Will Sacrifices and Offerings Be Restored?

In my previous blogs I have shown that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon through the gift of the interpretation of languages, and that this involved Smith knowing the range of meanings of the words and phrases of the original Hebrew, but not necessarily knowing what was in the minds of the original authors.  Thus it was very possible for Smith to choose a word or phrase that was within the range of meaning of the original words and phrases but which did not express the intended meaning of the original author.

For this reason John Tvetness writes:

Some passages of the Book of Mormon can be better understood in Hebrew than in English because the Hebrew reflects word-play or a range of meaning which gives more sense to the passage.

(The Ensign; Oct. 1986 p.64)

In a recent blog, I showed that when the Book of Mormon speaks of the Torah (or its individual parts) as being “done away” that the intended meaning of the original authors was that the Torah would be “renewed” rather than “done away”.

One of the passages in question was a statement by Yeshua:

And ye shall offer up unto me no more the shedding of blood; yea, your sacrifices and your burnt offerings shall be done away, for I will accept none of your sacrifices and your burnt offerings.

(3Nephi 9:19 (4:49 RLDS))

Here the intended meaning is that the “sacrifices and your burnt offerings shall be renewed” rather than “done away” as Joseph Smith himself wrote:

“These sacrifices, as well as every ordinance belonging to the Priesthood, will, when the Temple of the Lord shall be built, and the sons of Levi be purified, be fully restored and attended to in all their powers, ramifications, and blessings.”

(Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 172–73 also Documented History of the Church 4:207-212 Oct. 5th, 1840)

So what of the phrase “And ye shall offer up unto me no more the shedding of blood”?

I believe the Hebrew behind this phrase must have been:  לא יותר שפיכות דמים

Here the Hebrew word YOTER יותר (Strong’s 3148) can mean “more” or it can mean “greater” so that the passage can be understood “no more shedding of blood” but it could also be understood “no greater shedding of blood”.

There is confirmation for this reconstruction of the Hebrew in a passage of Alma:

Therefore, it is expedient that there should be a great and last sacrifice, and then shall there be, or it is expedient there should be, a stop to the shedding of blood; then shall the law of Moses be fulfilled; yea, it shall be all fulfilled, every jot and tittle, and none shall have passed away.

(Alma 34:13 (16:213-214 RLDS))

Here we read a parallel phrase “there should be, a stop to the shedding of blood”.  In this passage the “Chronicles of the Nephites” 1988 translation of the Book of Mormon published by “Hebrew Translations, Inc.” translates the phrase in Hebrew as:

שלא תהיה יותר שפיכות דמים

I believe this Hebrew recaptures the original Hebrew in using the word YOTER so that the passage could have been understood “there shall be a stop to the shedding of blood” or more literally as [there shall be] “no more shedding of blood” (as in 3Nephi above) but was originally intended in both passages to mean “there shall be no greater shedding of blood.”

Now lets look at the phrase “a great and last sacrifice” the Hebrew word for “last” here (used in both the 1988 translation noted above and in the 1981 translation published by the LDS Church, is אחרון ACHRON (Strong’s 314) which can mean “last” but can also mean “to come, following, later.”

Clearly Yeshua was certainly not the final sacrifice. We see that Paul made offerings at the Temple long after Yeshua's death (Acts 18:18; 21:26; 24:17). We also see sacrifices and offerings being made during the Millennial Kingdom:  (Ezek. 40-48) also has such offerings made in it (40:38-43; 42:13; 43:18-27; 44:29-31; 45:1, 13-17; 45:18-46:24 etc.)

18 And he said unto me, Son of man, thus saith the Lord GOD; These are the ordinances of the altar in the day when they shall make it, to offer burnt offerings thereon, and to sprinkle blood thereon.

19 And thou shalt give to the priests the Levites that be of the seed of Zadok, which approach unto me, to minister unto me, saith the Lord GOD, a young bullock for a sin offering.

20 And thou shalt take of the blood thereof, and put it on the four horns of it, and on the four corners of the settle, and upon the border round about: thus shalt thou cleanse and purge it.

21 Thou shalt take the bullock also of the sin offering, and he shall burn it in the appointed place of the house, without the sanctuary.

22 And on the second day thou shalt offer a kid of the goats without blemish for a sin offering; and they shall cleanse the altar, as they did cleanse it with the bullock.

23 When thou hast made an end of cleansing it, thou shalt offer a young bullock without blemish, and a ram out of the flock without blemish.

