Book of Mormon Language Structure

[xixxvmcm85]

Thanks again! Feel free to focus on the two I clearly mentioned in the OP.

Is this the if/then part of the page of which you were speaking?

[quote=ComeToZarahemla.org]“If . . . . and”

Here is yet another place where the Hebrew “and” shows up in a strange place. The Hebraic equivalent of the English if-then clause is the Hebrew if-and clause. This is not found in the current editions of the Book of Mormon, nor is it found anywhere in and English Old Testament. But, it was in the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon. For example, this is how Helaman 12:13-21 appeared in that edition:

“. . . yea, and if he sayeth unto the earth Move and it is moved; yea, and if he sayeth unto the earth, Thou shalt go back, that it lengthen out the day for many hours, and it is done; . . . And behold, also, if he sayeth unto the waters of the great deep, Be thou dried up, and it is done. Behold, if he sayeth unto this mountain, Be thou raised up, and come over and fall upon that city, that it be buried up and behold it is done. . . . and if the Lord shall say, Be thou accursed, that no man shall find thee from this time henceforth and forever, and behold, no man getteth it henceforth and forever. And behold, if the Lord shall say unto a man, Because of thine iniquities thou shalt be accursed forever, and it shall be done. And if the Lord shall say, Because of thine iniquities thou shalt be cut off from my presence, and he will cause that it shall be so.”
[/quote]

You were just a wee bit vague in the OP. I want to make sure I’m reading the relevant material.

Thanks LDSGuy.

 

[LDSGuy]

Is this the if/then part of the page of which you were speaking?

You were just a wee bit vague in the OP. I want to make sure I’m reading the relevant material.

Thanks LDSGuy.

Yes, I found that part interesting. I’m really curious about responses on that and the chiasmus found in the Book of Mormon. Sorry if it wasn’t clear.

Thanks!

 

[Eucharisted]

Circular logic.

Mormon: The Book of Mormons is written in reformed Egyptian.
Catholic: How do you know this?
Mormon: Because it’s based off of Hebrew.
Catholic: How do you know that?
Mormon: Because that’s what the Church of Latter-Day Saints teaches.
Catholic: How do they know?
Mormon: Because the Book of Mormon is entrusted to them.
Catholic: How do you know this?
Mormon: Because that’s what the Church teaches.

 

[LDSGuy]

Circular logic.

Mormon: The Book of Mormons is written in reformed Egyptian.
Catholic: How do you know this?
Mormon: Because it’s based off of Hebrew.
Catholic: How do you know that?
Mormon: Because that’s what the Church of Latter-Day Saints teaches.
Catholic: How do they know?
Mormon: Because the Book of Mormon is entrusted to them.
Catholic: How do you know this?
Mormon: Because that’s what the Church teaches.

thanks for commenting!

 

[RebeccaJ]

Yes, the website itself says what you and wikipedia said.

Strong’s Hebrew Lexicon:

1961 hayah haw-yaw a primitive root (Compare 1933); to exist, i.e. be or become, come to pass (always emphatic, and not a mere copula or auxiliary):–beacon, X altogether, be(-come), accomplished, committed, like), break, cause, come (to pass), do, faint, fall, + follow, happen, X have, last, pertain, quit (one-)self, require, X use

eliyah.com/cgi-bin/strongs.cgi?file=hebrewlexicon&isindex=hayah

There is also the fact that “and it came to pass” was a common phrase of early modern English. ie, the English of the KJV. Modern English translations of the Bible do not use this phrase.

Gen. 35: (KJV)

17And it came to pass, when she was in hard labour, that the midwife said unto her, Fear not; thou shalt have this son also.
18And it came to pass, as her soul was in departing, (for she died) that she called his name Benoni: but his father called him Benjamin.

(NAB

17 When her pangs were most severe, her midwife said to her, “Have no fear! This time, too, you have a son.” 18 With her last breath–for she was at the point of death-she called him Ben-oni; his father, however, named him Benjamin.
(NIV)

17 And as she was having great difficulty in childbirth, the midwife said to her, “Don’t be afraid, for you have another son.” 18 As she breathed her last—for she was dying—she named her son Ben-Oni. But his father named him Benjamin.

