Continuing
from the previous post regarding the difficulty with the English in Joseph
Smith’s translation, but how, unbeknownst to most, excels in Hebrew. We have
pointed this out and continue to point it out in this post that not only is the
Book of Mormon an authentic book of what it proclaims to be, an English
translation of an ancient work by Hebrew-speaking and Hebrew-writing people (writing in Reformed Egyptian),
but it should convey to those who try to bend or alter its meaning from
north-south to east-west, or from other alterations that the way the book is
written and its many meanings are verifiable with a certain knowledge of Hebrew
adding to our better understanding of Mormon’s abridgement of the several
ancient writers.
As
an example John L. Sorenson, in his work An
Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon, states unequivocally: “Under
Benjamin, the next king, the non-Nephite masses understood whichever language
the Nephite king chose to use for his speech (recorded in Mosiah 2 through 5;
see Mosiah 2:6 in particular). That the more numerous “Mulekite” subjects had
all learned the language Mosiah brought among them a generation earlier seems
highly unlikely. Judging by the history of most contacts of this sort, the less
numerous nobility would have made the change, at least in the long run. Later,
even when Nephites and Lamanites conversed (as in Alma 17:20-24:30) there is
little indication of a language problem or of the use of translators. Perhaps
some lingua franca is implied…a
knowledge of spoken Hebrew possibly continued among the Nephite rulers for a
time, but that such special elite knowledge lasted down to the time of Cumorah
is harder to believe. Still, the record’s silence prevents settling the matter”
(p76).
This
is the type of so-called scholarly commentary we find from Theorists of all
type who write about that of which they seem not to know anything about. By way
of explanation, let’s take these points one by one:
•
“That the more numerous “Mulekite”
subjects had all learned the language Mosiah brought among them a generation
earlier seems highly unlikely.”
Response:
History does not show that to be unlikely. When William the Conqueror settled
in England after the Battle of Hastings and winning the English throne, the
language of France—from which these “Normans” had come—and called Oil dialects
(Northern French dialects) became the language of the English court, society, and
literary and administrative purposes for nearly 4 centuries, i.e., the Norman
language, and was to be spoken everywhere—that the stubborn English peasant
refused to change-over did not affect that from 1066 through the 15th
century, this “French” was not only the language of court, but of all
government business in every hamlet. Only because eventually the English Normans
wanted to separate themselves from France, did the language eventually fade
into a lingua franca (a new adopted
language) of England (a mixture of both languages called Anglo-Norman)
•
“Judging by the history of most contacts
of this sort, the less numerous nobility would have made the change, at least
in the long run.”
Response:
This simply did not happen and history is full of examples where an advanced
nobility sought to spread their knowledge and customs, including their language
throughout the conquered land.
•
“Later, even when Nephites and Lamanites
conversed (as in Alma 17:20-24:30) there is little indication of a language
problem or of the use of translators.”
Response:
“It does not take long for a people to assimilate a new language, especially
when their rulers command that it be learned and it becomes the language of
government.”
•
“Perhaps some lingua franca is implied…”
Response:
Throughout history, new languages were learned as new groups spread through the
land. The Celtic language died out when the Anglo-Saxons moved into England,
bringing with them a form of West German language that became known as Old
English from the name of the Angles from Jutland Peninsula (modern Denmark), in
concert with the Frisian dialects. This Old English swept across England,
replacing the earlier Celtic. The French language of William the Conqueror
eventually mixed with that of England to form Middle English by the 15th
century, when “Modern” English (known by Shakespeare) came into being.
•
“…a knowledge of spoken Hebrew possibly
continued among the Nephite rulers for a time, but that such special elite
knowledge lasted down to the time of Cumorah is harder to believe.”
