: Categorical Propositions"), and particularly the subsection on "The Square of Opposition":

http://www.philosophy.uncc.edu/mleldrid/Logic/l01.html

In the world of empirical science, where statistical probabilities tend to govern theory-making, an anomalous outlier may fall within the margin of error, or be ascribable to the limits of our data-gathering instruments, or derive from any number of other conceivable factors. If it is small, it may perhaps be safely ignored. If it is not, the theory or dominant paradigm may need to be adjusted to take it into account. (A good example is the eccentricity of certain planetary orbits as observed from the earth: Careful observations called for revisions of the Ptolemaic model of the solar system. Eventually, though, enough oddities piled up that mere adjustments were insufficient and the geocentric model had to be jettisoned altogether.)

[maklelan]

grego:

I think you may be confusing my position (which is Correct) with The Dude's (which is Incorrect). I'm the one who said that a single counterexample is all that is needed to disprove a universal proposition.

This is a point in logic, not a point concerning theories in empirical science as such.

And it's non-controversial. It's been around since at least Aristotle, and is still taught in the first weeks of introductory logic classes. See, for example, the following discussion ("Lesson 1: Categorical Propositions"), and particularly the subsection on "The Square of Opposition":

http://www.philosophy.uncc.edu/mleldrid/Logic/l01.html

In the world of empirical science, where statistical probabilities tend to govern theory-making, an anomalous outlier may fall within the margin of error, or be ascribable to the limits of our data-gathering instruments, or derive from any number of other conceivable factors. If it is small, it may perhaps be safely ignored. If it is not, the theory or dominant paradigm may need to be adjusted to take it into account. (A good example is the eccentricity of certain planetary orbits as observed from the earth: Careful observations called for revisions of the Ptolemaic model of the solar system. Eventually, though, enough oddities piled up that mere adjustments were insufficient and the geocentric model had to be jettisoned altogether.)

I believe that what you're saying is 100% true, but my experience (and I'm sure your's too) with anti-Mormons is that their modus operandi when they cannot win an argument is to 1) question the premise, and 2) ignore the request.

I've asked (on several occasions) for a similar example - complex chiastic patterns unintentionally inserted into any early 19th century English literature - and I've never received a response.

I think Mosser and Owen are right when they say that evangelicals are sadly lacking in legitimate answers to our questions.

[grego]

I did mistake, sorry. Because while you said it here, many other critics have said it on other threads--if they can find, to them, one mistake in it all, then it's all proven wrong, it doesn't work, no need to believe any of it, etc.

So if that happens in science (which it often does, as I've shown on many of the science threads), what do those critics then believe or do?

[Daniel Peterson]

Here's the basic logic of the case:

A universal affirmative proposition is demonstrated false if a particular negative proposition is demonstrated to be true. That is, "All A are X" is false if there exists even one A that is non-X.

In this particular instance, we have The Dude's universal affirmative proposition: "All Book of Mormon Hebraisms are derivable from the English Bible." In response, I noted that there is at least one Book of Mormon Hebraism that does not appear to be derivable from the English Bible. If, as seems to be the case, my particular negative proposition ("There is an A that is non-X," where A="Book of Mormon Hebraism" and X="derivable from the English Bible") is true, The Dude's universal affirmative proposition is false.

Now, of course, there are several ways that my proposition ("There is a Book of Mormon Hebraism that is non-derivable from the English Bible") might be disproven and, thus, The Dude's proposition saved:

It might, for example, be shown that the Book of Mormon Hebraism of which I speak is, in fact, actually derivable from the English Bible. But this does not appear likely, and nobody has claimed to be in possession of even a shred of evidence that would support such a response. There is, to the contrary, considerable reason to think the counterproposition false.

Alternatively, it might be demonstrated that the "if/and" conditional-sentence structure that I have identified in the Printer's Manuscript and the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon is not actually characteristic of Hebrew and, so, is not really a Hebraism. But this would seem to demand a demonstration that "if/and" conditional structures do not actually occur in the original Hebrew of such passages as Genesis 18:26; 24:8, 41; 28:20-21; 31:8 (twice); 34:17 (twice); 44:26; 47:6. And a demonstration of that kind appears quite unlikely to succeed.

Another possibility -- the one chosen by Might-C -- would be to redefine the term Hebraism in such a way as to make the existence of any Hebraism anywhere virtually impossible to demonstrate. But such a redefinition would void the relevant entries in standard English dictionaries and would invalidate well- and widely-accepted scholarly analyses in a number of linguistic, historical, and literary fields that have nothing whatever to do with either the Book of Mormon or Mormonism. That price, which Might-C implicitly proposes to pay merely in order to evade seeming evidence in favor of Mormon claims, would probably strike most dispassionate observers as a bit excessive.

As things stand, accordingly, and barring future evidence, it seems that The Dude's claim that all Book of Mormon Hebraisms are derivable from the English Bible has been proven beyond reasonable doubt to be false. Which means that that there exists a Book of Mormon Hebraism that cannot be derived from the English Bible. Which seems a very interesting conclusion.

I have found the exchanges here most enlightening, and thank one and all for the exercise.

[Bernard Gui]

For those who have looked at my contributions to this thread, you

may wish to check out my EDIT on the post regarding the "if/and"

construction in early American literature at

http://www.fairboards.org/index.php?showto...st&p=1208005979

Bernard

[Daniel Peterson]

I think I'll send this thread to the top one last time, since it provides such a clear and unequivocal illustration of . . . well, several things, really.

