Do Hebraisms In The Doctrine & Convenants Undermine The Ones In The Book Of Mormon?

[canard78]

John A. Tvedtnes, in The Hebrew Background of the Book of Mormon, claims that certain phraseology in the Book of Mormon is evidence of an ancient origin.

 

In another thread I've argued that if "Hebraisms" are found in documents from 19thC not based on ancient literature then it weakens the argument for the Book of Mormon's "Hebraisms."

 

I suggested that the Doctrine & Covenants, not a translation of an ancient document, contains some of the same phraseology as the Book of Mormon. Some of the revelations in D&C were recorded before the BoM was published. Cdowis replied:

 

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

 

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

 

I'm not a hebrew scholar. But what I can show is that the evidence Tvedtnes presents for the Book of Mormon is also found in the D&C.

 

------------------------------------------

 

The Hebrew Background of the Book of Mormon, by John A. Tvedtnes

 

Hebrew uses (a) compound preposition that would be translated literally as from before the presence of or from before the face of. English would normally use simply from. The influence of the Hebrew can be seen in these Book of Mormon passages:

"they fled from before my presence" (1 Nephi 4:28)

"he had gone from before my presence" (1 Nephi 11:12)

"they were carried away . . . from before my face" (1 Nephi 11:29)

 

 

D&C 21:6 For by doing these things the gates of hell shall not prevail against you; yea, and the Lord God will disperse the powers of darkness from before you, and cause the heavens to shake for your good, and his name’s glory. (April 1830)

 

 

D&C 101:26 And in that day the enmity of man, and the enmity of beasts, yea, the enmity of all flesh, shall cease from before my face. (Dec 1833)

 

And 6 others

 

------------------------------------------

 

Construct State

When English shows a possessive or descriptive relationship between two nouns, it usually puts the possessive or descriptive noun first: the king's house or wood house. Hebrew, however, uses the opposite order: house the king (which would usually be translated house of the king) or house wood (house of wood). If the Hebrew word order is kept in the English translation, the word of must be added, even though it does not exist in the Hebrew.

 

The Book of Mormon contains a large number of what appear to be translations from the Hebrew preserving the Hebrew word order:

"plates of brass" instead of brass plates (1 Nephi 3:24)

"works of righteousness" instead of righteous works (Alma 5:16)

"words of plainness" instead of plain words (Jacob 4:14)

"chains of hell" instead of hell's chains (Alma 5:7)

"voice of the Spirit" instead of the Spirit's voice(1 Nephi 4:18)

"skin of blackness" instead of black skin (2 Nephi 5:21)

"night of darkness" instead of dark night (Alma 34:33)

"rod of iron" instead of iron rod (1 Nephi 8:19)

 

 

 

 

D&C 15:1 Hearken, my servant John, and listen to the words of Jesus Christ, your Lord and your Redeemer. (June 1829 to John Whitmer, before becoming one of the 8 witnesses)

 

 

 

D&C 10:70 And now, remember the words of him who is the life and light of the world, your Redeemer, your Lord and your God. Amen. (April 1829, though portions may have been received as early as the summer of 1828 - after 116 pages and before work started on the published document we have today.)

 

 

And 19 more "words of..."

There are also: 

9 examples of "works of..."

6 examples of "plates of..."

3 examples of "chains of..."

76 examples of "voice of..."

1 example of "rod of..."

And no examples of "skin of..." or "night of..."

 

------------------------------------------

 

The Hebrew Background of the Book of Mormon, by John A. Tvedtnes

 

Adverbials

 

Hebrew has fewer adverbs than English. Instead, it often uses prepositional phrases with the preposition meaning in or with. The English translation of the Book of Mormon contains more of these prepositional phrases in place of adverbs than we would expect if the book had been written in English originally—another Hebraism. Here are some examples:

"with patience" instead of patiently (Mosiah 24:15)

"with much harshness" instead of very harshly (1 Nephi 18:11)

"with joy" instead of joyfully (Jacob 4:3)

"in spirit and in truth" instead of spiritually and truly (Alma 34:38)

"in righteousness" instead of righteously (1 Nephi 20:1)

