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

[Robert F. Smith]

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.

Crowell did much of this work while preparing a doctoral dissertation, and it should be taken seriously.  However, I have a long list of "Hebraisms" which are even better as Egyptianisms.  Of course, one must also examine all of literature contemporary with Joseph and LW in order to reach valid conclusions.

[volgadon]

 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.

 

Three years ago, Eran Shalev wrote that "After the Revolution, Americans continued to publish faux-biblical texts at such a rate that attempts to cover them all are futile as well as pointless."

 

[prismsplay]

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" ?

 

There are two kinds of Hebraisms, real and fake. The pervasive Hebraisms of the Book of Mormon are real, because they were dictated by an unlearned person who translated by the gift and power of God ancient writings by authors who were Hebrew-speaking. The Hebraisms of the Book of Mormon have been studied and commented on for over a century.

 

The Hebraisms of The Late War are admitted by its author to be fake, for he was telling the history of recent events, but putting that into a style similar to that of the King James Bible, which he was obviously fond of. Whenever he could not find a biblical-style phrase to fit a modern event, he resorted to scholarly-style language having nothing to do with Hebraisms. He also refers to persons, places, and things in ridiculous ways that must be translated to know who or what he is referring to. This means that if the history he is writing is true, anyone referring to that history must provide a translation back into common language for that history to be understood. The Hebraisms of The Late War are superficial and comical.

Edited November 4, 2013 by prismsplay

[Robert F. Smith]

Three years ago, Eran Shalev wrote that "After the Revolution, Americans continued to publish faux-biblical texts at such a rate that attempts to cover them all are futile as well as pointless."

 

Thank you so much for your valuable comments.

Bob

[Benjamin McGuire]

One of the issues that Shalev raises (indirectly I will admit), is that this psuedobilicism had some fairly clear characteristics (you mention one of them). Here are a couple of examples that are particularly relevant:

 

According to the genre’s [pseudoblicism] conventions, throughout the history’s volumes Snoweden used relatively short and numbered verses. As in the other texts belonging to this tradition, the versed staccato was hardly the entire antique array. (p. 95)

 

The fact that the language of the King James Bible was applied abundantly and consistently in texts narrating American accounts and histories, a genre which I have dubbed pseudobiblicism, further demonstrates not merely the extent to which American culture was biblically oriented, but that the biblicism was profoundly focused on the Old Testament. This strong predilection for the Old rather than the New Testament is evident when one surveys extant pseudobiblical texts, a sizable corpus written during more than a century (circa 1740-1850); while each of those texts echoes and resonates with Old Testament narratives and protagonists, it is hard to find even a single reference to Christ, not to mention other New Testament characters or episodes. (P. 101)”

When we look at this pool of literature, we don't find just similarities, we find some significant differences (between the Book of Mormon and this entire genre - which challenges the assumption that Shalev makes that the Book of Mormon is a part of this genre). The versification (which I find to be emphasized at times) comes later in the history of the text Book of Mormon - it isn't original, in what might be observed as a way of actually making the Book of Mormon more conforming to this biblical style.

 

Ben M.

Edited November 4, 2013 by Benjamin McGuire

[Johnnie Cake]

Who is anybody kidding?  With respect to the OP...Of course finding Hebraism in “Late War” undermines BoM Hebraism claims.  If Hebraism’s were a dime a dozen, common phenomenon, found in books of the era that used Biblical King James language narration…then how could it not undermine Book of Mormon Hebraism claims?  It means that Book of Mormon Hebraisms were not unique nor are they a trace of some foundational ancient source text…but a common thread of many 19^th century attempts to write books in this king James narrative style.  In fact it give further support to the notion that the Book of Mormon was and is a 19^th century product.

 

 

 

 

 

[jkwilliams]

I enjoyed Grant Hardy's piece on this issue:

The Book of Mormon and the Late War: Direct Literary Dependence?

[canard78]

There are two kinds of Hebraisms, real and fake. The pervasive Hebraisms of the Book of Mormon are real, because they were dictated by an unlearned person who translated by the gift and power of God ancient writings by authors who were Hebrew-speaking. The Hebraisms of the Book of Mormon have been studied and commented on for over a century.

