Did Lehi And His Family Speak Hebrew?

[cdowis]

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."

1. You are certain that Egyptian was the common language of Jerusalem. When Lehi was preaching to the Jews, that he spoke Egyptian, is that correct?

Sara, Laman, Lemuel, Lehi, etc all spoke Egyptian with father Lehi. Correct?

Or is it possible, as suggested by Nibley, that Lehi was a trader, and egyptian was a necessary part of his profession.

My daughter is equally conversant in Spanish and English, and to say that "her language" is Spanish would be a mistake.

We disagree.

2. Yes, we agree that at least part of it was written in Egyptian. And we disagree on whether it also contained Hebrew. The BOM text makes it clear to me that a part of it was written in Hebrew.

I am not alone in that conclusion.

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/display.ph...jbms&id=363

We disagree.

3. It was necessary to read that portion of the Brass Plates written in Egyptian. I assume that you are aware that I am not alone in my opinion that "reformed Egyptian" is not a language, (specifically the Egyptian language, but a system of writing.

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/display.ph...ripts&id=36

Again, we disagree.

[William Schryver]

cdowis:

1. You are certain that Egyptian was the common language of Jerusalem. When Lehi was preaching to the Jews, that he spoke Egyptian, is that correct?

Not at all. What possibly could have given you that impression?

Sara, Laman, Lemuel, Lehi, etc all spoke Egyptian with father Lehi. Correct?

They very well could have, but we don’t know that. We only know that the text says Egyptian was the language of Lehi and his fathers.

Or is it possible, as suggested by Nibley, that Lehi was a trader, and egyptian was a necessary part of his profession.

It doesn’t really matter if Nibley was right. (Many current scholars feel he was not, however.) All I’m saying is that the TEXT of the BoM says that the language of Lehi and his fathers was Egyptian. Period. That Lehi spoke Hebrew perfectly is probably a good assumption – but it doesn’t say so in the text.

The BOM text makes it clear to me that a part of it was written in Hebrew.

Where?

I don’t believe Thom Wayment is on firm ground with his conclusion, which primarily uses the Hebraic structure of Alma 7:11 compared to later Hebrew translations to support the argument. The problem is that Wayment has no way of knowing how that verse was rendered on the plates of brass if it were rendered in Egyptian. And, since Joseph Smith didn’t actually translate the plates of brass, but rather the plates that Mormon prepared, we have another layer of variable added to the equation.

Indeed, I find Wayment’s arguments extremely unpersuasive on a number of levels, and I will ultimately elaborate on them in the formal paper I am preparing. Suffice it for now to say that Wayment is alone in this particular interpretation – but only because, to my knowledge, no one else has touched upon it.

I assume that you are aware that I am not alone in my opinion that "reformed Egyptian" is not a language, (specifically the Egyptian language, but a system of writing.

I never suggested that the written language used by Mormon for his plates was anything other than Egyptian short-hand. But that has no bearing on my other argument. The plates of brass are, according to the text of the Book of Mormon, written in standard Egyptian.

By the way, Charles. We can disagree with smiles on our faces. I appreciate your comments very much, although I am not yet persuaded away from my proposition.

[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.

The distinction you're straining to make is interesting. It seems to me that some LDS apologists attempt to work around the lack of "proof" by using "evidence" as though it were proof. Point after point of evidence is presented to support the BoM's historiocity, but when called on the carpet about the individual points, some apologists try to deflect the fire by falling back on the defense that they're not trying to "prove" the BoM's historiocity, they're just presenting "evidence." But then they also say that they're personally convinced of the BoM's historiocity because of the mounting body of overwhelming "evidence." In their minds, their evidence is proof and this is what they imply. As far as I can tell, that's trying to have your cake and eat it, too.

In this case, if Will is "right" in the LDS world that the BoM language wasn't Hebrew after all, then the hebraicisms are neither evidence nor proof.

Theophilus07

[SlackTime]

The distinction you're straining to make is interesting. It seems to me that some LDS apologists attempt to work around the lack of "proof" by using "evidence" as though it were proof. Point after point of evidence is presented to support the BoM's historiocity, but when called on the carpet about the individual points, some apologists try to deflect the fire by falling back on the defense that they're not trying to "prove" the BoM's historiocity, they're just presenting "evidence." But then they also say that they're personally convinced of the BoM's historiocity because of the mounting body of overwhelming "evidence." In their minds, their evidence is proof and this is what they imply. As far as I can tell, that's trying to have your cake and eat it, too.

