Did Lehi And His Family Speak Hebrew?

[poulsenll]

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

My 2 cents worth exactly.

Larry P

[Theophilus07]

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.

Then why all the apologetic arguments about all the Hebraicisms being proof of the historiocity of the BoM? Won't you now have to dump all the apologetics about hebraicisms?

Theophilus07

[William Schryver]

Then why all the apologetic arguments about all the Hebraicisms being proof of the historiocity of the BoM? Won't you now have to dump all the apologetics about hebraicisms?

Theophilus07

I wasn't aware of anyone suggesting that Hebraicisms are proof of the historicity of the Book of Mormon. Could you please cite some instance of this?

And besides, Egyptian and Hebrew constructs are very similar. And the basic primer for their language was the plates of brass, which were the Jewish scriptures translated (or some say, transliterated -- though I can't see the point of that) into Egyptian. Egyptian would have preserved anything you might characterize as a "Hebraicism" -- things like chiasmus and if/and constructs -- just as those things are preserved in English. It is the "learning of the Jews" part of the equation that would determine whether or not Hebraicisms were found in the text.

And I'm not aware of apologists ever denying that the plates of brass were written in Egyptian -- how could they? It is stated clearly in Mosiah 1. The only twist I'm putting on the "conventional wisdom" is whether or not we are to take 1 Nephi 3:19-20 literally. I contend that we should.

[DonBradley]

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

This post betrays a strange ignorance of the one to which it putatively responds. See my comments below.

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.

All true, and great, Greg; but entirely irrelevant to my post. My response was to Will's insistence that the Book of Mormon text clearly indicated that Lehi's native language was Egyptian, and that my failure to see this called into question whether I'd ever read the text. I called Will's bluff by pointing out that myriad Latter-day Saints reading the text prior to Will have shared in my failure to read it in his obviously correct way. His insinuation that I'm unfamiliar with the text thus tars them with the same brush. Despite Will's rhetorical flourish, one need be neither ignorant nor ill-intentioned to read the text differently than he does.

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.

This is the second time on the thread that I've been used as a "classic example" of the "critic's" erroneous ways, and this second one is preposterous just like the first. If I had argued that Mormons were bound by earlier interpretations, this might indeed be a "classic example" of such argument; but I didn't. I argued only against Will's disingenuous posture that to disagree with his reading was to call into question one's familiarity with the Book of Mormon text. I invoked the majority interpretation of myriad earlier readers to puncture this pomposity.

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.

Actually, responding to Will's posturing fits well with any model of the book's origin. Will's insistence on the ignorance of those who disagree him is misguided no matter how the Book of Mormon originated.

This doesn't mean that a new reading must be correct.

Of course not. Nor does its being new mean it must not be correct. The reading must be judged on its own merits. I've provided specific textual data pointing the opposite direction from Will's reading, i.e., arguing the merits of the reading. And I've also responded particularly to Will's insinuation of other readers' ignorance. I'm sorry that you can't distinguish the two.

But, readers often presume texts say what they think they say, and that can blind us to different ways of viewing the same data.

Indeed, such expectation with regard to the Book of Mormon text blinds some of us so much that we think those who disagree must never have read the texts, while similar expectation regarding what "critics" say blinds others to reading their arguments with a scintilla of understanding.

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.

All I have been determined to minimize and denigrate in this thread is Will's silly cut against my familiarity with the Book of Mormon on the grounds that I disagreed with his reading.

So far as my views on the sophistication of the Book of Mormon, you obviously have no idea what you're talking about.

Far from endorsing the hackneyed view that the Book of Mormon is simplistic and that there is nothing to explain, I have written repeatedly on this board regarding what I consider the fiendish complexity of the Book of Mormon, and have criticized the available secular theories of the Book of Mormon as falling flat and failing to explain much of anything.

But you wouldn't have read my posts here as consistent with such a view because you weren't really reading my views at all. You were forcing "classic criticisms" into my posts to the exclusion of my own meanings. Surprisingly, Larry Poulsen did the same.

If you're going to bother reading my posts, you'd may as well try to read them as intended, and not shoehorn them, at the cost of several toes, into critical slippers that just don't fit.

Don

[William Schryver]

Don Bradley:

My response was to Will's insistence that the Book of Mormon text clearly indicated that Lehi's native language was Egyptian,

If you had spent less time in your dramatic affectation of being offended and a little more time actually following the thread, you would have noted that I quickly amended my initial statement to a more conservative argument that the language of Lehi's fathers was Egyptian. It was rash of me to argue that it was Lehi's primary language, based on the text of the BoM, and I quickly changed my stance. That said, I still think that people have failed to give the proper attention to what Lehi and Nephi said about the language of their progenitors. They clearly stated that the language of their fathers was Egyptian.

Now, if you disagree, and if you think it is possible for you to shake free of your sense of being offended long enough to actually read the posts, I would be interested in your opinion. Otherwise you'd probably be happier playing elsewhere.

If you want to play here, start with the post I made early this morning. The one that begins "Don Bradley ..."

[DonBradley]

Will,

My previous posts were largely a response to your early salvo on my supposed ignorance of the text, but also partly a response to your specific arguments that Hebrew was probably not the spoken language of the Nephites while Egyptian probably was.

I haven't fully digested your thoughts on Egyptian as the language of Lehi's fathers, and will probably be mulling them over for some time. However, I think you are very probably right, at least as far as the written language of Lehi's fathers is concerned.

I'll offer my present thoughts below:

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?

