A Hebraism In The Book Of Mormon

[Bill Hamblin]

Can you give me an example of a study of the Book of Mormon that exhibits all four levels?

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 never seen, for example, an anti-Mormon examination of the book King Benjamin's Speech. LDS ALWAYS respond in great detail to serious anti-Mormon criticisms. Anti-Mormons generally ignore these, and repeat their old arguments ad nauseum.

[wenglund]

To be fair, I'm not at all sure that they are arguing that the idioms alone mean it is a 19th c. work. If I understand their argument correctly it is that revivalist language in a revivalist context of preaching in a work that first appeared in a revivalist environment indicates that it is a product of that time and environment. Not that I necessarily agree with them, but lets not caricature their arguments.

To be equally fair, there are multiple people making different arguments. The argument I am currently addressing is the one from Mike Reed that I have quoted in my recent posts, which makes no mention of revivalist and revival environments. So, while I agree in principle with your sound advise, it was misdirected in this instance.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Rob Bowman]

Bill,

You wrote:

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.

Okay, could you name one or two level-four studies?

You wrote:

I have never seen, for example, an anti-Mormon examination of the book King Benjamin's Speech. LDS ALWAYS respond in great detail to serious anti-Mormon criticisms. Anti-Mormons generally ignore these, and repeat their old arguments ad nauseum.

I've got some major projects along these lines in process, one in particular. Examining the specific book you mention isn't yet on my list, although I am aware of the book. I take the challenge seriously to respond to such apologetic works, and I'm pursuing the matter, as I stated on this forum over a year ago.

But I don't know that I've seen a book that meets your description of a fourth-level study.

[wenglund]

Are we talking about the Zohar in reality, or your hypothetical scenario that has nothing to do with the actual Zohar?

Since I made no mention of a hypothetical scenario, we are obviously talking about the Zohar in reality.

No one thinks that the Zohar originated in the 1900s. References to the Zohar have been made in writing more or less continuously since Moses ben Shem Tov de Leon announced that he had discovered it in the thirteenth century. "Complete" published versions in Aramaic appeared in the sixteenth century.

There are some interesting lessons to be learned from the Zohar with regard to the debate over the Book of Mormon, but probably not the lesson you are trying to teach.

You evidently failed to comprehend the lesson I am actually trying to teach. My point isn't whether you and other critics actually believe the Zohar to be modern in origin. Rather, the lesson is: if the same methodology you each apply in determining the origins of the Book of Mormon were to be applied to the Zohar, it would "logically" lead to the conclusion that the Zohar is modern. As such, and given the mutually agreeable evidence that the Zohar is ancient, one may reasonably conclude that your methodologies are flawed. In short, this is NOT a test of the origins of the Zohar, but a test of your respective methodologies.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Rob Bowman]

Wade,

You wrote:

You evidently failed to comprehend the lesson I am actually trying to teach. My point isn't whether you and other critics actually believe the Zohar to be modern in origin. Rather, the lesson is: if the same methodology you each apply in determining the origins of the Book of Mormon were to be applied to the Zohar, it would "logically" lead to the conclusion that the Zohar is modern. As such, and given the mutually agreeable evidence that the Zohar is ancient, one may reasonably conclude that your methodologies are flawed. In short, this is NOT a test of the origins of the Zohar, but a test of your respective methodologies.

First, that the Zohar is ancient is not universally accepted. Most critical scholars think it originated in the thirteenth century AD, though of course it will likely have utilized some earlier materials (as does pretty much every text).

