Article(s) of the Week: Gardner and Bokovoy Clean House!

I wish to begin a new series here at the blog, which I have called Article(s) of the Week. This new series will begin today and every Sunday (if time and circumstance permits) I wish to post something new. My purpose in doing this is two fold:

1. I wish to share with the reader what I think are some excellent papers on issues surrounding the Book of Mormon

2. I wish to discuss some of themes or ideas presented in the paper(s).

For the inauguration of this new series, I wish to post two essays written by two of my new favorite Book of Mormon scholars; Brant Gardner, Mesoamerican Anthropologist, and David Bokovoy, Biblical/Hebrew scholar. These two essays are reviews of the anti-Mormon video The Bible vs. The Book of Mormon which is a screed produced by Living Hope Ministries. This particular Evangelical anti-Mormon group has also produced another video entitled DNA vs. The Book of Mormon.*

The basic argument of the video runs as follows:

1. Both the Bible and the Book of Mormon claim to be historical texts.

2. The Bible has been proven to be historically trustworthy by archaeology. Therefore, we should accept it as the Word of God.

3. The Book of Mormon has no such archaeological evidence for its behalf, and we therefore should not accept it as the Word of God or historical. 

4. This means that Mormons should therefore abandon Mormonism and convert to fundamentalist Protestantism.

As I watched this video, I was taken aback by the many distortions, misrepresentations and flawed logic that it exhibits. I was further taken aback by the libelous comments of Thomas Murphy against Dan Peterson (at one point in the video he flat out calls Dr. Peterson a liar) and the fact that he and the other participants never really engaged in LDS research on this subject. 

At one point, for example, a prominent Israeli archaeologist commented on how the Book of Mormon has "no authority" at all or does not fit in an ancient Near Eastern background. I was left to wonder if this scholar was familiar with the book Glimpses of Lehi's Jerusalem edited by J. Welch and D. and J. A. Seely or Lehi in the Desert by H. Nibley. These tomes show powerfully how the Book of Mormon fits nicely in an ancient Near Eastern background.

At another point in the video, a British scholar comments on how the presence of Greek names and words (such as Timothy, Baptism or even Christ) in the Book of Mormon compromises it as an ancient text. However, considering that 1) the presence of Greek names amongst ancient Hebrews from Lehi's time and earlier is well attested** and 2) the Book of Mormon is a translation, which would account for Joseph Smith applying familiar terms such as baptism or Christ to the original word in reformed Egyptian, I was startled that this scholar would claim such. 

One of the major flaws in this video, therefore, is that the scholars interviewed make dogmatic and triumphant judgments without giving any attention to the work of Latter-day Saint scholars. Like the group of Egyptologists gathered by Rev. Spalding in 1912 who blasted the Book of Abraham***, so these scholars make proud and rash assertions without looking at the Latter-day Saint response to such.

There is much more that I could be write on this subject, but I will allow Messers. Bokovoy and Gardner fill in for now. They show the flaws and shortcomings of The Bible vs. The Book of Mormon and why this anti-Mormon propaganda piece fails miserably to take into account the real evidence and the facts. In his review, Gardner demonstrates how this video has failed to handled the data regarding the Book of Mormon and Mesoamerican archaeology/anthropology while Bokovoy, in his review, shows the poor methodology of the video and its claims regarding Biblical archaeology. 

Behind the Mask, Behind the Curtain: Uncovering the Illusion in the FARMS Review (17/2. 2005. 145-195) by Brant Gardner.

The Bible vs. The Book of Mormon: Still Losing the Battle in the FARMS Review (18/1. 2006. 3-19) by David Bokovoy.

* I have addressed some of the claims in this video in my post on DNA and the Book of Mormon.

** Thanks to Robert Boylan for pointing this information out to me.

*** In 1912, Rev. F Spalding sent the 3 facsimiles of the Book of Abraham, along with Joseph Smith's offered translations, to the top Egyptologists of the western world to test the Prophet. These scholars did little more than pass their hasty opinions and judgments on the matter without looking at all the evidence and data. When pressed by Mormon scholars such as B. H. Roberts, John A. Widtsoe and Janne Sjodahl on areas in which they were wanting, these same Egyptologists responded by simply flashing their PhDs and asserting their rank and academic record. In effect, they glibly waved their credentials without doing a complete analysis of the Mormon arguments or all of the evidence. For an excellent overview of this, the reader is recommended Joseph Smith and the Critics and Joseph Smith and the Sources by Hugh Nibley and the original responses to Rev. Spalding by the Latter-day Saint scholars.

