A Hebraism In The Book Of Mormon

[Magyar]

Reading tonight in Alma 5, I am intrigued by something. Alma says of certain people, that "their souls did expand." The word expand appears nowhere in the KJV, nor, to my knowledge, elsewhere in the Book of Mormon, although Alma famously does expound upon the concept later, in Alma 32.

However, expanse, a related term, does appear in the Bible, translated as firmament, rawkeeyah, consonants r-k. I would like to ask our resident Hebraists whether there could be any connection between this term and the chariots envisioned by Ezekiel, merkavah, which led to a school of mystical Jewish thought. It would be interested if these terms, which led to mystical experiences on opposite sides of the world, were related.

[Magyar]

...

Edited February 19, 2012 by Magyar

[Rob Bowman]

Magyar,

English literature in Joseph Smith's day has numerous examples of references to the soul "expanding" in poetic and religious texts. A Google Books search between 1775 and 1829 returned over 700 hits for this verbal expression: 255 hits for "soul expand," 289 hits for "soul expands," 148 hits for "soul expanded," and 14 hits for "souls expanded." So this expression was a familiar idiom in Joseph's day.

I cannot think of a plausible way to connect this expression with the firmament or "expanse" of the sky in ancient Hebrew cosmology, but in any case the source of the expression would appear rather certainly to be Joseph's own culture.

Reading tonight in Alma 5, I am intrigued by something. Alma says of certain people, that "their souls did expand." The word expand appears nowhere in the KJV, nor, to my knowledge, elsewhere in the Book of Mormon, although Alma famously does expound upon the concept later, in Alma 32.

However, expanse, a related term, does appear in the Bible, translated as firmament, rawkeeyah, consonants r-k. I would like to ask our resident Hebraists whether there could be any connection between this term and the chariots envisioned by Ezekiel, merkavah, which led to a school of mystical Jewish thought. It would be interested if these terms, which led to mystical experiences on opposite sides of the world, were related.

[Robert F. Smith]

Reading tonight in Alma 5, I am intrigued by something. Alma says of certain people, that "their souls did expand." The word expand appears nowhere in the KJV, nor, to my knowledge, elsewhere in the Book of Mormon, although Alma famously does expound upon the concept later, in Alma 32.

However, expanse, a related term, does appear in the Bible, translated as firmament, rawkeeyah, consonants r-k. I would like to ask our resident Hebraists whether there could be any connection between this term and the chariots envisioned by Ezekiel, merkavah, which led to a school of mystical Jewish thought. It would be interested if these terms, which led to mystical experiences on opposite sides of the world, were related.

Rob is correct to say that raukeeyang (Book of Abraham style) has no relation to the concept you are asking about, nor is it connected with merkabah mysticism.

However, the figurative language used in Alma 5:7,9 (and in II Nephi 1:13-15) should be considered as a whole rather than piecemeal. As such it becomes clear that Egyptianisms rather than Hebraisms are the key to understanding, and the "expansion" would certainly apply as well to Alma 32:27-43. For example, Egyptian funerary literature regularly has shaking off of dust, loosening the bands of death, and bursting of chains in parallel (Pyramid Texts 2008-2009, 1363, 2202, Coffin Text III, 248, etc.), while the sprouting of seeds and becoming fruitful comes from the same root as the word for land emerging from the inundation (prt, prw) -- with all the cosmic meaning that carries; the plural word for "soul" baw is used in parallel with "greatness, become great" (Shipwrecked Sailor 139-140), etc.

[Magyar]

Thank you, both, for your thoughts on this matter. I see no problem with Joseph Smith using the idioms, expressions, etc., of his day to convey the meaning of the Hebrew original. Sometimes concepts cross cultural boundaries as well. Thus it seems possible that the various Egyptian concepts of shaking off of dust, bursting of chains, etc, could have also been familiar to thinkers of the 19th century -- independently having arisen. However, considered as a whole,with the expansion of soul as part of a whole religious liturgy, it seems to be another matter, less easily dismissed.

I was mainly curious in this instance about the possible philosophical connections between r-k and r-k-b. It was an interesting idea, invalidated.

[nasago]

NSTEAD OF EXAMINING only "HEBRAISM" from Israel, why not to translate/examine plenty of hebraism from main language used to write Book of Mormon? Main language “included” some more (now "hidden") Hebrew and its Hebraism, mixed and intertwined with such our family main language.

Instead of separating and examining "Hebraism" in a quite like pure/selected way from Book of Mormon, which is something complex and of little productivity,

I would like to propose/suggest another pathway, another route, which is based on "language hybridism which is hiding the Hebraism".

This may sound "strange', but it should be better understood if you consider my people ancestors' (as for me and for me, born out of marriage, and her mother). Both lineages go to Babylon days and probably before that and such lineages survived and we are spread almost all over the world and keeping=saving many of the original words,, So many of them are reproduced "very identically" in Book of Mormon, including with meaning that is not provided in such Book.