24 And thou shalt offer them before the LORD, and the priests shall cast salt upon them, and they shall offer them up for a burnt offering unto the LORD.

25 Seven days shalt thou prepare every day a goat for a sin offering: they shall also prepare a young bullock, and a ram out of the flock, without blemish.

26 Seven days shall they purge the altar and purify it; and they shall consecrate themselves.

27 And when these days are expired, it shall be, that upon the eighth day, and so forward, the priests shall make your burnt offerings upon the altar, and your peace offerings; and I will accept you, saith the Lord GOD.

(Ezekiel 43:18-27 KJV) (see 40:1-48:35 inclusive)

Now lets look at the phrase “for I will accept none of your sacrifices and your burnt offerings.” (3Nephi 9:19a (4:49a RLDS))

In a recently blog I showed that in Hebrew it is not necessary to use an interrogative clause as we know it in English. In Hebrew questions often appear as statements made in a questioning manner. As Yale Proffessor of Semitic Languages Charles Cutler Torrey wrote:

It sometimes happens in the O.T. Heb. that an interrogative sentence is not provided with any interrogative word or particle. In such cases the context is supposed to leave no room for doubt, but there are some instances of resulting misunderstanding and mistranslation, more or less disturbing. The Grk. translator ordinarily reproduces his original exactly, word for word, without undertaking to interpret; but in such passages as Is. 1:18 and (more significant) 43:23a and 24a the decision between the two varieties of sentence carries much with it.

(Our Translated Gospels; Charles Cutlet Torrey; 1936; p. 55)

This passage from 3Nephi should also be understood not as a statement, but as a question:

“…for will I not accept your sacrifices and your burnt offerings?”

In another recent blog I showed that the phrase "done away" in the book of Mormon often stands for an original  Hebrew word which can also mean "renew" or "restore".

So these passages were intended to mean:

And you shall offer up unto me no greater shedding of blood; yes, your sacrifices and your burnt offerings shall be renewed, for will I not accept your sacrifices and your burnt offerings?

(3Nephi 9:19a (4:49a RLDS))

Therefore, it is expedient that there should be a great and coming (or later) sacrifice, and then shall there be, or it is expedient there should be no greater shedding of blood; then shall the Torah of Moses be fulfilled; yes, it shall be all fulfilled, every jot and tittle, and none shall have passed away.

(Alma 34:13 (16:213-214 RLDS))

As Joseph Smith said:

“These sacrifices, as well as every ordinance belonging to the Priesthood, will, when the Temple of the Lord shall be built, and the sons of Levi be purified, be fully restored and attended to in all their powers, ramifications, and blessings.”

(Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 172–73 also Documented History of the Church 4:207-212 Oct. 5th, 1840)

Messiah Fulfilled the Torah

In several passages the Book of Mormon mentions that the Messiah “fulfilled” the law, for example when Yeshua addresses the Nephites he says:

4 Behold, I say unto you that the law is fulfilled that was given unto Moses.

5 Behold, I am he that gave the law, and I am he who covenanted with my people Israel; therefore, the law in me is fulfilled, for I have come to fulfil the law; therefore it hath an end.

6 Behold, I do not destroy the prophets, for as many as have not been fulfilled in me, verily I say unto you, shall all be fulfilled.

(3Nephi 15:4-6 (7:5-7 RLDS))

In my last article I covered the phrase “therefore it has an end’ showing that phrase does not refer to a “termination” of the Torah, bit to the idea that the Messiah is the “goal” of the Torah.  In this article I want to deal with the concept that Messiah “fulfilled” the Torah.

In trying to understand this passage, everything hinges on the meaning of the words "destroy" and "fulfill". What does Yeshua mean by "destroy the Law" and "fulfill the Law"?

In their groundbreaking book Understanding the Difficult Words of Jesus, David Bivin and Roy Blizzard jr. address this issue in reference to the parallel passage in Matthew 5:17.  They write:

"Destroy" and "fulfill" are technical terms used in rabbinic argumentation. When a rabbi felt that his colleague had misinterpreted a passage of Scripture, he would say, "You are destroying the Law!"  Needless to say, in most cases his colleague strongly disagreed. What was "destroying the Law" for one rabbi, was "fulfilling the Law" (correctly

interpreting Scripture) for another.

