Do Hebraisms In The Late War Undermine The Ones In The Book Of Mormon?

[Robert F. Smith]

Do these "Hebraisms" undermine the Book of Mormon? No, but they undermine the attempts by some apologists to point to such Hebraisms as "bullseyes" in favor of the Book of Mormon, IMO.

So-called "Hebraisms" in the Late War, etc., as well as in the Bible, the Book of Common Prayer, etc., are certainly not usable as apologetic instruments to show ancient tendencies in the Book of Mormon text, and are not even useful as polemic points of attack against the Book of Mormon.

 

The only "Hebraisms" which are useful in diagnosing the antiquity of the Book of Mormon (and there are many of them) are those which are unique to the Hebrew text of the Bible (and in ancient inscriptions), which are not otherwise reproduced in translations available to Joseph.  One must be very discriminating in assaying the value of particular words and expressions, while simultaneously examining ancient Egyptian for similar or even better parallels.

 

The Hunts are doing us all a favor in doing this sort of analysis, but we will all have to judge their work based on the final product.  Many years ago, John Hilton I and Kenneth Jenkins presented us with a systematic, computer-generated list of all parallels in common between the Book of Mormon and the KJV Bible.  It was enormously helpful to FARMS in producing an apparatus of parallels in the three-volume FARMS' Book of Mormon Critical Text (1984-1987).

[canadaduane]

 I wonder whether the analysis done by the original project took the bad scanning into account or whether it was just accepted as a reasonable margin for error?

 

We did not attempt any improvement on the texts that we compared, so the OCR errors remain. (The number of n-grams found in common are also therefore a lower bound given the parameters of our search algorithm, as you suggested).

[prismsplay]

I should clarify that this isn't aiming to be a thread arguing there is no evidence for the BoM's ancient origins. Nor am I arguing that TLW alone proves that the BoM is modern.

My question was whether Hebraisms can still be considered "admissible evidence" when there are examples of them in books that are contemporary to 1820s.

 

There were Hebraisms on the original manuscript of the Book of Mormon that were edited out because they didn't make good sense in English. Consider 2 Nephi 26:32-33. The Book of Mormon: The Earliest Text has it thus:

 

And again the Lord God hath commanded that men should not murder, that they should not lie, that they should not steal, that they should not take the name of the Lord their God in vain, that they should not envy, that they should not have malice, that they should not contend one with another, that they should not commit whoredoms, and that they should not do none of these things. For whoso doeth them shall perish, for none of these iniquities come of the Lord.

 

In Hebrew, a double negative can mean an emphatic no. In English, a double negative can mean a cancellation of no. The words in bold were reworded "they should do none of these things" in the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon. Thus a Hebraism that was dictated and recorded was suppressed.

[canard78]

We did not attempt any improvement on the texts that we compared, so the OCR errors remain. (The number of n-grams found in common are also therefore a lower bound given the parameters of our search algorithm, as you suggested).

Thanks.

Out of interest, why was the n-gram score for the KJV bible vs both The Late War and the Book of Mormon?

[Robert F. Smith]

I've often thought that if someone were dictating a book with no notes there would be examples like this. With no opportunity to go back and restate something there would instead be the need to edit "on the fly" which would be an alternative explanation for parts like "or in other words."

Notice, for example, that when the BoM is quoting the KJV there are never errors in the inscribing/dictation.

Not true.  There are misspellings in the dictated MS (declaire, destroid, claved, etc.), and even differences in the dictated text of the Book of Mormon and the KJV Isaiah in words and phrases.

[canard78]

There were Hebraisms on the original manuscript of the Book of Mormon that were edited out because they didn't make good sense in English. Consider 2 Nephi 26:32-33. The Book of Mormon: The Earliest Text has it thus:

And again the Lord God hath commanded that men should not murder, that they should not lie, that they should not steal, that they should not take the name of the Lord their God in vain, that they should not envy, that they should not have malice, that they should not contend one with another, that they should not commit whoredoms, and that they should not do none of these things. For whoso doeth them shall perish, for none of these iniquities come of the Lord.