Second, you are mistaken about my methodology. It would not lead to the conclusion that the Zohar is of modern origin. Let me give you a quick and informal description of the methodology I favor. Step one of my method would be to determine the earliest extant copies or manuscripts of part or all of the work in question as well as the earliest external references to the work in question. For the Zohar this is clearly the thirteenth century, not the twentieth. That is why my methodology cannot assign the Zohar to the twentieth century! For the Book of Mormon this earliest attestation is clearly the nineteenth century. Step two is possible only if original-language manuscripts of the work are available, and that is to determine based on the details of the language the period in which it was written. Most critical scholars using this step (I am not qualified to perform this step myself for a work like the Zohar) conclude on this basis that the Zohar probably did originate in the thirteenth century. This step obviously cannot be performed with the Book of Mormon. Where the second step cannot be performed, the burden of proof is on the claim that the work originated in a period significantly earlier than its earliest extant versions or external references. Thus the working assumption of scholarly historians will be that the Aquarian Gospel of Jesus the Christ, the Life of Issa, the Book of Mormon, and other such works, all of which claim to be modern translations of ancient works no longer extant and having no pre-modern attestation, are modern in origin. This assumption can be challenged by marshaling evidence pointing to a medieval or ancient origin, but the burden of proof is on such claims. This means that facts that are merely consistent with an earlier origin but are also consistent with a modern origin will not be counted as evidence for the earlier origin. It's nothing personal, and it's not about having some special animus toward a particular text or its religious adherents. I take the same approach to all such texts.

[cdowis]

The scholastic method for determining the historical context of a manuscript, (I call it parallelism) fails for the BOM for a simple reason -- it has a fatal flaw because it fails to take into account the prophetic nature of the book. The Lord showed Mormon our day, he says that he knows us well and the book was written, not for the ancient inhabitants of America but specifically for our modern day. The BOM tells us that we will find modern themes, and that is indeed what we find.

Also, I have demonstrated how parallelism shows that the BOM was actually written in the 21st century with its obvious 21st century references to the Taliban fighting government troops while hiding in the mountains, the Mafia and their blood oaths, a terrorist group posssing a standing army. These are familiar themes to the 21st century reader.

Edited February 28, 2012 by cdowis

[volgadon]

Wade,

You wrote:

First, that the Zohar is ancient is not universally accepted. Most critical scholars think it originated in the thirteenth century AD, though of course it will likely have utilized some earlier materials (as does pretty much every text).

Second, you are mistaken about my methodology. It would not lead to the conclusion that the Zohar is of modern origin. Let me give you a quick and informal description of the methodology I favor. Step one of my method would be to determine the earliest extant copies or manuscripts of part or all of the work in question as well as the earliest external references to the work in question. For the Zohar this is clearly the thirteenth century, not the twentieth. That is why my methodology cannot assign the Zohar to the twentieth century! For the Book of Mormon this earliest attestation is clearly the nineteenth century. Step two is possible only if original-language manuscripts of the work are available, and that is to determine based on the details of the language the period in which it was written. Most critical scholars using this step (I am not qualified to perform this step myself for a work like the Zohar) conclude on this basis that the Zohar probably did originate in the thirteenth century. This step obviously cannot be performed with the Book of Mormon. Where the second step cannot be performed, the burden of proof is on the claim that the work originated in a period significantly earlier than its earliest extant versions or external references. Thus the working assumption of scholarly historians will be that the Aquarian Gospel of Jesus the Christ, the Life of Issa, the Book of Mormon, and other such works, all of which claim to be modern translations of ancient works no longer extant and having no pre-modern attestation, are modern in origin. This assumption can be challenged by marshaling evidence pointing to a medieval or ancient origin, but the burden of proof is on such claims. This means that facts that are merely consistent with an earlier origin but are also consistent with a modern origin will not be counted as evidence for the earlier origin. It's nothing personal, and it's not about having some special animus toward a particular text or its religious adherents. I take the same approach to all such texts.

I'm not going to go into how your methodology isn't that useful for Jewish work, but I think Wade meant modern to be 1900 as that was the date of the Zohar translation he wants to use.

Edited February 28, 2012 by volgadon

[Rob Bowman]

volgadon,

You wrote:

I'm not going to go into how your methodology isn't that useful for Jewish work, but I think Wade meant modern to be 1900 as that was the date of the Zohar translation he wants to use.

I understood that, but it would be irrational to date the Zohar to 1900 or later when there is a more or less continuous stream of attestation for it going back centuries earlier. Wade's claim that the methodology I apply to the Book of Mormon would require dating the Zohar to the twentieth century is simply false.