 

The Hebraisms of The Late War are admitted by its author to be fake, for he was telling the history of recent events, but putting that into a style similar to that of the King James Bible, which he was obviously fond of. Whenever he could not find a biblical-style phrase to fit a modern event, he resorted to scholarly-style language having nothing to do with Hebraisms. He also refers to persons, places, and things in ridiculous ways that must be translated to know who or what he is referring to. This means that if the history he is writing is true, anyone referring to that history must provide a translation back into common language for that history to be understood. The Hebraisms of The Late War are superficial and comical.

I would imagine that you have already made the conclusion that the Book of Mormon is an ancient text, indpendent of any evidence. Given you are already certain that the Book of Mormon is a translation of an original Hebrew record it stands to reason that you're also certain that the apparent Hebraisms in the English text is evidence it was originally recorded by someone who speaks Hebrew.

As I've said so many times before the evidence works in one direction but not the other:

If one believes that the BoM is based on a Hebrew original then it might be reasonable to expect to find Hebraisms in the translation.

But... if one finds Hebraisms in a book dictated and published in the 19thC it in no way stands as evidence that the book is of ancient origin when so many other books of that era also contain phrases that are the same.

[canard78]

Three years ago, Eran Shalev wrote that "After the Revolution, Americans continued to publish faux-biblical texts at such a rate that attempts to cover them all are futile as well as pointless."

But doesn't that statement make it even more likely that Joseph was surrounded and influenced by faux-biblical texts? If LW wasn't read or known by Joseph (and there's no evidence he did interact with it), doesn't it just represent a wider genre of writing that the BoM was similar to.

That could still leave a 'Tight/Loose or Authored' scenario of course.

- Tight because perhaps the rock in the hat's source wanted it to sound like the KJV (like the other genre writers wanted).

- Loose because perhaps Joseph was familiar with this popular linguistic style and so chose this style for expressing the impression he was getting in the process

- Authored because he was mimicking a style that was prominent.

[volgadon]

But doesn't that statement make it even more likely that Joseph was surrounded and influenced by faux-biblical texts? If LW wasn't read or known by Joseph (and there's no evidence he did interact with it), doesn't it just represent a wider genre of writing that the BoM was similar to.

That could still leave a 'Tight/Loose or Authored' scenario of course.

- Tight because perhaps the rock in the hat's source wanted it to sound like the KJV (like the other genre writers wanted).

- Loose because perhaps Joseph was familiar with this popular linguistic style and so chose this style for expressing the impression he was getting in the process

- Authored because he was mimicking a style that was prominent.

 

There is that possibility, but Shalev indicates that the genre vastly declined in popularity during the 1820s. As my friend Walker noticed, Shalev provides important context for understanding why KJV language was employed in the BoM.

 

 

“Nevertheless, generations of Americans reverted to [the language of the KJV] and its accompanying structures and forms to discuss their difficulties and represent their achievements, past and present…American authors and commentators used this ontologically privileged language as a means to establish their claims for truth, as well as their authority and legitimacy in public discourse.” (Shalev, 2010, 801)

This doesn't prove or disprove BoM historicity, but it does tell us why Joseph chose the language that he did, beyond any issues of tight vs. loose translation methods.

Edited November 4, 2013 by volgadon

[Benjamin McGuire]

Grunder claims to find a chiasm in Hunt's book. He likes it a lot. In fact, he tells us that its greatest strength is in the way it can be formed into the structure of a chiasm with no changes, no omissions, everything in perfect order. Unfortunately, the structure for the chiasm is generally considered the weaker half of the argument. What does that mean? A chiasm (particularly a chiasm that is seen as a Hebraism) is a rhetorical figure. It is intentional. It carries additional meaning to the text. If all we discuss is structure, then there is nothing to prevent us from misidentifying something as both a chiasm and as a potential Hebraism. Welch (who Grunder is quite critical of) produces a set of fifteen criteria to determine the likelihood that a chiasm is intentional and meaningful. Grunder ignores all of that and simply relies on his structure. But the more I look at Grunder's proposal, the less and less it looks like a chiasm. We have Hunt determining the way the text is supposed to read in the textual boundaries he creates (the versification and the punctuation). We have the three citations of biblical material (from Proverbs, from Ecclesiastes, and from Matthew), not to mention the other idioms at play. We have an apparent intention for Hunt in using the text (Hunt actually has a few of these quasi-unrelated bits of material at the beginning of chapters spread throughout his work - none of the others of which can be molded half as easily into a chiastic structure let alone have that chiasm be argued as intention). Hunt is working to create a proverb that reflects the later narrative, and in reading it as a proverb, we can read it quite well in ways that create issues for Grunder's structure. And what is the meaning provided through Grunder's proposed chiasm? It is a difficult question to answer - since Grunder himself never offers a suggestion. But it certainly isn't clear from reading it what the value added is in reading it as a chiasm. And these problems all contribute to the conclusion that this example - even if it can be squeezed into the shape of a chiasmus - is not a Hebraism. Finding it doesn't do anything to deal with the question of whether or not we have intentional chiasmi in the Book of Mormon that can be viewed as Hebraisms. Chiasmus is not simply a structure. Hebraisms are not identified merely on the basis of structures in the text. And unless Grunder's discovery of chiasmus in Hunt follows the same sort of method that Welch uses, then Grunder's argument is mere contrivance and has no substance.

 

I think that we regularly see Hebraisms in the Book of Mormon that aren't there. But, some of them seem to be legitimate instances, and they seem to be intentional. And I can't say that for the examples I have seen in Hunt's work.

 

Ben M.

[canard78]

There is that possibility, but Shalev indicates that the genre vastly declined in popularity during the 1820s. As my friend Walker noticed, Shalev provides important context for understanding why KJV language was employed in the BoM.

 

 

“Nevertheless, generations of Americans reverted to [the language of the KJV] and its accompanying structures and forms to discuss their difficulties and represent their achievements, past and present…American authors and commentators used this ontologically privileged language as a means to establish their claims for truth, as well as their authority and legitimacy in public discourse.” (Shalev, 2010, 801)

This doesn't prove or disprove BoM historicity, but it does tell us why Joseph chose the language that he did, beyond any issues of tight vs. loose translation methods.

Surely any choice Joseph had in the language would rule out a 'tight' translation? I thought the concept of a tight translation was Joseph dictating the words that were given to him from the rock or words in his mind. Essentially Joseph as conduit of words, not Joseph making any choice of words?

[canard78]

I enjoyed Grant Hardy's piece on this issue:

The Book of Mormon and the Late War: Direct Literary Dependence?

I don't think that's by Grant Hardy, he just comments on the article. I think it's by "RT."

[jkwilliams]

I don't think that's by Grant Hardy, he just comments on the article. I think it's by "RT."

I stand corrected. I still like it.

[prismsplay]

I would imagine that you have already made the conclusion that the Book of Mormon is an ancient text, indpendent of any evidence. Given you are already certain that the Book of Mormon is a translation of an original Hebrew record it stands to reason that you're also certain that the apparent Hebraisms in the English text is evidence it was originally recorded by someone who speaks Hebrew.

As I've said so many times before the evidence works in one direction but not the other:

If one believes that the BoM is based on a Hebrew original then it might be reasonable to expect to find Hebraisms in the translation.

But... if one finds Hebraisms in a book dictated and published in the 19thC it in no way stands as evidence that the book is of ancient origin when so many other books of that era also contain phrases that are the same.

 

This argument fails on two counts: (1) the source of Hebraisms; (2) the manner of composition.

 

(1) The Late War is a superficial and comical use of biblical language, with imaginative renamings of persons, places, and things that ruin the book as a source of quotable information, since readers of history look for truth, not entertainment. Its source of Hebraisms are its author's familiarity with the King James Bible. Hunt probably did not know what Hebraisms are. He was simply an enthusiast for the King James style of language. Neither did Joseph Smith know what Hebraisms are. Otherwise, why would he eliminate or ruin many them in his 1837 revision of the Book of Mormon? The Hebraisms in the dictated manuscript are more pervasive than in the printer's manuscript and printed editions, which weeded out many as sounding too strange in English. The producers of manuscript-based texts of the Book of Mormon have testified concerning this.