In Hebrew, a double negative can mean an emphatic no. In English, a double negative can mean a cancellation of no. The words in bold were reworded "they should do none of these things" in the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon. Thus a Hebraism that was dictated and recorded was suppressed.

Or bad grammar during dictation was later corrected.

I was forever trying to convince my fellow students to stop saying "I ain't done nothing." My observation that if they hadn't done they must have done something usually get me a punch on the arm for being a smart alec.

[Robert F. Smith]

Interesting.  Never heard of any "hebraisms" in the D&C.

 

I guess this requires a CFR, preferably from a hebrew scholar.

In a society shot through with knowledge of biblical phrases, it would be extraordinary if we did not find "Hebraisms" to be ubiquitous -- including in the D&C.  These shop worn and hackneyed phrases are diagnostic of nothing more than the 19th century milieu from which they come.  Only phrases not part of that milieu can be used as diagnostic of anything.

[Robert F. Smith]

There were Hebraisms on the original manuscript of the Book of Mormon that were edited out because they didn't make good sense in English. Consider 2 Nephi 26:32-33. The Book of Mormon: The Earliest Text has it thus:

 

And again the Lord God hath commanded that men should not murder, that they should not lie, that they should not steal, that they should not take the name of the Lord their God in vain, that they should not envy, that they should not have malice, that they should not contend one with another, that they should not commit whoredoms, and that they should not do none of these things. For whoso doeth them shall perish, for none of these iniquities come of the Lord.

 

In Hebrew, a double negative can mean an emphatic no. In English, a double negative can mean a cancellation of no. The words in bold were reworded "they should do none of these things" in the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon. Thus a Hebraism that was dictated and recorded was suppressed.

Excuse me, prisms, but I don't know of any double negatives in biblical Hebrew.  Could you point out one or two for me?

 

I do know of double negatives in ancient Egyptian, as well as in French -- and in ungrammatical English, but that don't make no never mind.

[Robert F. Smith]

Inefficient language seems to be a hallmark of the Book of Mormon, among other problems related to verbosity and imprecision.  How many words does it take to say "Fifty nine years passed"?

 

6 And thus did the thirty and eighth year pass away, and also the thirty and ninth, and forty and first, and the forty and second, yea, even until forty and nine years had passed away, and also the fifty and first, and the fifty and second; yea, and even until fifty and nine years had passed away.

What do you expect from a set of annals?

[canard78]

Not true. There are misspellings in the dictated MS (declaire, destroid, claved, etc.), and even differences in the dictated text of the Book of Mormon and the KJV Isaiah in words and phrases.

I think you miss the point (or more likely I didn't make it properly). There are parts of the BoM where the narrator (usually Mormon) gets half way through saying something then decides to clarify/restate it more clearly or specifically.

This never seems to happen in the middle of Mormon saying something that is a straight quote from the KJV bible. We don't have (for example) "blessed be the peace makers, or in other words..." Mormon apparently gets it "right first time" whenever transcribing something onto the plates that happen to later be translated into the perfect KJV wording.

[canard78]

Not true. There are misspellings in the dictated MS (declaire, destroid, claved, etc.), and even differences in the dictated text of the Book of Mormon and the KJV Isaiah in words and phrases.

I think you miss the point (or more likely I didn't make it properly). There are parts of the BoM where the narrator (usually Mormon) gets half way through saying something then decides to clarify/restate it more clearly or specifically.

This never seems to happen in the middle of Mormon saying something that is a straight quote from the KJV bible. We don't have (for example) "blessed be the peace makers, or in other words..." Mormon apparently gets it "right first time" whenever transcribing something onto the plates that happen to later be translated into the perfect KJV wording.

[Robert F. Smith]

Why do you call him an ignorant farm boy? He was in his mid-20s and married when the BoM was published. That's hardly a farm boy. But I suppose it makes the story more impressive.

In 1828 Joseph was already dictating other prose/revelations in the biblical style, containing hebraisms. Are these hebraisms evidence that the D&C is a translation of an ancient text? That would lack credibility.