I wouldn't extrapolate too far with this. The report that Lehi's genealogy was in the text doesn't mean that the genealogy traced down to Lehi in particular (as opposed to his ancestors a few generations back) or that Lehi's genealogy was uniquely or even prominently featured among the genealogies traced in the book. As mentioned previously, the brass plates have been argued to be a record of the family of Joseph. The record's connection to Lehi may be no more tangible than his being of a surviving Josephite line. The brass plates may well have been understood (whether anciently or just by Joseph Smith) as a record begun by Joseph "of Egypt" himself, and thus recorded in Egyptian. Of course, its continued recording in Egyptian would indicate that the use of Egyptian became a Josephite tradition, perhaps accounting for Egyptian (at least in its written form) as "the language of [Lehi's] fathers."

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

This is probably your strongest argument. Since the brass plates were engraved with Egyptian characters, the use of these plates to preserve the language of Lehi's and Nephi's father's almost certainly indicates that language of their fathers either was Egyptian or included Egyptian characters.

When we read the following about King Mosiah:

We learn several significant things:

1) He makes a distinction between the actual â??languageâ? of his fathers and the content of the sacred scriptures. Vogel and Bradley would have us believe that Mosiah taught them the â??language of his fathersâ? and also the Egyptian script in which the plates of brass are written â?? that these verses are speaking of two different languages.

Actually, my view has been that "all the language of his fathers" included both spoken Hebrew and written Egyptian.

It may be so, but the text does not compel that conclusion. And, it does not follow at all that the â??language of his fathersâ? 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, â??not knowing the mysteries of God.â?

As I recall, it was verse 2, rather than verse 3, on which Dan and I based our view that learning the language of the brass plates was exceptional rather than typical. And this still seems to me to be the case.

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

Decidedly clear!

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

Yes, though there is nothing to indicate that this knowledge was passed down among the people generally. And it should be noted that Hebrew was also preserved for some 1000 years, despite its absence (at least in written form) from the plates; and was the preferred language at the end of that millennium.

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

I would qualify this. The language of their fathers either was Egyptian or included the use of Egyptian characters. I don't see anything to rule out the latter, since all references to Egyptian either clearly specify written Egyptian (characters) or are consistent with the use of Egyptian characters only.

Why would 7th century B.C. Palestinian Jews have descended from a line that spoke and wrote in Egyptian? Iâ??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 donâ??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.

These interesting questions pertain to Lehi's fathers, but not so much to his descendants. That Lehi's fathers are said to have had Egyptian as, or as part of, their language doesn't indicate that Lehi's descendants at large knew any form of Egyptian, much less spoke it.

And Mormon 9 has been adduced by David Bokovoy and others (including me) to show that Hebrew was the preferred and, it is implied, the "perfect" script for communicating the Book of Mormon. This strongly implies that the base language to be communicated via this script either was Hebrew or was significantly more akin to Hebrew than to Egyptian. I find this strong evidence for an "altered" Hebrew as the spoken language of the Nephites.

However, on the point that Egyptian was or was part of the language of Lehi' fathers, I think you've done an excellent job of marshalling and reading the textual evidence. I've learned from your thoughts, and hope you'll do more with them in the future.

Don

[DonBradley]

Don Bradley:

If you had spent less time in your dramatic affectation of being offended and a little more time actually following the thread, you would have noted that I quickly amended my initial statement to a more conservative argument that the language of Lehi's fathers was Egyptian. It was rash of me to argue that it was Lehi's primary language, based on the text of the BoM, and I quickly changed my stance.

Will,

I could, of course, chide you similarly. If you had been less quick to draw didactic lessons from your misreading of my initial post, we might have avoided the entire meta-discussion. And I am not to blame for your rashness in laying out your initial argument, nor am I obliged to watch for your later arguments before responding to your earlier ones. Anything you post is fair game for discussion on this discussion board.

BTW, I just responded to your post of this morning. So, if you'd been a little more patient before taking another swipe, you wouldn't have needed to at all.

All rhetoric and repartee aside, I do think you've offered solid contributions on this issue. That the language of Lehi and his fathers included Egyptian characters, at the least, seems quite clear to me now.

Don

[Theophilus07]

I wasn't aware of anyone suggesting that Hebraicisms are proof of the historicity of the Book of Mormon. Could you please cite some instance of this?

I admire your audacity, Will, but how do you think this makes your fellow apologists feel, those who have put so much time and effort into heartfelt demonstrations of Hebraicisms as defense of the BoM and thus the faith. I cringe to think of the pain your statement above will cause them.

It's no use pretending Hebraicisms are not used by apologists as proof/evidence of the historiocity of the BoM. Readers can use Google as I have to find the following proof positive (among many others).

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/display.ph...view&id=261

Chiasmus in Antiquity, John Welch, editor, Research Press reprint, 1999

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/display.ph...view&id=146

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/display.ph...view&id=545

Theophilus07

[Greg Smith]

I called Will's bluff by pointing out that myriad Latter-day Saints reading the text prior to Will have shared in my failure to read it in his obviously correct way. His insinuation that I'm unfamiliar with the text thus tars them with the same brush. Despite Will's rhetorical flourish, one need be neither ignorant nor ill-intentioned to read the text differently than he does.

I think Will clearly clarified his intent, regarding Lehi's language, so I'll leave that to him.

Of course one need not be ignorant or ill-intentioned to read it one way. But, it is likewise silly to insist that simply because everyone else always read something one way, the text may not clearly speak in a different way that has simply gone unappreciated. Unless we know everything about the text, this is bound to happen at some point.

This is the second time on the thread that I've been used as a "classic example" of the "critic's" erroneous ways, and this second one is preposterous just like the first. If I had argued that Mormons were bound by earlier interpretations, this might indeed be a "classic example" of such argument; but I didn't. I argued only against Will's disingenuous posture that to disagree with his reading was to call into question one's familiarity with the Book of Mormon text. I invoked the majority interpretation of myriad earlier readers to puncture this pomposity.