---

All of this is pointless, as you don’t have any source documents in this language in order to read and do actual scholarship on the translation. All you have is could haves and might have beens, which is, nothing at all.

 

[LDSGuy]

There is also the fact that “and it came to pass” was a common phrase of early middle English. ie, the English of the KJV. Modern English translations of the Bible do not use this phrase.

Gen. 35: (KJV)

17And it came to pass, when she was in hard labour, that the midwife said unto her, Fear not; thou shalt have this son also.
18And it came to pass, as her soul was in departing, (for she died) that she called his name Benoni: but his father called him Benjamin.

(NAB

17 When her pangs were most severe, her midwife said to her, “Have no fear! This time, too, you have a son.” 18 With her last breath–for she was at the point of death-she called him Ben-oni; his father, however, named him Benjamin.
(NIV)

17 And as she was having great difficulty in childbirth, the midwife said to her, “Don’t be afraid, for you have another son.” 18 As she breathed her last—for she was dying—she named her son Ben-Oni. But his father named him Benjamin.

---

All of this is pointless, as you don’t have any source documents in this language in order to read and do actual scholarship on the translation. All you have is could haves and might have beens, which is, nothing at all.

Yes, I agree that there is the possibility that Joseph Smith copied a phrase from the KJV into the Book of Mormon. Earlier I said-“I think that Smith copying “and it came to pass” is certainly one possibility. The author of this website is merely pointing out that it would be weird if the phrase was not found in the Book of Mormon.”

You don’t have to comment if you think it’s pointless What we do have is the Book of Mormon, which allegedly was written by descendants of Israelites. So I’m curious as to how Hebraisms are found in the Book of Mormon that Smith came up with, or had help with coming up.

Isaiah 48:3 NIV

I foretold the former things long ago,
my mouth announced them and I made them known;
then suddenly I acted, and they came to pass.

Isaiah 48:3 KJV

I have declared the former things from the beginning; and they went forth out of my mouth, and I shewed them; I did them suddenly, and they came to pass.

Genesis 4:3 ASV

And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto Jehovah.

Genesis 4:3 KJV

And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD.

Etc.

 

[Eucharisted]

You know why the Book of Mormon sounds Hebrew? Because it’s based off the King James Bible. Even Mark Twain saw that when he read the book.

All men have heard of the Mormon Bible, but few except the “elect” have seen it, or, at least, taken the trouble to read it. I brought away a copy from Salt Lake. The book is a curiosity to me, it is such a pretentious affair, and yet so “slow,” so sleepy; such an insipid mess of inspiration. It is chloroform in print. If Joseph Smith composed this book, the act was a miracle–keeping awake while he did it was, at any rate. If he, according to tradition, merely translated it from certain ancient and mysteriously-engraved plates of copper, which he declares he found under a stone, in an out-of-the-way locality, the work of translating was equally a miracle, for the same reason.

The book seems to be merely a prosy detail of imaginary history, with the Old Testament for a model; followed by a tedious plagiarism of the New Testament. The author labored to give his words and phrases the quaint, old-fashioned sound and structure of our King James’s translation of the Scriptures; and the result is a mongrel–half modern glibness, and half ancient simplicity and gravity. The latter is awkward and constrained; the former natural, but grotesque by the contrast. Whenever he found his speech growing too modern–which was about every sentence or two—he ladled in a few such Scriptural phrases as “exceeding sore,” “and it came to pass,” etc., and made things satisfactory again. “And it came to pass” was his pet. If he had left that out, his Bible would have been only a pamphlet.

Snippet from truthandgrace.com/twainbom.htm

 

[xixxvmcm85]

I tried skimming through the rest of the page to see if the if/and relationship was mentioned again. I didn’t find anything so I’ll assume this is the extent of it. Let me know if I missed anything.