"with gladness" instead of gladly (2 Nephi 28:28)

 

 

 

D&C 1:3 And the rebellious shall be pierced with much sorrow; for their iniquities shall be spoken upon the housetops, and their secret acts shall be revealed. (Nov 1831)

 

 

And 3 others

 

D&C 11:13 Verily, verily, I say unto you, I will impart unto you of my Spirit, which shall enlighten your mind, which shall fill your soul with joy; (May 1829)

 

 

 

D&C 52:43 But, behold, I, the Lord, will hasten the city in its time, and will crown the faithful with joy and with rejoicing.

 

 

And 3 others (some of these are "filled with joy" so perhaps don't count, but there are others similar to D&C 52)

 

I could go on but I've probably illustrated this enough.

 

So here's the question - if Joseph's modern revelations, that are not based on an ancient source, contain sentence structures that look like Hebraisms, how can we conclude with confidence that those found in the Book of Mormon are also products of translating an ancient text instead of simply being Joseph's choice of language? Language that is found in the Bible, the D&C, the POGP and in contemporary books like The Late War.

Edited October 29, 2013 by canard78

[prismsplay]

So here's the question - if Joseph's modern revelations, that are not based on an ancient source, contain sentence structures that look like Hebraisms, how can we conclude with confidence that those found in the Book of Mormon are also products of translating an ancient text instead of simply being Joseph's choice of language? Language that is found in the Bible, the D&C, the POGP and in contemporary books like The Late War.

 

Isaiah 29:11-12:

And the vision of all is become unto you as the words of a book that is sealed, which men deliver to one that is learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I cannot; for it is sealed: and the book is delivered to him that is not learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee; and he saith, I am not learned.

 

Since Joseph Smith, at the time he was called of God to translate the Book of Mormon, was, in God's own assessment, unlearned, the experience of translating by the gift and power of God was a major learning experience for Joseph. His manner of speaking prior to that experience would have been the conversational style of his farming community. The Hebraisms in the Bible would not have carried over into his manner of speaking much more than anyone else who had found time to read portions of the Bible.

 

But after many days of translating engravings that had Hebraic language behind them dripping with the Hebraisms of writers who were descendants of Israel, that process had to have had an effect on the language of "him that is not learned." Whatever Hebraic tendencies were incorporated into Joseph Smith's manner of communicating revelations from God had been enabled by his experience of translating the Book of Mormon.

 

When elders of the church that Joseph Smith founded complained about the language of his revelations, the Lord rebuked them:

 

1835 Doctrine and Covenants section 25 paragraph 2:

... your eyes have been upon my servant Joseph Smith, jr.; and his language you have known; and his imperfections you have known; and you have sought in your hearts knowledge, that you might express beyond his language: this you also know: now seek ye out of the book of commandments, even the least that is among them, and appoint him that is the most wise among you; or if there be any among you, that shall make one like unto it, then ye are justified in saying that ye do not know that they are true: but if ye cannot make one like unto it, ye are under condemnation if ye do not bear record that they are true: for ye know that there is no unrighteousness in them; and that which is righteous cometh down from above, from the Father of lights.

 

Why doubt God's own assessment of Joseph Smith at the time he was called to translate? Why claim that he had been influenced by all sorts of books that he had not read?

[Darren10]

Using "thine" is evidence that the King James Version of the Bible was written in antiguaited english. Just because it appears in the Doctrine and Covenants does not diminish the fact that the KJV was written in old English.

 

http://www.lds.org/scriptures/search?lang=eng&query=thine

[Darren10]

I think if the Book of Mormon had the lack of phraseologies used in ancient Hebrew dialects than that would be a point of criticism against the Book of Mormon. The fact that it does use Hebraism as well as the Doctrine and Covenants, to me, stand as evidence that Joseph Smith received revelations from a source not himself.

[jkwilliams]

Using "thine" is evidence that the King James Version of the Bible was written in antiguaited english. Just because it appears in the Doctrine and Covenants does not diminish the fact that the KJV was written in old English.