One may be very familiar, and yet totally misread. Indeed, being familiar often means that we WILL misread, because we see what we THINK is there, not what IS there. (And, if you're accused of something twice, one might just consider that possibly you aren't communicating your intent as clearly as you might need to.)

And, one must qualify "familiar." The Book of Mormon does not enjoy a very long history of engagement with its text at all, much less a critical one on the 'peripheral' issues such as Will is discussing. Indeed, I would think it surprising if all other readers had not sometimes failed to notice some things about it.

I'm sorry that you can't distinguish the two.

Flattery will get you no where.

So far as my views on the sophistication of the Book of Mormon, you obviously have no idea what you're talking about.

I'm delighted to hear it. Perhaps my confusion stems from the fact that your stance seems somewhat contradictory, as I outline below.

Far from endorsing the hackneyed view that the Book of Mormon is simplistic and that there is nothing to explain, I have written repeatedly on this board regarding what I consider the fiendish complexity of the Book of Mormon, and have criticized the available secular theories of the Book of Mormon as falling flat and failing to explain much of anything.

Given the book's "fiendish complexity," I would presume then that it is entirely possible for everyone else to read the text and even be deeply familiar with it, and yet miss something even quite overt. That was my point, with which I'm glad to see we agree.

Thus, when you write stuff like this:

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.

...it doesn't make much sense. If the text is "fiendishly complex," what shame (or surprise) is there in the fact that "the great majority of careful readers of the text have failed to share Will's view"? Isn't that going to be the case with ANY novel, but true reading of a complex text?

And, if so, then it still strikes me as a lousy and (to be frank) arrogant argument to use.

Likewise, this:

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.

Again, in a fiendishly complex book, is it any wonder that someone might "suddenly" see something absolutely novel, which had eluded everyone else? Do you not find it plausible that someone might conclude that if you're disparaging novel readings, you don't think the text is complex or ambiguous enough to admit of such novel readings?

(I apologize for not reading several months worth of your posts before drawing what seemed like a reasonable conclusion from a rather strange argument. Why make the argument against novelty if you think you can make and argument against Will's reading from the text itself? Why go for the argument from the majority opinion?)

I've no quarrel with you disagreeing with a reading and adducing other evidence from the text to support your view. I don't believe I said anything about that.

What strikes me as strange is the attitude that because the reading you're arguing against is novel and not previously well-argued (or believed) it is therefore deserving of a rather mocking cynicism.

If you're going to bother reading my posts, you'd may as well try to read them as intended

I apologize for causing offense. But, have you considered that how you INTENDED to be read may not be how they came across, as illustrated above?

Charity would suggest that it is wiser to presume I innocently misunderstood you, rather than wickedly ignored everything you said and twisted your words for my own nefarious purposes.

In fact, one might argue that my reading was blindingly obvious, even if previously unperceived by such a careful reader and writer as yourself.

Apologies again,

Greg

[Greg Smith]

I admire your audacity, Will, but how do you think this makes your fellow apologists feel, those who have put so much time and effort into heartfelt demonstrations of Hebraicisms as defense of the BoM and thus the faith. I cringe to think of the pain your statement above will cause them.

It's no use pretending Hebraicisms are not used by apologists as proof/evidence of the historiocity of the BoM. Readers can use Google as I have to find the following proof positive (among many others).

[snip]

Theophilus07

I think Will's point was that apologists have used Hebrew linguistic structures as "evidence" but not as proof. Those are two different things.

I don't think any apolgist would argue that there is "proof" that the Book of Mormon is ancient. They would argue (and have) that the existence of Hebraisms is _evidence_. They are data points for the propositions, but do not intellectually compel agreement.

I looked at the first link, and certainly saw nothing about "proof." I've likewise read Welch, for example, and don't recall him ever claiming that he'd "proved" the Book of Mormon true; he's merely found evidence that he feels supports that stance.

Indeed, in a paper that speaks directly to this issue:

John W. Welch, "What Does Chiasmus in the Book of Mormon Prove?" in Book of Mormon Authorship Revisited, ed. Noel Reynolds (Provo, Utah: FARMS, 1997), 199–224 (emphasis and italics added throughout)

Welch writes:

Assuming that a text manifests a high degree of chiasticity by solidly satisfying objective criteria that are generally agreed upon as the factors that are present in a clearly chiastic passage, what does the presence of this literary pattern in that text prove? Of what is it evidence? As I hope to show in the following discussion, the existence of chiasmus in a text proves many things...

...it is possible to be more specific about the evidentiary value of chiasmus in the Book of Mormon. Because chiasmus is a complex phenomenon- in some ways objective and in other ways subjective-what is proved by chiasmus cannot be described simplistically.

...Chiastic analysis displays the orderliness of the text, proving that the text is not chaotic, random, or devoid of form.

...the presence of chiasmus demonstrates that a text is relatively complex. Some readers form an opinion about a book, that it is either simple or profound.

...Furthermore, the presence of chiasmus can help one identify textual units within the text. Chiasmus is evidence that some of the text was composed in idea units, although one may not always be sure when or why or by whom the archaic units were created.

...Moreover, the presence of chiasmus may prove that the text is artistically pleasing.

...the presence of chiasmus may be evidence of the content and meaning of a passage. Form is often linked with content.

...the presence of chiasmus may prove something about the authors of these passages.

...chiasmus can provide evidence of multiple authorship in the Book of Mormon to the extent that one can conclude that the writings of a certain author use chiasmus consistently and distinctly from the writings other authors.

