Olavarria Posted November 30, 2008 Posted November 30, 2008 Kevin Graham kevlds at hotmail.com Tue Aug 15 22:50:47 EDT 2006 I am looking to get some confirmation about an apologetic that is growing in popularity among Latter-day Saints. For those who are not familiar with the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith claims to have translated the text from gold plates that were written upon an Ancient Hebrew writer.The original manuscripts of the Book of Mormon include weird phrases that involve an if-and construction instead of an if-then construction. According to Mormon scholar Royal Skousen:"In a recent paper I describe two important examples of Hebraisms in the original text of the Book of Mormon that do not occur in the King James Bible. One example is the use of the if-and clausal construction instead of the expected if-(then) syntax of English, as in the following extended passage from Helaman 12 where it occurs seven times (thus showing that we are not dealing with an isolated transcriptional error):if he sayeth unto the earth move and it is movedif he sayeth unto the earth thou shalt go back that it lengthen out the day for many hours and it is done .if he sayeth unto the waters of the great deep be thou dried up and it is done.This construction is a literalistic translation of the Hebrew-language construction, but does not occur at all in the King James Bible."For our Hebrew experts out there, is it true that the "if-and" construction is a common occurence in the Hebrew Bible, and is it also true that this lingustic phenomenon is unique only to Hebrew?Kevin Riley klriley at alphalink.com.au Tue Aug 15 23:01:46 EDT 2006 If ... and seems to be a common English idiom, so I don't see that it canbe exclusive to Hebrew. To use "if ... then" in any of the passages belowwould lead to odd English. Are you sure it never occurs in the KJV?Kevin RileyKevin Graham kevlds at hotmail.com Tue Aug 15 23:09:57 EDT 2006 Well the argument goes like this. The normal usage of "if-then" (i.e. if she calls, then I will go) was found in the Book of Mormon manuscript to be "if-and" (i.e. if she calls and I will go). This makes for poor English, but if being translated from Hebrew, we are told that it makes perfect sense.There is no other way to explain this phenomenon unless of course the person from which this BoM text was translated, was an ancient Hebrew speaking Jew.We are told that there are no examples of this phenomenon in any English translation in any English text available to the translator in 1830. The KJV doesn't have any if-and constructions because it is poor English, and was changed to read if-then.Kevin Riley klriley at alphalink.com.au Tue Aug 15 23:27:59 EDT 2006 But in the examples you gave the "if ... and" translation *is* good English
Olavarria Posted November 30, 2008 Author Posted November 30, 2008 Yonah Mishael yonahmishael at gmail.com Wed Aug 16 00:58:47 EDT 2006 Kevin, I think you're confused. The examples given would *not* be normalEnglish.--> "If you want to come with me, then you have to speak with your mother."--> "If you want to come with me, *and* you have to speak with your mother."The second does not indicate that the if-clause is dependent on it. Rather,it continues the thought of the if-clause.--> "If you want to come with me, and you have to speak with your mother,then you need to speak with her immediately."In modern Hebrew, the apodosis is introduced most normally with the particle)Z [אז] (= English "if").Waltke & O'Connor give the example of Genesis 34:15-17 in their discussionof conditional clauses in section 38.2 of their /Biblical Hebrew Syntax/ (p.636):...אם תהיו כמנוונתנו את בנתינו לכםetc.)M THYW KMNW...WNTNW )T BNTYNW LKMetc."If you will become like us...*and* {= then} we will give our daughters to you"There is no real discussion of the introductory particle for an apodosis,but in the examples given, it is regularly introduced with either Vav (ו) orby no particle at all.How this justifies the Book of Mormon, which was -- according to JosephSmith anyway -- translated from a version of what he termed "ReformedEgyptian" (a hypothetical pigdin of Egyptian and Hebrew) from a type ofpictograph (or hieroglyph), does not quite make sense to me. There wouldsurely not be in the conciseness of pictographic writing detail sufficientto make a quibble over a syntactic particle, AFAIK.Shalom,YonahKevin Riley klriley at alphalink.com.au Wed Aug 16 01:13:32 EDT 2006 I was confused by the lack of quotation marks around the spoken words andassumed that a "then" phrase would follow. If you add the quotation marks -and other punctuation marks, then I see what is being said.Kevin RileyKevin Graham kevlds at hotmail.com Wed Aug 16 12:26:54 EDT 2006 Hello Yonah, thanks for your comment.== Kevin, I think you're confused.One thing I should make clear is that this is NOT my argument. I am just testing it to see if it stands the test of scrutiny. This was forwarded by an LDS scholar and it hasnâ??t received much attention outside Mormon circles.== The examples given would *not* be normal English.Theyâ??re not? Royal Skousenâ??s expertise is English, not Hebrew, He is the scholar who clams to have â??discoveredâ? these Hebraisms in the original manuscripts of the Book of Mormon. It seems like good English to me to say â??ifâ? so and so happens â??thenâ? so and so will occur as a result. He argues that in Hebrew it is common to say â??ifâ? so and so happens, â??andâ? such and such will be the result. He argues that at least 14 occurrences of this phenomenon appear in the original Book of Mormon manuscript (of which only 22% is extant)and that it only makes sense if the text represents a literal, word for word translation from Hebrew.It is true that the Book of Mormon claims to have been written in an unknown language called â??Reformed Egyptian,â? but the writers were Hebrew speaking. The Book of Mormon begins its story as a small family of Jews (during 600 b.c) takes to the sea and travels to the Americas.One Old Testaments scholar, Margaret Barker, recently emailed me and confirmed that:â??Yes, this is normal usage in the Hebrew Bible, but I cannot say that it is not used elsewhere - I do not have that expertise. If you want to check it out, consult the massive standard work on the subject: Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar. I have the second Englsih edition, 1910, but I should imagine that the referencing system did not alter. You need sections 112 ff and gg, [ also section 159 o] which describe the uses of the 'perfect consecutive' form of the verb. This just means that the perfect, when prefaced with 'and' becomes an imperfect. 