That provides an idea and suggestion to study Hebraism through an indirect way, as if through the language of our families that also have written records along some 2,700 years or more, with some words clearly being/following Hebraism. Some records are of some 500 B.C. But not using Hebrew characters, even if written from right to left and with some Hebrew grammar rules like. They characters/phrases/objects were found in USA and Canada, I can read them as of my people. It is quite easy to translate them to our language (including characters and, text) to our language and/or vice-versa, thus so old language/texts and ours are just one. Even if old one is from 1,700 B.C. in such so old and buried language since 500 BC...?

[volgadon]

NSTEAD OF EXAMINING only "HEBRAISM" from Israel, why not to translate/examine plenty of hebraism from main language used to write Book of Mormon? Main language “included” some more (now "hidden") Hebrew and its Hebraism, mixed and intertwined with such our family main language.

Is there an interpreter in the house?

[nasago]

volgadon

It is quite like a "crazy" information, but it is quite evident Jesus Christ knew/met my people: handled as very Israelite, even if they were not welcome by Jews. The situation remains exactly the same 2,000 years latter, now with LDS standard community. I got infor mation about the contact of Brigham Young and collaborators wih my people/branch, and since them. It was complete failure, Even if Jewish scientist/rabines recognized their Jewishness, very clear in their poetry/music being clearly of Old Israel. The problem is that Gospel preaching, since then, was mingled with nation potics ideas, as I got detailed reports from the Mission. Thus sometimes we are blindened as the Jews were in relation to neighbors ISRAELITES, as "samaritans" and Israelites from Greece (and region) and in Roman Empire and remaining in Babylon toward India and China and Ethiopia, etc.

My language was made "dead", in some aspect, but remains alive, in others. Is alive in so many millions and millions of persons, not more in so pure way, but yet in quite pure way to understand written and spoken materials of 2,500 years ago. Our big original land would be named quite like "Jacob's Land", if translated into modern european language. it is amazing that LDS are not able to discover such translation and even to locate it. Old apostles located it just after Christ. Where them smarter? As I discovered, it appears LDS don't like going there by unjustified bias. Political one?

[volgadon]

volgadon

It is quite like a "crazy" information, but it is quite evident Jesus Christ knew/met my people: handled as very Israelite, even if they were not welcome by Jews. The situation remains exactly the same 2,000 years latter, now with LDS standard community. I got infor mation about the contact of Brigham Young and collaborators wih my people/branch, and since them. It was complete failure, Even if Jewish scientist/rabines recognized their Jewishness, very clear in their poetry/music being clearly of Old Israel. The problem is that Gospel preaching, since then, was mingled with nation potics ideas, as I got detailed reports from the Mission. Thus sometimes we are blindened as the Jews were in relation to neighbors ISRAELITES, as "samaritans" and Israelites from Greece (and region) and in Roman Empire and remaining in Babylon toward India and China and Ethiopia, etc.

My language was made "dead", in some aspect, but remains alive, in others. Is alive in so many millions and millions of persons, not more in so pure way, but yet in quite pure way to understand written and spoken materials of 2,500 years ago. Our big original land would be named quite like "Jacob's Land", if translated into modern european language. it is amazing that LDS are not able to discover such translation and even to locate it. Old apostles located it just after Christ. Where them smarter? As I discovered, it appears LDS don't like going there by unjustified bias. Political one?

I'm afraid I still haven't the foggiest. Who and what are you talking about?

[Robert F. Smith]

I was mainly curious in this instance about the possible philosophical connections between r-k and r-k-b. It was an interesting idea, invalidated.

The Hebrew roots are רקע rqʿ “expanse,” and רכב rkb “ride,” even though they may sound similar.

[nasago]

I'm afraid I still haven't the foggiest. Who and what are you talking about?

It is better to reason about. The "cultural gap" is (remain) too huge, for any productive relationship take place.

It is like a group of persons look at an elephant from a front position and describing it as a "trunk animal", paying attention only to the trunk features. It is like one group of LDS of Utah and Jews of Jerusalem and its temple: quite exclusivist viewpoint.

Other group, maybe at the back of the animal and is paying attention to the tail and providing exclusivism attention to the tail and concluding that what defines the elephant is its "tail".

Other groups may be at the side or even above or below the elephant, maybe moving around it. THUS not being so "exclusivist" in their judgment, quite like the Jews of Jerusalem were in relation to us, quite like so ubiquitous and coming to worship in Jerusalem. At that time 2 sub-groups "neph" had departed (detached) from one of our main group, going to opposite directions. One went to America. One of them yet is alive, keeping the "neph" name and so many of our names are yet alive (including Old Testament “poetry like and music, alives…), quite like or alike those in Book of Mormon.

But I guess this is out of understanding of a group that only examine an elephant from a very exclusivist and fixed position, looking only toward the trunk position. Better end dialogue. Our family name, even in Babylon days (and probably before) was "my Lord" is of Heavenly Army (?) and of my son (from his mother, for sure from Babylon captivity) is "very deep pain, as if from sick intestines" to (“+”) the "hair being moved around, being pulled and piled up on top head"… ?