Response:
Well, it might be hard for Sorenson to believe, but Moroni made it quite clear
that the Nephites had always spoken and written Hebrew and makes that obvious
when he wrote around 400 A.D. “And if our plates had been
sufficiently large we should have written in Hebrew; but the Hebrew hath been
altered by us also; and if we could have written in Hebrew, behold, ye would
have had no imperfection in our record” (Mormon 9:33)
•
“Still, the record’s silence prevents
settling the matter.”
Response:
The record is not silent about this. Nephi tells us in 600 B.C. that “I make a
record in the language of my father, which consists of the learning of the Jews
and the language of the Egyptians” (1 Nephi 1:2). The language of the Jews and his father,
of course, would have been Hebrew. And 1000 years later, Moroni says they are
still using Hebrew (Mormon 9:33).
The point of this is, people, even
with letters after their names and taking a scholarly approach, misunderstand
the very simple matters Mormon informs us regarding language and relationships
involved in those languages, which we can verify today with all the knowledge
available about the Hebrew language.
Another example is that Hebrew pronouns are frequently overused by English
standards. The following are two examples of this Hebraism which are common to
both the Old Testament and the Book of Mormon.
Redundant
Pronouns: Hebrew often uses a pronoun in a subordinate clause which refers to
the same person or object referenced in the main clause. For example, Nephi
says, "I beheld, and saw the people of the seed of my brethren and…they had
overcome my seed" (1 Nephi 12:20). This is also shown in: "his
house," or "my words."
However,
even this acceptable English translation results in a strange construction when
there is more than one object referenced—as in “And it came to pass that he
departed into the wilderness. And he left his
house, and the land of his
inheritance, and his gold, and his silver, and his precious things, and took nothing with him, save it were his family, and provisions, and tents,
and departed into the wilderness” (1 Nephi 2:4). This is because when the pronoun is attached to the noun, a literal
translation must repeat the relative pronoun.
Another example is the expression "from
before,” which occurs 78 times in the King James translation of the Old
Testament. These are expressions like: "from before us,” “from before
thee," "from before them," "from before thy presence,"
“from before me,” and "from before thy face." This is a Hebraism and
does not occur in the New Testament. This form of expression appears 21 times
in the Book of Mormon. Some might say that Joseph just copied this from the Old
Testament. With this in mind, one example is interesting. The Hebrew phrase mil-li-phnê, from paniym (פנים) pronounced “paw-neem,”
meaning “face,” or “presence,” with “toward” or “in front of,” can literally be
translated as "from before the face of," or "from before my
face," or "from before the presence of."
It might also be of
interest to know that this word is always used in the plural (the ים suffix identifies this word as
plural), meaning a person has many
faces, including the “presence” or the “wholeness of being” of an individual,
thus paniym, not only means “before
my face,” but “before all of my faces,” or before my total being. Thus, it
might be said of the Aaronic Blessing from a Hebraic Perspective that: “The Lord
bless you and keep you: The Lord make his face to shine upon you, and be
gracious to you: The Lord lift up his countenance upon you, and give you
peace,” which literally means “The Lord (YHWH)
will kneel before you presenting gifts and will guard you with a hedge of
protection. The Lord (YHWH) will illuminate the wholeness of his being toward
you bringing order and he will give you comfort and sustenance. The Lord (YHWH)
will lift up his wholeness of being and look upon you and he will set in place
all you need to be whole and complete.”
The
point is, that of the 22 Book of Mormon occurrences (6 in 1st Nephi,
1 in 2nd Nephi, 1 in Mosiah, 2 in Alma, 6 in 3 Nephi, 4 in Mormon, 1
in Moroni, and 1 in Ether) of "from before," thirteen are closely
related to "from before my face." This is exactly the wording of six
of these. Only once does "from before my face" appear in the KJV of
the Old Testament, so it is unlikely a copying claim can be made.
Again,
we find the observable authenticity of the Book of Mormon, which is written in
Very Good Hebrew (not so good English).
(See
the next post, “It’s Very Good Hebrew – Part II,” for more on how the Book of
Mormon fails in English but excels in Hebrew.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment