Linguistics and the Book of Mormon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
 The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (January 2009)
The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ (softcover Mormon missionary edition)

According to the churches within the Latter Day Saint movement, the Book of Mormon is a 19th century translation of a record of ancient inhabitants of the American continent, part of which was written in a script which the book refers to as "reformed Egyptian."[1]

The vast majority of linguistic evidence cited for the Book of Mormon is only creditable within a Latter-day Saint context, as it depends almost entirely on the opinions of LDS researchers, and past and present LDS leaders, rather than the scientific community at large. Outside the LDS community, the Book of Mormon is widely viewed to be the work of Joseph Smith, Jr., and the linguistic evidence offered to mostly be conjecture, hypothesis, and folklore[2].

Both critics and promoters of the Book of Mormon have used linguistic methods to analyze the text. Promoters claim to have discovered stylistic forms that Joseph Smith and contemporaries are unlikely to have known about, as well as similarities to Egyptian and Hebrew. Critics of the Book of Mormon claim there are places where the language is anachronistic and indicative of 19th century origin consistent with Joseph Smith's upbringing and life experience, as well as the books and other literature available to Joseph Smith just preceding the time the Book of Mormon was published[2].

The fundamental problem with any linguistic discussion of the Book of Mormon is that the "original text" does not exist. For adherents, that means that linguistic discussions are based solely upon what they believe to be an English translation from another language--there is no access to the original language, and not even complete unanimity of opinion as to the exact nature of that language.

Contents

[edit] Native American Language development

In 1922, LDS General Authority B. H. Roberts reviewed in depth the current research at the time regarding language development and dialects among the native American peoples, which was later published as Studies of the Book of Mormon after his death.[3]

Under the assumption that the majority of the Native Americans are descendants of the peoples described in the Book of Mormon, Roberts noted that linguistic evidence among the Native American peoples does not appear to support the Book of Mormon narrative, inasmuch as the diverse language stocks and dialects that exist would not have had enough time to develop from a single language dating from 400 A.D. (the date of the conclusion of the Book of Mormon record). He noted:

The facts...developed up to this point seem to be--
1. That there are a large number of separate language stocks in America that show very little relationship to each other.
2. That it would take a long time--much longer than that recognized as "historic times"--to develop these dialects and stocks where the development is conceived of as arising from a common source of origin--some primitive language.
3. That there is no connection between the American languages and the language of any people of the Old World. New World languages appear to be indigenous to the New World.
4. That the time limits named in the Book of Mormon--which represents the people of America as speaking and writing one language down to as late a period as 400 A.D.--is not sufficient to allow for these divergences into the American language stocks and their dialects.[4]

Apologists from FARMS claim that the linguistic evidence cited by Roberts above is not necessarily in contradiction with the Book of Mormon narrative. Specifically, if one adheres to the Limited Geography Model, then it is possible that many of the peoples of the Book of Mormon are not the principle ancestors of the Native Americans.[5] [6]

Specialists in the languages of Native America have accepted no proposals for a relationship between any Native American language or language family and the languages of the ancient Near East.[7]

[edit] Bad Early Modern English Grammar

The Book of Mormon was written in Early Modern English in the same style as the King James Version of the Bible. However, there are numerous grammatical mistakes in the Early Modern English grammar, especially in pronominal usage.[8]

  • 2 Nephi 1:30-32, Lehi speaks to Zoram: "And now, Zoram, I speak unto you: Behold, thou art the servant of Laban...if ye shall keep the commandments of the Lord, the Lord hath consecrated this land for the security of thy seed with the seed of my son." You/ye are plural pronouns and thou/thy are singular pronouns, but the text inexplicably switches back and forth between them.
  • 2 Nephi 3:1, Lehi says: "And now I speak unto you, Joseph, my last-born. Thou wast born in the wilderness of mine afflictions..." You, is incorrectly used when addressing a single individual.
  • Mosiah 2:19-20, King Benjamin says: "O how you ought to thank your heavenly King! ... if you should render all the thanks and praise...." You is the object form of the second person plural pronoun ye is the subject form, but the object form is incorrectly used in subject position here and also in dozens of other places throughout the text.

[edit] Claimed linguistic anachronisms

Main article: Book of Mormon anachronisms

Critics of the church have claimed that a variety of linguistic anachronisms exist in the Book of Mormon which cast doubt upon its historical authenticity. Linguistic anachronsisms are words or words that represent concepts that are not believed to have existed in the Americas between 2500 B.C. and 400 A.D., or in the Jewish world of Lehi's time - the period of history covered by the narrative of the Book of Mormon. Apologists generally rebut these claims by pointing out that during the translation of the golden plates, Joseph Smith may have chosen words that he knew that were closest in meaning to the original concept written on the plates, i.e. a "translators anachronism".

[edit] "Christ" and "Messiah"

The words "Christ" and "Messiah" are used several hundred times throughout the Book of Mormon. The first instance of the word "Christ" dates to between 559 and 545 B.C.[9] The first instance of the word "Messiah" dates to about 600 B.C.[10]

"Christ" is the English transliteration of the Greek word Χριστός (transliterated precisely as Christós); it is relatively synonymous with the Hebrew word rendered "Messiah." Both words have the meaning of "anointed," and are used in the Bible to refer to "the Anointed One".[11] In Greek translations of the Old Testament (including the Septuagint), the word "Christ" is used for the Hebrew "Messiah", and in Hebrew translations of the New Testament, the word "Messiah" is used for the Greek "Christ".[12] Any passage in the Bible that uses the word "Christ" can substitute the word "Messiah" or "the Messiah" with no change in meaning (e.g. Matthew 1:1, 16, 18).