...Chiasmus may also prove things about the intellectual history or artistic movements from time to time within Nephite culture and society. For example, because chiasmus aids people in memorization, its presence may disclose something about a people's dependence on oral transmission of teachings and stories.

...the presence of chiasmus in the Book of Mormon offers evidence to confirm that this text was in fact compiled and abridged from underlying records, as the book claims.

...the presence of chiasmus in the Book of Mormon is certainly consistent with its claim of Israelite origins.

...if the Book of Mormon did not contain chiasmus, one would undoubtedly count this against the book as a glaring deficiency. If the absence of chiasmus would be inconsistent with its claim of Israelite origins, then the presence of chiasmus in the Book of Mormon is, at least to an equal extent, evidence corroborating that claim.

...For the time being, chiasmus offers good evidence that the Book of Mormon is strongly plausible in its claim of Israelite origin. Where this evidence would land in terms of its degree or strength of probability, however, is open to subjective evaluation. While one should not overstate the force and effect of this evidence, neither should one understate it.

...Occasionally, chiasmus combines with other factors to provide additional evidence that the Book of Mormon was translated from an underlying Hebrew text.

...As evidence of Book of Mormon authorship, the discovery of biblical-style chiasms in the Book of Mormon strongly tends to reduce the probability that Joseph Smith or any of his contemporaries could have written the book

...Obviously much work remains to be done before we will come to a full assessment of the weight to be given to this evidence with respect to various inquiries about the book. Chiasmus provides probative information that helps to answer numerous questions about the Book of Mormon. It may not prove absolutely that the Book of Mormon is or is not anything in particular, but then it is rarely the case that evidence of any kind ever produces results that conclusive. Evidence is simply an indication of, a probing of, things not seen. With these elements in mind, the study of chiasmus in the Book of Mormon will undoubtedly continue to be a valuable tool in probing or proving the texts of the Book of Mormon and their possible meanings.

Thus, the only "proof" I see Welch arguing is the book is not chaotic or devoid of form, which I take it is not under debate. Everything else is about probabilities, evidence, pieces of the puzzle.

In my experience, that has been the use to which Hebraisms have been put.

I see two that the other two links are more of the same: evidence, not proof.

From the first (Hamblin):

Metcalfe's failed efforts thus actually provide additional evidence that the extended and complex chiasms in the Book of Mormon are indeed excellent evidence for—but lest Metcalfe misunderstand me, I must add, not an "objective indicator" of—the antiquity of the Book of Mormon.

And the second (Clark) at http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/display.ph...view&id=545

only seems to talk about "chiasms" as a misreading by Allen of Stellae--not clearly something that Clark thinks is evidence of much of anything related to the Book of Mormon. The term "chiasmus" and "proof" are not found in the text at all.

Clark says:

It is interesting that a world tree or tree of life is involved, but it does not constitute direct evidence of the Book of Mormon. What it does demonstrate, however, is that other Mesoamerican peoples living alongside the Nephites shared some of the same metaphors and images as the Nephites. In other words, the Nephite record is not out of place in this cultural setting.

Faith, faith is an island in the setting sun

But proof yeah

Proof is the bottom line for everyone

- Paul Simon, "Proof," Rhythm of the Saints (1990).

Best,

Greg

[DonBradley]

Hi Greg,

The posts of mine to which you refer can only be understood in the context of Will's first response to me:

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.

If you take exception to what the text says, then cite the error.

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.

I had, with a good deal of sarcasm, objected to the "native"language of the Jerusalemite family of Lehi being Egyptian. When I received in response the insinuation that this "classic example" of the "critics" approach suggested I had not read the Book of Mormon, I took it that Will saw his reading of "the language of my fathers" being native language as sufficiently clear that anyone who disagreed had no familiarity with the book.

Admittedly, I didn't come into the discussion all sweetness and light!! My initial post was sarcastic to the hilt. From experience with Will's own sweet disposition a good while back, I thought this would be a fitting way to engage him. In so doing, I underestimated both his ability to constructively dialogue and the quality of his thought.

Of course one need not be ignorant or ill-intentioned to read it one way. But, it is likewise silly to insist that simply because everyone else always read something one way, the text may not clearly speak in a different way that has simply gone unappreciated. Unless we know everything about the text, this is bound to happen at some point.

Absolutely.

(And, if you're accused of something twice, one might just consider that possibly you aren't communicating your intent as clearly as you might need to.)

It can indicate this, and in this case might. It might also indicate that in reading the thoughts of "critics," some LDS participants don't expect to see anything new or reasonable and therefore assimilate what they read to what they expect to read.

Given the book's "fiendish complexity," I would presume then that it is entirely possible for everyone else to read the text and even be deeply familiar with it, and yet miss something even quite overt.

Undoubtedly this is the case. But would finding such things be grounds for insinuating that those who hadn't previously seen them had likely not really read the Book of Mormon?

It would seem that you've still missed my point.

Thus, when you write stuff like this:

...it doesn't make much sense. If the text is "fiendishly complex," what shame (or surprise) is there in the fact that "the great majority of careful readers of the text have failed to share Will's view"? Isn't that going to be the case with ANY novel, but true reading of a complex text?

And, if so, then it still strikes me as a lousy and (to be frank) arrogant argument to use.

Greg, I was quite clear in my last post, if not before then, about what I was responding to. There is absolutely no shame in developing a novel reading!!!!! I didn't object to Will's reading on the grounds of its novelty. I objected to Will's personal slam against my familiarity with the BoM on the grounds that the slam would also apply to many LDS who have obviously been quite familiar with the text.

Likewise, this:

Again, in a fiendishly complex book, is it any wonder that someone might "suddenly" see something absolutely novel, which had eluded everyone else? Do you not find it plausible that someone might conclude that if you're disparaging novel readings, you don't think the text is complex or ambiguous enough to admit of such novel readings?