(Understanding the Difficult Words of Jesus; David Bivin and Roy Blizzard, 1984 P. 154)

In reviewing this book by Bivin and Blizzard, Book of Mormon apologist Myra L. Treat wrote:

“In Understanding The Difficult Words of Jesus, Mr. Bivin and Dr. Blizzard examine the origin of the Synoptic Gospels…. The authors devote the book to providing persuasive evidence for a Hebrew origin of these books…. Many of the things Jesus said were actually Hebrew idioms.  This makes sense, because he was speaking to a Jewish audience and wanted to communicate in terms they could readily understand.  Because these Hebrew idioms have been translated for their word value and not their idiomatic value, their exact meaning has been lost.  The inaccurate interpretation of some of these passages has caused theological errors to be made…. For Book of Mormon believers, this book has additional importance…. This is exactly the case with the Book of Mormon.  Its authors were Hebrews… and because they were Hebrew, the idiomatic expressions of the Book of Mormon are Hebrew. “

(Recent Book of Mormon Developments Vol. 2; Articles from the Zarahemla Record; Understanding the Difficult Words of Jesus; A Book Review; 1992; by Mya L. Treat pp. 47-48)

And in a follow up article, her husband and fellow Book of Mormon apologist Ray Treat wrote:

“God saves the best until last.  This especially includes the knowledge that the Book of Mormon is an ancient Hebrew book.  We now realize that God created the ancient Hebrew people, including their laws, customs, language, beliefs, etc. as a gigantic audio-visual aid to teach us about the gospel.  Non-Restoration Christians are also learning this.  Their increasing interest in the Hebrew nature of both the Old and New Testament is without a doubt a necessary prelude to their recognition of the Hebrew nature—and consequently, the divinity—of the Book of Mormon.

This explosion of new information about the Hebrew nature of the Book of Mormon is God’s call to action to all those who consider themselves Book of Mormon believers.”

(Recent Book of Mormon Developments Vol. 2; Articles from the Zarahemla Record; 1992; The Significance of Understanding the Difficult Words of Jesus; By Raymond C. Treat pp. 49-50)

In this case Bivin and Blizzerd’s book sheds meaning on the Book of Mormon itself.  Joseph Smith himself reinforces this understanding.  Joseph Smith understood "fulfilled the Torah" to mean that Messiah "magnified" the Torah and made it "honorable" and not that he abolished it:

Christ Himself fulfilled all righteousness in becoming obedient to the law which he had given to Moses on the mount, and thereby magnified it and made it honorable, instead of destroying it.

(Joseph Smith, History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 7 vols., introduction and notes by B. H. Roberts [Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1932-1951], 5: 261.)

Michael Jones

Messiah is the Goal of the Torah

Messiah is the Goal of the Torah

In speaking to the Nephites Yeshua said:

Behold, I am he that gave the law, and I am he who covenanted with my people Israel; therefore, the law in me is fulfilled, for I have come to fulfil the law; therefore it hath an end.

(3Nephi 15:5 (7:6 RLDS))

Messianic Jewish writer David Stern, in the "Introduction" to his Jewish New Testament writes concerning a parallel verse in Romans 10:4:

"But Greek telos, which gives the English word `teleology', usually means `goal, purpose, consummation', not `termination.' The Messiah did not bring the Torah to an end. Rather, as the Jewish New Testament renders it, `the goal at which the Torah aims is the Messiah, who offers righteousness to everyone who trusts.' This is the point which Sha'ul is making in Romans 9:30-10:13. For this reason the Greek word de at the beginning of Romans 10:6 is rendered as a continuative, `moreover,' rather than as an adversative, `but'; for the latter world would imply that there are two paths to righteousness through deeds (i.e., obeying the Torah apart from faith, verse 5) and through faith (verses 6-10). However, Sha'ul's point throughout the passage, and indeed throughout Romans, is that for Jews and Gentiles alike there has never been more than one route to righteousness, namely, trusting God; so that the Torah is built on trusting God and from beginning to end has always required faith" (p. xxiii).

Stern translates the word telos in the Jewish New Testament Rom. 10:4 as "goal" thus saying "Messiah is the goal of the Torah." Thus clarifying the ambiguity of the word "end" here.

Back in 1893 when James Murdock S.T.D. translated the Aramaic Peshitta into English for the first time, he translated the Aramaic word used in the Aramaic Peshitta in Rom. 10:4 as “aim”. A note in the margin shows that the Aramaic word is SAKA and can be understood as “end, scope, summary”.

In my previous blogs I have shown that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon through the gift of the interpretation of languages, and that this involved Smith knowing the range of meanings of the words and phrases of the original Hebrew, but not necessarily knowing what was in the minds of the original authors.  Thus it was very possible for Smith to choose a word or phrase that was within the range of meaning of the original words and phrases but which did not express the intended meaning of the original author.