The Book of Mormon uses both terms throughout the book. In the vast majority of cases, it uses the terms in an identical manner as the Bible, where it does not matter which word is used:

"And now, my sons, remember, remember that it is upon the rock of our Redeemer, who is Christ, the Son of God, that ye must build your foundation; that when the devil shall send forth his mighty winds, yea, his shafts in the whirlwind, yea, when all his hail and his mighty storm shall beat upon you, it shall have no power over you to drag you down to the gulf of misery and endless wo, because of the rock upon which ye are built, which is a sure foundation, a foundation whereon if men build they cannot fall" (Helaman 5:12).
"And after he had baptized the Messiah with water, he should behold and bear record that he had baptized the Lamb of God, who should take away the sins of the world." (1 Nephi 10:10).

Jeff Lindsay notes that Joseph Smith's use of the form commonly used in English in the translation does not indicate that the original text used the same form. Joseph may have translated the original title into the more common English form. [13]

The Book of Mormon occasionally uses the word "Christ" in a way that is not interchangeable with "Messiah". For example in 2 Nephi 10:3, the Book of Mormon prophet Jacob says an angel informed him that the name of the Messiah would be Christ:

"Wherefore, as I said unto you, it must needs be expedient that Christ--for in the last night the angel spake unto me that this should be his name--should come among the Jews" (2 Nephi 10:3)

The word "Messiah" was used frequently before this point, but here Jacob says the term "Christ" is a new term, and from this point on the word "Christ" is used almost exclusively in the Book of Mormon.

Richard Packham argues that the Greek word "Christ" in the Book of Mormon challenges the authenticity of the work[14] since, Joseph Smith clearly stated that, "There was no Greek or Latin upon the plates from which I, through the grace of the Lord, translated the Book of Mormon."[15]

Hugh Nibley postulated that the word Messiah could have been derived from Arabic rather than Hebrew[16], although Arabic is not mentioned as one of the languages in which the gold plates were written.

[edit] "Church" and "Synagogue"

The word "church" first occurs in 1 Nephi 4:26, where a prophet named Nephi disguises himself as Laban, a prominent man in Jerusalem whom Nephi had slain:

"And he [Laban's servant], supposing that I spake of the brethren of the church, and that I was truly that Laban whom I had slain, wherefore he did follow me" (1 Nephi 4:26).

According to the Book of Mormon, this exchange happened in Jerusalem, around 600 B.C. The meaning of the word "church" in the Book of Mormon is more comparable to usage in the Bible than Modern English. The concept of a church, meaning a convocation of believers, existed among the House of Israel prior to Christianity. For instance, Psalms 89:5 speaks of praising the Lord "in the congregation of the saints"; the Septuagint contains the Greek word ecclesia for "congregation," which is also translated as "church" in the New Testament. The Book of Mormon using the word "church" in the same "style" as the Bible is seen by some apologists as support for the Book of Mormon.

A similar question regards the word "synagogue," found in Alma 16:13:

"And Alma and Amulek went forth preaching repentance to the people in their temples, and in their sanctuaries, and also in their synagogues, which were built after the manner of the Jews" (Alma 16:13).

Scholars have said that synagogues did not exist in their modern form before the destruction of the temple and the Babylonian captivity.[citation needed] The usage in the Book of Mormon, instead, is comparable to that of the KJV.[original research?] Psalms 74:8 reads "the synagogues of God in the land." Similar to the use of the word "church," the word "synagogue" in the Bible generally refers to a place of assembly for religious worship.[original research?]

[edit] Archaeological anachronisms

Main article: Archaeology and the Book of Mormon

Critics note that a variety of other anachronistic words exist in the Book of Mormon that have special relevance to the field of archaeology. For example, the following animals, plants, and technologies are generally accepted by archaeologists as not having existed in America during the period covered by the Book of Mormon: horses, cows, steel, metal swords that rust, wheat, barley, silk, chariots, wheels, and several others. Apologists generally claim that these anachronisms are also due to word choice by Joseph Smith, and are not true archaeological anachronisms.

[edit] Other anachronisms

Critics Jerald and Sandra Tanner and Marvin W. Cowan contend that certain linguistic properties of the Book of Mormon provide evidence that the book was fabricated by Joseph Smith.[17] [18] These critics cite linguistic anachronisms such as:

  • The Americanized name "Sam" (1 Nephi 2:5,17)
  • The french word "Adieu" (Jacob 7:27)
  • Use of the word "Christ", which would not have been in use during the Book of Mormon timeframe (1 Nephi 10:3)
  • The word "synagogue", which would not have been in use during the Book of Mormon timeframe (Alma 16:13)
  • Exact copies of many verses of the King James version of the Bible, which was not published until 1611

Scholars Gee, Roper and Tvedtnes report that the name Sam is found on a bronze ringmounted seal dated in the 7th century B.C. They also note that the name Samuel in Hebrew is a combination of two words--Shem and El. In early Hebrew, the same letter was used for “s” and “sh” and vowels were not specified. Judges 12:6 demonstrates that the tribe of Joseph pronounced the letter that Shem began with as “s.” Lehi was a descendant of Joseph. [19]