 

http://www.lds.org/scriptures/search?lang=eng&query=thine

 

Technically speaking, the KJV was written in modern English, which is quite different from Old English and Middle English.

[jkwilliams]

I think if the Book of Mormon had the lack of phraseologies used in ancient Hebrew dialects than that would be a point of criticism against the Book of Mormon. The fact that it does use Hebraism as well as the Doctrine and Covenants, to me, stand as evidence that Joseph Smith received revelations from a source not himself.

 

Or it could just mean the language was patterned after the KJV, which translated Hebraisms into English.

[canard78]

Isaiah 29:11-12:

And the vision of all is become unto you as the words of a book that is sealed, which men deliver to one that is learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I cannot; for it is sealed: and the book is delivered to him that is not learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee; and he saith, I am not learned.

 

Since Joseph Smith, at the time he was called of God to translate the Book of Mormon, was, in God's own assessment, unlearned, the experience of translating by the gift and power of God was a major learning experience for Joseph. His manner of speaking prior to that experience would have been the conversational style of his farming community. The Hebraisms in the Bible would not have carried over into his manner of speaking much more than anyone else who had found time to read portions of the Bible.

 

But after many days of translating engravings that had Hebraic language behind them dripping with the Hebraisms of writers who were descendants of Israel, that process had to have had an effect on the language of "him that is not learned." Whatever Hebraic tendencies were incorporated into Joseph Smith's manner of communicating revelations from God had been enabled by his experience of translating the Book of Mormon.

 

When elders of the church that Joseph Smith founded complained about the language of his revelations, the Lord rebuked them:

 

1835 Doctrine and Covenants section 25 paragraph 2:

... your eyes have been upon my servant Joseph Smith, jr.; and his language you have known; and his imperfections you have known; and you have sought in your hearts knowledge, that you might express beyond his language: this you also know: now seek ye out of the book of commandments, even the least that is among them, and appoint him that is the most wise among you; or if there be any among you, that shall make one like unto it, then ye are justified in saying that ye do not know that they are true: but if ye cannot make one like unto it, ye are under condemnation if ye do not bear record that they are true: for ye know that there is no unrighteousness in them; and that which is righteous cometh down from above, from the Father of lights.

 

Why doubt God's own assessment of Joseph Smith at the time he was called to translate? Why claim that he had been influenced by all sorts of books that he had not read?

 

So you think the language of the Book of Mormon was gifted to him but the language of the Doctrine and Covenants was his own? Learned through the process of translating the Book of Mormon? Bear in mind that many of the examples I gave were received before Joseph had even finished translating the Book of Mormon. 

 

Why is it that his extensive study of the Bible couldn't have given him the phraseology to dictate the Book of Mormon in "Hebraic" terms but dictating a few chapters of the Book of Lehi to Martin Harris meant that suddenly he could dictate revelations in Biblical style?

[canard78]

Using "thine" is evidence that the King James Version of the Bible was written in antiguaited english. Just because it appears in the Doctrine and Covenants does not diminish the fact that the KJV was written in old English.

 

http://www.lds.org/scriptures/search?lang=eng&query=thine

 

Thine? I'm not sure what this has to do with Hebraisms?

 

If you're pointing out that the KJV was translated into Jacobean English and the D&C uses similar English then I agree with you. I'm not really sure what point you're making though.

[Glenn101]

To a critic, probably. But they are all ignoring the information that Robert F. Smith has provided about the Egyptianisms in the Book of Mormon. According to him, the Book of Mormon shows evidence of being derived from an underlying Egyptian language document written by a Hebrew author or authors.

 

Glenn

[canard78]

I think if the Book of Mormon had the lack of phraseologies used in ancient Hebrew dialects than that would be a point of criticism against the Book of Mormon. The fact that it does use Hebraism as well as the Doctrine and Covenants, to me, stand as evidence that Joseph Smith received revelations from a source not himself.

 

Why should the D&C be written with Hebraisms? It was not based on an original Hebrew document. My point is that if the D&C contains Hebraisms when it doesn't have an original Hebrew source, how can we say that Hebraisms in the BoM stands as evidence that it was based on a Hebrew source?

