Pahoran

[Hamilton Porter]

Pedro,

I suppose one might try to connect Akkadian to the Jaredites but this doesn’t seem plausible. Of course, Akkadian words and names might, hypothetically, have entered Israelite culture through Israelite contact with Mesopotamian society, but that connection seems rather weak.

Akkadian wordplay was employed by First Isaiah.

Isa. 10:8 For he says: ‘Are not my commanders [Heb: sar] all kings [Akk: sarru]?

http://www.google.co...9mc7_5yrRkQ9ewA

The putative original-language text of the Book of Mormon would have been something based on Hebrew or Egyptian or both. This means that the reader of such a “reformed Egyptian” text would have had no way to know that Pahoran was related to an Akkadian word, or even to know that the name meant gathering or mustering men for an army, unless the text said so. An author might well engage in word play with a name if it worked in his language, and we might of course not see it in English translation; but an author would hardly engage in word play meant to illuminate the meaning of a name if the associated word in the same language had no verbal similarity to the name.

Wordplay is used in the Bible merely for sonar effect, often with no need to illuminate anything.

Furthermore, Alma 59:3 is an odd place to find an etymology or word play on the name Pahoran. The usual place to look for some indication of the meaning of a name is in the passage where it first occurs (e.g., this is the usual pattern in the Bible). But the name Pahoran first appears in Alma 50:40 and occurs seven more times in Alma 51 before reappearing in 59:3. If one looks for possible etymological “convergences” in every text where the name occurs, one has 32 different occurrences, each with various descriptions in their immediate contexts, in which to search. Now we are back to the fundamental problem with the method: so many and such diverse opportunities to score “hits” mean that it would be surprising if you didn’t find something from time to time. That is, if you search several ancient languages looking for names sounding like Pahoran with etymologies meaning something like judgment-seat, throne, peace, gather, contention, judge, division, retain, rejoice, governor, chosen, grieve, preserve, liberty, strong, restore, march, possession, and preach—all significant words found in texts referring to Pahoran—it doesn’t tell us anything reliable if you find something.

This is true, but what is your opinion of the same pattern's being found in Book of Mormon wordplay (e.g. Nephi, Enos, Alma)?

Looking at this issue from another angle, it seems to me that using Alma 59:3 in this way to explain the meaning of the name Pahoran actually works at cross-purposes to your intention. Your intention, I think, is to show that this particular Book of Mormon name has a plausible origin in ancient usage so as to support or defend the historicity of the Book of Mormon narrative. But an etymology related to the statement in Alma 59:3 about the adult Pahoran gathering men to augment Helaman’s armies doesn’t do this. In fact, it would suggest that Pahoran is a fictitious person, because presumably an historical Pahoran’s parents would not have given him that name in anticipation of this particular incident reported in Alma 59:3.

Or maybe the wordplay is only for rhetorical effect, and isn't meant to be biographical.

[Rob Bowman]

Hamilton,

Hello there. You chose an interesting topic for your first post. You wrote:

Akkadian wordplay was employed by First Isaiah.

This is possible but far from assured. In any case, the plausibility of the "wordplay" depends on the fact that Isaiah is quoting an Assyrian king. That is, one has an immediate cultural context specifically mentioned in Isaiah that would make such a verbal word association plausible. Nothing like that is even remotely the case with regard to the Book of Mormon name Pahoran.

You wrote:

Wordplay is used in the Bible merely for sonar effect, often with no need to illuminate anything.... Or maybe the wordplay is only for rhetorical effect, and isn't meant to be biographical.

"Wordplay" is not an adequate term for the point at issue here, which is the suggestion put forward that the Book of Mormon individual in question was named Pahoran because that name meant something in Akkadian of relevance to the figure's life in the Book of Mormon. I was simply responding to the claim that was presented in the opening post. If the "biographical" reference is irrelevant, then there is absolutely no basis whatsoever for the proposed Akkadian origin of the name.

You wrote:

This is true, but what is your opinion of the same pattern's being found in Book of Mormon wordplay (e.g. Nephi, Enos, Alma)?

I'm familiar with those names, but I'm not clear as to what you mean by the same pattern being found in Book of Mormon wordplay with regard to these names. Perhaps you could elaborate.