 

(2) Unlike the once-through translation and dictation of Joseph Smith for one-at-a-time scribes to record, with no printed materials at hand for Joseph Smith to refer to, Hunt's book is obviously based on information that he would have had to compile from various sources for constructing his own account of the war he sought to chronicle. The words dictated by an unlearned man in fulfillment of Isaiah 29 were from writings on plates engraved by Hebrew-speaking persons and translated by the gift and power of God. If this were not true, the witnesses of the Book of Mormon would have eventually denied their printed testimonies, but they did not. The engraved plates were really examined and hefted, and God really spoke to three witnesses: "we also know that they have been translated by the gift and power of God, for his voice hath declared it unto us."

Edited November 4, 2013 by prismsplay

[volgadon]

The Late War is a superficial and comical use of biblical language

 

You keep asserting this without providing evidence that Hunt intended hi book to be superficial and comical.

[jkwilliams]

You keep asserting this without providing evidence that Hunt intended hi book to be superficial and comical.

 

Oddly enough, Hunt says exactly the opposite in his preface:

 

The author having adopted for the model of his style the phraseology of the best books, remarkable for its simplicity and strength, the young pupil will acquire, with the knowledge of reading, a love for the manner in which the great truths of Divine Revelation are conveyed to his understanding, and this will be an inducement to him to study the Holy Scriptures.

 

Endorser Samuel Mitchill agrees with the approach:

 

It seems to me one of the best attempts to imitate the biblical style; and if the perusal of it can induce young persons to relish and love the sacred books whose language you have imitated, it will be the strongest of all recommendations.

 

I don't see anything about the KJV being used for comic effect. Do you? If anything, Hunt's explanation of the reasons for his choice of style explains rather well the use of the KJV style in the Book of Mormon.

[prismsplay]

You keep asserting this without providing evidence that Hunt intended hi book to be superficial and comical.

 

I did not say that Hunt intended for his book to be superficial and comical. I only said that it is.

 

"delivered a written paper to the Great Sanhedron of the people"

 

If the book was to be an historical account, why undermine that purpose with such nebulous phraseology? The reader of history wants to learn facts about that history without having to endure flowery phrases that are difficult to figure out what they mean.

 

Although "delivered" sounds biblical, "a written paper" does not, and is nebulous as to its meaning. Would the meaning of "the Great Sanhedron of the people" be readily understood back then? Do you readily understand its meaning now?

 

It is painful to try to read The Late War, if one is trying to understand the history being told in such a ridiculous manner of expression. As Benjamin McGuire has pointed out in his article "The Late War Against the Book of Mormon," Hunt's attempts to sell his book were not very successful.

 

I wonder whether or not those trying to use The Late War against the credibility of the Book of Mormon have any interest in the history that is the basis of The Late War. If not, then the value of the book is not in what it tells but in what it might be used for.

[volgadon]

I did not say that Hunt intended for his book to be superficial and comical. I only said that it is.

 

"delivered a written paper to the Great Sanhedron of the people"

 

If the book was to be an historical account, why undermine that purpose with such nebulous phraseology? The reader of history wants to learn facts about that history without having to endure flowery phrases that are difficult to figure out what they mean.

 

Although "delivered" sounds biblical, "a written paper" does not, and is nebulous as to its meaning. Would the meaning of "the Great Sanhedron of the people" be readily understood back then? Do you readily understand its meaning now?

 

It is painful to try to read The Late War, if one is trying to understand the history being told in such a ridiculous manner of expression. As Benjamin McGuire has pointed out in his article "The Late War Against the Book of Mormon," Hunt's attempts to sell his book were not very successful.

 

I wonder whether or not those trying to use The Late War against the credibility of the Book of Mormon have any interest in the history that is the basis of The Late War. If not, then the value of the book is not in what it tells but in what it might be used for.