Nephi Quotes Isaiah (1 Nephi 20)

In chapters 20 and 21 of 1st Nephi, we find a peculiar thing. Nephi begins quoting Isaiah. Isaiah was a prophet who lived over 150 years before Nephi and Nephi quotes him extensively here and later on in 2nd Nephi. When the Savior visits America in 3rd Nephi (a different "Nephi") He also quotes Isaiah. What was there in Isaiah's writings that intrigued Nephi and that was worthy of quotation by the Savior?

Something you'll find as you get into "the Isaiah chapters" of the Book of Mormon is that it breaks up the historical flow of the book, thus becoming a bit jarring to the reader. Ask any member of the Church how they feel about the Isaiah chapters and they'll readily admit that it feels like walking through peanut butter. They often state that it's because Isaiah uses names and concepts that seem foreign and out of context to what Nephi has been saying.

This is why it seems astounding that, in 2nd Nephi 25, after quoting Isaiah extensively, Nephi proclaims:

...for behold, my soul delighteth in plainness unto my people, that they may learn.

What can he mean by "plainness"? A closer inspection of verse 4 tells us.

Wherefore, hearken, O my people, which are of the house of Israel, and give ear unto my words; for because the words of Isaiah are not plain unto you, nevertheless they are plain unto all those that are filled with the ^aspirit of ^bprophecy. But I give unto you a ^cprophecy, according to the spirit which is in me; wherefore I shall prophesy according to the ^dplainness which hath been with me from the time that I came out from Jerusalem with my father; for behold, my soul delighteth in ^eplainness unto my people, that they may learn.

But behold, I proceed with mine own prophecy, according to my ^aplainness; in the which I ^bknow that no man can err; nevertheless, in the days that the prophecies of Isaiah shall be fulfilled men shall know of a surety, at the times when they shall come to pass.

The spirit of prophecy is defined by John the Divine in Revelation 19:10:

10 And I ^afell at his feet to ^bworship him. And he said unto me, See thou do it not: I am thy ^cfellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the ^dtestimony of Jesus is the spirit of ^eprophecy.

Isaiah, who was a man of no small status in Jerusalem and was a extremely educated scholar, used high-order Hebraic poetry, complex imagery, and symbolism to transmit the message to those who were faithful enough to discern its meaning. Like the Savior using parables, Isaiah "hid" the things of the Lord from those who would not be prepared to hear them in order to keep them from condemning themselves by reading it in plainer language and still rejecting it. In other words, wicked people who didn't have the spirit of prophecy, or a testimony of Jesus Christ, would never understand how plain these words were; nor should they for they would then trifle with sacred things.

As with all things of God, first comes a testimony that Jesus is the Christ, then comes understanding of prophecies about Him. Isaiah's mission was clearly to prophesy of Jesus Christ. For that reason alone did the Savior chose to quote Isaiah above all the prophets. Anyone who listens closely to the libretto of G.F. Handel's Messiah will detect that Isaiah was focused principally on the Savior's life.

With that in mind, let's proceed with a quick summary of what Nephi is trying to get across to his audience by quoting Isaiah 48.

The first key to understanding Isaiah chapters in the Book of Mormon and in the LDS King James Version of the Bible is to first look at the chapter heading. That will give you an idea of what you should seek to comprehend. While you should definitely read the entire chapter, there is not sufficient space in this ideally short blog post to cover it all. The critical verses are noted below along with the principal messages of this chapter.

1. Verses 3 through 6 - The Lord reveals his purposes to Israel.
   
2. Verses 10 and 20 through 21 - They have been chosen in the furnace of affliction and are to go forth from Babylon

Here's the breakdown:

Message 1

3 Behold, I have declared the ^aformer things from the beginning; and they went forth out of my mouth, and I showed them. I did show them suddenly.

4 And I did it because I knew that thou art obstinate [we are all in need of a Savior], and thy ^aneck is an iron sinew, and thy brow brass;

5 And I have even from the beginning declared to thee; before it came to pass I ^ashowed them thee; and I showed them for fear lest thou shouldst say—Mine idol hath done them, and my graven image, and my molten image hath commanded them [God is whom we should praise, not idols].

6 Thou hast seen and heard all this; and will ye ^anot declare them [missionary work that would accompany the Savior's ministry]? And that I have showed thee new things [new covenant between God and man] from this time, even hidden things [prophecy of His coming], and thou didst not know them.

