Not Your Everyday Wordprint Study: Variations on a Theme

Roger R. Keller. Book of Mormon Authors: Their Words and Messages. Provo, Utah: BYU Religious Studies Center, 1996. xiii + 214 pp., with index and appendix of word clusters. $16.95. Reviewed by John A. Tvedtnes Not Your Everyday Wordprint Study: Variations on a Theme Roger R. Kelter, a former Presbyterian minister converted to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, is current ly a professor in the BYU Department of Church History and Doctrine. Impressed by previolls word print studies of the Book of Mormon, he determined to expand those statistical studies to more signifi cant words, rather than the noncontextual words used in earlier stud ies. He describes "the purpose of this study" as (I) to iden tify differences andlor similarities in meaning among select contcnt words (words which arc theologica ll y, historically, or culturally significant) used by the Book of Mormon authors; (2) to delineate among the different Book of Mormon authors based on their word usage; and (3) to suggest methodologies that may be used by others to research author individuality within the Book of Mormon. (p. xi) To achieve this goal. Keller established a procedure that Illeluded the following steps: I . Thirty-four word groups or clusters were defined, with individual words within each group. The clusters were necess itated by the fact that many individual words were used less than the minimal fi ve times required for stati stical analysis. Thus " und er the category of Agriculture, words such as Crops, Fields, Grain, Root, Sow, Barley, etc. [a li st of 60 words], were collected" for a total of 578 occurrences in the Book of Mormon (p. 4). KELLER. BOOK OF MOR.WON AUTHORS (TVEDlNES) 17 2. For this authorship study, authors and computer texts of their sermons, narratives, and editorial work were segregated to separate the material by both author and genre. With two exceptions (Enos at 997 words and the Father at 944, p. 3), samples of fewer than a thousand words were not accepted. This gave twentyfour authors whose writings or sayings "account for 93 percent of the Book of Mormon" (p, 2).1 3. Seven percent of the Book of Mormon text was excluded from the study, representing "persons whose contributions are too small to consider" stat istically (pp.2-3). 4. For three authors who contributed extensively to the Book of Mormon text, Keller was able to separate out literary genres. Thus he stud ied Mormon's sermons, first-person narratives, and third-person narratives separately (p.3), being carefu l to cull Mormon's personal writings interspersed in the records he abridged. 5. Each word within a cluster was counted for each author. Keller then totaled by aut hor all occurrences of words within a given cluster. The number of the cluster's occurrences per thousand words for a given author was then divided by the number of occurrences per thousand words for the same cluster in the entire Book of Mormon text. This gave a "normali zed number" to compare the use of the cluster by different authors (p. 5), Thus for the Near East cluster, it was determined that the number of occurrences per thousand words in the ent ire Book of Mormon was 4.38. Compared to this average, some Book of Mormon authors (e.g., Lehi, 7.25; Nephi , in sermons, 10,8; Jacob, 8.6; Abinadi, 6.77; Neph i" 7.63) clearly referred to words in the category much more often than other authors (e.g., Enos, 0; Ammon, .733; Mosiah, 0; Heiaman, .893) (p. 6). Some of Keller's charts list the aClUal number of occurrences for each word, while others list the occurrences per thousand words of text for the author. It is the Keller indicatcs that he used the 1829 printer's manuscript. the "'text taken from the original handwriting of the copyists of the printer's manuscript with corrections for words which varied from existing sections of the dictation manuscript"· (p. I n. 2). [t was unclear 10 me whether he consulted photographs of the original handwritten manuscript or relied on some published source. Since Royal Skousen's work on this material has not yet been completed or published, it seemed unlikely to me that Keller could have used the latest information. 18 FARMS REvIEW OF BOOKS 912 (1997) latter figure that is deemed to be the most significant, since it evens the playing field for authors with writings of varying lengths. The statistical methodology used for the study, developed by statistician John Hilton, measured the number of null-hypothesis rejections (described on pp. 911). Keller acknowledges the assistance of Hilton (who helped write the first chapter. p. I n. 1), as well as input from Alvin Rencher, both of whom have been noted for their wordprint studies of the Book of Mormon. When J asked John Hilton about the study, he indicated that he felt that Keller had pointed Qut some very interesting things, but that the study was not what he would call "a rigorous scientific statistical study." This had also been my impression, th ough I must add that I am not a stati stician. Authorship and Word Category Questions Let me state at the outset that I cons ider Keller's book an in sightful contribution of material that will surely influence future studies of the Book of Mormon. Where I have reservations is in the categorization of authors and word groups used in the statistical analysis. One of the problems inherent in a study such as this is that much of the Book of Mormon (Mosiah through 4 Nephi) is Mormon's abridgment of earlier records. One wonders how much of the original record came through in the abridgment process and how much was Mannon's totul rewording of the text. For ex.ample, in the discussion of the use of the word church in Mosiah 26-7 and Alma 1, 46 (pp.50-2), Keller attributes the material to Mormon. Is it not just as likely that Mormon merely used the term in the same way it appeared in the text he was abridging? In some cases, especially where first-person sermons are recorded, Mormon undoubtedly used the actual words he found in the records.2 but one wonders how much he may have left out. For 2 This seems especiully truc when he prefaces the material with declarations such as "the words that X spake. saying." which is a Hcbrew idiom intro· ducing direct discourse (e.g .. Mosiah 1:10: 2;9; 7: 18: 13:6; Alma 5:2; 9: 13; 10:1 ; 37:24; 50:19; cr. Mosiah 27:13). We also have introduclions such as "the words [of] X" (prefaces before Alma chapters 5. 