Ryan Dahle Posted July 4, 2018 Posted July 4, 2018 (edited) In a previous thread, I asked for feedback about why some individuals, especially members of the LDS church who are in the throes of a faith crisis or who are distancing themselves from LDS beliefs, decline to investigate evidences supporting the historicity of LDS Restoration texts or the miraculous nature of Joseph Smith's translations. I got a range of answers, and I appreciate the feedback. In this thread, I would like to see why some individuals reject a specific category of evidence that I happen to believe constitutes fairly good evidence supporting Joseph Smith's claims. Scholars with relevant training and expertise have proposed a large number of Hebrew and Egyptian words that are likely underlying the text of the Book of Mormon. Evidence for these underlying words can be found in etiologies, glosses, metonymic associations, and wordplays (which is the broad term I will use to lump them all together for the purposes of this thread). My reasons for seeing these features as constituting good evidence are as follows: The Book of Mormon begins with a declaration that it is being written in the learning of the Jews and the language of the Egyptians (1 Nephi 1:2). Near the end of the book, Moroni indicates that he knew Hebrew but that he was writing in "reformed Egyptian" (Mormon 9:32), suggesting that whatever form the final text took, Hebrew and Egyptian were understood by Book of Mormon authors throughout their approximately 1,000 year history. Moreover, since biblical authors are known to have used multi-lingual wordplays, even though they were writing primarily in Hebrew, the actual nature of the reformed Egyptian used by Book of Mormon authors is largely irrelevant to the validity of any wordplay proposals. Recognizing that Hebrew and Egyptian wordplays should probably be expected to be found in a text written by such ancient authors, LDS scholars have gone searching for such wordplays. Many proposals have been made by competent linguists with legitimate degrees, and these proposals by and large seem to be on par with many proposed wordplays that I have found in mainstream biblical studies. Collectively, the proposed wordplays in the Book of Mormon suggest that whoever wrote the text not only had an awareness of Hebrew and Egyptian, but a deep awareness of how specific terms were understood and utilized by biblical authors. These proposals are scripturally complex, literarily sophisticated, and in total, require competence in two ancient languages. The large number of good wordplay proposals in the Book of Mormon seems to be well beyond ascribing their presence to mere luck. No one can "prove" absolutely that an author intended a wordplay in any given instance, yet when there is good evidence that a text pervasively employs a variety of clever and meaningful wordplays, the plausibility of any single one of its better proposals being intentional dramatically increases. It is precisely because of the quality and ubiquity of the proposed wordplays in the Bible that biblical scholars have widely accepted their legitimacy. When dozens of proposals can be cited, when many of these significantly add to our understanding of the text, and when we can oftentimes see that an author went out of his way to mention a paronomastically significant name, it provides a very good reason to believe that this isn't all random luck and guesswork. There is no evidence that Joseph Smith had any sort of formal training in the Hebrew language until 1835. Further, there is no evidence that he ever gained any formal training in ancient Egyptian languages, which was still a fledgling discipline in his day, as far as I understand. Therefore, if any of the Hebrew/Egyptian wordplays proposed by LDS scholars were intended by the author of the Book of Mormon, then it automatically counts as good evidence that Joseph Smith wasn't the author. Those who want to propose that he was the author, have to explain how he learned ancient Hebrew and/or Egyptian, which is completely at odds with the historical data concerning the extent of his education. Seeing the linguistic evidence stack up against Joseph Smith being the author of the text, some may propose that some other modern individual or group of individuals wrote the Book of Mormon. However, this presents a similar problem as just mentioned above. The historical data overwhelmingly argues against such suppositions. The very fact that someone would feel forced by the evidence to resort to these unlikely options suggests that the evidence is pretty good. This being the case, if these wordplays are collectively comparable to the wordplays that mainstream scholars feel were intentionally implemented by biblical authors, then they collectively constitute very good evidence in support of Joseph Smith's claims. Their presence makes a lot of sense if the Book of Mormon is what it claims to be, and not much sense at all if Joseph Smith was responsible for the text. That would logically mean that Joseph Smith's claims about the Book of Mormon would have a clear advantage when it comes to accounting for this type of literary/linguistic data. I am not saying these linguistic evidences, on their own, provide compelling reasons to believe Joseph Smith's story. What I am saying is that they collectively provide good evidence which supports his claims, and at the same time they undermine the most popular critical theory about the translation, which is that Joseph Smith himself is responsible for the text. For those who are familiar with these proposed wordplays, feel free to tackle the best ones and demonstrate why you don't believe they are on par with the type of wordplays that non-LDS scholars are very confident are in the Bible. Or feel free to discredit the collective biblical research on this topic, if that is your fancy. Or feel free to choose to ignore this line of evidence altogether, or resort to some tangent argument about polyandry, general rules of probability, or some other topic, as I'm quite confident some individuals will be prone to do. Whatever you choose, I'm sure it will be informative about the range of responses to this evidence, which is what I really want to look at. By no means do I think that this compilation of evidences is going to persuade anyone who is already committed to the notion that the Joseph Smith wasn't a true prophet. On other threads, individuals kept assuming that I was on a crusade to change people's minds. To the contrary, I am just out to collect information about the ways that different groups respond to these types of evidences. If someone is persuaded by this list of evidences, then great. But I doubt that will happen. Below is a large list of names with sources that propose Hebrew and Egyptian wordplays associated with them. It isn't fully comprehensive, but it gathers a large body of the best research on the topic. Some of these aren't as good as others, so if you want to tackle what I think are in the top ten (and not cherry pick somewhat weaker examples), pick on Jershon, Abish, Nephi, Mormon, Benjamin, Mary, Noah, Zoram, Zeezrom, or Nahom. Unfortunately, the formatting messed with the hyperlinks and italics, so this will have to do: Egyptian 1. Deseret “DESERET” online at https://onoma.lib.byu.edu/index.php/DESERET Nibley, Hugh W., “There were Jaredites III,” (Improvement Era, April 1965). Nibley, World of the Jaredites, (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book: 1988) p. 192. 2. Giddianhi Matthew L. Bowen, “‘Swearing by Their Everlasting Maker’: Some Notes on Paanchi and Giddianhi,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 28 (2018): 155–170. 3. Irreantum Book of Mormon Central, “Why Would Nephi Call the Ocean ‘Irreantum’? (1 Nephi 17:5),” KnoWhy 20 (January 27, 2016). Paul Y. Hoskisson with Brian M. Hauglid and John Gee, “What’s in a Name? Irreantum,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 11, no. 1 (2002): 90–93, 114–15. 