'The perfect consecutive is frequently employed with a certain emphasis to introduce the apodosis after sentences or their equivalent, which contain a condition...' It goes on to give 'if' as one of the words that can trigger this usage. ... So literally, e.g., 'If you do something, and I will do it too...'â?The thing is there appears to be no other explanation where Smith could have derived this unusual â??if-andâ? construction if he were just inventing the Book of Mormon from his imagination. We have other â??scripturesâ? that he claims to have written via â??revelationâ? but there is not one single example of the â??if-andâ? construction that appears in the original BoM manuscript. This phenomenon was edited out when the BoM was published because it was bad English, but the original manuscript retains the â??errorsâ? which Skousen believes is strong evidence that its source is in preexilic Judaism.Kevin Riley klriley at alphalink.com.au Wed Aug 16 01:37:06 EDT 2006 Maybe it would pay to ask an English dialectologist whether thisconstruction was found in spoken English around 1830. Non-standard Englishcan be as strange as anything found in foreign languages, ancient or modern. Apart from that, it may just be another 'biblicism' designed to give theBoM an ancient/holy feel. Proving that the hypothetical writer of anunexaminable text did or did not speak ancient Hebrew is a bit beyond thecapabilities of this list. If the translators of the KJV knew enough totranslate as "if .. then", then I would have thought that inspiredtranslation would have been a little more accurate and a little less literal but I don't claim to be an expert on inspiration.Kevin RileyPeter Kirk peter at qaya.org Wed Aug 16 05:08:12 EDT 2006 It might also be worth researching whether there were any highly literal translations of the Old Testament in circulation which used this construction, which Joseph Smith might have known and copied. From http://www.bible-researcher.com/versbib8.html, I might suggest considering:> *1764*. Anthony Purver, /A new and literal translation of all the > books of the Old and New Testament; with notes critical and > explanatory./ 2 Vols. London: W. Richardson and S. Clark, 1764. Often > called "The Quaker Bible," because Purver was a Quaker.Could Smith have had a copy of this? Did this use the "if...and" construction? Some leads for possible research.Kevin Graham kevlds at hotmail.com Wed Aug 16 12:35:38 EDT 2006 Peter,== It might also be worth researching whether there were any highly literaltranslations of the Old Testament in circulation which used thisconstruction, which Joseph Smith might have known and copied.I had been thinking the same thing. I looked up several translations available to Smith like Wycliffe, Geneva, et cetera, but so far no examples of the if-and clausal.== From http://www.bible-researcher.com/versbib8.html, I might suggest considering:>*1764*. Anthony Purver, /A new and literal translation of all the books of >the Old and New Testament; with notes critical and explanatory./ 2 Vols. >London: W. Richardson and S. Clark, 1764. Often called "The Quaker Bible," >because Purver was a Quaker.Could Smith have had a copy of this? Did this use the "if...and"construction? Some leads for possible research.Good idea! Thanks.Steve Miller smille10 at sbcglobal.net Wed Aug 16 21:09:23 EDT 2006 The LXX is the most literal translator of the vav as "and".In Gen 34:15-17, previously ref'd, LXX translates the vav at the beginningof v16 as "and", but as nothing in the middle of v17.Gen 31:15 Only on these terms will we conform to you, and dwell among you,if ye also will be as we are, in that every male of you be circumcised.16 And we will give our daughters to you, and we will take of yourdaughters for wives to us, and we will dwell with you, and we will be as onerace.17 But if ye will not hearken to us to be circumcised, we will take ourdaughter and depart.What other examples are there of "if ... and" in the Hebrew Bible? I think the meaning of "if ... and" in Hebrew is most literally translatedas "if <you do xxxx> *also* <we will do yyy>". It is ***-for-tat, not asstrong a cause-effect relationship as if-then. I would translate Gen 34:17 as:And if you will not hearken to us to be circumcised, also we will take ourdaughter and depart.English "and" simply won't work here in the middle of verse 17, because"and" would make the 2nd phrase, "we will take our daughter...", part of theconditional, which is not the case with the Hebrew vav.