Did Lehi And His Family Speak Hebrew?

[SolarPowered]

I certainly do agree, however, with the implications of the second half of your question, namely, we should not expect that many of Lehi’s descendants knew how to write at all, let alone in Hebrew. Based upon Near Eastern literacy rates, I believe we should take quite seriously the Book of Mormon statements that present a few of the well-educated elite “reading” the scriptures to the masses, including some of the kings.

David,

I was recently quite struck by Alma 33:3:

Do ye remember to have read what Zenos, the prophet of old, has said concerning prayer or worship?

Here, Alma is speaking to the poor of the apostate Zoramites, those who had been cast out of the synagogues because of their poverty. Yet, it appears that Alma expected that these people, who you would least expect to be able to read and especially to have read any scripture, to have read the words of Zenos.

After reading that, I started paying attention to the passages that suggested that the Nephite people were literate, and have noticed several places that this appears to be the case. (Unfortunately, I haven't kept notes on where I saw these, so I am unable at this time to list them out. Perhaps on my next pass through the book )

I have since heard someone comment that in ancient times "read" was the vernacular for "somebody read it to me"; I see that that interpretation could potentially be applied to Alma 33:3. I don't know about the other places that I saw this sort of thing, since I didn't note where they were. (I know, I'd make a really lousy scholar!)

In any case, I've been struck as I've been reading through the BoM that it seems to be describing an extremely literate civilization, which almost seems like an anachronism. I've been puzzled about it, and wondered if perhaps the value they placed on scripture drove them to develop some way to widely disseminate the written word.

[Son]

Son:

Although I acknowledge the obvious fact that Lehi and his family were bi-lingual, I am more interested in the fact that they sought to obtain the Plates of Brass for the express purpose that â??we may preserve unto our children the language of our fathers.â?

The Plates of Brass were written in Egyptian. We must therefore conclude two things: 1) That the language of Lehiâ??s â??fathersâ? was Egyptian, and that 2) this was the language that Lehi sought to preserve among his children.

Oh. well that sounds clear enough. If he wished this language to continue. Humor me, were the plates the only written scripture at the time, is this why he wished to obtain them?

[William Schryver]

Oh. well that sounds clear enough. If he wished this language to continue. Humor me, were the plates the only written scripture at the time, is this why he wished to obtain them?

He sought to obtain them for two declared reasons:

1. In order to obtain his genealogy, which was recorded on them.

2. In order to preserve for his children "the language of his fathers." Again, the Plates of Brass were written in Egyptian, as stated by King Mosiah in the verse cited above.

[David Bokovoy]

Hello SolarPowered,

In the critique, I cite the main work that has been done on this issue by biblical scholars:

James L. Crenshaw, Education in Ancient Israel: Across the Deadening Silence (New York: Doubleday, 1998).

Ian M. Young, "Israelite Literacy: Interpreting the Evidence: Part I," Vetus Testamentum 48 (1998): 239â??53;

Ian M Young, "Israelite Literacy: Interpreting the Evidence: Part II," Vetus Testamentum 48 (1998): 408â??22;

And the conservative response by Richard S. Hess, "Literacy in Iron Age Israel," in Windows into Old Testament History: Evidence, Argument, and the Crisis of "Biblical Israel," ed. V. Philips Long, David W. Baker, and Gordon J. Wenham (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2002), 82â??102.

The basic argument suggests that statements such as â??you have read,â? or â??you shall write,â? simply served as rhetoric, so that when an ancient Near Eastern text informs the common people, â??you have read,â? in reality the implication is simply â??it was read to you.â? We see this happening a lot, for example, in the Mesopotamian legal collections. In reality

â??An agricultural economy such as that prevailing in Judah and Israel provided few inducements to formal education, despite the rhetoric in Deut. 6:9 encouraging the people to write the commandments on doorposts and gates. In fact, the demands of daily choresâ??tending sheep and goats, preparing land for cultivation, attending to olive groves and vineyardsâ??discouraged formal schooling..â? James L. Crenshaw, Education in Ancient Israel: Across the Deadening Silence (New York: Doubleday, 1998), 39.

[Son]

He sought to obtain them for two declared reasons:

1. In order to obtain his genealogy, which was recorded on them.

2. In order to preserve for his children "the language of his fathers." Again, the Plates of Brass were written in Egyptian, as stated by King Mosiah in the verse cited above.

Seems pretty straight forward. So your just wondering why some think that Lehi's "language of His Fathers was Hebrew"?

Scripture seems to make it clear it was Egyptian. Unless the proof of the plates not being Egyptian is presented?

Thanks for your patience.

[Olavarria]

hmmmmmmm.

BOKYVOY+SCHRIVER

I wonder. I wonder which languange Lehi spoke with greater proficiency, hebrew or Egyptian. Its possible that Sariah didnt know egyptian. Which ever the case, he definatly was part of that Jerusalem upper class and had strong enough ties to give his kids egyptian names. Im the third generation in the US mainland yet my name is still Pedro(annoying as I find it).

I dont think Lehi was a nomad before his call to prophethood. But definatly seems to me to be a caravaneer. Why else would he have tents and all that money? Who knows?

