A Hebraism In The Book Of Mormon

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

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?)

What a non starter. I am not even going to bother to give more of a response. This is just asinine.

[Mike Reed]

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.

I doubt most scholars would loosely define "evidence" in this way. Evidence has to count for something, right?

[Mike Reed]

What a non starter. I am not even going to bother to give more of a response. This is just asinine.

Oh good. Thanks for sparing us.

Edited February 27, 2012 by Mike Reed

[Rob Bowman]

Mola,

You wrote in response to Cobalt,

What a non starter. I am not even going to bother to give more of a response. This is just asinine.

Hmm. I don't see anything "asinine" about Cobalt's argument. Perhaps a hole could be poked in it, but it doesn't seem to me to be deserving of such disgust.

[Rob Bowman]

Just as Bill legitimately distinguished between evidence and proof, one must also distinguish between facts that count as evidence supporting a claim and facts that are simply consistent with that claim. These are not the same thing. For example, the Book of Mormon is written in English, and that fact is consistent with the Book of Mormon being a translation -- but of course that fact is not itself evidence that the Book of Mormon is a translation.

If Bill were on the other side, he would no doubt be astonished that so many Mormons cannot make this distinction.

[Bill Hamblin]

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?)

This is preposterous. Notice how it privileges the assumption that the BOM is modern? Evidence is evidence.

Corrected, h/t to Rob.

Edited February 28, 2012 by Bill Hamblin

[Bill Hamblin]

Just as Bill legitimately distinguished between evidence and proof, one must also distinguish between facts that count as evidence supporting a claim and facts that are simply consistent with that claim. These are not the same thing. For example, the Book of Mormon is written in English, and that fact is consistent with the Book of Mormon being a translation -- but of course that fact is not itself evidence that the Book of Mormon is a translation.

If Bill were on the other side, he would no doubt be astonished that so many Mormons cannot make this distinction.

No, I am only astonished by anti-Mormon claims.

[Rob Bowman]

Bill,

Regarding Cobalt's statement, you wrote:

This is preposterous. Notice how it privileges the assumption that the BOM is ancient. Evidence is evidence.

Huh?

[Bill Hamblin]

Just as Bill legitimately distinguished between evidence and proof, one must also distinguish between facts that count as evidence supporting a claim and facts that are simply consistent with that claim. These are not the same thing. For example, the Book of Mormon is written in English, and that fact is consistent with the Book of Mormon being a translation -- but of course that fact is not itself evidence that the Book of Mormon is a translation.

If Bill were on the other side, he would no doubt be astonished that so many Mormons cannot make this distinction.

What is actually important to note is that the fact that the BOM is written in early 19th century English is consistent with the claim that it was written in the early 19th century, and with the claim that it was translated in the early 19th century. It is, in fact, irrelevant.

On the other hand, whereas some 19th century books--like the KJV--contain Hebraisms, by no means do all 19C books contain Hebraisms. Most don't. Thus, Hebraisms are not a standard characteristic of 19th century books, while Hebraisms are a standard ancient Hebrew books--such as the BOM claims to be. Thus, Hebraisms are good evidence (not proof) for an ancient origin for the BOM, whereas 19th English is not evidence of a 19th century origin, since all 19th century translations of ancient books into English are, in fact, in English.

[Bill Hamblin]

Bill,

Regarding Cobalt's statement, you wrote:

Huh?

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

[Rob Bowman]

Bill,

You wrote:

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

I think that's an overstatement of Cobalt's argument. I think what he's saying is that if a plausible 19th-century explanation is at hand for some linguistic feature of the BOM, then that feature, though it may be consistent with an ancient origin, is not evidence for an ancient origin of the BOM. And that seems like a reasonable stance to me.

[Mike Reed]

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

I have a rock that I will sell you for a good price, Bill. I am certain that it is ancient. Think of the possibilities. You can own your very own piece of evidence that verifies the Book of Mormon (since we know that the BoM mentions rocks several times), and even better: this could be the subject of your next FARMS contribution. And who knows... if you place it in a hat, maybe you can see something in it. Or in other words, maybe you will "see a seeing"! I'll sell the rock to you for only $10 +shipping and handling. As for the hat, well... you'll have to get that elsewhere, but I bet you can get one cheap at Deseret Industries. As they say, "cheap cheap"... or is it "peep peep"? I forget.

Edited February 28, 2012 by Mike Reed

[Rob Bowman]

Bill,

You wrote:

What is actually important to note is that the fact that the BOM is written in early 19th century English is consistent with the claim that it was written in the early 19th century, and with the claim that it was translated in the early 19th century. It is, in fact, irrelevant.

On the other hand, whereas some 19th century books--like the KJV--contain Hebraisms, by no means do all 19C books contain Hebraisms. Most don't. Thus, Hebraisms are not a standard characteristic of 19th century books, while Hebraisms are a standard ancient Hebrew books--such as the BOM claims to be. Thus, Hebraisms are good evidence (not proof) for an ancient origin for the BOM, whereas 19th English is not evidence of a 19th century origin, since all 19th century translations of ancient books into English are, in fact, in English.

Most 19th-century books do not claim to be translations of ancient scripture and do not include lengthy quotations from and numerous allusions to the KJV. So we would not expect most 19th-century books to include features that might look like Hebraisms, because those books would not be trying to affect a biblical style. But I agree that Hebraisms could be evidence for an ancient origin of the BOM, under certain conditions or stipulations, which I stated briefly in my comment on your six points.