Daniel H. Ludlow contends that the anachronism of the French word "adieu", and others, may have been the result of Joseph Smith choosing the best word available to convey the meaning of the original text.[20]

The Book of Mormon text explains how the word "Christ" came to be used at such an early date--an angel revealed the name to a prophet.[21]

[edit] Chiasmus

Chiasmus is a form of rhetorical parallelism wherein key ideas familiar to the reader are inverted, usually for some kind of emphasis. Chiasmus appears in many languages, including Ugaritic, Biblical Hebrew[22], Aramaic, Greek[23], and Latin.[24] It is found in the Bible and other ancient Middle Eastern poetry; for example, Genesis 9:6:

Whoever sheds the blood of man,
by man shall his blood be shed.

Chiasmus has been identified in modern poetry and prose.[25] The first lines of Keats' On First Looking Into Chapman's Homer, for instance, run,

Much have I traveled in the realms of gold,
and many goodly states and kingdoms seen.

Here "realms of gold" and "goodly states and kingdoms" are bookended by the verbs "traveled" and "seen" to form an ABBA pattern.

[edit] The Book of Mormon

Examples of chiasmus can be found in the Book of Mormon. Some have argued chiasmus is evidence of the text's historical authenticity, suggesting it reflects the Semitic background of Nephi and other authors of the Book of Mormon. They claim that such findings support claims of Hebrew origins in the text on the basis that chiasmus is often found in Hebrew texts such as the Bible.

Others argue that chiasmus is not evidence of Hebrew origin.[26]

In 1969 John W. Welch, later LDS Law and religion scholar, discovered a variety of instances of chiasmus in the Book of Mormon and along with his discovery came attention to the phenomenon.[27] The most commonly cited example of chiasmus in the Book of Mormon is the prophet Alma's religious experience, as recorded in Alma 36. John Welch claims that it is unlikely, although not impossible,[28] that Smith knew about chiasmus at the time of the Book of Mormon's publication[29] implicating that chiasmus could only be present in the text if indeed the text is a translation and not a fabrication.

Many though, argue against this being true chiasmus, and do not see a correlation between presence of chiasmus in the Book of Mormon and its authenticity[citation needed]. And still others disagree on the extent to which chiasmus occurs in the text. With regard to the Alma 36 chiasmus, one critic alleges that John Welch "fashioned a chiasm by selecting elements from repetitious language, creatively labeling elements, ignoring text, pairing unbalanced elements, and even including asymmetrical elements".[30]

Welch himself offers the following caution regarding a tendency of enthusiastic readers to see chiasmus where it is not actually present:

Some people, of course, have gone overboard with this search, and caution must be employed; otherwise, it is possible to find chiasmus in the telephone book, and the effort becomes meaningless…One must be careful in this quest, however, to avoid the problems of the "hammer syndrome"—to the person holding a hammer, everything looks like a nail. To the person who knows only chiasmus and no other form of literary composition, everything may start looking like a chiasm.[31]

Further, Hugh Pinnock, an LDS General Authority, stated:

"Because the study of Hebrew writing forms in the Book of Mormon can strengthen testimony and be quite exciting, a number of researchers and laypersons have become overly enthusiastic, much to the detriment of the subject and integrity of their studies."[32]

Critics argue that there is no correlation between the appearance of chiasmus and the authenticity of the Book of Mormon because among other things chiasmus appears in other literary traditions including nineteen century English literature. Regardless it remains an important topic with regard to the texts because of the debate and interest.

[edit] Occurrence in other LDS scriptures

Some claim writings in the form of chiasmus can also be found in the Doctrine and Covenants and The Pearl of Great Price, two other works of scripture in the LDS cannon written by Smith.[33] Critics believe this supports their claim that Joseph Smith knew about chiasmus, and that it may have been a characteristic of his personal writing style[citation needed].

Apologists argue these examples should be considered a type of sporadic repetition rather than the full fledged chiasmus (that is claimed to be found in Alma 36), Charles G. Kroupa and Richard C. Shipp are notable for publishing arguments for chiasmus in the Doctrine and Covenants in 1972.[34] Shipp also produced a masters thesis out of BYU titled "Conceptual Patterns of Repetition in the Doctrine and Covenants and Their Implications" in 1975 claiming that writings found in the Doctrine and Covenants had literary patterns similar to chiasmus.[35] In 2004, a study was published by LDS researchers which used statistical analysis to determine the likelihood that a chiastic structure in LDS works appeared by chance as opposed to being created deliberately. Mathematical formulas were used to calculate a set of probabilities that provided the ability to distinguish between strong and weak chiastic structures.[36] The authors concluded (as published by BYU):

Based on these estimates, we conclude that the likelihood is high that chiastic structure appeared by design in the Pentateuch and in the Book of Mormon. Our estimates do not support such a conclusion for the Doctrine and Covenants, the Book of Abraham… indicating instead that chiasms could have appeared in these works by chance.[37]

[edit] Other works containing chiasmus

Chiastic patterns have also been found in the Book of the Law of the Lord,[38] a purported translation of an ancient text by James J. Strang, who is considered by members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Strangite) to be the true successor to Joseph Smith. This book is not considered authentic by most Latter Day Saints.