 

Here, try this article for some context. You'll find all your questions answered, including why the choice of Great Sanhedrin. http://www.thefreelibrary.com/%22Written+in+the+Style+of+Antiquity%22%3A+Pseudo-Biblicism+and+the+Early...-a0244888045 That phrase was not at all obscure, rather it carried a particular meaning, and that is why Hunt (and Snowden) used it.

[Robert F. Smith]

Who is anybody kidding?  With respect to the OP...Of course finding Hebraism in “Late War” undermines BoM Hebraism claims.  If Hebraism’s were a dime a dozen, common phenomenon, found in books of the era that used Biblical King James language narration…then how could it not undermine Book of Mormon Hebraism claims?  It means that Book of Mormon Hebraisms were not unique nor are they a trace of some foundational ancient source text…but a common thread of many 19^th century attempts to write books in this king James narrative style.  In fact it give further support to the notion that the Book of Mormon was and is a 19^th century product.

You could not be more wrong, Johnnie.

The sole and only proviso which supposed Hebraisms in the Late War brings to us, is the same proviso which applies to all claims of Hebraisms in any of pre-1830  English literature:  Such Hebraisms are always to be taken as moot, i.e., of no apologetic or polemic value.  Such KJV style merely follows the standard pattern of biblical and archaic translation style in those days.  Had you bothered to read this thread, you'd realize that.

 

At the same time, any Hebraisms (or Egyptianisms for that matter) which do not occur in pre-1830 English literature are surely fair game as evidence of the origin and language of the original authors.  That does have apologetic value, and there are plenty of them.  Indeed, they are so striking in some instances that they constitute convincing concrete, intellectual evidence for the historical authenticity of the Book of Mormon.

 

[cdowis]

I believe a parable from Hugh Nibley is appropriate here :

 

A young man once long ago claimed he had found a large diamond in his field as he was ploughing. He put the stone on display to the public free of charge, and everyone took sides. A psychologist showed, by citing some famous case studies, that the young man was suffering from a well-known form of delusion. An historian showed that other men have also claimed to have found diamonds in fields and been deceived. A geologist proved that there were no diamonds in the area but only quartz: the young man had been fooled by a quartz. When asked to inspect the stone itself, the geologist declined with a weary, tolerant smile and a kindly shake of the head. An English professor showed that the young man in describing his stone used the very same language that others had used in describing uncut diamonds: he was, therefore, simply speaking the common language of his time. A sociologist showed that only three out of 177 florists' assistants in four major cities believed the stone was genuine. A clergyman wrote a book to show that it was not the young man but someone else who had found the stone

 

It is only "an indigent jeweler named Snite" who points out that the stone is available for examining, and the matter of its authenticity has nothing to do with all these speculative assessments.

 

Nibley then praises the Book of Mormon as "a colossal structure," a book that if "considered purely as fiction, . . . is a performance without parallel."

http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1420&index=3

 

This is a case of focusing on twigs while ignoring the majesty of the Black Forest.

Edited November 5, 2013 by cdowis

[jkwilliams]

At the same time, any Hebraisms (or Egyptianisms for that matter) which do not occur in pre-1830 English literature are surely fair game as evidence of the origin and language of the original authors.  That does have apologetic value, and there are plenty of them.  Indeed, they are so striking in some instances that they constitute convincing concrete, intellectual evidence for the historical authenticity of the Book of Mormon.

How do you show that such Hebraisms do not occur in pre-1830 English literature? That seems an impossible task.

[Tacenda]

Just came across information about a book similar to the BOM called "The Book of Madoc" by John Dee, they say anyway.  And researched some background, what there was of it.  Here is the quote from the article.  

 

"The Book of Mormon was "translated" at a Whitmer Farm in Harmony,
Pennsylvania. The Church of Christ (later changed to "Church of
the Latter-day Saints" and later changed to "The Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-day Saints"), was organized in Fayette New York,
on a Whitmer Farm.

Before becoming Mormons, the Whitmers were members of
the "Dunkers" otherwise known as the "Tunkers" or "German
Brethren" or "The Church of the Brethren".

