“The Language of the Egyptians”

Alan C. Miner

Nephi says he wrote in “the language of the Egyptians” (1 Nephi 1:2). John Sorenson explains that most single Egyptian hieroglyphs stood for whole concepts. Signs representing sounds--syllables and individual sounds comparable to our letters--were also used. After [the Egyptians] had evolved a set of letter signs for the principal signs of their language, they might perfectly well have discarded all the rest of their hundreds of hieroglyphic characters … but for three thousand years they clung to these multiple characters, and wrote pictographic and phonetic characters jumbled together because of the force of tradition. This type of writing has been labeled the Alphabet-included Logographic System. Not only Egyptian but the Chinese and Mayan [Central American] scripts fit into this category. [John L. Sorenson, An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon, p. 77]

“The Language of the Egyptians”

Hugh Nibley notes that it is not surprising the Book of Mormon is written in Egyptian. It’s much more concise and easy to handle. Moroni tells us if they could write in Hebrew they would, but it is too large and takes up too much space (Mormon 9:33). At [the time of Lehi] demotic writing was the official writing. It had only been in for a hundred years, but it was the new shorthand. Everybody was using it because it was very convenient. It was so much shorter than anything else discovered.

In room 35 (I think) of the Cairo Museum there is an inscription. I should have brought along pictures of it. The inscription is in Egyptian hieroglyphic writing, Egyptian demotic writing, and Greek. The Greek and Egyptian take up so much space. The demotic takes up just about seven lines. All the other inscriptions take up half a wall, but this one is just like that. It’s amazingly economical. That’s why they were using it. [Hugh W. Nibley, Teachings of the Book of Mormon, Semester 3, p. 37]

“The Learning of the Jews - Chiastic Structure”

Clay Gorton has identified nine hundred sixty-one chiasma in the Book of Mormon, which comprise 3394 verses out of a total of 6404. Thus, according to Gorton, 53% of the verses in the Book of Mormon are of a chiastic structure. The Small Plates of Nephi, however, are 72% chiastic, whereas the abridgement of the Large Plates of Nephi is only 46% chiastic. Within both the Small Plates and the Large Plates there are wide variations among authors. (see illustration below)

According to Gorton, Nephi is the author of one hundred forty-seven chiasma. He wrote a total of seven hundred ninety-six verses, six hundred five of which (76%) are chiastic. [H. Clay Gorton, A New Witness for Christ: Chiastic Structures in the Book of Mormon, pp. 20, 83]

1 Nephi 1:2 The learning of the Jews (Chiastic Structure): List of [First Person] Book of Mormon Authors in Order of Percent Chiasticity. [H. Clay Gorton, A New Witness for Christ: Chiastic Structures in the Book of Mormon, pp. 20-21]

“The Learning of the Jews and the Language of the Egyptians”

Nephi, “engraving” on metal “plates” which he had made (see 1 Nephi 9:3), states that he makes his record “in the language of my father, which consists of the learning of the Jews and the language of the Egyptians” (1 Nephi 1:2). William Hamblin writes that the earliest known example of mixing a Semitic language with modified Egyptian hieroglyphic characters is the Byblos Syllabic inscriptions (Eighteenth century B.C.), from the city of Byblos on the Phoenician coast. This script is described as a “syllabary [that] is clearly inspired by the Egyptian hieroglyphic system, and in fact is the most important link known between the hieroglyphs and the Canaanite alphabet.” Interestingly enough, most Byblos Syllabic texts were written on copper plates. Thus, it would not be unreasonable to describe the Byblos Syllabic texts as a Semitic language written on metal plates in “reformed Egyptian characters,” which is precisely what the Book of Mormon describes.“ [William Hamblin, ”Reformed Egyptian,“ FARMS, ] [See the commentary on Mormon 9:32-34]

“The Learning of the Jews”

According to Reynolds and Sjodahl, Hebrew learning, also called, ”the learning of the Jews" (1 Nephi 1:2), consisted at this time chiefly in a knowledge of the Law (Torah), now known as the Pentateuch; the Prophets down to and including Isaiah and some books now no longer extant, some of which are mentioned in the Scriptures, as for instance, the Book of Nathan, (2 Chronicles 2:29), the Book of Enoch (Jude 14), [etc.] …

Besides the written word, the Jews had a venerable tradition by means of which the historical background of the records was preserved, and opinions, rulings, judgments, judicial decisions, customs and important incidents were transmitted by word of mouth from one generation to another generation.

