Book of Mormon Language Structure

[why_me]

Just like Mohammed was not literate, am I right? Sheesh.

Here is something else to consider:

eom.byu.edu/index.php/Book_of_Mormon_Language

HEBRAISMS IN THE BOOK OF MORMON. Many typical Hebrew language patterns have been identified in the Book of Mormon, though several are also characteristic of other Near Eastern languages. For example, the cognate accusative, literarily redundant in English, is used in Hebrew for emphasis: “They feared a fear” (Ps. 14:5,Hebrew text). Similar structures appear in the Book of Mormon: “to fear exceedingly, with fear” (Alma 18:5), another possible translation of the same cognate accusative (cf. 1 Ne. 3:2;8:2; Enos 1:13).

Hebrew employs prepositional phrases as adverbs more often than individual adverbs, a feature typical of Book of Mormon language: “in haste” (3 Ne. 21:29) instead of “hastily” and “with gladness” (2 Ne. 28:28) instead of “gladly.”

Tvedtnes has noted a possible example of Hebrew agreement: “This people is a free people” (Alma 30:24; emphasis added). In English, “people” is usually considered grammatically plural, but in Hebrew it is often singular. While this phrase in Alma may have been verbless, it may also have contained the third-person singular pronoun /hu/ placed between the two noun phrases or at the end as a anaphoric demonstrative functioning as a copula verb. Uto-Aztecan indian languages also have the word /hu/, which is a third-person singular pronoun in some languages but a “be” verb in others.

Possession in English is shown in two constructs-“the man’s house” and “the house of the man”-but only the latter construct is employed in Hebrew. The lack of apostrophe possession in the Book of Mormon is consistene with a translation from the Gebrew construct. Further, the “of” construct is common for adjectival relationships in Hebrew. Correspondingly, the Book of Mormon consistently employs phrases such as “plates of brass” (1 Ne. 3:12) instead of “brass plates” and “walls of stone” (Alma 48:8) rather than “stone walls.”

Sentence structures and clause-combining mechanisms in Hebrew differ from those in English. Long strings of subordinate clauses and verbal expressions, such as those in Helaman 1:16-17 andMosiah 2:20-21 and 7:21-22, are acceptable in Hebrew, though unorthodox and discouraged in English: “Ye all are witnesses…that Zeniff, who was made king,…he being over-zealous,…therefore being deceived by…king Laman, who having entered into a treaty,…and having yielded up [various cities],…and the land round about-and all this he did, for the sole purpose of abringing this people…into bondage” (Mosiah 7:21-22).

Frequent phrases such as “from before” and “by the hand of” represent rather literal translations from Hebrew. for example, “he fled from before them” (Mosiah 17:4), instead of the more typically English “he fled from them,” portrays the common Hebrew compound preposition/millifne/.

While many words and names found in the Book of Mormon have exact equivalents in the Hebrew Bible, certain others exhibit Semitic characteristics, though their spelling does not always match known Hebrew forms. For example, “Rabbanah” as “great king” (Alma 18:13) may have affinities with the Hebrew root /rbb/, meaning “to be great or many.” “Rameumptom” (Alma 31:21), meaning “holy stand,” contains consonantal patterns suggesting the stems /rmm/ramah/, “to be high,” and /tmm/tam/tom/, “to be complete, perfect, holy.” The /p/ between the /m/ and /t/ is a linguistically natural outgrowth of a bilabial /m/ in coluster with a stop /t/, such as the /p/ in /assumption/ from /assume + tion/, and the /b/ in Spanish /hombre/ from Latin /homere/.

Claims that Joseph Smith composed the Book of Mormon by merely imitating King James English, using biblical names and inventing others, typically exhibit insensitivities about its linguistic character. Names such as “Alma” have been thought peculiar inventions. However, the discovery of the name “Alma” in a Jewish text (second century A.D.), the seven hundred observed similarities between Hebrew and Uto-Aztecan, literary patterns such as chiasmus, and numerous other features noted in studies since 1830 combine to make the fabrication of the book an overwhelming challenge for anyone in Joseph Smith’s day.

 

[LDSGuy]

let’s try and not overrun this thread with simple copy and pastes please I’d like to actually discuss what all of these articles we find say, so links and maybe short quotes will do.

 

[LDSGuy]

From a brief look at various theories by Book of Mormon critics, it seems that many cite the use of the King James Version of the Bible, View of the Hebrews, and a Spaulding manuscript as possible sources for the Book of Mormon. However none of these, save for parts of the KJV, account for the Hebraisms found throughout the Book of Mormon, especially in parts that have no KJV equivalent. It’s interesting to study the use of various Hebrew names that may or may not have been known at the time (Alma being a good one), as well as complex structures like chiasmus (where some say that chiasmus can occur naturally in repetitive speech, however that doesn’t account for the very complex chiasmus found in the Book of Mormon, such as Alma 36), and think about how they ended up in the Book of Mormon, since View of the Hebrews is written in modern English, for one thing.

I’d definitely appreciate your opposing views on how these non-KJV derived Hebraisms ended up in the Book of Mormon (did Smith recognize chiasmus long before linguists even knew it was there, for example?).

 

[why_me]

let’s try and not overrun this thread with simple copy and pastes please I’d like to actually discuss what all of these articles we find say, so links and maybe short quotes will do.

I think that on a forum such as this, what I think would not be very important for the other posters. But what the experts think is far more important. The links that I have provided and what is said in them are very powerful and convincing. I think that it is up to the more critical posters to critique the experts. And that includes yourself. You can certainly use the information provided for your own benefit.

Also, we don’t have very many language experts here on the mormon threads. The topics have tended to be much more general in context.

 

[dzheremi]

Can we please add “Linguistics and the Book of Mormon” onto the “banned topics” list, Moderators? Please? It really has almost nothing to do with religion, and everything to do with proselytizing, and annoying the heck out of everyone and probably giving me an ulcer (this thread is still young…we’ll see…)

We have dealt with subject many, many times during my short time here, and I will write here what I have written whenever this topic comes up: No non-LDS trained (read: legitimate) linguist recognizes “Reformed Egyptian” as anything other than a fantasy. There is absolutely no evidence of it; indeed, all the evidence that we do have relating to the time period and geography that the Book of Mormon claims to cover is entirely against it. There is no reason for any linguist or other educated person to take it seriously, and every Mormon and Mormon-sympathizer here can stop posting about it now. Thank you.

 

[why_me]

I’d definitely appreciate your opposing views on how these non-KJV derived Hebraisms ended up in the Book of Mormon (did Smith recognize chiasmus long before linguists even knew it was there, for example?).

No he didn’t. He began to study Hebrew much later and after the publication of the book of mormon.

 

[why_me]

From a brief look at various theories by Book of Mormon critics, it seems that many cite the use of the King James Version of the Bible, View of the Hebrews, and a Spaulding manuscript as possible sources for the Book of Mormon. However none of these, save for parts of the KJV, account for the Hebraisms found throughout the Book of Mormon, especially in parts that have no KJV equivalent. It’s interesting to study the use of various Hebrew names that may or may not have been known at the time (Alma being a good one), as well as complex structures like chiasmus (where some say that chiasmus can occur naturally in repetitive speech, however that doesn’t account for the very complex chiasmus found in the Book of Mormon, such as Alma 36), and think about how they ended up in the Book of Mormon, since View of the Hebrews is written in modern English, for one thing.

In the link that I have provided for you, you can see that the experts have compared some of the names in the book of mormon with the hebrew and have found some interesting parellels. Also, Alma was thought to be a women’s name until it was discovered to be a man’s name. JS could not have known this at that time. Also, the structure of the book of mormon does take some thought to think up if done by a mere mortal. JS did not have the time to do such research. He was not known to be a young man with book in hand nor was he seen in the library all that much. He had to find a way and a means to provide for his mother and father and help out at the farm.