Names that are in Book of Mormon and not yet translated are quite easy to translate or “correct”: as they are in our language. It is possible to write back to Nephitic, easy... We know what is LIAHona. SHAZer is written wrong! There was never such word. It was CHAser (chaSER): it is in our and Hebrew language... in our language. In fact there is HEBREW in our language: biased cultural/political LDS can’t see, as Jews in Jesus days, as in relation to Samaritans. As Peter Apostle in relation to ... Chase is from CHASE + ER (verb), as in CHASE BANK in NY. Thus it is an order to live of "CHASEd" = Hunted material. Shalom!

[volgadon]

It is better to reason about. The "cultural gap" is (remain) too huge, for any productive relationship take place.

It is like a group of persons look at an elephant from a front position and describing it as a "trunk animal", paying attention only to the trunk features. It is like one group of LDS of Utah and Jews of Jerusalem and its temple: quite exclusivist viewpoint.

Other group, maybe at the back of the animal and is paying attention to the tail and providing exclusivism attention to the tail and concluding that what defines the elephant is its "tail".

Other groups may be at the side or even above or below the elephant, maybe moving around it. THUS not being so "exclusivist" in their judgment, quite like the Jews of Jerusalem were in relation to us, quite like so ubiquitous and coming to worship in Jerusalem. At that time 2 sub-groups "neph" had departed (detached) from one of our main group, going to opposite directions. One went to America. One of them yet is alive, keeping the "neph" name and so many of our names are yet alive (including Old Testament “poetry like and music, alives…), quite like or alike those in Book of Mormon.

But I guess this is out of understanding of a group that only examine an elephant from a very exclusivist and fixed position, looking only toward the trunk position. Better end dialogue. Our family name, even in Babylon days (and probably before) was "my Lord" is of Heavenly Army (?) and of my son (from his mother, for sure from Babylon captivity) is "very deep pain, as if from sick intestines" to (“+”) the "hair being moved around, being pulled and piled up on top head"… ?

Names that are in Book of Mormon and not yet translated are quite easy to translate or “correct”: as they are in our language. It is possible to write back to Nephitic, easy... We know what is LIAHona. SHAZer is written wrong! There was never such word. It was CHAser (chaSER): it is in our and Hebrew language... in our language. In fact there is HEBREW in our language: biased cultural/political LDS can’t see, as Jews in Jesus days, as in relation to Samaritans. As Peter Apostle in relation to ... Chase is from CHASE + ER (verb), as in CHASE BANK in NY. Thus it is an order to live of "CHASEd" = Hunted material. Shalom!

Dear Savelli, you have just given yourself away.

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/54967-1921-book-of-mormon-geography-hearings/page__p__1209027206__hl__+chase%20+bank__fromsearch__1#entry1209027206

Think on the word SHAZER. It is only a PHONETIC TRANSLATION. Nothing was translated from the original NEPHITIC language meaning. SHAZER means NOTHING in the English language before Joseph Smith's invention of such word. Thus it is quite difficult to understand Geography with such type of language barrier. In fact SHAZER, when correctly translated, is CHASER, which is CHASE + R, and as it is in Nephitic language = Sabellich language, they are read from right to left (as in Hebrew, not as if Greek or Phoenician or LATIN), thus it is CHASE="hunt" + R=verb=order to hunt. Thus CHASER is to become full HUNTER, living from HUNTED animals. It is also from Hebrew, as it is clear in the name CHASE BANK, of New York, of Jews, that is the BANK for "CHASING=hunting clients, be fed of them, get their money). Could be "CHASER" Bank. We have in FRENCH language, which is quite like a descendent from SABELLI's language: to "Live from Hunted animals" is to be a "ChaSSeur, chasseur". The double S is a corruption from the original Sabelli's language and U was added for phonetic reasons (corruption). Thus CHASSEUR in fact is just CHASER, CHASER ..... Not SHAZER = "S"ha"Z"er = ShaZer... Thus, from the point CHASER and going on in the travel, they were to BE FED only with FOOD from HUNTED ANIMALS. No more FOOD from Jerusalem. Examine and think:

[Rob Bowman]

Robert,

You wrote:

However, the figurative language used in Alma 5:7,9 (and in II Nephi 1:13-15) should be considered as a whole rather than piecemeal.

I would agree with this principle, though I would take it in a different direction than you do. As I look at Alma 5 as a whole, I find three considerations that lead me to conclude that Alma's sermon in Alma 5 originated in the early nineteenth century AD rather than the first century BC.

First, the idioms and other speech forms in the sermon all fit easily and obviously within Joseph Smith’s early nineteenth-century Anglo-American culture. Let’s take the part of the sermon with which we started, in which the idiom of souls “expanding” appears. A convenient unit is Alma 5:7-10. I will reproduce the text of these verses below with underlining to indicate whole expressions that I found using Google Books search for the years 1775-1829. The verbal parallels are exact except where noted. Thus bracketed words in the text are words not found in English literature parallels; in each case those bracketed words are not important to the idiom. I have not bothered with isolated words that in most languages and cultures would be expected to have numerous exact parallels. I have crossed out two words that are in the current edition of the Book of Mormon and that were not in the 1830 edition (neither of which is particularly consequential).

Alma 5:7-10

7 Behold, he changed their hearts; yea, he awakened [them] out of a deep sleep, and they awoke unto God (cf. “awake to God”). Behold, they were in the midst of darkness; nevertheless, their souls [were] illuminated by the light of the everlasting word; yea, they were encircled about by the bands of death, and the chains of hell, and an everlasting destruction did await them.

8 And now I ask [of] you, my brethren, were they destroyed? Behold, I say unto you, Nay, they were not.

9 And again I ask, were the bands of death broken, and the chains of hell which encircled [them] about, were they loosed? I say unto you, Yea, they were loosed, and their souls [did] expand, and they did sing redeeming love. And I say unto you that they are saved.

10 And now I ask of you on what conditions are they saved? Yea, what grounds had they to hope for salvation? What is the cause of their being loosed from the bands of death, yea, and also the chains of hell?

We could go through the whole sermon like this and the evidence would simply amass. Any parallels from ancient Egyptian texts will pale in significance when one considers the pervasive presence throughout the sermon of idioms and other figures of speech and turns of phrase that were part of the speech patterns of English-speaking people in Joseph Smith’s day. Such idiomatic expressions as changing hearts and singing redeeming love and loosed from the bands of death, considered cumulatively, prove beyond reasonable doubt that the language of the sermon derives from modern English speech patterns. The sermon’s speech patterns do not derive from ancient Egyptian or Hebrew, even though there are places where ancient idioms may happen in a few places to coincide with the English text.

Now, there are some theories or models for understanding the Book of Mormon as a translation that admit the use of modern English idiom. Such models affirm that Alma did deliver a sermon in the first century BC and that the sermon’s message was essentially what we find in Alma 5, but then explain that Joseph used modern English idiom to convey Alma’s message in terms familiar to Joseph’s contemporaries. The precise wording of the sermon may in that narrow sense be anachronistic, but the sermon itself was still ancient and the message of the sermon does not derive from modern English sources.

Here is where the other two considerations come into the picture. The second consideration is that in several places the sermon betrays a clear dependence on the New Testament in the King James Version (KJV). I will present several of the more obvious examples, passing over some for sake of time—but the more of these one sees the weightier the evidence for dependence.

Alma 5:15b “Do you look forward with an eye of faith, and view this mortal body raised in immortality, and this corruption raised in incorruption, to stand before God to be judged according to the deeds which have been done in the mortal body?”

“So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption…. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality…” (1 Cor. 15:42, 53-54 KJV).

Alma 5:24-25 “Behold, my brethren, do ye suppose that such an one can have a place to sit down in the kingdom of God, with Abraham, with Isaac, and with Jacob, and also all the holy prophets, whose garments are cleansed and are spotless, pure and white? I say unto you, Nay; except ye make our Creator a liar from the beginning, or suppose that he is a liar from the beginning, ye cannot suppose that such can have place in the kingdom of heaven; but they shall be cast out for they are the children of the kingdom of the devil.”

“And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 8:11 KJV).

Alma 5:35-36, 52 “Yea, come unto me and bring forth works of righteousness, and ye shall not be hewn down and cast into the fire— For behold, the time is at hand that whosoever bringeth forth not good fruit, or whosoever doeth not the works of righteousness, the same have cause to wail and mourn…. And again I say unto you, the Spirit saith: Behold, the ax is laid at the root of the tree; therefore every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit shall be hewn down and cast into the fire, yea, a fire which cannot be consumed, even an unquenchable fire. Behold, and remember, the Holy One hath spoken it.”

“And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire” (Matt. 3:10 KJV).

Alma 5:48 “I say unto you, that I know of myself that whatsoever I shall say unto you, concerning that which is to come, is true; and I say unto you, that I know that Jesus Christ shall come, yea, the Son, the Only Begotten of the Father, full of grace, and mercy, and truth. And behold, it is he that cometh to take away the sins of the world, yea, the sins of every man who steadfastly believeth on his name.”

“But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name…. And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth…. The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world” (John 1:12, 14, 29 KJV).

Alma 5:57a “And now I say unto you, all you that are desirous to follow the voice of the good shepherd, come ye out from the wicked, and be ye separate, and touch not their unclean things….”

“Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you” (2 Cor. 6:17 KJV).

Two things stand out about these allusions to the New Testament. The first is that there are so many of them—and again I have not exhausted all of the legitimate allusions. The second is that these allusions come in the context of a sermon that refers explicitly to “Jesus Christ” (v. 48)! The uses of that name and of so many clear allusions to the KJV New Testament are anachronistic in a way that cannot be accommodated by an English-idiom translation model of the Book of Mormon.