Sometime after the destruction of the temple by Titus and the dispersion of the people, the tradition was committed to writing. This literary composition is known as the “Mishna,” meaning “repetition,” Later, notes or commentaries were written on this text. These explanations are known as the “Gemara,” or “complement.” The Mishna and Gemara together constitute the Talmud (“instruction”), of which there are two versions: one composed at Jerusalem (about A.D. 390), and one at Babylon (about A.D. 420). The Talmud is by far the most important literary work of the adherents of the Mosaic faith, next after the inspired writings of the Old Testament. [George Reynolds and Janne M. Sjodahl, Commentary on the Book of Mormon, Vol. 1, pp. 4-5]

“The Learning of the Jews and the Language of the Egyptians”

Nephi mentions that he wrote on the small plates according to the “learning of the Jews and the language of the Egyptians” (1 Nephi 1:2). It is hard to tell just how much the Nephite record keepers had altered the written characters used on the small plates or their meaning by the time Mormon took charge of them, but one thing that Moroni tells us is that the changes were linked to “[the Nephite] manner of speech” (Mormon 9:32-34). Modern wordprint analysis has given us some tremendous insights into the difference in speech between the times of the early authors of the small plates, the times of Alma, and the times of Mormon and Moroni. According to a 1995 F.A.R.M.S. article by John Hilton, wordprinting is based on what appears to be a normal human phenomenon. Without being consciously aware of it, when we freely speak or freely write each of us uses a differing set of personal preferences of the available word patterns. Many of the wordprint patterns measure to be stable over a lifetime. Even more significant is the finding that the wordprint of a language remains stable even through translation. Thus, although the words of a text might be in English, a wordprint can determine whether the original language was Hebrew or Greek. Wordprint analysis has developed dramatically over the last 14 years and although it is still developing, it is now used to unravel many classical authorship controversies. In wordprint studies related to the Book of Mormon, Hilton has analyzed the major authors and come up with some amazing insights. [John Hilton, “Update of Wordprinting on the English Isaiah Texts and the Book of Mormon,” F.A.R.M.S., p. 1]

According to statistics graphed on page 14 of Hilton’s paper, the language of the small plates authors was not the same as that of Alma; and the language of Alma was different than that of Mormon and Moroni’s time (Hilton, “Update,” p. 14). The Book of Mormon reader will find significance in these three distinct language changes not only because of the different time periods these major authors wrote in, but also because of the changes in the geographical setting of the story: (1) The small plates recordkeepers started with Nephi, who came from Jerusalem and settled in the land of Nephi (2 Nephi 5:7-8); they ended with Amaleki who tells of Mosiah’s flight from the land of Nephi to a land of Zarahemla (Omni 1:13). (2) Alma2 lived and preached in the land of Zarahemla (Mosiah 29:44); and (3) Mormon with Moroni were part of a culture tied to the land northward (Mormon 1:2-6).

Moreover, comparing these three groupings of Book of Mormon authors with the translated Hebrew of Jeremiah reveals that while the language of Alma2 and Mormon differs, that of the authors of the small plates corresponds almost exactly with Jeremiah’s Hebrew. Thus, if Hilton’s work proves correct and if we follow the ideas of Nibley presented previously, then Nephi recorded on the small plates using reformed Egyptian characters to convey the thoughts of Hebrew language. Furthermore, Nephi or Jacob might have also transcribed at times from existing records written in Hebrew (1 Nephi 1:17, Mormon 9:33). [Alan C. Miner, Personal Notes]

1 Nephi 1:2 The learning of the Jews and the language of the Egyptians 

“The Learning of the Jews Covenants”

According to Raymond Treat, there is a hidden message in the first verses of the Book of Mormon. The key to finding this hidden message is to know that these verses are a chiasm, which is one form of Hebrew poetry. A chiasm is an inverted parallelism, or in other words, you say something then repeat yourself in reverse order. One advantage of writing chiastically is that you can place special emphasis on the most important point by placing it in the center of the chiasm. Nephi deliberately constructed his chiasm so that “the learning of the Jews” was in the center:

"I, Nephi, having been born of goodly parents, therefore I was taught somewhat in all the learning of my father; and having seen many afflictions in the course of my days, nevertheless, having been highly favored of the Lord in all my days; yea:

A. having had a great knowledge of the goodness and the mysteries of God,

B. therefore I make a record of my proceedings in my days.

C. Yea, I make a record in the language of my father,

D. which consists of the learning of the Jews

C’. and the language of the Egyptians

B’. And I know that the record which I make is true; and I make it with my own hand;

A’. and I make it according to my knowledge. (1 Nephi 1:1-3)

Nephi is telling us that “the learning of the Jews” is an important key to understanding the Book of Mormon… . We have used one area of “the learning of the Jews”--Hebrew poetry--to find a hidden message. Another area in which “the learning of the Jews” greatly enhances our understanding is that of covenant-making… .