4. Mary Matthew L. Bowen, “‘Most Desirable Above All Things’: Onomastic Play on Mary and Mormon in the Book of Mormon,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 13 (2015): 27–61. 5. Mormon Matthew L. Bowen, “‘Most Desirable Above All Things’: Onomastic Play on Mary and Mormon in the Book of Mormon,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 13 (2015): 27–61. 6. Nephi Matthew L. Bowen, “‘O Ye Fair Ones’ – Revisited,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 20 (2016): 315–344. Matthew L. Bowen, “Nephi’s Good Inclusio,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 17 (2016): 181–195. Matthew L. Bowen, “‘He Is a Good Man’: The Fulfillment of Helaman 5:6–7 in Helaman 8:7 and 11:18–19,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 17 (2016). Matthew L. Bowen, “‘O Ye Fair Ones’: An Additional Note on the Meaning of the Name Nephi," Insights 23, no. 6 (2003). Matthew L. Bowen, “Internal Textual Evidence for the Egyptian Origin of Nephi’s Name,” Insights 22, no. 11 (2002). John Gee, “Four Suggestions on the Origin of the Name Nephi,” in Pressing Forward with the Book of Mormon: The FARMS Updates of the 1990’s, ed. John W. Welch and Melvin J. Thorne (Provo, UT: FARMS, 1999), 1–5. John Gee, “Notes and Communications: A Note on the Name Nephi,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 1, no. 1 (1992): 189–191. 7. Paanchi Matthew L. Bowen, “‘Swearing by Their Everlasting Maker’: Some Notes on Paanchi and Giddianhi,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 28 (2018): 155–170. 8. Rod/Sword Matthew L. Bowen, “‘What Meaneth the Rod of Iron?’” Insights, 25, no. 2 (2005). Hebrew 1. Abish Matthew L. Bowen, “Father Is a Man: The Remarkable Mention of the Name Abish in Alma 19:16 and Its Narrative Context,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 14 (2015): 77–93. 2. Abraham Matthew L. Bowen, “‘In the Mount of the Lord It Shall Be Seen” and “Provided”: Theophany and Sacrifice as the Etiological Foundation of the Temple in Israelite and Latter-day Saint Tradition,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 5 (2013): 201–223. 3. Aminadab Matthew L. Bowen, “‘My People Are Willing’: The Mention of Aminadab in the Narrative Context of Helaman 5–6,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 19 (2016): 83–107. 4. Alma Matthew L. Bowen, “‘He Did Go About Secretly’: Additional Thoughts on the Literary Use of Alma’s Name,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 27 (2017): 197–212. Matthew L. Bowen, “The Scalp of Your Head: Polysemy in Alma 44:14–18,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 20 (2016): 39–45. Matthew L. Bowen, “Alma — Young Man, Hidden Prophet,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 19 (2016): 343–353. Matthew L. Bowen, “‘And He Was a Young Man’: The Literary Preservation of Alma’s Autobiographical Wordplay,” Insights 30, no. 4 (2010). 5. Benjamin Matthew L. Bowen, “Onomastic Wordplay on Joseph and Benjamin and Gezera Shawa in the Book of Mormon,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 18 (2016): 255–273. Matthew L. Bowen “Becoming Sons and Daughters at God's Right Hand: King Benjamin's Rhetorical Wordplay on His Own Name,” Journal of the Book of Mormon and Other Restoration Scripture 21, no. 2 (2012). 6. Cain Matthew L. Bowen, “Getting Cain and Gain,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 15 (2015): 115–141. 7. Cezoram Matthew L. Bowen, “‘See That Ye Are Not Lifted Up: The Name Zoram and Its Paronomastic Pejoration,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 19 (2016): 109–143. 8. Ephraim Matthew L. Bowen and Loren Blake Spendlove, “‘Thou Art the Fruit of My Loins’: The Interrelated Symbolism and Meanings of the Names Joseph and Ephraim in Ancient Scripture,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 28 (2018): 273–298. 9. Enos Matthew L. Bowen, “‘I Kneeled Down Before My Maker’: Allusions to Esau in the Book of Enos,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 27 (2017): 29–56. Matthew L. Bowen, “Wordplay on the Name ‘Enos’,” Insights 26, no. 3 (2006). 10. Esau Matthew L. Bowen, “‘I Kneeled Down Before My Maker’: Allusions to Esau in the Book of Enos,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 27 (2017): 29–56. 11. Garb of Secrecy John A. Tvedtnes and Matthew Roper, “One Small Step,” FARMS Review 15, no. 1 (2003): 147–99. 12. Giddianhi Matthew L. Bowen, “‘Swearing by Their Everlasting Maker’: Some Notes on Paanchi and Giddianhi,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 28 (2018): 155–170. 13. Gad[d]ianton Matthew L. Bowen, “‘Swearing by Their Everlasting Maker’: Some Notes on Paanchi and Giddianhi,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 28 (2018): 155–170. John W. Welch and Kelly Ward, “Thieves and Robbers,” in Reexploring the Book of Mormon: A Decade of New Research, ed. John W. Welch (Salt Lake City and Provo, UT: Deseret Book and FARMS, 1992), 248–249. 14. Heshlon Matthew L. Bowen, “Place of Crushing: The Literary Function of Heshlon in Ether 13:25-31,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 14 (2015): 227–239. 15. Irreantum Book of Mormon Central, “Why Would Nephi Call the Ocean ‘Irreantum’? (1 Nephi 17:5),” KnoWhy 20 (January 27, 2016). Paul Y. Hoskisson with Brian M. Hauglid and John Gee, “What’s in a Name? Irreantum,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 11, no. 1 (2002): 90–93, 114–15. 16. Isabel Gordon C. Thomasson, “What’s in a Name? Book of Mormon Language, Names, and [Metonymic] Naming,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 3, no. 1 (1994): 15. 17. Ishmael Matthew L. Bowen, “‘If Ye Will Hearken’: Lehi’s Rhetorical Wordplay on Ishmael in 2 Nephi 1:28–29 and Its Implications,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 25 (2017): 157–189. 18. Jacob Matthew L. Bowen, “Jacob’s Protector,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 27 (2017): 229–256. 19. Jershon Matthew L. Bowen, “‘They Were Moved with Compassion’ (Alma 27:4; 53:13): Toponymic Wordplay on Zarahemla and Jershon,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 18 (2016): 233–253. Stephen D. Ricks, “A Nickname and a Slam Dunk: Notes on the Book of Mormon Names Zeezrom and Jershon,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 8 (2014): 191–194. 20. Judah/Jews Matthew L. Bowen, “‘What Thank They the Jews’? (2 Nephi 29:4): A Note on the Name “Judah” and Antisemitism,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 12 (2014): 111–125. 21. Joseph Matthew L. Bowen and Loren Blake Spendlove, “‘Thou Art the Fruit of My Loins’: The Interrelated Symbolism and Meanings of the Names Joseph and Ephraim in Ancient Scripture,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 28 (2018): 273–298. Matthew L. Bowen, “‘Their Anger Did Increase Against Me’: Nephi’s Autobiographical Permutation of a Biblical Wordplay on the Name Joseph,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 23 (2017): 115–136. Matthew L. Bowen, “Onomastic Wordplay on Joseph and Benjamin and Gezera Shawa in the Book of Mormon,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 18 (2016): 255–273. Matthew L. Bowen, “‘He Shall Add’: Wordplay on the Name Joseph and an Early Instance of Gezera Shawa in the Book of Mormon,” Insights 30, no. 2 (2010). 22. Laban Taylor Halverson, “Reading 1 Nephi With Wisdom,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 22 (2016): 279–293. Gordon C. Thomasson, “What’s in a Name? Book of Mormon Language, Names, and [Metonymic] Naming,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 3, no. 1 (1994): 15. 23. Mosiah “MOSIAH,” online at https://onoma.lib.byu.edu/index.php/MOSIAH John W. Welch, “What Was a ‘Mosiah’?” in Reexploring the Book of Mormon, ed. John W. Welch (Provo, UT: FARMS, 1992), 105–107. John Sawyer, “What Was a Mošiaʿ?” Vetus Testamentum 15 (1965): 475–86. 