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

[CV75]

"...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:

 

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

As I said, “It is quite possible…” This is in response to your conveying such certainty about it having to be one way or the other. I don’t think the language delivery system for revelations was so cut and dried, or even consistent.

 

I think it reasonable that the “words were both his and God’s” in that Jesus may have actually conveyed spiritual thoughts and feelings in language that was familiar to Joseph as uniquely spiritual. I don’t think Joseph spoke that way in everyday conversation, but rather his “manner of language” for spiritual concepts was influenced by the Hebrew structure translated into his English Bible, and the Lord accommodated him in his weakness so that he could come to an understanding. And then of course he continued to edit the revelations “by the holy Spirit,” which evidently supported his continued use of what was for him a “sacred language,” which isn't an uncomon practice in many religious cultures.

 

And then we do have examples in Joseph’s revelations of divine beings citing or paraphrasing English Bible Hebraisms to him, and of the Father and Son speaking directly to him, face to face, in Hebraisms.

 

So there is apparently another form of divine communication, which is “God’s diction, dialect, or native language” framed in Biblical English for the purposes of Joseph’s receptiveness, resonance and understanding. In other words, God spoke the language Joseph could best appreciate and attend to. In this way, the revelations were delivered in the forms of 1) being “imprinted on his mind (and/or in the feelings of his heart);” 2) quoted from scripture (softly “graven in stone" or graven in soft stone)—in person and/or by the Spirit, and 3) by using Hebraisms in direct, one-on-one verbal communication. That God was at one time a living Hebrew and prior to that taught them as Jehova is just icing on the cake.

Edited October 29, 2013 by CV75

[canard78]

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.

 

I'm happy to accept that conclusion. I don't see a better alternative.

 

I appreciate Brant's general willingness to dismiss certain pieces of both linguistic and archaeological evidence that appear to be in favour of the Book of Mormon. It helps to bolster that which remains.

[canard78]

As I said, “It is quite possible…” This is in response to your conveying such certainty about it having to be one way or the other. I don’t think the language delivery system for revelations was so cut and dried, or even consistent.

 

I think it reasonable that the “words were both his and God’s” in that Jesus may have actually conveyed spiritual thoughts and feelings in language that was familiar to Joseph as uniquely spiritual. I don’t think Joseph spoke that way in everyday conversation, but rather his “manner of language” for spiritual concepts was influenced by the Hebrew structure translated into his English Bible, and the Lord accommodated him in his weakness so that he could come to an understanding. And then of course he continued to edit the revelations “by the holy Spirit,” which evidently supported his continued use of what was for him a “sacred language,” which isn't an uncomon practice in many religious cultures.

 

And then we do have examples in Joseph’s revelations of divine beings citing or paraphrasing English Bible Hebraisms to him, and of the Father and Son speaking directly to him, face to face, in Hebraisms.

 

So there is apparently another form of divine communication, which is “God’s diction, dialect, or native language” framed in Biblical English for the purposes of Joseph’s receptiveness, resonance and understanding. In other words, God spoke the language Joseph could best appreciate and attend to. In this way, the revelations were delivered in the forms of 1) being “imprinted on his mind (and/or in the feelings of his heart);” 2) quoted from scripture (softly “graven in stone" or graven in soft stone)—in person and/or by the Spirit, and 3) by using Hebraisms in direct, one-on-one verbal communication. That God was at one time a living Hebrew and prior to that taught them as Jehova is just icing on the cake.

 

Therefore... the "Hebraisms" in the Book of Mormon are not evidence of an ancient source either.

[prismsplay]

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?

 

Your "before Joseph had even finished translating the Book of Mormon" argument is self-defeating, since it admits that the translation process was already engaged, thus backing up my argument. The original manuscript of the Book of Mormon was written by scribes as Joseph Smith dictated the translation into English. This has the most Hebraisms because those are carried over directly from the engavings on the plates written by Hebrew-speaking descendants of Israel. The printer's manuscript, copied from the original manuscript, shows examples of some Hebraisms sounding too strange in English being revised to be more readable, along with some errors in copying. Joseph Smith's 1837 revision ignorantly eliminated or ruined some Hebraisms, showing that he did not understand that Hebraisms would someday become evidence that the Book of Mormon is what it claims to be.