[Hamilton Porter]

This is possible but far from assured. In any case, the plausibility of the "wordplay" depends on the fact that Isaiah is quoting an Assyrian king. That is, one has an immediate cultural context specifically mentioned in Isaiah that would make such a verbal word association plausible. Nothing like that is even remotely the case with regard to the Book of Mormon name Pahoran.

Well, would Isaiah's readership be able to recognize this Akkadian wordplay? From what I know, scribes write primarily for other scribes, not for the lay, oral-tradition audience.

"Wordplay" is not an adequate term for the point at issue here, which is the suggestion put forward that the Book of Mormon individual in question was named Pahoran because that name meant something in Akkadian of relevance to the figure's life in the Book of Mormon. I was simply responding to the claim that was presented in the opening post. If the "biographical" reference is irrelevant, then there is absolutely no basis whatsoever for the proposed Akkadian origin of the name.

Understood.

I'm familiar with those names, but I'm not clear as to what you mean by the same pattern being found in Book of Mormon wordplay with regard to these names. Perhaps you could elaborate.

You noted a Biblical pattern that I think can serve as a good methodological control, i.e., wordplay in the Bible is usually inserted when a character is first introduced. Hence:

http://maxwellinstit...2&num=11&id=301 when Nephi first introduces himself

http://maxwellinstit...26&num=3&id=459 when Enos first introduces himself

http://maxwellinstit...30&num=4&id=913 when Alma is first introduced

[Stargazer]

The oddest thing for me is that the name appears in ~67BC, over 500 years after the Lehites made landfall. So the fact that the name had been carried over by the Lehites and survived that long is pretty amazing in and of itself. Almost as amazing as there being a remarkable lack of New World names being adopted so long after they had merged with the local culture.

I suspect that, should the contents of the Brass Plates ever be cataloged, we shouldn't be surprised to find "2,002 Egyptian Baby Names" tucked in there somewhere.

My given name is Michael. This name is at least 4,000 years old. Why did my father name me this instead of some Scottish name like his own (he was a Donald)?

There are lots of names that keep on happening.

[Stargazer]

Well, would Isaiah's readership be able to recognize this Akkadian wordplay? From what I know, scribes write primarily for other scribes, not for the lay, oral-tradition audience.

Understood.

You noted a Biblical pattern that I think can serve as a good methodological control, i.e., wordplay in the Bible is usually inserted when a character is first introduced. Hence:

http://maxwellinstit...2&num=11&id=301 when Nephi first introduces himself

http://maxwellinstit...26&num=3&id=459 when Enos first introduces himself

http://maxwellinstit...30&num=4&id=913 when Alma is first introduced

That is very interesting indeed! Thanks for posting that.

[Rob Bowman]

Hamilton,

You wrote:

Well, would Isaiah's readership be able to recognize this Akkadian wordplay? From what I know, scribes write primarily for other scribes, not for the lay, oral-tradition audience.

Again, the alleged allusion to an Akkadian word is at most plausible and far from definite. In my opinion, the argument for the wordplay is too weak to justify basing any signficant claims on the alleged wordplay. Whether we accept that interpretation or not, I would argue that Isaiah wrote for God's people, not just for scribes (Isaiah himself was a prophet, not a mere scribe).

You wrote:

You noted a Biblical pattern that I think can serve as a good methodological control, i.e., wordplay in the Bible is usually inserted when a character is first introduced. Hence:

http://maxwellinstit...2&num=11&id=301 when Nephi first introduces himself

http://maxwellinstit...26&num=3&id=459 when Enos first introduces himself

http://maxwellinstit...30&num=4&id=913 when Alma is first introduced

You would appear to agree with me, then, that the alleged Akkadian etymology for Pahoran doesn't pass this reasonable methodological control. Is that right? Perhaps after this point is confirmed we could discuss other Book of Mormon names.

[Buzzard]

Perhaps after this point is confirmed we could discuss other Book of Mormon names.

Are you sure you want to go there? Each individual name, Pahoran, Laman, Lemuel, etc... can be examined, and the probability of that name, taken in isolation may not climb over the proof of ancient origin bar. But when you take all the Egyptian, Semetic, and other ancient names in the BOM, the probability that all of them were made up by JS starts to reach impossibly low levels.

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=60&chapid=605

Covers this in much better detail than my amatuer efforts could.

