Linguistics and the Book of Mormon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page.

Linguistic analysis is an important part of a critical look at the Book of Mormon to determine its validity as an ancient text. According to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and some other denominations, the Book of Mormon is a 19th century translation of a historical record of the inhabitants of the American continent, written in reformed Egyptian. The LDS introduction to the Book of Mormon reads:

The book was written by many ancient prophets by the spirit of prophecy and revelation. Their words, written on gold plates, were quoted and abridged by a prophet-historian named Mormon. The record gives an account of two great civilizations. One came from Jerusalem in ca. 600 B.C., and afterward separated into two nations, known as the Nephites and the Lamanites. The other came much earlier when the Lord confounded the tongues at the Tower of Babel. This group is known as the Jaredites. After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are the principal ancestors of the American Indians.^[1]

Both critics and proponents of the Book of Mormon have used linguistic methods to analyze the text. Proponents claim to have discovered stylistic forms that Joseph Smith and contemporaries are unlikely to have known about, as well as similarities to the Egyptian and Hebrew languages that the book claims to have been written in. Critics point out places where the language seems to be anachronistic, a common sign of a fictional work.

Contents 1 Chiasmus 2 Stylometry (Wordprint Studies) 3 Proper Names 4 Anachronisms 4.1 Word Choice in Translation 4.1.1 "Christ" and "Messiah" 4.1.2 "Church" and "Synagogue" 4.2 The King James Bible 5 Importance to Latter-day Saints 6 References 6.1 Notes 7 See also

[edit] Chiasmus

Chiasmus is a form of rhetorical parallelism wherein key ideas familiar to the reader are inverted, usually to make a point (see entry on chiasmus for examples). 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."

In the 1960s, an LDS attorney and amateur scriptural scholar, John Welch, discovered many uses of chiasmus in the Book of Mormon. (See Chiasmus in the Book of Mormon for several examples.) The most commonly cited example is the prophet Alma's religious experience, as recorded in Alma 36.

Writings in the form of chiasmus are also found in the Doctrine and Covenants and The Pearl of Great Price, two other works of scripture in the LDS Church. However, Smith's own diary also contains examples of this ancient poetic structure, most likely present due to the Bible being used to instruct individuals in how to write. With the Bible as the primary literary source in Joseph Smith's lifetime it is almost a given that certain structures of writing would carry over into his constructs. This lends some credibility to the argument that Joseph Smith was the sole author of the Book of Mormon.

• Purported chiasmus in other LDS scripture:
  • Doctrine and Covenants, Section 88:34-38
  • Doctrine and Covenants, Section 93:18-38
  • Doctrine and Covenants, Section 132:19-26
  • Abraham 3:16-19

Some readers of these suggested examples of chiasmus see only sporadic repetition rather than deliberate and complete chiasmus, such as found in Alma 36.

Richard C. Shipp has produced a masters thesis out of BYU titled "Conceptual Patterns of Repetition in the Doctrine and Covenants and Their Implications." This thesis shows evidence that Smith had both the rhythm of chiasmus and similar literary patterns throughout his writings.

Chiastic patterns have also been found in the Book of the Law of the Lord^[2], 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 process of translation might make identifying chiasmus in the original language difficult. See Ancient Chiasmus Studied (scroll to p 147) or Chiasmus and the Book of Mormon.

A tongue-in-cheek article in Dialogue: 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'" demonstrated that the same arguments which Mormon apologists use to show that chiasm is evidence of the Book of Mormon can also be used to claim that Dr. Seuss's children's book Green Eggs and Ham has ancient origins:

 I am Sam.
 Sam I am.
 ...
 I do not like them, Sam-I-am.
   I do not like green eggs and ham.
     Would you like them here or there?
     I would not like them here or there.
      I would not like them anywhere.
   I do not like green eggs and ham.
 I do not like them, Sam-I-am.

[edit] Stylometry (Wordprint Studies)

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.

