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

[Glenn101]

 

Writing on brass is also mentioned in The Late War:

"But the imaginary evils which the children of men commit are oftentimes graven in brass, whilst their actual good deeds are written in sand." (LW 36:26)

 

Is that really a reference to writing on metal plates, or more  of a metephor, like "set in stone" or "guilt written all over his face"?

 

Glenn

[canard78]

Is that really a reference to writing on metal plates, or more of a metephor, like "set in stone" or "guilt written all over his face"?

Glenn

I would imagine that those who argue it is a source would say it doesn't matter.

Currently the prevailing argument for the influence of LW on BoM is not as a direct copy but as a book he (or someone else like Oliver etc) was exposed to in school or elsewhere and acted as a series of triggers to his imagination.

As such, graven on brass is the trigger and plates is his imagination.

Out of interest, is engraving/writing on brass found in the bible? I'm wondering where Hunt got the idea for engraving on brass in the first place. Biblical or a 19thC concept?

[prismsplay]

Currently the prevailing argument for the influence of LW on BoM is not as a direct copy but as a book he (or someone else like Oliver etc) was exposed to in school or elsewhere and acted as a series of triggers to his imagination.

As such, graven on brass is the trigger and plates is his imagination.

 

This is a theory only. I don't think there is any evidence that Joseph Smith or Oliver Cowdery read The Late War. The tendency to try to claim that previously published literature somehow influenced the nearly uneducated Joseph Smith prior to his dictating his translation of the Book of Mormon to scribes looks contrived to me, as if there is some agenda behind that tendency.

 

In "The Testimony of Three Witnesses", which, with the testimony of eight witnesses, is included at the end of the Printer's Manuscript of the Book of Mormon, is the expression: "if we are faithful in Christ, we shall rid our garments of the blood of all men and be found spotless before the judgment seat of Christ." This was obviously influenced by Jacob 1:19: "by laboring with our mights, their blood might not come upon our garments; otherwise their blood would come upon our garments and we would not be found spotless at the last day,"  and / or other similar passages. For the three witnesses were more interested in the teachings of the Book of Mormon than in the circumstances of its production.

 

Your examples of double negatives occurred after the translation of the Book of Mormon. It can therefore be agued that some of the book's double negatives, resulting from the nature of the text being translated, influenced the speech of persons aquainted with the translation, and not the other way around.

Edited November 2, 2013 by prismsplay

[canard78]

This is a theory only. I don't think there is any evidence that Joseph Smith or Oliver Cowdery read The Late War. The tendency to try to claim that previously published literature somehow influenced the nearly uneducated Joseph Smith prior to his dictating his translation of the Book of Mormon to scribes looks contrived to me, as if there is some agenda behind that tendency.

 

I agree it's just a theory. I'm not even proposing it. I was just pointing out what the proponents of that theory were saying.

 

Your examples of double negatives occurred after the translation of the Book of Mormon. It can therefore be agued that some if the book's double negatives, resulting from the nature of the text being translated, influenced the speech of persons aquainted with the translation, and not the other way around.

That's not very credible. Both Joseph and Oliver can be shown to use double negatives in their own writing and therefore didn't spot them when they came up in the process of dictating the translation.

[prismsplay]

canard78 wrote:

"I agree it's just a theory. I'm not even proposing it. I was just pointing out what the proponents of that theory were saying."

But you should realize that those who have advanced the theory clearly have an agenda of trying to undermine the credibility of the Book of Mormon. See "The Late War Against the Book of Mormon" by Benjamin L. McGuire, which is overly polite in pointing out major flaws in the theory. Your mentioning the possibility of either Joseph Smith or Oliver Cowdery having read The Late War in school is discussed by McGuire:

"The author [of The Late War] appears to have marketed the book to book-sellars (and not to schools) in an attempt to get this volume into the public view. There is no indication that it was ever actually used in a school as a school text. This is further suggested by the fact that after his wild marketing scheme ended in 1819, the book was never re-published (or even reprinted)."

[prismsplay]

That's not very credible. Both Joseph and Oliver can be shown to use double negatives in their own writing and therefore didn't spot them when they came up in the process of dictating the translation.

 

But the examples you gave are dated after the translation.

[Tacenda]

canard78 wrote:

"I agree it's just a theory. I'm not even proposing it. I was just pointing out what the proponents of that theory were saying."