[Hamilton Porter]

Again, the alleged allusion to an Akkadian word is at most plausible and far from definite. In my opinion, the argument for the wordplay is too weak to justify basing any signficant claims on the alleged wordplay. Whether we accept that interpretation or not, I would argue that Isaiah wrote for God's people, not just for scribes (Isaiah himself was a prophet, not a mere scribe).

Most of God's people can't read.

You would appear to agree with me, then, that the alleged Akkadian etymology for Pahoran doesn't pass this reasonable methodological control. Is that right? Perhaps after this point is confirmed we could discuss other Book of Mormon names.

I would agree that the wordplay with Pahoran doesn't constitute evidence for the BOM's antiquity (as Pedro himself noted), but I disagree with your reasons.

Etymology does not matter. Isaiah even uses false etymology.

I'll just pull a couple of examples from Robert Alter's Art of Biblical Poetry:

Isa. 1 (NASB):

2 Listen, O heavens, and hear, O earth ; For the LORD speaks, "Sons [banim] I have reared and brought up, But they have revolted against Me.

3 "An ox knows its owner, And a donkey its master's manger, But Israel does not know, My people do not understand [hitbonan]."

Alter said:

In Hebrew, this point is sharpened through wordplay: hitbonan, the verb that means to "perceive" or "grasp," flaunts a false but poetically apt etymology of banim, "sons," so that line 4b contains a shadow meaning of "My people did not act as sons."

Job 3

22 Who rejoice greatly, And exult when they find the grave [qever]? 23 "Why is light given to a man [gever] whose way is hidden, And whom God has hedged in?

Yeah, nothing to do with etymology.

[Hamilton Porter]

Are you sure you want to go there? Each individual name, Pahoran, Laman, Lemuel, etc... can be examined, and the probability of that name, taken in isolation may not climb over the proof of ancient origin bar. But when you take all the Egyptian, Semetic, and other ancient names in the BOM, the probability that all of them were made up by JS starts to reach impossibly low levels.

http://maxwellinstit...d=60&chapid=605

Covers this in much better detail than my amatuer efforts could.

Nibley was a pioneer in using proper names as artifacts, but a lot of his proposed connections are wrong. He just chose words that sound alike, without attention to time period, how Jewish people named their kids, etc.

[Hamilton Porter]

By the way folks, Pahoran is an obscure town in Pakistan. Someone may want to check if Joseph Smith had access to this (I doubt it). Original manuscript had Pahoron anyway.

http://www.asiamedia.ucla.edu/article.asp?parentid=71810

[ERayR]

Are you saying that Lehite records with the name "Pahoran" became as widely preponderant among the indigenous cultures of the New World which the Lehites joined as the Bible has been in the western world for the last 2,000 years? Did they translate these records into the new world languages of the time, or did they teach their converts the necessary language skills to appreciate and propagate their old-world names?

And in any land where I've seen religious conversions, you find members of the Church with native names. Sure, you might find a "Nephi" or "Joseph" among them as they borrow languages from the scriptures or Church history, but you'll still find a lot of boys named Viktor or Vasily among Russian LDS, or Manuels and Cesars among Mexican LDS. Are there any names in the Book of Mormon that indicate a new-world origin? Maybe after 7-800 years?

Nope he is saying people of any time (age) tended to name their kids what they wanted to name them regardless of how those in this age think they should have.

[Tepui]

The oddest thing for me is that the name appears in ~67BC, over 500 years after the Lehites made landfall. So the fact that the name had been carried over by the Lehites and survived that long is pretty amazing in and of itself. Almost as amazing as there being a remarkable lack of New World names being adopted so long after they had merged with the local culture.

I suspect that, should the contents of the Brass Plates ever be cataloged, we shouldn't be surprised to find "2,002 Egyptian Baby Names" tucked in there somewhere.

That's because the "Lehites" didn't merge with any culture, obviously. Take also the context of Captain Moroni's rallying cry: He invoked the name of Jacob and Joseph of Egypt-at 67BC

"

Yea, let us preserve our liberty as a remnant of Joseph."

Moroni didn't invoke the name of a Maya or Olmec ruler - with whom the Nephites (Lamanites & Mulekites) allegedly dwelt and mixed with. Nephites with Jaredite names came after Ether's record was translated and sent out among them.