 

In 1999 some researchers in the RLDS tradition produced the first edition of the Book of Mormon to prefer the readings in the  28% of the original manuscript remaining over anything else, with the nearly complete printer's manuscript considered the most authoritative after that. That prepared the way for the more thoroughly researched The Book of Mormon: The Earliest Text by Royal Skousen. These two editions, especially Skousen's, have made it possible to discover some Hebraisms lost in making the English translation more readable. Many of these were not derived from the King James Bible. And as God Himself has indicated, Joseph Smith was "unlearned" when he was called to translate. To try to portray Joseph as having read all sorts of books that he had not read is wrong.

 

Translating by the gift and power of God had to have strongly affected the language that Joseph Smith spoke when conveying matters learned through divine revelation.

[canard78]

Your "before Joseph had even finished translating the Book of Mormon" argument is self-defeating, since it admits that the translation process was already engaged, thus backing up my argument. The original manuscript of the Book of Mormon was written by scribes as Joseph Smith dictated the translation into English. This has the most Hebraisms because those are carried over directly from the engavings on the plates written by Hebrew-speaking descendants of Israel. The printer's manuscript, copied from the original manuscript, shows examples of some Hebraisms sounding too strange in English being revised to be more readable, along with some errors in copying. Joseph Smith's 1837 revision ignorantly eliminated or ruined some Hebraisms, showing that he did not understand that Hebraisms would someday become evidence that the Book of Mormon is what it claims to be.

 

In 1999 some researchers in the RLDS tradition produced the first edition of the Book of Mormon to prefer the readings in the  28% of the original manuscript remaining over anything else, with the nearly complete printer's manuscript considered the most authoritative after that. That prepared the way for the more thoroughly researched The Book of Mormon: The Earliest Text by Royal Skousen. These two editions, especially Skousen's, have made it possible to discover some Hebraisms lost in making the English translation more readable. Many of these were not derived from the King James Bible. And as God Himself has indicated, Joseph Smith was "unlearned" when he was called to translate. To try to portray Joseph as having read all sorts of books that he had not read is wrong.

 

Translating by the gift and power of God had to have strongly affected the language that Joseph Smith spoke when conveying matters learned through divine revelation.

 

You're assuming a conclusion I'm not trying to make.

 

I've not said that Joseph fraudulently fabricated the Book of Mormon and Doctrine & Covenants. I'm not trying to say it was entirely an invention. I'm pointing out the problem in presenting Hebraisms as evidence that the Book of Mormon was translated from an ancient document when they appear in publications not based on an ancient document. That does not lead me to the conclusion that the Book of Mormon could not possibly be based on an ancient document but I don't think it's safe to use Hebraisms as part of the process of reaching that conclusion.

[Bob Crockett]

I'm happy to accept that conclusion. I don't see a better alternative.

 

I appreciate Brant's general willingness to dismiss certain pieces of both linguistic and archaeological evidence that appear to be in favour of the Book of Mormon. It helps to bolster that which remains.

I doubt Brant "dismisses both linguistic and achaeological evidence" in favor of the Book of Mormon.  He says that Hebraisms are more evident from the 19th Century and the KJV of the Bible than from any other possible source.  I would add Josephus.

 

But that conclusion says nothing of "linguistic" evidence in general nor in particular archaeological evidence.  As I understand it, he's as hardened a MesoAmerican theorist as there is.  I'm not.  

Edited October 29, 2013 by Bob Crockett

[Calm]

 

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.

Internet discussion forums are a relatively new creature.  In the past discussions tended to be carried out by writing articles and books that could then be responded to by those who read them.  Given that Tvedtnes' article was published in a book (which was a collection of articles published in the 80s) in 91, it seems inappropriate to expect he should have made use of something not in existence at that time.

 

And as much as I love this board, I don't see it as the place that scholars go to discuss with each other their findings.

[Calm]

I doubt Brant "dismisses both linguistic and achaeological evidence"

You left out "certain pieces".  canard said "I appreciate Brant's general willingness to dismiss certain pieces of both linguistic and archaeological evidence".  There is a difference.

[CV75]

Therefore... the "Hebraisms" in the Book of Mormon are not evidence of an ancient source either.

"Therefore???"

 

They are evidence, just like the Hebraisms in the Bible.

 

You were talking about the Hebraisms in the D&C (which book isn't an ancient source in and of itself of course, but reflects Hebrew influences from both the Hebrew God and the English Bible). Joseph Smith used Hebraisms to receive and convey sacred ideas, and for this reason the Father, Jesus, Moroni and John the Baptist quite reasonably used them in communicating with him.