7. 9). "the commandments of' KELLER, BOOK OF MORMON AUTHORS (fYEDTNES) 19 example, Alma 1011 con tains Amulek's testimony and the debate between him and Zeezrom. Yet Mormon is clear that he has not recorded a ll of Amulek's words found in the orig inal record (Al ma 9:34; II :46). Could he have left out portions in which Arnulek discussed topics conta in ing words and clusters that might have given us a different picture of his language? To a certa in extent, that depends on where Mormon excised Amu lek's words. If he lopped off the beginning of his comments or the end and included everything in the middle, thc effect wou ld be min imal. But if he decided to rcmove, for example, all reference to a specific topic wherever it occu rred throughout the text, Ihis would have a severe impact on the resu lts of Keller's study. I am, of course, speculating, since I have no ev idence of how Mormon abridged th is or any other portion of the Book of Mormon, Consequently, despite potential problems because of abridgment, I must admit that Keller has done the bcst that cou ld be ex pected with the materials at hand . In hi s section "Choos ing the Autho rs" (p.2), Keller does a few th ings I would not have donc. I am not sure it is valid to cal! Lehi an author, since it is possible that Nephi , who au thored th e record contain ing Lehi's words, was merely paraphrasi ng hi s father. After a ll . shorthand had not yet been deve loped in the sixth century B.C., so he may not have been ab le to write dow n his fat her's exact words. In another case, Keller ass igns a text to the "angel who spoke to Neph i I " (p.2). But since the ange l did not actually write any th ing, we are dependen t on Neph i's secondhand account and hi s memory of what he heard the angel say. It is possible, of course, that the Lord inspi red him to remember all the angel's words, but it is just as likely that Nephi's report or his vision is based on his best recollect ion. If the former, then the an gel clearl y (prefaces before Alma chapters 36, 38. 39) and similar expressions (e.g .. Mosiah 8:1: 27:17: Alma 12:2: 13:31). In other cases, where the speaker uses first person, it also seems clear that Mormon has merely extracted from the original record (c.g., AIm:! 29: 1: 45:2). Note that the prefaces before the chapters that I have cited here were translated from the plates and arc not modem additions as arc most chapter hendings. In the case of the prcraccs before Alma's instructions to his sons (Alma 36-42), we also h:lVe Mormon's declarat ion that he had "an ::!ccount of his commandments, which he gave unto them according to his own record'" (Alma 35:16). 20 FARMS REVIEW OF BOOKS 9(2 ( 1997) must be treated as an "author," as Keller has done. If the latter, the text may reflect Nephi's own language, but not necessarily; it depends on the degree to which he remembered the angel's exact words. In not ing that both Nephi, and the angel who spoke to him use the terms church and churches in the same way (p. 55), Keller actually provides evidence thai Nephi is the author of the words he has attributed to the angel. The same can be said of text that Keller assigns to either "The Father" or "The Lord," when those words are being reported by a second party. Some would argue that the title Lord is sometimes applied to God the Father and sometimes to Christ. But Keller defines the term as "Jesus, either before his mortal birth or as the resurrected Lord when he speaks from the heavens" (p. 33). I am concerned not only with this identification, but with the fact that we are informed in Doctrine and Covenants I :24 that the Lord speaks "after the manner of [the] language" of the people to whom he is revealing his will. This suggests that the words of the Lord recorded by Nephi could reflect quite different authorship (perhaps even Nephi himself) than the words of the Lord recorded by Alma or Isaiah. As a test, Keller should, at the least, have looked at words attributed to the Lord in the Doctrine and Covenants. Nevertheless, in his analysis, Keller does provide some interesting information about these divine authors. He notes, for example, that "the emphasis among the divine or heavenly figures is on the people of Israel as a nation, a spiritual group, a covenantal group, or a remnant Most striking is the likeness which is seen between the words of the Lord and those of Jesus. Since the two are indeed the same person, one shou ld ex pect thi s" (pp. 901). I also have reservations about the word categories, some of which seem rather arbitrary. For example, in the word cluster labeled "Spirituality," Keller includes words such as believe,jailh, humble, repent(ance), righteous, soul, souls, worship, and charity (p. 14). Most Latter-day Saints would probably agree that these words are part and parcel of spiritualit y, but would the Nephitc5 50 classify them? Is Keller merely reflecting our modern Lauer-day Saint culture by this groupin g? Lest