Same as Brigham Young using "Deseret," not because Young lived among Jaredites. But of course, Nephi's mesoamerica name was in actuality, U-K'ix-Chan?

Edited April 7, 2012 by Tepui

[Hamilton Porter]

By the way, according to Martin Harris Charles Anthon said some characters on the Anthon transcript were Chaldean.

[Hamilton Porter]

That is very interesting indeed! Thanks for posting that.

No response from Rob Bowman. Legitmate wordplay on Nephi, Enos, and Alma stands.

I have yet to see our critics even attempt to refute Matt Bowen's discoveries.

[Rob Bowman]

Hamilton,

You wrote:

No response from Rob Bowman. Legitmate wordplay on Nephi, Enos, and Alma stands. I have yet to see our critics even attempt to refute Matt Bowen's discoveries.

You will. The arguments Bowen presents are actually easily refuted. I've just been busy.

Edited April 9, 2012 by Rob Bowman

[Hamilton Porter]

Hamilton,

You wrote:

You will. The arguments Bowen presents are actually easily refuted. I've just been busy.

Ok, but nothing circular.

[volgadon]

A likelier etymology seems to me the Egyptian prefix pa and Horon, a deity of Syro-Phoenician origin.

[Hamilton Porter]

Hamilton,

You wrote:

You will. The arguments Bowen presents are actually easily refuted. I've just been busy.

So easy to refute and you still have nothing after all this time. Game over. BOM writers knew Hebrew and Egyptian wordplay.

[Rob Bowman]

Hamilton,

You wrote:

So easy to refute and you still have nothing after all this time. Game over. BOM writers knew Hebrew and Egyptian wordplay.

I post on my schedule, no one else's. When I said the arguments were easily refuted, I did not mean they could be quickly refuted. I could give you quick off-the-cuff remarks but they would not be worth as much.

[Hamilton Porter]

Hamilton,

You wrote:

I post on my schedule, no one else's. When I said the arguments were easily refuted, I did not mean they could be quickly refuted. I could give you quick off-the-cuff remarks but they would not be worth as much.

Looking forward to your non-circular, non-ridiculous reply!

[Rob Bowman]

H.P.,

You wrote:

You noted a Biblical pattern that I think can serve as a good methodological control, i.e., wordplay in the Bible is usually inserted when a character is first introduced. Hence:

http://maxwellinstit...2&num=11&id=301 when Nephi first introduces himself

http://maxwellinstit...26&num=3&id=459 when Enos first introduces himself

http://maxwellinstit...30&num=4&id=913 when Alma is first introduced

I have several comments on the arguments of these articles and the claim that they establish a pattern of wordplay in Book of Mormon names.

1. The clearest and most common instances of such “wordplay” involving the names of biblical figures occur not merely when the figures are first “introduced” but when they are born (or created in the case of Eve) or when they are given a new name. The wordplay thus has to do with the actual bestowing of the name on the individual. Here are some examples from Genesis:

• “Now the man called his wife’s name Eve [havvah], because she was the mother [hay, from hayyah] of all living” (Gen. 3:20).
  
• Eve “gave birth to Cain [qanin] and said, ‘I have gotten [qaniti] a man from the LORD” (Gen. 4:1).
  
• “And Adam knew his wife again, and she bore a son and called his name Seth [shet], for she said, ‘God has granted [shat] me another offspring instead of Abel, for Cain killed him’” (Gen. 4:25).
  
• Lamech “called his name Noah [noach], saying, ‘Out of the ground that the LORD has cursed, this one shall bring us relief [yenachamenu] from our work and from the painful toil of our hands’” (Gen 5:29).
  
• “No longer shall your name be called Abram, but your name shall be Abraham [ab-raham], for I will make you the father of a multitude [ab-hamon] of nations” (Gen. 17:5).
  

Of course, there are many more examples found throughout the Bible, as in the naming of Moses in Exodus 2, the naming of Jesus in Matthew 1, and Jesus’ renaming of Simon as Cephas (Peter). In each of these clear examples the wordplay is directly associated with the giving of a person’s name. By contrast, in none of the three examples Bowen discusses in the articles you cited is this phenomenon of wordplay at a person’s naming involved. The lack of such context results in a burden of proof on the claim that the BOM texts intend to use wordplay on the individuals’ names.