Critics challenge their findings on various points, most notably questioning the reliability of the data sources used and the methodology of the "wordprint analysis." However, in 1987 an analysis was completed which verified the results of the earlier study, showing that it was statistically improbable that Joseph Smith or any other purported modern authors were the source of the writings of Nephi or Alma (who themselves have writing styles distinct from each other). In this new study, the oldest Book of Mormon manuscripts were used.

Nevertheless, wordprint studies are rarely mentioned among Latter-day saints; church leaders teach that readers should pray to find confirmation of the Book of Mormon's divinity. One prominent Mormon apologist, John Tvedtnes, has rejected the use of wordprint evidence as the foundation for a testimony of the Book of Mormon's validity.^[3] For criticism of these studies, see Issue #84 of the Salt Lake City Messenger, "New Computer Study".

Recently, 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 historial and religious figures of the 18th and 19th centuries.^[4] Unlike the earlier studies, Donofrio's research has not been peer-reviewed. Others point out that the use of parallels to prove derivation can be used to illogical extremes. One apologist, Jeff Lindsay, composed a documented essay proving the parallels between The Book of Mormon and Walt Whitman's Leaves of Grass.^[5] The piece is clearly satirical, however; Leaves of Grass was published 25 years after the Book of Mormon.

LDS scholars, however, note 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.

[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.

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, though not specified in the book, is generally assumed to have been derived from Hebrew, perhaps with Egyptian or Native American influences. 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, so their language would have been descended from or identical to Adamic. None of these languages was familiar to Joseph Smith at the time he wrote or translated the Book of Mormon. However, he had access to numerous Hebrew and Greek proper names through his reading of the Bible.

Many of the proper names in the Book of Mormon are Hebrew names found in the Bible (e.g. Lehi, Lemuel, Ammon, Enos, and many others). For the most part, these provide no evidence for or against the book's authenticity, since they would have been familiar both to the Nephites and to Joseph Smith. One complication is the occasional use of Biblical Hebrew names (e.g. Aaron, Levi, Ephraim) in the Book of Ether. Those who believe Joseph Smith was a fraud and wrote the Book of Mormon see this as one of his mistakes. Though the Jaredites would have had names such as Adam, Enoch, and Noah (or their Jaredite counterparts), they probably would not have spoken Hebrew; no one knows exactly what their language would have been. However, Moroni, the Nephite abridger and translator of the Book of Ether, had ancestors from Jerusalem and may have simply used a familiar (Nephite) form of the Jaredite names.

Some scholars have noticed that some Jaredite names became a part of later Nephite culture, suggesting that there may have been survivors or refugees of the great Jaredite battle besides Coriantumr. Kib, Kish, Shule, and Com, for instance, were Jaredite names that have been found in ancient Mesoamerica.^[6] However, it should also be noted that nearly every possible (consonant-vowel-consonant) syllable is a proper name in one or another language spoken in Mesoamerica^{[citation needed]}.

Many non-biblical names found in the Book of Mormon resemble words from ancient Hebrew (e.g. Alma, Sariah, Aha, Ammonihah, Chemish, Hagoth, Himni, Isabel, Jarom, Josh, Luram, Mathoni, Mathonihah, Mosiah, and Muloki). Some, like Alma, are attested Hebrew names; others are unattested but plausible. 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.

Some Book of Mormon names appear to be Egyptian. Paanchi is an attested Egyptian name, for instance, and Ammon could as easily be Egyptian as Hebrew. Less obvious Egyptian connections have been proposed for several other names, such as Cumenihah (cf. Egyptian Khamuni-ra) and Gidgiddoni (cf. Egyptian Djed-djhwt-iw-f-ankh).^[7] These etymologies however are dismissed by linguists because of, among other reasons, perceived inconsistancies in sound changes between the "Egyptian" and "Mormon" names^{[citation needed]}.

The Book of Mormon also contains some names which appear to be Greek, some of which are Hellenizations of Hebrew names (e.g. Antipas, Archeantus, Esrom, Ezias, Jonas, Judea, Timothy, and Zenos). Some of these are found in the New Testament and would have been known to Joseph Smith. Others are non-biblical and their presence in the book is puzzling to both believers and skeptics, since neither Smith nor the Nephites spoke Greek.