I remember reading something about the Jews were at Elephantine was in round 650 BC during Manasseh's reign, to assist Pharaoh Psammetichus I in his Nubian campaign. Maybe Lehi's family were apart of this.

FYI. the elephantine temple was bult in the 400's bc.

[poulsenll]

I would presume that the "Learning of the Jews" would not only include the available scripture but would also include a knowledge of the Hebrew language both written and spoken. Let us not put a limit on what would be included in the Learning of the Jews just because the plates were written in Egyptian.

The Brass Plates contained a written record of the Hebrew people up to the reign of Zedikiah, including the words of Isaiah. Because it was written in the language of the Egytions. as the text clearly states, it was important that the language be preserved in order to be able to read and teach from the plates. This is emphasized by the statement in Mosiah. Although the plates were used as a source for teaching, it does not preclude the possibility that the people actually spoke a different language, maybe Hebrew at first but at later times probably not.

Incidentally the words of Isaiah were originally spoken in Hebrew and may have been translated to Egyptian or may have simply been written in Hebrew using Egyptian phonemes. This is my concept of how Mormon used reformed Egyption even though he was writing in whatever language was in use by the Nephites at the time of the abridgement of the records.

Larry P

[David Bokovoy]

Hello Her Amun,

I dont think Lehi was a nomad before his call to prophethood. But definently seems to me to be a caravaneer. Why else would he have tents? Who knows?

I actually have pretty strong feelings against Nibleyâ??s caravanneer theory. One of the reasons to reject the possibility that Lehi was a caravaneer of any sort includes the apparent fact that he did not possess tents. Lehi possesses a house, a land of inheritance, gold, silver, precious things, and a family but not provisions and tents.

A few of the arguments that John raises against Nibley's caravaneer theory include

â??A number of things done by Lehi and his party while traveling through the wilderness are, as Nibley has shown, typical of Middle Eastern nomadic peoples. But some of these â??Bedouin traitsâ? turn out to be poor evidence of Lehiâ??s traveling skills. For example, though it may be typically Bedouin to travel in the â??more fertile parts of the wildernessâ?? (1 Nephi 16:14), as Lehi did, we read that it was the Lord who led them into these areas by means of the mysterious â??ballâ?? or Liahona (1 Nephi 16:16). If Lehi were an experienced desert caravaneer, why would he need divine assistance to locate these fertile areas?

â??Lehiâ??s restricted use of fire in the wilderness is cited as another trait of desert Arabs, whose campfires might alert nearby enemies to their presence. As a consequence of this, we read that they had to eat â??raw meat in the wildernessâ?? (1 Nephi 17:2). Again, however, it was the Lord who commanded them not to build fires (1 Nephi 17:12). Would this have been necessary if Lehi were already experienced in desert travel?â? (pg. 86),

More importantly, recognizing the Book of Mormonâ??s depiction of Lehi as a sedentary Jew leads to some very important religious lessons that I would hate to surrender.

Best,

--DB

[William Schryver]

I would presume that the "Learning of the Jews" would not only include the available scripture but would also include a knowledge of the Hebrew language both written and spoken. Let us not put a limit on what would be included in the Learning of the Jews just because the plates were written in Egyptian.

The Brass Plates contained a written record of the Hebrew people up to the reign of Zedikiah, including the words of Isaiah. Because it was written in the language of the Egytions. as the text clearly states, it was important that the language be preserved in order to be able to read and teach from the plates. This is emphasized by the statement in Mosiah. Although the plates were used as a source for teaching, it does not preclude the possibility that the people actually spoke a different language, maybe Hebrew at first but at later times probably not.

Incidentally the words of Isaiah were originally spoken in Hebrew and may have been translated to Egyptian or may have simply been written in Hebrew using Egyptian phonemes. This is my concept of how Mormon used reformed Egyption even though he was writing in whatever language was in use by the Nephites at the time of the abridgement of the records.

Larry P

I have no objection to any of your observations. I simply wish to note that Lehi and Nephi, in the verses I have cited, specifically state their purpose in seeking the Plates of Brass as being the need to "preserve the language of their fathers." I can't see any other way to interpret this statement except that the "language of their fathers" was the language in which the plates were written -- Egyptian. I am certainly open to alternative explanations, but it seems quite apparent to me that two things argue for my conclusion: 1) the genealogy of Lehi was preserved on plates written in Egyptian, indicating to me that his "fathers" wrote in Egyptian; and 2) they explicitly state that they sought the plates in order to preserve "the language of their fathers." I do not intend at all to argue that Lehi did not have a complete knowledge of Hebrew, and of the Jews. I am simply focusing on what the Book of Mormon says, explicitly, about the language of Lehi -- and his intentions to preserve that language for his children.

The notion that several hundred years later the actual vernacular of the people had evolved into something entirely different is really immaterial to my argument. Mosiah still makes it clear that he is teaching his sons the "language of his fathers" in order that they might be able to read the plates of brass -- plates which were inscribed in Egyptian.

[Stargazer]

As far as I'm aware, neither Hebrew nor Egyptian distinguish between language and script. Thus, "language of the Egyptians" may ambiguously refer to either. I don't think this rises to the level of "concrete evidence."

