Guest Post: Language Use in the Book of Mormon

Posted on by

Submitted by Bryan Pocock

I am constantly amazed by the little things that can be found in the scriptures; the multiple meanings that provide various layers to the simplest of verses. These are the things in the Book of Mormon that a simple farm boy from upstate New York could never have come up with himself. He probably would have chosen a much simpler construction in many cases.

As a speaker of Portuguese and a dabbler in Spanish, I have had many opportunities to translate documents, ideas, and spoken language between various languages. One of the things that I have noticed during my linguistic journeys is the difference in uses of prepositions between languages. Because of this acquired sensitivity to the choice of prepositions, I am often struck by those used in the Book of Mormon, especially in the first and second books of Nephi. For example, in 1 Nephi 1:4 we read, “…my father, Lehi, having dwelt AT Jerusalem in all his days …” [emphasis added]. Why would Joseph Smith have written dwelt “at” Jerusalem instead of dwelt “in” Jerusalem unless he were translating from an existing document?

In English, we often use an apostrophe and “s” to turn a noun into a possessive adjective – inherited from Germanic roots. We don’t normally say, “The shoes of Mike”, but rather, “Mike’s shoes”. However, this type of construction is not common to all languages. In Portuguese and Spanish (as in many languages), the preposition “of” is used to make a possessive adjective out of a noun. This is the construction often employed in the Book of Mormon. We especially see this construction in the first book of Nephi; one needs look no further than the second verse: “Yea, I make a record in the language of my father …” (1 Nephi 1:2) Why write “the language of my father” instead of “my father’s language”, unless you are translating from a language that uses this construction?

Doing a quick electronic search of the Book of Mormon, I looked for instances of possessives using ‘s. I found a total of three occurrences in the entire book of First Nephi:

  1. 1 Nephi 3:16 – “the land of our father’s inheritance”

  2. 1 Nephi 10:8 – “whose shoe’s latchet I am not worthy to unloose” (Quoting John the Baptist)

  3. 1 Nephi 20:9 – “for my name’s sake will I defer mine anger” (Citing
    Isaiah)

When you consider that there are 22 chapters, covering 53 pages in First Nephi, it seems significant that there are only three cases of possessives using this construction. Although I am not a Semitic scholar, I would not be surprised to learn that all three of these instances are common terms in Semitic languages that don’t use the prepositional possessive forms.

However, the preposition “of” is not only used to express possession, it can also express origin. This is often common in names. For example, the name “Jesus of Nazareth” denotes that he was from Nazareth. The preposition is also used to describe the material of which something is made. This can be found throughout the Book of Mormon. One of the most common uses is referring to the Brass Plates. In fact, the term “brass plates” does not appear anywhere in the Book of Mormon. Every mention of the “brass plates” in the Book of Mormon refers to them as “the plates of brass”.

One other use of the preposition “of” can be illustrated by a verse from the New Testament, 1 Timothy 6:10, “For the Love of Money is the root of all evil…” In this case, we English speakers might substitute the preposition “for” to say that the root of all evil is the love for money.

So, as a summary to this point, we have decided that different languages use different forms of grammatical construction, and that prepositions often have multiple meanings, especially in translation. We further showed that the preposition, “of” has several different meanings in English:

  1. To express possession: “The language of my father” vs. my father’s language

  2. To express origin: Jesus of Nazareth

  3. To indicate the source of material used to create something: “plates of brass”

  4. Where we might substitute “for” in place of “of” to describe the type of love we can have: “the love of money”

With this background, let’s explore a couple of interesting verses found in the Book of Mormon that make use of the preposition “of” and see the various meanings that can be derived from them. The first is in the First Book of Nephi and the second is found in Moroni.

In Nephi’s description of Lehi’s dream (1 Nephi 8) he states that the tree in Lehi’s dream represents “the Love of God.” (1 Nephi
11:22) Applying our four definitions for the preposition “of” above, we can derive the following meaning for this verse:

  1. God’s love. The love that God has for us, or the type of love that God has in general. That love that belongs to God.

  2. That love originating from God. The love that comes from God as opposed to other places.

  3. The love made of God himself. In other words, the kind of love that finds it’s source material in God himself. So, plates made of brass, bows made of wood, and love made of God. This is an interesting concept to consider.

  4. “The Love for God”. In other words, the love we have for Him to distinguish from the other types of love we might have. The way to properly love God.