[quote=ComeToZarahemla.org]“If . . . . and”

Here is yet another place where the Hebrew “and” shows up in a strange place. The Hebraic equivalent of the English if-then clause is the Hebrew if-and clause. This is not found in the current editions of the Book of Mormon, nor is it found anywhere in and English Old Testament. But, it was in the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon. For example, this is how Helaman 12:13-21 appeared in that edition:
[/quote]

It’s quite odd that the bolded part (my emphasis) isn’t cited. I haven’t read every single English version of the Bible so I have no way of knowing if this is true. If it isn’t true, then we’re back at square one with an issue of parsimony. I would think it’s much more likely that Joseph Smith got the convention from the KJV rather than intuitively via revelation knew the inner workings of classical Hebrew. If it is true that no such convention resides in any English Bibles, then it is indeed an interesting find. Joseph Smith had to get the convention from somewhere, and humoring the idea that the Bible isn’t that “somewhere”, we’re left with either divine revelation or another earthly source. I’m not convinced yet that in this case it’s the former considering the allegations of plagiarism of Solomon Spaulding’s (Ethan Smith’s) earlier manuscript which would become “the View of the Hebrews”. Spaulding was well versed in Hebrew and was a Congregationalist theologian. It’s not unlikely that he would have known this convention or that he would use such a convention in his work of fiction.

I haven’t read Spaulding’s work, and can’t seem to find access to it, so mere speculation or more Google Fu is in order…

 

[LDSGuy]

Interesting, the NIV, ASV, NASB, etc. sometimes use “came to pass” when the KJV doesn’t, instead using one of the other definitions of hayah.

 

[LDSGuy]

You know why the Book of Mormon sounds Hebrew? Because it’s based off the King James Bible. Even Mark Twain saw that when he read the book.

Yep, we already established that. Thanks!

 

[xixxvmcm85]

LDSGuy:

Yes, I agree that there is the possibility that Joseph Smith copied a phrase from the KJV into the Book of Mormon. Earlier I said-“I think that Smith copying “and it came to pass” is certainly one possibility. The author of this website is merely pointing out that it would be weird if the phrase was not found in the Book of Mormon.”

Well… duh (to the site author). That’s a bit of a pointless tangent.

It would also be odd if the Book of Mormon didn’t mention Jesus Christ considering it’s supposed to be “another testament” of him. The Book of Mormon indeed mentions Jesus Christ, ergo…

Notice that how this string of logic is set up no substantive conclusion can be drawn about the Book of Mormon’s authenticity.

 

[LDSGuy]

I tried skimming through the rest of the page to see if the if/and relationship was mentioned again. I didn’t find anything so I’ll assume this is the extent of it. Let me know if I missed anything.

It’s quite odd that the bolded part (my emphasis) isn’t cited. I haven’t read every single English version of the Bible so I have no way of knowing if this is true. If it isn’t true, then we’re back at square one with an issue of parsimony. I would think it’s much more likely that Joseph Smith got the convention from the KJV rather than intuitively via revelation knew the inner workings of classical Hebrew. If it is true that no such convention resides in any English Bibles, then it is indeed an interesting find. Joseph Smith had to get the convention from somewhere, and humoring the idea that the Bible isn’t that “somewhere”, we’re left with either divine revelation or another earthly source. I’m not convinced yet that in this case it’s the former considering the allegations of plagiarism of Solomon Spaulding’s (Ethan Smith’s) earlier manuscript which would become “the View of the Hebrews”. Spaulding was well versed in Hebrew and was a Congregationalist theologian. It’s not unlikely that he would have known this convention or that he would use such a convention in his work of fiction.

I haven’t read Spaulding’s work, and can’t seem to find access to it, so mere speculation or more Google Fu is in order…

I do wish that was cited. I have heard it said before, though by admittedly Latter-day Saint scholars. It would be good to look into View of the Hebrew’s, though I have not read it. A quick scan of it shows that it isn’t written in the style of the KJV or the Book of Mormon, but in modern English (Nor is the one Spaulding manuscript that has been found, or at least that’s what I see, correct me if I’m wrong). So, if anything, plot lines may have been found from VotH, however language structures could not have been derived from it, at least that is my understanding.