While I was on my mission in Germany, I learned how to write using an early 20th century version of the old Gothic alphabet (this turned out to be a valuable skill when I finally managed to trace my genealogy back to Germany and had to decipher late 1800s/early 1900s church records). In order to practice this so it became more-or-less second nature, I started writing my journal using this. Mainly in English. Until this point I had not thought that I was writing my journal using the language of the Americans and the learning of the Germans!

My descendants are going to have a VERY hard time reading some parts of my journal.

[Loquacious Lurker]

What I'm trying to argue is that the TEXT of the Book of Mormon does NOT say that Lehi and his family used Hebrew as their primary language. Indeed, the TEXT of the BoM says that the language of Lehi was Egyptian. It says that the Plates of Brass were written in Egyptian. There is no internal evidence at all to suggest that Lehi and his family spoke Hebrew around the dinner table...Again, my argument is that people have assumed that Lehi and his family spoke Hebrew, but the TEXT of the BoM does not support that conclusion, but rather seems to contradict it.

So, Will...

1. Lehi and Co. were fluent in both Egyptian and Hebrew.

2. They voyaged to a continent far away, bringing that knowledge with them.

3. This knowledge was passed down for hundreds of years, such that much later, Moroni was able to with confidence state that he could have written on the plates in Hebrew, had he the luxury of space to do so.

Question:

Where is the archeological evidence for scribal schools teaching hundreds and hundreds of people over hundreds and hundreds of years to both speak and write in a language that was not their mother tongue? There should be, literally, TONS of material, if we are to assume they would have practiced, at least in part, this art of writing Hebrew on metal plates. Is there one single Hebrew character in the whole of North America written on any substance at all -- stone, paper, metal, wood, anything? Thousands of people would have had to practice making these unfamiliar Hebrew characters...and there is not one piece of evidence at all that they did so.

At least, not yet.

[William Schryver]

Lurker:

Where is the archeological evidence for scribal schools teaching hundreds and hundreds of people over hundreds and hundreds of years to both speak and write in a language that was not their mother tongue? There should be, literally, TONS of material, if we are to assume they would have practiced, at least in part, this art of writing Hebrew on metal plates. Is there one single Hebrew character in the whole of North America written on any substance at all -- stone, paper, metal, wood, anything? Thousands of people would have had to practice making these unfamiliar Hebrew characters...and there is not one piece of evidence at all that they did so.

In the first place, youâ??ve clearly not read the thread, since Iâ??m not making the argument that they either spoke or wrote in Hebrew.

Secondly, I will respond to your query with one of my own, which (if you provide an answer) I will then reply to your question:

How many extant Mesoamerican manuscripts or inscriptions of any kind are there that date to the Book of Mormon period?

[cdowis]

While I was on my mission in Germany, I learned how to write using an early 20th century version of the old Gothic alphabet (this turned out to be a valuable skill when I finally managed to trace my genealogy back to Germany and had to decipher late 1800s/early 1900s church records). In order to practice this so it became more-or-less second nature, I started writing my journal using this. Mainly in English. Until this point I had not thought that I was writing my journal using the language of the Americans and the learning of the Germans!

My descendants are going to have a VERY hard time reading some parts of my journal.

I have a copy of the BOM in the gothic. And I also learned how my surname was written in the original German, based on the gothic letters == DOURISS. The "UR" was transformed into a "W". I did not understand why until I wrote the name with the gothic letters.

[Dan Vogel]

Will,

In another current thread, Dan Vogel is quoted as follows:

It is reasonable to assume that these Hebrews spoke and wrote in Hebrew. Consequently, not finding any archaeological evidence for this in Pre-Columbian America is evidence against the BOM's historicity. Arguments contradicting the expected use of Hebrew can be made, but they aren't compelling. There is no good reason to believe they would not have used their native language.

I didn't say this Will. Marvelous did.

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php...24031&st=80

Instead, I said:

The assumption is that Jews from Jerusalem spoke and wrote Hebrew. Nephi mentions that his father's language consisted of the learning of the Jews, and Mormon mentions that he prefered to write in Hebrew. The Nephites couldn't communicate to the Mulekites because their language had become corrupted. Otherwise, two Hebrew speakers could have communicated. Regardless, what the Nephites spoke is irrelevant, since you concede that Hebrew was written. That's all that matters.

Nevertheless, you argue:

Is it reasonable to assume that Hebrew was spoken and written by Lehi and his descendants?

Although I think it's reasonable to assume Nephi spoke Hebrew, it is irrelevant to my argument. We are not searching for evidence of Hebrew speakers, but Hebrew writers, which you concede the BOM verifies.

Although your post is irrelevant to my discussion, I will entertain your theories.

The word â??â??Hebrewâ?â? is mentioned in a single verse of the Book of Mormon (Mormon 9:33) written by Moroni after the destruction of the Nephites, ca. 400 A.D.:

Mormon 9

33 And if our plates had been sufficiently large we should have written in Hebrew; but the Hebrew hath been altered by us also; and if we could have written in Hebrew, behold, ye would have had no imperfection in our record.

One reference at the end of Nephite history is enough to establish my point which, in case you have forgotten, is that the discovery of Hebrew writing is a possibility. I didn't argue that its absence was proof against the BOM. My argument was used to show the difference between direct evidence and indirect evidence--a point that eludes you.