Critics point out that the presence of chiasmus in Strang's writing as well as in the literature of other cultures implies that the source could be non-Hebrew. Additionally, they claim that the examination of a post-translation text might make identifying chiasmus in the original language difficult, and that the presence of chiasmus is not necessarily indicative of ancient origins.[39]

Chiasmus has also been identified in other non-Hebrew writings of antiquity and modern origins, including for example, Paradise Lost which has an overarching chiastic structure that spans the entire work.[40]

[edit] Stylometry (Wordprint Studies)

[edit] Statistical analysis

Stylometry is a method of statistical analysis used to determine authorship of various texts. It has been used to analyze disputed works of Shakespeare, contrast books of the Bible, identify the authors of twelve disputed Federalist Papers, and compare styles of various authors such as Jane Austen. In 1980, researchers at Brigham Young University used stylometric techniques they called "wordprint analysis" to examine the possible authors of the Book of Mormon. They reached the conclusion that none of the Book of Mormon selections they studied resembled writings of any of the suggested nineteenth-century authors, including Joseph Smith.[41]

Jerald and Sandra Tanner challenged their findings on various points, most notably questioning the reliability of the data sources used and the methodology of the "wordprint analysis."[42] Additionally, D. James Croft wrote in Sunstone that there were several flaws in the methodology that were vulnerable to criticism.[43]

A more sophisticated approach was taken by Mormon researcher John Hilton and non-LDS colleagues at Berkeley,[44] who "went to great pains to immunize the methodology from criticism" [45] through the use of control tests.

The Berkeley Group first used a variety of control tests with non-disputed authors (e.g. works by Mark Twain, and translated works from German) in an effort to:

  1. Demonstrate the persistence of wordprints despite an author's effort to write as a different 'character'
  2. Demonstrate that wordprints were not obliterated by translation (e.g. two different authors rendered by the same translator would still have different wordprints).

John Hilton concluded that, if wordprinting is a valid technique, then this analysis suggests that it is "statistically indefensible" to claim that Joseph, Oliver, or Solomon Spaulding wrote the 30,000 words in the Book of Mormon attributed to Nephi and Alma.[46]

One prominent Mormon scholar, John A. Tvedtnes, has rejected the use of wordprint evidence as the foundation for a testimony of the Book of Mormon's validity.[47] Upon review of the Berkeley study, another scholar, Kevin L. Barney, remains unconvinced of the validity of wordprint analysis:

"I have always felt that the basis assumptions underlying Book of Mormon wordprint studies are faulty. I concur with the assessment of John Tvedtnes, who points out that (1) an English translation should reflect the language of the translator rather than the original author, and (2) the particles used in wordprint studies (such as "of") are often non-existent in Hebrew, which tends to use syntax to express the meaning of English particles"

In a new peer-reviewed study using a traditional authorship method and a new pattern classification technique, several researchers at Stanford University concluded that Rigdon, Spalding, and Cowdery were more likely to have written the book out of a pool of authors that also included Parley Pratt, and two statistical control authors Henry Wadsworth Longfellow and Joel Barlow. Joseph Smith himself was not included in the pool of authors because a set of original works written by Smith alone could not be identified with confidence.[48]

[edit] Parallels

Non-Mormon Thomas Donofrio claims to have found hundreds of parallels between peculiar wordings in the Book of Mormon and the writings of well-known historical and religious figures of the 18th and 19th centuries.[49] Unlike the earlier studies, Donofrio's research has not been peer-reviewed. Respondents to this study point out that the use of parallels to prove derivation can be used to illogical extremes. As an example, LDS apologist Jeff Lindsay composed a satirical documented essay "proving" the parallels between The Book of Mormon and Walt Whitman's Leaves of Grass, which was published 25 years after the Book of Mormon.[50]

LDS scholars, however, say that the Book of Mormon is a translation, not originally written by Smith, but translated into the language with which he was familiar. While wordprint studies (by the same team used to verify the identity of the Unabomber in court) may be compelling, the inclusion of modern phraseology shouldn't surprise anyone. The word book, for example, was not used by the ancient Hebrews. Yet both in the King James Version of the Bible and the Book of Mormon, the word appears anachronistically. Scholars point out that this could well be the logical result of an ancient work translated by a modern man using the wording best suited to convey the ideas to a modern reader.[citation needed]

[edit] Proper Names

The Book of Mormon contains over 300 proper names, which provide a potentially valuable line of evidence in attempting to determine the book's origins. Place names are commonly recognized in historical linguistics as some of the strongest preservers of earlier language, and they are often preserved phonetically by speakers of later languages even when the original meanings have been lost. Various proper names are also used by critics as evidence that the Book of Mormon is not authentic, identifying them as linguistic anachronisms.


