Hebraisms In The Book of Mormon | Donald W. Parry

Discover compelling evidence for the divinity of the Book of Mormon in this extended cut of Donald W. Parry's interview for “A Marvelous Work”.
Watch Episode 1: • The Greatness of the E...
Watch Episode 2: • The Allegory of the Ol...
Watch Episode 3: • Is There A God? | A Ma...
Subscribe to Book of Mormon Central for future episodes.
/ @bookofmormoncentralof...
Consider donating to Scripture Central:
form-renderer-app.donorperfec...
For more information and a full transcript: archive.bookofmormoncentral.o...
-----------------------------------------------------
Learn more about the topics in this episode:
How the Book of Mormon's Complexity Shows its Authenticity:
• How the Book of Mormon...
Evidences of the Book of Mormon: Hebraisms:
• Evidences of the Book ...
Why are There Hebraisms in the Book of Mormon:
knowhy.bookofmormoncentral.or...
Hebraisms and Other Ancient Peculiarities in the Book of Mormon:
archive.bookofmormoncentral.o...
-----------------------------------------------------
Scripture Central builds enduring faith in Jesus Christ by illuminating the Book of Mormon and other restoration scripture, making them more accessible, defensible and comprehensible to people everywhere.
Scripture Central is a 501 (c) 3 non-profit public charity chartered in the state of Utah.
The opinions expressed represent the views of the individual creators and guests alone, and do not necessarily represent the official position of Scripture Central or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Scripture Central is not affiliated with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but is a trusted independent advocate for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Copyright © 2024 Scripture Central

[@Bookofmormoncentralofficial]

Watch Episode 2 of A Marvelous Work now! kzbin.info/www/bejne/nonXhpWDnJV1jsk

[@joshuafusselman3323]

I love the Book of Mormon! I love how this ancient text teaches so powerfully about Christ--even hundreds of years before Christ was born.

[@dinocollins720]

yes!!!

[@DianeNims-gg7lf]

What a wonderful source of information from Professor Perry! Imagine a life long career of studying Hebrew, the Hebrew Bible, the Book of Mormon and teaching this to others!!!! What rich knowledge and understanding! It almost makes me jealous.😊❤

[@CrackedCandy]

Thank you for posting the long interview. I regularly listen to 5+ hours podcasts at a wack as I work or travel. Keep these elevating editions coming. Love your new host.

[@merrymay3758]

I have shared this on my social media pages.

[@Bookofmormoncentralofficial]

Thank you!

[@speelbergoMF]

So good to see Professor Parry still kicking I took his classes 20 years ago. Best part of my time at BYU

[@rosapollard5470]

Fascinating...thank you for sharing your knowledge and understanding. LOVE IT!!!!

[@dinocollins720]

Another fantastic video! Thank you!

[@Bookofmormoncentralofficial]

Glad you enjoyed it!

[@RichardFerguson-si3xf]

Dino, you're awesome. Thank you for always being so supportive. I've noticed your comments all the time. I'd love to talk with you more.

[@dinocollins720]

@@RichardFerguson-si3xf That's so kind of you! Nothing I love more than studying the gospel and Scripture Central teachers/videos/website/articles have to be one of the most incredible resources! I'd love to talk more as well! I feel like I don't have very many people to talk to about all this amazing stuff! Who can I geek out with about Hebraisms??? haha 😂

[@dinocollins720]

@@RichardFerguson-si3xfI didn't initially realize you're THE Richard Ferguson CEO of Scripture Central haha. I'm so grateful for all you do! I absolutely love Scripture Central and your entire team!

[@Kellysboyle]

Love this

[@MattRoper-dm5ob]

Don Parry is an excellent Hebrew scholar. He was on the international Dead Sea Scroll team.

[@jacobparry4201]

He's my uncle!

[@eberttoribio3564]

Great video 🎉

[@paulblack1799]

Re: precept on precept, line upon line. In the D&C Jehovah also reversed the order. Apparently Jesus is familiar with this hebraism, too.

[@CatchTheBuzz1]

Thanks guys! Awesome!

[@Bookofmormoncentralofficial]

You bet!

[@zuludaddy4695]

As mentioned, these evidences found academically and archaeologically are so wonderful to know but the Book of Mormon’s real power is in the witness of the Holy Ghost. I’ve learned from Him that it is a true record. It has brought me to know the Savior Jesus Christ and made me a better husband, father, disciple and man.

[@MattRoper-dm5ob]

I think internal evidences are exciting.

[@cindlou7335]

Yay!!!