He also started work on the revision of the bible in 1830 (Moses has lots of hebraisms. Is that because it was translated from ancient Hebrew or because that was Joseph's preferred narrative style). By the time the BoM was published we had over a dozen D&C revelations (and others that were not published). Joseph went on to show that he could preach at length spontaneously without notes (just have a read through Lectures on Faith) and showed he had an outstanding memory (consider his ability to re-dictate section 132 from memory as soon as Emma had burned the first copy). It didn't matter how much he could write. He could dictate. That's why he ha a scribe insite most of the time.

Joseph was a prolific genius who accomplished more in his 36 years than I will in double if I live that long. I have huge admiration for him. To call him an "ignorant farm boy" in 1830 is belittling - even if it serves your purpose.

Actually, canard, Joseph's contemporary detractors had a number of disreputable terms they applied to Joseph, and you can read them in contemporary books and newspapers.  He was most certainly not considered to have been learned in 1830, and all examples of his early writing are abominable --- whether from the point of view of a modern English teacher, or from the pov of his contemporary friends, including his wife.

 

That he was able to acquire knowledge and improve himself so dramatically thereafter is worthy of notice, but referring to him as an ignorant farmboy who produce the Book of Mormon is entirely reasonable.

 

At the same time, making him into the sort of prolific genius who must have secretly graduated from Harvard College makes no sense at all, even though some have implied that to be the case -- based on extensive claims of his using his information environment to do what he did.  No scholar of his day could have done so.

Edited October 28, 2013 by Robert F. Smith

[wenglund]

It's a good question - I don't know. 

 

There are approximately 270,000 words in the Book of Mormon (BoM) and approx 50,000 in The Late War (LW).

 

"came to pass"

1407 times in BoM - frequency of once every 191 words

81 times in LW - frequency of once every 617 words

 

"from before"

21 times in BoM - frequency of once every 12,875 words

5 times in LW - frequency of once every 10,000 words

 

"the hand of/the hands of"

57 times in BoM - frequency of once every 1,942 words

17 times in LW - frequency of once every 2,941 words

 

"the mouth of"

28 times in BoM - frequency of once every 9,642 words

4 times in LW - frequency of once every 12,500 words

 

 

Caution: I've done the search on the text version of LW, so some words haven't scanned into the document properly. For example, the search for "from before" missed the following result: from be-*fore. I've not manually been able to add the missed ones back in. So this probably is an underestimate of the phrase frequency of LW. I wonder whether the analysis done by the original project took the bad scanning into account or whether it was just accepted as a reasonable margin for error?

 

Taking into account the scanning margin for error for LW, it would still appear that BoM has a slightly higher frequency of some compound prepositions (slightly less than "from before" and a much lower frequency of "it came to pass." I don't know how we'd run a test for the Adverbials.

 

Interesting.  Thanks for sharing.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[jkwilliams]

Actually, canard, Joseph's contemporary detractors had a number of disreputable terms they applied to Joseph, and you can read them in contemporary books and newspapers.  He was most certainly not considered to have been learned in 1830, and all examples of his early writing are abominable --- whether from the point of view of a modern English teacher, or from the pov his contemporary friends, including his wife.

 

That he was able to acquire knowledge and improve himself so dramatically thereafter is worthy of notice, but referring to him as an ignorant farmboy who produce the Book of Mormon is entirely reasonable.

 

At the same time, making him into the sort of prolific genius who must have secretly graduated from Harvard College makes no sense at all, even though some have implied that to be the case -- based on extensive claims of his using his information environment to do what he did.  No scholar of his day could have done so.

He wasn't that bad as a writer. Take this 1829 letter:

http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/letter-to-oliver-cowdery-22-october-1829

It's all one long sentence, and spelling is not good, but then the language behind it isn't bad and certainly not "abominable." Interestingly, the original manuscript of the Book of Mormon was also unpunctuated, though its spelling reflected Oliver Cowdery's spelling.

The idea that he was either an ignorant bumpkin or a learned scholar is unhelpful.

