A Hebraism In The Book Of Mormon

[Mike Reed]

Both you and Mike Reed have missed the closest parallel,

Closest by location of source access or parallel resemblance?

which is the ultimate source of all other occurences in the sources he cites:

Joel 2:28 (Massoretic text 3:1) "your old men shall dream dreams and your young men shall see visions" = Acts 2:17 (cf. Dan 4:9).

You'll notice that some of the sources I listed are citing this biblical passage. BTW... I spent less than a half an hour gathering these quotes, and I hope you realize that I never claimed my search was exhaustive.

The same applies to silly claims that the BofM quotes Shakespeare, when in fact the KJV and ancient texts have much closer parallels. Even if Joseph Smith had been composing fiction, why go further afield than the KJV??! Occam's Razor . . .

So the problem you have with what I posted is that I listed too many sources, not just those that give the KJV passage you cited? Seems like a strange criticism... but ok. Either way, I think we all agree that Dan's example cited above is not an impressive book of Mormon "evidence." But did you notice that the KJV passage uses the conjunction "and" instead of "or," so maybe a closer parallel can be argued for the first source I cited.

Or maybe this one is a closer parallel:

The Edinburgh review: or Critical journal - Page 78 1829

This gift of dreaming dreams, or seeing visions, seems, indeed, to have been hereditary in the family ; for the following is given on the credit of the fair writer's own experience. When she and her husband went to Ireland, ...

But again... my search was far from exhaustive. For all I know, there may be other translations of biblical passages using the conjunction "or". Either way, "cognitive accusatives" like this aren't impressive BoM evidences.

Edited February 27, 2012 by Mike Reed

[Mike Reed]

The expression "dreamed a dream" is a Hebraism; it has entered into English from the KJV. Everybody knows that the KJV has had profound influence on the English language, and many unique words and phrases have entered into English from the KJV....

So then we agree, right?

The trick is to find examples which are not common in English, or which are too generic to have been derived form English, or in which the context supports an original Hebrew text rather than an English one.

So rather than cite examples like Dan's quoted above, maybe Mormon scholars/apologists should instead focus on those things that were not common to English speakers in Joseph Smith's day. I am glad we agree.

Edited February 27, 2012 by Mike Reed

[wenglund]

So then we agree, right?

So rather than cite examples like Dan's quoted above, maybe Mormon scholars/apologists should instead focus on those things that were not common to English speakers in Joseph Smith's day. I am glad we agree.

I am glad you agree with Dr. Peterson that the quote is a Hebraism. This is a good starting point.

The next question is whether Joseph Smith, like you, had access to the Internet and Google search.

Actually, the next question is to determine whether the Hebraism is a function of translation using vernacular common within the 19th century, or whether it may be an ancient linguistic artifact that survived the translation. Merely showing that the quote was common within the 19th century vernacular isn't sufficient to reasonably settle the question.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited February 27, 2012 by wenglund

[zerinus]

So then we agree, right?

If you want to agree with me, you are very welcome to do so; but if you are implying that I agreed with you, I am afraid I didn't.

[Cobalt-70]

Actually, the next question is to determine whether the Hebraism is a function of translation using vernacular common within the 19th century, or whether it may be an ancient linguistic artifact that survived the translation. Merely showing that the quote was common within the 19th century vernacular isn't sufficient to reasonably settle the question.

It is not sufficient to show that Smith derived the alleged Hebraism from a particular 18th or 19th century source. However, it is more than sufficient to disqualify that particular alleged Hebraism as an item of evidence that the Book of Mormon is an ancient text.

[zerinus]

It is not sufficient to show that Smith derived the alleged Hebraism from a particular 18th or 19th century source. However, it is more than sufficient to disqualify that particular alleged Hebraism as an item of evidence that the Book of Mormon is an ancient text.

Except when it occurs in, and blends and fits perfectly within a Hebraic literary context, which the whole of the Book of Mormon is.

[wenglund]

It is not sufficient to show that Smith derived the alleged Hebraism from a particular 18th or 19th century source. However, it is more than sufficient to disqualify that particular alleged Hebraism as an item of evidence that the Book of Mormon is an ancient text.

That may be true for certain superficial, narrow-minded, and theory-driven thinkers among us. But reasonably open-minded and forward-thinking people may rightly heighten the bar.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Except when it occurs in, and blends and fits perfectly within a Hebraic literary context, which the whole of the Book of Mormon is.

And, as would be expected, this is the case with the English translation of any ancient Hebrew book. For some reason, certain critics don't seem to get this.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Cobalt-70]

Except when it occurs in, and blends and fits perfectly within a Hebraic literary context, which the whole of the Book of Mormon is.

Then you are relying on the other alleged evidence, and not this one. Just because it is consistent with evidence, does not mean it is evidence. It is not evidence unless it is inconsistent with the competing theory, which is that Book of Mormon Hebraicisms are ultimately derived, either directly or indirectly, from the Bible.

