A Hebraism In The Book Of Mormon

[Rob Bowman]

Bill,

I had asked you about Mormon studies of the Book of Mormon that do all four of the "levels" you had identified. You replied:

I don't know if a single study does all of them all at once, but there are numerous micro (1 & 2) and macro-level (3 & 4) studies.

I have asked you twice to name a couple of level-four studies. I'm not sure why you have not replied to this question. So now I will make it a formal CFR.

[Bill Hamblin]

Rob,

Moses spoke Egyptian as his native language (being raised since infancy in the royal court, though probably as a court slave rather than prince as Josephus claims). But the semitic Israelites would have spoken Bronze Age Canaanite/Proto-Hebrew language, which is different in a number of linguistic ways from late Iron Age Hebrew. That is to say, if you have a 15th century Canaanite/Proto-Hebrew text, you can distinguish it from a seventh century Iron Age Hebrew text based on a number of linguistic characteristics.

Do you agree?

[Bill Hamblin]

Bill,

I had asked you about Mormon studies of the Book of Mormon that do all four of the "levels" you had identified. You replied:

I have asked you twice to name a couple of level-four studies. I'm not sure why you have not replied to this question. So now I will make it a formal CFR.

I already gave you one. King Benjamin's speech book. There are many others. The Allegory of the Olive Tree book. I think that book demonstrates that the allegory of the Olive Tree fits much, much better in an ancient context than in a 19th century norther USA context. No one that I know of has ever challenged this.

I don't know of one single book that synthesizes everything into a whole.

Edited March 4, 2012 by Bill Hamblin

[Rob Bowman]

Bill,

Why don't you simply make your point, rather than asking me a series of questions? Besides, I have already commented on this question.

Rob,

Moses spoke Egyptian as his native language (being raised since infancy in the royal court, though probably as a court slave rather than prince as Josephus claims). But the semitic Israelites would have spoken Bronze Age Canaanite/Proto-Hebrew language, which is different in a number of linguistic ways from late Iron Age Hebrew. That is to say, if you have a 15th century Canaanite/Proto-Hebrew text, you can distinguish it from a seventh century Iron Age Hebrew text based on a number of linguistic characteristics.

Do you agree?

[Rob Bowman]

Bill,

Let's review your four steps.

It is a four step methodological problem.

1- Identify evidence, parallels, etc. to 19C or ancient paradigms. Evaluate each parallel individually.

E.g. A single Hebraism

2- Identify interrelated patterns of evidence for either the 19C or ancient paradigms.

E.g. A number of Hebraisms, chiasmus, non-biblical semitic names, etc.

3- Compare and contrast the relative explanatory power of 19C or ancient paradigms to explain these patterns.

E.g. How does the 19C model explain non-biblical Hebrew names, hebraisms, etc in the BOM, vs. how does the ancient model explain them.

4- Evaluate all the different patterns of ancient evidence as a whole and compare them to the explanatory power of all the 19C patterns as a whole.

I understood this model to require at the second and third levels a consideration of a wide number of Book of Mormon passages rather than a single passage, such as King Benjamin's speech. Also -- and I ask this because I haven't yet read the book King Benjamin's Speech -- does it consider patterns of evidence that might support a nineteenth-century origin and then compare those to the evidence for the ancient origin? Does the Allegory of the Olive Tree book do this?

Edited March 4, 2012 by Rob Bowman

[Bill Hamblin]

Bill,

Why don't you simply make your point, rather than asking me a series of questions? Besides, I have already commented on this question.

Why don't you answer my questions? When try to make my point, you generally miss it. So I'm trying to walk you through the issue step by step.

Edited March 4, 2012 by Bill Hamblin

[Bill Hamblin]

Bill,

Let's review your four steps.

I understood this model to require at the second and third levels a consideration of a wide number of Book of Mormon passages rather than a single passage, such as King Benjamin's speech. Also -- and I ask this because I haven't yet read the book King Benjamin's Speech -- does it consider patterns of evidence that might support a nineteenth-century origin and then compare those to the evidence for the ancient origin? Does the Allegory of the Olive Tree book do this?

Why don't you read them? Or try Warfare in the Book of Mormon? My wife really likes the editor.