[Robert F. Smith]

I think you miss the point (or more likely I didn't make it properly). There are parts of the BoM where the narrator (usually Mormon) gets half way through saying something then decides to clarify/restate it more clearly or specifically.

This never seems to happen in the middle of Mormon saying something that is a straight quote from the KJV bible. We don't have (for example) "blessed be the peace makers, or in other words..." Mormon apparently gets it "right first time" whenever transcribing something onto the plates that happen to later be translated into the perfect KJV wording.

Where we still have the Original Manuscript, we see the same phenomena when the scribe is taking dictation of biblical quotations as we see when he is taking dictation of non-biblical text.  If the scribe is tired he makes more mistakes -- mistakes which can result from mishearing the dictated words (my favorite example is failure to discriminate between correct biblical "Sun of righteousness" and homonymous "Son of righteousness," a scribal error which remains in the latest edition of the Book of Mormon).

 

There are no "perfect" KJV wordings in the Book of Mormon, and Mormon does not get it "right first time" in the sense in which you mean it.  What we have is a Book of Mormon text with differences which are carefully indicated in the FARMS' Book of Mormon Critical Text (1984-1987).

[Robert F. Smith]

He wasn't that bad as a writer. Take this 1829 letter:

http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/letter-to-oliver-cowdery-22-october-1829

It's all one long sentence, and spelling is not good, but then the language behind it isn't bad and certainly not "abominable." Interestingly, the original manuscript of the Book of Mormon was also unpunctuated, though its spelling reflected Oliver Cowdery's spelling.

The idea that he was either an ignorant bumpkin or a learned scholar is unhelpful.

We don't have that letter in Joseph's hand.  It is a copy from 1833 by Frederick G. Williams.  I can imagine improvements made by him, which was what his secretaries usually did.  The original letter may have been aided by his wife's advice.  I have many times myself helped others express themselves by letter when they were actually incapable of writing well, and Emma probably helped Joseph in such instances.

 

I have had people take me to task for referring to our great Prophet Thomas S. Monson as "Tommy Monson," when referring to some of his youthful errors.  But he wasn't always President Monson.  He was once a boy who (together with a playmate) started a very dangerous grass fire, which was fortunately brought under control by the adults.  Since he tells the story himself, I feel free to describe his youthful indiscretions, and to apply the name which he himself has used in Conference.  Similarly, to refer to Joseph as "that unlearned boy," is to describe him as he was described by his contemporaries.  I think it dishonest to make him out to be something he was not, just because of the great man he later became.

[canard78]

Interesting. Never heard of any "hebraisms" in the D&C.

I guess this requires a CFR, preferably from a hebrew scholar.

I'm no Hebrew scholar. I should have put hebraisms in inverted commas.

Clearly a modern dictated revelation with no ancient origin shouldn't be seen to have hebraisms.

My point was that some of the examples that proper Hebrew scholars have given from the Book of Mormon can also be found in the D&C. I included an example earlier in this thread (or perhaps the other one), I'll try to dig some others out.

[Robert F. Smith]

...............................................................   

There are approximately 270,000 words in the Book of Mormon (BoM) and approx 50,000 in The Late War (LW).

 

"came to pass"

1407 times in BoM - frequency of once every 191 words

81 times in LW - frequency of once every 617 words

...............................................................    

"came/come to pass" in Book of Mormon is about 1476 total. if you count both tenses, as I do at http://premormon.com/resources/r003/003Smith.pdf , or at http://www.scribd.com/lighthorseharry/d/39997996-It-Came-to-Pass-in-the-Bible-and-Book-of-Mormon .

[Stargazer]

Why do you call him an ignorant farm boy? He was in his mid-20s and married when the BoM was published. That's hardly a farm boy. But I suppose it makes the story more impressive.

In 1828 Joseph was already dictating other prose/revelations in the biblical style, containing hebraisms. Are these hebraisms evidence that the D&C is a translation of an ancient text? That would lack credibility.