The links that I pasted from have answered most of your questions. Now it is important to discuss their findings.

 

[LDSGuy]

Can we please add “Linguistics and the Book of Mormon” onto the “banned topics” list, Moderators? Please? It really has almost nothing to do with religion, and everything to do with proselytizing, and annoying the heck out of everyone and probably giving me an ulcer (this thread is still young…we’ll see…)

We have dealt with subject many, many times during my short time here, and I will write here what I have written whenever this topic comes up: No non-LDS trained (read: legitimate) linguist recognizes “Reformed Egyptian” as anything other than a fantasy. There is absolutely no evidence of it; indeed, all the evidence that we do have relating to the time period and geography that the Book of Mormon claims to cover is entirely against it. There is no reason for any linguist or other educated person to take it seriously, and every Mormon and Mormon-sympathizer here can stop posting about it now. Thank you.

Actually it does have to do with religion. The Latter-day Saint premise is that the Book of Mormon was translated by God-ordained means. So, I would like to see other arguments as to how Hebraic language structures ended up in the Book of Mormon if it did not have an ancient origin. At least one Catholic here has shown interest in discussing this, and welcomed the change in pace of the usual LDS threads. If you will get an ulcer, you can look at other threads, as no one is forcing you to participate. The question isn’t about “Reformed Egyptian” or “time period and geography”. The question is wondering if there is an explanation besides Divine inspiration of the Book of Mormon to explain how non-KJV derived Hebraisms ended up in the Book.

The nature of forums is that you touch on the same topics over and over and over and over.

So again, if you don’t want to post, don’t post. Bye!

 

[LDSGuy]

In the link that I have provided for you, you can see that the experts have compared some of the names in the book of mormon with the hebrew and have found some interesting parellels. Also, Alma was thought to be a women’s name until it was discovered to be a man’s name. JS could not have known this at that time. Also, the structure of the book of mormon does take some thought to think up if done by a mere mortal. JS did not have the time to do such research. He was not known to be a young man with book in hand nor was he seen in the library all that much. He had to find a way and a means to provide for his mother and father and help out at the farm.

The links that I pasted from have answered most of your questions. Now it is important to discuss their findings.

Yes thanks, I have seen those links before. I agree that there wasn’t much time to come up with such complex structures. I’m curious about the “other side’s” views of such issues.

 

[ThuriferAcolyte]

lol I brought this up on another forum with this very topic: Another Mormon offshoot, the Strangites, have their own “inspired” text, the Brass Plates of Laban. This guy James Strang said he was the successor of Joseph Smith, and that an angel told him so. He also “translated” plates, just like Joseph Smith. The Strangites say that the Brass Plates of Laban, which gave the Book of the Law of the Lord, are another ancient record, and they too claim chiasmus. Does this mean that these plates have ancient origin too and that Strang was the true successor of Smith, since he had an angel visit, translated plates, and had witnesses, and his book has chiasmus too?

strangite.org/Chiasmus.htm

they also say that chiasmus is found in the “voree plates” too. How is this possible? Maybe because chiasmus isn’t that much of evidence, especially when other texts around then also had chiasmus, but you say that it wasn’t discovered until much later.

 

[why_me]

lol I brought this up on another forum with this very topic: Another Mormon offshoot, the Strangites, have their own “inspired” text, the Brass Plates of Laban. This guy James Strang said he was the successor of Joseph Smith, and that an angel told him so. He also “translated” plates, just like Joseph Smith. The Strangites say that the Brass Plates of Laban, which gave the Book of the Law of the Lord, are another ancient record, and they too claim chiasmus. Does this mean that these plates have ancient origin too and that Strang was the true successor of Smith, since he had an angel visit, translated plates, and had witnesses, and his book has chiasmus too?

strangite.org/Chiasmus.htm

they also say that chiasmus is found in the “voree plates” too. How is this possible? Maybe because chiasmus isn’t that much of evidence, especially when other texts around then also had chiasmus, but you say that it wasn’t discovered until much later.