Message 2

10 For, behold, I have refined thee, I have chosen thee in the furnace of ^aaffliction [a type or symbol of the suffering of the Savior].
20 ^aGo ye forth of Babylon, flee [Christ's refusal to commit sin, the imperative to follow His example] ye from the ^bChaldeans, with a voice of singing declare ye, tell this [missionary work], utter to the end of the earth; say ye: The Lord hath redeemed his ^cservant Jacob [the Atonement].

21 And they ^athirsted not [Christ is the living water]; he led them through the deserts [Christ guides us through afflictions]; he caused the waters to flow out of the ^brock for them ; he clave the rock also and the waters gushed out [a type of Christ's side being pierced by a spear on the cross].

So, whenever you encounter the phrase "Compare Isaiah" in a chapter heading while reading the Book of Mormon, be sure to switch your frame of mind to thinking of how what Isaiah says relates to the Savior.

No Evidence for the Book of Mormon?

Critics of the Book of Mormon like to make the claim that there is no evidence for the Book of Mormon's authenticity. They claim that there is not a shred of archeaological, anthropological, liguistic, cultural, textual or historical evidence for the Book of Mormon or the claims of Joseph Smith. They also like to throw a laundry list of "problems" in the Book of Mormon that they claim compromises the Book of Mormon as an ancient text.

I must confess that I have little patience for this claim or for those who advocate it. Over the years, scholars (primarily LDS but also with some non-LDS researchers as well) have written literally thousands of pages on evidence for the Book of Mormon as an ancient Near Eastern and Mesoamerican record. From the early works of B. H. Roberts, John Widstoe, Janne Sjodahl, George Reynolds and James Talmage to the pioneering and groundbreaking research of Hugh Nibley, to the recent work of scholars from the Neal A. Maxwell Institute (including Daniel C. Peterson, John Sorenson, John Welch, Brant Gardner, S. Kent Brown, Donald W. Perry, John Gee, John Tvedtnes and many more) dozens upon dozens of books, articles, essays, etc. have been written on this subject, documenting evidence for the Book of Mormon as an ancient record.

These materials, however, can sometimes get very technical and run into hundreds of pages and several volumes. The lay reader, therefore, may feel intimidated at times in trying to read through all of this material. To this end, Kerry Shirts, one of my favorite online "armchair" apologists next to Jeff Lindsay, has made a series of videos which he has posted on his youtube page in which he discusses these evidences on a level which is easily understandable and enjoyable to watch.

On an excellent blog, Lehi's Library, the author, a Latter-day Saint whose name is James, has put together a list of Kerry's videos in an easily accessable format and order. For those who are not too thrilled about reading through the thousands of pages on the subject of evidence for the Book of Mormon, or for critics who dogmatically assert that there is no evidence for the Book of Mormon, these videos are highly recommended. Take a look!

http://lehislibrary.wordpress.com/bom-evidences/

For further reading on the Book of Mormon and some of the material covering the evidence for such, I have created a list of recommended books that the reader is encouraged to look at.

Some Notes on the Name Sariah

In a few previous posts, I have discussed how the names Alma and Nephi, to name a few, are authentic ancient names from the Near East. The name Alma, for example, has been discovered in the Bar Kokhba texts as being a male Semitic name, and the name Nephi is attested in Egyptian texts. 

This morning, as I was browsing through some books of mine, I came across an interesting essay in the book Pressing Forward with the Book of Mormon. It was written by Jeffry R. Chadwick of BYU and is entitled Sariah in the Elephantine Papyri (pages 6-10). In this essay, Chadwick notes how the Book of Mormon name Sariah has also been discovered in ancient texts from Egypt. He writes that "The reference to Sariah of Elephantine is found in Aramaic Papyrus #22 (also called Cowley #22 or C–22) and appears in Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century B.C. Although the language of the documents is Aramaic, A. E. Cowley specifies that the names are in fact Hebrew.¹ Line 4 of C–22 lists the personal name, transliterated śry[h br]t hwś' br ḥrmn. The probable vocalization is Sariah barat Hoshea bar ḥarman, and the text means "Sariah daughter of Hoshea son of ḥarman.""

Chadwick further notes that the Elaphantine papyrus was not discovered until 1903, so there is no possible way that Joseph Smith could have had access to it. Furthermore, Chadwick discusses how the name Sariah, while normally a masculine name in Hebrew, has been verified as a feminine name. Much like the name Alma, this name breaks the gender barrier and has been shown to be both a male and female name. 