In this case, if Will is "right" in the LDS world that the BoM language wasn't Hebrew after all, then the hebraicisms are neither evidence nor proof.

Theophilus07

What you see as proof they only see as evidence? Maybe the reason is because ultimately the "Proof" is in the testimony of the Holy Spirit, everything else is just supporting, or even non-supporting evidence. I call for source on a statement made by any LDS scholor where he says that "they're personally convinced of the BoM's historiocity because of the mounting body of overwhelming "evidence." "

Please feel free to post it.

-SlackTime

[William Schryver]

Thermopolis70:

In this case, if Will is "right" in the LDS world that the BoM language wasn't Hebrew after all, then the hebraicisms are neither evidence nor proof.

No. You're wrong. For all the reasons I gave previously when you made this same logically flawed statement. Perhaps you should refer back to my reply. Besides, we know already that the language of the Book of Mormon was Egyptian -- or rather, Reformed Egyptian, which is assumed to be some kind of Egyptian shorthand, employed on account of its compactness. And therefore the entire set of arguments regarding "Hebraicisms" has operated under an essentially identical paradigm to the one I am proposing.

Try reading the thread and responding to the arguments instead of doing these random, drive-by non sequiturs. Pretty please.

[Theophilus07]

What you see as proof they only see as evidence? Maybe the reason is because ultimately the "Proof" is in the testimony of the Holy Spirit, everything else is just supporting, or even non-supporting evidence. I call for source on a statement made by any LDS scholor where he says that "they're personally convinced of the BoM's historiocity because of the mounting body of overwhelming "evidence." "

Please feel free to post it.

-SlackTime

Will you accept, say, DCP's statements to this effect?

Theophilus07

[SlackTime]

Will you accept, say, DCP's statements to this effect?

Theophilus07

Sure, be sure to include enough context, I will be asking him

-SlackTime

[DonBradley]

What you see as proof they only see as evidence? Maybe the reason is because ultimately the "Proof" is in the testimony of the Holy Spirit, everything else is just supporting, or even non-supporting evidence. I call for source on a statement made by any LDS scholor where he says that "they're personally convinced of the BoM's historiocity because of the mounting body of overwhelming "evidence." "

Please feel free to post it.

-SlackTime

DCP has written of being impressed as a scholar with the evidence for the BoM and BoA. And I believe a number of LDS scholars have stated that they think it would take more faith to disbelieve LDS claims than to disbelieve them.

It should be noted though, that it's quite difficult to know how one would feel or what one would think in a counterfactual situation. If these same scholars did not have spiritual testimonies of the Book of Mormon, would they find the secular evidence so compelling? They might. But the best way to gauge how they would view this evidence if they didn't have such testimonies is to look at the views of scholars who actually don't have testimonies. These people tend to underimpressed by the secular evidence for the book. It would appear that in the absence of what is understood to be strong spiritual evidence for the Book of Mormon, the secular evidence isn't sufficiently weighty to be convincing to most of those, scholars and non-scholars, who acquaint themselves with it.

This is consistent with the Book of Mormon's own message, since the book appeals repeatedly and forcefully to spiritual evidence of its veracity, and scarcely, if at all, to secular evidence. Most Latter-day Saints, including those publishing through FARMS, echo this same emphasis. Relatively few would assert that the book can or ought to be believed on secular grounds alone.

Don

[poulsenll]

The plates of brass are, according to the text of the Book of Mormon, written in standard Egyptian.

Will

A small correction. Even before the time of the Israelite settlement in Egypt, hieratic, a reformed form of Egyptian, had become the more common form of writing Egyptian and by Lehi's time demotic was in common use. Both of these forms resulted from the need to have a script that could be written more quickly for communication purposes as opposed to inscriptions on monuments. Both of these forms are better described as reformed Egyptian rather than standard Egyptian. It is apparent from Mormon's commernts that this trend was continued over the hisory of the Nephites.

Larry P

[William Schryver]

Will

A small correction. Even before the time of the Israelite settlement in Egypt, hieratic, a reformed form of Egyptian, had become the more common form of writing Egyptian and by Lehi's time demotic was in common use. Both of these forms resulted from the need to have a script that could be written more quickly for communication purposes as opposed to inscriptions on monuments. Both of these forms are better described as reformed Egyptian rather than standard Egyptian. It is apparent from Mormon's commernts that this trend was continued over the hisory of the Nephites.