For this reason John Tvetness writes:

Some passages of the Book of Mormon can be better understood in Hebrew than in English because the Hebrew reflects word-play or a range of meaning which gives more sense to the passage.
(The Ensign; Oct. 1986 p.64)

When the Book of Mormon says:

Behold, I am he that gave the law, and I am he who covenanted with my people Israel; therefore, the law in me is fulfilled, for I have come to fulfil the law; therefore it hath an end.

(3Nephi 15:5 (7:6 RLDS))

The word “end” was translated into Hebrew in Selections from the Book of Mormon in Hebrew, published by the Corporation of the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in 1981 as TAK’LIT (תכלית) which was probably the word used in the original Hebrew.  TAK’LIT (Strong’s 8503) (תכלית) can mean “end” but can also mean “purpose, aim, intention or goal.” 

When Yeshua told the Nephites that the Torah has an “end” he did not mean that the Torah had a termination, but that the Torah has a purpose, a goal. 

There are several other passages i n the Book of Mormon that confirm that Messiah Yeshua is the "end of the Torah" not because He is the termination of the Torah, but because He is the goal of the Torah:

"...for this end ['goal', not termination] hath the law of Moses been given.."

(2 Nephi 11:4 (8:7-9 RLDS)

Behold, he offereth himself a sacrifice for sin, TO ANSWER THE ENDS

OF THE LAW, unto all those who have a broken heart and a contrite

spirit; and unto none else can the ends of the law be answered.

(2 Nephi 2:7 (1:72 RLDS)

Understanding Abinadi’s Questions

Understanding Abinadi’s Questions

In my previous blogs I have shown that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon through the gift of the interpretation of languages, and that this involved Smith knowing the range of meanings of the words and phrases of the original Hebrew, but not necessarily knowing what was in the minds of the original authors.  Thus it was very possible for Smith to choose a word or phrase that was within the range of meaning of the original words and phrases but which did not express the intended meaning of the original author.

For this reason John Tvetness writes:

Some passages of the Book of Mormon can be better understood in Hebrew than in English because the Hebrew reflects word-play or a range of meaning which gives more sense to the passage.
(The Ensign; Oct. 1986 p.64)

One type of example is where questions are misunderstood as statements.  In Hebrew it is not necessary to use an interrogative clause as we know it in English. In Hebrew questions often appear as statements made in a questioning manner. As Yale Proffessor of Semitic Languages Charles Cutler Torrey wrote:

It sometimes happens in the O.T. Heb. that an interrogative sentence is not provided with any interrogative word or particle. In such cases the context is supposed to leave no room for doubt, but there are some instances of resulting misunderstanding and mistranslation, more or less disturbing. The Grk. translator ordinarily reproduces his original exactly, word for word, without undertaking to interpret; but in such passages as Is. 1:18 and (more significant) 43:23a and 24a the decision between the two varieties of sentence carries much with it.
(Our Translated Gospels; Charles Cutlet Torrey; 1936; p. 55)

For example the King James Version of Exodus 6:3 has:

And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them.
(Ex. 6:3 KJV)

"The Scriptures" version from the Institute for Scripture Research has translated this declaration as a question as follows:

And I appeared to Abraham, to Yitshaq, and to Ya'aqob, as El Shaddai.  And by My Name, YHWH, was I not known to them?
(Ex. 6:3 ISR)

And Joseph Smith himself made use of this fact in his rendering of the same passage:

And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, I am the Lord God Almighty,
the Lord JEHOVAH. And was not my name known unto them?
(Ex. 6:3 JST)

Now lets look at a passage in the BoM:

...but I say to you, that the time shall come when it shall no more be expedient to keep the law of Moses.
(Mosiah 13:27 (8:3-4 RLDS))

This would have been a technically accurate translation from the range of meaning of the words and phrase, but it does not capture Abinadi's intended meaning. From the Hebrew this could also have been translated as a rhetorical question:

...but I say to you, shall a time come when it shall no more be expedient to keep the law of Moses?"

Abinadi's point is actually to emphasize that the Torah is for all generations forever.