[@cdmbcgm]

I wish I could take his class. He is a fountain of knowledge on the hebrewisms of the Book of Mormon. When you start to understand the Hebrewism of the Book of Mormon, you also start to see them with the indigenous people. For example, "people of" is common in the Book of Mormon and Native American tribes. The Cherokee name is people of yahweh (aniyvwiya). Ani in heberew is people and in Cherokee it is people of. It is also used with the Ojibwa. The Ani-kutoni are the people of the priesthood. There is also the revelation of Joseph Smith about Zelph and the Prophet onandagus. A Native American tribes in New York is called Onondaga or "people of the Hill." Then you have the Yahi in California. Another name for God is "Yah," and the "I" in Hebrew (ee sound) is "ite." Could this be another way to say "people of God" simular to the Cherokee? Also, the name for man in Yahi was "ishi" simular in Hebrew.

[@Bookofmormoncentralofficial]

He's pretty amazing!

[@spencere]

Wonderful. I don’t think we will ever truly understand how absolutely miraculous this book is. I love it.

[@Bookofmormoncentralofficial]

We love it too

[@sheisleeaddams]

Thank You ❤

[@PascalDupont561]

I shared this with my YSA and high council.

[@Bookofmormoncentralofficial]

Thank you for sharing!

[@evajackson9470]

Thank you this is wonderful 🙏

[@Bookofmormoncentralofficial]

Thanks for watching!

[@Glen.Danielsen]

_This_ should be the stuff of Book of Mormon Central. Marvelous. Other teacher-centered monologues distract and detract from its great mission. The problem with being _all things_ is that it will mire their fire, blur their stir, reduce their juice! Buzz Lightyear’s buzz was bad advice, looking beyond the mark: “To Infinity and beyond,” “This is a secret mission in uncharted space.”

[@perryekimae]

So, in the episode, I commented that because we do not have the purported source text (or even intermediate texts between the original and the English "translation"), a test should be used to evaluate whether a purported Hebraism should be considered as evidence for the ancient and supernatural origin of the Book of Mormon. I propose a 3-factor test: intentionality (purported Hebraism was intended as a Hebraic structure by the author), uniqueness/pertinence (purported Hebraism is unique to and pertains to the Hebrew language), and unavailability (purported Hebraism is not found in Joseph Smith's milieu). This test does not evaluate Hebraic or Hebroid structures as such, but it does challenge whether such structures should be evaluated as evidence for the ancient, supernatural origin claim for the Book of Mormon. Scripture Central challenged my assertion that none of the claims presented in that video met all 3 points of the test and shared a link to some of Dr. Parry's writings where he claims Hebraic structures in the Book of Mormon. I come into this video having responded that not one of the claims made in the linked paper fulfilled all 3 factors of the test, and I am curious if Dr. Parry will present anything here that does fulfill those 3 factors. 4:10 For the "many ands" claim here, just think to the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch bit in Monty Python. What did the people feast on in the Book of Armaments? That is a structure found in the KJV, and thus was available in Joseph's milieu, failing the unavailability factor. 6:00 Okay, so we're starting out strong by saying this will fulfill the unavailability factor, but then this goes to being in the Bible. But switching some key words is going to have a hard time meeting the intentionality factor. Especially since that same verse slightly misquotes Luke. Is it a Hebraism that Nephi was quoting Luke whose work wouldn't exist for another 600 years on another continent? But hey, maybe some "future ambitious student" will have more success making this a thing. At present, it fails the intentionality factor. 9:20 Names could be compelling. Alma is not. This is going to fail on all three factors, actually. First, there is no indication that the name is intended to be Hebraic by the author (400+ years removed from that culture, we would expect new naming conventions to arise, which most of the Book of Mormon seems fine with). So, that's an intentionality fail. Next, the name Alma is not uniquely Hebrew, appearing in Latin/Romance languages, as an example. Thus, it fails uniqueness. Finally, there is data that suggests a number of men with the name of Alma near the places and time Joseph Smith lived before and during the writing/translation of the Book of Mormon. This fails on unavailability. 11:49 Compound cognates are unusual, sure, but they appear in the KJV. As you say, "it sounds Biblical". But this is made worse by the fact that the BoM is supposed to be a translation from reformed Egyptian to English, where there should probably be examples of compound cognates that work in the source language, but not the translated language. So, any given example will flag on the uniqueness/pertinence factor as well, because it will need to be demonstrated that the translation accurately reflects the compound cognate structure that would have been in the source text. 12:57 "And it came to pass" is found in the OT and in writings available in Joseph's milieu. Fails hard on unavailability. It could be argued that the phrase was available enough in Joseph's milieu that it ends up failing on the uniqueness/pertinence factor as well. I will say, one way or another, the author was probably intending on sounding like the Hebrew Bible, so I'll grant intentionality here. The phrase is found a few times in Isaiah, and the BoM is mostly styled as a history. It is notable that the phrase practically disappears in the poetic sections of the BoM. It really looks like the author was intending on sounding like the Hebrew Bible. 14:52 Just to reiterate the point, this will fail unavailability because we are alluding to texts Joseph had available and that he was familiar with before even beginning to describe the BoM parallel... Of course, claiming that Captain Moroni's actions here are intended as prophetic action is enough of a stretch that I'm going to say that this purported Hebraism fails the intentionality factor as well. 18:26 1) Why does a "Jesus Christ focus" privilege the text in terms of truth value? I'm sure we could agree that more false things have been written about Jesus than true ones. Even the NT seems to agree with that picture (Mark 13:21). 2) All sorts of people claim knowledge of truth of competing, incompatible claims by the Holy Ghost or religious equivalent. How is the truth value of one such claim consistently accurately evaluated against another incompatible such claim? 3) Lots of books change lives. Why privilege this one in terms of assessing its truth value? 19:08 If Hebraisms do constitute significant evidence of the antiquity of the Book of Mormon, then the Hebraisms that do must not be any of the ones presented in this video as none could pass the three-factor test.