The third consideration is that the genre and message of the sermon in Alma 5 appear to be very much that of a revivalist preacher during the Second Great Awakening that was in full force during the 1820s. Its epicenter was, of course, upstate New York, the “burned over district” where Joseph Smith lived when he produced the Book of Mormon. Alma’s sermon reads very much like the sorts of off-the-cuff exhortatory sermons that the Methodists and other revivalists were giving in that Awakening—adapted to the Book of Mormon’s chronological setting of the first century BC. The sermon uses frequent rhetorical questions, pressing the hearers to examine their spiritual condition to determine if they have been “born again,” if they truly believe, and so on. It uses intertwining biblical allusions throughout, seemingly without effort. It contains urgent warnings to escape hell and be “saved.” It warns that the hearer could die at any moment and be unprepared to face God in judgment. It is especially concerned about those who profess to be righteous but whose lives show that profession to be a sham. The sermon even ends with an “invitation” to come and be baptized (v. 62)!

To review: (1) The sermon in Alma 5 is pervasively composed in the idiom or speech patterns of English and American speakers of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. (2) The sermon contains several clear allusions to the New Testament that considered as a whole show that the sermon is definitely dependent on the New Testament. (3) The sermon is in genre and in the substance of its message consistent with and typical of revivalist sermons in Joseph Smith’s immediate culture. These three considerations of speech patterns, sources, and genre/message, taken together cumulatively, seem to me to make an extremely powerful case for the sermon originating in early nineteenth century America.

Edited February 20, 2012 by Rob Bowman

[wenglund]

Robert,

You wrote:

I would agree with this principle, though I would take it in a different direction than you do. As I look at Alma 5 as a whole, I find three considerations that lead me to conclude that Alma's sermon in Alma 5 originated in the early nineteenth century AD rather than the first century BC.

First, the idioms and other speech forms in the sermon all fit easily and obviously within Joseph Smith’s early nineteenth-century Anglo-American culture. Let’s take the part of the sermon with which we started, in which the idiom of souls “expanding” appears. A convenient unit is Alma 5:7-10. I will reproduce the text of these verses below with underlining to indicate whole expressions that I found using Google Books search for the years 1775-1829. The verbal parallels are exact except where noted. Thus bracketed words in the text are words not found in English literature parallels; in each case those bracketed words are not important to the idiom. I have not bothered with isolated words that in most languages and cultures would be expected to have numerous exact parallels. I have crossed out two words that are in the current edition of the Book of Mormon and that were not in the 1830 edition (neither of which is particularly consequential).

Alma 5:7-10

7 Behold, he changed their hearts; yea, he awakened [them] out of a deep sleep, and they awoke unto God (cf. “awake to God”). Behold, they were in the midst of darkness; nevertheless, their souls [were] illuminated by the light of the everlasting word; yea, they were encircled about by the bands of death, and the chains of hell, and an everlasting destruction did await them.

8 And now I ask [of] you, my brethren, were they destroyed? Behold, I say unto you, Nay, they were not.

9 And again I ask, were the bands of death broken, and the chains of hell which encircled [them] about, were they loosed? I say unto you, Yea, they were loosed, and their souls [did] expand, and they did sing redeeming love. And I say unto you that they are saved.

10 And now I ask of you on what conditions are they saved? Yea, what grounds had they to hope for salvation? What is the cause of their being loosed from the bands of death, yea, and also the chains of hell?

We could go through the whole sermon like this and the evidence would simply amass. Any parallels from ancient Egyptian texts will pale in significance when one considers the pervasive presence throughout the sermon of idioms and other figures of speech and turns of phrase that were part of the speech patterns of English-speaking people in Joseph Smith’s day. Such idiomatic expressions as changing hearts and singing redeeming love and loosed from the bands of death, considered cumulatively, prove beyond reasonable doubt that the language of the sermon derives from modern English speech patterns. The sermon’s speech patterns do not derive from ancient Egyptian or Hebrew, even though there are places where ancient idioms may happen in a few places to coincide with the English text.

Now, there are some theories or models for understanding the Book of Mormon as a translation that admit the use of modern English idiom. Such models affirm that Alma did deliver a sermon in the first century BC and that the sermon’s message was essentially what we find in Alma 5, but then explain that Joseph used modern English idiom to convey Alma’s message in terms familiar to Joseph’s contemporaries. The precise wording of the sermon may in that narrow sense be anachronistic, but the sermon itself was still ancient and the message of the sermon does not derive from modern English sources.

Here is where the other two considerations come into the picture. The second consideration is that in several places the sermon betrays a clear dependence on the New Testament in the King James Version (KJV). I will present several of the more obvious examples, passing over some for sake of time—but the more of these one sees the weightier the evidence for dependence.

Two things stand out about these allusions to the New Testament. The first is that there are so many of them—and again I have not exhausted all of the legitimate allusions. The second is that these allusions come in the context of a sermon that refers explicitly to “Jesus Christ” (v. 48)! The uses of that name and of so many clear allusions to the KJV New Testament are anachronistic in a way that cannot be accommodated by an English-idiom translation model of the Book of Mormon.