Most of the Book of Mormon is purportedly the work of Nephite authors of Israelite ancestry, who wrote in reformed Egyptian and whose spoken language is thought by Mormon scholars to have been derived from Hebrew, perhaps with Egyptian or Native American influences.[original research?] According to the text, the Nephites also had access to portions of the Hebrew Bible. The Book of Ether is a somewhat different case, purportedly being a Nephite translation and abridgment of an originally Jaredite record. The Book of Mormon states that the Jaredites' language was not confounded at the Tower of Babel. Mormon apologists assert that none of these languages were familiar to Joseph Smith at the time he wrote or translated the Book of Mormon.[citation needed][original research?] Critics note that he had access to numerous Hebrew and Greek proper names through his reading of the Bible, and may have lifted other names from people and places that he knew, such as Moroni and Cumorah (Moroni is the capital city of Comoros, an island group in the Indian Ocean - both on a map that Smith had access to)[51] and Lemuel (Lemuel Durfey, Sr. - one of Smith's neighbors).[52]

[edit] Hebrew names

Many of the proper names in the Book of Mormon are Hebrew names found in the Bible (e.g. Lehi, Lemuel, Ammon, and Enos). Mormon scholars also argue that there are a number of attested Hebrew names found in the Book of Mormon which do not appear in the Bible. Examples of these are Aha, Ammonihah, Chemish, Hagoth, Himni, Isabel, Jarom, Josh, Luram, Mathoni, Mathonihah, Muloki, and Sam.[19] Richard Abanes, in his book One Nation Under Gods, suggests that there are Book of Mormon names that may have been taken by Joseph Smith from people or places that he knew, such as Lemuel, who "may refer to Lemuel Durfee, a neighbor [of the Smiths]"[53]

Richard Packham, a critic of the church, has pointed out that several Biblical Hebrew names, including Aaron[54], Ephraim[55], and Levi[56] are listed as Jaredites in the Book of Ether. He argues that these are anachronisms, since the Jaredites are supposed to have originated from the time of the Tower of Babel, and did not speak Hebrew.[14]

Many non-biblical names found in the Book of Mormon resemble words from ancient Hebrew (e.g. Sariah, Jarom, and Josh).[57] Some, like Alma, are attested Hebrew names.

Mormon authors Milton Hunter and Thomas Ferguson allege that Hebraic fragments and roots appear discernible in Nephite / Mulekite names such as "Zarahemla".[58] These names are often interpreted as evidence in favor of the Book of Mormon, since Joseph Smith's knowledge of Hebrew was limited to names found in the Bible.[19]

The suffix -ihah or -hah is used in several names in the Book of Mormon and in other works written or purportedly translated by Joseph Smith. Mormon scholars[citation needed] have interpreted it as a variant of the Tetragrammaton, YHWH, often appearing as YAH or Jah, as in Hallelujah, and which sometimes appears in the form YHH among the 5th century B.C. Aramaic Jewish papyri found at Elephantine, Egypt.[59] However, -ihah does not appear in transliterations of Hebrew names outside of the Book of Mormon.

Examples in the Book of Mormon:

[edit] Mesoamerican Names

LDS archaeologist Bruce W. Warren has noted that some Jaredite names may have become a part of later Nephite culture, suggesting that there may have been survivors or refugees of the great Jaredite battle besides Coriantumr. He cites the names Kib, Kish, Shule, and Com as examples Jaredite names that have been found in ancient Mesoamerica.[60]

[edit] Egyptian names

Some Mormon scholars, including John Gee, John A. Tvedtnes, and Hugh Nibley, argue that Book of Mormon names appear to be Egyptian. Tvedtnes, Gee, and Roper note that William F. Albright considered the names Paanchi and Pahoran to be Egyptian names.[19]

In his book Lehi in the Desert, Dr. Hugh Nibley compares names found in the Book of Mormon with ancient Egyptian names from Upper Egypt. The comparisons show that many names in the Book of Mormon are similar to names in a certain region and era of ancient Egypt. Nibley postulates that names do not match exactly due to the process of metathesis. Parallels drawn by Nibley between Egyptian names and Book of Mormon names include the aforementioned Paanchi and Pahoran, and further include several others including Korihor (Kherihor, a High Priest at Thebes[citation needed]) and Morianton (Meriaton, an Egyptian prince[61]), and Ammon (Amun, the most common name in ancient Egypt)[62]. Thomas Finley rebuts such claims by Nibley and other writers[63][64] Critics claim that the parallels drawn by Nibley and others ignore the possibility of simple coincidence, and lack a defined methodology for assessing the importance of the parallels. (See Parallelomania section below).

Joseph Smith, in a letter written in 1843 to the Latter Day Saints' publication, the Millennial Star, wrote that the name "Mormon" came from "the Egyptian Mon, hence with the addition of more, or the contraction, mor, we have the word Mormon, which means, literally, more good."[65] Richard Packham criticizes this interpretation, stating that the English word "more" or "mor" is out of place in an Egyptian name.[66] Benjamin Urrutia suggests the name Mormon is derived from Egyptian Mor, "Love," and Mon, "firmly established" rendering Mormon as "Love is firmly established." [67]

[edit] Greek names

Joseph Smith stated in a letter to the editor of Times and Seasons, "There was no Greek or Latin upon the plates from which I, through the grace of the Lord, translated the Book of Mormon."[15] Nevertheless, the Book of Mormon contains some names which appear to be Greek, some of which are Hellenizations of Hebrew names (e.g. Antipas, Archeantus, Esrom, Ezias, Judea and Zenos).[original research?] Some of these are found in the New Testament and would have been known to Joseph Smith.[original research?] Others are non-biblical and their presence in the book is puzzling to both believers and skeptics,[original research?] since neither Smith nor the Nephites spoke Greek. One explanation has been offered by Brian D. Stubbs, who said that though the language of the Mulekites isn't put forward in the Book of Mormon, it could have consisted of Phoenician, Greek, or Arabic.[68]

[edit] Word Choice in Translation

The mechanics of the method by which the Book of Mormon was claimed to have been translated have been examined by various scholars in order to determine how words were chosen. Various accounts from witnesses to the translation process exist, including David Whitmer and Martin Harris, two of the Three Witnesses. Statements of the exact methods used in translation vary depending upon the account. A number of these accounts were written many years after the events occurred.