 

[xixxvmcm85]

LDSGuy: What is it specifically about chiasmi you wanted to talk about? The Table of Contents of the site doesn’t explicitly mention chiasmi.

ETA: I just realized the time (11:45PM here in California) and I have to be up early in the morning so I’ll have to pick this up tomorrow.

This thread is pleasantly different than most LDS related threads here. Granted, we’re only on page 3 so derision might be just around the corner.

Thanks for starting it LDSGuy.

 

[LDSGuy]

LDSGuy: What is it specifically about chiasmi you wanted to talk about? The Table of Contents of the site doesn’t explicitly mention chiasmi.

Oh sorry!
cometozarahemla.org/chiasmus/chiasmus.html

I admit that that one is a long one, so it’s okay if you can’t address it for a while.

Was chiasmus known during Joseph Smith’s time? Would he have been able to recognize chiasmus in the Bible and reproduce unique chiasmus (i.e. nothing supposedly copied from the Bible)? LDS scholars assert that the entire book of Mosiah is chiasmus, as is much of Alma. So I’m curious about non-LDS views of chiasmus in the Book of Mormon, especially in places with no equivalent to the KJV, and especially noting the complexity of the chiasmus (not being just A B B A).

 

[LDSGuy]

LDSGuy: What is it specifically about chiasmi you wanted to talk about? The Table of Contents of the site doesn’t explicitly mention chiasmi.

ETA: I just realized the time (11:45PM here in California) and I have to be up early in the morning so I’ll have to pick this up tomorrow.

This thread is pleasantly different than most LDS related threads here. Granted, we’re only on page 3 so derision might be just around the corner.

Thanks for starting it LDSGuy.

Ok, I look forward to continuing. I really find the linguistics of the Book of Mormon interesting to study, even if we have no “reformed Egyptian” to study, we still have examples (at least in LDS view) of Hebraic structures that in many cases couldn’t have just been pulled from the KJV. I’ll try to flesh out my points for tomorrow as well.

Good night!

 

[RebeccaJ]

Yes, I agree that there is the possibility that Joseph Smith copied a phrase from the KJV into the Book of Mormon. Earlier I said-“I think that Smith copying “and it came to pass” is certainly one possibility. The author of this website is merely pointing out that it would be weird if the phrase was not found in the Book of Mormon.”

You don’t have to comment if you think it’s pointless What we do have is the Book of Mormon, which allegedly was written by descendants of Israelites. So I’m curious as to how Hebraisms are found in the Book of Mormon that Smith came up with, or had help with coming up.

Isaiah 48:3 NIV

I foretold the former things long ago,
my mouth announced them and I made them known;
then suddenly I acted, and they came to pass.

Isaiah 48:3 KJV

I have declared the former things from the beginning; and they went forth out of my mouth, and I shewed them; I did them suddenly, and they came to pass.

Genesis 4:3 ASV

And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto Jehovah.

Genesis 4:3 KJV

And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD.

Etc.

You can believe the stuff from your website if you like, but I recommend an independent research of what the website you posted claims. LDS “scholars” tend to paste together bits and pieces of this here and that there, and if you research the pieces, you find that they have nothing to do with what the LDS author claims. The bits and pieces are glued together with wild leaps, could haves, might haves and it has been suggested.

 

[LDSGuy]

You can believe the stuff from your website if you like, but I recommend an independent research of what the website you posted claims. LDS “scholars” tend to paste together bits and pieces of this here and that there, and if you research the pieces, you find that they have nothing to do with what the LDS author claims. The bits and pieces are glued together with wild leaps, could haves, might haves and it has been suggested.