[Rob Bowman]

Bill,

You wrote:

Moses spoke Egyptian as his native language (being raised since infancy in the royal court, though probably as a court slave rather than prince as Josephus claims). But the semitic Israelites would have spoken Bronze Age Canaanite/Proto-Hebrew language, which is different in a number of linguistic ways from late Iron Age Hebrew. That is to say, if you have a 15th century Canaanite/Proto-Hebrew text, you can distinguish it from a seventh century Iron Age Hebrew text based on a number of linguistic characteristics.

Do you agree?

Not entirely. As I said before, I see no reason why Moses would not have been bilingual. If he wasn't before he led the Israelites out of Egypt, he surely would have been after spending years in the wilderness with them! And I also said that I don't claim (and would not imagine) that the Pentateuch underwent no editing to update the language during the millennium or so after Moses.

[Rob Bowman]

Bill,

You asked me to answer your questions, but you won't answer mine. I told you I had answered your questions about the language of Moses in an earlier post, which you could have found and read in minutes. But instead of answering my simple question about the lengthy books you cited, you suggested that I read them.

I believe the term you use for situations like this is "double standard."

Why don't you read them? Or try Warfare in the Book of Mormon? My wife really likes the editor.

P.S. An admirable woman!

[Bill Hamblin]

Not entirely. As I said before, I see no reason why Moses would not have been bilingual. If he wasn't before he led the Israelites out of Egypt, he surely would have been after spending years in the wilderness with them! And I also said that I don't claim (and would not imagine) that the Pentateuch underwent no editing to update the language during the millennium or so after Moses.

Do you agree that Deuteronomy is the Book of the Law described as discovered in the temple during the reign of Josiah?

Do you agree that Deuteronomy seems to be written, for the most part, in late Iron Age Hebrew?

Edited March 4, 2012 by Bill Hamblin

[Bill Hamblin]

I should add that Deuteronomy claims that Moses wrote the book of Deuteronomy.

Deut 31:9 Then Moses wrote this law (ha-torah ha-zot) and gave it to the priests, the sons of Levi, who carried the ark of the covenant of the LORD, and to all the elders of Israel.

Deut 31:24 When Moses had finished writing the words of this law (ha-torah ha-zot) in a book to the very end,

Notice too that the book is called ha-torah, precisely the name of the book found in the temple in 2 Kgs. 22:8

(Your inerrancy is slipping again!)

Edited March 4, 2012 by Bill Hamblin

[Rob Bowman]

Bill,

Before I respond to your posts #285 and #286, I am waiting for your response to my post #284, which concerns unanswered questions from several days ago.

[Bill Hamblin]

Bill,

Before I respond to your posts #285 and #286, I am waiting for your response to my post #284, which concerns unanswered questions from several days ago.

You asked for macro-level studies of the BOM, I gave you three: Benjamin's Speech, Olive Tree, and Warfare in the BOM. I have no idea what other answer you want.

[Pahoran]

Dan's favorite Hebraism is the if/and conditional.

He apparently considers this to be the closest thing to a "knock out proof." Unfortunately for Dan, if/and conditionals don't actually exist..

Unfortunately for you, they actually do.

Your rather attempt to explain them away is ultimately a failure.

You see, a compound protasis doesn't work where the apodosis follows from the very last of the terms. As it does in each of your failed attempts to rewrite the scriptures to suit your preconceived conclusions.

Let me take just one of them:

And behold, also, if he saith unto the waters of the great deep, Be thou dried up, and it is done; Behold, if he saith 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 a 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.

You attempted to cast this as something like:

If [God says something]

and [something happens and God says something else and something else happens...]

[then you finally get the apodosis].

But in fact that is not true.

You're not looking at compound conditionals of the form "If W and X and Y then Z." You're actually looking at conditionals of the form, "If A then B and if C then D and if E then F."

Note that F doesn't follow from anything at all except from E, whereas Z relies upon W, X and Y. Your argument would only work if the last apodosis was derived like Z, but it's not. It's derived like F.

So it is that the only thing that the last "it is done" relies upon is that God says it will happen, and this is the pattern throughout the verses.

What's really happening in the example given is this:

If [God says something] and [what God says happens, which is the apodosis].

And then, if [God says something else] and [that also happens, which is the next apodosis].

And then, if [God says something else] and [that also happens, which is the next apodosis].

Etc.