Larry P

Larry, I agree with you that any later portions of the brass plates were most likely written in either hieratic or demotic. Certainly the earlier portions would have been rendered in either hieroglyphic (unlikely) or hieratic (much more likely). When I wrote "standard Egyptian," I simply meant to emphasize the fact that King Benjamin simply said, speaking of Lehi:

... for he having been taught in the language of the Egyptians therefore he could read these engravings ...

My impression is that "Reformed" Egyptian in the Nephite sense refers to something of purely Nephite origin -- probably some kind of shorthand Egyptian that saved more space than even hieratic or demotic would have. The fact is that either hieratic or demotic would have taken just as much space as conventional Hebrew, so it is unlikely that the Nephites' "Reformed Egyptian" means either of those cursive Egyptian scripts. Also, I am aware of no reason why either hieratic or demotic would have been considered inferior to Hebrew as a means of expression -- to my knowledge they are both as capable as Hebrew. Only some form of "shorthand" would have caused Mormon and Moroni to lament their inability to utilize a more capable script such as Hebrew. At least that is how I see it.

[cksalmon]

As an "anti-Mormon," I feel myself bound and determined to inject a bit of "anti-Mormon" bias into the conversation here.

I place myself squarely at risk of being dinged by proponents of each side of the debate here: William and Bokovoy on one side; Bradley and Vogel on the other.

I notice that both sides are assuming, ex hypothesi, that BoM is a legitimately-ancient text. That's all well and good. But, still, and here's my "anti-Mormon" bias rearing its ugly head: I see no compelling reason to accept BoM as an actually-ancient document.

Conversations anent Egyptian vs. Hebrew are null and void if BoM is not really derived from an ancient source text. (Not to mention that Hebrew is one of the most sign-conscious languages known to man; there is no extraneous verbiage therein.)

At any rate, I don't think that BoM is an actually-ancient document. (More's the pity for me, I know.) But, from that perspective, unwelcome to be sure (by many participants, here), the debate about Lehi's native tongue seems a bit silly.

I realize that the non-believing folks here are indulging (to their minds) a counterfactual set of circumstances (they're historians, after all), but it seems a bit of a fruitless debate if one side assumes BoM historicity while the other eschews same. Thought experiments are fun, and sometimes fruitful, but, ultimately, they tell us more about their participants than the purported facts of history.

Best.

CKS

[poulsenll]

Only some form of "shorthand" would have caused Mormon and Moroni to lament their inability to utilize a more capable script such as Hebrew. At least that is how I see it.

Will

I agree. They certainly continued to reform it as indicated by Mormon.

I just had an interesting thought. The Mayan and Olmec glyph systems were syllabic scripts. If the Nephites were aware of these writing systems and I see no reason why they should not have been. Then maybe they adopted a similar modification of the hieratic combined with the determinatives (as I understand it and I know little or nothing about Egyptian writing, these were symbols still used in hieratic to represent complete words) to create a shorthand set of syllabic symbols to keep thier records. This would be very space conservative because unlike the Mayan and Olmec glyphs, the hieretic had already evolved to a very simple form of script.

Larry P

[charity]

ck, Dan Vogel does not accept the Book of Mormon as an ancient document. I don't know about Don Bradley.

[William Schryver]

As an "anti-Mormon," I feel myself bound and determined to inject a bit of "anti-Mormon" bias into the conversation here.

I place myself squarely at risk of being dinged by proponents of each side of the debate here: William and Bokovoy on one side; Bradley and Vogel on the other.

I notice that both sides are assuming, ex hypothesi, that BoM is a legitimately-ancient text. That's all well and good. But, still, and here's my "anti-Mormon" bias rearing its ugly head: I see no compelling reason to accept BoM as an actually-ancient document.

Conversations anent Egyptian vs. Hebrew are null and void if BoM is not really derived from an ancient source text. (Not to mention that Hebrew is one of the most sign-conscious languages known to man; there is no extraneous verbiage therein.)

At any rate, I don't think that BoM is an actually-ancient document. (More's the pity for me, I know.) But, from that perspective, unwelcome to be sure (by many participants, here), the debate about Lehi's native tongue seems a bit silly.

I realize that the non-believing folks here are indulging (to their minds) a counterfactual set of circumstances (they're historians, after all), but it seems a bit of a fruitless debate if one side assumes BoM historicity while the other eschews same. Thought experiments are fun, and sometimes fruitful, but, ultimately, they tell us more about their participants than the purported facts of history.

Best.