24. Nahom (also works in ancient Arabic and may be a bilingual wordplay) Alan Goff, “Mourning, Consolation, and Repentance at Nahom,” in Rediscovering the Book of Mormon: Insights You May Have Missed Before, ed. John L. Sorenson and Melvin J. Thorne (Salt Lake City and Provo, UT: Deseret Book and FARMS, 1991), 92–99. 25. Noah Matthew L. Bowen, “‘This Son Shall Comfort Us’: An Onomastic Tale of Two Noahs,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 23 (2017): 263–298. 26. Rameumptom Matthew L. Bowen, “‘See That Ye Are Not Lifted Up: The Name Zoram and Its Paronomastic Pejoration,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 19 (2016): 109–143. 27. Rabbanah “RABBANAH” online at https://onoma.lib.byu.edu/index.php/RABBANAH. 28. Sebus Paul Y. Hoskisson, “What’s in a Name? Sebus,” Insights 32, no. 1 (2012): 3–4. 29. Seezoram Matthew L. Bowen, “‘See That Ye Are Not Lifted Up: The Name Zoram and Its Paronomastic Pejoration,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 19 (2016): 109–143. 30. Shilom Matthew L. Bowen, “‘Possess the Land in Peace’: Zeniff’s Ironic Wordplay on Shilom,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 28 (2018): 115–120. 31. Word/Things David E. Bokovoy, “The Word and the Seed: The Theological Use of Bibilical Creation in Alma 32,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 23 (2014): 12. 32. Zarahemla Matthew L. Bowen, “‘They Were Moved with Compassion’ (Alma 27:4; 53:13): Toponymic Wordplay on Zarahemla and Jershon,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 18 (2016): 233–253. 33. Zedekiah/Lord John W. Welch, “Chiasmus in Helaman 6:7–13,” Reexploring the Book of Mormon: A Decade of New Research, ed. John W. Welch (Salt Lake City and Provo, UT: Deseret Book and FARMS, 1992), 130–132. 34. Zeezrom Stephen D. Ricks, “A Nickname and a Slam Dunk: Notes on the Book of Mormon Names Zeezrom and Jershon,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 8 (2014): 191–194. Gordon C. Thomasson, “What’s in a Name? Book of Mormon Language, Names, and [Metonymic] Naming,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 3, no. 1 (1994): 15–16. 35. Zoram Matthew L. Bowen, “‘See That Ye Are Not Lifted Up: The Name Zoram and Its Paronomastic Pejoration,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 19 (2016): 109–143. Edited July 4, 2018 by Ryan Dahle 3
sunstoned Posted July 4, 2018 Posted July 4, 2018 Quote Scholars with relevant training and expertise have proposed a large number of Hebrew and Egyptian words that are likely underlying the text of the Book of Mormon. Please supply references of scholars who support your assertion. I am not challenging it or disagreeing. But for this conversation to continue, I feel this needs to be verified. 1
jkwilliams Posted July 4, 2018 Posted July 4, 2018 (edited) 47 minutes ago, sunstoned said: Please supply references of scholars who support your assertion. I am not challenging it or disagreeing. But for this conversation to continue, I feel this needs to be verified. Agreed. I don’t know about you, but Hebrew and Egyptian etymology is outside my expertise. Started looking at Jershon. At first glance, it seems odd to take a single instance of “land of their/our inheritance” as wordplay based on a possible relationship between the Hebrew yrs and Jershon. Why that instance among the 54 instances in the Book of Mormon? Why is Jershon a play on words, and not, say, Ishmael or Nephi? Adding to the difficulty is that Jershon also appears in the Book of Abraham. It’s odd that the word play there is seen as “land of strangers,” whereas it’s just mentioned that Abraham passed through Jershon. But yes, at this point I am at the mercy of people who know Hebrew and Egyptian. Would like some verification. I’m sure Matt Bowen is a lovely person, but I wouldn’t consider him an impartial source. ETA: I guess this is a case of probability. Which is more probable: a) one of 54 references to “land of inheritance” is a place name that might possibly be related to a Hebrew root maybe meaning “inherit” or b) two separate documents written by the same author use the same place name, which appears only in those two documents? Edited July 4, 2018 by jkwilliams 1
Nevo Posted July 4, 2018 Posted July 4, 2018 (edited) Something David Wright wrote on ZLMB many moons ago is also applicable, I think, to this thread: Quote I have found that it is very easy to find etymological explanations for BM names. In the past, as a methodological control, I had people who have not known Hebrew make up lists of Old Testament sounding names. I was able to propose Hebrew etymologies for the majority of these invented names. Also, as a control, I attempted to find Hittite etymologies of BM names (no one claims the BM peoples were Hittites). This was relatively easy to do (e.g., nepisas "heaven" for Nephi; lahha "battle" for Lehi; pahhur "fire" for Pahoran; hilamanas "gate tower" for Helaman; etc.). [No one knew Hittite in Joseph Smith's day, but note how he gets all these right! Well, of course, the correspondences are just coincidence.] Furthermore, the coincidental and artificial nature of etymological correlations for BM names is seen in multiple proposals that can be made for many names. Take "Nephi," for example: Nibley gives Egyptian etymologies. Others have connected the name with the Hebrew/Akkadian/Arabic root nph (hard h) "breathe, blow" or Arabic nph (middle hard h) "spread, be diffused" or Arabic nafaa "banish, expel." Which of all these etymologies are right; or, are they all wrong together? Actually, I believe the latter. In my view, the most realistic derivation is the literally corresponding "Nephi" in KJV Apocrypha 2 Maccabees 1:36; this derivation is supported by Smith's apparent use of the Apocrypha elsewhere, in composing the book of 1 Nephi, (especially Judith, for the slaying of Laban, and Tobit, for elements of the early history of Lehi's family). A similar multiplicity of etymologies exists for many other BM names. http://p079.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm47.showMessage?topicID=310.topic (link is broken now, unfortunately) Edited July 4, 2018 by Nevo 1
jkwilliams Posted July 4, 2018 Posted July 4, 2018 (edited) 12 minutes ago, Nevo said: Something David Wright wrote on ZLMB many moons ago is also applicable, I think, to this thread: Thanks for that, Nevo. I once tried to find Danish etymology for Book of Mormon names and had quite a lot of success. It’s telling that at least one reputable scholar who is well-versed in the Book of Mormon is nonplussed by these alleged Hebrew and Egyptian names. Edited July 4, 2018 by jkwilliams 1
Exiled Posted July 4, 2018 Posted July 4, 2018 2 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said: In a previous thread, I asked for feedback about why some individuals, especially members of the LDS church who are in the throes of a faith crisis or who are distancing themselves from LDS beliefs, decline to investigate evidences supporting the historicity of LDS Restoration texts or the miraculous nature of Joseph Smith's translations. I got a range of answers, and I appreciate the feedback. In this thread, I would like to see why some individuals reject a specific category of evidence that I happen to believe constitutes fairly good evidence supporting Joseph Smith's claims. Scholars with relevant training and expertise have proposed a large number of Hebrew and Egyptian words that are likely underlying the text of the Book of Mormon. Evidence for these underlying words can be found in etiologies, glosses, metonymic associations, and wordplays (which is the broad term I will use to lump them all together for the purposes of this thread). My reasons for seeing these features as constituting good evidence are as follows: The Book of Mormon begins with a declaration that it is being written in the learning of the Jews and the language of the Egyptians (1 Nephi 1:2). Near the end of the book, Moroni indicates that he knew Hebrew but that he was writing in "reformed Egyptian" (Mormon 