That Abinadi is asking a rhetorical question here is supported by the fact that Abinadi asks several other rhetorical questions in this sermon:

Have ye taught this people that they should observe to do all these things for to keep these commandments?
I say unto you, Nay
(Mosiah 13:25b-26a (8:1-2 RLDS))

And now, did they understand the law?
I say to you, Nay
(Mosiah 13:32 (8:9-10 RLDS))

For behold, did not Moses prophecy
unto them concerning the coming of
the Messiah, and that God should redeem
his people? Yea
(Mosiah 13:33a (8:11 RLDS))

have they not spoken more or less concerning these things?
(Mosi ah 13:33b (8:12 RLDS))

Have they not said?
(Mosiah 13:34 (8:13 RLDS))

and have they not said also?
(Mosiah 13:35 (8:14 RLDS))

In this context of so many other rhetorical questions it is totally appropriate to understand Abinadi's meaning in Moshai 13:27 to be:

...but I say to you, shall a time come when it shall no more be expedient to keep the law of Moses?"
(Mosiah 13:27 (8:3-4 RLDS))

Michael Jones

Is the Torah “Done Away”?

 

Is the Torah “Done Away”?

In my last article I demonstrated that the Book of Mormon was originally written in a Hebrew dialect using a reformed Egyptian system of writing.  Joesph Smith translated the Book of Mormon through the “gift and power of God”.  This appears to have been a manifestation of the gift of the interpretation of tongues (1Cor. 12:10; Moroni 10:16 (10:11 RLDS)).  This gift was a supernatural knowledge of the interpretation of “languages and diverse kinds of tongues” (Moroni 10:16).  Smith saw a word on the plates and had revealed to him the range of meaning of that word.  What was not revealed to him in this process was the intended meaning of the original author.  It was the gift of translation of languages, not the gift of reading of minds of original authors.  If an original author of a portion of the Book of Mormon used an ambiguous word or phrase, Smith would have had a knowledge of the range of meaning of that word or phrase, but not a knowledge of what the original author intended it to mean.  This manner of translation means that it was possible at times for Smith to translate a word of phrase with a meaning that was a “correct” in the sense that it was a legitimate interpretation of the word or phrase before him, but was not the meaning intended by the original author.

For this reason John Tvetness writes:

Some passages of the Book of Mormon can be better understood in Hebrew than in English because the Hebrew reflects word-play or a range of meaning which gives more sense to the passage.
(The Ensign; Oct. 1986 p.64)

In my last article we looked at several examples. Now let us look at another verse:

And after the law is fulfilled in Christ, that they need not harden their hearts against him when the law ought to be done away.
(2Nephi 25:27b (11:51 RLDS))

This was translated into Hebrew in Selections from the Book of Mormon in Hebrew, published by the Corporation of the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in 1981 as follows:

כי אחרי המלא דבר התורה במשיח
אל להם להקשות את לבם נגדו
בעת אשר התורה צריכה לחלף

The word used for “done away” in the Hebrew here is חלף CHALAF (Strong’s 2498) which can mean “done away” but can also mean “changed, renewed or revived.”  I believe that this translation has recaptured the original Hebrew word, which Nephi used here. 

This is the same word translated in the KJV as “renewed” in Isaiah 40:31 and 41:1:

But they that wait upon the LORD shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings as eagles; they shall run, and not be weary; and they shall walk, and not faint.
(Isaiah 40:31 KJV)

Keep silence before me, O islands; and let the people renew their strength: let them come near; then let them speak: let us come near together to judgment.
(Isaiah 41:1 KJV)

Certainly in these verses of Isaiah strength was by no means “done away” with, but it was revived and renewed.

Likewise the Torah is not “done away” with in the 2Nephi 25:27b.  Nephi’s intended meaning was:

And after the Torah is fulfilled in Messiah, that they need not harden their hearts against him when the Torah ought to be RENEWED.

We can clearly this is the intended meaning when Yeshua later testifies to the Nephites:

46 Therefore those things which were of old time,
which were under the law, in me are all fulfilled.
47 Old things are done away,
and all things have become new.
(3Nephi 12:46-47 (5:91-92 RLDS))

Notice here the synonymous poetic parallelism where “done away” and “become new” should be synonymous terms.  This passage should read:

Old things are renewed,
and all things have become new.

Likewise in Moroni 8:8 (8:9 RLDS) circumcision is “renewed” rather than “done away” because we are told that circumcision is for all of our generations forever (Gen. 17:9-14).