Yes, I agree that independent research is good, and I will do that. I did show that “hayah” has multiple meanings, including “came/come to pass”, and that modern English translations sometimes use “came to pass” when the KJV uses an alternative definition of “hayah”. I think we also need to realize that the critical side is also bits and pieces glued together with “wild leaps, could haves, might haves and it has been suggested”.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Yes, I agree that independent research is good, and I will do that. I did show that “hayah” has multiple meanings, including “came/come to pass”, and that modern English translations sometimes use “came to pass” when the KJV uses an alternative definition of “hayah”. I think we also need to realize that the critical side is also bits and pieces glued together with “wild leaps, could haves, might haves and it has been suggested”.

Mormons begin with one giant leap. The Book of Mormon itself.

All the rest, this stuff you are doing, just looks like trying to make champagne from beer.

 

[why_me]

I think that this is quite impressive. And Joseph Smith could have not known about it. He was not that educated or linguistic.

Here is an interesting article found in the mormon magazine Ensign discussing this issue. The article is dated however:

The parallel nature of biblical writing is apparent to most readers. However, the study of Hebrew poetics—the classification and analysis of many different kinds of parallel structures—began in the first half of the nineteenth century. Not until the turn of the twentieth century did scholars introduce specific definitions of the various parallelisms. A critic might say that the Prophet Joseph Smith could have been able to imitate the parallel nature of biblical writing; but it is extremely unlikely that he could have produced such a huge number of parallelisms—sometimes several per verse—of more than twenty-five types. Only the Book of Mormon prophets, who used the structural forms of ancient Hebrew poetry and who were inspired from on high, could have written such beautiful poetic structures.

More Parallelisms in the Book of Mormon
Simple synonymous: 1 Ne. 1:15; 1 Ne. 17:47; 2 Ne. 9:52; 2 Ne. 25:2; 2 Ne. 30:11; Alma 34:32; 3 Ne. 5:21; 3 Ne. 20:42; 3 Ne. 29:5; Ether 6:10

Simple synthetic: 2 Ne. 4:35; Mosiah 23:21; Alma 37:35; 3 Ne. 10:15

Contrasting: 2 Ne. 26:25; Alma 5:40 and Alma 41; Alma 9:28; Alma 36:21; Hel. 10:6; 3 Ne. 27:33

Antithetical: 1 Ne. 17:45; Jacob 4:10; Mosiah 4:24; Ether 12:26; Moro. 10:6

Simple alternate: 1 Ne. 5:1; 1 Ne. 11:25; 1 Ne. 17:19, 36, 39; 1 Ne. 20:18–19; 2 Ne. 4:17, 28; 2 Ne. 6:6; 2 Ne. 10:25; 2 Ne. 26:12; 2 Ne. 27:4; 2 Ne. 30:17; Mosiah 4:8; Alma 1:26; Alma 2:29; Alma 28:11; Alma 63:2; Hel. 3:21

Repeated alternate: 1 Ne. 19:9; Alma 30:24–26; Alma 30:10

Extended alternate: 1 Ne. 8:24; 1 Ne. 9:3–4, 11–12; Alma 5:19

Repetitive numerical: Alma 23:5; Alma 28:11; Alma 36:10; Morm. 6:10–15

A fortiori numerical: 1 Ne. 4:1; Alma 3:26; Hel. 3:24–26; 3 Ne. 3:22; 3 Ne. 4:21

Circular repetitive: Mosiah 3:25–26; Mosiah 11:21; Alma 3:15–16; Alma 14:29; Alma 24:7–10; Alma 60:20; Alma 62:41; Hel. 11:10–16; Morm. 7:2–5

Climactic: 2 Ne. 2:25; Alma 42:22–23; Morm. 9:12–13

library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1989.htm/ensign%20october%201989.htm/research%20and%20perspectives%20hebrew%20literary%20patterns%20in%20the%20book%20of%20mormon%20.htm?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0

The book of mormon is more complicated than we may wish to believe. And Joseph Smith could not have known the parellelisms, especially if he stuck his head in a hat to recite the book of mormon to a scibe.

 

[Eucharisted]

He was not that educated or linguistic.

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