The text of the 'strangites is now known to be a fraud. And strang’s witnesses have said so. They can claim what they wish to claim. However, the mormons have language experts comparing the text and they have found interesting parellels with the hebrew. Now JS could not have known this. Plus, he was known to stick his head in a hat to translante the book of mormon. Try sticking your head in a hat to write a book that has hebraisms and other parellels with ancient texts. Let me know how you do.

 

[ThuriferAcolyte]

The text of the 'strangites is now known to be a fraud. And strang’s witnesses have said so. They can claim what they wish to claim. However, the mormons have language experts comparing the text and they have found interesting parellels with the hebrew. Now JS could not have known this. Plus, he was known to stick his head in a hat to translante the book of mormon. Try sticking your head in a hat to write a book that has hebraisms and other parellels with ancient texts. Let me know how you do.

You just proved me point. The text of the strangites is a fraud, and yet it clearly has chiasmus in it, whether they claim it or not, it’s there if you read it. Think about that.

 

[dzheremi]

So, I would like to see other arguments as to how Hebraic language structures ended up in the Book of Mormon if it did not have an ancient origin.

Is it too obvious, then, to point out that chiasmus is not a particularly “Hebraic language structure” (whatever that is supposed to be)? You can also find it in Greek (the word “Chiasmus” comes from Greek), Latin, English, etc.

The question is wondering if there is an explanation besides Divine inspiration of the Book of Mormon to explain how non-KJV derived Hebraisms ended up in the Book.

Again, chiasmus is not a specifically “Hebraic” property, and can be found in spades outside of the Hebrew Bible, so unless you want to also argue that Ovid or the Band-Aid jingle are also divinely inspired…

I agree with the other poster who said that when you’re looking to confirm your own bias you’re very likely to find whatever “evidence” you need.

 

[LDSGuy]

Is it too obvious, then, to point out that chiasmus is not a particularly “Hebraic language structure” (whatever that is supposed to be)? You can also find it in Greek (the word “Chiasmus” comes from Greek), Latin, English, etc.

Again, chiasmus is not a specifically “Hebraic” property, and can be found in spades outside of the Hebrew Bible, so unless you want to also argue that Ovid or the Band-Aid jingle are also divinely inspired?

I agree with the other poster who said that when you’re looking to confirm your own bias you’re very likely to find whatever “evidence” you need.

Yes, it is too obvious. The use of chiasmus in various languages is quite clear. And I’m glad that you brought up Ovid. Chiasmus is seen in many complex, as well as ancient writings, including that of the Hebrews. Chiasmus was not discovered as a device until more recently, and we see chiasmus in the speeches of many politicians as well. But was it possible for Joseph Smith to come up with chiasmus as complex as found in the Book of Mormon by himself?

And I agree with your last sentence. This is true for everyone.

By the way, have you called for the banning of the topic of the corruption of the Quran, since you’re discussing linguistics over on that thread? Or is this not an equal opportunity banning?

 

[dzheremi]

Yes, it is too obvious. The use of chiasmus in various languages is quite clear

Indeed…that’s kind of why I brought it up, since you’ve mentioned it as a “Hebraic language device” when it really isn’t.

Chiasmus was not discovered as a device until more recently

What do you mean by this?

But was it possible for Joseph Smith to come up with chiasmus as complex as found in the Book of Mormon by himself?

Again, if TV jingle writers can do it…

By the way, have you called for the banning of the topic of the corruption of the Quran, since you’re discussing linguistics over on that thread? Or is this not an equal opportunity banning?

No, I haven’t. The topic of textual corruption of the Qur’an actually has some evidence to back it up. This is all BS.

 

[Eucharisted]

While we’re on the topic of the Book of Mormon’s authenticity, let’s see what science has discovered regarding the ancestory of Native Americans:

In Losing a Lost Tribe: Native Americans, DNA, and the Mormon Church (Signature Books), research scientist Simon G. Southerton of Canberra, Australia, notes that none of the nearly 7,500 DNA-tested Native Americans shows any link to ancient Israel. More than 99 percent show an Asian heritage. The Book of Mormon, however, says that Israelites emigrated to the Americas 2,600 years ago, with the now-extinct Lamanites and Nephites becoming the ancestors of American Indians.