This single reference, written 1000 years after Lehi left Jerusalem, tells us nothing about the language spoken among the people. Why Vogel thinks it is â??â??reasonable to assume that these Hebrews spoke and wrote in Hebrewâ?â? is a mystery, since we have definitive evidence that Lehiâ??â??s native language was not Hebrew:

Nephi informs us:

1 Nephi 1

2 Yea, I make a record in the language of my father, which consists of the learning of the Jews and the language of the Egyptians.

What is the language of Nephi's father? The same language that Nephi is going to use to make his record. He tells us quite clearly: Lehi and his family spoke, as their primary language, some dialect of Egyptian. Hebrew was a secondary language for them.

I don't read that passaged the way you do, but neither do most other apologists. Listen!

Concerning the language ... and writing techniques of the Book of Mormon, Daniel Peterson has concluded that "most who have studied the subject concluded that this signifies writing the Hebrew language in modified Egyptian characters."

--as quoted in Aaron P. Schade, "The Kingdom of Judah: Politics, Prophets, and Scribes in the Late Preexilic Period," in Welch, Seely, and Seely, Glimpses of Lehi's Jerusalem (Provo: FARMS and BYU, 2004), 318.

Now, Will, apologists have gone through a lot of trouble to find examples of Hebrew written with Egyptian characters in the Mid-East, so don't go ruining a good thing for such a pointless argument. Who cares if Hebrew was the primary or secondary language? But this passage does not support your conclusion.

The common assumption is that the Plates of Brass were written in Hebrew. This is false, and contradicted by the Book of Mormon itself:

Mosiah 1

3 And he also taught them concerning the records which were engraven on the plates of brass, saying: My sons, I would that ye should remember that were it not for these plates, which contain these records and these commandments, we must have suffered in ignorance, even at this present time, not knowing the mysteries of God.

4 For it were not possible that our father, Lehi, could have remembered all these things, to have taught them to his children, except it were for the help of these plates; for he having been taught in the language of the Egyptians therefore he could read these engravings, and teach them to his children, that thereby they could teach them to their children, and so fulfilling the commandments of God, even down to this present time.

So, it is clear that the native language of Lehi and his descendants was something other than Hebrew. It was some dialect of Egyptian. And, we are told, the Plates of Brass were written in the "language of the Egyptians."

Will, I read this passage as saying learning Egyptian was a special thing. You left out verse 2:

Mosiah 1:2

2 And it came to pass that he had three sons; and he called their names Mosiah, and Helorum, and Helaman. And he caused that they should be taught in all the language of his fathers, that thereby they might become men of understanding; and that they might know concerning the prophecies which had been spoken by the mouths of their fathers, which were delivered them by the hand of the Lord.

This would imply that learning Egyptian was a second language that enabled them to read the plates. Benjamin's sons were different in being bilingual.

Indeed, when Moroni explains the language of the record he is finishing 1000 years down the road, he specifies: ...

It is clear that the Nephites were conscious of using a language that no one else knew.

Reformed Egyptian after 1000 years is hardly surprising, but how does that help you argument?

Now, does all of this signify that the â??â??lingua francaâ?â? of Nephite civilization was Egyptian? Not necessarily. Serious students of the Book of Mormon have always argued that the Lehites did not enter into a cultural and linguistic vacuum when they set foot on the shores of the â??â??promised land.â?â? And any casual student of linguistics understands what happens when people with two different languages merge, or even live closely one to the other. The astounding evolution of the English language over the course of the last 1000 years should give us insight into what happens to language with the passage of time.

I thought you were going to stick to the BOM? Moroni informs that he and his father chose Egyptian because of space, not because it was preferred.

Mormon 9:33

33 And if our plates had been sufficiently large we should have written in Hebrew; but the Hebrew hath been altered by us also; and if we could have written in Hebrew, behold, ye would have had no imperfection in our record.

This implies that they did write in Hebrew, probably more often than in Egyptian since it was more accurate.

That said, what we can say with near certainty is that the text of the Book of Mormon does NOT support the assumption that Hebrew was spoken and written by the descendants of Lehi, except as, at most, a secondary language.

Whatever the case may be, Hebrew was written. But neither Hebrew or Egyptian has been found in Mesoamerica. The combination of Hebrew words with Egyptian script that Nephi describes fits nicely with the beliefs of JS's contemporaries, who thought they heard Hebrew sounding words in Indian dialects and compared Mayan writing to Egyptian.

[William Schryver]

Vogel:

I didn't say this Will. Marvelous did.

You all look alike to me.

Seriously, I apologize. I donâ??t know how I got you confused with Marvelous.

Anyway, I donâ??t really intend to argue my point with you. I fully appreciate that the point of this thread does not really address your arguments on the other thread. Thatâ??s why I started a new thread. I recognize that my argument in this thread is not so much with the critics as it is with other apologists. I guess weâ??ll see if I have better luck persuading them to my point of view than I have had with you in the past.

[SlackTime]

I don't pretend to be a knowledgable about language, the middle east, or even the Book of Mormon as those who predominate this thread. But I have known modern Jews (which Lehi wasn't) but he was a member of the tribes of Israel and it seems to me that they had a very strong cultural identity.