And in 3Nephi 9:19 (4:49 RLDS) “sacrifices and burnt offerings” shall be “renewed” rather than “done away”.  As Joseph Smith said:

“These sacrifices, as well as every ordinance belonging to the Priesthood, will, when the Temple of the Lord shall be built, and the sons of Levi be purified, be fully restored and attended to in all their powers, ramifications, and blessings.”
(Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 172–73 also Documented History of the Church 4:207-212 Oct. 5th, 1840)

Michael Jones

 

The Original Language of the Book of Mormon

In my previous blogs I wrote about the Jewish Roots of the Book of Mormon.  In fact the content of the Book of Mormon is all Jewish, and the language in which it was written is Hebrew, the principle language of the Nephites.  The proof of these facts is multifaceted and this article can only present a small but valuable portion of the evidence that can be understood by the layman.  Therefore it is my goal to lay out this material as non-technical as possible.

Many have been confused by the opening statement in the Book of Mormon which has wrongly been understood to mean that the Book of Mormon was written in an Egyptian dialect.  In the opening words of the Book of Mormon, Nephi declares:

2 Yea, I make a record in the language of my father, which consists of the learning of the Jews and the language of the Egyptians.
(1Nephi 1:2 (1:1 RLDS))

This has been one of the chief criticisms of the Book of Mormon, since Hebrew not Egyptian was not the primary language of Hebrews living in the area of Jerusalem at the time of Lehi’s departure.

However much later in the Book of Mormon we are told:

32 And now, behold, we have written this record according to our knowledge, in the characters which are called among us the reformed Egyptian, being handed down and altered by us, according to our manner of speech.
33 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.
34 But the Lord knoweth the things which we have written, and also that none other people knoweth our language; and because that none other people knoweth our language, therefore he hath prepared means for the interpretation thereof.
(Mormon 9:32-34 (4:98-100 RLDS)

If we take all of this information together it appears that “the language of my father” (1Nephi 1:2) was the Hebrew dialect while “the language of the Egyptians” actually refers to the written language of the Egyptians and which Mormon 9:32 calls “the characters which are called among us the reformed Egyptian”.   The phrase “the learning of the Jews and the language of the Egyptians” (1Nephi 1:2) means that the record was written in the Hebrew dialect, but with a form of Egyptian Characters.

(In fact several ancient examples have been found of texts written in the Hebrew or Aramaic dialects but in Egyptian characters. See Jewish and Other Semitic Texts Written in Egyptian Characters by John A. Tvedtnes and  Stephen D. Ricks )

Joseph Smith himself seemed to have confirmed that regardless of what type of “characters” were used, the Book of Mormon was written in Hebrew.  Speaking of the Title page of the Book of Mormon, Smith wrote:

“The title-page of the Book of Mormon is a literal translation, taken from the very last leaf, on the left hand side of the collection or book of plates, which contained the record which has been translated, the language of the whole running the same as all Hebrew writing in general; and that said title page is not by any means a modern composition, either of mine or of any other man who has lived or does live in this generation”
(History of the Church, 1:71)

The Book of Mormon indicates that the Nephites were still using some form of Hebrew at the time of their demise (Mormon 9:32-34). 

In 3Nephi 9:18 (4:48 RLDS) Yeshua identifies himself as the “Alpha and Omega” as he is in the Book of Revelation.  These are the first and last letters of the Greek Alphabet.  Many scholars maintain that Yeshua spoke Hebrew and Aramaic rather than Greek and that his actual words in Revelation should be understood as the appear in the Ancient Aramaic manuscripts of Revelation as “Aleph and Tav” the first and last letters of the shared Hebrew and Aramaic alphabet.  Egyptian Characters are not alphabetic but hieroglyphic, and they do not have a fixed order, there is no first or last Egyptian character.  Therefore in 3Nephi 9:18 Yeshua must have actually said “I am the Aleph and the Tav” (obviously Greek letters meant nothing to the Nephites) demonstrating that the Nephites knew and used a form of the Hebrew language in the first century.

In Alma 43:13 (20:14-15 RLDS) 3Nephi 1:25 (1:30-31 RLDS) & 12:18 (5:65 RLDS) reference is made to "jot" and "title".  This parallels Matthew 5:18 where the KJV has:

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
(Matthew 5:18 KJV)

In his Jewish New Testament David Stern Translates these words:

Yes indeed! I tell you that until heaven and earth pass away, not so much as a yud or a stroke will pass from the Torah—not until everything has happened.
(Mattityahu 5:18 JNT)

And in his Jewish New Testament Commentary he writes on this verse “Yud is the smallest letter of the Hebrew alphabet”.  The Book of Mormon could not make reference to the Hebrew letter YUD if the Nephites were not still using Hebrew when these verses took place.

