Hebraisms in the Book of Mormon

[Kevin Graham]

No, the Brenton translation does not retain the

[David Bokovoy]

Good grief, the thing is online for anyone to check. Genesis 34:15-16:

Thanks, but I don

[Kevin Graham]

== Thanks, but I don

[Daniel Peterson]

It seems that there's a possible instance of an "if/and" conditional construction in Brenton's 1851 rendition of Genesis 34:15-16 -- I'll have to check it myself before I'm completely comfortable with the identification, particularly since a friend who has looked at it is, on whatever grounds, somewhat doubtful -- but that no other examples have yet been found in Brenton (even at passages where he might have been expected to have provided one), let alone in as-yet-unseen translations of the Septuagint that were actually available in time to have conceivably exercised some potential (if extraordinarily unlikely) influence on the text of the 1830 Book of Mormon.

[Cold Steel]

You wouldn't throw 200 passengers into a prototype airliner before it has been tested would you?

I don't know. A lot would depend on who they were....

[Kevin Graham]

Dan if you have the chance, pass this email along to Parry. I'd be curious what his take would be, particularly on the highlighted portions:

I examined all the occurrances of )M in Gen.,

1) LXX does not translate if-vav as if-and. The only place it did was Gen

34:16, by ending the sentence at the end of v 15.

2) These are the if-and's in Hebrew in Gen.:

Genesis 13:9; 14:23; 18:26; 24:8,38,41; 28:20-21; 31:8; 32:8; 33:10; 38:9;

43:9; 44:26,32; 47:6

All these, seem to me, to be cases of ***-for-tat, if <you do this>, <I also

will do that>. A weaker cause-effect.

None of them have an imperative for the unconditional clause, which would by

necessity be a strong cause-effect. Likewise none have God as the subject of

the conditional clause, like the quotes from BoM, which are cause-effect as

strong as you can get.

3) These are the if-s not followed by and, which have an if <conditional>

<unconditional> structure.  Some of these are strong cause-effect, some have

imperatives for the unconditional clause, some have God as the subject of

the conditional., some are natural laws:

4:7; 18:3,21; 20:7; 23:8,13; 24:49; 25:22; 27:46; 30:1,31; 31:50; 42:16,19;

43:4,11; 44:23; 47:29; 50:4

I did not list those which are not if <conditional> <unconditional>

structure: KY )M, or have the unconditional phrase before the conditional.

There are 76 )M occurrances in Gen

[Daniel Peterson]

If Might-C or The Dude are able to offer examples of native speakers using "if/and" conditionals anywhere, I'll be impressed. Neither Professor Skousen nor I have been able to locate any such instances.

I am not sure what they have come up with, but I went digging on a Hebrew e-list and found something interesting. In 1808 Charles Thompson published the first English translation of the Septuagint, which was a literal translation from the Hebrew. Later Benton would publish his translation in 1851. I do not have a copy of the Thompson version, but the Benton translation retains the

[Kevin Graham]

I was under the impression that there were no semicolons in Hebrew, as there are no capitalized letters. Is that wrong?

What seems to indicate this to be a conditional cause-effect is that virtually all English translations render it as such - I've yet to find one that doesn't. The NASB doesn't place a period between the two verses, suggesting that there is at least some grounds for viewing it as one complete sentence. It also renders the first word in vs 16 "then," indicating that it is conveying a true "if-then" cause and effect scenario. It seems to make perfect sense given the context. "If" you are circumcised "then" we will give you our daughters.

I don't know how strong this argument about the pesky little period is, since Young's literal translation also excludes a period, indicating the two verses are the same sentence.

== The humble little "if/and" conditional construction is proving to be surprisingly resilient as an instance of a Book of Mormon Hebraism.

I agree that at this point the argument is resilient. But then again, it really hasn't been put to the test until now, by some loud-mouthed apologist armed with nothing more than a T1 connection.

How many Hebrew experts from the critical side have tackled this? I can't think of any who even know about it. I didn't get the impression that the Hebrew experts on B-Hebrew were too impressed with it.

[Daniel Peterson]

I was under the impression that there were no semicolons in Hebrew, as there are no capitalized letters. Is that wrong?