During Christ's day the Roman's had conquered Jerusalem and the prevailing language of trade may well have been Latin, but wasn't the language of scholors in the Roman period Greek? And throughout this occupation didn't the Jews maintain their Hebrew, even if it wasn't used commonly?

I would suspect that Lehi being a merchant, was well versed in Egyptian, but that wouldn't preclude him from also knowing Hebrew. He may have even known some Aramaic, or whatever language the Persians were speaking at that time, depending on how extensive his trade routes were. I would believe that he had taught his family, at least his sons, both Hebrew and Egyptian. Now once they got to the land of promise, would they manage to maintain both languages separately? Particularly if they hadn't used the Hebrew for written text? I think the best you could hope for is some Hebraisms in the text.

As for the Brass plates being in Egyptian... Well, maybe when Joseph was a big wig in Egypt he had the scriptures written down on the Brass plates, in Egyptian. And maybe those became a tribal treasure that was preserved up to Lehi's day. *Shrug* And to preserve their historic look and feel, when they were added to (continuing Genealogy and prophetic teachings), they maintained the Egyptian.

Yep, I know it's wild off-the-wall speculation... *shrug* Maybe I'll ask Lehi when I meet him.

-SlackTime

[The_Monk]

QUOTE

What *kind* of Hebrew Lehi might have spoken is another question. Northern dialect? (That's where they were from.) An Aramaic-influenced form of Hebrew, like Jeremiah?

When Lehi and his family left the first time, it took them only three days to reach â??the borders of the Red Sea.â? If they lived in the north of Israel, they could not have made the journey so quickly. This also suggests that they lived somewhere south of Judah â?? somewhere between Jerusalem and Egypt. As for Aramaic, it was not widely spoken until after the exile â?? although it is certainly possible that Lehi (if indeed we subscribe to the Nibley theory that makes of him a nomadic trader of sorts) spoke Aramaic, which was then becoming somewhat of a â??lingua francaâ? in the Near East.

Aramaic did not become the common language of the Jews until after the exile, but it was certainly spoken somewhat in Israel before that as indicated by 2Ki 18:26/Jer 36:11. Moreover, it apparently affected something as basic as verbal conjugation, as evidenced by several forms in Jeremiah.

Also, I didn't say they *lived* in the north, but that they were not native southerners, genealogically speaking. Lehi's grandfather was probably among the refugees who moved south after the Assyrian destruction of the northern kingdom.

As to the brass plates, John Welch has proposed that they were a royal edition prepared for Josiah (hence both the material and the fact that they were under guard.) If so, it's quite possible they were in Egyptian because of the de facto Egyptian domination of Israel during Josiah's reign.

[Olavarria]

Hello Her Amun,

I actually have pretty strong feelings against Nibleyâ??s caravanneer theory. One of the reasons to reject the possibility that Lehi was a caravaneer of any sort includes the apparent fact that he did not possess tents. Lehi possesses a house, a land of inheritance, gold, silver, precious things, and a family but not provisions and tents.

A few of the arguments that John raises against Nibley's caravaneer theory include

â??A number of things done by Lehi and his party while traveling through the wilderness are, as Nibley has shown, typical of Middle Eastern nomadic peoples. But some of these â??Bedouin traitsâ? turn out to be poor evidence of Lehiâ??s traveling skills. For example, though it may be typically Bedouin to travel in the â??more fertile parts of the wildernessâ?? (1 Nephi 16:14), as Lehi did, we read that it was the Lord who led them into these areas by means of the mysterious â??ballâ?? or Liahona (1 Nephi 16:16). If Lehi were an experienced desert caravaneer, why would he need divine assistance to locate these fertile areas?

â??Lehiâ??s restricted use of fire in the wilderness is cited as another trait of desert Arabs, whose campfires might alert nearby enemies to their presence. As a consequence of this, we read that they had to eat â??raw meat in the wildernessâ?? (1 Nephi 17:2). Again, however, it was the Lord who commanded them not to build fires (1 Nephi 17:12). Would this have been necessary if Lehi were already experienced in desert travel?â? (pg. 86),

More importantly, recognizing the Book of Mormonâ??s depiction of Lehi as a sedentary Jew leads to some very important religious lessons that I would hate to surrender.

Best,

--DB

hmmmm, maybe Nibley's view was colored by the fact that he was initialy an arabist. Good points.

[DonBradley]

Don,

Who said anything about the "inhabitants of Jerusalem?" I simply quoted from the TEXT of the Book of Mormon itself those parts that tell about the language of Lehi and his family -- and the language of the Plates of Brass.

Hi Will,

Lehi and familywere inhabitants of Jerusalem--a fact repeatedly referred to in the TEXT of the Book of Mormon. And the Book of Mormon decidedly does not indicate that Egyptian was Lehi's first language, and Hebrew only a second language.

1 Nephi 1

2 Yea, I make a record in the language of my father, which consists of the learning of the Jews and the language of the Egyptians.

Will concludes from this:

What is the language of Nephi's father? The same language that Nephi is going to use to make his record. He tells us quite clearly: Lehi and his family spoke, as their primary language, some dialect of Egyptian. Hebrew was a secondary language for them.