But you should realize that those who have advanced the theory clearly have an agenda of trying to undermine the credibility of the Book of Mormon. See "The Late War Against the Book of Mormon" by Benjamin L. McGuire, which is overly polite in pointing out major flaws in the theory. Your mentioning the possibility of either Joseph Smith or Oliver Cowdery having read The Late War in school is discussed by McGuire:

"The author [of The Late War] appears to have marketed the book to book-sellars (and not to schools) in an attempt to get this volume into the public view. There is no indication that it was ever actually used in a school as a school text. This is further suggested by the fact that after his wild marketing scheme ended in 1819, the book was never re-published (or even reprinted)."

Please CFR that The Late War wasn't in schools. 

[prismsplay]

Please CFR that The Late War wasn't in schools. 

 

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/the-late-war-against-the-book-of-mormon/

[canard78]

But the examples you gave are dated after the translation.

So if I found examples before the translation would you abandon Hebraisms/Egyptianism? I doubt it.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Please CFR that The Late War wasn't in schools.

I haven't spent a huge amount of time on this issue (other than the obvious problems related to the details of the publication of this book). But, where I have started is in the 2001 Routledge publication by William E. Marsden titled: The School Textbook: Geography, History and Social Studies. Marsden refers to  C. Carpenter's History of American Schoolbooks (University of Pennsylvania Press, 1963) in the quote I am about to provide (and I have not read Carpenter):

The study of history in late-eighteenth and early-nineteenth century schools in New York and Massachusetts was limited, for there were few texts. Where it was taught it was generally within the curriculum for Latin, geography or reading (Russell, 1915, p. 6). Worcester's Elements of History (1820) was 'the first really comprehensive and ably written American school history' of practical use for schools. It began with ancient history, followed by mediaeval and modern, and extended into the story of the founding of the United States (Carpenter, 1963, pp. 199-200).

Marsden makes no mention of Hunt's volume. (I realize this is far from conclusive on its own).

 

In the limited time I have spent looking at details of history books used in schools, I have only found one reference to Hunt's work (outside of Hunt), and it was a later compilation of titles that didn't actually comment on their use in schools. It listed several dozens texts for each year in the decades around the publication of Hunt's work - and for many of them (the ones that were obviously used regularly) there were many editions, often covering a span of several decades.

 

So, I think that this is a pretty solid conclusion.

 

On the other hand, since it is virtually impossible to prove a negative, it would be more interesting to see if anyone has come up with solid evidence that this text was in fact used in any school in New York. Although my searching hasn't been completely thorough, it has been extensive enough to make me see this assertion as problematic. Hunt is not going to be reliable evidence (as his statement reflects an intention and not a reality).

 

Ben M.

[Robert F. Smith]

Like I said, the scribal errors and reversed scripture example are very interesting and I agree that Hardy's argument is more persuasive than the alternative I suggested (I'm more persuaded by Hardy too!).

 

Regarding the double negatives. You shared a list of double negatives from the original manuscript that were later corrected. I found 4 different examples of your double negative list that appear in 1820s/30s documents. One is a double negative in something that later becomes section 20. I'm simply pointing out that if double negatives are present in Joseph's speach, conversation and also in documents written that are not based on ancient sources, how can double negatives in the Book of Mormon be confidently proposed as evidence of an ancient Egyptian source?

 

I accept that in one direction it works: If the BoM is based on a direct translation of an Egyptian source we might expect some double negatives in the English.

But: If there are double negatives in the English we can't assume that the source was Egyptian if we also find double negatives in Joseph's other modern writing and speech.

Did you understand my comments, canard?  

"Similarly, I don't find your examples applicable to the double negatives I listed.  As McClellan confirmed, they just don't lend themselves to Hebrew.  However, I have no problem with "bad" English grammar being normative in Joseph's neck of the woods.  The Egyptian and English possibilities thus moot the choice, and relegate that category to the list of indistinguishables.  There are plenty of other Egyptianisms which cannot be explained by English or Hebrew grammar, so there is no need to rely on moot points."

 

Do you know what a "moot point" is?  Do you know what "indistinguishables" are?  Do you understand that you are arguing against a non-existent position?

[Robert F. Smith]

I think parchment would have been much easier, which makes me think about the ad I saw the other day, the Dead Sea Scrolls are coming to Salt Lake soon.

Parchment easier for what purpose, Tacenda?

[Tacenda]

Parchment easier for what purpose, Tacenda?

Faster? And much lighter.

[Robert F. Smith]

Faster? And much lighter.

Yes, but not as permanent as bronze or gold alloy.

At Qumran, which was a relatively dry area, the scrolls were primarily of long-lasting vellum (animal skin),

[volgadon]

Faster? And much lighter.