Let’s apply the same analysis to a verse in Moroni. Moroni wrote that
“Charity is the pure love of Christ.” (Moroni 7:47)

  1. Christ’s pure love … or rather the love that belongs to Christ, the love that is His, the way he loves us.

  2. The love that originates in or from Christ. The love that comes from His example.

  3. The love that is made of Christ himself. Like a ring made of pure gold. Charity is a love that is made of pure Christ (or perhaps pure Christianity – see James 1:27). It is the love that is created from His very existence. One could say that his atonement created this love, as if of a tangible source.

  4. The love we have for Christ, without any distractions. Take this definition a step further and consider John 14:15 where we read, “If you love me, keep my commandments”. By showing charity, we are keeping His commandments. This in turn shows our love for Christ. So, the way we should love Christ is Charity.

I find it remarkable how many layers these two simple verses have – and I am sure we haven’t exhausted the other interpretations possible. Yet while this construction is grammatically correct and carries so much meaning, it is not the way we normally speak nor the way we generally write. Most “modern translations” of the Bible, even change this type of construction to simplify it. So, in a “modern translation” the two verses above would likely read “God’s Love” and “Charity is Christ’s pure love.” Were this to happen, look at all the meaning and significance that would be lost.

It is hard to believe that a farm boy 175 years ago, with a limited education, would have chosen to use the construction employed consistently throughout the Book of Mormon unless translating from an existing document.

A native of Salt Lake City, Bryan Pocock graduated from BYU in Marketing, International Management, Portuguese, and Communications (ever have a hard time deciding what you wanted to be when you grow up?). He then completed both an MBA and law degree at Willamette University in Salem, Oregon. At that point, an opportunity presented itself to drag his wife to live in Brazil for two years so he could work as a Journalist / Analyst / Consultant for a telecommunications analysis and consulting firm. He later moved over to work in strategic business development for Brazil’s main long distance carrier where he oversaw M&A functions.
Bryan is an avid outdoorsman, and has most recently been building a company that will manufacture outdoor products like high-end backpacks.
He is the author of numerous how-to books — some of which have even been published on a limited scale from time to time. He currently resides in Highland, Utah with his wife and his dog where he continually contemplates growing up and starting his next career.

12 thoughts on “Guest Post: Language Use in the Book of Mormon”

  1. That’s pretty interesting.

    One day I’d like to see a book that summarizes the various positions and arguments in terms of language in the Book of Mormon.

  2. Fascinating.

    I wonder how much of this gets lost in tranlation to other languages. Are there languages where the “of” is a different word in each of the four cases? If so, it would be interesting to see which word is used in “the love of god.”

    Further still, I bet Mormon’s work was also rich in its language use as well. I wonder what we may have lost in the translation to English.

  3. I served a state-side mission, but we had Spanish speaking missionaries. After living in an apartment with some for over four months I really learned the importance of language, and what we really can get out of simple words. They loved reading their scriptures in Spanish and English because it helped them to understand the meaning.

    Wonderful post Bryan!

  5. It is hard to believe that a farm boy 175 years ago, with a limited education, would have chosen to use the construction employed consistently throughout the Book of Mormon unless translating from an existing document.

    I don’t think it would be much of a stretch to suppose that Joseph’s use of the preposition “of” in the manner you describe derives simply from an attempt to imitate the language of the KJV. He was steeped in the language of the Bible, and phrases like “the love of money” (by Paul) would have sounded more ‘Biblically correct’ to his ear.

  6. In order to make a strong argument, studies of this kind need to control for JS language environment. (I’ve done a few myself.)

    Unless the phenomenon in question does not occur in his environment, it can’t be proven that the source is a Hebrew vorlage.

    In this case, the KJV translates Hebrew quite literally, and gives us many phrases of this kind. Though we know Joseph was emulating KJv language, I suspect that it did not extend to emulating the syntax so consistantly on this level.

    And FWIW, I took a shot at this kind of thing with my Negative Questions in the Book of Mormon. The difference between English and Hebrew usage is subtle, I didn’t write it terribly well, and people missed the point.

    But, as with the phenomenon above, while it’s not a strong argument, I suspect it does reflect a Hebrew vorlage.

  7. Very interesting. In particular, I have not thought too much about the fourth interpretation of “of”. I think it is a really great insight.

    (no silly jokes about what the definition of “is” is, please).

    Thank you Bryan!

  8. It would be great if we could have a comment by a Semetic scholar with respect to the three cases of possessives using ‘s in first and second Nephi. Anyone know a linguist out there who could comment on these verses?

  9. I must agree with Christian Cardall in that the mere use of the preposition “of” is not conclusive of anything. While I find it interesting that this construction was used consistently throughout The Book of Mormon, I don’t believe it necessarily proves that The Book of Mormon was written in and later translated from Hebrew or another Semetic derivative. HOWEVER, “of” isn’t the only preposition used in a way different than our common usage.