-Steve MillerDetroit www.voiceinwilderness.infoKevin Graham kevlds at hotmail.com Wed Aug 16 22:14:08 EDT 2006 == I think the meaning of "if ... and" in Hebrew is most literally translatedas "if <you do xxxx> *also* <we will do yyy>". It is ***-for-tat, not asstrong a cause-effect relationship as if-then.Now that IS interesting. Can anyone else corroborate this hypothesis? Royal Skousen has been arguing that in Hebrew the same exists in a cause-effect relationship. It would prove detrimental to his argument if this is not the case, and the if-and phenomena were all "*** for tats" as Steve suggests it might be.Peter Kirk peter at qaya.org Thu Aug 17 05:43:27 EDT 2006 Good point. Could Smith have been influenced by the LXX? Or perhaps by a literal translation of LXX into English, such as Thomson's (from http://www.bible-researcher.com/versbib9.html):Kevin Graham kevlds at hotmail.com Thu Aug 17 07:26:51 EDT 2006 We're getting cloiser, but Brenton's LXX was published in 1851 in English right?The Book of Mormon was published in 1830. Was there another English publication of the LXX prior to Brenton's?Kevin Graham kevlds at hotmail.com Thu Aug 17 07:52:08 EDT 2006 OK the LXX was translated by Charles Thompson in 1808, which would have been available to Smith. Can anyone confirm for me whether Gen 34:16 begins with "and" as it does in Brenton's version?I'm currently in Brazil and am officially resourceless.Kevin Graham kevlds at hotmail.com Wed Aug 16 12:32:38 EDT 2006 Maybe it is better if you guys read what he said. It is posted online here: http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=jbms&id=167Scroll down to the section â??Non-English Hebraisms in the Original Text.â?Kevin Riley,== Maybe it would pay to ask an English dialectologist whether this construction was found in spoken English around 1830.Good idea. Thus far, however, there hasnâ??t been any evidence that this existed anywhere in the English language at any time. The KJV certainly doesnâ??t retain these Hebraisms, and Smith was frequently accused of copying from the KJV. So we know he couldnâ??t have derived this from the KJV, and he certainly didnâ??t know Hebrew.== Apart from that, it may just be another 'biblicism' designed to give the BoM an ancient/holy feel.Possibly, but Smith would first have to know that an 1f-and construction would create that â??feel.â?== Proving that the hypothetical writer of an unexaminable text did or did not speak ancient Hebrew is a bit beyond thecapabilities of this list.Youâ??re right. I was just giving an overview here. What I would like from you guys is an outside perspective on the claims ofteh Hebrew. Is this the norm in Hebrew? Is it common in the Hebrew Bible?== If the translators of the KJV knew enough to translate as "if .. then", then I would have thought that inspired translation would have been a little more accurate and a little less literal but I don't claim to be an expert on inspiration.Good point. However the same person who wrote that article has also argued that a literal word for word translation is what the translation process (according to eye-witnesses) seems to indicate.Yonah Mishael yonahmishael at gmail.com Wed Aug 16 01:21:44 EDT 2006 Of course, אז = "if" is a typo. This should be "then." (Oops.)On 8/15/06, I <yonahmishael at gmail.com> wrote:>> In modern Hebrew, the apodosis is introduced most normally with the> particle )Z [אז] (= English "if").David Kummerow farmerjoeblo at hotmail.com Wed Aug 16 19:04:38 EDT 2006 Cross-linguistically, some language coordinators/conjunctions commonly group meanings which other languages choose to divide (see the reference below). It is not uncommon for a single coordinator to group the meanings "and", "sequential" (then), "resultative" (so that), etc. The Morman translation, then, has failed to recognise that what Hebrew does with the one coordinator/conjunction (waw) English regularly does with two ("and", "then").Malchukov, Andrej. 2004. â??Towards a Semantic Typology of Adversative and Contrast Marking.â? Journal of Semantics 21: 177-198.Regards,David Kummerow.Kevin Graham kevlds at hotmail.com Wed Aug 16 22:15:40 EDT 2006 I'm sorry David, could you be a litle more clearer? Was that a direct citation from the source you provided?Stephen and Rebecca Shead srshead at gmail.com Wed Aug 16 20:09:06 EDT 2006 Strange - not having my hard copy handy, I checked up the onlineversion of the Book of Mormon -http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/contents - to see the references incontext, and there's neither a "then" nor an "and" there. For example,Helaman 12:13 says "Yea, and if he say unto the earth -- Move -- it ismoved". Are there different versions??Stephen Shead.Kevin Graham kevlds at hotmail.com Wed Aug 16 22:08:41 EDT 2006 Yes, the Hebraisms were in the ORIGINAL manuscripts of the BoM. The BoM was published from the PRINTER's manuscripts which included the changes to make the so-called Hebraism sound more like decent English. So you won't find any if-and examples in the BoM available to the masses.David Kummerow farmerjoeblo at hotmail.com Wed Aug 16 23:24:09 EDT 2006 Hi Kevin,No, no quotation. Just my quick application of the study to the issue at hand.Here's what I'm saying: when comparing individual languages, their coordinators/conjunctions will not always entirely match. That is, one language may employ fewer coordinators/conjunctions whereas another may employ more, the language employing fewer still expressing the same functions as the other language albeit with forms that display greater mutifunctionality/polyfunctionality. The BH coordinator/conjunction waw is an example: it would seem to bear at least the range of functions coordination-consecutive-resultative-adversative-disjunctive (plus some other finer-grained distinctions). English has the words: "and", "then", "so that", "but", "or" etc. So the BH "and" displays much greater multifunctionality vis-a-vis to English "and". What this means in regards to translation into English is that since English doesn't have a single mutifunctional word covering the same semantics as BH "and", then a choice has to often be made for another word, be it "so that", "but", etc.Hope that helps.David Kummerow.trepp at telus.net trepp at telus.net Thu Aug 17 00:28:40 EDT 2006 Quoting b-hebrew-request at lists.ibiblio.org:> Send b-hebrew mailing list submissions to> b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org> > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visitKevin Graham wrote: > > If ... and seems to be a common English idiom, so I don't see that it can> >be exclusive to Hebrew. To use "if ... then" in any of the passages below> >would lead to odd English. Are you sure it never occurs in the KJV?