[Cobalt-70]

That may be true for certain superficial, narrow-minded, and theory-driven thinkers among us. But reasonably open-minded and forward-thinking people may rightly heighten the bar.

That's your argument? "If you were open-minded and forward-thinking, you'd agree with me?" With an ad hominem kick?

[Mike Reed]

I am glad you agree with Dr. Peterson that the quote is a Hebraism. This is a good starting point.

Words can be defined loosely to include all sorts of things. But the broader a distinction, the greater degree the appellation loses meaning and significance. If Dan wishes to call phrases that have become rather common in the English language Hebraisms, he is certainly free to do so. Just know that when apologists do this, the mountain of BoM evidences will be seen as fluff by those who know better, and you will continue to be called on it.

The next question is whether Joseph Smith, like you, had access to the Internet and Google search.

Cute. We already know that the Smith family had a Bible and Thomas Paine's Age of Reason.

Actually, the next question is to determine whether the Hebraism is a function of translation using vernacular common within the 19th century, or whether it may be an ancient linguistic artifact that survived the translation. Merely showing that the quote was common within the 19th century vernacular isn't sufficient to reasonably settle the question.

If the phrase was available in 18th and 19th century, then I don't see why any more questions need to be asked. Feel free to keep digging. Maybe you'll someday even be able to explain how Joseph Smith got the idea from a rock. Just know that in the end Occam's razor will ultimately discard your valiant efforts.

Edited February 27, 2012 by Mike Reed

[Mike Reed]

It is not sufficient to show that Smith derived the alleged Hebraism from a particular 18th or 19th century source. However, it is more than sufficient to disqualify that particular alleged Hebraism as an item of evidence that the Book of Mormon is an ancient text.

Precisely. Well said.

Edited February 27, 2012 by Mike Reed

[Mike Reed]

That's your argument? "If you were open-minded and forward-thinking, you'd agree with me?" With an ad hominem kick?

Who? Wade? Never.

Edited February 27, 2012 by Mike Reed

[zerinus]

Then you are relying on the other alleged evidence, and not this one. Just because it is consistent with evidence, does not mean it is evidence. It is not evidence unless it is inconsistent with the competing theory, which is that Book of Mormon Hebraicisms are ultimately derived, either directly or indirectly, from the Bible.

Wrong. It is part of the overall evidence. Just because it is part of the evidence, it does not have to be excluded as evidence.

[Mike Reed]

Wrong. It is part of the overall evidence. Just because it is part of the evidence, it does not have to be excluded as evidence.

Trim away the fluff, and it becomes obvious how anemic support for the BoM's authenticity actually is.

Edited February 27, 2012 by Mike Reed

[Bill Hamblin]

It is not sufficient to show that Smith derived the alleged Hebraism from a particular 18th or 19th century source. However, it is more than sufficient to disqualify that particular alleged Hebraism as an item of evidence that the Book of Mormon is an ancient text.

Wrong. There are a number of separate but interrelated issues, in increasing levels of significance.

1- Hebraisms are consistent with an ancient Book of Mormon.

2- If the BOM were ancient, one would expect to find Hebraisms

3- Hebraisms are evidence supporting an ancient BOM. (If it is not, what is?)

4- Increasingly complex patterns of ancientisms (if there is such a word) increases the probability of an ancient origin of the BOM. Such evidence cannot be accepted or rejected in isolation; it must be analyzed in patterns.

5- The relative explanatory power of ancient and 19C models must be compared and contrasted, not asserted in isolation.

6- Hebraisms are not proof of an ancient BOM. (It is astonishing that anti-Mormons so frequently are unable to distinguish between evidence and proof.)

Edited February 27, 2012 by Bill Hamblin

[Bill Hamblin]

Trim away the fluff, and it becomes obvious how anemic support for the BoM's authenticity actually is.

A fluffy claim if ever I saw one!

[Mike Reed]

A fluffy claim if ever I saw one!

And an anemic one to follow.

[Mike Reed]

Wrong. There are a number of separate but interrelated issues, in increasing levels of significance.

1- Hebraisms are consistent with an ancient Book of Mormon.

As well as modern and post modern english texts.

2- If the BOM were ancient, one would expect to find Hebraisms

And if it wasn't, one would still expect to find "Hebraisms" (defined loosely).

3- Hebraisms are evidence supporting an ancient BOM. (If it is not, what is?)

If you want to call it that, fine. But when it is shown that such "Hebraisms" have little or no significance, people will wonder why you even bothered to count these as evidence.

4- Increasing complex patters of ancientisms (if there is such a word) increases the probability of an ancient origin of the BOM. (Such evidence cannot be accepted or rejected in isolation; it must be analyzed in patterns.

Maybe you should use 18th-19th century texts as a control group in your study, to help the average reader to better discern the significance of your finds.