[edit] Method of translation

Mormon Church authorities do not claim to know the exact method by which translation and word choice was accomplished. In an address given 25 June 1992 at a seminar for new mission presidents at the Missionary Training Center, Mormon Apostle Russell M. Nelson stated that “[t]he details of this miraculous method of translation are still not fully known.” In order to illustrate this, Nelson quoted the words of Book of Mormon witness David Whitmer (who had not served as a Book of Mormon scribe), who wrote regarding the use of a seer stone in the translation process over 50 years after it had occurred,[69]

Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing. One character at a time would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe, and when it was written down and repeated to Brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character with the interpretation would appear. Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, and not by any power of man.[70]

Nelson also noted statements made by Joseph's wife, Emma Hale Smith, who gave her account of the translation method in 1856:[69]

When my husband was translating the Book of Mormon, I wrote a part of it, as he dictated each sentence, word for word, and when he came to proper names he could not pronounce, or long words, he spelled them out, and while I was writing them, if I made any mistake in spelling, he would stop me and correct my spelling although it was impossible for him to see how I was writing them down at the time. Even the word Sarah he could not pronounce at first, but had to spell it, and I would pronounce it for him.[71]

Emma also claimed that Smith would translate with the plates in front of him, wrapped in a cloth. This suggests that the process of translation involved viewing the Urim and Thummim or the seer stone rather than viewing the actual plates themselves.[citation needed].

Martin Harris (as quoted by Edward Stevenson in the Deseret News in 1881) described the translation process as follows:

By aid of the seer stone, sentences would appear and were read by the Prophet... when finished [the Prophet] would say "Written," and if correctly written that sentence would disappear and another appear in its place, but if not written correctly it remained until corrected, so that the translation was just as it was engraven on the plates, precisely in the language then used.[72]

[edit] Word substitution

One challenge in performing a linguistic analysis of the Book of Mormon is that no original text is available for analysis; only handwritten printers' copies transcribed from the original handwritten copies of the original English text, and a few pages of the original translation produced by Joseph Smith are available. As with any translation, the influence of the translator is inextricably part of the translated text in matters of word choice. Some Mormon scholars have theorized that when words are found in the Book of Mormon that seem anachronistic, or that refer to items not known to have existed in the pre-Columbian Americas during the period of time covered by the Book of Mormon (e.g. horse, elephant, chicken, cattle, swine, barley, bull, calf, and hilt), these words could be an approximation in translation to things that did exist in pre-Columbian America.[73]

Contemporary accounts by Joseph Smith and his principal scribe, Oliver Cowdery, assert that inspiration, study, thought, and effort were required to translate the plates.[74]

Some[who?] believe that if these accounts of the translation process are accurate, then there is very little room for error in the word choices used in the translation of the Book of Mormon (since each word was believed to be divinely approved and could not be written incorrectly).[citation needed] "Steel" must mean steel, "hilt" must mean hilt, "elephant" must mean elephant, and so forth. However, as Whitmer was never directly involved in the translation and Harris was involved for only a brief period of time, LDS scholars consider it unlikely that either of these accounts is as accurate as the accounts of Smith and Cowdery.[75]

[edit] Grammar

Evangelical author Richard Abanes argues that because the first edition of the Book of Mormon contained hundreds of grammatical errors (removed in later editions), the book was therefore fabricated by J. Smith and not divinely inspired.[76] Examples include (page numbers from 1830 edition):

  • "Adam and Eve, which was our first parents" (p. 15)
  • "This he done that he might subject them" (p. 225)
  • "They did not fight against God no more" (p. 290)

[edit] Parallelomania

Critics of Book of Mormon linguistic studies often reject the claims of Mormon scholars on the grounds that the parallels they draw between Book of Mormon and other sources amounts to "parallelomania", which is defined as the "over use or improper use of parallels in the exposition of a text."

In Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, one researcher, Douglas F. Salmon, alleged that Mormon scholar's work in drawing parallels between the Book of Mormon and other sources fits this classification.[77] Salmon notes:

There has been an exegetical trend during the last several decades to draw endless parallels to text from the ancient Near East and beyond in an attempt to validate the writings in the Book of Mormon and Pearl of Great Price. The pioneer and leader in this effort has been the great LDS scholar Hugh Nibley. In recent years the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (FARMS) has continued this legacy. The number of parallels that Nibley has been able to uncover from amazingly disparate and arcane sources is truly staggering. Unfortunately, there seems to be a neglect of any methodological reflection or articulation in this endeavor.[78]

Douglas also notes that Nibley himself was a critic of parallelomania where it is used to disparage the Book of Mormon, despite his extensive scholarship on the subject in defense of the Book of Mormon, noting that Nibley "ignores" the fact that parallels may suggest a unity of religious thought, or simple coincidence[79]. He also goes on to demonstrate several instances where Nibley misrepresented the parallels, and jumped to conclusions regarding the significance of his examples.