He also started work on the revision of the bible in 1830 (Moses has lots of hebraisms. Is that because it was translated from ancient Hebrew or because that was Joseph's preferred narrative style). By the time the BoM was published we had over a dozen D&C revelations (and others that were not published). Joseph went on to show that he could preach at length spontaneously without notes (just have a read through Lectures on Faith) and showed he had an outstanding memory (consider his ability to re-dictate section 132 from memory as soon as Emma had burned the first copy). It didn't matter how much he could write. He could dictate. That's why he ha a scribe insite most of the time.

Joseph was a prolific genius who accomplished more in his 36 years than I will in double if I live that long. I have huge admiration for him. To call him an "ignorant farm boy" in 1830 is belittling - even if it serves your purpose.

 

I don't call him a "farm boy" to make him more impressive, Mr. Duck.  I call him a "farm boy" because that was what he was. Now, what am I supposed to call someone whose primary function to that point in time was working on a farm, splitting rails, chopping down trees, and such like?  A professor of agriculture?  An agricultural engineer?  He was a farm boy.  And that is what I call him.  I don't call him "ignorant" to make him more impressive, Mr. Duck, I call him "ignorant" because that is what he was.  He had not traveled beyond his milieu as a farm boy, he had not attended any college or university at all, in fact, he hadn't even attended any kind of formal school for more than, what, several months, a year or two at best?  He could read, and did so well, apparently, but as to the availability of a diversity of literature, he didn't have much in the way of anything at all.  "Ignorance", Mr. Duck, is not a pejorative, it is a statement of fact: he didn't know that much about anything except agriculture, and what else he did know was not particularly deep.  I am ignorant of agriculture.  Put me on a farm and I wouldn't know where to start.  Joseph could run rings around me at that occupation.

 

So, the first book Joseph happens to write is possibly one of the greatest books in literature, or, at least, in religious literature. 

 

You may strive to be fashionably disdainful of that achievement, and seek to ascribe it to some secret something that nobody knows about and for which there is no evidence, but I choose to take the Book of Mormon at face value.

 

And by the way, Joseph was not the translator, because what he did was not translation, it was transcription.  Of course, the Hebraisms prove nothing.  But neither are they evidence against.. 

[jkwilliams]

We don't have that letter in Joseph's hand.  It is a copy from 1833 by Frederick G. Williams.  I can imagine improvements made by him, which was what his secretaries usually did.  The original letter may have been aided by his wife's advice.  I have many times myself helped others express themselves by letter when they were actually incapable of writing well, and Emma probably helped Joseph in such instances.

That's what we Williamses have been doing for a long time: cleaning up other people's writing.

[canard78]

Where we still have the Original Manuscript, we see the same phenomena when the scribe is taking dictation of biblical quotations as we see when he is taking dictation of non-biblical text. If the scribe is tired he makes more mistakes -- mistakes which can result from mishearing the dictated words (my favorite example is failure to discriminate between correct biblical "Sun of righteousness" and homonymous "Son of righteousness," a scribal error which remains in the latest edition of the Book of Mormon).

There are no "perfect" KJV wordings in the Book of Mormon, and Mormon does not get it "right first time" in the sense in which you mean it. What we have is a Book of Mormon text with differences which are carefully indicated in the FARMS' Book of Mormon Critical Text (1984-1987).

Again, probably my bad explanation. I'm not talking about errors from Joseph's scribes.

There are around 20 cases of the narrator in the Book of Mormon (Nephi, Mormon) and in the D&C making a clarification/correction using the phrase "in other words."

E.g.: "15 And this was their faith, that by so doing God would prosper them in the land, or in other words, if they were faithful in keeping the commandments of God that he would prosper them in the land; yea, warn them to flee, or to prepare for war, according to their danger;"

(Book of Mormon, Alma, Chapter 48)

The narrator makes the correction.

Some have given that as evidence of Mormon writing on Gold Plates - no opportunity to erase the characters, only the option to clarify or correct what has already been etched in gold.