2. The case for a “pattern” in the three instances you cite depends largely on supposed literary parallels among the three passages. However, there are relevant differences among the three examples. In the first example, the text has Nephi introducing his name Nephi for the first time in the BOM. In the second example, Enos “introduces” himself but his name has already appeared in the BOM in the last chapter of the preceding book (Jacob 7:27). In the third example, the name Alma appears for the first time (Mosiah 17:2) but Alma is not introducing himself. Whereas in 1 Nephi 1:1 and Enos 1:1 we have “I, Nephi” and “I, Enos,” we do not find “I, Alma” until Alma 5:3, a text in which Alma is not being introduced at all. In other respects the text first mentioning Alma is not similar in a literary way to the other two examples:

“I, Nephi, having been born of goodly parents, therefore I was taught somewhat in all the learning of my father…” (1 Ne. 1:1).

“Behold, it came to pass that I, Enos, knowing my father that he was a just man—for he taught me in his language, and also in the nurture and admonition of the Lord—and blessed be the name of my God for it” (Enos 1:1).

“But there was one among them whose name was Alma, he also being a descendant of Nephi. And he was a young man, and he believed the words which Abinadi had spoken, for he knew concerning the iniquity which Abinadi had testified against them…” (Mosiah 17:2).

3. The literary parallel between 1 Nephi 1:1 and Enos 1:1 is a reasonable argument for concluding that Enos 1:1 intentionally alludes to or echoes 1 Nephi 1:1. However, it is not a sound argument for concluding that Enos 1:1 uses wordplay, even assuming for the sake of argument that 1 Nephi 1:1 does so. Each text does some things that the other does not do; perhaps wordplay is one of those (again, assuming that either of them uses wordplay).

4. The use of wordplay presupposes that the writer or speaker using the wordplay is communicating in a language in which the wordplay would be recognized by the reader or hearer, unless of course the writer or speaker directly refers to another language in explaining the wordplay. In the examples given above from the Bible, Hebrew names are associated with Hebrew words or expressions in the OT, and Greek names are associated with Greek words (e.g., in Matthew 16:18 Petros, “Peter,” is associated with petra, “rock”; John 1:42 quotes Jesus as naming Simon Kephas, associated with the Aramaic Kepha, “stone”). The angel tells Joseph that Mary’s son is to be named Jesus because he will save his people from their sins; here the angel presumably spoke in Aramaic or Hebrew to Joseph and used the Aramaic or Hebrew form Yashua or Yahoshua, associating it with its etymology meaning “Yah saves.”

This raises the question about the language of the Book of Mormon. If it was written in Hebrew, then Hebrew wordplay could be understood without belabored explanations; if it was written in Egyptian, then Egyptian wordplay could likewise be understood. But if some of the wordplays are Hebrew and some Egyptian the case for such wordplays becomes further strained. Yet Bowen explains Nephi as an Egyptian name while he explains Enos and Alma as Hebrew names. Mormon scholars don’t seem to have reached any consensus on the language of the Book of Mormon, but most seem to favor the view that the language was Hebrew written in a form of Egyptian script. If this is correct, it is unlikely that Nephi’s readers, let alone Mormon’s readers a millennium later, could have been expected to pick up on a supposed wordplay between Nephi and the Egyptian word NFR, since that word would not appear in the text. Since the argument for wordplay in Enos 1:1 appeals to the literary parallel with 1 Nephi 1:1, the implausibility of wordplay in 1 Nephi 1:1 creates a domino effect with regard to the argument for wordplay in Enos 1:1.

5. Biblical wordplays involving individuals’ names typically say something about that individual; that is, the wordplay expresses some feeling about the individual, some thought about how that person came to be born, some hope regarding the individual, some judgment as to what kind of person he or she is or will turn out to be, or the like. In two of the three examples before us this is not the case. The name Nephi is supposedly associated with the description of his parents as “goodly”; the name Enos is supposedly associated with the description of his father as a just “man.” In the Bible, a sizable number of individuals do have names descriptive of their fathers (literal or figurative), but the names themselves include the word for “father,” which was ab, as in Abigail (“my father is joy”), Abijah (“my father is Yahweh”), Abimelech (“my father is king”), and so on. The names Nephi and Enos are nothing like these biblical names, and nothing about them suggests that they are meant to be descriptive of the men’s fathers.