9:32), suggesting that whatever form the final text took, Hebrew and Egyptian were understood by Book of Mormon authors throughout their approximately 1,000 year history. Moreover, since biblical authors are known to have used multi-lingual wordplays, even though they were writing primarily in Hebrew, the actual nature of the reformed Egyptian used by Book of Mormon authors is largely irrelevant to the validity of any wordplay proposals. Recognizing that Hebrew and Egyptian wordplays should probably be expected to be found in a text written by such ancient authors, LDS scholars have gone searching for such wordplays. Many proposals have been made by competent linguists with legitimate degrees, and these proposals by and large seem to be on par with many proposed wordplays that I have found in mainstream biblical studies. Collectively, the proposed wordplays in the Book of Mormon suggest that whoever wrote the text not only had an awareness of Hebrew and Egyptian, but a deep awareness of how specific terms were understood and utilized by biblical authors. These proposals are scripturally complex, literarily sophisticated, and in total, require competence in two ancient languages. The large number of good wordplay proposals in the Book of Mormon seems to be well beyond ascribing their presence to mere luck. No one can "prove" absolutely that an author intended a wordplay in any given instance, yet when there is good evidence that a text pervasively employs a variety of clever and meaningful wordplays, the plausibility of any single one of its better proposals being intentional dramatically increases. It is precisely because of the quality and ubiquity of the proposed wordplays in the Bible that biblical scholars have widely accepted their legitimacy. When dozens of proposals can be cited, when many of these significantly add to our understanding of the text, and when we can oftentimes see that an author went out of his way to mention a paronomastically significant name, it provides a very good reason to believe that this isn't all random luck and guesswork. There is no evidence that Joseph Smith had any sort of formal training in the Hebrew language until 1835. Further, there is no evidence that he ever gained any formal training in ancient Egyptian languages, which was still a fledgling discipline in his day, as far as I understand. Therefore, if any of the Hebrew/Egyptian wordplays proposed by LDS scholars were intended by the author of the Book of Mormon, then it automatically counts as good evidence that Joseph Smith wasn't the author. Those who want to propose that he was the author, have to explain how he learned ancient Hebrew and/or Egyptian, which is completely at odds with the historical data concerning the extent of his education. Seeing the linguistic evidence stack up against Joseph Smith being the author of the text, some may propose that some other modern individual or group of individuals wrote the Book of Mormon. However, this presents a similar problem as just mentioned above. The historical data overwhelmingly argues against such suppositions. The very fact that someone would feel forced by the evidence to resort to these unlikely options suggests that the evidence is pretty good. This being the case, if these wordplays are collectively comparable to the wordplays that mainstream scholars feel were intentionally implemented by biblical authors, then they collectively constitute very good evidence in support of Joseph Smith's claims. Their presence makes a lot of sense if the Book of Mormon is what it claims to be, and not much sense at all if Joseph Smith was responsible for the text. That would logically mean that Joseph Smith's claims about the Book of Mormon would have a clear advantage when it comes to accounting for this type of literary/linguistic data. I am not saying these linguistic evidences, on their own, provide compelling reasons to believe Joseph Smith's story. What I am saying is that they collectively provide good evidence which supports his claims, and at the same time they undermine the most popular critical theory about the translation, which is that Joseph Smith himself is responsible for the text. For those who are familiar with these proposed wordplays, feel free to tackle the best ones and demonstrate why you don't believe they are on par with the type of wordplays that non-LDS scholars are very confident are in the Bible. Or feel free to discredit the collective biblical research on this topic, if that is your fancy. Or feel free to choose to ignore this line of evidence altogether, or resort to some tangent argument about polyandry, general rules of probability, or some other topic, as I'm quite confident some individuals will be prone to do. Whatever you choose, I'm sure it will be informative about the range of responses to this evidence, which is what I really want to look at. By no means do I think that this compilation of evidences is going to persuade anyone who is already committed to the notion that the Joseph Smith wasn't a true prophet. On other threads, individuals kept assuming that I was on a crusade to change people's minds. To the contrary, I am just out to collect information about the ways that different groups respond to these types of evidences. If someone is persuaded by this list of evidences, then great. But I doubt that will happen. Below is a large list of names with sources that propose Hebrew and Egyptian wordplays associated with them. It isn't fully comprehensive, but it gathers a large body of the best research on the topic. Some of these aren't as good as others, so if you want to tackle what I think are in the top ten (and not cherry pick somewhat weaker examples), pick on Jershon, Abish, Nephi, Mormon, Benjamin, Mary, Noah, Zoram, Zeezrom, or Nahom. Unfortunately, the formatting messed with the hyperlinks and italics, so this will have to do: Egyptian 1. Deseret “DESERET” online at https://onoma.lib.byu.edu/index.php/DESERET Nibley, Hugh W., “There were Jaredites III,” (Improvement Era, April 1965). Nibley, World of the Jaredites, (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book: 1988) p. 192. 2. Giddianhi Matthew L. Bowen, “‘Swearing by Their Everlasting Maker’: Some Notes on Paanchi and Giddianhi,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 28 (2018): 155–170. 3. Irreantum Book of Mormon Central, “Why Would Nephi Call the Ocean ‘Irreantum’? (1 Nephi 17:5),” KnoWhy 20 (January 27, 2016). Paul Y. Hoskisson with Brian M. Hauglid and John Gee, “What’s in a Name? Irreantum,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 11, no. 1 (2002): 90–93, 114–15. 4. Mary Matthew L. Bowen, “‘Most Desirable Above All Things’: Onomastic Play on Mary and Mormon in the Book of Mormon,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 13 (2015): 27–61. 5. Mormon Matthew L. Bowen, “‘Most Desirable Above All Things’: Onomastic Play on Mary and Mormon in the Book of Mormon,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 13 (2015): 27–61. 6. Nephi Matthew L. Bowen, “‘O Ye Fair Ones’ – Revisited,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 20 (2016): 315–344. Matthew L. Bowen, “Nephi’s Good Inclusio,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 17 (2016): 181–195. Matthew L. Bowen, “‘He Is a Good Man’: The Fulfillment of Helaman 5:6–7 in Helaman 8:7 and 11:18–19,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 17 (2016). Matthew L. Bowen, “‘O Ye Fair Ones’: An Additional Note on the Meaning of the Name Nephi," Insights 23, no. 6 (2003). Matthew L. Bowen, “Internal Textual Evidence for the Egyptian Origin of Nephi’s Name,” Insights 22, no. 11 (2002). John Gee, “Four Suggestions on the Origin of the Name Nephi,” in Pressing Forward with the Book of Mormon: The FARMS Updates of the 1990’s, ed. John W. Welch and Melvin J. Thorne (Provo, UT: FARMS, 1999), 1–5. John Gee, “Notes and Communications: A Note on the Name Nephi,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 1, no. 1 (1992): 189–191. 