CKS

Kelly,

If you had read the entire thread, you would have already seen that I acknowledged the essence of what you have just said. I declined to pursue the argument with Vogel for precisely this reason -- I recognize that this is a discussion purely between apologists/believers. Don has chosen, for his own reasons, to play along a little bit, but I don't think the discussion really interests him that much.

So, that said, go take your contramopologetics and find another sandbox to disrupt! We still love you and all, but your kind just don't belong here. So scram. Oh, and have a nice evening, too.

LarryP:

I just had an interesting thought. The Mayan and Olmec glyph systems were syllabic scripts. If the Nephites were aware of these writing systems and I see no reason why they should not have been. Then maybe they adopted a similar modification of the hieratic combined with the determinatives (as I understand it and I know little or nothing about Egyptian writing, these were symbols still used in hieratic to represent complete words) to create a shorthand set of syllabic symbols to keep thier records. This would be very space conservative because unlike the Mayan and Olmec glyphs, the hieretic had already evolved to a very simple form of script.

As per my limited study of Mayan, its glyphs can be syllabic, but can also be phonetic and/or ideographic. It is a complex script -- so much so that it is not entirely deciphered.

Egyptian "determinatives" are simply characters at the end of a word that give it context. For example, the same three characters can mean both "the old" and "adoration." By placing a glyph of an stooped man with a cane at the end of the one and a glyph of a man with his hands upraised after the other, the two words are distinguished. Those ending characters are "determinatives." Determinatives actually add bulk to a written language. Symbols that signify complete words are termed ideograms. Egyptian utilizes these in many instances, but they are usually also single letters. For example, the character used to indicate the short vowell "e' (an arm character) is also used to indicate "arm." There is a common determinative used to indicate if a character is being used as a ideogram, it is a vertical line.

Anyway, I didn't mean to give a brief lesson in Egyptian -- and don't let me give anyone the impression that I know anything more than just a smattering of it -- but my point is that the Nephites' "Reformed Egyptian" must have undoubtedly been something even more compact than anything I can imagine in conventional Egyptian, or in what I know about Mayan.

[poulsenll]

-- but my point is that the Nephites' "Reformed Egyptian" must have undoubtedly been something even more compact than anything I can imagine in conventional Egyptian, or in what I know about Mayan.

I agree.

I just did an analysis of the Anthon script.

The English alphabet has 26 letters including vowels. . The Hebrew alphabet

has 22 letters and no vowels.

The Egyptian Alphabet has 25 letters including vowels however the Egytians,

unlike English and Hebrew, used word glyphs to enhance or clarify meaning in

texts written in alphabetic form.

The Anthon script which contains characters

copied from the BofM plates has more than 50 different symbols. This is

not consistent with an alphabetic script and I have to conclude that the

reformed Egyptian of theNephites was a glyphic text based on Egyptian

hieroglyphics rather than hieratic or demotic.

In addition, most of the symbols appear only once and none are used more

than five or six times. This again is characteristic of a glyphic use of the

symbols rather than an alphabetic use where the same letters should appear

multiple times even in as short a manuscript as the Anthon script.

Any thoughts or has anyone seen a discussion of this property of the Anthon

script.

Larry P

[Kevin Christensen]

In a FARMS Paper called "Oral and Literate Cultures in the Book of Mormon" the author (William Eggington), discusses the the advantage of a glyphic system in which the glyphs refer to ideas, rather than syllables or sounds. The underlying language can change, but if you know the meaning of the glyphs, you can still read it. He makes a comparison with Chinese and Japanese using the same symbols in different languages. The system is more difficult to learn, but well suited to the situation of the Book of Mormon scribes in dealing with ancient materials.

The only really interesting studies I have seen on the Anthon Transcript remains the one done comparing the characters with "Two mesoamerican cylinder seals," (I forget the author but it was a FARMS reprint, and is available at SHIELDS in their Society for Early Historic Archeology archive, and one done by Wade Brown noting chiastic patterns. That one was a book I spotted in a Deseret book in San Jose when I was cash poor a couple of decades ago.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[William Schryver]

I agree.

I just did an analysis of the Anthon script.

The English alphabet has 26 letters including vowels. . The Hebrew alphabet

has 22 letters and no vowels.

The Egyptian Alphabet has 25 letters including vowels however the Egytians,

unlike English and Hebrew, used word glyphs to enhance or clarify meaning in

texts written in alphabetic form.