As for dating "Jewish work," it all depends on the kind of text, the kinds of attestation, and so forth, and what it is that one is attempting to date -- and this is as true of "Gentile work" as Jewish so far as I know. I acknowledge that the textual traditions in some cases are too fluid to pin down a precise date for a specific work, but approximations can often be made, and in some cases it is possible to be definite.

[Rob Bowman]

Charles,

You wrote:

The scholastic method for determining the historical context of a manuscript, (I call it parallelism) fails for the BOM for a simple reason -- it has a fatal flaw because it fails to take into account the prophetic nature of the book. The Lord showed Mormon our day, he says that he knows us well and the book was written, not for the ancient inhabitants of America but specifically for our modern day. The BOM tells us that we will find modern themes, and that is indeed what we find.

Such an argument begs the question. The issue is not "parallelism." I have no problem with genuine prophecy. There is, however, such a thing as "prophetic" literature written after the fact. One must consider all of the evidence, not just parallels ancient and modern but all of the evidence, including facts pertaining to how the book originated.

As I have stated before, the Book of Mormon was not written "for our modern day." It was written to address issues dominating early nineteenth-century American Christian discourse. It was not written to address the most pressing and controversial issues facing early twenty-first century Christians. That is a dead giveaway as to when it was really written.

You wrote:

Also, I have demonstrated how parallelism shows that the BOM was actually written in the 21st century with its obvious 21st century references to the Taliban fighting government troops while hiding in the mountains, the Mafia and their blood oaths, a terrorist group posssing a standing army. These are familiar themes to the 21st century reader.

I assume you are speaking tongue-in-cheek to argue that the critical method is flawed. I don't know what the specifics of your satirical argument would be, but undoubtedly all they would show is that critical method can be abused or simply used poorly.

[volgadon]

volgadon,

I understood that, but it would be irrational to date the Zohar to 1900 or later when there is a more or less continuous stream of attestation for it going back centuries earlier. Wade's claim that the methodology I apply to the Book of Mormon would require dating the Zohar to the twentieth century is simply false.

I don't think that his example is particularly useful.

As for dating "Jewish work," it all depends on the kind of text, the kinds of attestation, and so forth, and what it is that one is attempting to date -- and this is as true of "Gentile work" as Jewish so far as I know. I acknowledge that the textual traditions in some cases are too fluid to pin down a precise date for a specific work, but approximations can often be made, and in some cases it is possible to be definite.

I accidentally dropped the "s" at the end of "works." Jewish texts are notorious for their vagaries, often surviving in late manuscripts, which is why heavy reliance on the date of the first manuscript tends to be unreliable.

[zerinus]

First, that the Zohar is ancient is not universally accepted. Most critical scholars think it originated in the thirteenth century AD, though of course it will likely have utilized some earlier materials (as does pretty much every text).

Second, you are mistaken about my methodology. It would not lead to the conclusion that the Zohar is of modern origin. Let me give you a quick and informal description of the methodology I favor. Step one of my method would be to determine the earliest extant copies or manuscripts of part or all of the work in question as well as the earliest external references to the work in question. For the Zohar this is clearly the thirteenth century, not the twentieth. That is why my methodology cannot assign the Zohar to the twentieth century! For the Book of Mormon this earliest attestation is clearly the nineteenth century. Step two is possible only if original-language manuscripts of the work are available, and that is to determine based on the details of the language the period in which it was written. Most critical scholars using this step (I am not qualified to perform this step myself for a work like the Zohar) conclude on this basis that the Zohar probably did originate in the thirteenth century. This step obviously cannot be performed with the Book of Mormon. Where the second step cannot be performed, the burden of proof is on the claim that the work originated in a period significantly earlier than its earliest extant versions or external references. Thus the working assumption of scholarly historians will be that the Aquarian Gospel of Jesus the Christ, the Life of Issa, the Book of Mormon, and other such works, all of which claim to be modern translations of ancient works no longer extant and having no pre-modern attestation, are modern in origin. This assumption can be challenged by marshaling evidence pointing to a medieval or ancient origin, but the burden of proof is on such claims. This means that facts that are merely consistent with an earlier origin but are also consistent with a modern origin will not be counted as evidence for the earlier origin. It's nothing personal, and it's not about having some special animus toward a particular text or its religious adherents. I take the same approach to all such texts.