The third consideration is that the genre and message of the sermon in Alma 5 appear to be very much that of a revivalist preacher during the Second Great Awakening that was in full force during the 1820s. Its epicenter was, of course, upstate New York, the “burned over district” where Joseph Smith lived when he produced the Book of Mormon. Alma’s sermon reads very much like the sorts of off-the-cuff exhortatory sermons that the Methodists and other revivalists were giving in that Awakening—adapted to the Book of Mormon’s chronological setting of the first century BC. The sermon uses frequent rhetorical questions, pressing the hearers to examine their spiritual condition to determine if they have been “born again,” if they truly believe, and so on. It uses intertwining biblical allusions throughout, seemingly without effort. It contains urgent warnings to escape hell and be “saved.” It warns that the hearer could die at any moment and be unprepared to face God in judgment. It is especially concerned about those who profess to be righteous but whose lives show that profession to be a sham. The sermon even ends with an “invitation” to come and be baptized (v. 62)!

To review: (1) The sermon in Alma 5 is pervasively composed in the idiom or speech patterns of English and American speakers of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. (2) The sermon contains several clear allusions to the New Testament that considered as a whole show that the sermon is definitely dependent on the New Testament. (3) The sermon is in genre and in the substance of its message consistent with and typical of revivalist sermons in Joseph Smith’s immediate culture. These three considerations of speech patterns, sources, and genre/message, taken together cumulatively, seem to me to make an extremely powerful case for the sermon originating in early nineteenth century America.

Rob,

I noticed that some of methods you use to argue naturalistic origins for the Book of Mormon are some of the same methods that non-believers use to demonstrate the naturalistic origins of the Bible---not the least of which is parallelomania. Seems kind of unwittingly self-defeating if you ask me.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Speaking of parallels, my Sunday School instructor pointed out yesterday that the 4th chapter of 2nd Nephi, verses 17-35 may affectionately be considered the Psalms of Nephi.

My instructor pointed out that these verses were written structurally in a poetic form he called "parallelisms," which he defined something along the lines of: repeating sequentially twice in two different ways each thought in a series of thought.

The Catholic Encyclopedia defines it as: "The balance of verse with verse, an essential and characteristic feature in Hebrew poetry. Either by repetition or by antithesis or by some other device, thought is set over against thought, form balances form, in such wise as to bring the meaning home to one strikingly and agreeably."

According to Wikipedia: "Parallelism means giving two or more parts of the sentences a similar form so as to give the whole a definite pattern. Parallelisms of various sorts are the chief rhetorical device of Biblical poetry in Hebrew.^[1][2]"

Now, while "parallelism" may be found in the Bible (particularly the Old Testament), I don't know that it was a common way of speaking among relatively uneducated and young farmers on the frontier of 19th century United States.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited February 20, 2012 by wenglund

[Rob Bowman]

Wade,

You wrote:

I noticed that some of methods you use to argue naturalistic origins for the Book of Mormon are some of the same methods that non-believers use to demonstrate the naturalistic origins of the Bible---not the least of which is parallelomania. Seems kind of unwittingly self-defeating if you ask me.

This isn't much of an answer. Speaking as a conservative evangelical Protestant who believes in the Bible as the word of God, I would simply say that the Bible does have "naturalistic origins" in a literary sense. Let's look at the New Testament in light of the three lines of evidence I presented regarding Alma 5. (1) Speech forms: the New Testament writings were written in koine Greek that was common in the first century AD. The New Testament books do not purport to be translations from third-millennium BC Egyptian texts and yet read like first-century AD Greek texts. (2) Literary dependence: When the New Testament writers quote the Old Testament, they did so using their natural knowledge of the Old Testament. The New Testament does not contain allusions to Beowulf. (3) Genres: The New Testament writings use genres common in the first century. The Gospels are written in the genre of ancient Greco-Roman biographies. Acts is written in the genre of ancient Hellenistic histories. The epistles are ancient letters with varying degrees of literary composition. Revelation is apocalyptic literature. We do not find medieval ballads, English sonnets, or systematic-theological treatises in the New Testament.

[wenglund]

This isn't much of an answer. Speaking as a conservative evangelical Protestant who believes in the Bible as the word of God, I would simply say that the Bible does have "naturalistic origins" in a literary sense.

If all you are arguing is in a literary sense that some of the idioms used in the English translation of the Book of Mormon may have "naturalistic origins"--similar to how you view the Holy Bible, then I am not sure we have much of a disagreement.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Rob Bowman]

Wade,

Read the whole post again. It is not just the use of English idioms in the Book of Mormon. It is the fact that the whole sermon in Alma 5 is a nineteenth-century composition, written in the genre of revivalist exhortations that Joseph Smith himself learned to do among the Methodists, and alluding repeatedly to the New Testament, of which Alma, of course, should have had no knowledge.

If all you are arguing is in a literary sense that some of the idioms used in the English translation of the Book of Mormon may have "naturalistic origins"--similar to how you view the Holy Bible, then I am not sure we have much of a disagreement.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Rob Bowman]

I saw, after posting my analysis of Alma 5, that Grant Palmer mentions some of the same features very briefly (half a page) in An Insider's View of Mormon Origins, page 114, in his chapter on evangelical Protestantism in the Book of Mormon. Palmer's chapter provides some excellent context especially for the third line of evidence I presented. It demonstrates that the connection to revivalist preaching is not incidental or limited to Alma 5.