A few Book of Mormon names are similar to place names around New York that existed before the Book of Mormon was first published (e.g. Lehi, Onidah, Morianton, Jacobugath, Alma, Shilom, Kishkumen, Moron, Ogath, and Ramah).^[8] These are sometimes cited as evidence that Smith wrote the book.

As with chiasmus, the method of identifying apparent similarities between Book of Mormon names and known proper names from a variety of sources outside of a demonstration of a systemetized influence, has been criticized with humor, as in the article Lehi in the Pacific: Powerful New Evidence for the Book of Mormon. [1]

Overall, the evidence provided by the proper names is ambiguous and does not by itself make a strong case for or against the authenticity of the Book of Mormon.

[edit] Anachronisms

[edit] Word Choice in Translation

One complication in 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 apologists have theorized that when words are found in the Book of Mormon that seem anachronistic, or that refer to items not found in the pre-Columbian Americas, or were prior or post the Book of Mormon period (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.

Critics note that this hypothesis does not square with certain accounts by those who claimed to be eyewitnesses to the translation process of the Book of Mormon, including David Whitmer and Martin Harris, two of the Three Witnesses. Later in his life, David Whitmer (who had not served as a Book of Mormon scribe) described stories of Joseph dropping a seer stone into his hat, then burying his face in the hat and proceeding to dictate the Book of Mormon. According to these recollections, Joseph claimed to see in the darkened hat the words he dictated. Several of the witnesses comment that the gold plates were sometimes not even in sight as Joseph dictated the Book of Mormon^{[citation needed]}. This evidence of the actual Book of Mormon translation method has been discussed in at least six different scholarly articles and several books by Mormon historians over the past 30 years (see "References" section). However, statements by Joseph's wife, Emma Hale Smith, claim he would translate with the plates in front of him, wrapped in a cloth. Moreover, contemporary accounts by Joseph Smith and his principal scribe, Oliver Cowdery, assert that inspiration, study, thought, and effort were required to translate the plates,^[9] casting some doubt on the later purported recollections by David Whitmer, Martin Harris and others.

In an address made nearly sixty years after the publication of the Book of Mormon and fifty years after leaving the main body of saints, David Whitmer said, "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".^[10]

Martin Harris (as quoted by Edward Stevenson, another Latter-day Saint) 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".^[11]

Some 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 reportedly divinely approved and could not be written incorrectly). "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, it is unlikely that either of these accounts is as accurate as the accounts of Smith and Cowdery.

Aside from word choice, there are other matters in the Book of Mormon text that seem problematic to some. Most of these deal with concepts for the existence of which there is little or no evidence either in pre-Columbian America or in the Jewish world of Lehi's time.

[edit] "Christ" and "Messiah"

The word "Christ" is the English transliteration of the Greek word Χριστός (transliterated precisely as Khristós); 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". ^[12] 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". ^[13] If you take any passage in the Bible that uses the word "Christ", you can substitute for it the word "Messiah" or "the Messiah" with no change in meaning (e.g. Matthew 1:1, 16, 18; 27:17, 22; Mark 1:1; 12:35; John 1:17; 17:3; Acts 2:38; 3:6, 20; 4:10; 5:42; 8:12, 37; 9:34; 10:36; 11:17; 15:11, 26; 16:18, 31; 17:3; 18:5, 28; 19:4; 20:21; 28:31).

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 doesn't matter which word is used:

"And now, my sons, remember, remember that it is upon the rock of our Redeemer, who is (Christ/the Messiah), 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 (Christ/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).

Apologists state that the original Reformed Egyptian text certainly used Hebrew forms of names and titles exclusively, but when translating Joseph Smith simply used whichever form of the name ("Christ" or "Messiah") was more appropriate in English. ^[14]

However, 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 speaks as if the term "Christ" is a new term, and from this point on the word "Christ" is used almost exclusively in the Book of Mormon. Critics assert that this pattern of usage implies a modern, non-divine origin of the book. ^[15]

[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).