[edit] Importance to Latter-day Saints

Although some have spent significant time searching for historical evidence concerning the Book of Mormon, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints discounts the utility of such in determining the book's legitimacy. Dallin H. Oaks, one of the Twelve Apostles of the LDS Church, stated:

Our individual, personal testimonies are based on the witness of the Spirit, not on any combination or accumulation of historical facts. If we are so grounded, no alteration of historical facts can shake our testimonies.[80]

Book of Mormon linguistic and textual issues are not discussed in missionary lessons or in Sunday School, but are typically addressed in LDS institute classes and religion classes at BYU, as well as in books and magazine articles published by the Church.[81]

[edit] Notes

  1. ^ Mormon 9:33
  2. ^ a b http://www.irr.org/mit/bom-ancient-or-modern.html
  3. ^ His papers were published posthumously by Brigham D. Madsen, ed., B. H. Roberts: Studies of the Book of Mormon, Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1985
  4. ^ Roberts, B. H. Studies of the Book of Mormon. Signature Books, Inc. Salt Lake City. 2nd Edition. 1992. pg.91-92.
  5. ^ Sorenson 1992
  6. ^ Peterson 1997 See citations in Note 4 therein
  7. ^ Lyle Campbell. 1997. American Indian Languages: The Historical Linguistics of Native America. Oxford. "Before turning to the more seriously entertained proposals, I provide a small selection...of the many proposals which would link languages of the Americas with languages from elsewhere in the world. Although some of these proposals have been expounded in more detail than others, none reaches a level of plausibility that makes it worthy of additional attention. Each is near the 100% probability that the languages are unrelated...the confidence ratings in these instances also approach 100%." (pg 261)
  8. ^ Richard Packham. A Linguist Looks at Mormonism. Retrieved on 25 January 2009
  9. ^ See 2 Ne. 10:3
  10. ^ 1 Ne. 1:19
  11. ^ JewishEncyclopedia.com - MESSIAH
  12. ^ BibleGateway.com: A searchable online Bible in over 50 versions and 35 languages
  13. ^ LDS FAQ/Mormon Answers: Questions about Book of Mormon Problems and Alleged Contradictions
  14. ^ a b Packham, Richard. "A Linguist Looks at Mormonism". April 30, 2007. Online version can be found here
  15. ^ a b Times and Seasons, Vol.4, No.13, May 15, 1843, p.194
  16. ^ Hugh Nibley, Since Cumorah, pp. 167-68, discusses the origin, interchangeability, and translated use of the terms “Messiah” and “Christ” as they appear in scripture. Dr. Nibley points out that the Arabic word al-masih, for instance, could be translated using the Hebrew term “Messiah” or the New Testament term “Christ” depending on the context and translator. See also “Meshiach” (מָשִׁיחַ), “anointed”, Hebrew-Aramaic Lexicon
  17. ^ Beckwith, Francis (2002). The New Mormon Challenge. Zondervan. p. 367-396. ISBN 0310231949. 
  18. ^ Cowan, Marvin (1997). Mormon Claims Answered. 
  19. ^ a b c d Tvedtnes, Gee & Roper 2000
  20. ^ Daniel H. Ludlow, A Companion to Your Study of the Book of Mormon, p. 163
  21. ^ 2 Nephi 10:3
  22. ^ More Than Cake: Chiastic Structures in the Scripture
  23. ^ Cedric M. Whitman. Homer and the Heroic Tradition. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1958.
  24. ^ Chiasms have been identified in Cicero’s oration Pro Archia Poeta and Seneca the Younger, Thyestes
  25. ^ For some examples in modern speeches and poetry see http://www.drmardy.com/chiasmus/welcome.shtml
  26. ^ A Journal of Mormon Thought, Vol 33 No. 4, Winter 2000, p 163, by Robert Patterson, "Hebraicisms, Chiasmus, and Other Internal Evidence for Ancient Authorship in 'Green Eggs and Ham'"
  27. ^ Welch 1969
  28. ^ John W. Welch, "How Much Was Known about Chiasmus in 1829 When the Book of Mormon Was Translated?," FARMS Review 15/1 (2003): 47–80.
  29. ^ Welch 2003
  30. ^ Earl M. Wunderli, "Critique of Alma 36 as an Ex tended Chiasm", published in Dialog: A Journal of Mormon Thought
  31. ^ Welch 1997, p. 200, 202
  32. ^ Hugh Pinnock, "Finding Biblical Hebrew and Other Ancient Literary Forms in the Book of Mormon," Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (1999): 11.
  33. ^ Possible chiasmus in other LDS scripture: Doctrine and Covenants 88:34-38, Doctrine and Covenants 18:-38, Doctrine and Covenants 132:19-26, and Abraham 3:16-19
  34. ^ Kroupa & Shipp 1972
  35. ^ Shipp 1975
  36. ^ Edwards & Edwards 2004, p. 107
  37. ^ Edwards & Edwards 2004, p. 123
  38. ^ "Chiasmus". http://www.strangite.org/Chiasmus.htm. 
  39. ^ See Ancient Chiasmus Studied (scroll to p 147) or Chiasmus and the Book of Mormon.
  40. ^ The Devoted Life: An Invitation to the Puritan Classics, edited by Kelly M. Kapic and Randall C. Gleason, InterVarsity Press, October 2004, ISBN 0830827943