 

Considering that the text also acknowledges the existence of books made from flammable materials (IE parchment or paper of sorts), it would seem improbable to posit ignorance of the disadvantages involved in writing upon metal (and the text does mention several examples). We should ask why was metal used if other, easier, writing materials were available.

[volgadon]

Yes, but not as permanent as bronze or gold alloy.

At Qumran, which was a relatively dry area, the scrolls were primarily of long-lasting vellum (animal skin),

 

Of course it wasn't vellum that sent John Allegro on his wild goose chase, channeling the Lost Dutchman.

[Robert F. Smith]

Of course it wasn't vellum that sent John Allegro on his wild goose chase, channeling the Lost Dutchman.

Yes, that was two copper plates, rolled up, with temple treasure listed -- which no one has ever found (so far as we know).

[volgadon]

Yes, that was two copper plates, rolled up, with temple treasure listed -- which no one has ever found (so far as we know).

 

I doubt that they are there, or survived the Roman searches.

 

At any rate, I mentioned this because even the DSS contain an example of writing in media other than vellum.

[Robert F. Smith]

I doubt that they are there, or survived the Roman searches.

 

At any rate, I mentioned this because even the DSS contain an example of writing in media other than vellum.

Yes, and there are even papyri among the scrolls.

[canard78]

Did you understand my comments, canard?

"Similarly, I don't find your examples applicable to the double negatives I listed. As McClellan confirmed, they just don't lend themselves to Hebrew. However, I have no problem with "bad" English grammar being normative in Joseph's neck of the woods. The Egyptian and English possibilities thus moot the choice, and relegate that category to the list of indistinguishables. There are plenty of other Egyptianisms which cannot be explained by English or Hebrew grammar, so there is no need to rely on moot points."

Do you know what a "moot point" is? Do you know what "indistinguishables" are? Do you understand that you are arguing against a non-existent position?

I do know what moot point means, but thanks for the reminder.

Prismplay is still arguing for their validity, but if you're not I'll drop it.

[prismsplay]

Prismplay is still arguing for their validity, but if you're not I'll drop it.

 

I myself know nothing of the Hebrew language. But according to information in books that I have, an understanding that the Book of Mormon employs words and phrases displaying evidence that the authors were Hebrew-speaking began to manifest itself about a century ago. The Hebraisms are too pervasive to be explained by merely mimicking language in the King James Bible (which allowed only some Hebraisms an English equivalent).

 

The Zarahemla Research Foundation in its Recent Book of Mormon Developments (1984) included an article "Hebraisms in the Book of Mormon" by Angela Crowell. In that article is a facsimile of two pages of the RLDS Book of Mormon with shading over the Hebraisms on those two pages (LDS versification is 3 Nephi 8:23 - 9:12).

 

These pages were selected for illustration because they contain the Hebrew idiom "burned with fire" (literally in Hebrew, "burned with the fire"). The day my Hebrew instructor brought this to our class's attention I looked this idiom up to see if it was used in the Book of Mormon. To my utter delight I found that it was indeed there, and I proceeded to find 25 other Hebraisms on those pages. After a year and a half, I can now identify another 86.

 

The same article with some revisions appeared in Recent Book of Mormon Developments volume 2 (1992). Among Crowell's conclusions are these: "We have seen that many Hebraic usages have not even been translated literally into Engish in the KIng James Version of the Bible. Mere copying of the words and style of the King James Version of the Bible would not produce the vast number of Hebraisms used correctly in the Book of Mormon.... Joseph Smith did not study Hebrew until 1835.... The Book of Mormon was published in 1830, five years prior to his study of Hebrew."

 

Pervasive Hebraisms in the Book of Mormon is a reality that has been and continues to be used as evidence that the book is what it claims to be.

[volgadon]

I haven't spent a huge amount of time on this issue (other than the obvious problems related to the details of the publication of this book). But, where I have started is in the 2001 Routledge publication by William E. Marsden titled: The School Textbook: Geography, History and Social Studies. Marsden refers to  C. Carpenter's History of American Schoolbooks (University of Pennsylvania Press, 1963) in the quote I am about to provide (and I have not read Carpenter):

 

Marsden makes no mention of Hunt's volume. (I realize this is far from conclusive on its own).

 

In the limited time I have spent looking at details of history books used in schools, I have only found one reference to Hunt's work (outside of Hunt), and it was a later compilation of titles that didn't actually comment on their use in schools. It listed several dozens texts for each year in the decades around the publication of Hunt's work - and for many of them (the ones that were obviously used regularly) there were many editions, often covering a span of several decades.