(I apologize for not reading several months worth of your posts before drawing what seemed like a reasonable conclusion from a rather strange argument. Why make the argument against novelty if you think you can make and argument against Will's reading from the text itself? Why go for the argument from the majority opinion?)

I've no quarrel with you disagreeing with a reading and adducing other evidence from the text to support your view. I don't believe I said anything about that.

What strikes me as strange is the attitude that because the reading you're arguing against is novel and not previously well-argued (or believed) it is therefore deserving of a rather mocking cynicism.

I apologize for causing offense. But, have you considered that how you INTENDED to be read may not be how they came across, as illustrated above?

What is there to respond to when you've not understood anything I've written?

Charity would suggest that it is wiser to presume I innocently misunderstood you, rather than wickedly ignored everything you said and twisted your words for my own nefarious purposes.

Charity would also suggest reading another's words for what they say. I didn't accuse you of nefarious purposes. In fact, I chalked up your misreading of me to your past experience with other nonbelievers. I'm not those other folks to whom you've assimilated me, and am not saying what you hear them saying through me. But you rather uncharitably attribute to me the view that you "wickedly ignored everything I said and twisted my words for your own nefarious purposes."

In fact, one might argue that my reading was blindingly obvious, even if previously unperceived by such a careful reader and writer as yourself.

Hmm. I'm not sure how to take this.

Apologies again,

Between the apology and the accusation in your post, I'll have to believe the latter was the more sincere.

If you'd care to discuss the substance of this thread, I'd be happy to. But I'm worn out with the various metadiscussions. I'll give you the parting words on that subject, if you'd care to take them.

Don

[SlackTime]

SlackTime:

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.

Of course you are right, I have been corrupted by those "true" fiction books by David Woolley. Fun reading btw...

Anyway, back to the question...

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?

I can think of a lot of reasons, like I said, being of the tribe of Joseph, the egyptian sojourn would have greater relevance for the tribe and family than it did for any of the other tribes. (And when I say tribe of Joseph, I am purposely referring to both the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh.) So while the other tribes would tend to talk only about the "badness" of their sojourn in Egypt, the Josephites would actually have some good to say and remember about the sojourn. Thus I think that if any tribe held heirlooms from the Egyptian period it would have been the Josephites. I think it is entirely likely that Joseph had the scriptures and genealogies put on brass plates in egyptian. And I can believe that the tribe maintained them that way in honor of Joseph even when Egyptian was no longer the prevalent language. I can also believe that tribal elders were "schooled" in Egyptian in order to perpetuate the family history and in order to honor their great progenitor Joseph. Even if, and especially if, it was not the language of the society. It might even have become an esoteric system or developed some mystic meaning among the Josephites similar to Kaballah.

If this supposition is correct then in effect your statement is true, that Egyptian then IS A language of their fathers, even if it was not THE language of their fathers, which would have been Hebrew.

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?

Well now this is a slightly different question. The Lord might have had a lot of reasons for Lehi to carry the brass plates off with him, and the stated reasons, of preserving their language, and of preserving their religion, may not have been all of God's reasons, but they were the reasons given to Lehi and family. I think there may well have been another reason; To take that record away from Jerusalem.

Anyway, just some thoughts.

-SlackTime

[William Schryver]

Bradley:

All rhetoric and repartee aside, I do think you've offered solid contributions on this issue.

We probably just got off to a bad start â?? no doubt due to my failure to express myself well in the first post. I appreciate your generous concession.

That the language of Lehi and his fathers included Egyptian characters, at the least, seems quite clear to me now.

However, you seem to be qualifying this statement somewhat. Am I to interpret that you are inclined towards the â??transliterationâ? theory argued by some? If so, on what basis? I have asked the question repeatedly above. In the first place, why would Hebrew-speaking Jews maintain a quasi-permanent archival copy of the Jewish scriptures in Egyptian? And if these characters were used to record transliterated Hebrew â?? why? And why would Lehi/Nephi use the term â??the language of our fathersâ? to describe Hebrew transliterated into Egyptian?

Although I think this discussion is somewhat dependent on the participating parties assuming BoM historicity, I guess youâ??d like to play along anyway. Thatâ??s fine with me. Itâ??s just that, as I expressed to Dan, I figured from the outset that this was going to be my theory up against the established apologetics on the subject.

[William Schryver]

Slacktime:

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?

I can think of a lot of reasons, like I said, being of the tribe of Joseph, the egyptian sojourn would have greater relevance for the tribe and family than it did for any of the other tribes. (And when I say tribe of Joseph, I am purposely referring to both the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh.) So while the other tribes would tend to talk only about the "badness" of their sojourn in Egypt, the Josephites would actually have some good to say and remember about the sojourn. Thus I think that if any tribe held heirlooms from the Egyptian period it would have been the Josephites. I think it is entirely likely that Joseph had the scriptures and genealogies put on brass plates in egyptian. And I can believe that the tribe maintained them that way in honor of Joseph even when Egyptian was no longer the prevalent language. I can also believe that tribal elders were "schooled" in Egyptian in order to perpetuate the family history and in order to honor their great progenitor Joseph. Even if, and especially if, it was not the language of the society. It might even have become an esoteric system or developed some mystic meaning among the Josephites similar to Kaballah.

If this supposition is correct then in effect your statement is true, that Egyptian then IS A language of their fathers, even if it was not THE language of their fathers, which would have been Hebrew.

Your reply about Joseph commissioning a copy of the scriptures is plausible. However, they continued to maintain them in Egyptian, long after the Exodus, right up to the time of Lehi. It says that they contained some of the prophecies of Jeremiah. This is a continuing enterprise. I can admit your interpretation of â??language of our fathersâ? referring to a remote time if the brass plates only contained the scriptures available at that time. But these people have continued to create an Egyptian set of scriptures right up to the present. To me, that makes a big difference â?? and raises some real questions. Why were they doing this? Although I suppose it is possible, I find it difficult to accept the premise that there werenâ??t archival copies of Hebrew scriptures available. Why would Lehi not prefer a Hebrew set of the scriptures and â??preserveâ? unto his children that language â?? instead of getting them in Egyptian and saying he wants to preserve unto his children that language?

[SlackTime]

Slacktime:

I can think of a lot of reasons, like I said, being of the tribe of Joseph, the egyptian sojourn would have greater relevance for the tribe and family than it did for any of the other tribes. (And when I say tribe of Joseph, I am purposely referring to both the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh.) So while the other tribes would tend to talk only about the "badness" of their sojourn in Egypt, the Josephites would actually have some good to say and remember about the sojourn. Thus I think that if any tribe held heirlooms from the Egyptian period it would have been the Josephites. I think it is entirely likely that Joseph had the scriptures and genealogies put on brass plates in egyptian. And I can believe that the tribe maintained them that way in honor of Joseph even when Egyptian was no longer the prevalent language. I can also believe that tribal elders were "schooled" in Egyptian in order to perpetuate the family history and in order to honor their great progenitor Joseph. Even if, and especially if, it was not the language of the society. It might even have become an esoteric system or developed some mystic meaning among the Josephites similar to Kaballah.

If this supposition is correct then in effect your statement is true, that Egyptian then IS A language of their fathers, even if it was not THE language of their fathers, which would have been Hebrew.

Your reply about Joseph commissioning a copy of the scriptures is plausible. However, they continued to maintain them in Egyptian, long after the Exodus, right up to the time of Lehi. It says that they contained some of the prophecies of Jeremiah. This is a continuing enterprise. I can admit your interpretation of â??language of our fathersâ? referring to a remote time if the brass plates only contained the scriptures available at that time. But these people have continued to create an Egyptian set of scriptures right up to the present. To me, that makes a big difference â?? and raises some real questions. Why were they doing this? Although I suppose it is possible, I find it difficult to accept the premise that there werenâ??t archival copies of Hebrew scriptures available. Why would Lehi not prefer a Hebrew set of the scriptures and â??preserveâ? unto his children that language â?? instead of getting them in Egyptian and saying he wants to preserve unto his children that language?

Well I also discussed some reasons why I thought they would also be maintained. Why would Lehi not prefer a hebrew set? Because he was specifically commanded to get the set from Laban. This I think he would have rationalized to be because that was the most accurate set. When dealing with genealogy you want to get the earliest and best preserved early records. I think that is what the brass plates represented to Lehi. It is even possible that there were some revelations in that set that were not extent because either the other tribes didn't consider them as highly as the tribes of Joseph did (That might especially apply to the prophecies of Joseph recited in the Book of Mormon but not found in our old testament) or because the Josephites didn't share them with the other tribes (Possible if Joseph himself scribed or had scribed the brass plates).

Anyway, as I said, God might have had other reasons for getting the plates out of the country, and thus have directed Lehi to send for these plates in particular.

-SlackTime

[William Schryver]

Slacktime,

I can accept the bulk of your reasoning regarding why Lehi was commanded to obtain the brass plates. However, I still donâ??t believe it answers the questions as to why these plates are being constantly maintained in Egyptian â?? to the time of Lehi/Jeremiah.

What it means to me, or at least what I suspect is a possibility, is that there was a considerable body of Jews for whom Egyptian was a primary language. I mean, why do we translate our English scriptures today? In order that LDS whose primary language is not English might be able to read them â?? right? It seems logical to me that this is the same reason for which a constant translation effort was maintained anciently in the case of the brass plates.

My research in the past several days has shown that there were, indeed, Jews living in scattered pockets of Egypt in the pre-exilic era. Judah and Egypt, at this time (and for many years previous to 600 B.C.), had maintained very close ties â?? hence the decision to ally with Egypt against Babylon â?? a decision that was condemned by Jeremiah. The fact that Lehi has given his children Egyptian names is, in my opinion, a significant statement that he (Lehi) was strongly attached to Egypt, its language, and its culture â?? for unknown reasons. Yes, he has â??lived all his daysâ? in the â??land of Jerusalem.â? But I wonder if his ancestors were Egyptian Jews? That would explain why he terms Egyptian â??the language of our fathers.â? And that explains why he values the brass plates as a way to preserve this language for his posterity. The precedence thus given to Egyptian among the posterity of Lehi goes far to explain the pronounced Egyptian elements in the Book of Mormon â?? elements that Hugh Nibley noted extensively in Lehi in the Desert and others of his works on the Book of Mormon.

My point is that Iâ??m not convinced we have given due consideration to the preeminence of Egyptian among the Nephites â?? despite these clues that are contained in 1 Nephi and in Mosiah 1. We tend to focus an inordinate amount of attention on Hebraicisms, and we may be very mistaken in doing so. Yes, these people spoke and wrote in Hebrew â?? but they appear to have had much more of an Egyptian orientation than we have acknowledged. I canâ??t tell you how many times I have heard average members as well as supposedly experienced apologists and scholars make mention of the fact that the plates of brass were the Jewish scriptures written in Hebrew! Obviously, they were not. And the fact that Lehi/Nephi specifically state that they were written in â??the language of our fathersâ? is something that has gone, in my opinion, almost entirely unappreciated â?? and to the detriment of Book of Mormon studies.

[cdowis]

Slacktime,

I can accept the bulk of your reasoning regarding why Lehi was commanded to obtain the brass plates. However, I still don’t believe it answers the questions as to why these plates are being constantly maintained in Egyptian – to the time of Lehi/Jeremiah.

The plates were writen in both Egyptian and Hebrew. It has been suggested that the Penteuch was in Egyptian and was the record of Joseph, while the rest was Hebrew. Today we have the record of Judah, while the record of Joseph was lost because Nephi took it.

[William Schryver]

I have heard this asserted now and again, but there is nothing in the text of the Book of Mormon to support this claim. King Mosiah says only this:

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.

Who has ever made the claim that everything but the books of Moses were written in Hebrew? And on what basis is this claim made?

[SlackTime]

Slacktime,

I can accept the bulk of your reasoning regarding why Lehi was commanded to obtain the brass plates. However, I still donâ??t believe it answers the questions as to why these plates are being constantly maintained in Egyptian â?? to the time of Lehi/Jeremiah.

What it means to me, or at least what I suspect is a possibility, is that there was a considerable body of Jews for whom Egyptian was a primary language. I mean, why do we translate our English scriptures today? In order that LDS whose primary language is not English might be able to read them â?? right? It seems logical to me that this is the same reason for which a constant translation effort was maintained anciently in the case of the brass plates.

...

I guess I wasn't very clear. To me the brass plates are not "just" scriptures. We translate our scriptures into English for general consumption, and I am having trouble coming up with a modern example of this...

But what if it had been decided back in Washington's day to build a monument that all President's would write an inscription on as a memorial. So instead of say, the Washington monument, we have the President's monument, and because he felt it was cool, Washington wrote (or had written) his first inscription in Latin. Following his example, for 200 years every president had his words converted to Latin to maintain the "form" and the "look" and the "historical feel" of the original inscription even though NONE of them spoke, or even personally wrote Latin. They had to have their words converted and then "scribed" for them on the monument. Of course when you buy your tourist sheet from the monument gift shop, it contains all the quotes in English, for general consumption.

I think the brass plates may have had this "historical treasure" type of feel, and it was desired to maintain this feeling of authenticity. So, when it was added to, Egyptian was maintained. Scrolls that were used by individuals were in Hebrew, and other records held by other tribes were almost certainly predominantly Hebrew, but these particular records, started by Joseph in Egypt (or made at a later date to memorialize Joseph in Egypt) were maintained in Egyptian and were a tribal treasure/heirloom.

-SlackTime

[cdowis]

I have heard this asserted now and again, but there is nothing in the text of the Book of Mormon to support this claim. King Mosiah says only this:

snip

Who has ever made the claim that everything but the books of Moses were written in Hebrew? And on what basis is this claim made?

1 Ne 3:19 and Omni 17 are commonly interpreted to refer to the =Hebrew= language, and the Nephites had a knowledge of Hebrew because the brass plates preserved that language. Thus, the plates were written in both Egyptian and Hebrew.

Again, it has been suggested that the Egyptian part was the Penteuch as written by Moses and Joseph, while the rest was in Hebrew. But I guess one could argue that Moses wrote in Hebrew and Jeremiah wrote in Egyptian, if one were so inclined.

[William Schryver]

cdowis:

Omni 17 is commonly interpreted to mean that the =Hebrew= language was corrupted, and the Nephites had a knowledge of Hebrew because the brass plates preserved that language. Thus, the plates were written in both Egyptian and Hebrew. Again, it has been suggested that the Egyptian part was the Penteuch as written by Moses and Joseph, while the rest was in Hebrew.

Who and where has this been “commonly interpreted?” I have never heard this before.

And, quite honestly, I don’t see how one can draw such a specific conclusion from the text:

1 Nephi 3

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;

Omni

17 And at the time that Mosiah discovered them, they had become exceedingly numerous. Nevertheless, they had had many wars and serious contentions, and had fallen by the sword from time to time; and their language had become corrupted; and they had brought no records with them; and they denied the being of their Creator; and Mosiah, nor the people of Mosiah, could understand them.

18 But it came to pass that Mosiah caused that they should be taught in his language.

The people of Zarahemla and the Nephites met each other almost 500 years from the time the ancestors of each had left the old world. Linguistically-speaking, that is plenty long enough to “corrupt” both languages. However, if (as I am suggesting with my argument) the Nephites were actually speaking an language much more oriented to Egyptian than to Hebrew, then we have an even more plausible reason for which they could not understand each other.

Using 1 Nephi 3:19 to support the conclusion runs counter to the other textual evidence I have cited:

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.

Nephi seems to state quite plainly that the language of his father was Egyptian.

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 ...

King Mosiah seems to state plainly that "these engravings" on the plates of brass are written in Egyptian.

Bottom line: whether the Nephites actually spoke a form of Egyptian or not, I can see no justification for the conclusion that the plates of brass were written in two different languages. I don't believe the text of the Book of Mormon can be construed to support such a theory. Indeed, if one entertains the theory that the language used by Lehi and his posterity was Egyptian, and take at face value the statement in 1 Nephi 3:20 that the brass plates were to be utilized to teach Egyptian to his posterity, then the inconsistencies disappear. I fully appreciate that doing so requires us to abandon a long-held paradigm of BoM studies, but that is the entire point of this discussion. I am trying to argue that we should take the text of the Book of Mormon for what it actually says: that the language of Lehi's fathers, and of Lehi himself, was in fact Egyptian -- and that they deliberately perpetuated that language among their posterity. This, of course, does not mean that they were not also entirely fluent in Hebrew -- at least those who came from Jerusalem in 600 B.C. After that, I would think that only the record-keeper types (an exclusive group) maintained a knowledge of Hebrew. But there is no evidence I can identify that supports the notion that the Nephites, as a people, spoke Hebrew -- and I believe there is considerable evidence to support the conclusion that they spoke Egyptian, or something derived from it.