[Rob Bowman]

Bill,

You had written:

This is preposterous. Notice how it privileges the assumption that the BOM is ancient. Evidence is evidence.

I had responded, "Huh?" The reason is that I think you meant that Cobalt's statement privileges the assumption that the BOM is modern, not that it is ancient.

Edited February 28, 2012 by Rob Bowman

[wenglund]

There are other research topics that I find far more interesting, and far more useful to academia at large.

Hopefully, they will be the kind of topics where you have something more to offer than the uniformed and insipid comments like what you served up on this topic.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Mike Reed]

Hopefully, they will be the kind of topics where you have something more to offer than the uniformed and insipid comments like what you served up on this topic.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Thanks for asserting that I am unformed (in your own insipid way), rather than demonstrating it to be so. The latter would require a more time consuming response than this:

"No I am not. You are uninformed, Wade. So there."

Anyhoo... speaking of time... it is time for me to get back to work. Carry on brethren.

Edited February 28, 2012 by Mike Reed

[zerinus]

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.

Except that the whole of the Book of Mormon is written in that way, which makes the whole book a "Hebraism," and not merely isolated passages within it. Many years ago I decided as part of my study of scripture to make myself acquainted with Hebrew Grammar. My intention was not to actually learn the language, but to become acquainted with the nature and structure of the language. That was such a long time ago that I have pretty much forgotten everything that I learned; but there are some things that I still remember. The particular grammar book I looked at (I think it was published by Oxford University Press, but I am not sure), gave two sets of exercises at the end of each lesson: a Hebrew text to translate into English; and an English text (from the KJV) to translate into Hebrew. Because the KJV was a literal translation, it was possible to do that by following certain rules, and translate the KJV passage back into Hebrew so that it would come out exactly like the original manuscript from which the translation was made. If the Book of Mormon is indeed (1) of a Hebrew origin, and (2) is a similar translation to the KJV, then it should be possible to do that with the Book of Mormon as it is with the KJV. Let's take the first verse of the Book Mormon for example:

I, Nephi, having been born of goodly parents, therefore I was taught somewhat in all the learning of my father; and having seen many afflictions in the course of my days, nevertheless, having been highly favored of the Lord in all my days; yea, having had a great knowledge of the goodness and the mysteries of God, therefore I make a record of my proceedings in my days.

If you dissect this sentence into its individual components, and find their equivalents in the KJV e.g.:

I, Nephi, -{three examples of "I Nebuchadnezzar" (for example) in the OT KJV}-

having been, -{no examples in the OT, one in the NT. 170 examples of "have been" in the OT KJV}-

born, -{105 examples in the OT KJV}-

of goodly parents, -{two examples of "of goodly ..." in the OT KJV}-

therefore, -{881 examples in OT KJV}-

I was taught, -{one example of "I was instructed" in the OT KJV}-

...

etc.

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.

[zerinus]

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.

I thought the subject of the thread was the significance of Hebraisms in the Book of Mormon.

[wenglund]

Let's use the Zohar as a test of what Mike Reed and Cobalt-70 and perhaps Rob Bowman have suggested. The Zohar is a Hebrew text, written in Aramaic, and it has been translated into English. I am not sure when the earliest English translation may have occurred, but as far as I can tell from my brief Google search, the earliest English translation I could find were selections written 1900-14 and the complete text supposedly published around 1984 (please correct me if I am wrong).

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?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited February 28, 2012 by wenglund

[wenglund]

Thanks for asserting that I am unformed (in your own insipid way), rather than demonstrating it to be so. The latter would require a more time consuming response than this: "No I am not. You are uninformed, Wade. So there." Anyhoo... speaking of time... it is time for me to get back to work. Carry on brethren.

It was very nice of you, in typical banal style, not to grasp that it was sufficiently demonstrated in the questions that I asked you earlier, and will be further demonstrated using the Zohar as an example. Feel free to come back anytime when you can handle personal embarrassment.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[volgadon]

It was very nice of you, in typical banal style, not to grasp that it was sufficiently demonstrated in the questions that I asked you earlier, and will be further demonstrated using the Zohar as an example. Feel free to come back anytime when you can handle personal embarrassment.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

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.

[Bill Hamblin]

Bill,

You had written:

I had responded, "Huh?" The reason is that I think you meant that Cobalt's statement privileges the assumption that the BOM is modern, not that it is ancient.

D'oh!

[Rob Bowman]

Wade,

You wrote:

Let's use the Zohar as a test of what Mike Reed and Cobalt-70 and perhaps Rob Bowman have suggested. The Zohar is a Hebrew text, written in Aramaic, and it has been translated into English. I am not sure when the earliest English translation may have occurred, but as far as I can tell from my brief Google search, the earliest English translation I could find were selections written 1900-14 and the complete text supposedly published around 1984 (please correct me if I am wrong).

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?

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

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.

[Bill Hamblin]

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.

It is a four step methodological problem.

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

E.g. A single Hebraism

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

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

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

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

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

Generally speaking, anti-Mormons stop at level 1.

[Rob Bowman]

Bill,

You wrote:

It is a four step methodological problem.

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

E.g. A single Hebraism

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

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

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

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

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

Generally speaking, anti-Mormons stop at level 1.

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