Originally, neither Greek nor Hebrew manuscripts were punctuated. Hebrew has no distinction between capital letters and lower case letters. Greek does (after a fashion), but did not historically use "capital" letters to indicate the beginning of a new sentence. The capitalized kappa in the initial kai of LXX Genesis 34:15 appears in Brenton's edition, as does the full stop (period), as does the sentence break between 34:15 and 34:16.

I understood that the claim centered on Brenton's alleged creation of an "if/and" conditional sentence in his English translation. It seems apparent that he created no such thing.

What seems to indicate this to be a conditional cause-effect is that virtually all English translations render it as such - I've yet to find one that doesn't. The NASB doesn't place a period between the two verses, suggesting that there is at least some grounds for viewing it as one complete sentence. It also renders the first word in vs 16 "then," indicating that it is conveying a true "if-then" cause and effect scenario. It seems to make perfect sense given the context. "If" you are circumcised "then" we will give you our daughters.

The question isn't whether the Hebrew text of Genesis 34:15-16 represents a complete conditional sentence. The question is whether Brenton's rendition of it represents an occurrence of the Hebraic "if/and" conditional sentence-structure in English. Plainly, despite prior claims, it doesn't. And it appears that none of the other translations of the passage consulted thus far does, either.

That an apparent Hebrew "if/and" conditional is rendered in English translations as an "if/then" conditional strengthens, rather than weakens, the case for the "if/and" conditionals in the Book of Mormon as striking and authentic Hebraisms.

I don't know how strong this argument about the pesky little period is, since Young's literal translation also excludes a period, indicating the two verses are the same sentence.

The relevance of that fact is unclear, since nobody has doubted that "if/and" conditionals exist in the Hebrew Bible. Quite the contrary, in fact: Their existence in the Hebrew Bible is the sole reason for identifying them as Hebraisms when they appear in the 1830 Book of Mormon. That the Hebrew text of Genesis 34:15-16 may furnish an instance of an "if/and" conditional is, thus, perfectly compatible, and indeed more than compatible, with the claim that such conditional sentences occur in the 1830 Book of Mormon but nowhere else in English.

The crucial fact is that they don't appear in English translations of the Hebrew Bible.

== The humble little "if/and" conditional construction is proving to be surprisingly resilient as an instance of a Book of Mormon Hebraism.

I agree that at this point the argument is resilient. But then again, it really hasn't been put to the test until now, by some loud-mouthed apologist armed with nothing more than a T1 connection.

Who has not, thus far, found a single instance of the "if/and" conditional structure anywhere in English -- the purported Brenton example having collapsed.

How many Hebrew experts from the critical side have tackled this? I can't think of any who even know about it.

That's up to them. I couldn't say.

I can't see what Hebrew expertise could possibly contribute to a reading of Brenton's Greek LXX text of Genesis 34:15-16, though -- let alone how Hebrew expertise could create an "if/and" conditional out of his English translation of that passage when it is fully and accurately quoted.

[Kevin Graham]

Dan,

== Genesis 34:15 is the conditional sentence in the passage under discussion, and it is entirely self-contained. It has both a protasis (an "if"-clause) and an apodosis (a "then"-clause), and it concludes, in both Brenton's English translation and the original Greek of his printed Septuagint edition, with a full stop or period.

But the context of verse 17 should make it perfectly clear that the beginning of vs 16 was intended to be the apodosis for the protasis in vs 15. Here is how it appears in the NASB, as a complete statement, without a period:

Only on this condition will we consent to you: if you will become like us (protasis), in that every male of you be circumcised, then we will give our daughters to you,(apodasis) and we will take your daughters for ourselves, and we will live with you and become one people.

We know that the first statement

[Daniel Peterson]

== Genesis 34:15 is the conditional sentence in the passage under discussion, and it is entirely self-contained. It has both a protasis (an "if"-clause) and an apodosis (a "then"-clause), and it concludes, in both Brenton's English translation and the original Greek of his printed Septuagint edition, with a full stop or period.

But the context of verse 17 should make it perfectly clear that the beginning of vs 16 was intended to be the apodosis for the protasis in vs 15. Here is how it appears in the NASB, as a complete statement, without a period:

Does the NASB render this passage with an "if/and" conditional?

No.

It doesn't.

The question that has been under discussion here is whether "if/and" conditionals occur in English, not whether they occur in Hebrew. It was claimed that at least one example of an "if/and" conditional occurs in English -- in Brenton's 1851 translation of the Septuagint. That claim has now been demonstrated false.