[wenglund]

Wade,

Read the whole post again. It is not just the use of English idioms in the Book of Mormon. It is the fact that the whole sermon in Alma 5 is a nineteenth-century composition, written in the genre of revivalist exhortations that Joseph Smith himself learned to do among the Methodists, and alluding repeatedly to the New Testament, of which Alma, of course, should have had no knowledge.

Aside from the English idioms in the English translation of the Book of Mormon (which, to some extent is expected since the same person who gave commandment to Alma on what to speak, is the same person often quoted in the New Testament--i.e. Christ), what else do you really have?

You arbitrarily claim that Alma 5 is in the genre of revivalist exhortations. However, it is likewise the genre of religious leaders throughout the ages delivering the message of repentance, renewed faith, and the principles of redemption to waning believers. It is a common practice during each of the dispensations of the gospel, including among such noted OT prophets as Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Moses, etc. As such, this point carries no weight.

Finally, you claim that Alma alludes to the New Testament, Whereas, the New Testament is nowhere mentioned or implied in this passage. At best, Alma alludes to the then, future coming of Christ, which he could have known by way of personal revelation and the words of his fathers. As such, this point carries no weight.

Yes, the language in Alma 5 is similar to that which may be found scattered throughout the New Testament, and in that sense it may loosely be considered as alluding to the New Testament. However, this would simply be a repeat of your first point about idiomatic parallels, and thus carries no additional weight.

Now, if you really wish to test the 19th century fit of Alma 5, try looking to see if there are elements of dis-commonality or discord between Alma's exhortation and 19th century revivalist exhortations. Ask yourself how prone 18th revivalist were to claiming authority of the order of the priesthood and also by way of revelation as well as confirmation of their words by way of the Holy Spirit.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited February 20, 2012 by wenglund

[Rob Bowman]

Wade,

This thread began with the question of whether a particular turn of phrase in Alma 5 could be regarded as a Hebraism. After I pointed out that it was an Anglicism, Robert F. Smith suggested it might be an Egyptianism. He also helpfully suggested that individual expressions should be viewed in a larger context. I showed that the whole passage in which the supposed Egyptianism was situated was filled with English idioms and other common English turns of phrase, including the supposed Egyptianism itself. The evidence taken cumulatively eliminates the viability of the Egyptianism theory and established beyond reasonable doubt that the wording is simply that of Joseph Smith's early nineteenth-century English manner of speaking.

You seem to have conceded that much, which is wise.

You object, however, to the argument I presented for concluding that the sermon itself was a nineteenth-century composition. Let's look at your objections.

You arbitrarily claim that Alma 5 is in the genre of revivalist exhortations. However, it is likewise the genre of religious leaders throughout the ages delivering the message of repentance, renewed faith, and the principles of redemption to waning believers. It is a common practice during each of the dispensations of the gospel, including among such noted OT prophets as Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Moses, etc. As such, this point carries no weight.

CFR that speeches of the same genre were delivered by "such noted OT prophets." Quotations from sources known to us only from Joseph Smith's nineteenth-century "translation" of the OT are not acceptable for this CFR, since the use of such quotations would clearly beg the question.

You wrote:

Finally, you claim that Alma alludes to the New Testament, Whereas, the New Testament is nowhere mentioned or implied in this passage.

One need not and typically does not mention the source to which one is alluding when one alludes. Your objection is without merit.

You wrote:

At best, Alma alludes to the then, future coming of Christ, which he could have known by way of personal revelation and the words of his fathers. As such, this point carries no weight.

Yes, the language in Alma 5 is similar to that which may be found scattered throughout the New Testament, and in that sense it may loosely be considered as alluding to the New Testament. However, this would simply be a repeat of your first point about idiomatic parallels, and thus carries no additional weight.

I disagree. We are now talking about much more than turns of phrase or individual idioms. How do you account for the following parallel?

Alma 5:52 “...the ax is laid at the root of the tree; therefore every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit shall be hewn down and cast into the fire....”

Matt. 3:10: “the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire."

Alma does not claim to be predicting by divine inspiration what the future John the Baptist would say. He is simply making the same statement that we find John the Baptist recorded in Matthew's Gospel as having made, as translated in the KJV, nearly verbatim. The only verbal differences are extremely minor: at instead of unto, tree instead of trees, that instead of which, and shall be instead of is. For all practical purposes Alma's statement is verbally the same as the 27-word statement found in Matthew 3:10. This cannot be dismissed as mere use of modern English idiom.

You wrote:

Now, if you really wish to test the 19th century fit of Alma 5, try looking to see if there are elements of dis-commonality or discord between Alma's exhortation and 19th century revivalist exhortations. Ask yourself how prone 18th revivalist were to claiming authority of the order of the priesthood and also by way of revelation as well as confirmation of the Holy Spirit.