Then you failed to appreciate the significance of Wade's point. The point is not about whether the Zohar is of ancient origin or not, but whether it is of Hebrew origin or not.

Edited February 28, 2012 by zerinus

[Daniel Peterson]

I haven't read through this thread, but somebody has evidently posted somewhere (here?) a long list of "dreamed a dream" passages from outside the Book of Mormon.

That's nice.

I've never seen 1 Nephi 8:2 as knock-out proof of the ancient Semitic authenticity of the Book of Mormon, and, to the best of my recollection, have never claimed it was. It's consistent with ancient Semitic authenticity, and is the kind of thing I would expect to find in an ancient Semitic text -- and it really has helped me to explain cognate accusatives (al-tamyiiz) to students of Arabic -- so, in that limited sense, it provides support for the Book of Mormon's claim of Semitic antiquity.

[Cobalt-70]

Think about it. He claims something can be evidence for the BOM only if there is absolutely no 19th century explanation possible.

No, I said that IF there are modern English idioms in the Book of Mormon, then alleged Hebraisms cannot be evidence that the Book of Mormon is an ancient text unless there is a credible theory to explain how such modern English idioms can coexist with ancient Hebraisms. Evidence is always in support of a theory. If you have no theory, you have no evidence,

[Bernard Gui]

If the appearance of KJV and revivalist idioms woven into the fabric of Alma 5 proves the BoM is of early 19th-century American provenance, what are we to make of the dearth of idioms and terms that were used during the same time period in secular literature and speech to describe Native American culture?

Living on the frontier, surely Joseph Smith was as immersed in Indian lore as he was in Methodism.

Or had he never heard of bison, eagles, wampum, tomahawks, canoes, and moccasins?

Bernard

Edited February 28, 2012 by Bernard Gui

[Cobalt-70]

If you analyzed that verse into its components like that, and tried to convert it back into Hebrew as if it had been from the KJV, what do you come up with in the end; is it something that sounds like genuine biblical Hebrew or not? If it does, then it is good evidence that it is of Hebrew origin. And if you did that with the whole of the Book of Mormon, and found a consistent pattern throughout, then that would be the strongest possible evidence of the Hebrew origin of the Book of Mormon. It may even be possible to computerise this process. Computer translation software has now become quite sophisticated. It may be that a good computer program already exists to translate Hebrew into English. If there is, it may be possible to tweak that software to make it translate the KJV back into Hebrew so that it does a perfect job of converting the KJV back into its original manuscript; and them feed the Book of Mormon into it, and see what comes out at the end. I think that that would be a good programming exercise for the clever computer programmers at BYU. If the results confirm the above, that would be a very strong evidence of the Hebraic origin of the BoM.

I can think of a much better experiment. Do a statistical analysis of all known Hebrew word patterns in the Book of Mormon. If there are more of them per page in the Isaiah sections of 2 Nephi than there are in the other sections, then the Book of Mormon is not a translation of original Hebrew.

[Robert F. Smith]

Robert,

Your posts in this thread represent a remarkably fluid approach to the text of the Book of Mormon—fluid as Jell-o on a hot sidewalk.

On the one hand, you claim (post #71) that the Book of Mormon preserves a “profusion” of Egyptianisms, largely linguistic in nature (though you also suggest it reflects an Egyptian system of weights and measures). You base this claim on the premise that Joseph Smith said that the Book of Mormon was written in Egyptian. Thus, you claim, for example, that the use of double negatives in the Book of Mormon is an example of Egyptianism, as is the expression “iron rod” as an idiomatic reference to God’s word, “an equivalence or pun only possible in Egyptian.” Likewise, in your first post to this thread (#4), you argued that Alma’s statement that “their souls did expand” (Alma 5:9) is an Egyptianism.

Actually, I was trying to emphasize the literary and archeological nature of the parallels, and was premising the Egyptian nature of those parallels on the Book of Mormon itself claiming to have been written in Egyptian language. However, see below.

On the other hand, you claim (post #75) that the Book of Mormon is written in Joseph Smith’s own English idiom and even that it uses literary sources contemporary with Joseph Smith.

I take it that you mean this in a generic sense, in line with Joseph's knowledge of biblical and revivalistic phraseology, rather than in terms of much wider and sophisticated book learning. See below.

I had presented evidence that not only is Alma 5:9 an English idiom but that the entire chapter uses English idiom and lifts phrases and even a whole sentence from the KJV New Testament. In response, you claim to be “not at all surprised” by that evidence, and you argue that all such evidence is easily handled via a translation “model” such as Blake Ostler’s in which the English Book of Mormon includes “midrashic expansion and dynamic metaphrase” reflecting modern knowledge and idiom. You explain:

Robert, I do not think you can have your Egyptianism cake and eat it too. The translation model that finds a “profusion” of Egyptianisms throughout the Book of Mormon is not compatible with a translation model in which the Book of Mormon is composed in idiomatic English and drawing freely from revivalist speech forms, the KJV New Testament, and other modern sources to make the Book of Mormon linguistically and theologically “accessible” to modern readers. You mentioned modern English paraphrases of the Bible as an analogy, and they illustrate the problem of trying to have it both ways. Eugene Peterson’s The Message, for example, which rewrites the Bible in contemporary idiom, does not contain woodenly literal renderings of ancient Egyptian or Hebraic linguistic forms in the OT or Greek or Latin idioms in the New.

I realize that having it both ways is awfully convenient for Book of Mormon apologetics. Mormons can argue that the Book of Mormon has woodenly preserved ancient Hebraisms or Egyptianisms (some apologists actually argue for both) wherever they like, and at the same time explain away all instances of modern idiom, cribbing from the KJV New Testament, etc., as compatible with “translation” in the loosest sense of the word. Mixing the two approaches to the Book of Mormon would seem to give the apologist the best of both worlds. Those who mix both ways of viewing the Book of Mormon, however, do not have a coherent model of translation at all.

Rob

I realize that it can be frustrating dealing with several different translation styles. However, as I pointed out back in 1987 (Book of Mormon Critical Text, III:iii), Montague James of Cambridge deliberately used a KJV-style of translation as late as 1924 in his The Apocryphal New Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1924) – which appeared in a corrected edition in 1953. James explained on p. xxi that he had “employed a style meant to remind the reader of the Authorized Version of the Bible.” More recently, using modern idiom, J. K. Elliott sought “to produce as readable and coherent an English version as the original Greek and Latin allows,” without noting frequent allusions to the biblical text, saying that “the nature of many of these apocryphal documents is such that their authors were so steeped in Biblical or liturgical language that many echoes of scriptural passages occur throughout the writings without being conscious quotations” (Elliott, ed., The Apocryphal New Testament [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993], xv) – while actually footnoting direct quotations.

Since the thin veneer of translation style does not usually convey substantive information, I have been more interested in literary topoi and in archeological comparisons. However, as I have pointed out several times on this Board, if we are to give any credence at all to individual claims of Hebraisms or Egyptianisms in the Book of Mormon, they must be linguistically unique and otherwise unattested in Joseph’s information environment – a tall order – and I admire the clarity of your observations about this at your post #120 in this thread (in response to Bill Hamblin).

For example, how might we translate the fifth Commandment?

KJV Exodus 20:12

Honor thy father and thy

mother, that thy days may be

long upon the land which the

Lord thy God giveth thee.

Rob Lacey, Word on the Street

You’ll treat your parents with respect.

Then you’ll live long and prosper

in this new land I’m moving you into.