Although this is by no means proof of the Book of Mormon's authenticity, this evidence of the authenticity of the name Sariah as an ancient Semitic feminine name is just another piece of the puzzle that fits the Book of Mormon right at home in the ancient Near East. 

To read the full article, see here: http://farms.byu.edu/publications/bookschapter.php?bookid=&chapid=619

If/and Conditional Clauses in the Book of Mormon

Over the years, scholars have identified a number of Hebraisms in the Book of Mormon. Hebraisms, of course, being unique Hebrew rhetorical or literary devices commonly used in the ancient Near East. One of my personal favorites is the if/and conditional clause, which are found in the original manuscripts and the 1st edition of the Book of Mormon.

In English, conditional clauses are structured in a if/then format. For example, I might say:

"If you do not study, then you will fail the test."

"If you do not eat your vegetables, then you will not get dessert."

"If you go near the ledge, then you will fall off the cliff."

In biblical Hebrew as well as Egyptian, however, conditional clauses are best emphasized by an if/and format. So, I would say:

"If you do not study, and you will fail the test."

"If you do not eat your vegetables, and you will not get desert."

"If you go near the ledge, and you will fall off."

While if/and conditional clauses are horrific English (any student caught doing that on an English assignment would surely get an F grade) they are perfectly acceptable if not the norm in biblical Hebrew and Egyptian.

There are some passages in the Book of Mormon that once had if/and conditional clauses but were eventually edited out by Joseph Smith because if/and conditional clauses are not possible in English. One instance occurs in the original manuscript in Helaman 12:13-21 (pg. 440 in the 1830 edition) which reads as follows:

13 yea and if he saith unto the earth move and it is moved
14 yea if he say unto the earth thou shalt go back that it lengthen out the day for many hours and it is done
16 and behold also if he saith unto the waters of the great deep be thou dried up and it is done
17 behold if he saith unto this mountain be thou raised up and come over and fall upon that city that it be buried up and behold it is done
19 and if the Lord shall say be thou accursed that no man shall find thee from this time henceforth and forever and behold no man getteth it henceforth and forever
20 and behold if the Lord shall say unto a man because of thine iniquities thou shalt be accursed forever and it shall be done
21 and if the Lord shall say because of thine iniquities thou shalt be cut off from my presence and he will cause that it shall be so

Another occurrence is in Moroni 10:4-5, which is famously dubbed "Moroni's Promise". In the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon it reads:

and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart with real intent having faith in Christ and he will manifest the truth of it unto you by the power of the Holy Ghost.

If/and conditional clauses in the Book of Mormon are impressive enough on their own, but the fact that Joseph Smith edited them out also is further evidence on his behalf. Had Joseph Smith intentionally put them in his fraudulent record, then surely he would have left them in the text, for future scholars to uncover, considering that they act as evidence on his behalf. But the fact that he innocently edited them out simply to correct the English grammar of the Book of Mormon is evidence that he was not aware of the reinforcing ramifications that these if/and conditional clauses have for the Book of Mormon as an ancient Hebrew document.

For further reading, see the following:

Translating the Book of Mormon: Evidence from the Original Manuscript by Royal Skousen

Hebraic Conditionals in the Book of Mormon by Royal Skousen

A Steady Stream of Significant Recognitions by John Welch

First mention of suffering Messiah on stone tablet from before 1 A.D.

To anyone who has been told that not one shred of evidence exists that the Jews knew anything about a Messiah who would suffer, die, and be resurrected prior to Christ's birth and ministry, there is now evidence to the contrary literally written on stone.

This has been a favorite argument of anti-Mormons since they began to rail against Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon. Joseph must have made it all up because the Jews had no concept of a suffering, dying, resurrecting Messiah until after it was taught to them by Christ's disciples in the New Testament from Acts onward. Right?

Wrong.

More debate and study is sure to follow, and not everything on the tablet is legible, but a number of experts are quite certain that this tablet, discovered 10 years ago in the Zurich home of an Israeli-Swiss collector, says, in part:

"In three days you shall live, I, Gabriel, command you."

and that statement is addressed to "Sar hasarin," or prince of princes.

Read more in the article to get the full balance of the scholars' take on this discovery.

As Far As it is Translated Correctly.

Article of Faith # 8 states that:

"We believe the Bible to be the Word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the Word of God."

The phrase "as far as it is translated correctly" has raised some criticisms from mainly Evangelical Christians who hold to the notion of an inerrant Bible. Some even claim that this means that Latter-day Saints do not appreciate the Bible or somehow think it is not "trustworthy".