7. Paanchi Matthew L. Bowen, “‘Swearing by Their Everlasting Maker’: Some Notes on Paanchi and Giddianhi,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 28 (2018): 155–170. 8. Rod/Sword Matthew L. Bowen, “‘What Meaneth the Rod of Iron?’” Insights, 25, no. 2 (2005). Hebrew 1. Abish Matthew L. Bowen, “Father Is a Man: The Remarkable Mention of the Name Abish in Alma 19:16 and Its Narrative Context,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 14 (2015): 77–93. 2. Abraham Matthew L. Bowen, “‘In the Mount of the Lord It Shall Be Seen” and “Provided”: Theophany and Sacrifice as the Etiological Foundation of the Temple in Israelite and Latter-day Saint Tradition,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 5 (2013): 201–223. 3. Aminadab Matthew L. Bowen, “‘My People Are Willing’: The Mention of Aminadab in the Narrative Context of Helaman 5–6,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 19 (2016): 83–107. 4. Alma Matthew L. Bowen, “‘He Did Go About Secretly’: Additional Thoughts on the Literary Use of Alma’s Name,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 27 (2017): 197–212. Matthew L. Bowen, “The Scalp of Your Head: Polysemy in Alma 44:14–18,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 20 (2016): 39–45. Matthew L. Bowen, “Alma — Young Man, Hidden Prophet,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 19 (2016): 343–353. Matthew L. Bowen, “‘And He Was a Young Man’: The Literary Preservation of Alma’s Autobiographical Wordplay,” Insights 30, no. 4 (2010). 5. Benjamin Matthew L. Bowen, “Onomastic Wordplay on Joseph and Benjamin and Gezera Shawa in the Book of Mormon,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 18 (2016): 255–273. Matthew L. Bowen “Becoming Sons and Daughters at God's Right Hand: King Benjamin's Rhetorical Wordplay on His Own Name,” Journal of the Book of Mormon and Other Restoration Scripture 21, no. 2 (2012). 6. Cain Matthew L. Bowen, “Getting Cain and Gain,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 15 (2015): 115–141. 7. Cezoram Matthew L. Bowen, “‘See That Ye Are Not Lifted Up: The Name Zoram and Its Paronomastic Pejoration,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 19 (2016): 109–143. 8. Ephraim Matthew L. Bowen and Loren Blake Spendlove, “‘Thou Art the Fruit of My Loins’: The Interrelated Symbolism and Meanings of the Names Joseph and Ephraim in Ancient Scripture,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 28 (2018): 273–298. 9. Enos Matthew L. Bowen, “‘I Kneeled Down Before My Maker’: Allusions to Esau in the Book of Enos,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 27 (2017): 29–56. Matthew L. Bowen, “Wordplay on the Name ‘Enos’,” Insights 26, no. 3 (2006). 10. Esau Matthew L. Bowen, “‘I Kneeled Down Before My Maker’: Allusions to Esau in the Book of Enos,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 27 (2017): 29–56. 11. Garb of Secrecy John A. Tvedtnes and Matthew Roper, “One Small Step,” FARMS Review 15, no. 1 (2003): 147–99. 12. Giddianhi Matthew L. Bowen, “‘Swearing by Their Everlasting Maker’: Some Notes on Paanchi and Giddianhi,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 28 (2018): 155–170. 13. Gad[d]ianton Matthew L. Bowen, “‘Swearing by Their Everlasting Maker’: Some Notes on Paanchi and Giddianhi,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 28 (2018): 155–170. John W. Welch and Kelly Ward, “Thieves and Robbers,” in Reexploring the Book of Mormon: A Decade of New Research, ed. John W. Welch (Salt Lake City and Provo, UT: Deseret Book and FARMS, 1992), 248–249. 14. Heshlon Matthew L. Bowen, “Place of Crushing: The Literary Function of Heshlon in Ether 13:25-31,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 14 (2015): 227–239. 15. Irreantum Book of Mormon Central, “Why Would Nephi Call the Ocean ‘Irreantum’? (1 Nephi 17:5),” KnoWhy 20 (January 27, 2016). Paul Y. Hoskisson with Brian M. Hauglid and John Gee, “What’s in a Name? Irreantum,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 11, no. 1 (2002): 90–93, 114–15. 16. Isabel Gordon C. Thomasson, “What’s in a Name? Book of Mormon Language, Names, and [Metonymic] Naming,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 3, no. 1 (1994): 15. 17. Ishmael Matthew L. Bowen, “‘If Ye Will Hearken’: Lehi’s Rhetorical Wordplay on Ishmael in 2 Nephi 1:28–29 and Its Implications,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 25 (2017): 157–189. 18. Jacob Matthew L. Bowen, “Jacob’s Protector,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 27 (2017): 229–256. 19. Jershon Matthew L. Bowen, “‘They Were Moved with Compassion’ (Alma 27:4; 53:13): Toponymic Wordplay on Zarahemla and Jershon,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 18 (2016): 233–253. Stephen D. Ricks, “A Nickname and a Slam Dunk: Notes on the Book of Mormon Names Zeezrom and Jershon,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 8 (2014): 191–194. 20. Judah/Jews Matthew L. Bowen, “‘What Thank They the Jews’? (2 Nephi 29:4): A Note on the Name “Judah” and Antisemitism,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 12 (2014): 111–125. 21. Joseph Matthew L. Bowen and Loren Blake Spendlove, “‘Thou Art the Fruit of My Loins’: The Interrelated Symbolism and Meanings of the Names Joseph and Ephraim in Ancient Scripture,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 28 (2018): 273–298. Matthew L. Bowen, “‘Their Anger Did Increase Against Me’: Nephi’s Autobiographical Permutation of a Biblical Wordplay on the Name Joseph,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 23 (2017): 115–136. Matthew L. Bowen, “Onomastic Wordplay on Joseph and Benjamin and Gezera Shawa in the Book of Mormon,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 18 (2016): 255–273. Matthew L. Bowen, “‘He Shall Add’: Wordplay on the Name Joseph and an Early Instance of Gezera Shawa in the Book of Mormon,” Insights 30, no. 2 (2010). 22. Laban Taylor Halverson, “Reading 1 Nephi With Wisdom,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 22 (2016): 279–293. Gordon C. Thomasson, “What’s in a Name? Book of Mormon Language, Names, and [Metonymic] Naming,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 3, no. 1 (1994): 15. 23. Mosiah “MOSIAH,” online at https://onoma.lib.byu.edu/index.php/MOSIAH John W. Welch, “What Was a ‘Mosiah’?” in Reexploring the Book of Mormon, ed. John W. Welch (Provo, UT: FARMS, 1992), 105–107. John Sawyer, “What Was a Mošiaʿ?” Vetus Testamentum 15 (1965): 475–86. 24. Nahom (also works in ancient Arabic and may be a bilingual wordplay) Alan Goff, “Mourning, Consolation, and Repentance at Nahom,” in Rediscovering the Book of Mormon: Insights You May Have Missed Before, ed. John L. Sorenson and Melvin J. Thorne (Salt Lake City and Provo, UT: Deseret Book and FARMS, 1991), 92–99. 25. Noah Matthew L. Bowen, “‘This Son Shall Comfort Us’: An Onomastic Tale of Two Noahs,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 23 (2017): 263–298. 26. Rameumptom Matthew L. Bowen, “‘See That Ye Are Not Lifted Up: The Name Zoram and Its Paronomastic Pejoration,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 19 (2016): 109–143. 27. Rabbanah “RABBANAH” online at https://onoma.lib.byu.edu/index.php/RABBANAH. 28. Sebus Paul Y. Hoskisson, “What’s in a Name? Sebus,” Insights 32, no. 1 (2012): 3–4. 29. Seezoram Matthew L. Bowen, “‘See That Ye Are Not Lifted Up: The Name Zoram and Its Paronomastic Pejoration,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 19 (2016): 109–143. 30. Shilom Matthew L. Bowen, “‘Possess the Land in Peace’: Zeniff’s Ironic Wordplay on Shilom,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 28 (2018): 115–120. 31. Word/Things David E. Bokovoy, “The Word and the Seed: The Theological Use of Bibilical Creation in Alma 32,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 23 (2014): 12. 32. Zarahemla Matthew L. Bowen, “‘They Were Moved with Compassion’ (Alma 27:4; 53:13): Toponymic Wordplay on Zarahemla and Jershon,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 18 (2016): 233–253. 33. Zedekiah/Lord John W. Welch, “Chiasmus in Helaman 6:7–13,” Reexploring the Book of Mormon: A Decade of New Research, ed. John W. Welch (Salt Lake City and Provo, UT: Deseret Book and FARMS, 1992), 130–132. 34. Zeezrom Stephen D. Ricks, “A Nickname and a Slam Dunk: Notes on the Book of Mormon Names Zeezrom and Jershon,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 8 (2014): 191–194. Gordon C. Thomasson, “What’s in a Name? Book of Mormon Language, Names, and [Metonymic] Naming,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 3, no. 1 (1994): 15–16. 35. Zoram Matthew L. Bowen, “‘See That Ye Are Not Lifted Up: The Name Zoram and Its Paronomastic Pejoration,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 19 (2016): 109–143. I love your enthusiasm even though I don't agree with your conclusions. Do you think enthusiasm can equal bias, eg, can someone be so enthusiastic about a particular position that it clouds out more reasoned views of the evidence? It just seems that this might be the case here.