6. It is at best highly unusual for any human being in the Bible to engage in wordplay using his own name. I cannot think of even a single example. Yet in two of the three cases before us this is what we are to understand is occurring. Perhaps there is some precedent for this phenomenon but at the least it is so unusual as to place some additional burden of proof on the claim that the texts do intend to exhibit such wordplay.

7. Of the three alleged wordplays, the suggested wordplay between the name Enos and the word “man” in Enos 1:1 is the most strained. Of course, Enos does represent a Hebrew name that meant “man.” But given the fact that the word “man” is extremely common in any language and any substantial text (it appears over 800 times in the BOM), we would need to see some emphasis or special attention or focus on the word in the immediate context to make such wordplay even plausible. But this is clearly not the case in Enos 1:1. “Behold, it came to pass that I, Enos, knowing my father that he was a just man—for he taught me in his language, and also in the nurture and admonition of the Lord—and blessed be the name of my God for it.” If any word in the clause receives emphasis it would be the word just, not the word man.

In this response I haven’t even debated the proposed etymologies of Nephi and Alma, both of which (especially for Nephi) are debatable. (Enos is not debatable because it is obviously identical to the name found in Genesis 4-5.) Rather, I have focused on explaining why the arguments for wordplay associated with these names in the three texts cited are too weak to be workable. The above seven arguments should be considered cumulatively; that is, while no one argument by itself may be decisive or an absolute disproof, the combination of the seven arguments creates an extremely strong case against the claim that the texts exhibit wordplay using the individuals' names.

Edited April 11, 2012 by Rob Bowman

[Hamilton Porter]

Hey thanks for responding. A couple of your points are valid, but most aren't.

H.P.,

You wrote:

I have several comments on the arguments of these articles and the claim that they establish a pattern of wordplay in Book of Mormon names.

1. The clearest and most common instances of such “wordplay” involving the names of biblical figures occur not merely when the figures are first “introduced” but when they are born (or created in the case of Eve) or when they are given a new name. The wordplay thus has to do with the actual bestowing of the name on the individual. Here are some examples from Genesis:

• “Now the man called his wife’s name Eve [havvah], because she was the mother [hay, from hayyah] of all living” (Gen. 3:20).
  
• Eve “gave birth to Cain [qanin] and said, ‘I have gotten [qaniti] a man from the LORD” (Gen. 4:1).
  
• “And Adam knew his wife again, and she bore a son and called his name Seth [shet], for she said, ‘God has granted [shat] me another offspring instead of Abel, for Cain killed him’” (Gen. 4:25).
  
• Lamech “called his name Noah [noach], saying, ‘Out of the ground that the LORD has cursed, this one shall bring us relief [yenachamenu] from our work and from the painful toil of our hands’” (Gen 5:29).
  
• “No longer shall your name be called Abram, but your name shall be Abraham [ab-raham], for I will make you the father of a multitude [ab-hamon] of nations” (Gen. 17:5).
  

Of course, there are many more examples found throughout the Bible, as in the naming of Moses in Exodus 2, the naming of Jesus in Matthew 1, and Jesus’ renaming of Simon as Cephas (Peter). In each of these clear examples the wordplay is directly associated with the giving of a person’s name. By contrast, in none of the three examples Bowen discusses in the articles you cited is this phenomenon of wordplay at a person’s naming involved. The lack of such context results in a burden of proof on the claim that the BOM texts intend to use wordplay on the individuals’ names.

You added three more criteria: (1) Wordplay is never used with the writer's own name, (2) Wordplay occurs when the person's birth is described, and (3) it is never used with theIt tells us something about the person.

(1) Is curious. The BOM is written with a much more personal voice than the Hebrew Bible. Whoever wrote Genesis doesn't identify himself. We don't even know who wrote 75% (or something like that) of the books in the Hebrew Bible! Of course the author can't use wordplay with his own name if he doesn't tell us what his name is!

(2) Is faulty based on the same principle: BOM's more personal voice. Nephi and Enos identify themselves. This pattern is probably more common among Mesopotamian and Egyptian scribes than Biblical scribes. You don't expect writers to start from their births when introducing themselves. So the BOM follows the Biblical pattern to the greatest extent possible: When people are first introduced.