> > Well the argument goes like this. The normal usage of "if-then" (i.e. if she > calls, then I will go) was found in the Book of Mormon manuscript to be > "if-and" (i.e. if she calls and I will go). This makes for poor English, but > if being translated from Hebrew, we are told that it makes perfect sense.>But that is not a sound argument. To couple "if" with "and" is normal when you are using the sequence to anticipate a yet unintroduced result of a hypothetical pat event. An example would be "if he sayeth unto the earth move and it is moved".... It sounds like it is setting us up for some point to the sentence that follows. What does that line go on to say? If there is something further to expect and I have already used the coordinating conjunction, then "if/and" has served its purpose.Only if there is only an immediate condition in the next phrase, then we see an immediate result foretold for the result of the potential thing's fulfillment. Generally one could say for one purpose, "if he sayeth unto the earth move and it is moved" (setting up for a future condition based on an expressed condition of action in the past), or one could say, for another purpose, "if he sayeth unto the earth move then it is to be moved" (as giving only a direct correlation between a postulated future action and its future yet immediate result). > There is no other way to explain this phenomenon unless of course the person > from which this BoM text was translated, was an ancient Hebrew speaking Jew.>It makes better sense to think otherwise. > We are told that there are no examples of this phenomenon in any English > translation in any English text available to the translator in 1830. The KJV > doesn't have any if-and constructions because it is poor English, and was > changed to read if-then.> >I always use the "if/and" setup for instructing others what to do if something occurs in a particular circumstance, and no one seems to find it unexpected or non-standard. I certainly am not influenced by Joseph Smith's writing. Yours truly,Travis JacksonKevin Graham kevlds at hotmail.com Thu Aug 17 01:07:10 EDT 2006 Hey Travis, thanks for commenting== But that is not a sound argument. To couple "if" with "and" is normal when you are using the sequence to anticipate a yet unintroduced result of a hypothetical pat event.But what weâ??re talking about is not just any ole if-and construction. It is specifically referring to cause-effect constructions. For example, â??If you do X, then that Y happen.â? The original Book of Mormon manuscript contained at least 14 instances where it would read â??â??If you do X, and that Y happen.â? The seven examples in Heleman 12: 13-20 are clearly cause and effect statements:13 yea and if he sayeth unto the earth move and it is moved14 yea and if he sayeth unto the earth thou shalt go back that it lengthen out the day for many hours and it is done.16 and behold also if he sayeth unto the waters of the great deep be thou dried up and it is done17 behold if he sayeth unto this mountain be thou raised up and come over and fall upon that city that it be buried up and behold it is done19 and if the Lord shall say be thou accursed that no man shall find thee from this time henceforth and forever and behold no man getteth it henceforth and forever20 and behold if the Lord shall say unto a man because of thine iniquities thou shalt be accursed forever and it shall be done21 and if the Lord shall say because of thine iniquities thou shalt be cut off from my presence and he will cause that it shall be soCompare these to the published version of the Book of Mormon for context: http://scriptures.lds.org/en/hel/12== An example would be "if he sayeth unto the earth move and it is moved".... It sounds like it is setting us up for some point to the sentence that follows. What does that line go on to say? If there is something further to expect and I have already used the coordinating conjunction, then "if/and" has served its purpose.Yes I see what youâ??re getting at, but the context of the verses indicate that these were cause and effect phrases. This usage appears nowhere else in any 19th century English text critics can determine. In fact, it appears to exist in no English examples anywhere at any time. It only makes sense in Hebrew it seems.
Olavarria Posted November 30, 2008 Author Posted November 30, 2008 Harold Holmyard hholmyard at ont.com Thu Aug 17 23:21:11 EDT 2006 HH: I've never read the Book of Mormon, but I notice above that a lot of clauses above start with "and" as well. Perhaps somebody who knew some Hebrew once told Smith that Hebrew clauses regularly begin with the equivalent to our "and"? Perhaps he even talked about this kind of construction with Smith.Yours,Harold HolmyardJoel Stucki joel at stucki.ws Thu Aug 24 20:48:51 EDT 2006 Astute observation Harold. I believe it was Mark Twain who commentedthat if "And it came to pass" were removed from the Book of Mormon itwould be reduced to the Pamphlet of Mormon.But I believe the argument of Skousen is that Smith as an illiteratefarm boy could not have known these things. Regardless of thisspecific argument that does remain true. Smith produced a 500+ pagebook covering many important theological issues and quite a complexnarrative when he was in his early 20's in just over 60 days ofdictation. Before this he had never published a sentence or evenpreached in public. This has led many historians to propose alternatesources for the book's production. Most historians who have spent muchtime on it now agree the work is from Smith. LDS claim inspirationallowed him to produce it and make many claims of its antiquity suchas this one. Non LDS historians generally acknowledge that Smith musthave given considerable thought to theological issues of his day toproduce such a complex work.Certainly there were plenty of people who knew Hebrew in Smith's dayand Smith studied Hebrew in later life, but for those of the LDS faithit is impressive that such details exist. To say Smith could not haveknown these things is a bit of overstatement on Skousen's part but itis also not like he picked it up during his Cambridge years either.Joel StuckiHarold Holmyard hholmyard at ont.com Thu Aug 24 23:09:37 EDT 2006 Dear Joel,>>> Astute observation Harold. I believe it was Mark Twain who commented> that if "And it came to pass" were removed from the Book of Mormon it> would be reduced to the Pamphlet of Mormon.HH: Interesting.