5- The relative explanatory power of ancient and 19C models must be compared and contrasted, not asserted in isolation.

Great. When does FARMS plan to do this?

6- Hebraisms are not proof of an ancient BOM. (It is astonishing that anti-Mormons so frequently are unable to distinguish between evidence and proof.)

Who said Proof? I'm talking about what one should *count* as evidence. Feel free to do an archaeological dig in your back yard, and find rocks, grass, water, worms, etc... and use these in your next FARMS article to verify that the BoM is an ancient text... since, after all, the BoM mentions these. All of these would be "evidences," right? But who will be impressed by such discoveries?

Edited February 27, 2012 by Mike Reed

[Rob Bowman]

Bill,

Your numbered statements appear below, followed by my comments.

1- Hebraisms are consistent with an ancient Book of Mormon.

True. They are also consistent with the use of the KJV and attempts to imitate KJV style.

2- If the BOM were ancient, one would expect to find Hebraisms

Yes, if two conditions are satisfied: (a) One holds consistently to a woodenly literal translation model of the BOM, and (b) one understands the Book of Mormon language to have been the Hebrew language written with Egyptian characters. Not all LDS scholars and apologists agree with either of these premises.

3- Hebraisms are evidence supporting an ancient BOM. (If it is not, what is?)

To constitute evidence for an ancient BOM, they must be Hebraisms that cannot be plausibly explained as I suggested above under point #1, and one must consistently adhere to and show good reason for accepting the two premises I mentioned above under point #2.

4- Increasingly complex patterns of ancientisms (if there is such a word) increases the probability of an ancient origin of the BOM. Such evidence cannot be accepted or rejected in isolation; it must be analyzed in patterns.

I agree, with the stipulations stated above. In addition, I would suggest the argument works much better if you stick with one linguistic set of "ancientisms," such as Hebraisms. A methodology of identifying linguistic features of the BOM as Hebraisms in some places, Egyptianisms in other places, Aramaisms in other places, and Hellenisms in yet other places is fun but its results have far lower probability as evidence of ancient origin.

5- The relative explanatory power of ancient and 19C models must be compared and contrasted, not asserted in isolation.

I agree completely, although of course one cannot make global comparisons with regard to everything in the Book of Mormon in one shot. Thus there is no way to avoid the piecemeal task of making such comparisons and contrasts with regard to individual units or small sets of linguistic data.

6- Hebraisms are not proof of an ancient BOM. (It is astonishing that anti-Mormons so frequently are unable to distinguish between evidence and proof.)

I understand your distinction between evidence and proof and generally speaking agree with it. I certainly have no difficulty in making such a distinction.

Edited February 27, 2012 by Rob Bowman

[wenglund]

That's your argument? "If you were open-minded and forward-thinking, you'd agree with me?" With an ad hominem kick?

It was a perfectly fitting response to your inane dismissal. I was speaking down to your level.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

If the phrase was available in 18th and 19th century, then I don't see why any more questions need to be asked..

Seriously!?! So, if one were to evaluate the origins of the English translation of any Hebrew text, then to your way of thinking, as long as some or many of the Hebraism in the English translation were available at the time of translation, then no more questions need to be asked? One can reasonably conclude that the Hebrew text originated with the English translation?

Stunning!

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Mike Reed]

Seriously!?! So, if one were to evaluate the origins of the English translation of any Hebrew text, then to your way of thinking, as long as some or many of the Hebraism in the English translation were available at the time of translation, then no more questions need to be asked? One can reasonably conclude that the Hebrew text originated with the English translation?

Stunning!

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Like I said, you are free to study this topic if you'd like. You are also free to do the same sort of study for Strang's translations... or an analysis of angelic language, linguistics, and Newbrough's Oahsphe. Heck... if it gives you kicks... do a comparative analysis of oddly shaped Cheetoes today, compared to alternative cheese snack eaten in the ancient near east. But as for me... There are other research topics that I find far more interesting, and far more useful to academia at large.

Edited February 27, 2012 by Mike Reed

[Cobalt-70]

To put a finer point on the issue, Hebraisms are not evidence that the Book of Mormon is an ancient text, unless both the following conditions are satisfied:

1. The Hebraisms in question were not available within the literature or vernacular language accessible to Joseph Smith; and

2. Either (a) there are no modern English idioms in the Book of Mormon, or (b) there is a credible theory as to how such modern English idioms coexist in the Book of Mormon with truly ancient Hebraisms. (For example, is anyone willing to theorize that Joseph Smith was an inconsistent translator?)

Edited February 27, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[Vance]

To put a finer point on the issue, Hebraisms are not evidence that the Book of Mormon is an ancient text, unless the following conditions are satisfied:

Of course they are "evidence".

But they are not "proof".

They are "necessary" given the claims of the books origin. But they are not "sufficient" for proof.

Edited February 27, 2012 by Vance