Brenton avoids putting the very un-English "if/and" conditional into English by rendering the passage in a certain way. (My analysis of the protasis and the apodosis was directed entirely to his English translation.) The NASB avoids it in a different way. But both avoid it.

That "if/and" conditionals appear in the underlying Hebrew text is (along with the fact that they don't appear in English translations) precisely the point. Thus, it's perfectly fine with me if an "if/and" conditional appears in the Hebrew of Genesis 34:15-16.

I think the actual issue is in danger of being lost here.

[Kevin Graham]

== Originally, neither Greek nor Hebrew manuscripts were punctuated. Hebrew has no distinction between capital letters and lower case letters. Greek does (after a fashion), but did not historically use "capital" letters to indicate the beginning of a new sentence. The capitalized kappa in the initial kai of LXX Genesis 34:15 appears in Brenton's edition, as does the full stop (period), as does the sentence break between 34:15 and 34:16.

Thanks. That

[Daniel Peterson]

"If/and" conditional sentences exist in Hebrew. Thus far, there is absolutely not a shred of evidence that they exist in English outside of early versions of the Book of Mormon. Hence, their occurrence in the Book of Mormon is clearly an instance of a Hebraism.

Period.

[Kevin Graham]

== The question that has been under discussion here is whether "if/and" conditionals occur in English, not whether they occur in Hebrew.

Right. And it does appear in Brenton

[Bernard Gui]

Kevin: Are you referring to me as the "loud-mouthed apologist armed

with nothing more than a T1 connection?" Please explain.

Bernard

[Mighty Curelom]

I don't agree with Kevin that the Genesis verse in the Breton LXX translation represents a "genuine" if/and structure. Here it is again:

Only on these terms will we conform to you, and dwell among you, if ye also will be as we are, in that every male of you be circumcised And we will give our daughters to you, and we will take of your daughters for wives to us, and we will dwell with you, and we will be as one race.

The first sentence contains the if/then structure; it's just phrased in such a way that the "then" is understood. It's saying

If you will be as we are, in that every male if you be circumcised, then we will conform to you.

You can switch pretty much any if/then sentence around to remove the "then". Like so:

If you pay me, then I'll be happy.

I'll be happy, if you pay me.

If you eat bad oysters, then you might get sick.

You might get sick if you eat bad oysters.

The second sentence, which you've mistakenly identified as the "then" part of the previous sentence, is just an add-on. Like this:

You might get sick if you eat bad oysters. And you might throw up.

But the second sentence isn't necessary. The first sentence is a full and complete thought. If/then structures can't be broken apart and remain coherent.

If you build it.

If you like American Idol.

If you eat breakfast.

None of these sentences make any sense. If the Brenton example was really a conditional relying on the second sentence sentence, then removing the second sentence would render the first clause nonsensical. But it doesn't. The first sentence is in itself grammatical and complete. Which means this isn't an example of an if/and English construction.

[Daniel Peterson]

First of all -- am I really saying this? -- Mighty Curelom is entirely right. It is much to his credit that, despite his position on the Book of Mormon, he does not attempt to force the evidence here.

The question was whether or not "if/and" conditional clauses or sentences occur in English. The "if/and" conditionals in the 1830 Book of Mormon are absolutely clearly "if/and" conditional clauses or sentences:

yea and if he saith unto the earth move and it is moved

yea if he say unto the earth thou shalt go back that it lengthen out the day for many hours and it is done . . .

and behold also if he saith unto the waters of the great deep be thou dried up and it is done

behold if he saith unto this mountain be thou raised up and come over and fall upon that city that it be buried up and behold it is done

and if the Lord shall say be thou accursed that no man shall find thee from this time henceforth and forever and behold no man getteth it henceforth and forever

and behold if the Lord shall say unto a man because of thine iniquities thou shalt be accursed forever and it shall be done

and if the Lord shall say because of thine iniquities thou shalt be cut off from my presence and he will cause that it shall be so (Helaman 12:13

[Daniel Peterson]

I'm genuinely curious. Is there anybody here who agrees with Mr. Graham that Brenton's translation of LXX Genesis 34:15-16 (or, even, 34:15-17) contitutes a genuine "if/and" conditional in the manner of the passages from Helaman and Moroni that I've cited?