“Live long and prosper” is a dead giveaway that this is a liturgical phrase from the culture of planet Vulcan (Dif-tor heh smusma in Vulcan), which implies a standard sign made with five fingers grouped in a threesome. However, since the first appearance of this phrase occurs in a 1967 sc-fi script by Theodore Sturgeon for Star Trek, and since Vulcans are fictional, we must look further afield: Shakespeare’s “Romeo & Juliet” contains the similar phrase “Live and be properous” (act 5, scene 3). Does this mean that the fifth Commandment was cribbed from Shakespeare, or that Lacey cribbed the phrase from Star Trek for his version of the fifth Commandment? Or was it taken from the ancient Egyptian phrase “May you live, be prosperous, and healthy”? (Gardiner, Egyptian Grammar, 3rd ed., p. 239) Or did the Jewish actor playing the Vulcan Spock simply adopt the sign displayed by the Kohen on Yom Kippur (the High Priest on the Day of Atonement) as he blesses the Jewish congregation with Hebrew words from Numbers 6:24-26? And would that blessing be freely translatable into English as “Live long and prosper.” Your choice. For most of these options, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulcan_salute .

[Bernard Gui]

     Mahatma Ghandi:

“When I admire the wonder of a sunset or the beauty of the moon, my soul expands in worship of the Creator”

Cribbed from 19th-century frontier American religious rhetoric.

Bernard

[Bernard Gui]

I can think of a much better experiment. Do a statistical analysis of all known Hebrew word patterns in the Book of Mormon. If there are more of them per page in the Isaiah sections of 2 Nephi than there are in the other sections, then the Book of Mormon is not a translation of original Hebrew.

I believe the parallelism in the BoM reveals the rhetorical and reasoning processes of the Nephites which were derived from knowledge gained from the brass plates.

Bernard

[Bernard Gui]

Mr.Bowman, in response to your repeated claim that the BoM does not address important current issues:

There's nothing in the Book of Mormon about relations between Christianity and other world religions;

If you mean apostate Christianity, the Book of Mormon predicts the apostasy and the Restoration, the changing relationship between Jews and Christians, the blindness of modern Christianity, the restoration of the true gospel to the Lehites, Gentiles and Jews, the increasing influence of Restored Christianity throughout the world, the prediction that other books are yet to come forth to set the religious world aright, and the future return of the Christ who will unite all religions in one.

nothing about contraception, birth control, abortion, homosexuality, and other hot-button ethical issues;

The Book of Mormon teaches chastity is a most prized possession and is pleasing to God, the lethal effects of pride, the evils of class distinctions and unbridled prosperity, ethical treatment of the poor and their obligations to society, the dangers of secret groups that seek power through crime and murder, the abomination of adultery and extra-marital sexual relations, the corruption of prostitution, the critical importance of the nuclear family, the absolute sanctity of life, the duties of the father in the family and in the church, the responsibilities of children with regard to their parents, the nobility and power of motherhood, and the absolute respect God demands men have for women and children.

no emancipatory insights into race relations (quite the opposite, the Book of Mormon is stuck morally in the early nineteenth century on this issue);

The only cultures that practice slavery in the Book of Mormon are apostate and corrupt. Those who are true followers of the Christ declare the freedom of all people and even go to war to protect it. The BoM declares that all that come to Jesus, regardless of their color (black or white, bond or free, male and female) are accepted by God, and all are alike to God.

It misses the hot issues of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries and of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. It seems to have been written specifically and only for Protestants in early nineteenth-century America!

No, not really.

Bernard

Edited February 28, 2012 by Bernard Gui

[Mike Reed]

I haven't read through this thread, but somebody has evidently posted somewhere (here?) a long list of "dreamed a dream" passages from outside the Book of Mormon.

That's nice.

I've never seen 1 Nephi 8:2 as knock-out proof of the ancient Semitic authenticity of the Book of Mormon,

Nobody said you saw it as a "knock out proof." But you may want to see the quote I give below.

and, to the best of my recollection, have never claimed it was.

But you thought the "evidence" was significant enough to mention in the recently uploaded FAIR youtube video.