Of course, Nephi foresaw that the Bible would undergo many textual and transmission errors. He prophesied that "many plain and precious things" would be taken out of the Bible, which Nephi calls the "book of the Lamb of God" (1 Ne. 13:28). 

Professor John Gee from BYU, in an article entitled The Corruption of Scripture in Early Christianity elaborates on how the New Testament was corrupted by scribes who made the mistakes either by sincere accident or by intentional and deliberate machinations to suit their theological views. New Testament scholar Bart D. Ehrman in his book Misquoting Jesus similarly notes that while most of the changes in the New Testament are minor and were accidental, there were nevertheless deliberate alterations made in order to suppress or create any scriptural validity for certain theological ideas. 

Latter-day Saints reject the notion of an inerrant Bible that is favored amongst Protestants. We acknowledge that there were errors that crept into the text of the Bible as well as the Book of Mormon. However, just because we acknowledge such, this does not in any way mean that we do not think that the Bible is not inspired. As Elder M. Russell Ballard said during the October 2007 session of General Conference:

"My brothers and sisters, the Holy Bible is a miracle!...I am puzzled by any who would question this Church's belief in the Bible and our position as Christians. The name of the Church is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. In our last general conference, here in this building, our Church leaders quoted from the Bible nearly 200 times. This Church is organized and functions like the Church that Christ and His Apostles established in the New Testament. Seated on the stand today are the prophet and the apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ.

I bear solemn witness that we are true and full believers in the Lord Jesus Christ and in His revealed word through the Holy Bible. We not only believe the Bible—we strive to follow its precepts and to teach its message."

Elder Ballard in Our Search for Happiness elaborates on the "timeless and inspired teachings" of the Bible and how it and the Book of Mormon "serve as companion volumes of scripture, each one reinforcing the doctrines of the other"(Page 44).

Nephi beautifully captured the Latter-day Saint view of the Bible in relationship to the Book of Mormon when he wrote that:

"Wherefore, the fruit of thy loins shall write; and the fruit of the loins of Judah shall write; and that which shall be written by the fruit of thy loins, and also that which shall be written by the fruit of the loins of Judah, shall grow together, unto the confounding of false doctrines and laying down of contentions, and establishing peace among the fruit of thy loins, and bringing them to the knowledge of their fathers in the latter days, and also to the knowledge of my covenants, saith the Lord." (2 Ne 3:12)

We as Latter-day Saints do not favor one book of scripture over the other. While it is true that we consider the Book of Mormon as the "most correct of any book" in terms of laying out the fundamentals of the plan of redemption, we highly revere the Holy Bible and its inspired teachings as far as it is translated correctly.

The Plates, Prophecy, and Perils of the Jews (1 Nephi 19)

Nephi takes a moment to record his intent with the plates as commanded by the Lord. See the previous post, "More detail about the plates", on this subject.

6 Nevertheless, I do not write anything upon plates save it be that I think it be sacred. And now, if I do err, even did they err of old; not that I would excuse myself because of other men, but because of the weakness which is in me, according to the flesh, I would excuse myself.

Nephi wants to make it clear that there is a difference between the messenger and the message. The message is perfect, the messenger is not. Notice that Nephi isn't making excuses, but is simply pointing out that all men have flaws. In verse 7, he differentiates between what some flawed men do with scripture vs. others. Those who are righteous recognize that the scriptures are of great worth while others set them aside, thinking they know more than God, or than those whom they assume are pretending to speak for Him.

God reveals to Nephi the date and time of the birth of Jesus Christ. This is remarkable in that the Bible, at least the parts that were extant, recovered, and compiled in the 4th century A.D., does not record any such detail. To the people in Jerusalem, the events that had been prophesied would be a clear enough sign to those witnessing them that Christ would soon be born or had already been born. The people of the Americas, being a world away from those in Jerusalem, needed a reference point by which to track the advent of the Savior. Therefore, it is likely the Lord saw fit to give them this information for this, among other reasons. They also saw signs in the heavens, as noted in verses 10-14.

The commotions accompanying the death of the Savior are also recorded so that Nephi's people would know what would be in store for them when that day arrived. That Nephi records specifically what would happen to the Jews at that time, according to prophecies recorded by prophets not published in our present-day Bible. They include Zenock, Neum, and Zenos.