[canard78]

To a critic, probably. But they are all ignoring the information that Robert F. Smith has provided about the Egyptianisms in the Book of Mormon. According to him, the Book of Mormon shows evidence of being derived from an underlying Egyptian language document written by a Hebrew author or authors.

 

Glenn

 

If you're moving on to Egyptianisms as evidence that would suggest to me that Hebraisms are out of vogue and being discarded as evidence for an ancient source... which is exactly what I'm suggesting should happen.

 

(Can you provide a link or examples of the Egyptian phrases that Robert presents? Are they phrases that are entirely absent from the other works of scripture/concurrent literature, all of which were not based on reformed Egyptian?)

[jkwilliams]

To a critic, probably. But they are all ignoring the information that Robert F. Smith has provided about the Egyptianisms in the Book of Mormon. According to him, the Book of Mormon shows evidence of being derived from an underlying Egyptian language document written by a Hebrew author or authors.

 

Glenn

 

That's a different subject altogether. I'd love to see what Robert has.

[Nevo]

.

Edited October 1, 2014 by Nevo

[CV75]

Why should the D&C be written with Hebraisms?

It is quite possible, since Jesus was a Hebrew in mortality, that He would have continued to convey His thoughts and voice and thoughts both physically and spiritually in a characteristically Hebraic manner. He did so as the Spirit Jehovah as well, which created the first Hebrew scripture in the first place. Since the Adamic language of the earliest books of rememebrance was lost, it would seem consistent for Him to continue expresing Himself in this fashion as a subtle means of identification to Jospeh, who was familiar with Biblical text.

[cdowis]

Canard,

 

Good job.  Thanks for the research.

 

It confirms my view that apologetics need to be tested in a discussion forum, before being enshrined in articles and books.  It is unfortunate that John T is not around to give his response.  Maybe someone could email and ask him what he thinks about our discussion here.

[omni]

It is quite possible, since Jesus was a Hebrew in mortality, that He would have continued to convey His thoughts and voice and thoughts both physically and spiritually in a characteristically Hebraic manner. He did so as the Spirit Jehovah as well, which created the first Hebrew scripture in the first place. Since the Adamic language of the earliest books of rememebrance was lost, it would seem consistent for Him to continue expresing Himself in this fashion as a subtle means of identification to Jospeh, who was familiar with Biblical text.

Huh? So you believe Joseph would have trouble identifying the Savior if he didn't speak to him in Jacobean English sprinkled with Hebraisms he presumably wouldn't recognize as such?

[CV75]

Huh? So you believe Joseph would have trouble identifying the Savior if he didn't speak to him in Jacobean English sprinkled with Hebraisms he presumably wouldn't recognize as such?

Of course not.

[Tacenda]

Canard,

Good job. Thanks for the research.

It confirms my view that apologetics need to be tested in a discussion forum, before being enshrined in articles and books. It is unfortunate that John T is not around to give his response. Maybe someone could email and ask him what he thinks about our discussion here.

Good point!

[omni]

I don't know Canard, the 120 examples you provided just aren't doing it for me. Could you look for a few more hours and find some more?

[canard78]

It is quite possible, since Jesus was a Hebrew in mortality, that He would have continued to convey His thoughts and voice and thoughts both physically and spiritually in a characteristically Hebraic manner. He did so as the Spirit Jehovah as well, which created the first Hebrew scripture in the first place. Since the Adamic language of the earliest books of rememebrance was lost, it would seem consistent for Him to continue expresing Himself in this fashion as a subtle means of identification to Jospeh, who was familiar with Biblical text.

 

"...he would have continued to convey His voice... (etc)"

You say this with a certainty that you can't know.

How did Joseph receive the words for the revelations of the D&C? Do you know that it was a dictated 'voice from the heavens?' Was Joseph simply 'dictating' words that were not his own?

 

If that's the case, that he was simply speaking words placed in his head by God why did he re-edit them? This doesn't ring true with the way sections of the D&C evolved over time.