Further evidence that some form of Hebrew was the spoken language of the Nephites is the apparent Hebrew influence on certain Native American languages.  In his paper A Curious Element in Uto-Aztecan, Brian Stubbs has shown that the Uto-Aztecan Native American language family has within it a distinct Hebrew influence.  (See Epigraphic Society Occasional Papers Volume 23 1998 pp. 109-140)

BYU scholar John Tvetness has stated:

The Book of Mormon contains numerous idioms and syntax which are not typically English but which would be perfectly normal in a Hebrew setting…. Although it is not presently entirely clear what the actual writing system of the Nephites was, there are a number of factors which support the idea that the language from which Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon was, in fact, Hebrew, though recorded in a “reformed Egyptian” writing system.
(The Ensign; Oct. 1986 p. 64)

The Book of Mormon was written in Hebrew,
but with reformed Egyptian characters that looked like those above.

 
The Hebrew Behind the English

Next me must consider the mode of translation of the Book of Mormon.  Joesph Smith translated the Book of Mormon through the “gift and power of God”.  This appears to have been a manifestation of the gift of the interpretation of tongues (1Cor. 12:10; Moroni 10:16 (10:11 RLDS)).  This gift was a supernatural knowledge of the interpretation of “languages and diverse kinds of tongues” (Moroni 10:16).  Smith saw a word on the plates and had revealed to him the range of meaning of that word.  What was not revealed to him in this process was the intended meaning of the original author.  It was the gift of translation of languages, not the gift of reading of minds of original authors.  If an original author of a portion of the Book of Mormon used an ambiguous word or phrase, Smith would have had a knowledge of the range of meaning of that word or phrase, but not a knowledge of what the original author intended it to mean.  This manner of translation means that it was possible at times for Smith to translate a word of phrase with a meaning that was a “correct” in the sense that it was a legitimate interpretation of the word or phrase before him, but was not the meaning intended by the original author.

The fact that Smith’s translation of the Book of Mormon involved a certain degree of his own input can be easily demonstrated.  It is no secret that Smith’s word and phrase choice was influenced by the King James Version Bible.  But what is truly interesting is that when the Book of Mormon quotes a portion of the Bible (or uses language correlating with phrases that appear in the KJV) Smith tends to follow the word and phrase choice of the King James Version, with which he was clearly familiar.  However when the Book of Mormon only draws loosely from the Bible, Smith often uses word choices that are more correct that those used by the KJV. 

For example when the Book of Mormon quoted the phrase “thou shalt not kill” (Ex. 20:13; Deut. 5:17; Matt. 5:21) the Book of Mormon follows the KJV exactly (in Mosiah 13:21 (7:120 RLDS); 3Nephi 12:21 (5:69 RLDS).  Here the Hebrew word RATZACH רצח (Strong’s 7523) is rendered in a general manner as it is in th KJV as “kill.”

However when this commandment is more loosely referenced Smith renders the same word more specifically as “murder”:

And again, the Lord God hath commanded that men should not murder…
(2Nephi  26:32 (11:110 RLDS))

This translation is actually better translation of this word than that of the KJV.  The LDS 1987 edition of the KJV has a footnote to the word “kill” in Ex. 20:13 saying “HEB murder.”  And many modern translations render the word “murder.” 

Another example is found in Mosiah 14:3 which is quoting Isaiah 53:3:

He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief; and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
(Mosiah 14:3 (8:18 RLDS))

Here the Book of Mormon follows the language of the KJV.

However when this material is only loosely referenced, different words are used:

And he shall go forth, suffering pains and afflictions and temptations of every kind; and this that the word might be fulfilled which saith he will take upon him the pains and the sicknesses of his people.
(Alma 7:11 (5:20-21 RLDS))

The Hebrew word translated by the KJV as “sorrows” in Is. 53:3 is MAKOV מכאב (Strong’s 4341) which the 1955 Jewish Publication Society Tanak translates in Is. 53:3 as “pains.”

The Hebrew word translated by the KJV as “grief” in Is. 53:3 is HOLI הלי (Strong’s 2483) which the 1955 and 1985 Jewish Publication Society Tanak translates in Is. 53:3 as “disease.”