If so, can you explain your position?

He seems to me to be misunderstanding my posts, and to have utterly misunderstood the concept of an "if/and" conditional. (For example, Genesis 34:17 is rendered both in the KJV and in Brenton's translation as a new and wholly distinct conditional sentence, contrary to Mr. Graham's reading.)

His mistake seems to me so patent and indisputable and clear that his persistence in it -- he's written to me privately now, on this question as well as on some of the serious defects in my character and personality, and has accused me of (as is my habit) fleeing from the discussion because I fear humiliation -- makes me wonder if I'm missing something. I just don't see how he can possibly continue to claim that an "if/and" conditional occurs in Brenton in anything even remotely like the relevant (and normal) sense.

[consiglieri]

Dear Dr. Dan,

I for one, do not agree with Mr. Graham that his example constitutes a genuine usage of an "if/and" conditional, but then, I am just one more loud-mouthed apologist.

But I do think Mr. Graham's willingness to force his facts to fit his theory (which even the historically myopic Mighty Curelom can see) indicates the degree to which he is unwilling to allow for any evidence to exist for the ancientness of the Book of Mormon.

If Mr. Graham can come up with an indisputable example of an "if/and" example, and I will agree with him.

(See how funny that sounds?)

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Jan]

I'm genuinely curious. Is there anybody here who agrees with Mr. Graham that Brenton's translation of LXX Genesis 34:15-16 (or, even, 34:15-17) contitutes a genuine "if/and" conditional in the manner of the passages from Helaman and Moroni that I've cited?

It's even clear to me.

The point, if I am understanding it, was: Did Joseph Smith have access to a Bible translation that used the if/and Hebraisms and then copied the style when dictation the Book of Mormon text?

Potentially, this Brenton translation (although late - 1851) may have had ONE - from Genesis. This has been shown NOT to be an if/and construction in the same sense that was used in Hebrew OT texts and the Book of Mormon.

I think the only thing that is still open are the other two early translations (forget their names at the moment).

[Daniel Peterson]

Kevin Graham is apparently now claiming that I never spoke of "if/and" conditional sentences until he demonstrated the existence (in Sir Lancelot Brenton's 1851 LXX translation) of a multi-sentence conditional construction (which, incidentally, I flatly deny he has done, and which, anyway, seems to me an essentially nonsensical and irrelevant concept). In other words, intellectually dishonest coward that I am, I'm moving the goal posts (as I habitually do) in order to avoid admitting defeat at his hands.

For the sake of an accurate public record, here is the opening post with which I launched this thread:

I've mentioned Royal Skousen's identification of seemingly Hebraic "if-and" conditional sentences in several recent items, including "Editor's Introduction

[Calm]

Kevin: Are you referring to me as the "loud-mouthed apologist armed

with nothing more than a T1 connection?" Please explain.

Bernard

Kevin's banned so I thought I'd respond pointing that it appears to be himself he's talking about:

== The humble little "if/and" conditional construction is proving to be surprisingly resilient as an instance of a Book of Mormon Hebraism.

I agree that at this point the argument is resilient. But then again, it really hasn't been put to the test until now, by some loud-mouthed apologist armed with nothing more than a T1 connection.

He's the one questioning the "resilient" argument as well as its resiliency.

I think he probably wasn't remembering your previous search or considered it not 'putting the argument to the test' because of your supposedly 'pro' approach.

[Matt Andrews]

So aren't we back to MC's point, several pages ago, that the Book of Mormon contains (well, contained) an alleged artifact of translation from Biblical Hebrew, but that no other translation from Biblical Hebrew contains the alleged artifact?

[Calm]

Did MC or you consider the fact that the 'translation' was most likely done by a young man who was trained in neither Hebrew or polished English?

I doubt that other translators, experts in both languages (I'm assuming they had to be to make the translations), wouldn't make the error of putting the translation in non-Standard English unlike JS.

Now it would be interesting if there is a translation out there where the translator decided to ignore some rules of English here and there for whatever reason.

[Daniel Peterson]

So aren't we back to MC's point, several pages ago, that the Book of Mormon contains (well, contained) an alleged artifact of translation from Biblical Hebrew, but that no other translation from Biblical Hebrew contains the alleged artifact?

Actually, that's my position and Professor Skousen's.