You've given this example on many occasions, and it appears in your

Evidences of the Book of Mormon FARMS article quoted from below:

I teach Arabic about half-time at Brigham Young University, and one of the linguistic forms in Arabic that's common in other Semitic language as well, is something that's called a "cognate accusative"—where you use a noun that's related to a verb in a sentence. You say, "I hit him a great hitting" or "I have dreamed a dream." And the example that I often use to illustrate this, which is not naturally English, is one right out of 1 Nephi, where Lehi reports to his sons, "Behold I have dreamed a dream, or in other words I have seen a vision." Now this "I have dreamed a dream" is a perfect cognate accusative, and when the students hear about this—the ones who know the Book of Mormon—they say, "Ah, yes. Now we understand," because this is an authentic example of the Arabic or Semitic construction.

Even the second part of the sentence (though we lose something in English) when Lehi says, "Behold I have dreamed a dream; or, in other words, I have seen a vision," (1 Nephi 8:2) demonstrates this. You have to remember that English is based on two different languages. English is a hybrid of a sort of Latin or French with a Germanic language—the Anglo-Saxons and then the Norman Conquest, of course. So you have two different words for many things, a sort of low Germanic word and a high Latin-style word. For example, a handbook: we also have the Latin word manual coming from the word Manis for "hand." They mean the same thing. Likewise, with the words "I have seen a vision,"—what he's really saying is "I have seen a seeing." The Latin word seeing was related to the word for vision, and you have a related German word, sehen, or "I have seen a vision," using the Latin word. But in the original it was probably something like this: "Behold I have dreamed a dream; or in other words, I have seen a seeing." So I use this verse in the Book of Mormon in my Arabic grammar class, just to make a point to the students.

Now, I ask you how a nineteenth-century farm boy could have come up with something like that

, which is a perfect illustration of an Arabic grammatical point.

Probably he did a lot of his work in the graduate school

there at Palmyra University—well, of course there wasn't such a place. And there was no such Joseph Smith.

This came to him via another route, not through academic study.

It's consistent with ancient Semitic authenticity, and is the kind of thing I would expect to find in an ancient Semitic text

As opposed to what we'd expect in 19th century English literature, right?

so, in that limited sense, it provides support for the Book of Mormon's claim of Semitic antiquity.

So do you think the rock I found in my back yard should count as evidence supporting the BoM's historicity?

Edited February 28, 2012 by Mike Reed

[Rob Bowman]

zerinus,

You wrote:

Then you failed to appreciate the significance of Wade's point. The point is not about whether the Zohar is of ancient origin or not, but whether it is of Hebrew origin or not.

You are incorrect. Here is how Wade concluded his first post about the Zohar:

So, as we examine the Zohar for Hebraisms, then according to the critics, if the Hebraisms were known in English in the early to late 1900's, then no more questions need be asked, and one may reasonably conclude that the Zohar originated in the 1900's. Right?

[Benjamin McGuire]

Rob Bowman writes:

Step one of my method would be to determine the earliest extant copies or manuscripts of part or all of the work in question as well as the earliest external references to the work in question. For the Zohar this is clearly the thirteenth century, not the twentieth. That is why my methodology cannot assign the Zohar to the twentieth century! For the Book of Mormon this earliest attestation is clearly the nineteenth century. Step two is possible only if original-language manuscripts of the work are available, and that is to determine based on the details of the language the period in which it was written. Most critical scholars using this step (I am not qualified to perform this step myself for a work like the Zohar) conclude on this basis that the Zohar probably did originate in the thirteenth century. This step obviously cannot be performed with the Book of Mormon. Where the second step cannot be performed, the burden of proof is on the claim that the work originated in a period significantly earlier than its earliest extant versions or external references. Thus the working assumption of scholarly historians will be that the Aquarian Gospel of Jesus the Christ, the Life of Issa, the Book of Mormon, and other such works, all of which claim to be modern translations of ancient works no longer extant and having no pre-modern attestation, are modern in origin. This assumption can be challenged by marshaling evidence pointing to a medieval or ancient origin, but the burden of proof is on such claims. This means that facts that are merely consistent with an earlier origin but are also consistent with a modern origin will not be counted as evidence for the earlier origin. It's nothing personal, and it's not about having some special animus toward a particular text or its religious adherents. I take the same approach to all such texts.

