Literary analysis: Structure of introductory material in the Book of Mormon: Hugh Nibley first identified 1 Nephi 1:1-3 as a colophon, a structured and typical identificatory passage used at the beginning or end of many ancient documents (Nibley Since Cumorah1967, pp. 170-171). The essential elements are the identification of the writer, the writer's lineage, and at times a statement of the veracity or trustworthiness of the written text. The concept of the colophon was expanded in John A. Tvetnes' "Colophons in the Book of Mormon" in Rediscovering the Book of Mormon, ed. Sorenson and Thorne, 1991, pp. 32-37. In this article Tvetnes attempts to extend the concept of the colophon to later writings. In doing so, however, he correctly identifies introductory material which he then incorrectly identifies as colophons.
The hallmark of the colophon is the personal introduction of the material by the writer. While Nephi's introduction is clearly the most formal, the introduction to the written text by the writer continues for most of the material from Nephi to the end of Omni (Jacobs personal introduction is perhaps the least formal, and the furthest from the structures of a colophon). Once the Book of Mormon picks up with Mosiah, however, the personal introductions cease, and are replaced by a typically chronological introduction (Alma 1:1 "Now it came to pass that in the first year of the reign of the judges...."; Helaman 1:1"And now behold, it comae to pass in the commencement of the fortieth year of the reign of the judges..."; 4 Nephi 1:1 "And it came to pass that the thirty and fourth year passed away,..."). None of these qualifies as examples of colophons, and even the personal introductions lack the formulaic precision of Nephi's introduction.
The first clear division can be made between the personalized introductions of the 1 Nephi through Omni material, and all books which follow. This division is precisely that between the small plate material and the large plate material. The small plates were written in the first person, and the large plates were abridged. More will be said later about the structure and content of these different sources, but for now it is sufficient that the introductory material for the books in each section is clearly different, and follows a different literary imperative.
Socio-cultural information: Language in the Book of Mormon: The problem of language in the Book of Mormon begins in the second verse of the text: 1 Nephi 1:2:"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." Nephi states that the record is in the "language of his father" and that the "language" has two elements, "the learning of the Jews" and "the language of the Egyptians". John L. Sorenson considers the "learning of the Jews" to mean the cultural contexts, and would be inclusive of the language itself (Sorenson, 1985, An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon, p. 74.). He then follows with an analysis of "language of the Egyptians". This is based heavily on the following text from Mormon.
Mormon 9:32 "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."
According to Sorenson, this could mean that Mormon used Egyptian signs to depict Hebrew (Sorenson 1985, p. 76). This might be bolstered by the next text: Mormon 9:33 "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."
These texts create a temporal bridge between the first known Book of Mormon text (that of Nephi), and Mormon, the next to the last writer of the text as we have it. The salient points are that we have a population which begins with a spoken (and assumed written) knowledge of Hebrew, and some relationship to whatever is meant by "language of the Egyptians". For whatever reason, it appears that the reformed part of the description of "Egyptian" does not appear until later in the Book of Mormon text, perhaps referring to changes which were made in that manner of writing.
In the holographic small plates of Nephi there is another very specific reference to Egyptian writing. Mosiah 1:4 "4 For it were not possible that our father, Lehi, could have remembered all these things, to have taught them to his children, except it were for the help of these plates; for he having been taught in the language of the Egyptians therefore he could read these engravings, and teach them to his children, ... " However, this refers to the plates of brass! Lehi's knowledge of the "language of the Egyptians" was apparently a requirement to read/understand the brass plates.
Dr. William Hamblin has written a treatise on reformed Egyptian which includes a number of suggestions for what it might have meant. One of those is: "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." (Hamblin, "Reformed Egyptian" ).
Another important consideration in the discussion of the language of the Book of Mormon is that "language of the Egyptians" does not necessarily need to refer to a written or spoken language. There are several texts in the Book of Mormon which talk about "Language" where it appears to mean learning, and not language specifically.
Enos 1:1 "1 Behold, it came to pass that I, Enos, knowing my father that he was a just man--for he taught me in his language, and also in the nurture and admonition of the Lord--and blessed be the name of my God for it--"
Mosiah 1:2 "2 And it came to pass that he had three sons; and he called their names Mosiah, and Helorum, and Helaman. And he caused that they should be taught in all the language of his fathers, that thereby they might become men of understanding; and that they might know concerning the prophecies which had been spoken by the mouths of their fathers, which were delivered them by the hand of the Lord." (See also Mosiah 9:1 Mosiah 9:1 and Alma 5:61)
None of these passages make sense if we assume that they are to be taken with a literal meaning to "language". It is surely not unusual that a child learns the "language" of the father. In these cases, "language" seems to follow the concept Nephi used when he was taught in the "learning of the Jews". It may or may not have any relevance on the meaning of "language of the Egyptians".
Personal application: role of "goodly parents": Although it is a phrase used in an introductory formula, we can still assume that there is validity in Nephi's assertion that he was born of "goodly parents". The most significant part of the passage for modern parents isn't the "goodly", but rather the "therefore". In that second clause Nephi defines some of the reasons which created the title of "goodly parents". For Nephi, the goodliness of his parents was directly related to their instruction. Just as Lehi and Sariah, we are required to instruct our children in the not only the bare necessities of life, but symbolically in all of the learning of our fathers and whatever we might construe as the language of the Egyptians. Certainly there is something pragmatic in this learning, but I suspect that it included a sufficiently wide range of topics which could forge the mind and soul of a young man who eventually became the Nephi we recognize in the pages of scripture.