(3) Is not incorrect. Nephi does say something about Nephi; he was born into a goodly (i.e., educated) family. Enos does say something about Enos; he is the son of a good man. Alma's youth is rather bland, but I think the Alma wordplay in this case is more of a leitwort than an autobiographical wordplay.

This raises the question about the language of the Book of Mormon. If it was written in Hebrew, then Hebrew wordplay could be understood without belabored explanations; if it was written in Egyptian, then Egyptian wordplay could likewise be understood. But if some of the wordplays are Hebrew and some Egyptian the case for such wordplays becomes further strained. Yet Bowen explains Nephi as an Egyptian name while he explains Enos and Alma as Hebrew names. Mormon scholars don’t seem to have reached any consensus on the language of the Book of Mormon, but most seem to favor the view that the language was Hebrew written in a form of Egyptian script. If this is correct, it is unlikely that Nephi’s readers, let alone Mormon’s readers a millennium later, could have been expected to pick up on a supposed wordplay between Nephi and the Egyptian word NFR, since that word would not appear in the text. Since the argument for wordplay in Enos 1:1 appeals to the literary parallel with 1 Nephi 1:1, the implausibility of wordplay in 1 Nephi 1:1 creates a domino effect with regard to the argument for wordplay in Enos 1:1.

Here are your points

1. No consensus on the language of the Book of Mormon. This is valid so I offer further evidence from Brian Stubbs. From examining Uto-Aztecan, there appear to be twice as many Hebrew cognates as Egyptian. So both Hebrew and Egyptian are both incorporated in the oral language, with the script being Egyptian. Cyrus Gordon was the first to recognize that the word for alligator is the same in Aztecan and Egyptian.

As far as two languages being confusing, this article on bilingual wordplay in the Bible may be useful: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CFYQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fjewishstudies.rutgers.edu%2Fdocman%2Fdoc_download%2F62-bilingual-wordplay-in-the-bible&ei=BtaFT63JH4qY8gTf6PicCA&usg=AFQjCNGM9Nlrck1LAyA9mc7_5yrRkQ9ewA

2. It's unlikely that Mormon's readers a millenium later could have picked up the wordplay. This isn't true. First, how would Nephi know that? Second, we have evidence that Mormon employed bilingual wordplay on the name Nephites, so we know the language was preserved in some form.

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/insights/?vol=23&num=6&id=369

3. NFR doesn't appear on the plates. This is moot, because, there is archaeological evidence that NFR morphed into NFY by Lehi's time. You just gotta chase the footnotes.

In this response I haven’t even debated the proposed etymologies of Nephi and Alma, both of which (especially for Nephi) are debatable. (Enos is not debatable because it is obviously identical to the name found in Genesis 4-5.) Rather, I have focused on explaining why the arguments for wordplay associated with these names in the three texts cited are too weak to be workable. The above seven arguments should be considered cumulatively; that is, while no one argument by itself may be decisive or an absolute disproof, the combination of the seven arguments creates an extremely strong case against the claim that the texts exhibit wordplay using the individuals' names.

I don't think you can use debated etymologies as an excuse. The wordplay itself constitute strong explanatory power for what their etymologies are. In most Biblical wordplay, etymologies are irrelevant anyway.

[Log]

The above seven arguments should be considered cumulatively; that is, while no one argument by itself may be decisive or an absolute disproof, the combination of the seven arguments creates an extremely strong case against the claim that the texts exhibit wordplay using the individuals' names.

So long as arguments against a claim may be multiplied, at whatever level of credibility or coherency, such a piling up of arguments creates an extremely strong case against a claim.

Got it.

[Rob Bowman]

Log,

You wrote:

So long as arguments against a claim may be multiplied, at whatever level of credibility or coherency, such a piling up of arguments creates an extremely strong case against a claim.

Got it.

A comment unworthy of being taken seriously.

[Buckeye]

I suspect that, should the contents of the Brass Plates ever be cataloged, we shouldn't be surprised to find "2,002 Egyptian Baby Names" tucked in there somewhere.

Hopefully the Nephites had not expanded to SE Idaho by that time, or we'll be seeing names such as:

Leehy

Sarhya

Koreeantymr

Jaecob

And so forth