This exchange allegedly happened in Jerusalem, around 600 B.C.^{[citation needed]} What reformed Egyptian phrase would have been translated as "brethren of the church"? To some who are ignorant of the true meaning of the word "church," the entire concept seems out of place with Judaism of that era. However, the Bible consistently uses the word "church" differently than is common in 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 fact that the Book of Mormon uses the word "church" in the same style as the Bible and NOT as it is used in modern English is seen by some apologists as support for the Book of Mormon. However, the usage of "church" as "congregation" is a common, though not the most common, usage in modern English.

A similar difficulty occurs with the word "synagogue," found for example 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).

Many biblical scholars believe that synagogues did not exist before the destruction of the temple and the Babylonian captivity, and hence would be unknown to the people of the Book of Mormon, said to have fled Jerusalem around 600 BC. However, the KJV of Psalms 74:8 contains the word "synagogue": "the synagogues of God in the land." In addition, as with the discussion about the use of the word "church" above, the word synagogue in the Bible simply refers in general to a place of assembly for religious worship; it would have a similar meaning in the Book of Mormon. In addition, extra biblical accounts referencing the legend of Ester allude to synagogues.

[edit] The King James Bible

Main article: The Book of Mormon and the King James Bible

The Book of Mormon contains many linguistic similarities to the King James Bible. In some cases, entire passages of scripture are duplicated in the Book of Mormon. Sometimes the source is acknowledged, as in the book of 2 Nephi, where 18 chapters of Isaiah are quoted. The English text is copied nearly verbatim from the Authorized Version, with minor changes in the majority of verses. In other cases, the source is not acknowledged, especially in the case of seemingly anachronistic borrowings.

Other significant connections between the two books include Book of Mormon words and phrases that only appear in their KJV usage, perpetuation of Bible passages considered by most scholars to have been mistranslated in the King James Version, and the apparent use of English homophones. Additionally, one LDS scholar has made the observation that the Book of Mormon uses an archaic vocabulary that seems to reflect 16th- and 17th-century usage rather than the 19th-century usage one would expect if it had been authored by Joseph Smith.^{[citation needed]}

[edit] Importance to Latter-day Saints

Although many LDS scholars spend significant time searching for historical evidence for the verity of their religion, they are quick to point out that these matters are secondary to them. In the view of most Latter-day Saints, a spiritual experience invoked through prayer is the primary way to gain a personal conviction that the Book of Mormon is authentic. 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.^[16]

[edit] References

• Grant H. Palmer, An Insider's View of Mormon Origins, (Signature Books, SLC, 2002, pp. 2-7,66,169). Palmer is an LDS seminary teacher and three-time director of LDS Institutes of Religion in California and Utah
• D. Michael Quinn, Early Mormonism and the Magic World View (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1987; revised, expanded 1998, pp. 41-ff)
• James E. Lancaster, "By the Gift and Power of God," Saints Herald, 109:22 (November 15, 1962) pp. 14-18, 22, 33
• Edward H. Ashment, "The Book of Mormon — A Literal Translation," Sunstone, 5:2 (March-April 1980), pp. 10-14
• Richard S. Van Wagoner and Steven C. Walker in "Joseph Smith: The Gift of Seeing," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, 15:2 (Summer 1982), pp. 48-68
• Blake T. Ostler, "The Book of Mormon as a Modern Expansion of an Ancient Source," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, 20:1 (Spring 1987), pp. 66-123
• Royal Skousen, "The Archaic Vocabulary of the Book of Mormon," FARMS Insights 25:5.
• Stephen D. Ricks, "The Translation and Publication of the Book of Mormon," Foundation for Ancient Research & Mormon Studies, official F.A.R.M.S. transcript of video lecture, 1994, 16 pages. Online version

[edit] Notes

[edit] See also

• Book of Mormon
• Reformed Egyptian
• Linguistics