[@JD-pr1et]

Yeah. Someone with a third grade education magically knew the Hebraic language and poetry patterns when he didn't know that Jerusalem had a wall and those patterns were discovered much later. Your assumptions are amazing and quite a feat of reverse engineering history..

[@perryekimae]

@@JD-pr1et What in the Book of Mormon requires a formal education beyond familiarity with the KJV and early 19th century American Protestantism? I put forward the 3-factor test as something to help determine that. So far, I've not seen anything of the BoM that passes the test. And to be clear, Emma was wrong when she said that Joseph didn't know that there were walls. Just like she was wrong about his ability to write a letter or his practice of polygamy. Whether she was lying or sincerely mistaken is for others to determine. Either way, she was wrong.

[@MatthewHavertzPurposePictures]

First of all, THANK YOU! I am an active, believing member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and I love the Book of Mormon. However, I came into the comments specifically looking for a critical and skeptical perspective. I'm a believer in trying to falsify claims. I have friends and family who have left the Church, and I want to honestly see things from as many different perspectives as possible. (For example, I've read letters tearing apart Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon, and then I'll look at responses on why some of their arguments are cherry picked or unfair. I'll similarly listen to a podcast like "Names in the Book of Mormon" by Y Religion, and I'll send it to my friends outside of the Church and get their honest take and try to come up with counter arguments). If we're not critical and skeptical, we won't come to the best possible reasoning on either side. We need to challenge our thinking. Thank you for challenging the arguments in this video. I personally would love to get a copy of this book and go into more depth with it. There is so much I could say about your comments here (e.g., you point out at that his example of Moses Sidal's "law" on quoting ancient prophets at 6:00 is purportedly Nephi really quoting Luke, but at 6:39, Dr. Parry pointed out this is just one of many examples in the Book of Mormon). However, instead of focusing on little things like that, I have honest and sincere questions about your three-factor test: I'm honestly trying to get my head around the "unavailability" criteria. Are you suggesting that any literary evidence (like Hebraisms) cannot be found in the Bible in order for it to be a reasonable support of the ancient origins of the Book of Mormon? If it is found in the Bible (or any other ancient text Joseph Smith may have had access to, even if there is no evidence that he actually accessed it), it must be totally thrown out as evidence supporting the ancient origins of the book. Is that right? Is that what you're saying? I would assume the best examples of Hebraisms are found in the Bible. I agree that it would be excellent evidence for something to be discovered anciently that Joseph Smith didn't have any access to in his life at all (maybe like the name "NHM" being discovered on archeological digs in the right place well after Joseph Smith's death); however, to throw out all other evidence seems a little unfair and extreme to me. Let me provide an example, many people claim that Joseph Smith made up the names of places in the Book of Mormon based on the names of real places that existed around where Joseph Smith lived. That wouldn't pass your "unavailability" criteria and would actually be decent evidence for one of the other authorship theories for the Book of Mormon. However, David Snell has a strong counterargument to that in his episode of Saints Unscripted called, "Did Joseph Smith base Book of Mormon names on his local geography? Ep. 47." Just because something could have plausibly been available to Joseph Smith does not mean there is good evidence to suggest he copied it. Did I understand your "unavailability" criteria correctly? Or, is there something I'm missing? Either way, would your criteria hold up as fair and reasonable criteria to most scholars in similar fields? I honestly don't know the answers to these questions. I'm honestly not trying to do a "gotcha" moment. I'm sincerely wondering what criteria is the most fair to evaluate the evidence here. Is there a scale or ranking/weighting system we could use so we're not throwing out legitimate evidence on either side while still appropriately weighing the most incredible evidence?