The Dead Sea Scrolls have something to say about pre-Messianic prophets who taught about the coming of the Lord:

Some scholars believe that the greatest single revelation of the scrolls is the existence of a great prophetic tradition that has been completely forgotten. Its greatest representative is the mysterious "Teacher of Righteousness" or "Righteous Teacher," a major prophet whose very existence was unknown until 1950. How could a figure of such immense importance both to christians and Jews have been completely forgotten? It was because his name was blotted out by Rabbinical or "official" Jews, who persecuted him severely and drove him into the desert because he preached the coming of the Messiah.

He was of priestly descent, being of the line of Zadok, another mysterious prophet, whom some believed lived at the time of Moses and who is the type of the true priest who looked forward to the Messiah. Allegro believes that the Teacher of Righteousness himself may have been called Zadok. The important thing is the discovery not of controversial individuals but of an undeniable tradition of a line of persecuted Messianic prophets. This is in perfect agreement with the Zenock and Zenos tradition in the Book of Mormon. Since one of the commonest phenomena in the apocryphal literature, including the scrolls, is the frequent duplication and corruption of proper names, it might not be too much to suggest that Zadok might even be a corruption of Zenock, since of course in Hebrew the vowels are not written, and the Hebrew "d" resembles the "n" closely enough (in the archaic script) to have been confused by an early copyist—a very common type of mistake. Be that as it may, the peculiar type of prophet represented by Zenock and Zenos is now fully established by the scrolls.

"The Dead Sea Scrolls: Some Questions and Answers", from Old Testament and Related Studies by Hugh W. Nibley, pp. 245–51

---

Zenos is one of four Israelite prophets of Old Testament times cited in the book of Mormon whose writings appeared on the plates of brass but who are not mentioned in the Old Testament (see also Zenock; Neum; and Ezias). Zenos is quoted or mentioned by Nephi₁ (1 Ne. 19:10–17), Jacob (Jacob 5:1–77; 6:1), Alma₂ (Alma 33:3–11, 13, 15), Amulek (Alma 34:7), Nephi₂ (Hel. 8:19–20), and Mormon (3 Ne. 10:14–17).

Although specific dates and details of Zenos' life and ministry are not known, the Book of Mormon provides considerable information about him from his teachings and related facts. Evidently he lived sometime between 1600 and 600 B.C. because he was apparently a descendant of Joseph of Egypt and his writings were on the plates of brass taken from Jerusalem to the Americas by Nephi₁ about 600 B.C. He may also have been a progenitor of the Book of Mormon prophet Lehi (cf. 3 Ne. 10:16). Zenos spent time "in the wilderness" (Alma 33:4), but also preached "in the midst" of the "congregations" of God (Alma 33:9). Some of his enemies became reconciled to him through the power of God, but others were visited "with speedy destruction" (Alma 33:4, 10). Finally, he was slain because of his bold testimony of the coming of the "Son of God" (Hel. 8:13–19).

A major theme in the teachings of Zenos was the destiny of the house of Israel. His allegory or parable comparing the house of Israel to a tame olive tree and the Gentiles to a wild olive tree constitutes the longest single chapter in the Book of Mormon, Jacob chapter 5 (see Book of Mormon: Book of Jacob). The allegory refers to major events in the scattering and gathering of the house of Israel (see Allegory of Zenos).

The second-longest quotation from Zenos in the Book of Mormon is his hymn of thanksgiving and praise recorded in Alma 33:3–11, which emphasizes prayer, worship, and the mercies of God. A careful comparison of the style and contents of this hymn with Hymn H (or 8) and Hymn J (or 10) of the Thanksgiving Hymns of the Dead Sea Scrolls, noting certain striking similarities, suggests that the three may have been written by the same person. Further, the life situations of the author (or authors) are very similar (CWHN 7:276–83). Some LDS scholars anticipate that other evidences of Zenos' writings may appear as additional ancient manuscripts come to light.

"Zenos" from To All the World: The Book of Mormon Articles from the Encyclopedia of Mormonism, by Daniel H. Ludlow, pp. 321–23

In this chapter, Nephi is essentially writing a letter to his posterity in the Americas, pleading with them that when they see these signs at the end of the 600 years, that they take heed and repent and believe in Christ. In verse 23, he states, "And I did read many things unto them which were written in the books of Moses; but that I might more fully persuade them to believe in the Lord their Redeemer I did read unto them that which was written by the prophet Isaiah; for I did liken all scriptures unto us, that it might be for our profit and learning."

That is the purpose of the scriptures, after all. We are to liken them to our own lives so that we can learn the lessons that others have learned and also anticipate what to learn from the trials and tribulations we can see on the horizon.