>> But I believe the argument of Skousen is that Smith as an illiterate> farm boy could not have known these things.HH: But Smith lived in the northeast, where there were a lot of educated people. He lived in Vermont, New York, and Pennsylvania. He lived near the town of Palmyra, New York.> Regardless of this> specific argument that does remain true. Smith produced a 500+ page> book covering many important theological issues and quite a complex> narrative when he was in his early 20's in just over 60 days of> dictation. HH: No, it was two-and-a-half years of dictation. The following is worth reading:http://lds-mormon.com/jsmith.shtmlYours,Harold Holmyard
Olavarria Posted November 30, 2008 Author Posted November 30, 2008 Joel Stucki joel at stucki.ws Thu Aug 24 23:47:10 EDT 2006 This is a charged subject and clearly off topic for the list. Thereare far more scholarly sources I could provide you to give a moreobjective view. If you are interested I will be happy to refer you tothem off list.Harold Holmyard hholmyard at ont.com Fri Aug 25 09:12:03 EDT 2006 Dear Joel,> But I believe the argument of Skousen is that Smith as an illiterate> farm boy could not have known these things.HH: Joseph Smith as a youth was not illiterate:http://www.pbs.org/americanprophet/joseph-smith.htmlYours,Harold HolmyardKirk Lowery klowery at whi.wts.edu Fri Aug 25 09:29:23 EDT 2006 Friends,This discussion has wandered from the original topic of how atranslation handles a Hebrew idiom to focusing on Mormonism which isbeyond list topic boundaries.So, unless there is more to say about the translation of "if-and"constructions, let's give it a rest.Thanks!Blessings,KirkB-Hebrew co-chair--Kirk E. Lowery, PhDDirector, Westminster Hebrew InstituteAdjunct Professor of Old TestamentWestminster Theological Seminary, Philadelphia--"Good boy, Dex!" -- Joseph "Sky Captain" SullivanIf you all want to know where I got this visit:http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-hebre...ust/029315.htmlTHE BOOK OF HELAMAN CHAPTER 16:13-25
Olavarria Posted November 30, 2008 Author Posted November 30, 2008 Whoa!!! I missed two.Steve Miller smille10 at sbcglobal.net Fri Aug 18 22:13:13 EDT 2006 I examined all the occurrances of )M in Gen.,1) LXX does not translate if-vav as if-and. The only place it did was Gen34:16, by ending the sentence at the end of v 15.2) These are the if-and's in Hebrew in Gen.:Genesis 13:9; 14:23; 18:26; 24:8,38,41; 28:20-21; 31:8; 32:8; 33:10; 38:9;43:9; 44:26,32; 47:6All these, seem to me, to be cases of ***-for-tat, if <you do this>, <I alsowill do that>. A weaker cause-effect. None of them have an imperative for the unconditional clause, which would bynecessity be a strong cause-effect. Likewise none have God as the subject ofthe conditional clause, like the quotes from BoM, which are cause-effect asstrong as you can get.3) These are the if-s not followed by and, which have an if <conditional><unconditional> structure. Some of these are strong cause-effect, some haveimperatives for the unconditional clause, some have God as the subject ofthe conditional., some are natural laws:4:7; 18:3,21; 20:7; 23:8,13; 24:49; 25:22; 27:46; 30:1,31; 31:50; 42:16,19;43:4,11; 44:23; 47:29; 50:4I did not list those which are not if <conditional> <unconditional>structure: KY )M, or have the unconditional phrase before the conditional.There are 76 )M occurrances in Gen.-Steve MillerDetroitwww.voiceinwilderness.infoSteve Miller smille10 at sbcglobal.net Fri Aug 18 22:34:57 EDT 2006 sorry, reposting because I forgot to include the vs in Gen 34 which were discussed earlier.)I examined all the occurrances of )M in Gen.,1) LXX does not translate if-vav as if-and. The only place it did was Gen34:16, by ending the sentence at the end of v 15.2) These are the if-and's in Hebrew in Gen.:Genesis 13:9; 14:23; 18:26; 24:8,38,41; 28:20-21; 31:8; 32:8; 33:10; 34:15-6,17; 38:9;43:9; 44:26,32; 47:6All these, seem to me, to be cases of ***-for-tat, if <you do this>, <I also will do that>. A weaker cause-effect.None of them have an imperative for the unconditional clause, which would by necessity be a strong cause-effect. Likewise none have God as the subject ofthe conditional clause, like the quotes from BoM, which are cause-effectas strong as you can get.3) These are the if-s not followed by and, which have an if <conditional><unconditional> structure. Some of these are strong cause-effect, Some have imperatives for the unconditional clause, [steve Miller] some have God as the subject of the conditional., some are natural laws:4:7; 18:3,21; 20:7; 23:8,13; 24:49; 25:22; 27:46; 30:1,31; 31:50;42:16,19; 43:4,11; 44:23; 47:29; 50:4I did not list those which are not if <conditional> <unconditional>structure: i.e. KY )M, or have the unconditional phrase before theconditional.There are 76 )M occurrances in Gen.-Steve MillerDetroitwww.voiceinwilderness.info
soren Posted November 30, 2008 Posted November 30, 2008 Kevin Graham kevlds at hotmail.com Tue Aug 15 22:50:47 EDT 2006 Kevin Graham kevlds at hotmail.com Tue Aug 15 23:09:57 EDT 2006 Kevin Riley klriley at alphalink.com.au Tue Aug 15 23:27:59 EDT 2006 For the record, I think "if...and" conditionals are a good argument for the BOM.