If my argument was that absolutely everything in Alma 5 was exactly what one would find nineteenth-century revivalists commonly saying, you would have a legitimate objection, at least to my argument. But remember, I didn't say this. I pointed out that the revivalist sermon is adapted to the first-century BC context into which the Book of Mormon places Alma. If a revivalist-type sermon were to be placed in such a context we would expect some discontinuities with those sermons in a nineteenth-century Christian revivalist context. That is why, for example, the wording of Matthew 3:10 is changed from "is" to "shall be" (the most significant verbal variation in the allusion). It is why the revivalist is a high priest. Whatever differences there might have been between the concept of revelation found in Alma 5 and the views of nineteenth-century revivalists, such differences don't disprove a nineteenth-century origin of the sermon. At most it would prove that the author of the sermon was not in all respects of the same beliefs or ways of thinking as most other people in that revivalist tradition. But as a matter of fact, belief in modern revelation was quite popular in Joseph Smith's culture. Various sects had already popped up in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries claiming to be led by a prophet. Revivalists commonly claimed that the Spirit was especially active in their meetings and through the preaching that was done there.

Methodologically, you cannot invalidate the evidence for a nineteenth-century origin of the Book of Mormon by claiming that the Book of Mormon has some elements that would have been unusual for that period. People are constantly coming up with new ideas, new ways of saying something, new arguments, and so forth. But most of what any given person says will reflect the particular historical context in which they are situated, and even their "new ideas" have some continuity with what came before them and are articulated in ways that reflect that present culture. Such is the case with the Book of Mormon and its early nineteenth-century context.

[Pahoran]

Magyar,

English literature in Joseph Smith's day has numerous examples of references to the soul "expanding" in poetic and religious texts. A Google Books search between 1775 and 1829 returned over 700 hits for this verbal expression: 255 hits for "soul expand," 289 hits for "soul expands," 148 hits for "soul expanded," and 14 hits for "souls expanded." So this expression was a familiar idiom in Joseph's day.

That's a rather glib conclusion. I don't think the evidence supports it.

The mere fact that something is written in a book is a lot less than sufficient evidence that Joseph, whom all agree was not much of a reader, had come across it; much less that it was on everyone's lips.

Regards,

Pahoran

[zerinus]

Wade,

Read the whole post again. It is not just the use of English idioms in the Book of Mormon. It is the fact that the whole sermon in Alma 5 is a nineteenth-century composition, written in the genre of revivalist exhortations that Joseph Smith himself learned to do among the Methodists, and alluding repeatedly to the New Testament, of which Alma, of course, should have had no knowledge.

That needs to be demonstrated. You have not provided any documentary evidence to make a case for that claim.

[Pahoran]

That's a rather glib conclusion. I don't think the evidence supports it.

The mere fact that something is written in a book is a lot less than sufficient evidence that Joseph, whom all agree was not much of a reader, had come across it; much less that it was on everyone's lips.

Note also that in 1988, Paul Y. Hoskisson was unable to find any English examples of the soul expanding. This of course was before Google; but then again, Joseph lived at least a few years BG too.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Rob Bowman]

Pahoran,

You wrote:

That's a rather glib conclusion. I don't think the evidence supports it.

The mere fact that something is written in a book is a lot less than sufficient evidence that Joseph, whom all agree was not much of a reader, had come across it; much less that it was on everyone's lips.

And you wrote:

Note also that in 1988, Paul Y. Hoskisson was unable to find any English examples of the soul expanding. This of course was before Google; but then again, Joseph lived at least a few years BG too.

The English publications in print from a particular period (e.g., 1775-1829) to which a researcher in 1988 or even 2012 might have access represent only the tip of the iceberg of English writing and speaking during that period. It is a hopeless confusion of the issue to object that Joseph Smith isn't likely to have read any of the books in which a particular expression has been documented by a researcher. No one is suggesting that Joseph ransacked the library looking for a good turn of phrase, happened upon an expression about souls expanding, and decided to incorporate it into the Book of Mormon. For every occurrence of such a metaphor or turn of phrase located by a researcher in a book from that period, it is quite likely that the expression was used dozens or hundreds of times or more by different people in all sorts of communications forever lost to us, whether personal handwritten letters, unwritten sermons delivered by preachers or traveling evangelists, periodical articles and books not yet easily accessible, written materials burned in fires or destroyed by water, conversations between individuals who picked up the expression from any of the kinds of sources just mentioned, and on and on. It is a mistake to assume that if we can find, say, 200 occurrences of an expression in literature of a particular period then this accounts for all of the occurrences of that expression during the period in question.

Of course, we don't have the resources to determine in most cases whether a particular expression was "on everyone's lips" during a particular period of time. But if a quick and very limited, simple Google search for the period 1775-1829 turns up over 700 hits for that expression, as is the case with the expression in question, this is certainly sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the expression was easily available to people in that period. If we then find an individual using that expression in 1830, it is quite reasonable, plausible, and factually supportable to conclude that he drew that expression from his own culture.

When we put this one datum in the larger context of the speech patterns of the sermon as a whole and look at the other considerations I presented in my later post, the conclusion seems to me to be established beyond reasonable doubt.