 

So, I think that this is a pretty solid conclusion.

 

On the other hand, since it is virtually impossible to prove a negative, it would be more interesting to see if anyone has come up with solid evidence that this text was in fact used in any school in New York. Although my searching hasn't been completely thorough, it has been extensive enough to make me see this assertion as problematic. Hunt is not going to be reliable evidence (as his statement reflects an intention and not a reality).

 

Ben M.

 

Ben, this still isn't conclusive, but th Israeli intellectual historian Eran Shalev seems skeptical that even Richard Snowden's better-known work (which Gilbert Hunt emulated and which is missing from the Johnsons' study) was at all popular or even useful in a school setting.

 

There is reason to doubt, however, whether readers, especially the young, read The American Revolution effortlessly as Snowden would have liked. Short biblical-like verses did tend to focus on action rather than on the psychology of heroes, and thus condensed complex plots. However, Snowden's frequent use of notes to explain numerous cumbersome biblical descriptions of American objects, people, and events testifies that his biblicizing necessitated clarification. The fact that young eighteenth-century readers were commonly presented with biblical stories stripped from their distinct language in order to "familiarize tender age," or rendered biblical dramas "intended for young persons" in contemporary language attests that biblical language was not always perceived as the most simple communication form. Indeed, one of the most popular contemporary biblical texts for the young was The Holy Bible Abridged, intended to "give children such a taste of the writings of the holy penmen" in ordinary prose. Evidently, for the sake of "simplicity," if not "conciseness," young readers occasionally needed biblical language simplified, not American history biblicized. Snowden's extensive history written in biblical idiom must have built then, at least in part, not on readers' training in biblical English but rather on the conditioning of American audiences in reading American texts written in biblical idiom.

Eran Shalev, "Written in the Style of Antiquity": Pseudo-Biblicism and the Early American Republic, 1770-1830, Church History, Vol. 79, No. 4 (Dec. 2010) pp. 800-826.

[AndyDnom]

I myself know nothing of the Hebrew language. But according to information in books that I have, an understanding that the Book of Mormon employs words and phrases displaying evidence that the authors were Hebrew-speaking began to manifest itself about a century ago. The Hebraisms are too pervasive to be explained by merely mimicking language in the King James Bible (which allowed only some Hebraisms an English equivalent).

 

The Zarahemla Research Foundation in its Recent Book of Mormon Developments (1984) included an article "Hebraisms in the Book of Mormon" by Angela Crowell. In that article is a facsimile of two pages of the RLDS Book of Mormon with shading over the Hebraisms on those two pages (LDS versification is 3 Nephi 8:23 - 9:12).

 

These pages were selected for illustration because they contain the Hebrew idiom "burned with fire" (literally in Hebrew, "burned with the fire"). The day my Hebrew instructor brought this to our class's attention I looked this idiom up to see if it was used in the Book of Mormon. To my utter delight I found that it was indeed there, and I proceeded to find 25 other Hebraisms on those pages. After a year and a half, I can now identify another 86.

 

The same article with some revisions appeared in Recent Book of Mormon Developments volume 2 (1992). Among Crowell's conclusions are these: "We have seen that many Hebraic usages have not even been translated literally into Engish in the KIng James Version of the Bible. Mere copying of the words and style of the King James Version of the Bible would not produce the vast number of Hebraisms used correctly in the Book of Mormon.... Joseph Smith did not study Hebrew until 1835.... The Book of Mormon was published in 1830, five years prior to his study of Hebrew."

 

Pervasive Hebraisms in the Book of Mormon is a reality that has been and continues to be used as evidence that the book is what it claims to be.

 

So to answer the thread topic question, if a same or greater number of Hebraisms appeared in "Late War," what would you then conclued about "Late War" ?

[ERayR]

So to answer the thread topic question, if a same or greater number of Hebraisms appeared in "Late War," what would you then conclued about "Late War" ?

 

That it contained "a same or greater number of Hebraisms"?

[Robert F. Smith]

So to answer the thread topic question, if a same or greater number of Hebraisms appeared in "Late War," what would you then conclued about "Late War" ?

Based on careful scrutiny of the types of supposed Hebraisms, one might conclude that the Bible (KJV & Geneva Bibles) and the Book of Common Prayer were very influential and that the author of LW made a deliberate effort to ape Elizabethan and Jacobean style.  Or not.  One scholar recently pointed out that many a book from that period (contemporary with Joe Smith) likely used the same prose style, thus making this entire enterprise questionable at best.