 

Bushman said:

 

"The revealed preface to the Book of Commandments specified that the language of the revelations was Joseph Smith’s: “These commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding.” The revelations were not God’s diction, dialect, or native language. They were couched in language suitable to Joseph’s time. The idioms, the grammar, even the tone had to be comprehensible to 1830s Americans. Recognizing the pliability of the revealed words, Joseph freely edited the revelations “by the holy Spirit,” making emendations with each new edition. He thought of his revelations as imprinted on his mind, not graven in stone. With each edition, he patched pieces together and altered the wording to clarify meaning. The words were both his and God’s."

 

 

Rough Stone Rolling

 

Here's the intro from the Book of Commandments:

http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/book-of-commandments-1833?dm=image-and-text&zm=zoom-inner&tm=expanded&p=9&s=undefined&sm=none

[canard78]

To a critic, probably. But they are all ignoring the information that Robert F. Smith has provided about the Egyptianisms in the Book of Mormon. According to him, the Book of Mormon shows evidence of being derived from an underlying Egyptian language document written by a Hebrew author or authors.

 

Glenn

 

P.S. I'm not a critic. I'm an active member asking questions and trying to find reasonable answers.

 

This type of response is also a distraction from the question. I've noticed Mormon apologists take this approach occasionally. If an apologist can't answer the actual issue at hand they will instead try to distract with other evidence. "My Dad's bigger than your Dad." I'm not trying to trade blows with pieces of evidence for and against the Book of Mormon. I'm simply wanting a conversation about the validity of Hebraisms as evidence.

[canard78]

I think it would be premature to conclude that Hebraisms are out and Egyptianisms are in solely on Robert F. Smith's say-so. As far as I can tell, Robert's belief that the source language of the Book of Mormon is Egyptian is not shared by the majority of Book of Mormon scholars.

 

Good point. I've certainly not accepted Egyptianisms yet, but I don't see the support for Hebraisms based on both their presence in D&C and in Joseph's contemporaneous literature.

 

I think Robert's about to publish something on this. He mentioned it a year and a half ago - is there anything new since then? 

 

EDIT: I'd be really interested to discuss Egyptianisms in the Book of Mormon. I'll happily participate in a new thread on the topic, but I don't really want this thread to go off on that tangent.

Edited October 29, 2013 by canard78

[jkwilliams]

P.S. I'm not a critic. I'm an active member asking questions and trying to find reasonable answers.

 

This type of response is also a distraction from the question. I've noticed Mormon apologists take this approach occasionally. If an apologist can't answer the actual issue at hand they will instead try to distract with other evidence. "My Dad's bigger than your Dad." I'm not trying to trade blows with pieces of evidence for and against the Book of Mormon. I'm simply wanting a conversation about the validity of Hebraisms as evidence.

 

It's almost a form of moving the goalposts, IMO. You asked about Hebraisms and what effect, if any, their presence in the D&C has on analysis of the Book of Mormon. If I read Glenn correctly, he's essentially conceding that the Hebraisms are not there or are inconsequential, so we should look at Egyptianisms. That might be an interesting area for further inquiry, but it's not relevant to your question.

[canard78]

It's almost a form of moving the goalposts, IMO. You asked about Hebraisms and what effect, if any, their presence in the D&C has on analysis of the Book of Mormon. If I read Glenn correctly, he's essentially conceding that the Hebraisms are not there or are inconsequential, so we should look at Egyptianisms. That might be an interesting area for further inquiry, but it's not relevant to your question.

 

You're right - it's not. I probably shouldn't have got overly engaged with it myself. I think I'll go back and edit my reply to Nevo to avoid a major derail.

[Bob Crockett]

I apologize if somebody else has made this point, but you should read Brant Gardner's two volume book on this very subject.   His book is too long and filled with lots of irrelevancies that should have been edited out (sorry Brant) but the essential conclusion is a very good one, and that is that any Hebraism in the Book of Mormon is a product of the 19th Century, i.e., the KJV (and I would further suggest, Josephus).

 

I don't think Brant adequately dealt with chiasmus, however, and I find that a good counterpoint to Brant's thesis.

 

So, thus, any Hebraisms found in the D&C can be easily explained.