The main purpose of the Book of Mormon is to establish a knowledge of the covenants to a remnant of the house of Israel. One way to demonstrate that this is the primary purpose of the Book of Mormon is to point out that it begins and ends with the covenant. In the title page we read:

… Which is to shew unto the remnant of the house of Israel how great things the Lord hath done for their fathers; and that they may know the covenants of the Lord, that they are not cast off for ever …

And then in the second to the last verse in the entire Book of Mormon, which is the last verse before Moroni’s farewell, we again see the covenant:

And again, if ye by the grace of God are perfect in Christ and deny not his power, then are ye sanctified in Christ by the grace of God, through the shedding of the blood of Christ which is in the covenant of the Father, unto the remission of your sins, that ye become holy without spot. (Moroni 10:33)

If we make proper use of the concept of the covenant according to the “learning of the Jews” as taught in the Book of Mormon and the other scriptures, then we will not only receive greater blessings now but we will also be in a position to receive more scripture including additional information about the covenants. Lehi tells us:

" … I am a descendant of Joseph, which was carried captive into Egypt. And great were the covenants of the Lord which he made unto Joseph. Wherefore, Joseph truly saw our day. (2 Nephi 3:4-5)

[Raymond C. Treat, “Understanding Our Covenants,” in Recent Book of Mormon Developments, Vol. 2, pp. 34, 38] [See the commentary on 1 Nephi 5:5; 1 Nephi 22:1-3; 3 Nephi 5:12]

“The Learning of the Jews and the Language of the Egyptians”

According to Daniel Ludlow, in considering the problem of the language of the plates translated by Joseph Smith it is well to keep these facts in mind: (1) the word language has several different meanings and includes both spoken and written concepts, such as grammatical constructions, thought patterns, and exact phraseology; (2) Joseph Smith translated from two different records (the small plates of Nephi and the plates of Mormon); these plates were prepared and written nearly 1,000 years apart, and the language of one well might not be the language of the other … [Thus when Nephi says “the learning of the Jews and the language of the Egyptians” (1 Nephi 1:2)], is Nephi referring to the spoken words, the written script, the grammatical constructions, the thought patterns, the exact phraseology, or what?

One scholar of the Book of Mormon [has theorized] that “Nephi wrote in the Hebrew language but used Egyptian characters or script in the same sense that a stenographer uses Gregg characters to express English words” (Sidney B. Sperry, Our Book of Mormon [Bookcraft, 1950], p. 31)… . If the statement by Nephi (“the language of the Egyptians”) does not give us a hint as to the actual language [or script of characters] written on the small plates of Nephi, then we are left almost completely in the dark concerning this question, as the matter is not mentioned again by Nephi or the other writers on the small plates of Nephi. However, we are given some help as to the written script of characters of the plates of Mormon by the following statement made by Moroni about A.D. 400:

"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.

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.

But the Lord knoweth the things which we have written, and also that none other people knoweth our language …" (Mormon 9:32-34).

[Daniel Ludlow, A Companion to Your Study of the Book of Mormon, p. 88]

Most people associate Egyptian writing with hieroglyphics, but does the wording “language of the Egyptians” imply that the small plates were written in Egyptian hieroglyphic characters? Furthermore, what constituted the “reformed Egyptian” characters that Moroni talks about in Mormon 9:32-34?

Hugh Nibley comments that in matters of language and composition the Book of Mormon, from the first, presented a welcome target to the critics: here was something that even a child could see was fraudulent, something that no intelligent person, let alone a clever deceiver would dream of -- “From the reformed Egyptian!!!” screamed Alexander Campbell, with three exclamation points. Nobody knew anything about reformed Egyptian then … [but] “Reformed Egyptian” is as good of term as any to describe that peculiar and remarkably abbreviated style of “cursive writing [that] developed out of the Hieratic by systematic abbreviation from the eighth to the fourth centuries,” which enjoyed the heyday of its international popularity in Lehi’s own time. [Hugh Nibley, Since Cumorah, F.A.R.M.S., p. 149]

Thus, we could call the style of the written characters of the small plates “reformed Egyptian,” but that style was probably not exactly like the ”reformed Egyptian“ of Mormon and Moroni’s time because according to Moroni, as it was handed down, ”it was altered by us according to our manner of speech" (Mormon 9:32). [Alan C. Miner, Personal Notes]

1 Nephi 1:2 The learning of the Jews and the language of the Egyptians ([Illustration] This illustration shows how Egyptian writing would represent the name “Ammon” moving from complicated “Hieroglyphics” to an extremely abbreviated “Reformed Egyptian” at 600 B.C. [Hugh Nibley, Since Cumorah, F.A.R.M.S., p. 149]

Step by Step Through the Book of Mormon: A Cultural Commentary

References