So the example above should look like this:

And behold, also, if he saith unto the waters of the great deep Be thou dried up and it is done

Behold, if he saith 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 a 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.

You tried, bravely, to explain away the if/and conditional statements.

You failed.

Sorry.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Rob Bowman]

Bill,

Let's go through it again. You had written:

It is a four step methodological problem.

1- Identify evidence, parallels, etc. to 19C or ancient paradigms. Evaluate each parallel individually.

E.g. A single Hebraism

2- Identify interrelated patterns of evidence for either the 19C or ancient paradigms.

E.g. A number of Hebraisms, chiasmus, non-biblical semitic names, etc.

3- Compare and contrast the relative explanatory power of 19C or ancient paradigms to explain these patterns.

E.g. How does the 19C model explain non-biblical Hebrew names, hebraisms, etc in the BOM, vs. how does the ancient model explain them.

4- Evaluate all the different patterns of ancient evidence as a whole and compare them to the explanatory power of all the 19C patterns as a whole.

Generally speaking, anti-Mormons stop at level 1.

After I asked you a couple of times to give me an example or two of Mormon studies that do steps 3 and 4, you mentioned the book King Benjamin's Speech. However, when I asked you if this book actually discussed possible evidences of a nineteenth-century origin of the speech, you told me to read the book. When I complained that you didn't answer my question, you simply repeated that you had referred me to this book (along with two others).

I have just finished skimming through King Benjamin's Speech. It does not appear to do any serious study of possible evidences for a nineteenth-century context. All of the chapters that have anything to do with putting the passage in any historical context or setting are focused entirely on making a case for an ancient context of the speech. By your own standards, this book doesn't do what you claim studies of the Book of Mormon should do.

[wenglund]

I have just finished skimming through King Benjamin's Speech. It does not appear to do any serious study of possible evidences for a nineteenth-century context.

Bill's 4-step methodological problem doesn't talk about doing a "serious study of possible evidences for a nineteenth-century context." It talks about comparing and contrasting 19thC models and patterns with those of ancient models and patterns. Do you understand the difference?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited March 5, 2012 by wenglund

[Bill Hamblin]

Bill,

Let's go through it again. You had written:

After I asked you a couple of times to give me an example or two of Mormon studies that do steps 3 and 4, you mentioned the book King Benjamin's Speech. However, when I asked you if this book actually discussed possible evidences of a nineteenth-century origin of the speech, you told me to read the book. When I complained that you didn't answer my question, you simply repeated that you had referred me to this book (along with two others).

I have just finished skimming through King Benjamin's Speech. It does not appear to do any serious study of possible evidences for a nineteenth-century context. All of the chapters that have anything to do with putting the passage in any historical context or setting are focused entirely on making a case for an ancient context of the speech. By your own standards, this book doesn't do what you claim studies of the Book of Mormon should do.

People can decide that for themselves.

Will you answer my questions now?

[Bill Hamblin]

Bill's 4-step methodological problem doesn't talk about doing a "serious study of possible evidences for a nineteenth-century context." It talks about comparing and contrasting 19thC models and patterns with those of ancient models and patterns. Do you understand the difference?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Yup.

[Rob Bowman]

Wade,

You wrote:

Bill's 4-step methodological problem doesn't talk about doing a "serious study of possible evidences for a nineteenth-century context." It talks about comparing and contrasting 19thC models and patterns with those of ancient models and patterns. Do you understand the difference?

And just how can someone compare and contrast nineteenth-century and ancient models and patterns without actually discussing nineteenth-century models and patterns? King Benjamin's Speech does not do that. Your explanation does not extricate Bill from the problem.

[Bill Hamblin]

Wade,

You wrote:

And just how can someone compare and contrast nineteenth-century and ancient models and patterns without actually discussing nineteenth-century models and patterns? King Benjamin's Speech does not do that. Your explanation does not extricate Bill from the problem.

There is no problem. Even if no one has ever done my level 4 type of analysis, it doesn't change the methodological issue, which was my only point.

So are you going to answer the questions, or not?

[Kevin Christensen]

It's actually quite simple. I could trust the objectivity and high level abstractions of John Charles Duffy and read his Mapping Book of Mormon Historicity Debates in Sunstone and defer what he has to say.