The Anthon script which contains characters

copied from the BofM plates has more than 50 different symbols. This is

not consistent with an alphabetic script and I have to conclude that the

reformed Egyptian of theNephites was a glyphic text based on Egyptian

hieroglyphics rather than hieratic or demotic.

In addition, most of the symbols appear only once and none are used more

than five or six times. This again is characteristic of a glyphic use of the

symbols rather than an alphabetic use where the same letters should appear

multiple times even in as short a manuscript as the Anthon script.

Any thoughts or has anyone seen a discussion of this property of the Anthon

script.

Larry P

I concur with your assessment. It also explains why Book of Mormon authors lament the fact that they are "mighty in speech," but that the language they are using to record their words on these particular plates mitigates their erstwhile eloquence.

As to any discussions on the Anthon script, the only one I have seen is the one to which Kevin refers above. And it doesn't, as I recall, touch upon the theory of ideograms, or suggest that the Anthon characters might represent ideograms. It simply compares them to the characters on the cylinder seals -- and, incidentally, shows some real similarities.

[poulsenll]

Aren't search engines wonderful.

The word "language(s) occurs 42 times in 39 different verses in the BofM. As shown in particular in the following 2 verses, it refers to the spoken language.

2 Ne. 31: 3

3 For my soul delighteth in plainness; for after this manner doth the Lord God work among the children of men. For the Lord God giveth light unto the understanding; for he speaketh unto men according to their language, unto their understanding.

Jacob 7: 4

4 And he was learned, that he had a perfect knowledge of the language of the people; wherefore, he could use much flattery, and much power of speech, according to the power of the devil.

It seems rather odd to me that Nephi and later Mosiah would use it in a different manner when mentioning the "language of the Egyptians". Even more oddly that Joseph Smith would not have used a clarifying modifier if it only refered to the written form of the language used on the Brass Plates.

Although, I do not completely agree with Will that Lehi's family may have spoken Egyptian in the home, I see no reason why "the Language of the Egyptians" terminolgy does not reflect the idea that Lehi's ancesters spoke Egyptian and that this language, as a spoken language, was preserved in future generations. This would have been of great use in Palestine at that time in light of the political situation relative to Egypt and Babylonia.

The langyage of my wife's family is Spanish and we have made a concerted effort to preserve this ability in our children. This does not, however, mean that English is not mine and my chidren's native language.

Larry P

[William Schryver]

Aren't search engines wonderful.

The word "language(s) occurs 42 times in 39 different verses in the BofM. As shown in particular in the following 2 verses, it refers to the spoken language.

2 Ne. 31: 3

3 For my soul delighteth in plainness; for after this manner doth the Lord God work among the children of men. For the Lord God giveth light unto the understanding; for he speaketh unto men according to their language, unto their understanding.

Jacob 7: 4

4 And he was learned, that he had a perfect knowledge of the language of the people; wherefore, he could use much flattery, and much power of speech, according to the power of the devil.

It seems rather odd to me that Nephi and later Mosiah would use it in a different manner when mentioning the "language of the Egyptians". Even more oddly that Joseph Smith would not have used a clarifying modifier if it only refered to the written form of the language used on the Brass Plates.

Although, I do not completely agree with Will that Lehi's family may have spoken Egyptian in the home, I see no reason why "the Language of the Egyptians" terminolgy does not reflect the idea that Lehi's ancesters spoke Egyptian and that this language, as a spoken language, was preserved in future generations. This would have been of great use in Palestine at that time in light of the political situation relative to Egypt and Babylonia.

The langyage of my wife's family is Spanish and we have made a concerted effort to preserve this ability in our children. This does not, however, mean that English is not mine and my chidren's native language.

Larry P

Good observations, Larry. Of course, I hope I made it clear that I don't believe that the text of the Book of Mormon necessarily argues that Lehi and his family spoke Egyptian around the dinner table. It is simply a conclusion that might follow when we accept that Egyptian was the language of Lehi's fathers, and that he explicitly states that he intended to teach it to his children. I think the example you give of your own bilingual family is probably an appropriate one.

Nevertheless, the point of my entire thesis here is simply that I think the Book of Mormon informs us in unambiguous terms that their language and culture was much more Egyptian-centric than is commonly believed. Else why create an Egyptian "shorthand" to record their history? Why not create a Hebrew shorthand instead? When it comes right down to it, there is no great difference between hieratic Egyptian and square Hebrew -- so why wouldn't the Nephites have created a form of shorthand Hebrew instead of Egyptian -- unless they were already biased towards the use of Egyptian on account of their culture?