jkwilliams Posted July 4, 2018 Posted July 4, 2018 4 minutes ago, Exiled said: I love your enthusiasm even though I don't agree with your conclusions. Do you think enthusiasm can equal bias, eg, can someone be so enthusiastic about a particular position that it clouds out more reasoned views of the evidence? It just seems that this might be the case here. Yep. The one thing that David Wright provided but is lacking in all these examples is a control data set. Unless that’s done, it’s difficult to assign any evidentiary value. 1
Ryan Dahle Posted July 4, 2018 Author Posted July 4, 2018 2 hours ago, sunstoned said: Please supply references of scholars who support your assertion. I am not challenging it or disagreeing. But for this conversation to continue, I feel this needs to be verified. Feel free to look up the credentials of the scholars in the sources I provided. Here is my personal standard: if an individual has completed relevant academic training, then he or she deserves to be taken seriously, no matter what his or her bias or starting assumptions may be.
jkwilliams Posted July 4, 2018 Posted July 4, 2018 1 minute ago, Ryan Dahle said: Feel free to look up the credentials of the scholars in the sources I provided. Here is my personal standard: if an individual has completed relevant academic training, then he or she deserves to be taken seriously, no matter what his or her bias or starting assumptions may be. Again, there’s no impartial peer review and no control data. Academic training doesn’t equal rigorous research. I took the Jershon example seriously enough to look into it, but I have noted some issues, and it’s not because I am accusing anyone of bias.
Ryan Dahle Posted July 4, 2018 Author Posted July 4, 2018 3 hours ago, jkwilliams said: Thanks for that, Nevo. I once tried to find Danish etymology for Book of Mormon names and had quite a lot of success. It’s telling that at least one reputable scholar who is well-versed in the Book of Mormon is nonplussed by these alleged Hebrew and Egyptian names. I think you are both confused. We are not talking about simple etymology proposals. Words with a gloss or associated wordplay are far less likely to have false positives. It's not just about whether a word in an ancient language could possibly match the consonants of a transliterated term. It's about whether a word in an ancient language with a specific meaning provides a good match. False positives are still possible, but they are far less likely, especially of showing up repeatedly in the same text. 1
Ryan Dahle Posted July 4, 2018 Author Posted July 4, 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, jkwilliams said: Again, there’s no impartial peer review and no control data. Academic training doesn’t equal rigorous research. I took the Jershon example seriously enough to look into it, but I have noted some issues, and it’s not because I am accusing anyone of bias. Again, I'm suggesting that our control data comes from what mainstream scholars do with the Bible. The presence of pervasive wordplay in the Bible is, to my knowledge, virtually uncontested in mainstream biblical scholarship. So you go to these scholars, look at what criteria they use to identify and validate the presence of intentional wordplay in the text, and see how the proposals for wordplay in the Book of Mormon hold up. So far, your arguments against Jershon would apply equally well to widely accepted biblical wordplays. And, honestly, it doesn't seem like you really took much time analyzing Jershon. It's true that a word search shows that land of inheritance shows up 54 times in the Book of Mormon. But did you carefully look at those instances? They are almost all describing a general land of promise, or the first lands of inheritance for Lehi's tribes. Jershon is actually rather unique among Book of Mormon place-names as being described specifically and repeatedly as a place of inheritance. Yes, the topic comes up in other situations (just as most terms in proposed biblical wordplays do), but the specific way it is addressed in the text strongly suggests that the author knew what this word meant in Hebrew and was using it to emphasize a major narrative theme. For instance, look at how Bowen identifies the relationship with Jershon and Zarahemla and shows how their paronomastic significance is intertwined in the same narrative blocks: "Zarahemla and Jershon represent important test-cases: both constitute Book of Mormon names/toponyms that are not otherwise attested in the biblical record, both of which follow the rules of normal Hebrew name formation and evidence transparent Hebrew etymologies and meanings. It is probably significant, then, that the Book of Mormon text manifests an awareness of the meaning of both Zarahemla and Jershon in the same narrative block (i.e., the resettlement of converted Lamanites in Jershon) and that the juxtaposition of each name with its putative meaning occurs repeatedly throughout interrelated segments of narrative (i.e., the resettlement of Zoramite refugees in Jershon among the converted Lamanites who accepted them and who subsequently migrated, themselves, from Jershon [Alma 35; nearer to or into the city of Zarahemla, see 47:29], and the children of the converted Lamanites coming to the aid of the Nephites against the Lamanites in plight of the former a generation later)." Matthew L. Bowen, “‘They Were Moved with Compassion’ (Alma 27:4; 53:13): Toponymic Wordplay on Zarahemla and Jershon,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 18 (2016): 233–253. Edited July 4, 2018 by Ryan Dahle
Ryan Dahle Posted July 4, 2018 Author Posted July 4, 2018 (edited) 11 hours ago, Exiled said: I love your enthusiasm even though I don't agree with your conclusions. Do you think enthusiasm can equal bias, eg, can someone be so enthusiastic about a particular position that it clouds out more reasoned views of the evidence? It just seems that this might be the case here. I'm just gathering data about responses to evidences. Your insinuation that my conclusions are merely the result of bias will be duly noted. Edited July 4, 2018 by Ryan Dahle
jkwilliams Posted July 4, 2018 Posted July 4, 2018 6 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said: I think you are both confused. We are not talking about simple etymology proposals. Words with a gloss or associated wordplay are far less likely to have false positives. It's not just about whether a word in an ancient language could possibly match the consonants of a transliterated term. It's about whether a word in an ancient language with a specific meaning provides a good match. False positives are still possible, but they are far less likely, especially of showing up repeatedly in the same text. Hmmm. I addressed that in my first post above.