Reformed Egyptian

Figure 1: A sample of the characters on the plates of the Book of Mormon. These characters were copied by Martin Harris and taken back to New York to be authenticated by scholars. One of the scholars Harris met was Charles Anton, who signed an affidavit attesting that they were authentic characters. When Anton discovered the nature of the translation, however, he destroyed the affidavit.

The Book of Mormon, according to Moroni, was written in a script called "reformed Egyptian" (Mormon 9:32). This script, accordingly, is some sort of Hebrew-Egyptian hybrid script, Moroni and other Nephite prophets indicate (1 Nephi 1:2).

Critics have often leveled the following criticisms against the usage of "reformed Egyptian" in the Book of Mormon:

1. They claim that no self respecting Jews would ever use the language of their dire enemies, the Egyptians.

2. They claim that there is no evidence for any kind of "reformed Egyptian" script in reality.

As shall be demonstrated, both of these accusations are false. Not only is there ample evidence that ancient Hebrews were utilizing, among other things, the language of the Egyptians but also that there are examples of hybrid scripts that comprise both Hebrew and Egyptian.

First, it must be noted that "reformed" is being used not as a proper noun, but as an adjective. It is describing the script. In other words, Moroni is simply indicating that the Egyptian script has been "altered", "modified" or "changed" by the Nephites. Secondly, this particular script was used only by the Nephites (Mormon 9:34). We therefore should not be surprised if we do not find an exact script similar to that of the Book of Mormon since "reformed Egyptian" was uniquely Nephite. With that in mind, let us proceed.

We shall first explore the accusation that Hebrews would never use the script of their enemies the Egyptians. M. T. Lamb, a critic of the Book of Mormon during the latter half of the 19th century, claimed that "There are a multitude of reasons that make such a statement altogether improbable. In the first place, Lehi had lived all his lifetime, ... in the city of Jerusalem, surrounded constantly by those who spoke only the Hebrew language.... In the second place, the Jews hated the Egyptians with a bitter hatred, and it is therefore inconceivable that a true-born Jew a real lover of his own people, loyal and patriotic as he professes to have been, would have been willing thus to insult his people, or that the Jews around him would have endured the insult. In the third place, the ancient Jew had an unusual veneration for his mother tongue, the sacred Hebrew.... Now that such a man with such a venerated language could have accepted instead the Egyptian tongue, which was associated only with ignominy and dishonor, [is] the height of absurdity...." (M. T. Lamb The Golden Bible pg. 89-91)

Other critics, such as Jerald and Sandra Tanner, John Ankerberg, Marvin Cowan, Grant Palmer and many more have echoed similar sentiments.

However, contrary to these anti-Mormons, there is now massive historical evidence that the ancient Jews of Lehi's day were writing in Egyptian.

Take, for example, the Amherst Papyrus. This document, written around the 4th century BC, contains Psalms 20: 2-6 written in Aramaic utilizing demotic Egyptian characters.

John Tvedtnes, a scholar in ancient Near Eastern languages and history, has this to say:

"More significant, however, was an ostracon uncovered at Arad in 1967. Dating "toward the end of the seventh century B.C.," it reflects usage from shortly before 600 B.C., the time of Lehi. The text on the ostracon is written in a combination of Egyptian hieratic and Hebrew characters, but can be read entirely as Egyptian. Of the seventeen words in the text, ten are written in [Egyptian] hieratic and seven in Hebrew. However, all the words written in Hebrew can be read as Egyptian words, while one of them, which occurs twice, has the same meaning in both Egyptian and Hebrew.19 Of the ten words written in hieratic script, four are numerals (one occurring in each line).20 One symbol, denoting a measure of capacity, occurs four times (once in each of the four lines), and the remaining Egyptian word occurs twice. Thus, while seventeen words appear on the ostracon, if one discounts the recurrence of words, only six words are written in hieratic (of which four are numerals), and six in Hebrew." ("Jewish and Other Semitic Texts Written in Egyptian Characters," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 5/2 (1996): 156–163.)