[Bill Hamblin]

Dude

The apologists (Bill Hamblin, David Bokovoy, & others) have already conceded that Joseph Smith had the opportunity and the will to interpolate his "ancient translation" with text from the King James Bible. So technically the long road is proven to all but the ignorant and the stubborn

You misunderstand (or misrepresent) at least my position. ANY translation necessarily reflects both the original context of the text, and the context of the translator. It is impossible for it to be otherwise. Thus, my belief that the current English BOM contains elements of the 19th century is not a "concession." I have believed this for at least 30 years. Any English translation of the Bible is precisely the same, some to a greater or lesser degree. That the BOM uses the KJV as its base text for English translation of biblical passages is obvious, and again, represents no "concession" on our part. Why this is the case, and what it means is, of course, disputed.

[David Bokovoy]

Since you have cast the proponents of the Hebraisms in the BoM in Drosnin's shoes, aching to be shown they are wrong, please tell me why critics should expect any different of a reaction should the evidence be forthcoming? Are not both claims equally faith-based and unfalsifiable?

I for one

[Daniel Peterson]

David Bokovoy seems much more inclined to let Might-C and The Dude off the hook than I am.

I regard "if/and" conditional sentences as a nice, neat, and clear -- albeit small -- pointer in the direction of Book of Mormon historicity for which, it would appear, the critics have no obvious and plausible unfaith-saving excuse.

More fascinating than the item itself, though, are the contortions that have been undertaken here to avoid it.

Every limber boy and girl

All around the limber world

Gonna do the Limber Rock

All around the limber clock.

Jack be nimble, Jack be quick,

Jack go under limber stick.

All around the limber clock

Hey, let's do the Limber Rock!

[USU78]

Every limber boy and girl

All around the limber world

Gonna do the Limber Rock

All around the limber clock.

Jack be nimble, Jack be quick,

Jack go under limber stick.

All around the limber clock

Hey, let's do the Limber Rock!

AT LAST! Evidence that Herr Professor Doktor Peterson is a false prophet who cannot translate ancient Egyptian texts, or even Reformed Calypso:

Every limbo boy and girl

All around the limbo world

Gonna do the limbo rock

All around the limbo clock

Jack be limbo, Jack be quick

Jack go unda limbo stick

All around the limbo clock

Hey, let's do the limbo rock

USU "Limbo lower now! How low can you go?" 78

[David Bokovoy]

==David Bokovoy seems much more inclined to let Might-C and The Dude off the hook than I am.

Not at all Dan. I simply stated that my initial reaction was one of skepticism. As I studied the issue more intently, I became convinced however that if/and constructions do suggest that the Book of Mormon derives from a translated source with Hebraic connections.

Having studied the issue a bit, I would, however, enjoy seeing the critics on this board attempt to prove us wrong. Moreover, if the view were incorrect, like you, I would want to know (Cinepro

[Daniel Peterson]

Yeah, that's more or less how I remembered it. But I went and grabbed the lyrics off of an obviously unreliable web site.

I'm so ashamed.

Anyway, I've enjoyed watching Might-C and The Dude wriggling under the limbo stick.

How low can they go?

[Daniel Peterson]

==David Bokovoy seems much more inclined to let Might-C and The Dude off the hook than I am.

Not at all Dan.  I simply stated that my initial reaction was one of skepticism.  As I studied the issue more intently, I became convinced however that if/and constructions do suggest that the Book of Mormon derives from a translated source with Hebraic connections.

Having studied the issue a bit, I would, however, enjoy seeing the critics on this board attempt to prove us wrong.  Moreover, if the view were incorrect, like you, I would want to know (Cinepro

[Scott Lloyd]

Yeah, that's more or less how I remembered it.  But I went and grabbed the lyrics off of an obviously unreliable web site.

I'm so ashamed.

Anyway, I've enjoyed watching Might-C and The Dude wriggling under the limbo stick.

How low can they go?

Unfortunately, I predict they will not have learned their lesson and will likely play out the words to the B side of Chubby's hit recording:

Let's limbo some more,

Let's limbo some more,

Let's hit the floor like we did before,

Let's limbo some more.

[David Bokovoy]

Dan,

===I wondered if that was what you were saying.

I

[Daniel Peterson]

Excellent news, David.

Incidentally, we're going to offer that "Celestial Ascents" class again this coming Winter term, and intend turning it into a book of readings. (Have I told you that before?)

And I've now committed myself to being in Washington DC during the period of that Evangelical Theological Society meeting. I still don't know specifically when the session will be in which they're going to take on Mormons in general (and me in particular) on the divine council, but will let you know as soon as I find out. It would be good to have someone there to keep me company while I'm being massacred and humiliated.

[consiglieri]

These matters don't typically involve either/or dichotomies.

[maklelan]

Finally, Gervin asks if there are any non-LDS scholars who have weighed in on the Book of Mormon and the rich Hebrew literary tradition, implying such information would suit him better. I do seem to recall an article by Robert Smith, I believe, who was attending a class in Hebrew (at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem?) where the professor, a non-Mormon, used a passage from the Book of Mormon to illustrate the Hebraism he was discussing relating to a surplusage of "ands" as connectors. Does anybody else remember this?

I do remember this. It is part of a paper by John Tvedtnes, found here:

http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/HebrewNames.pd...t%20hebrew'

He mentions that Robert Smith was attending the Hebrew University and took part in an English lecture about Hebrew, conducted by Haim Rabin. The lecturer used a verse from the Book of Mormon to address the Hebrew conjuction vav, and proceeded to tell the class that the Book of Mormon reflected Hebrew better than the English Bible. Mr. Tvedtnes tells us he subsequently took some courses from the Israeli professor and "found him very open to the idea that the Book of Mormon was translated from an ancient Hebrew text."

The article is incredible. I recommend it to anyone who is curious or doubtful of the Hebrew origins of the Book of Mormon.