Ryan Dahle Posted July 4, 2018 Author Posted July 4, 2018 1 hour ago, jkwilliams said: 8 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said: I think you are both confused. We are not talking about simple etymology proposals. Words with a gloss or associated wordplay are far less likely to have false positives. It's not just about whether a word in an ancient language could possibly match the consonants of a transliterated term. It's about whether a word in an ancient language with a specific meaning provides a good match. False positives are still possible, but they are far less likely, especially of showing up repeatedly in the same text. Hmmm. I addressed that in my first post above. Just because you engaged a few of the aspects of the methodology (mostly superficially), it doesn't mean that your statement about Wright's comment wasn't misleading. Your wrote: 11 hours ago, jkwilliams said: It’s telling that at least one reputable scholar who is well-versed in the Book of Mormon is nonplussed by these alleged Hebrew and Egyptian names. Wright's comment wasn't about wordplays or glosses. It was about the widest possible range of potential matches. You made it seem as if he was specifically discussing "these alleged Hebrew and Egyptian names"--meaning the types of names I have brought up in the OP. That is what I was clarifying. Wright's comments aren't applicable to this thread and you and Nevo made it seem like they are.
Robert F. Smith Posted July 4, 2018 Posted July 4, 2018 16 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said: ........................................... There is no evidence that Joseph Smith had any sort of formal training in the Hebrew language until 1835. Further, there is no evidence that he ever gained any formal training in ancient Egyptian languages, which was still a fledgling discipline in his day, as far as I understand. Therefore, if any of the Hebrew/Egyptian wordplays proposed by LDS scholars were intended by the author of the Book of Mormon, then it automatically counts as good evidence that Joseph Smith wasn't the author. Those who want to propose that he was the author, have to explain how he learned ancient Hebrew and/or Egyptian, which is completely at odds with the historical data concerning the extent of his education. Seeing the linguistic evidence stack up against Joseph Smith being the author of the text, some may propose that some other modern individual or group of individuals wrote the Book of Mormon. However, this presents a similar problem as just mentioned above. The historical data overwhelmingly argues against such suppositions. The very fact that someone would feel forced by the evidence to resort to these unlikely options suggests that the evidence is pretty good. ..................................... You have provided a great many test cases. Perhaps too many for anyone to control in this conversation. But worst of all, you are making the assumption that Joseph Smith could somehow be an issue in all this. Yet we know that the BofM was generated initially a couple of centuries before Joseph when EModEnglish was in style and normally available to learned men of the time (that is, it was the style of English normal then, but which had become extinct by Joseph's day). So, it would seem that Joseph is not part of this discussion, and cannot be appealed to as either knowledgeable or ignorant of such things. The etymological and wordplay phenomena must therefore be considered in an Early Modern English context or milieu. One question then might be whether a scholar of that time could have created the original names and wordplays on them based on his knowledge of biblical Hebrew. Could he have done that and simultaneously have crafted a story-line and detail in that book which kept track of geography and chronology, or was he merely a translator?
Robert F. Smith Posted July 4, 2018 Posted July 4, 2018 15 hours ago, sunstoned said: Please supply references of scholars who support your assertion. I am not challenging it or disagreeing. But for this conversation to continue, I feel this needs to be verified. Are you asking for the degrees and dates rec'd by the scholars listed by Dahle?
Robert F. Smith Posted July 4, 2018 Posted July 4, 2018 (edited) On 7/3/2018 at 7:32 PM, jkwilliams said: Agreed. I don’t know about you, but Hebrew and Egyptian etymology is outside my expertise. ...................... A legitimate problem for most of those approaching such evidence, and another good reason why a testimony of the BofM is normally going to be a matter of faith, rather than a matter of empirical proof. A member of a jury deliberating on scientific evidence would be dependent upon expert witnesses (as defined by the judge) questioned by both defense and prosecution -- and would likely include an array of various types of evidence: gunshot residue (GSR) on clothing and skin, ballistics matching of bullet to gun, showing of opportunity (lack of an alibi), showing of motive, DNA, witnesses, etc. Most people understand neither the nature of evidence nor the logical and legal rules governing it. Quote But yes, at this point I am at the mercy of people who know Hebrew and Egyptian. Would like some verification. I’m sure Matt Bowen is a lovely person, but I wouldn’t consider him an impartial source......................... Bowen teaches at BYU Hawaii and is fully qualified by training to discuss the intricacies of Hebrew grammar and linguistics. He is not impartial. At least no more impartial than David P. Wright, who has taken an anti-Mormon stance since his excommunication. One has to ask whether it is even possible to present any type of secular evidence in favor or against the BofM that would not be beyond the capacity of most people to understand? Thus, is the only real appeal to belief or disbelief in the BofM to naked faith? Edited July 5, 2018 by Robert F. Smith 1
Robert F. Smith Posted July 4, 2018 Posted July 4, 2018 15 hours ago, Nevo said: Something David Wright wrote on ZLMB many moons ago is also applicable, I think, to this thread: Most of the suggested parallels by Wright seem pretty poor in quality. Then too, when considering etymologies, one ordinarily tries to maintain focus on the relevant language(s), which Wright did not. For example, when Egyptologists were first trying to figure out the source of a Greek or Arabic name of an Egyptian location or person, they restricted themselves to ancient Egyptian. Thus, King Cheops turned out to correspond to King Khufu, the builder of the Great Pyramid. Ozymandias turned out to correspond to the throne-name of King Ramesses II variously as Зs-ir-mЗʻ t-Rʻ or Wsir-mЗʻ t-Rʻ (formerly User-maatre), meaning “Strong in truth is Re.” Bocchoris (Βογχορις, Βοκχορις, Βοχορις) is from Egyptian BЗk-n-rn.f “Servant-of-his-name.” Greek Hermopolis = Arabic El-Ashmunein for Coptic Shmoun, which was derived from ancient Egyptian Hmnw “Eight-town (Ogdoad-town).” That sort of set of correspondences had to be established in the century after decipherment of ancient Egyptian.
