Hebraisms in the Book of Mormon

==

Questions

== Critics claim that the Book of Mormon does not contain Hebraic or Semitic language elements, as one should expect if it is truly an ancient record.

Source(s) of the criticism

• Grant H. Palmer, An Insider's View of Mormon Origins (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2002) 57. ( Index of claims )
• Simon Southerton, Losing a Lost Tribe: Native Americans, DNA, and the Mormon Church (Salt Lake City, UT: Signature Books, 2004) 199. ( Index of claims )

==

==

What is a 'Hebraism'?

A hebraism is a way of speaking or writing that uses the grammatical or rhetorical styles of Hebrew. For example, if originally written in English, the Book of Mormon would speak about "brass plates" instead of "plates of brass." However, "plates of brass" matches how a Hebrew writer or speaker would express themselves.

Therefore, Book of Mormon scholars look for evidence of the Book of Mormon's ancient Hebrew origins by identifying phrases or expressions which are not typical for an English speaker of Joseph Smith's day which may reflect a 'direct translation' of the underlying Semitic-style language of the Book of Mormon.

The presence of hebraisms does not prove the Book of Mormon is an ancient record, but they suggest that the translation was (at times, at least) relatively 'tight,' and require the critic to explain where Joseph Smith would have picked up such expressions in rural New York of the 1820s.

Do Hebraisms exist in the Book of Mormon?

Many LDS sources argue that Hebraisms exist. Some have been overly enthusiastic or operated using problematic methodology. For example, Hebrew and other Semitic languages frequently give give a verb a cognate direct object for emphasis, eg. "he dreamed a dream" or "He hit him a hitting." Since the KJV translators were frequently literal in rendering the Hebrew, the Old Testament contains many English examples of this. Thus, the presence of the cognate accusative throughout the Book of Mormon, though a valid Semiticism, cannot be used as strong evidence for the Book of Mormon. (An appreciation of such devices can enhance our appreciation of the text, however.)

For a Semiticism to be strong evidence it must be

1. present in the Book of Mormon, but
2. not common to Joseph's language environment (i.e., the KJV, or English of his day.)

Several such constructions exist.

Colophons

• The use of colophons in the Book of Mormon reflects ancient practice unknown to Joseph.^[1]

Jershon

• For example, in Alma 27:22, the Nephites give the land Jershon to the Anti-Nephi-Lehi's "for an inheritance." Jershon follows a common Hebrew practice of creating names by suffixing -on to the tri-consonantal root. In this case, we have the root y-r-sh, which means among other things, "to inherit." (Hebrew /y/ is usually represented in English with a j.) In other words, the Nephites give the land "Inheritance" to the Anti-Nephi-Lehi's for an inheritance. If making up names at random, one could eventually make some that fit Hebrew patterns. However, the extreme unlikelihood of an imaginary name making sense in a reconstructed Hebrew original argues against this being the case with Jershon.

Names

• Other proper names within the Book of Mormon also qualify, since they are unknown in the Bible, but have since been attested to in other ancient documents.

"Up" to Jerusalem

• Nephi always describes going to Jerusalem as going up (e.g., 1 Nephi 3:9; 4:4; 5:6; 7:3–4), and leaving Jerusalem as going down (e.g., 1 Nephi 2:5; 3:4, 16, 22; 4:35; 5:1; 7:2, 5). This is consistent with Biblical usage in both the Old and New Testaments (e.g., down: 2 Samuel 5:17; Luke 10:30; and Acts 8:15; up: 2 Chronicles 2:16 and Matthew 20:18).^[2]

Other interesting linguistic forms

These forms are included for interest's sake, or because their role as Hebraisms has not yet been established. They are included here because they may make difficult passages more easily understood.

Anapodoton

Alma 36:9 reads in part "If thou wilt of thyself be destroyed, seek no more to destroy the church of God."

This is a rhetorical device called anapodoton. The technical term is Greek, meaning "without the main clause." (The prefix ana- means "without," and apodosis means "main clause.")

Anapodoton is a figure in which a main clause is suggested by the introduction of a subordinate clause, but the main clause never occurs. It is an intentional sentence fragment. Here the fragment, archaically put, means "even if you have no care for your own soul...."

As is obvious from the context, it does not mean (as a native English speaker might read it) "if you want to be destroyed, stop trying to destroy the church"!

==

Answer

== The Book of Mormon does indeed have authentic Semitic constructions in it, but LDS need to tread cautiously in establishing them. Each must be evaluated on its own merits. Hebraisms that could have been known to Joseph Smith may still be authentic, and may still enhance our appreciation of the text, but they are weak evidence for Book of Mormon antiquity.

== Notes ==

1. [note]  John A. Tvedtnes, "Colophones in the Book of Mormon," in Rediscovering the Book of Mormon, edited by John L. Sorenson and Melvin J. Thorne (Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book Co.; Provo, Utah: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1991), 32–37. GL direct link
2. [note]  Jeffrey R. Chadwick, "Lehi's House at Jerusalem and the Land of His Inheritance," in Glimpses of Lehi's Jerusalem, edited by John W. Welch, David Rolph Seely, and Jo Ann H. Seely, (Covenant Communications, 2004), 81–130. ISBN 0934893748. ISBN 978-0934893749. off-site direct off-site

Further reading

FairMormon Answers articles

• Sami Hanna on the Book of Mormon