[@JD-pr1et]

@@perryekimae OH, so just because you say it, it makes it so. It sounds like you have read some of the antichrist literature tripe with those talking points. If you actually read the book and actual research and historical documents, you would see how false those antichrist literature assertions are. I always love the American protestantism one. The antichrists omit and spin quite a lot of information to make their "case". I'm sorry that you have been deceived by Satan's helpers. However, there is still time to stop drinking their poisoned Kool-aid.

[@perryekimae]

​@@MatthewHavertzPurposePictures Thank you for these excellent questions! I've been hoping to get some feedback and pushback on my three-factor test because I want it to be as fair and useful as possible. If we had access to the source text, e.g. the golden plates, then my unavailability criterion as you pointed out here would be 100% unfair. In fact, under those conditions, the three-factor test would be wholly unnecessary. It is the lack of the a source text that makes this first pass essential. However, I think my point, though not necessarily well-stated in my comment is that if the Hebraism is in the KJV, then the conclusion that requires the fewest assumptions is that the KJV is the source of the Hebraism, not an ancient text translated by supernatural power. If the Hebraism only appears in the Hebrew of the Hebrew Bible, and is not captured in the KJV translation, and if the Book of Mormon treats the Hebraism in a way that is textually independent of the KJV, then the unavailability criterion could be satisfied. So, you are correct that NHM is an example of something satisfies the unavailability criterion (I remain unconvinced that it satisfies the intentionality criterion, but that is a different discussion). The Jershon apologetic and the if-and conditional apologetic also meet the unavailability criterion. Technically, the if-and conditional is derived from the Hebrew Bible and is not reflected in the KJV. That may actually be the best example that comes to mind of something that meets this standard. As for the example of names, I will admit that the similar names in the geography give weight to the unavailability criterion. However, for the most part, I grant names the unavailability criterion unless there is a good reason to do otherwise (such as Alma). But names usually fail on intentionality (which is where Jershon fails). This is honestly because the text does very little to suggest it is aiming for a Hebraic name in most cases, which means that apologists are usually having to massage the text or make assertions that are not founded by the text to justify an intentionality claim. Again, Jershon is a fantastic example of this, where the term Yersh is a Hebrew word meaning inheritance, and Jershon was given as an inheritance to the people of Ammon. The problem is that there are other words that are used far more often to describe the purpose of Jershon for the people of Ammon, and there are far more lands of inheritance than Jershon. Absent the source text or an explicit textual link between inheritance and Jershon, it fails on intentionality. That formula is pretty common for names. As for how scholars in other fields would assess any of these criteria, I am totally open and would love to get criticism and feedback. I think that this is a hard test to generalize, so they probably would not love it haha. But the Book of Mormon is something of a unique text. How many other texts claiming to be translations of ancient scripture with no extant source text are there? I do think that these criteria could be used for other such examples, but I am not sure what else to compare it to. And in case I was unclear in my comment, the purpose of the test is not to privilege any authorship theory over another or anything like that. The purpose is to, absent a source text, make it as probable as possible that the Hebraism is not something that could be in the text by coincidence, inspiration, subconscious copying, outright matching the style, or other such factors that are just going to be more probable than miracle claims by default. The goal is to find Hebraisms that can be assessed against "random chance" criteria that will be the domain of scholarship. The three-factor test is a meant as a pre-scholarship tool. A sort of "if you can't even meet this low standard of critical analysis, what chance does your claim have against actual scholarship?" test. At this point, it seems that a binary "pass/fail" is best suited for the output of the three-factor test. But I have yet to see a Book of Mormon Hebraism that passes the test. As I have considered the test, I've wondered how it compares to the scholarly tools used to analyze Daniel or Deutero-Isaiah. The problem that I find there is, even if there are good analogies there, we just know so much more about Joseph Smith's environment than we do about the authors of Daniel and Deutero-Isaiah's. The factors of analysis are probably necessarily different. Those are also not translation works. So, maybe translations of pseudepigrapha would be a better analogy? Like the translations of Enoch? But as far as I am aware, there are source texts or intermediate texts that are then used to date those (I think Enoch has been dated to the second century CE). We do not have that with the Book of Mormon. Oh, and just one note about the Sidal's law thing, my claim wasn't that the verse is actually quoting Luke. It is definitely referencing Isaiah 28:10. I am 100% onboard with that. My comment was that the verse does the same thing to Luke that it does to Isaiah. It's in the cross-references in the footnote for the verse. So, making the claim that Nephi is doing a Hebrew style prophetic quotation of Isaiah on a basis that is, in the same verse, used to reference Luke should raise some eyebrows. But I left and leave space for better examples. Most people lead with their best example. I'm a sandwich method guy myself with a "save the best for last" mentality, so maybe Dr. Parry is the same way. Regardless, I am not ruling out Sidal's law as such, but I hope that you can see how that would have some MAJOR intentionality problems. Seriously, fantastic questions. Thank you so much! If you have some more pushback or feedback, I would sincerely welcome it. I do think that one of the biggest weaknesses is that the test cannot be generalized. While I think you would be justified in questioning the utility of the test if not a single purported Hebraism has passed the test, I can at least defend it by giving an example of what would pass the test. If "Irreantum" appeared in a scholarly Biblical Hebrew dictionary with a translation of or approximate to "many waters", that would pass all three criteria full stop. It would then go to scholarship to assess the quality of that evidence. The test can be passed, I just haven't seen anything in the Book of Mormon that does.