Will isn't interested in what it might mean for "the language of my father" to include "the learning of the Jews," only it what he thinks it means for it include "the language of the Egyptians." Nephi here writes of "making a record" in the language of his father, which means he is referring to written language, suggesting, as millions of readers have understood before Will informed us otherwise, not that Lehi's first language and primary language of speech was Egyptian, but rather that Lehi and Nephi wrote their records using Egyptian characters.

Mosiah 1

3 And he also taught them concerning the records which were engraven on the plates of brass, saying: My sons, I would that ye should remember that were it not for these plates, which contain these records and these commandments, we must have suffered in ignorance, even at this present time, not knowing the mysteries of God.

4 For it were not possible that our father, Lehi, could have remembered all these things, to have taught them to his children, except it were for the help of these plates; for he having been taught in the language of the Egyptians therefore he could read these engravings, and teach them to his children, that thereby they could teach them to their children, and so fulfilling the commandments of God, even down to this present time.

Will concludes from this:

So, it is clear that the native language of Lehi and his descendants was something other than Hebrew. It was some dialect of Egyptian. And, we are told, the Plates of Brass were written in the "language of the Egyptians."

The passage in question indicates that Lehi had been tutored in the language of the Egyptians, but, contrary the spin Will wishes to place upon it, says nothing to indicate that this was his native tongue.

Since Will wants Egyptian to have been Lehi's native tongue, he fails to consider any other explanation for why the brass plates were written in Egyptian. But such an explanation is readily available, and has been discussed by several LDS scholars. In a piece with which Will is surely familiar, unless he is less well-read than he lets on, John Sorenson proposed some thirty years ago that the brass plates were written in Egyptian because they were begun in Egyptian. Sorenson argued that these plates "could have begun as early as the visit of [Abraham] to Egypt and certainly no later than the time of Joseph, the Egyptian vizier ("The 'Brass Plates' and Biblical Scholarship," Dialogue 10 [Autumn 1977]: 36). That the brass plates originated with Joseph "of Egypt" has also been separately suggested by Daniel N. Rolph and Brett L. Holbrook, both in Volume 2, No. 1 of the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies. This origin would explain the keeping of the brass plates in Egyptian writing without reference to Will's hypothesis that Lehi (and apparently Laban and who knows how many other Manassehites, Ephraimites, and Jerusalem Jews) had Egyptian as their native tongue.

Mormon 9:

32 And now, behold, we have written this record according to our knowledge, in the characters which are called among us the reformed Egyptian, being handed down and altered by us, according to our manner of speech.

33 And if our plates had been sufficiently large we should have written in Hebrew; but the Hebrew hath been altered by us also; and if we could have written in Hebrew, behold, ye would have had no imperfection in our record.

34 But the Lord knoweth the things which we have written, and also that none other people knoweth our language; and because that none other people knoweth our language, therefore he hath prepared means for the interpretation thereof.

Will asserts that verse 33 "tells us nothing about the language spoken among the people," and that verse 34 further suggests that their spoken language was not Hebrew, since their language was known only to themselves.

Let's look at what we learn from the text:

1) The plates were written in Egyptian characters, altered somewhat to communicate the Nephite "manner of speech."

2) Despite the recording of both the brass and golden plates in Egyptian characters, Hebrew was still in use among the Nephites a full millennium after Lehi's departure from Jerusalem, though it also had been "altered."

3) Hebrew characters would have been better suited to conveying the Book of Mormon's message than were Egyptian characters. Egyptian characters were used because of space considerations, but Hebrew characters would have been preferrable and would have communicated the message so much more clearly that there would have been "no imperfection" in the record.

4) The language in which the plates were recorded was known to no other people, and thus needed to be divinely interpreted for their understanding.

Far from supporting Will's assertion that Egyptian was the native tongue of Lehi and his descendants, the text indicates that the Nephites continued to use their alleged "secondary" language Hebrew throughout their milliennium-long existence; that the golden plates were written in Egyptian characters for reasons of space alone; that Egyptian characters communicated the authors' message relatively weakly, while Hebrew characters would have conveyed it "perfectly"; and that the Egyptian characters apparently used to represent meanings from another tongue could be interpreted only supernaturally because of the modified and likely hybrid nature of this language.

How does the use of Egyptian characters in a sacred record indicate the day-to-day use of spoken Egyptian? How does the use of Egyptian characters as a compromise for space purposes indicate the use of Egyptian as the native tongue? And if Hebrew characters would convey the meanings of the base language "perfectly," while Egyptian characters convey them only "imperfectly" and sub-optimally, is the base language more likely a form of Hebrew, or a form of Egyptian?

Edit: Don's reply is a classic example of what we face when dealing with critics who argue on the basis of their assumptions rather than from what the text of the Book of Mormon actually says. It makes you wonder if any of these people ever even read the book when they were active members.

For Will to impute ignorance of the Book of Mormon text to those who disagree with his view that Lehi and his family were native speakers of Egyptian and only secondary speakers of Hebrew is both absurd and disingenuous. The great majority of careful readers of the text have failed to share Will's view.

Will's "and thus we see" editorial here is thus a classic example of what we face with a new breed of apologists who are suddenly able to as perfectly obvious in the Book of Mormon text what was quite invisible to myriads of believers who read the book before them. It makes you wonder if these apologists aren't reading the book, not to mention online message boards, in a dialect of English entirely of their own creation. Perhaps their writings should carry a disclaimer, "Behold, English hath been altered among us also."