 

The evidence you draw upon may be enough for you, but it is insuffiicent for me to remove the likelihood that pre-existing Hebraisms in the Book of Mormon writings were actually translated into English.

Edited October 29, 2013 by CV75

[Darren10]

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

 

I ain't speak like no King James, do you?

[Darren10]

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

 

I ain't speak like no King James, do you?

[Darren10]

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

 

You're correct. But I'm one who believes he received divine revelation to write modern-day scripture. Since his voice changes dramatically in his scriptural writings from his normal writings I'd say that points to him using a source not his own to write those scriptures. Yes, the language structure of King James may have influenced how he wrote scripturally. In fact I've no doubt it did significantly but that to me shows he was didvinely inspired and not fabricating the D&C nor Book of Mormon.

[canard78]

You left out "certain pieces".  canard said "I appreciate Brant's general willingness to dismiss certain pieces of both linguistic and archaeological evidence".  There is a difference.

 

Thanks - I was about to reply to him but you've covered what I was going to say very succinctly.

[Darren10]

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?

 

The original source was revelation and Joseph Smith received it according to the language of scripture at his time. If the restoration were to have happened in Japan without the King James Version ever having have happened than the Hebraism would probably not show up unless it's compatible to formal/traditional Japanese.

[jkwilliams]

I ain't speak like no King James, do you?

 

For reference, here's some Old English. Do you recognize this?

 

And hyrdas wæron on þam ylcan rice waciende: and nihtwæccan healdende ofer heora heorda 

 

þa stod drihtnes engel wiþ hig and godes beorhtnes him ymbelscean: and hi him mycelum ege adredon. 

 

and se engel him to cwæð; Nelle ge eow adrædan. soþlice nu ic eow bodie mycelne gefean. se bið eallum folce. 

 

forþam todæg eow ys hælend acenned. se is drihten crist on dauides ceastre; 

 

And þis tacen eow byð; Ge gemetað an cild hreglum bewunden. and on binne aled; 

 

And þa wæs færinga geworden mid þam engle mycelnes heofonlices werydes god heriendra. and þus cweþendra; 

 

Gode sy wuldor on heahnesse and on eorðan sybb mannum godes willan;

[canard78]

"Therefore???"

 

They are evidence, just like the Hebraisms in the Bible.

 

You were talking about the Hebraisms in the D&C (which book isn't an ancient source in and of itself of course, but reflects Hebrew influences from both the Hebrew God and the English Bible). Joseph Smith used Hebraisms to receive and convey sacred ideas, and for this reason the Father, Jesus, Moroni and John the Baptist quite reasonably used them in communicating with him.

 

The evidence you draw upon may be enough for you, but it is insuffiicent for me to remove the likelihood that pre-existing Hebraisms in the Book of Mormon writings were actually translated into English.

 

It sounds like you're picking and choosing when it's convenient. You say they can be used to "convey sacred ideas" in modern scripture but are evidence of pre-existing Hebraisms in the BoM.

 

This suggests you're happy to flip-flop between them based on what is convenient to your already completed conclusions.

[canard78]

The original source was revelation and Joseph Smith received it according to the language of scripture at his time. If the restoration were to have happened in Japan without the King James Version ever having have happened than the Hebraism would probably not show up unless it's compatible to formal/traditional Japanese.

 

Do you apply the same reasoning to the Book of Mormon? If it had been translated in Japan would the Book of Mormon also lack the Hebraisms?

 

In fact... do translations of the Book of Mormon even retain the Hebraisms?

Edited October 29, 2013 by canard78

[wenglund]

It sounds like you're picking and choosing when it's convenient. You say they can be used to "convey sacred ideas" in modern scripture but are evidence of pre-existing Hebraisms in the BoM.

 

This suggests you're happy to flip-flop between them based on what is convenient to your already completed conclusions.

 

Even given the presence of certain Hebraisms in modern scripture, I, too, like CV75, am not prepared to rule out Hebraism as evidence of antiquity, or necessarily rule them entirely in, but I remain open, though perhaps leaning in favor of ruling them in.

 

I lean this way because, I can't exactly put my finger on it, but when reading the Book of Mormon in English and in the Spirit, I get a strong sense of its antiquity (it speaks to me as if from the dust of old) that I don't get from the D&C or the Late War, even given the KJV language in common. Do I get this strong sense in part because of Hebraism, or the extent and nature of the Hebraisms? I am not sure. However, I suspect that it may be a minor factor--with the major factor being the Spirit.  Who knows?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[prismsplay]

You're assuming a conclusion I'm not trying to make.

 

I've not said that Joseph fraudulently fabricated the Book of Mormon and Doctrine & Covenants. I'm not trying to say it was entirely an invention. I'm pointing out the problem in presenting Hebraisms as evidence that the Book of Mormon was translated from an ancient document when they appear in publications not based on an ancient document. That does not lead me to the conclusion that the Book of Mormon could not possibly be based on an ancient document but I don't think it's safe to use Hebraisms as part of the process of reaching that conclusion.

 

Hebraisms in the Book of Mormon could not be comprehensively studied until the manuscripts-savvy The Book of Mormon: Restored Covenant Edition (1999) and The Book of Mormon: The Earliest Text (2009) were published, the first with RLDS versification, the second with LDS versification. It is clear from the introductions to these two editions that their producers understood that they were making available for study Hebraisms that had previously been suppressed for sounding too strange in English.

 

That the presence of Hebraisms in the Book of Mormon can be used as an argument in favor of the book's authenticity is mentioned in Grant Hardy's Understanding the Book of Mormon (2010):

 

More striking is Royal Skousen's discovery of "if-and" conditional clauses in the original manuscript of the Book of Mormon, which match Hebrew usage but do not appear in the English translations of the Bible. See Royal Skousen, "Translating the Book of Mormon: Evidence from the Original Manuscript," in Book of Mormon Authorship Revisited: The Evidence for Ancient Origins, ed. Noel B. Reynolds (Provo, UT: FARMS, 1997), 88-90. 

[Glenn101]

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?)

 

I would have to dig back through some of the threads. He mentioned it in one of these related threads, but I cannot find it right now.

 

Part of the thrust of LDS scholarship is not to show just Hebraisms in the Book of Mormon (or Egyptianisms), but to illustrate how the Book of Mormon shows evidence of an underlying semitic document. I think that Royal Skousen's work may be invaluable to such an effort because the many editorial changes to the Book of Mormon over the years have altered some of that structure.

 

Hopefully Robert will check in with us and enlighten us. Maybe he has written an article or two on the subject.

 

Now, as to your original question, I do not think that Hebraisms in the Doctrine and Covenents has any bearing on the Book of Mormon Hebraisms. During the time in question, the production of the Book of Mormon, look at Joseph Smith's own writings. His own history, as related in the Pearl of Great Price, etc. Joseph did not write using such Hebraisms unless he claimed to be dictating revelations from God.

 

There is nothing in Joseph's history, comments from his contemporaries (either friendly or unfriendly) to suggest that he had the literate ability to articulate either in writing or in speech, passages such as are found in the Doctrine and Covenants.

 

The Hebraisms in the Book of Mormon cannot just be discounted because Hebraisms are found in other works of the time, but they cannot be used alone either (obviously).

 

Glenn

 

Edited October 30, 2013 by Glenn101

[wenglund]

What about the Hebraic "if-and" conditional clause that is uncharacteristic of English (early/KJV or modern) mentioned by Royal Skousen HERE (the section on: Internal Evidence for Tight Control)?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[omni]

The original source was revelation and Joseph Smith received it according to the language of scripture at his time. If the restoration were to have happened in Japan without the King James Version ever having have happened than the Hebraism would probably not show up unless it's compatible to formal/traditional Japanese.

So why aren't D&C 138 and OD 1&2 written in "the language of scripture"?

Edited October 30, 2013 by omni

[Glenn101]

So why aren't D&C 138 and OD 1&2 written in "the language of scripture"?

 

Because they are not quotations from God or one of His messengers. Read the Joseph Smith History in the Pearl of Great Price and note the difference when Joseph is speaking of his experiences and when he is quoting Moroni.

 

Glenn

[cdowis]

The printer's manuscript, copied from the original manuscript, shows examples of some Hebraisms sounding too strange in English being revised to be more readable, along with some errors in copying..

 

 

Thanks for your comment.  

 

I am quoting you in my youtube discussions regarding the Book of Mormon.  Concise and to the point.

[cdowis]

"...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.

 

 

 

Receiving the revelation is a different process than publishing those revelations.  The josephsmithpapers project goes into detail regarding this process.  Basically, the sections were edited for the purpose of publication, and may have actually combined several revelations.  As additional information was received, it was encorporated into the original revelation.