"Part of the Church of the Brethren included the Zionitic Brotherhood,
an Order of German Protestant monks who claimed to have the "Order of
Melchizedek" priesthood dating back to early Christian times.

 

The Zionitic Brotherhood was headquartered in Ephrata, Pennsylvania, and was established there in
1659 A.D. They had a wooden "Temple" where sacred secret rites were performed, and
baptisms for the dead. Peter Whitmer, the father of David Whitmer, Peter Whitmer Jr., John
Whitmer, Jacob Whitmer, had been one time a member of the Order of Melchizedek,
before he left the Order as a young man and married.

 

The Zionitic Brotherhood included male and female monks, who wore all
white. Their temple rituals included prayer circles, and white veils one had to pass
through."

 

Is there an apologetic answer for this similarity? 

 

ETA:  I removed the link, not sure if it's ok.  It looked fine but just being safe. 

Edited November 5, 2013 by Tacenda

[prismsplay]

How do you show that such Hebraisms do not occur in pre-1830 English literature? That seems an impossible task.

 

Any book that has something in it that could, if Joseph Smith had read it, have been an influence on the Book of Mormon, is desperately sought after. Such desperation is an ugly thing, similar to the attitude of bad losers who always complain that they were cheated out of victory. This same desperation was present when David Whitmer became the last surviving witness of the Book of Mormon, which is very interesting. If the claims that other witnesses had previously denied their printed testimonies were true, there would be no need to harrass David Whitmer in his old age. This, along with other evidence compiled by Richard Lloyd Anderson, shows that none of the witnesses had denied their printed testimonies, so getting the last one living to deny was of paramount importance. The score at that time was 10 to 0 in favor of the Book of Mormon. David Whitmer, in his final years, was true to his testimony, leaving the score 11 to 0 in favor of the Book of Mormon. There are still bad losers over that outcome, desperately finding statements by second and third hand persons in an ugly attempt to change the outcome left by 11 first hand testimonies.

 

So it is with these ridiculous attempts to undermine the credibility of the Book of Mormon by citing books with superficial Hebraisms derived from familiarity with the King James Bible in contrast to the real and pervasive Hebraisms in the original and printer's manuscripts of the Book of Mormon.

Edited November 5, 2013 by prismsplay

[jkwilliams]

Any book that has something in it that could, if Joseph Smith had read it, have been an influence on the Book of Mormon, is desperately sought after. Such desperation is an ugly thing, similar to the attitude of bad losers who always complain that they were cheated out of victory. This same desperation was present when David Whitmer became the last surviving witness of the Book of Mormon, which is very interesting. If the claims that other witnesses had previously denied their printed testimonies were true, there would be no need to harrass David Whitmer in his old age. This, along with other evidence compiled by Richard Lloyd Anderson, shows that none of the witnesses had denied their printed testimonies, so getting the last one living to deny was of paramount importance. The score at that time was 10 to 0 in favor of the Book of Mormon. David Whitmer, in his final years, was true to his testimony, leaving the score 11 to 0 in favor of the Book of Mormon. There are still bad losers over that outcome, desperately finding statements by second and third hand persons in an ugly attempt to change the outcome left by 11 first hand testimonies.

 

So it is with these ridiculous attempts to undermine the credibility of the Book of Mormon by citing books with superficial Hebraisms derived from familiarity with the King James Bible in contrast to the real and pervasive Hebraisms in the original and printer's manuscripts of the Book of Mormon.

I'm not sure why you see this as an attack on the credibility of the Book of Mormon. As far as I can tell, the argument isn't that Joseph Smith plagiarized or copied from other sources, but rather that the choice of language and style in the book is best understood by the context in which the Book of Mormon appears. At least that's how I see it.

What I find interesting is the degree to which Joseph Smith's environment influenced how the book appeared in English. The argument for Hebraisms seems to rest on the idea that the language reflects ancient Hebrew patterns, not modern English ones. The appearance of Hunt's book suggests to me that the environmental influences were greater than the Hebraicists seem to allow.