Or, I could discard the idea of a one volume, one author or editor solution. Besides reading the King Benjamin's Speech volume, I can read things like Metcalfe's New Approaches to the Book of Mormon and Palmer's Insider's View of Mormon Origins, and Mark Thomas' Digging in Cumorah and The Meaning of Revival Language in the Book of Mormon. And I could continue reading the back and forth in the debate, including the FARMS Review. And then judge for myself which explanation account best accounts for things. And of course, when I make my judgements, I will inevitably make public my own selectivity, my standards of judgement, and the problem field I use.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[Bill Hamblin]

It's actually quite simple. I could trust the objectivity and high level abstractions of John Charles Duffy and read his Mapping Book of Mormon Historicity Debates in Sunstone and defer what he has to say.

Or, I could discard the idea of a one volume, one author or editor solution. Besides reading the King Benjamin's Speech volume, I can read things like Metcalfe's New Approaches to the Book of Mormon and Palmer's Insider's View of Mormon Origins, and Mark Thomas' Digging in Cumorah and The Meaning of Revival Language in the Book of Mormon. And I could continue reading the back and forth in the debate, including the FARMS Review. And then judge for myself which explanation account best accounts for things. And of course, when I make my judgements, I will inevitably make public my own selectivity, my standards of judgement, and the problem field I use.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Yup.

[Rob Bowman]

Bill,

You wrote:

Do you agree that Deuteronomy is the Book of the Law described as discovered in the temple during the reign of Josiah?

It seems likely.

You wrote:

Do you agree that Deuteronomy seems to be written, for the most part, in late Iron Age Hebrew?

I would have to qualify such a statement heavily. The language and style of Deuteronomy is certainly like some of the other biblical writings dating from the late Iron Age, but it is problematic to claim that this establishes the earliest date of Deuteronomy. Some scholars have pointed out linguistic and stylistic similarities as well as thematic connections between Deuteronomy and the eighth-century prophets, even arguing that Amos and Hosea were dependent on Deuteronomy. I am not aware of anything about the Hebrew language of Deuteronomy that would require a date no earlier than the seventh century. That having been said, I will repeat what I posted earlier, that I have no a priori objection to the possibility that the language of Deuteronomy was updated in the seventh, sixth, or even fifth century.

That's five questions from you to which I have given you straight answers. Now please let's get to the point you wish to make. I am not going to allow you to "lead the witness" indefinitely.

[Rob Bowman]

Kevin,

Your comments are a total cop-out as far as Bill's original claim goes, which was not merely that Mormons might be familiar with arguments for both ancient and modern origins of the Book of Mormon but that they had published studies that compared and contrasted patterns of evidence and models for both views. Furthermore, this was something he claimed anti-Mormons do not do. But how does he know what anti-Mormons may have read and simply not considered cogent arguments for the ancient origins view?

It's actually quite simple. I could trust the objectivity and high level abstractions of John Charles Duffy and read his Mapping Book of Mormon Historicity Debates in Sunstone and defer what he has to say.

Or, I could discard the idea of a one volume, one author or editor solution. Besides reading the King Benjamin's Speech volume, I can read things like Metcalfe's New Approaches to the Book of Mormon and Palmer's Insider's View of Mormon Origins, and Mark Thomas' Digging in Cumorah and The Meaning of Revival Language in the Book of Mormon. And I could continue reading the back and forth in the debate, including the FARMS Review. And then judge for myself which explanation account best accounts for things. And of course, when I make my judgements, I will inevitably make public my own selectivity, my standards of judgement, and the problem field I use.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Edited March 5, 2012 by Rob Bowman

[Bill Hamblin]

Kevin,

Your comments are a total cop-out as far as Bill's original claim goes, which was not merely that Mormons might be familiar with arguments for both ancient and modern origins of the Book of Mormon but that they had published studies that compared and contrasted patterns of evidence and models for both views. Furthermore, this was something he claimed anti-Mormons do not do. But how does he know what anti-Mormons may have read and simply not considered cogent arguments for the ancient origins view?

I know this because anti-Mormons consistent rehash old arguments, ignore the responses, and demonstrate no knowledge whatsoever of current LDS scholarship. The fact that you hadn't read any of the books I've mentioned demonstrates this quite nicely. If the books are so easily dismissible that you can simply ignore them, it shouldn't be much effort to actually read, understand, engage, and respond to the arguments.