Jump to content

Egyptian language vs Egyptian script


Olavarria

Recommended Posts

LANGUAGE

1 Ne. 1: 2

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

Mosiah 1:4

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.

SCRIPT

Morm. 9:32

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

The BoM seems top make a disticntion between "language" and "characters". The brass plates and Nephi's record were written in the Egyptian language, whereas the gold plates were written in reformed Egyptian characters.

There is a difference between Egyptian language and Egyptian characters. Demotic was used to write Amherst 63, a version of Psalm 20 in Aramaic. Modified egyptian script was used to write the Mereotic language as well. Coptic however, is Egyptian language using Greek script.

What sayest thou?

Link to comment
1 Ne. 1: 2

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.

I believe Nibley addressed this sufficiently: a "language" does not consist of a language plus something else, in this case the Egyptian language plus the learning of the Jews. However, a "record" does. So, in my opinion (with the support of Nibley and others), this passage is poorly worded or punctuated and should read something like "I make a record writing in the idiolect of my father, the record being in the language of the Egyptians based on the knowledge of the Jews."

Mosiah 1:4

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.

Again, we have a poor choice of words, based on the other two instances you gave us. Whether it was Benjamin, Mormon, or Joseph, or whether it is an artifact of (the altered) Hebrew (of the Nephites) (this was, after all, 500 years after Jerusalem) wherein "language" and "script" were either very close or identical words, Benjamin clearly meant the use of Egyptian characters (as used by the Nephite prophets), not the Egyptian language.

History is full of hieratic scripts, known to priests and other initiates alone. It is far from unlikely that this Nephite script was widely known among the general Nephite populace.

Lehi

Link to comment

I believe Nibley addressed this sufficiently: a "language" does not consist of a language plus something else, in this case the Egyptian language plus the learning of the Jews. However, a "record" does. So, in my opinion (with the support of Nibley and others), this passage is poorly worded or punctuated and should read something like "I make a record writing in the idiolect of my father, the record being in the language of the Egyptians based on the knowledge of the Jews."

Sure it does, if it is a combination of two languages, or one language heavily modified by another.

Again, we have a poor choice of words, based on the other two instances you gave us. Whether it was Benjamin, Mormon, or Joseph, or whether it is an artifact of (the altered) Hebrew (of the Nephites) (this was, after all, 500 years after Jerusalem) wherein "language" and "script" were either very close or identical words, Benjamin clearly meant the use of Egyptian characters (as used by the Nephite prophets), not the Egyptian language.

Visi cilv?ki piedzimst br?vi un vienl?dz?gi sav? pa

Link to comment

I guess were all on the same page. Except maybe for one point. It seems Nephi;s text and b.plates were writtenin actual egyptian language, whereas the Mormon's gold plates were written in some form of hebrew, using a midifed Egyptian script.

You all seem to be saying that 1 Nephi to Moroni is all in some form of hebrew, using a midifed Egyptian script.

Am I correct? :P

My whole case is dependant on "language" and "characters" meaning different things to the authors. You all seem to be saying they are synonyms.

Link to comment

Frankly, I'm not sure if it is in Hebrew with an Egyptian script, or if it is in an Egyptian dialect heavily influenced by Hebrew.

...or a Hebrew dialect heavily influenced by Egyptian. Who knows? The BoM is clear about the Nephite prophet-historians knowing some form of both.

Link to comment

Frankly, I'm not sure if it is in Hebrew with an Egyptian script, or if it is in an Egyptian dialect heavily influenced by Hebrew.

I'm not "sure" either, but it seems the the primary language would have had to have been Hebrew with influences from Egyptian (names, for instance, like Ammon/Amun) rather than the other way 'round.

I base this on Moroni's insistence that if they had been able to write in their Hebrew dialect ("the Hebrew hath been altered by us also"), their record would have had no imperfections.

Lehi

Link to comment

I'm not "sure" either, but it seems the the primary language would have had to have been Hebrew with influences from Egyptian (names, for instance, like Ammon/Amun) rather than the other way 'round.

I base this on Moroni's insistence that if they had been able to write in their Hebrew dialect ("the Hebrew hath been altered by us also"), their record would have had no imperfections.

Lehi

Exactly

????

wo ai yesu*

I love Jesus

*I wrote this in the characters which are called among us the reformed Latin, having been altered according to our manner of speech. Now, If i could have written in Chinese there would be no error in my sentence.

Link to comment

I'm not "sure" either, but it seems the the primary language would have had to have been Hebrew with influences from Egyptian (names, for instance, like Ammon/Amun) rather than the other way 'round.

I dunno, the language of the Egyptians and the learning of the Jews seems to imply that like the later Yiddish and Judeo-Espaniols, the main component was Egyptian. As i said, either reading is possible.

I base this on Moroni's insistence that if they had been able to write in their Hebrew dialect ("the Hebrew hath been altered by us also"), their record would have had no imperfections.

Lehi

Or the Hebrew letters could have been more precise and less-likely to be conflated with others.

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...