Rommelator Posted November 30, 2008 Posted November 30, 2008 Did anyone else catch this?Perhaps somebody who knew some Hebrew once told Smith that Hebrew clauses regularly begin with the equivalent to our "and"? Perhaps he even talked about this kind of construction with Smith.Well I for one would like to know who this clandestine "somebody" was who had conversations with Joseph Smith on Hebrew conditional sentences. Ethan Smith, perhaps? Certainly there were plenty of people who knew Hebrew in Smith's dayand Smith studied Hebrew in later life, but for those of the LDS faithit is impressive that such details exist. To say Smith could not haveknown these things is a bit of overstatement on Skousen's part but itis also not like he picked it up during his Cambridge years either.So where did he pick it up? I believe it was Mark Twain who commentedthat if "And it came to pass" were removed from the Book of Mormon itwould be reduced to the Pamphlet of Mormon.As a hebraist Stucki should know that "and it came to pass" is another good Hebraism, right? It might also be worth researching whether there were any highly literal translations of the Old Testament in circulation which used this construction, which Joseph Smith might have known and copied.Seems the Palmyra Public Library needs some expansion to include "highly literal translations of the Old Testament" and other texts on biblical Hebrew that Joseph Smith might have known. But I believe the argument of Skousen is that Smith as an illiterate farm boy could not have known these things.HH: Joseph Smith as a youth was not illiterate:Did Skousen ever say that Joseph Smith was "illiterate"? I don't think so. Methinks that is a straw man.Also, notice what the link says:"Though in his youth Joseph was largely deprived of a formal education, he was "instructed in reading, writing, and the ground rules of arithmetic.""Would this have been enough for him to know about if...and conditionals?
Chris Smith Posted November 30, 2008 Posted November 30, 2008 Her Amun,Thanks for posting all of this. It was an interesting discussion. Steve Miller's remark that the Book of Mormon use of "if...and" seems to indicate a stronger cause-effect relationship than that construction denotes in Genesis is certainly worth taking into consideration.I went ahead and used the 1830 BoM to fill in the ellipses in Helaman 12:13-21 as quoted in Skousen's article. The text I filled in is in brackets here. Unfortunately, the 1830 BoM has punctuation and capitalization that were not part of the original text, so if someone has a copy of Skousen's critical edition they will be able to do a better job of this. I also added the next couple lines for context.[For behold, the dust of the earth moveth hither and thither, to the dividing asunder, at the command of our great and everlasting God; yea, behold at his voice do the hills and the mountains tremble and quake; and by the power of his voice they are broken up, and become smooth, yea, even like unto a valley; yea, by the power of his voice doth the whole earth shake; yea, by the power of his voice, do the foundations rock, even to the very center;] yea and if he sayeth unto the earth move and it is moved; yea if he say unto the earth thou shalt go back that it lengthen out the day for many hours and it is done; [and thus according to his word, the earth goeth back, and it appeareth unto man that it standeth still; yea, and behold this is so: for sure it is the earth that moveth, and not the sun.] and behold also if he sayeth unto the waters of the great deep be thou dried up and it is done behold if he sayeth unto this mountain be thou raised up and come over and fall upon that city that it be buried up and behold it is done [And behold if a man hideth up treasure in the earth, and the Lord shall say, Let it be accursed, because of the iniquity of him that hath hid it up, behold, it shall be accursed;] and if the Lord shall say be thou accursed that no man shall find thee from this time henceforth and forever and behold no man getteth it henceforth and forever and behold if the Lord shall say unto a man because of thine iniquities thou shalt be accursed forever and it shall be done and if the Lord shall say because of thine iniquities thou shalt be cut off from my presence and he will cause that it shall be so[.-- And wo unto whom he shall say this, for it shall be unto him that will do iniquity, and he cannot be saved; therefore, for this cause, that men might be saved, hath repentance been declared.]I agree that this makes for ugly English, to say the least, and I have always been willing to admit that there is real strength to this apologetic. On the other hand, this isn't going to have me running out to get baptized anytime soon. The way that I've always explained this to myself is that Joseph is dictating in a very rhythmic and poetic cadence and is not aiming at grammatical precision. I believe that the key to the "if...and" clauses lay in the context. Thus I would summarize the structure of the text as follows: there is an affirmation (i.e. that the dust of the earth moves at God's command) and then there are instances of the affirmation, or perhaps conditions under which the affirmation is true (e.g. if he sayeth unto the earth move and it is moved, etc.).Here it is applied to the whole text:Affirmation:For behold, the dust of the earth moveth hither and thither, to the dividing asunder, at the command of our great and everlasting God;Instances of the affirmation (or conditions under which the affirmation is true):yea, behold at his voice do the hills and the mountains tremble and quake; and by the power of his voice they are broken up, and become smooth, yea, even like unto a valley; yea, by the power of his voice doth the whole earth shake; yea, by the power of his voice, do the foundations rock, even to the very center.yea and if he sayeth unto the earth move and it is moved; yea if he say unto the earth thou shalt go back that it lengthen out the day for many hours and it is done; and thus according to his word, the earth goeth back, and it appeareth unto man that it standeth still; yea, and behold this is so: for sure it is the earth that moveth, and not the sun. and behold also if he sayeth unto the waters of the great deep be thou dried up and it is done behold if he sayeth unto this mountain be thou raised up and come over and fall upon that city that it be buried up and behold it is done And behold if a man hideth up treasure in the earth, and the Lord shall say, Let it be accursed, because of the iniquity of him that hath hid it up, behold, it shall be accursed;and if the Lord shall say be thou accursed that no man shall find thee from this time henceforth and forever and behold no man getteth it henceforth and foreverand behold if the Lord shall say unto a man because of thine iniquities thou shalt be accursed forever and it shall be done and if the Lord shall say because of thine iniquities thou shalt be cut off from my presence and he will cause that it shall be so.-- And wo unto whom he shall say this, for it shall be unto him that will do iniquity, and he cannot be saved; therefore, for this cause, that men might be saved, hath repentance been declared.This is admittedly still ugly. But I wouldn't really expect any less from a dictated text.Anyway, my take: a good evidence, but not enough to convert me.Best,-Chris
Olavarria Posted November 30, 2008 Author Posted November 30, 2008 Her Amun,Thanks for posting all of this. It was an interesting discussion. Steve Miller's remark that the Book of Mormon use of "if...and" seems to indicate a stronger cause-effect relationship than that construction denotes in Genesis is certainly worth taking into consideration.I went ahead and used the 1830 BoM to fill in the ellipses in Helaman 12:13-21 as quoted in Skousen's article. The text I filled in is in brackets here. Unfortunately, the 1830 BoM has punctuation and capitalization that were not part of the original text, so if someone has a copy of Skousen's critical edition they will be able to do a better job of this. I also added the next couple lines for context.I agree that this makes for ugly English, to say the least, and I have always been willing to admit that there is real strength to this apologetic. On the other hand, this isn't going to have me running out to get baptized anytime soon. The way that I've always explained this to myself is that Joseph is dictating in a very rhythmic and poetic cadence and is not aiming at grammatical precision. I believe that the key to the "if...and" clauses lay in the context. Thus I would summarize the structure of the text as follows: there is an affirmation (i.e. that the dust of the earth moves at God's command) and then there are instances of the affirmation, or perhaps conditions under which the affirmation is true (e.g. if he sayeth unto the earth move and it is moved, etc.).Here it is applied to the whole text:Affirmation:For behold, the dust of the earth moveth hither and thither, to the dividing asunder, at the command of our great and everlasting God;Instances of the affirmation (or conditions under which the affirmation is true):yea, behold at his voice do the hills and the mountains tremble and quake; and by the power of his voice they are broken up, and become smooth, yea, even like unto a valley; yea, by the power of his voice doth the whole earth shake; yea, by the power of his voice, do the foundations rock, even to the very center.yea and if he sayeth unto the earth move and it is moved; yea if he say unto the earth thou shalt go back that it lengthen out the day for many hours and it is done; and thus according to his word, the earth goeth back, and it appeareth unto man that it standeth still; yea, and behold this is so: for sure it is the earth that moveth, and not the sun. and behold also if he sayeth unto the waters of the great deep be thou dried up and it is done behold if he sayeth unto this mountain be thou raised up and come over and fall upon that city that it be buried up and behold it is done And behold if a man hideth up treasure in the earth, and the Lord shall say, Let it be accursed, because of the iniquity of him that hath hid it up, behold, it shall be accursed;and if the Lord shall say be thou accursed that no man shall find thee from this time henceforth and forever and behold no man getteth it henceforth and foreverand behold if the Lord shall say unto a man because of thine iniquities thou shalt be accursed forever and it shall be done and if the Lord shall say because of thine iniquities thou shalt be cut off from my presence and he will cause that it shall be so.-- And wo unto whom he shall say this, for it shall be unto him that will do iniquity, and he cannot be saved; therefore, for this cause, that men might be saved, hath repentance been declared.This is admittedly still ugly. But I wouldn't really expect any less from a dictated text.Anyway, my take: a good evidence, but not enough to convert me.Best,-ChrisHey CK, I just thought it was interesting to see how non-mo's look react to the same info. As far as enough scientific evidence to get someone into the water,without Moroni 10:4-5........I think only 2 things will do:1) A pre-classic "mayan" glyph that spouts of a king list that reads something like "Mosiah, Benjamin, Mosiah, Alma, Helaman, Nephi etc". Even then, we'd have to ask our selves if we were reading the glyphs right.2) Or some type of glyph that that says something like: "on 13 Ahuan, 7 katun, 1 Jaguar Chak Balaam captured this city, Zerahamla and sacrificed Mormon" and then have that city match Larry Paulson's or Sorenson's map of BoM lands.as alaways1) We don't have translated king lists from pre-classic times, in the BoM areas.2) We don't know the names of any pre-classic sites: Santa Rosa, El Mirador, Tres Zapotes, La Venta, San Lorenzo, San Bartolo etc.PSWouldn't that be an interesting pre-baptismal interview?Elder: So brother, why do you want to get baptised?CK: Ya, i was on the MADB and some guy named Her Amun was like "If...and" conditional. And I was like Ta Dow "thats it"!!
charity's child Posted November 30, 2008 Posted November 30, 2008 I've got it! JS couldn't put a sentence together right because he only spoke and wrote translated Hebrew! He was a closet Hebraist with no English! Must be so, right.
Chris Smith Posted November 30, 2008 Posted November 30, 2008 As far as enough scientific evidence to get someone into the water,without Moroni 10:4-5........I would have settled for the church hanging onto those gold plates and having some Mayanist or Egyptologist translate them for us. Or for the Book of Mormon having a more ancient American, less 19th century American feel. I might have hit the waters a long time ago if there weren't major problems detracting from the credibility of the whole thing.
Chris Smith Posted November 30, 2008 Posted November 30, 2008 Her Amun,Upon re-examining and re-working the explanation I provided yesterday, I think I have significantly improved it. I wasn't looking far enough in either direction in the text of Helaman to grasp what is really being said here. Here is a summary of what I think is the structure of the passage:A. Men are even lesser than the dust of the earth.B. God moves the earth however he pleases.C. If God orders the earth to move and it does,D. And if God orders that you be cut off for sin and it is done,E. Then you better repent!Here is that structure applied to the whole passage:A. Men are even lesser than the dust of the earth.O how great is the nothingness of the children of men; yea, even they are less than the dust of the earth.B. God moves the earth however he pleases.For behold, the dust of the earth moveth hither and thither, to the dividing asunder, at the command of our great and everlasting God;yea, behold at his voice do the hills and the mountains tremble and quake; and by the power of his voice they are broken up, and become smooth, yea, even like unto a valley; yea, by the power of his voice doth the whole earth shake; yea, by the power of his voice, do the foundations rock, even to the very center.C. If God orders the earth to move and it does,yea and if he sayeth unto the earth move and it is moved; yea if he say unto the earth thou shalt go back that it lengthen out the day for many hours and it is done; and thus according to his word, the earth goeth back, and it appeareth unto man that it standeth still; yea, and behold this is so: for sure it is the earth that moveth, and not the sun.and behold also if he sayeth unto the waters of the great deep be thou dried up and it is done behold if he sayeth unto this mountain be thou raised up and come over and fall upon that city that it be buried up and behold it is done And behold if a man hideth up treasure in the earth, and the Lord shall say, Let it be accursed, because of the iniquity of him that hath hid it up, behold, it shall be accursed;and if the Lord shall say be thou accursed that no man shall find thee from this time henceforth and forever and behold no man getteth it henceforth and foreverD. And if God orders that you be cut off for sin and it is done,and behold if the Lord shall say unto a man because of thine iniquities thou shalt be accursed forever and it shall be done and if the Lord shall say because of thine iniquities thou shalt be cut off from my presence and he will cause that it shall be so --and wo unto whom he shall say this, for it shall be unto him that will do iniquity, and he cannot be saved;E. Then you better repent!therefore, for this cause, that men might be saved, hath repentance been declared.Therefore, blessed are they who will repent and hearken unto the voice of the Lord their God; for these are they that shall be saved.I think the problem here for most interpreters is that what we have from verses 13-23 is essentially one really long sentence, with lengthy asides (which I have italicized) in verses 15 and 22 that interrupt the sentence's flow. One of these asides immediately precedes the predicate in v. 23, thereby obscuring its relationship to the list of conditions that precedes it. Joseph was orally dictating this, and so we should not expect the crisp style of an expert author. Rather, what we find here has more of the cadence and rhythm of a frontier sermon.Notice, however, how much sense my reading makes of this passage. The progression here is perfectly logical. If God curses a treasure and hundreds of years later this curse remains in effect, and if God similarly curses you and it is binding, then you're screwed unless you repent. If God divides asunder the earth and the waters and it lasts forever, and if he similarly cuts you off from his presence, then you're screwed unless you repent.I should add that it is yet another sign of Joseph Smith's great genius that he could construct a sentence of such length and semantic complexity that even academic readers have been more likely to chalk it up to "Hebraism" than to grasp the full sentence in its English meaning.
Olavarria Posted November 30, 2008 Author Posted November 30, 2008 Her Amun,Upon re-examining and re-working the explanation I provided yesterday, I think I have significantly improved it. I wasn't looking far enough in either direction in the text of Helaman to grasp what is really being said here.......readers have been more likely to chalk it up to "Hebraism" than to grasp the full sentence in its English meaning.So what your saying is that these verses are just one giantic run-on sentance? A gigantic run-on with If-AND conditionals running through it?How does that apply to Moroni's promise and its own "if...and"? "and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart with real intent having faith in Christ and he will manifest the truth of it unto you by the power of the Holy Ghost." I don't have an 1830 edition handy.
Chris Smith Posted November 30, 2008 Posted November 30, 2008 So what your saying is that these verses are just one giantic run-on sentance?More or less.A gigantic run-on with If-AND conditionals running through it?They only appear to be if...and conditionals, because the predicate doesn't come till the very end.How does that apply to Moroni's promise and its own "if...and"? "and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart with real intent having faith in Christ and he will manifest the truth of it unto you by the power of the Holy Ghost." I don't have an 1830 edition handy.I haven't looked in detail at the other, isolated examples, and don't actually have time to do so right now. (I have a paper due soon that I've done almost no research for.) But I promise I'll come back first chance I get and let you know if I think I can explain those, too. So hold that thought.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.