Don Bradley

[DonBradley]

David et. al.,

I think you're missing my point.

Funny, Will, how all these believers not only can't see your views in the Book of Mormon itself, according to you they can't even get them when they have you to guide them through the text. Kind of makes you wonder if all believing parties to this discussion have even read the Book of Mormon.

Yes, Lehi preached to the Jews. Well, I preached to the Italians, but neither I nor my children use Italian in our conversations, in our journal writing, etc.

Since I'm sure you wouldn't use a sloppy analogy, may I assume that you "have dwelt at Rome in all your days" and that it is "the land of your inheritance," Mr. Schryver?

Don

[DonBradley]

Concerning the language ... and writing techniques of the Book of Mormon, Daniel Peterson has concluded that "most who have studied the subject concluded that this signifies writing the Hebrew language in modified Egyptian characters."

--as quoted in Aaron P. Schade, "The Kingdom of Judah: Politics, Prophets, and Scribes in the Late Preexilic Period," in Welch, Seely, and Seely, Glimpses of Lehi's Jerusalem (Provo: FARMS and BYU, 2004), 318.

These critical misrepresentations must stop! I suggest FAIR prepare a rebuttal at once.

Dan Vogel, a prominent critic apologist? (it's so hard to tell the difference these days) wrote:

Will, I read this passage as saying learning Egyptian was a special thing. You left out verse 2:

QUOTE

Mosiah 1:2

2 And it came to pass that he had three sons; and he called their names Mosiah, and Helorum, and Helaman. And he caused that they should be taught in all the language of his fathers, that thereby they might become men of understanding; and that they might know concerning the prophecies which had been spoken by the mouths of their fathers, which were delivered them by the hand of the Lord.

This would imply that learning Egyptian was a second language that enabled them to read the plates. Benjamin's sons were different in being bilingual.

Will responded to this, and Dan's other arguments with this invincible refutation: I wasn't talking to you anyway!

Don

[William Schryver]

Don Bradley spends considerable time ignoring my central argument, which (as I made clear after my initial post) is that the language of Lehi’s fathers was Egyptian. I will confess to having framed the question poorly in my initial post – but I subsequently clarified things. However, Don was apparently not willing to follow the thread before he made his replies. Therefore, for his benefit, I will reiterate my argument:

In 1 Nephi 3, we read:

1 Nephi 3

11 ... and Laman went in unto the house of Laban, and he talked with him as he sat in his house.

12 And he desired of Laban the records which were engraven upon the plates of brass, which contained the genealogy of my father.

...

19 And behold, it is wisdom in God that we should obtain these records, that we may preserve unto our children the language of our fathers;

20 And also that we may preserve unto them the words which have been spoken by the mouth of all the holy prophets, which have been delivered unto them by the Spirit and power of God, since the world began, even down unto this present time.

My reaction is as follows:

1) Why is the genealogy of Lehi being kept in conjunction with an archival copy of the Jewish scriptures engraved on brass plates using Egyptian script?

2) Nephi states explicitly that they sought these particular plates for the express purpose of preserving unto their children the language of their fathers.

3) Nephi also makes a clear distinction between the "language" of the plates and the "content" of the plates -- in other words, they are not synonymous concepts in his mind. These particular plates are being sought in order that they might preserve unto their children the language of their fathers -- AND so that they can preserve unto them the words of the scriptures themselves.

When we read the following about King Mosiah:

Mosiah 1

2 And it came to pass that he had three sons; and he called their names Mosiah, and Helorum, and Helaman. And he caused that they should be taught in all the language of his fathers, that thereby they might become men of understanding; and that they might know concerning the prophecies which had been spoken by the mouths of their fathers, which were delivered them by the hand of the Lord.

3 And he also taught them concerning the records which were engraven on the plates of brass, saying: My sons, I would that ye should remember that were it not for these plates, which contain these records and these commandments, we must have suffered in ignorance, even at this present time, not knowing the mysteries of God.

4 For it were not possible that our father, Lehi, could have remembered all these things, to have taught them to his children, except it were for the help of these plates; for he having been taught in the language of the Egyptians therefore he could read these engravings, and teach them to his children, that thereby they could teach them to their children, and so fulfilling the commandments of God, even down to this present time.

We learn several significant things:

1) He makes a distinction between the actual “language” of his fathers and the content of the sacred scriptures. Vogel and Bradley would have us believe that Mosiah taught them the “language of his fathers” and also the Egyptian script in which the plates of brass are written – that these verses are speaking of two different languages. It may be so, but the text does not compel that conclusion. And, it does not follow at all that the “language of his fathers” in this respect was Hebrew. Whatever the common vernacular was in the time of Mosiah, it most certainly bore no resemblance to whatever Nephi spoke 500 years previously. In any event, I interpret verse 3 as simply a statement that, after they had been instructed in the rudiments of the language itself, Mosiah made sure that they put their learning to good use by applying themselves to reading the scriptures, that they would not suffer in ignorance, “not knowing the mysteries of God.”

2) He makes it clear that the plates of brass were written in Egyptian.

