It’s Very Good Hebrew – Part III

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 15^th 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 15^th 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 1^st Nephi, 1 in 2^nd 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.