[@forzion1894]

The Book of Mormon reflects Hebraic structures such as described by Professor Parry yet they are expressed in the 1830s American English of Joseph Smith. An explanation as to how these Hebraic linguistic structures flowed through into Joseph's English translation (and thus were "preserved in translation" as per the title of Professor Parry's book) is proposed in the new book "By Means of the Urim & Thummim: Restoring Translation to the Restoration."

[@MrArtist7777]

Lehites and Mulekites spoke Hebrew, and Hebrew inscriptions have been found on numerous stones throughout the eastern U.S. of the Mound Builders, and the Native American languages of that region are confirmed to be a Hebraic language, according to non-Saint linguists. The Maya language has nothing to do with the Hebrew, or Semitic languages and customs.

[@johnthompson8540]

While there are some who want to accept these stones as authentic, they have failed many of the tests for authenticity and are therefore suspect at best. The best evidence for possible Semitic influences in indigenous languages is Brian Stubbs work. Stubbs is a now retired world-recognized linguistic authority on early Uto-Aztecan language family.

[@jaybravo2199]

What would be more impactful is having a non-biased person weigh in on claimed Hebraisms in the Book of Mormon.

[@Bookofmormoncentralofficial]

Thanks for the suggestion!

[@johnthompson8540]

Rabbi Charnes very graciously did this in Marvelous Work episode 2 for which this extended interview was made (stay tuned for more). Some non-LDS scholars who have looked at the text from a neutral position have weighed-in on what they see as ancient literary styles and names in the Book of Mormon include William F. Albright, Margaret Barker, and Gary Rendsburg.

[@davden965]

Truth is truth, no matter the source

[@jaybravo2199]

@@davden965 claimed truth from a biased platform is a biased opinion.

[@caseykaelin9430]

@@jaybravo2199 It is not the platform that matters it is whether his facts are correct.

[@MrUsmc99]

MARK TWAIN said: “All men have heard of the Mormon Bible, but few except the "elect" have seen it, or, at least, taken the trouble to read it. I brought away a copy from Salt Lake. The book is a curiosity to me, it is such a pretentious affair, and yet so "slow," so sleepy; such an insipid mess of inspiration. It is chloroform in print. If Joseph Smith composed this book, the act was a miracle - keeping awake while he did it was, at any rate.”

[@Cyrusmagi]

Well i beg to differ. JO Smith did know about Hebrewism. There in the bible which extracts he copied! He had a fertile and imaginative mind also a very inquirying mind too which lead him to read many books. Latter day saints cant see the wood because they only see the trees! Joseph would have looked for patterns within the writings and verses of the bible and if people around the world have reconised these forms of hebrew now surely he did in his time too. He was well educated by his mother from a early age! Dont be over impressed by professors.its only a quantity and some quality of work in a narrow field of study from a commercial money making university that grants them. A lot of the real discovery of the world have been self taught men or women!

[@Bookofmormoncentralofficial]

It's spelled Hebraisms. We have extensive scholarly articles on the topic if you would like to study more. Do a search on evidencecentral.org/recency

[@RichardFerguson-si3xf]

Imagination does not account for the complexity of what we find in the Book of Mormon.