My point was that this could just as easily be evidence of the challenge of Joseph dictating words of his own choice (either loose translation or inspired/uninspired authorship). If Joseph's dictating a modern text then saying "hang on, let me say that verse again" would give the came away. The "in other words" gives a way round it.

I was pointing out that when the BoM moves into a section that is a match to the KJV we don't ever see corrections half way through.

[prismsplay]

Excuse me, prisms, but I don't know of any double negatives in biblical Hebrew.  Could you point out one or two for me?

 

I don't read biblical Hebrew, which would be necessary to find them, since that type of Hebraism would probably not have been carried over in English translation. "In Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar it is stated that "Two negatives in the same sentence do not neutralize each other but make the negation the more emphatic" (Kautzch 1909:483)." This quote is taken from "Double Negatives in the Book of Mormon? Yes! Yes!" by Barbara Fowler, which has lists of double negatives on Book of Mormon manuscripts that did not make it to print. There are too many examples to dismiss as scribal errors.

Edited October 28, 2013 by prismsplay

[jkwilliams]

I don't read biblical Hebrew, which would be necessary to find them, since that type of Hebraism would probably not have been carried over in English translation. "In Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar it is stated that "Two negatives in the same sentence do not neutralize each other but make the negation the more emphatic" (Kautzch 1909:483)." This quote is taken from "Double Negatives in the Book of Mormon? Yes! Yes!" by Barbara Fowler, which has lists of double negatives on Book of Mormon manuscripts that did not make it to print. There are too many examples to dismiss as scibal errors.

Are there any examples other than the one in 2 Nephi you cited? If so, it would be stronger evidence of intent. A single example is less persuasive.

[prismsplay]

Are there any examples other than the one in 2 Nephi you cited? If so, it would be stronger evidence of intent. A single example is less persuasive.

 

In The Book of Mormon: The Earliest Text, at 4 Nephi 1:15-17, there are three examples of double negatives:

 

And it came to pass that there was no contention in the land because of the love of God which did dwell in the hearts of the people. And there were no envyings nor strifes nor tumults nor whoredoms nor lyings nor murders nor no manner of lasciviousness. And surely there could not be a happier people among all the people which had been created by the hand of God. There were no robbers nor no murderers, neither were there Lamanites nor no manner of ites, but they were in one, the children of Christ and heirs to the kingdom of God.

 

These three double negatives were carried over into the 1830 edition.

 

In The Book of Mormon: The Earliest Text, at Mosiah 29:14 is a similar example:

 

And even I myself have labored with all the power and faculties which I have possessed to teach you the commandments of God and to establish peace throughout the land, that there should be no wars nor contentions, no stealing nor plundering nor murdering nor no manner of iniquity.

 

This double negative was also carried over into the 1830 edition. These double negatives cannot be dismissed as scribal errors. They must relate to the manner in which these descendants of Israel expressed themselves.

Edited October 29, 2013 by prismsplay

[Calm]

It may act as a nullification in your own mind of "some [but not all] of the evidence" for Hebraisms in the Book of Mormon. For me it is an example of someone fond of King James Version language who attempted to employ it in describing a recent war in an amusing way (at least to himself). My assessment was and is: 

 

Such pompous language, saying in about 80 words, what could have been said in about 20 words, is comical. 

Saying things succinctly is not always seen as a virtue, especially if one is an author who is paid by the word.

 

Do you find the Count of Monte Cristo (the unabridged version) "comical"?  Do you believe that the author intended it to be 'at least for himself'?

 

Calling persons, places, and things by names other than their own is more amusing than informing.

 

So you find all the titles for God and Christ in the Bible amusing?  Do you think in those ceremonies where they announce all the titles of royalty that this is considered to be for pure entertainment only, part of a comedy act?

 

Have you read much ancient poetry?

 

Other times considered such things as indicative of respect, not for amusement.  When one starts to read works from over 100 years ago, it is problematic to assume a social context identical to our own just as it would be to assume that someone writing about their life in India or Korea would see things the same way as we do.

 

Why not simply take Hunt at his word why he was writing that way in order to teach children to love to read the Bible?