[poulsenll]

-- so why wouldn't the Nephites have created a form of shorthand Hebrew instead of Egyptian -- unless they were already biased towards the use of Egyptian on account of their culture?

That makes good sense. Unfortunately cultural biases are not well understood or appreciated by most monocultural people. Unless you are bicultural, it is very difficult to see how another culture may think different or that that culture may have a different view or explanation for facts and events.

I am just getting into the significance of language and writing systems related to the BofM but I find it interesting that in this area just as in the geography area that people dont read what the text says. Then when someone points out that it does not say what they have been assuming for thier theories, they try to convince others that there reading has to be correct because of the agreement of other factors with thier theory. Eg the Hebraic structures in the BofM text. They never stop to reason out that there may be another explanation for thier facts.

Larry P

[Greg Smith]

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.

True, and if I misread you I apologize.

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?

No, and I didn't really get the sense that Will had made that claim. I thought he was claiming that you in particular didn't seem to have read the part of the text to which he was referring very closely, and that this was a minor example of the much larger phenomenon of general unfamiliarity with the Book of Mormon text among ex-Mormons generally. (An observation with which I would heartily agree.)

I do see, however, how you might have read this as a much broader swipe than I understood it to be. In that case, your dismay is justified. :-)

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."

I was being tongue in cheek with that last bit, but obviously my facial expression did not transfer well via CRT. Mea culpa.

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

I didn't intend an accusation, but clarification. Go for the apology. Leave the canoli.

I'll give you the parting words on that subject, if you'd care to take them.

That is gracious, but I see now that we agree on the "meta-essentials" of the issue. I am glad that I misread you, as opposed to you actually holding the view I mistakenly ascribed to you. Regrets again.

Best,

Greg

[Greg Smith]

I concur with your assessment. It also explains why Book of Mormon authors lament the fact that they are "mighty in speech," but that the language they are using to record their words on these particular plates mitigates their erstwhile eloquence.

If we grant, for the sake of argument, that the writing was ideogram-like, rather than alphabetic, I've often thought (I don't know if this idea is original or not) that this may explain some textual "anachronisms" in the Book of Mormon.

To take Sorenson's (much-caricatured and -maligned) "tapir"="horse" example:

Let's suppose there were no Equs horses, and the Nephites used tapirs in some unspecified capacity. They may well have had spoken language (or alphabetic terms) to describe the tapir.

But, when it comes to "Reformed Egyptian" ideogram script, there is no term for "tapir." So, by "convention," if you will, Nephite writers use the ideogram of "horse" to denote "tapirs."

Enter Joseph Smith--the translation of the Book of Mormon seems to be a fairly 'literal' one that is somewhat smoothed out in subsequent editings for grammar (language forms that correspond to some other language structures, but not English or KJV English, etc.)

Thus, Joseph translated correctly (but, in an over-literal) sense the "horse" ideogram--voila, fodder for endless internet discussions.

This would also explain the relatively limited vocabulary in the Book of Mormon. (But, that is also, of course, arguably due to Joseph Smith having a fairly small working vocabulary at the time.)

Has this angle been explored/exploded anywhere to anyone's knowledge?

Best,

Greg, avoiding the metanarrative......

[poulsenll]

Has this angle been explored/exploded anywhere to anyone's knowledge?

Greg

That was my question too. The Anthon script has been around for some time and I have compared the characters to the Tlatlico script and found similarities as have others. I had just started to investigate the possibility that Mayan glyphs could shed some light on BofM personal and place names (see my blog and the /r/ thread) when Will brought up the topic of the "language of the Egyptians". I started to wonder about the difference in the number of unique characters utilized by a glyphic script versus an alphabetic script. The alphabet approach, by using a limited number of characters that represent sounds rather than words, increases the versatility of a writing system at the expense of compactness. Glyphic systems using single characters to represent whole words and maybe common phrases are more compact at the expense of the need to have a graphic for every word. If the graphic does not trigger a visualization of the word then the relationships must be memorized on a word by word basis which could place a limit on the number of glyphs used relative to the total vocabulary of the spoken word. However, if the system evolves over a long time toward less informative graphics it would be no harder to learn the glyph to word associations than it is to memorize correct spelling.

The glyphs in the Anthon script do not appear to trigger word associations and this suggests that they evolved over a long period as suggested by the descriptions of reformed Egyptian in the Bof M.

Larry P