    Look at several other interesting prepositional usages:

    In 1 Nephi 4, we see an interesting choice of prepositions. Nephi writes, “…my father, Lehi, having dwelt AT Jerusalem in all his days …” [emphasis added]. Why would he have written dwelt “at” Jerusalem instead of dwelt “in” Jerusalem, “near” Jerusalem, “close to” Jerusalem, or “next to” Jerusalem? Joseph Smith, in describing his own upbringing, stated “I was born … IN the town of Sharon, Windsor County, State of Vermont …” (JS-H 1:2 Emphasis added) Also note the choice of the word “in” instead of “during” to denote when his father dwelt at Jerusalem.

    Similarly, they often talk about “going UP TO Jerusalem” and going “DOWN FROM Jerusalem”[emphasis added] (see 1 Nephi 3:9, 22, 23, 29). I have been told that Jerusalem is in a valley, but because it is the holy city, you always go up to it and down from it. This I have been told is definitely a Semetic construction — however, once again it is something that is found consistently in the New Testament in the KJV. There are no cases of “down to Jerusalem” or “up from Jerusalem” in the NT, but many cases of “up to” and “down from”.

    Now, admitting the consistency between The Book of Mormon and the KJV, this still suggests to me more than mere emulation of language. I do a considerable amount of writing. I have written as a journalist, I write business plans, I write legal contracts, I write letters on behalf of legal clients, and I write how-to books (mostly for fun). I spend a great deal of time drafting and editing the things I write to make sure they are consistent in language, voice, and style. I do it very consciously and have a computer to rework paragraphs and change my wording. Yet despite my desperate attempts to write in a consistent style, I am constantly amazed at the things that slip by me. To suggest that a farm boy with a limited education and no access to modern writing tools would have the ability to consistently mimic the language from the KJV in some of his writing and NOT in other writing is remarkable. So, the very argument that the language is copied is in itself a complement.

  10. Bryan- I have a bit of background in Semitic languages. None of the ones I’ve studied (Hebrew, Arabic, Aramaic, Akkadian, Ethiopic, Old South Arabian, Ugaritic) make use of a possessive suffix the way English does.

    The first occurrence “the land of our father’s inheritance” would be, in Hebrew, “land (of) inheritance (of) (the) father-of-us.” Hebrew has no particle for “of” (though some of the other Semitic languages do, such as Aramaic). Such things are indicated syntactically. I suspect that “the land of the inheritance of our father” sounded too long and unnatural, and Joseph had a more natural way to translate it, so he did.

    The second occurrence (” he is mightier than I, whose shoe’s latchet I am not worthy to unloose”)seems dependant on the English of John 1:27, but would have to be something like ” He (is) greater than I, which I am not worthy to untie his shoelace.”

    The third occurence is a quotation from Isaiah 48:9 and follows the KJV English of that passage. The Hebrew reads “on account of his name.”

    So, two of those three ocurrences of “‘s” are strongly influenced by the English of the equivalent KJV passage.

    As for Jerusalem, it was on a hill, and the BoM is consistent in its “up to Jerusalem” (Heb. ‘alah ) and “down from Jerusalem” (Heb. yarad min-) usage. This may have more merit, but still can’t be a strong argument because the KJV consistantly translates these phrases literally.

    The one problem with trying to distinguish “at Jerusalem” from “in” Jerusalem is that Hebrew does not have separate prepositions for these two ideas. Both are expressed by the same letter, “b”- “in, at, by.” King James English uses “dwell at” and “dwell in” both for the Hebrew yashav b- (place name). “dwell in” was preferred, 294 occurrences, contrasted with “dwell at” 28 times in the OT (such as Genesis 22:19). The BoM also prefers “dwell in” (53x) over “dwell at” (5x). What would it mean to dwell “at” somewhere vs. “dwell in”? I can’t see any difference in the ENglish, and the Hebrew doesn’t have one either. Any suggestions?

    Paul Hoskisson has some good methodological suggestions about this kind of thing in his article, “Textual Evidence for the Book of Mormon”, in First Nephi: The Doctrinal Foundation. Gospelink (if you subscribe). It’s also on the LDS infobase cd’s…

  12. Hi Brian,

    I loock for Brian Pockock that was Porto Alegre Mission in Brasil. I need talk wtih him Urgently – It’s you big guy?

    Please, return my message for this address ou my phone number in Brazil (11) 3523.54.81 (São Paulo.

    Tks

    Lauro Azevedo

Comments are closed.