This isn’t good evidence for the Hebraic origin of The Book of Mormon.

Of course Joseph was aware of Hebraic literary patterns — he had access to the Old Testament. And you’ve just given several examples that he could have adapted. What better strategy than to follow King James English as closely as possible?

Just because you have access to the literature, it doesn’t mean you’re automatically aware of the literary devices used in it.

I would imagine you have access to the complete works of Shakespeare…

BTW, Connor, I don’ t want to diminish this post at all. In fact, I think that the literary complexity of the BOM speaks volumes of its authenticity. However, I hear lots of LDS members talk about chiasmi in the BOM as being proof of its Hebrewness. The problem is that the chiasmus is a common literary element, not just in Hebrew, but in many other languages and traditions as well, including English. Many of the poets before Joseph’s time and during were using them regularly. For instance, John Milton’s Paradise Lost, a staple in English lit, is loaded with them.

I haven’t studied cognate accusatives, but the chiasmus argument doesn’t quite hold up to scrutiny since it is such a common literary device.

I agree. That’s why I hesitated in posting my comment at all. The BOM is extremely complex from a literary standpoint, especially with the number of different voices and writing styles that suggests different authors. I just think a lot of members fall back on the chiasmus argument when they don’t know much about the device at all.

I’m not saying he was aware of the devices; I’m saying he could have unwittingly copied them in. He certainly had enough examples to work from.

If I have a translation of the Tibetan Book of the Dead, and I try to make up a book of Tibetan history (to the point of copying whole chapters from it), then we shouldn’t be surprised if we see phrases that sound a lot like the source material.

One other thing: you do Joseph Smith a disservice when you portray him as an ignorant farm boy with an IQ of three. He was a smart guy, a good reader, and he had access to the religious ideas that were floating around at the time.

One instance, sure. Two instances, maybe. Three, and your pushing it? Several, and you’re far beyond any coincidence or passing influence.

The number of instances is irrelevant. What, if there were only two, you’d say “Shucks, that’s not enough to go on”? You haven’t really got a basis for saying that five (or seven or whatever) is some kind of magic number. Or if you do, please fill me in on the statistics of it all.

All the instances could have come from someone trying to write in an Old Testament style. I don’t see that this evidence is very strong.

@fontor:

I think you’re right.

I also think that a high (or elementary) schooler could base a new work from a transliterated Finnish classic “in Finnish style” and somehow craft, on her own, literary devices particular to that same time period and language.

Perfectly reasonable.

I do find it perfectly reasonable that a book derived or copied from another book would show linguistic features from that book.