3) He informs us that Lehi taught Egyptian to his children, who taught their children, and so on and so on … “even down to this present time.” Mosiah is telling us that they have been maintaining this knowledge of Egyptian for almost 500 years.

In conclusion, my argument is that when Lehi and Nephi speak of the “language of our fathers,” they are talking about Egyptian.

Why would 7th century B.C. Palestinian Jews have descended from a line that spoke and wrote in Egyptian? I’m not sure. That is the question. There had been a nominal Jewish presence in Egypt for centuries, and Elephantine had a Jewish military outpost at least as early as when the Jews supported Egypt during the reign of King Manasseh, around 650 B.C.

Why would someone have gone to the trouble of maintaining a copy of the Jewish scriptures in Egyptian, on brass plates (of all things!) right down to the time of Jeremiah? I don’t know. But for whatever reason, we know that the people who did it were related to Lehi; they were his progenitors, and they had also included their own genealogy in this archival metallic copy of the scriptures.

[myleague]

Just a quick question...

Mormon 9

33 And if our plates had been sufficiently large we should have written in Hebrew; but the Hebrew hath been altered by us also; and if we could have written in Hebrew, behold, ye would have had no imperfection in our record.

If written in Hebrew there would be no imperfections, wouldn't oneâ??s conclusion be that Hebrew would be the fluent and more used language? It clearly states that they are at the very least bi-lingual, and that the reformed Egyptian language was more efficient for keeping records with limited space. Seems to me like knowing English and the 26 letters in the alphabet compared to Japanese and their 1000â??s of kanji. Up front it would seem the simpler more compact English alphabet would be better to explain history without wasting space, yet with a vast library of kanji one symbol could sum up sentences of English writing. Much like Egyptian hieroglyphic symbols would save more space than writing lengthy sentences, paragraphs.

Could the forms of Hebrew differ much like the languages of the American Indians? Lehi was Hebrew, but he was not Jewish, would the traditions, cultures and languages have varied from tribe to tribe (Levi, Judah, Manasseh, etc...)?

(edited in)

Lehi was from the tribe of Manasseh, who was the son of Joseph, who's wife (Asenath) was Egyptian. It could quite literally be the language of Lehi's father's as they are of a mixed descent.

[William Schryver]

SlackTime:

I would suspect that Lehi being a merchant, was well versed in Egyptian, but that wouldn't preclude him from also knowing Hebrew. He may have even known some Aramaic, or whatever language the Persians were speaking at that time, depending on how extensive his trade routes were.

Of course, we donâ??t actually know that Lehi was a merchant, or a trader, or even that he traveled extensively. That is an assumption that has taken root on account of Nibleyâ??s arguments in Lehi in the Wilderness. It may be true, but ironically a large number of â??post-Nibleyâ? LDS scholars seem to disagree with his reasoning and arguments in that respect.

To me, the question is whether or not Egyptian was indeed the language of Lehiâ??s fathers, as is stated in the Book of Mormon (1 Nephi 3:19-20). If we interpret this passage literally, it would seem to alter significantly our perception of who Lehi was, as also our assumptions about what language was ultimately spoken/written by the Nephites once they arrived in the â??promised land.â?

Again I ask: why would the Lord have commanded Lehi to obtain a set of plates, written in Egyptian, containing the Jewish scriptures, if the preferred language of Lehi and his family was not Egyptian? Obviously, Nephi had the skill to make plates. Why not simply obtain a copy of the Jewish scriptures in Hebrew, and then transfer them to newly-constructed plates? What is the significance of the fact that the Lord commanded Lehi to obtain these plates written in Egyptian? Why does Lehi state that these plates are written in the â??language of our fathers?â? Why did they seek them in order to â??preserve unto our childrenâ? this language of their fathers? That, to me, is the mystery.

[Greg Smith]

Will's "and thus we see" editorial here is thus a classic example of what we face with a new breed of apologists who are suddenly able to as perfectly obvious in the Book of Mormon text what was quite invisible to myriads of believers who read the book before them. It makes you wonder if these apologists aren't reading the book, not to mention online message boards, in a dialect of English entirely of their own creation. Perhaps their writings should carry a disclaimer, "Behold, English hath been altered among us also."

Don Bradley

This seems to betray a rather strange ignorance of the way texts are read and interpreted.

The Bible texts have been read, dissected, and examined for centuries. Yet, readers still manage to find new ways to read texts, and new insights into the texts.

The same is true of a variety of non religious texts. One thinks of Homer's Iliad and Odyssey, which have been at the foundations of the western canon for millenia, and yet still remain objects of study and insight. Likewise Shakespare, Milton, or any of dozens of other examples.

This is, in fact, a classic example of the Mormon critic tendency to insist that the earliest, most naive reading of the text MUST be the one to which all other Mormons are ever after bound. Of course, that view fits well with the 'pious fiction' or 'frontier forgery' model. Taking the Book of Mormon and what it says seriously is anathema, and definitely to be avoided.

This doesn't mean that a new reading must be correct. But, readers often presume texts say what they think they say, and that can blind us to different ways of viewing the same data. That is especially true of those who are determined to minimize and denigrate those texts because the implications of sophisticated texts are more troubling than yokel fiction.

Best,

Greg