And it’s rocking the Mormon Church:

Southerton, a former LDS bishop, said he has received nearly 500 e-mails in the past five years from Mormons who are troubled by the DNA findings. Even some scholars at the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (FARMS) at Brigham Young University, the church’s flagship school in Provo, Utah, concede the links between Native Americans and Asians are strong, and that a Middle Eastern contribution to the gene pool hasn’t been established.

But the Church of Latter-Day Saints dosen’t seem to mind, because when your scriptures say something is historically true and it turns out to be false, this has no bearing on the reliability of your scriptures:

Staunch apologists of the faith deny that science disproves the faith’s principal scripture. FARMS founder John W. Welch said such opposition has been circulating for nearly a century. “The DNA factor is just one more indication that people came from various places in the world,” Welch said. “This is just one more piece in a very big and complicated and obscure archaeological and anthropological picture.”

 

[LDSGuy]

Indeed…that’s kind of why I brought it up, since you’ve mentioned it as a “Hebraic language device” when it really isn’t.

Because there is a lot of research into chiasmus and hebrew texts, as it apparently played a prominent role in expressing thoughts and concepts. There is a lot of research into the literary structures of the Old Testament, for example.

What do you mean by this?

When did scholars start researching chiasmus?

Again, if TV jingle writers can do it…

So you’re saying that TV jingle chiasmus is of the caliber of the Book of Mormon chiasmus? I don’t think you’ve actually even looked at what I posted, which is not surprising.

No, I haven’t. The topic of textual corruption of the Qur’an actually has some evidence to back it up. This is all BS.

In your opinion.

 

[LDSGuy]

While we’re on the topic of the Book of Mormon’s authenticity, let’s see what science has discovered regarding the ancestory of Native Americans:

And it’s rocking the Mormon Church:

But the Church of Latter-Day Saints dosen’t seem to mind, because when your scriptures say something is historically true and it turns out to be false, this has no bearing on the reliability of your scriptures:

thanks again!

 

[dzheremi]

Because there is a lot of research into chiasmus and hebrew texts, as it apparently played a prominent role in expressing thoughts and concepts. There is a lot of research into the literary structures of the Old Testament, for example.

Your point being? That doesn’t make it something uniquely Hebraic, not by a long shot.

When did scholars start researching chiasmus?

Is this really an appropriate question when you’re trying to convince us of the authenticity of the writings under consideration? After all, if chiasmus as a literary device existed as far back as the Hebrew Bible, why does it matter when scholars started researching it? The important thing to you is that it’s there, right?

So you’re saying that TV jingle chiasmus is of the caliber of the Book of Mormon chiasmus?

No, I’m saying that the presence of chiasmus is not proof of anything, or even particularly interesting.

I don’t think you’ve actually even looked at what I posted, which is not surprising.

I checked the references at the bottom and when I saw that none of them were from academically-sound Linguistics publications, I decided to save myself the trouble. The Ensign is not exactly an LSA publication…

In your opinion.

With regard to linguistic “evidence” in the BoM, it’s my opinion and the opinion of basically every other linguist on the face of the earth.

 

[ThuriferAcolyte]

the funny thing is, the Mormon Church “corrected” all of these errors that now are apparently shown as “hebraisms”, so some of these “structures” aren’t even found in the current version of the book. Were those corrections done from that revelation that Mormons always emphasize? If so, then why would God want to correct errors that actually proved an ancient origin?

And speaking of corrections, isn’t it great how the Introduction to the Book of Mormon changed the statement that the Lamanites are the “PRINCIPAL” ancestors of the Native Americans to “AMONG” the ancestors of the Native Americans? Talk about a change in implied impact on genetics! Probably because of all those studies coming in about DNA. Next it’ll say that the Lamanites “barely” are the ancestors of the Native Americans. lol.