I have one counter example for you Rob. Isaiah.

After all, the earliest manuscript copies of Isaiah date to about 200 BCE? Most scholars who work with the original language manuscripts of the text believe that the text as it stands significantly postdates the time period in which Isaiah lived. And yet, here you are claiming to believe in a unified Isaiah ... no, I don't think you take the same approach to all such texts. I think that you put the Bible into its own separate category.

Ben M.

[volgadon]

Rob Bowman writes:I have one counter example for you Rob. Isaiah.

After all, the earliest manuscript copies of Isaiah date to about 200 BCE? Most scholars who work with the original language manuscripts of the text believe that the text as it stands significantly postdates the time period in which Isaiah lived. And yet, here you are claiming to believe in a unified Isaiah ... no, I don't think you take the same approach to all such texts. I think that you put the Bible into its own separate category.

Ben M.

I think you are right on that.

[Rob Bowman]

Benjamin,

You wrote:

Rob Bowman writes:I have one counter example for you Rob. Isaiah.

After all, the earliest manuscript copies of Isaiah date to about 200 BCE? Most scholars who work with the original language manuscripts of the text believe that the text as it stands significantly postdates the time period in which Isaiah lived. And yet, here you are claiming to believe in a unified Isaiah ... no, I don't think you take the same approach to all such texts. I think that you put the Bible into its own separate category.

Ben M.

You missed step two.

Edited February 28, 2012 by Rob Bowman

[wenglund]

First, that the Zohar is ancient is not universally accepted. Most critical scholars think it originated in the thirteenth century AD, though of course it will likely have utilized some earlier materials (as does pretty much every text).

My source states that the scholars are divided over the dating of the origins, with many leaning towards the 2nd century CE. Either way, the scholars agree that it dates to long before the first English translation, which is my point.

Second, you are mistaken about my methodology. It would not lead to the conclusion that the Zohar is of modern origin. Let me give you a quick and informal description of the methodology I favor. Step one of my method would be to determine the earliest extant copies or manuscripts of part or all of the work in question as well as the earliest external references to the work in question. For the Zohar this is clearly the thirteenth century, not the twentieth. That is why my methodology cannot assign the Zohar to the twentieth century!

This isn't the part of your methodology that I am testing. Rather, this part of your methodology may be used to test the other parts of your and other critics methodology that you each have applied to the Book of Mormon.

Step two is possible only if original-language manuscripts of the work are available, and that is to determine based on the details of the language the period in which it was written. Most critical scholars using this step (I am not qualified to perform this step myself for a work like the Zohar) conclude on this basis that the Zohar probably did originate in the thirteenth century. This step obviously cannot be performed with the Book of Mormon. Where the second step cannot be performed, the burden of proof is on the claim that the work originated in a period significantly earlier than its earliest extant versions or external references. Thus the working assumption of scholarly historians will be that the Aquarian Gospel of Jesus the Christ, the Life of Issa, the Book of Mormon, and other such works, all of which claim to be modern translations of ancient works no longer extant and having no pre-modern attestation, are modern in origin. This assumption can be challenged by marshaling evidence pointing to a medieval or ancient origin, but the burden of proof is on such claims. This means that facts that are merely consistent with an earlier origin but are also consistent with a modern origin will not be counted as evidence for the earlier origin. It's nothing personal, and it's not about having some special animus toward a particular text or its religious adherents. I take the same approach to all such texts.

Again, I am not testing this step since, as you say, it doesn't apply to the Book of Mormon.

What I am testing is the step you evidently left unmentioned--i.e. the step you have used to conclude that the Book of Mormon is a 19th century production, the step that relates to idioms or Hebraism. Remember?

Besides, my test was more directed at Mike Reeds comments than yours.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-