Smith’s translation was, therefore, affected by two factors apart from the gift of translation:  the range of meaning of the original Hebrew words and phrases and Smith’s own life experience. Smith had a knowledge of the range of meaning of the original Hebrew words or phrases, but had to depend on his own human understanding to choose which English words or phrases to use.  This process lent itself to instances where Smith might have chosen an English word or phrase from within the range of meaning of the original Hebrew word or phrase, which was not the meaning intended by the original author.  Perhaps this is why the Title Page of the Book of Mormon says “…if there are faults they are the mistakes of men.”

John Tvetness writes:

Some passages of the Book of Mormon can be better understood in Hebrew than in English because the Hebrew reflects word-play or a range of meaning which gives more sense to the passage.
(The Ensign; Oct. 1986 p.64)

Tvetness gives an example:

Many… passages in the Book of Mormon take on richer meaning if the passages are read as translations of Hebrew. For example, in 1 Nephi we read that as Lehi “prayed unto the Lord, there came a pillar of fire and dwelt upon a rock before him.” (1 Ne. 1:6, italics added.) Here, English usage would prefer the verb “sat” rather than “dwelt.” But the Hebrew verb, in fact, has both meanings.
(ibid)

(The Hebrew word in question here is YASHAV ישב (Strong’s 3427). The noun form is YESHIVA a seat, dwelling, also used for a Jewish school. It is interesting to note that in the above mentioned paper by Brian Stubbs, Stubbs points out that this same word correlates with the Uto-Aztecian word YESIPA which has exactly the same range of meaning.)

Another example is in 1Nephi 1:15 (1:14 RLDS) where Lehi, having seen a vision of the destruction of Jerusalem says “his soul did rejoice”.  The Hebrew word behind “rejoiced” here most certainly must have been GIL גיל (Strong’s 1523) which can mean “rejoiced” but can also mean “trembled”.  Certainly Lehi’s soul did not “rejoice” at seeing the destruction of Jerusalem, but it “trembled” at seeing the destruction of Jerusalem.

In the Lord’s Prayer as given in the Book of Mormon Yeshua says:

And lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from evil.
(3Nephi 13:12 (5:105 RLDS))

This agrees with the parallel text in the KJV for Matthew 6:13.  However Bullinger writes:

Active verbs were used by the Hebrews to express not the doing of a thing, but the permission of the thing the agent is said to do.
(Figures of Speech Used in the Bible; 1898; E.W. Bullinger)

And in the Joseph Smith Translation of Matthew 6:13 Smith translates the same phrase:

And suffer us not to be led into temptation,
But deliver us from evil.
(Matt. 6:13 (6:14 RLDS) JST)

The translation given by Smith in 3Nephi 13:12 was within the range of possible meaning of the words and phrases before him, but did not reflect the original intent of their meaning as used by Yeshua as it is properly expressed in the Joseph Smith Translation of Matthew.

Finally let us look at the way the Book of Mormon renders the Hebrew word ERETZ ארץ (Strong’s 776) which can mean either “land” or “earth.”

In Ether 13:17 we read:

But he repented not, neither his fair sons nor daughters; neither the fair sons and daughters of Cohor; neither the fair sons and daughters of Corihor; and in fine, there were none of the fair sons and daughters upon the face of the whole earth who repented of their sins.
(Ether 13:17 (6:18 RLDS))

Since the Hebrew word behind “earth” would have been ERETZ the English “land” would actually make better sense in this passage.

In Third Nephi we read that at the death of Yeshua:

And thus the face of the whole earth became deformed, because of the tempests, and the thunderings, and the lightnings, and the quaking of the earth.
(3Nephi 8:17 (5:22 RLDS))

However the context seems to refer only to the lands occupied by the Nephites and Lamenites so that ERETZ here is also better understood as “land” rather than “earth.”

Finally Third Nephi, it its parallel to the “Sermon on the Mount” says “the meek shall inherit the earth” (3Nephi 12:5 (5:52 RLDS)) in agreement with the KJV wording of Matthew 5:12.   However both are quoting Psalm 37:11 where the context seems to be that of the inheritance of “the land” [of Israel].

Smith translated the Book of Mormon through the gift of the interpretation of languages.  This gift gave him a knowledge of the range of meaning of the original Hebrew words and phrases, but it did not give him the ability to reach back in time and read the minds of the original authors.  It was a knowledge of the language, not a knowledge of what the ancient author was thinking.  Smith had to rely on his own human knowledge and life experience to choose what English words or phrases within the range of meaning to use.  From the many examples given in this article we can see that some passages in the Book of Mormon can be better understood by reaching behind the English to the underlying original Hebrew, because the Hebrew may reflect a range of meaning which gives more sense to the passage. 

Michael Jones