==============================

Additional note: One thing that I have found reference to in my research -- albeit as yet only an oblique reference -- is that there were Jews of Egyptian extraction who emigrated from Egypt to Judah in pre-exilic times, or that these Egyptian Jews were otherwise serving as diplomatic representatives of a sort between the countries during this period. More later as I seek better confirmation of this. But, could it be possible that Lehi was one of these people? Remember that Laban was meeting with the "elders" of the Jews the night he was slain by Nephi. At this time, Judah and Egypt were involved in secret, high-level negotiations to solidify an alliance against Babylon. Could it also be that Laban was one of these Egyptian/Jewish representatives? Laman mentions that Laban could "command fifty men." And, he was wearing a sword and armor at the time he was found by Nephi. This sounds like a military man, like those Jews who had been invited into Egypt to serve at the Jewish military outpost at Elephantine in the years immediately previous to this time.

Interesting ...

[poulsenll]

Additional note: One thing that I have found reference to in my research -- albeit as yet only an oblique reference -- is that there were Jews of Egyptian extraction who emigrated from Egypt to Judah in pre-exilic times, or that these Egyptian Jews were otherwise serving as diplomatic representatives of a sort between the countries during this period. More later as I seek better confirmation of this. But, could it be possible that Lehi was one of these people? Remember that Laban was meeting with the "elders" of the Jews the night he was slain by Nephi. At this time, Judah and Egypt were involved in secret, high-level negotiations to solidify an alliance against Babylon. Could it also be that Laban was one of these Egyptian/Jewish representatives? Laman mentions that Laban could "command fifty men." And, he was wearing a sword and armor at the time he was found by Nephi. This sounds like a military man, like those Jews who had been invited into Egypt to serve at the Jewish military outpost at Elephantine in the years immediately previous to this time.

Interesting ...

Will

After Googling a fair bit about the origins of written language such as Demotic and Hieratic, I have come to the conclusion that the "language of the Egyptions" could just as easlily refer to the manner of writing used by Nephi's ancesters as to the spoken language. On the other hand, at the time Lehi was called to be a prophet, The Jews were under the rule of either Egypt or Babylon . Unfortunately, we too often think of Palestine as a powerful political state able to maintain political neutrality similar to Swirzerland. Palestine did not have the fortune to be isolated by mountains with only a few passages into the country. Palestine was a key location in the trade economy of the entire mideast. Trade routes, either went through Palestine or they had to take a much longer trip around it or go by sea. Both of these alternatives were either more expensive or in the case of the sea route much more risky. For these reasons Palestine was under the thumb so to say of either the great commercial cities of the north such as Babylon or of Egypt to the south.

I lifted the following quote from Brant Gardner's, Multidimentioanal Commentary discussion of this verse.

"Egypt immediately claimed Judah as a dependency and put Jehoiakim on the throne as vassal. Subsequently, when Neo-Babylonia drove Egypt out of Canaan, Jehoiakim shifted his allegiance to Nebuchadnezzar II, but then revolted at the first opportunity. In a retaliatory campaign, Nebuchadnezzar captured Jerusalem and deported his son Jehoiachin (perhaps after his father's assassination?), along with a sizable group of government officials. Zedekiah was installed as a vassal regent, Jehoiachin retaining the status of king in the eyes of the Neo-Babylonians and most Judahites. After more anti-Babylonian machination, relying on promised Egyptian support that fizzled, another revolt by Judah was crushed - this time with the baleful result of the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple, further deportations of leaders, and the cessation of the independent Kingdom of Judah." (Norman K. Gottwald The Hebrew Bible . Fortress Press 1985:372).

For these and possibly other reasons, it is not unreasonable that there would be families living in Palestine who were more allied with the Egyptions both in language and culture than they were with the classical Jewish political leadership. Lehi's need to flee may have been as much for his oppostion to the Jewish political machinations as it was to avoid being caugt in the area by Egypt's enemies.

Larry P

[SlackTime]

Anyway,

Though I am no pundit, thank you all for discussing these things with me. I live to learn.

-SlackTime

[cdowis]

One interpretation is obvious to me, and a very different interpretation is equally obvious to you. I see the Nephites trying to communicate with the Mulekites in Hebrew, and you see Egyptian as the common language. I see the Lord preserving Hebrew language through the preservation of the scriptures, and you see the Lord preserving the Egyptian language.

We'll leave at that, I suppose.

[William Schryver]

One interpretation is obvious to me, and a very different interpretation is equally obvious to you. I see the Nephites trying to communicate with the Mulekites in Hebrew, and you see Egyptian as the common language. I see the Lord preserving Hebrew language through the preservation of the scriptures, and you see the Lord preserving the Egyptian language.

We'll leave at that, I suppose.

Please don't misunderstand me. I'm not convinced that my proposed interpretation is, by any means, obvious. However, I do think that the TEXT of the Book of Mormon is quite clear when it says:

1-The language of Lehi and his fathers was Egyptian. What that actually means is open to interpretation, I suppose. But the text does say precisely that.

2-The plates of brass were written in Egyptian. You suggest that they were written partly in Egyptian and partly in Hebrew. I only note that the TEXT of the BoM does not support that conclusion. It does support the notion that they had some kind of texts in Hebrew -- but that doesn't necessarily mean it was the plates of brass. Mosiah explicitly tells us that the plates of brass were written in Egyptian.

3-The BoM says that Lehi and his posterity taught Egyptian to each subsequent generation until (as Mosiah put it) "the present time."