Daniel C. Peterson, in responding to John Ankerberg, has this to say about "Dr." Ankerberg's accusation:

"The statement "When modern Jews copy their scripture, they use Hebrew. They do not use Egyptian or Arabic, the language of their historic enemies" is quite an astonishing display of ignorance. Since the Egyptian language has been dead for centuries, it is hardly remarkable that modern Jews do not read the Bible in Egyptian. On the other hand, "the first and most important rendering [of the Old Testament] from Hebrew [into Arabic] was made by Sa'adya the Ga'on, a learned Jew who was head of the rabbinic school at Sura in Babylon (died 942)" (George A. Buttrick, ed., The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible [hereafter IDB], 4 vols. and supplement [Nashville: Abingdon, 1962–1976], 4:758b). Thus, Jews have indeed translated the Bible into "Arabic, the language of their historic enemies." They also have translated it into the language of their "historic enemies" the Greeks (IDB 4:750b on the Septuagint) and Aramaeans (IDB 1:185-93; 4:749-50, on the Aramaic Targums)." (Daniel C. Peterson, "Chattanooga Cheapshot, or The Gall of Bitterness (Review of Everything You Ever Wanted to Know about Mormonism by John Ankerberg and John Weldon)," FARMS Review of Books 5/1 (1993): 1–86.)

As John S. Thompson has shown, "hieratic was the more commonly used Egyptian script in Israel" during Lehi's time. Thompson also goes on to elaborate on more Israelite texts that have been written in Egyptian scripts, such as some of the Lachish letters. (Glimpses of Lehi's Jerusalem pg. 267)

So, the claim that the ancient Hebrews would never use the Egyptian language or would never write their texts in Egyptian is totally false. There are numerous examples of such, only some of which have been provided herein.

Now, what about the second claim? What about the claim that there are no examples of Hebrew-Egyptian hybrid scripts? This too is false.

William Hamblin, a professor of Middle Eastern history at BYU, has shown numerous examples of texts written in scripts that utilize some form of "Semitic language with modified Egyptian hieroglyphic characters". These examples include:

1. Egyptian hieratic and demotic.
2. Byblos Syllabic texts.
3. Cretan hieroglyphics.
4. Meroitic
5. Psalm 20 in demotic Egyptian.
6. Proto-Sinaitic and the alphabet.

See here: http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=review&id=636

I have only touched on the surface of this issue. Latter-day Saint scholars have done a lot of work on this subject that the reader is encouraged to check out.

However, regardless of how brief this treatise may have been, it is clear that the ancient Hebrews not only wrote their texts in Egyptian but also utilized Hebrew-Egyptian hybrid scripts. The Book of Mormon is right on the mark in this regards. "Reformed Egyptian" is not a miss but a surprising bulls-eye for the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith.

For further reading:

http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon_anachronisms/Reformed_Egyptian

My Favorite Books on the Book of Mormon

I thought that I would quickly post a bibliography of some of my favorite books written on the Book of Mormon. These books range from books that described the history, context, doctrine and evidences of the Book of Mormon. As you study the Book of Mormon, may I suggest that, if possible, you pick up some of these titles as secondary reading.

1. Second Witness: Analytical and Contextual Commentary on the Book of Mormon, 6 volumes, by Brant Gardner

2. Echos and Evidences of the Book of Mormon, edited by Daniel C. Peterson, Donald W. Parry and John W. Welch

3. Lehi in the Desert/The World of the Jaredites/There Were Jaredites by Hugh Nibley

4. Pressing Forward with the Book of Mormon edited by John W. Welch and Melvin J. Thorne

5. Book of Mormon Authorship Revisited: The Evidence for Ancient Origins edited by Noel B. Reynolds

6. Testaments: Links Between the Book of Mormon and the Hebrew Bible by John Tvedtnes and David Bokovoy

7. Christ and the New Covenant by Elder Jeffry R. Holland

8. Since Cumorah by Hugh Nibley

9. Book of Mormon Authorship: New Light on Ancient Origins edited by Noel B. Reynolds

10. King Benjamin's Speech: "That Ye May Learn Wisdom" edited by John W. Welch and Stephen D. Ricks

11. New Witnesses for God, 3 volumes, by Elder B. H. Roberts

12. The Book of Mormon and Other Hidden Books: Out of Darkness, Unto Light by John Tvedtnes

13. An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon by John Sorenson

14. Isaiah in the Book of Mormon edited by John W. Welch and Donald W. Parry

15. Glimpses of Lehi's Jerusalem edited by John W. Welch and David and Jo Ann Seely

16. Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses by Richard L. Anderson

17. Plates of Gold: The Book of Mormon Comes Forth by Matthew B. Brown

18. New Witness for Christ in America, 2 volumes, by Francis W. Kirkham

19. By the Hand of Mormon by Terryl Givens

20. Teachings of the Book of Mormon, 4 volumes, by Hugh Nibley

Well, there is a short list of my favorite books. There are many more that I could add, but this will suffice for now. Any of these titles are very good and invaluable for your personal Book of Mormon study.