jkwilliams Posted July 4, 2018 Posted July 4, 2018 2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: A legitimate problem for most of those approaching such evidence, and another good reason why a testimony of the BofM is normally going to be a matter of faith, rather than a matter of empirical proof. A member of a jury deliberating on scientific evidence would be dependent upon expert witnesses (as defined by the judge) questioned by both defense and prosecution -- and would likely include an array of various types of evidence: gunshot residue (GSR) on clothing and skin, ballistics matching of bullet to gun, showing of opportunity (lack of an alibi), showing of motive, DNA, witnesses, etc. Most people understand neither the nature of evidence nor the logical and legal rules governing it. Bowen teaches at BYU Hawaii and is fully qualified by training to discuss the intricacies of Hebrew grammar and linguistics. He is not impartial. At least no more impartial than David P. Wright, who has taken an anti-Mormon stance since his excommunication. One has to ask whether it even possible to present any type of secular evidence in favor or against the BofM that would not be beyond the capacity of most people to understand? Thus, is the only real appeal to belief or disbelief in the BofM to naked faith? I’m concerned that any questioning of these evidences is waved off as superficial or motivated by anti-Mormon bias. Ryan asked for engagement, but he doesn’t seem to actually want it.
CA Steve Posted July 4, 2018 Posted July 4, 2018 3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: You have provided a great many test cases. Perhaps too many for anyone to control in this conversation. But worst of all, you are making the assumption that Joseph Smith could somehow be an issue in all this. Yet we know that the BofM was generated initially a couple of centuries before Joseph when EModEnglish was in style and normally available to learned men of the time (that is, it was the style of English normal then, but which had become extinct by Joseph's day). So, it would seem that Joseph is not part of this discussion, and cannot be appealed to as either knowledgeable or ignorant of such things. The etymological and wordplay phenomena must therefore be considered in an Early Modern English context or milieu. One question then might be whether a scholar of that time could have created the original names and wordplays on them based on his knowledge of biblical Hebrew. Could he have done that and simultaneously have crafted a story-line and detail in that book which kept track of geography and chronology, or was he merely a translator? Hi Robert, This thread, and several other very interesting threads that Ryan has started, are a result of him asking why certain evidences aren't given more consideration by those who question their faith or even by outside scholarship. Can you provide any references showing that anyone, beyond a few LDS scholars, "know" that the BofM was generated a couple of centuries before Joseph Smith? While I am sure you believe that is the case, I am unaware of it being an accepted fact by any but a few. In other words, who is this "we'"of whom you speak? And should you ask, I believe EMod usage is much more likely to be explained by Joseph trying to imitate Biblical language than it is by a previous translation. Thanks
Robert F. Smith Posted July 5, 2018 Posted July 5, 2018 5 hours ago, CA Steve said: ........................This thread, and several other very interesting threads that Ryan has started, are a result of him asking why certain evidences aren't given more consideration by those who question their faith or even by outside scholarship. Can you provide any references showing that anyone, beyond a few LDS scholars, "know" that the BofM was generated a couple of centuries before Joseph Smith? While I am sure you believe that is the case, I am unaware of it being an accepted fact by any but a few. In other words, who is this "we'"of whom you speak? It is a bit unfair to appeal to all that tortuous Carmack research -- which no one wants to read and digest. I understand and sympathize, but that doesn't relieve me from stating the facts. It presents an insuperable problem to the usual approaches. We are all going to have to come to terms with that reality, unwelcome as it may be. 5 hours ago, CA Steve said: And should you ask, I believe EMod usage is much more likely to be explained by Joseph trying to imitate Biblical language than it is by a previous translation. ............ That would be just fine if, and only if, the biblical language available to Joseph contained the full panoply of EModEnglish style. Carmack has been able to show systematically that most of EModEnglish is not available in the KJV (nor presumably the Geneva Bible), and that the BofM sports so many archaic English characteristics that no explanation of imitation (conscious or unconscious) could possibly justify the result.
Robert F. Smith Posted July 5, 2018 Posted July 5, 2018 5 hours ago, jkwilliams said: I’m concerned that any questioning of these evidences is waved off as superficial or motivated by anti-Mormon bias. Ryan asked for engagement, but he doesn’t seem to actually want it. I guess you missed my explicit point that everyone is dependent upon naked faith in judging the BofM -- both pro and con. I don't see that one side has an advantage. Are you arguing that anyone can successfully engage these so-called evidences? And reach reasonable conclusions? I think we ought to take Dahle at his word that he actually wants us to engage those issues. My question is, Can any of us possibly do that successfully, without special pleading or other nonsense? Will it always be impossible to adequarely address the scholarly questions about the BofM?
jkwilliams Posted July 5, 2018 Posted July 5, 2018 Just now, Robert F. Smith said: I guess you missed my explicit point that everyone is dependent upon naked faith in judging the BofM -- both pro and con. I don't see that one side has an advantage. Are you arguing that anyone can successfully engage these so-called evidences? And reach reasonable conclusions? I think we ought to take Dahle at his word that he actually wants us to engage those issues. My question is, Can any of us possibly do that successfully, without special pleading or other nonsense? Will it always be impossible to adequarely address the scholarly questions about the BofM? I took him at his word, but he has responded with a glib dismissal. I think these kinds of issues can be discussed reasonably without appeal to naked faith, but I’m not seeing an attempt to do that. That’s fine. I have other things to do. 1
Thinking Posted July 5, 2018 Posted July 5, 2018 23 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: I guess you missed my explicit point that everyone is dependent upon naked faith in judging the BofM -- both pro and con. Before I respond, I would like to know what your definition of naked faith is.
Robert F. Smith Posted July 5, 2018 Posted July 5, 2018 1 hour ago, Thinking said: Before I respond, I would like to know what your definition of naked faith is. Maybe blind faith -- the sort of faith which does not require additional buttressing (additional evidence of some sort). I realize that there can never be a faith completely unaided or unaffected by other considerations. After all, we do live in the real world and are influenced by all manner of social and physical constraints. 1
Recommended Posts