  41. ^ Larsen, Rencher & Layton 1980
  42. ^ Tanner & Tanner 1993
  43. ^ Book Of Mormon "Wordprints" Reexamined, D. James Croft, Sunstone, March 1981, Vol. 6:2, p. 15-22 - online at [1]
  44. ^ Reynolds 2002
  45. ^ Kevin L. Barney, "Reflections on the Documentary Hypothesis", Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Vol. 33, No. 1, Spring 2000, pg. 85 - available online at [2]
  46. ^ Hilton 1990
  47. ^ Barney 2000, pp. 85-87
  48. ^ Jockers, M. L., D. M. Witten, and C. S. Criddle, 2008. Reassessing authorship of the Book of Mormon using delta and nearest shrunken centroid classification. Literary and Linguistic Computing, to appear.
  49. ^ "PostMormon.org: Tories". http://www.postmormon.org/tories.htm. 
  50. ^ "Was the Book of Mormon Plagiarized from Walt Whitman's Leaves of Grass?". http://www.jefflindsay.com/bomsource.shtml. 
  51. ^ http://www.lds-mormon.com/names.shtml
  52. ^ http://www.lds-mormon.com/names.shtml
  53. ^ Abanes 2003, p. 72 Abanes's reference for this information is a footnote in Vogel's Early Mormon Documents, vol. 1, p. 321, footnote #128
  54. ^ Ether 1:15-16
  55. ^ Ether 7:9
  56. ^ Ether 1:20-21
  57. ^ Since Cumorah, pp. 171, Nibley discusses non-biblical Hebrew names present in the Book of Mormon
  58. ^ Milton R Hunter and Thomas Stewart Ferguson, Ancient America and the Book of Mormon, pp. 151-52, offer a possible Hebraic derivation: “zara-hamullah”
  59. ^ papyri 1:2, and 13:14, in A. E. Cowley, Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century B.C. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1923/ reprint Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2005), 1-2, 37.
  60. ^ Warren, Bruce. "Surviving Jaredite Names in Mesoamerica". Meridian Magazine. http://www.ldsmag.com/ancients/050526mesoamerica.html.  See also Blaine M. Yorgason, Bruce W. Warren, and Harold Brown. New Evidences of Christ in Ancient America, Book of Mormon Research Foundation. Provo: 1999, Chaper 2, “Jaredite Connections with Mesoamerica,” pp. 17-19).
  61. ^ Nibley makes the comparison in Lehi in the Desert, page 27. His source for the Egyptian name is Die Agyptischen Personennamen ("The Egyptian Personal Names"), by Hermann Ranke, Gluckstadt: Augustin, 1935.
  62. ^ See Lehi in the Desert, pages 25 through 31.
  63. ^ Finley, Thomas "finley does the book of mormon reflect a near eastern background" in Beckwith, Mosser and Owen, New Mormon Challenge: Responding to the Latest Defenses of a Fast-Growing Movement, Zondervan, 2002,
  64. ^ http://www.irr.org/mit/New-Mormon-Challenge-review.html "Rising to the Challenge"
  65. ^ Gallacher, Stuart A, "Mormon: An example of folk etymology, Western Folklore, Vol 8, No 1, January 1949, p. 23
  66. ^ Packham, Richard. "A Linguist Looks at Mormonism: Notes on linguistics problems in Mormonism". Published on the web in April 2003, available here
  67. ^ Urrutia, "The Name Connection," New Era, June 1983, page 39.
  68. ^ Stubbs 1996, p. 1
  69. ^ a b Nelson 1993, p. 61
  70. ^ David Whitmer, An Address to All Believers in Christ, Richmond, Missouri: n.p., 1887, p. 12
  71. ^ (Edmund C. Briggs, “A Visit to Nauvoo in 1856,” Journal of History, Jan. 1916, p. 454.)
  72. ^ Edward Stevenson, "One of the Three Witnesses," reprinted from Deseret News, 30 Nov. 1881 in the Millennial Star, 44 (6 Feb. 1882): 86-87
  73. ^ Sorenson 1985, pp. 293-294
  74. ^ Joseph Smith History and D&C 9
  75. ^ Ricks 1986
  76. ^ Abanes, Richard (2003). One Nation Under Gods: A History of the Mormon Church. Thunder's Mouth Press. pp. 73. ISBN 1568582838. 
  77. ^ Salmon, Douglas F., Parallelomania and the Study of Latter-day Saint Scripture: Confirmation, Coincidence, or the Collective Unconscious?, Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Volume 33, Number 2, Summer 2000, pg. 131 - online version available here
  78. ^ Salmon, Douglas F., Parallelomania and the Study of Latter-day Saint Scripture: Confirmation, Coincidence, or the Collective Unconscious?, Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Volume 33, Number 2, Summer 2000, pg. 129 - online version available here
  79. ^ Salmon, Douglas F., Parallelomania and the Study of Latter-day Saint Scripture: Confirmation, Coincidence, or the Collective Unconscious?, Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Volume 33, Number 2, Summer 2000, pg. 130 - online version available here
  80. ^ "1985 CES Doctrine and Covenants Symposium," Brigham Young University, Aug. 16, 1985, page 26
  81. ^ Bitton 1994

[edit] References

[edit] External links

[edit] See also

Book of Mormon portal
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistics_and_the_Book_of_Mormon"
Personal tools
Languages