the reader think that I am findin g fault with LDS theology, let me make it clear that I am only thinking about culture-bound classification systems. not KELLER, BOOK OF MORMON AUTHORS (TVEDTNES) 21 doctrinal mallers.3 If Keller can demonstrate from the Book of Mormon that the Nephites did indeed include all these terms in their view of spirituality, then my potential objection would be answered. The Authorship Evidence Despite the problems I see in some of the categorization of authors and word groups, Keller does provide some significant evidence fo r individual authorship within the Book of Mormon. Nevertheless, I disag ree with him on a few issues, Because I wam to end this review on a high nOle, I will first address what I see as the bad news, and then turn to the good. Keller associates Mormon with a "high use of monetary terms" (p. 17), evidentl y in reference to Alma II :5-19. But this fades to insignificance when one realizes that Mormon is trying to set Ihe siage for the bribe that follows and that the bribe was made in terms familiar to both the "briber" (Zeezrom) and the "bribee" (Amulek). These terms may no longer have been in use in Mormon's day and so wou ld not have been part of hi s vocabulary. It seems much more likely that Mormon draws these words from the text he is abridging. But the passage in question provides good authorship evidence for the Book of Mormon. It demonstrates that the abridger (Mormon) had a document from which he was working and knew that he would have to insert the explanatory material in order that his future audience might 3 As ,In cxamplc, 1 notc that Kcllcr intcrprcts 2 Nephi 18: 18 as meaning that "Isaiah and thosc who hced his mcssagc are signs and wonders of God's presencc in Israel"' (p. 91). Thc p:lssagc, ciled from Isaiah 8: 18, actua1Jy reads, "1 and 1hc children whom thc Lord hath given me :Ire for signs and for wonders in Israel from the Lord of I-Iosts." Kcllcr obviously bases his intcrpretation on Abinadi's exegesis of Isaiah 53: 10 (citcd in Mosiah 14:10), in which hc indi c:'lles that Christ's "seed" are the prophets and others who heed his mcssage (Mosiah 15: 10--3). But Isaiah was talking about his rcal children, whose names h3d been givcn by the Lord and h3d meaning in the prophet 's messages about the scattcring and g3thcri ng of Israel. Thus Shearjashub (Isaiah 7:3: 2 Ncphi 17:3) mcans "a remnant shall return" (Isaiah 10:21-2: 2 Nephi 20:2 1-2), while Maher-sha/a/-hash·baz (Isaiah 8:1-3: 2 Nephi 18:1-3) mcans "quick the spo i l. hasten the prey" (Isaiah 8:4: 2 Ncphi 18:4). Some scholars believe that one of Isaiah's children was namcd Immanuel, meaning ''God is with us," a name fou nd in Isaiah 7:14: 8:8. 22 FARMS REVIEW OF BOOKS 9n (1997) understand the enormity of the bribe. The fact that Alma II :20 begi ns with the words that appear just before the parenthetical insert in Alma 10:32 is evidence for the au thentic ity of the abridger's work . It seems unl ikely that Joseph Smith would have invented this information. Keller included names of biblical personalities in the Ancie nt Near East category (p.4), While thi s procedure has a certain validity, I question it for the reason th at the Ncphites presumably had, throughout their entire hi story, the scriptures from which the Bible was compiled and could read ily have referred to the scriptures rather than to the ancient Near East per sc. Perhaps it would have been better to establish a Bible category for citations from or references to the Bible (which could still te ll us something about which authors used the Old World scriptures and which did not) and to include in the Ancient Near East category on ly those references to the Old World that were not taken directly from biblical texts. Thus, for example, when Neph i speaks about the city of Jerusalem or the imprisonment of Jeremiah, whi le both are mentioned in the Bible, he is not citing the Bible, but narrating the history of his time. (One might expect that the fIrst generati on of Lehi's family spoke more of the ancient Ncar East without di rect reference to the scriptures than subsequent generat ions who had not li ved in the Old World.) Moreover, I question the validity of including the name Amos in the Ancient Near East category (p. 4), since neither of the two people named Amos in the Book of Mannon is the Old Testament prophet of that name, but both arc Nephites living after the time of Christ (4 Nephi I : 1921, 47). It makes as much sense as assigning me, an American of Europea n ancestry, to the Ancient Near East calegory because my name, John, is found in the Bible. It wou ld have been better to leave names oul of the study. Keller adm its that " the word Earth poses some inte resti ng problems for a word study" (p. 59). As one first looks at the various ways the word Earth is used, no clear-cut lines seem to exist between the authors, excepl for Mormon, who has a different usage from everyone e lse. However, as one begins 10 read the various passages where the word .. ppears and KELLER, BOOK OF MORMON AUTHORS (TVEDTNES) to group the usages into common categories, some distinctions begin to surface. (p. 59) 23 I have reservations about the categories into which the word earth has been divided: God's acts, globe, inhabitants, ground, land, values (p. 59-60). 1 question the validity of these categories . For example, Keller divides God's acts in relation to the earth into 15 subcategories (p. 6 1). These hardly seem relevant to me for the use of the word earth, though each subcategory does reflect doctrine. But the occurrences within each subcategory are so low that they seem statistically meaningless. Keller's use of the category globe for the earth is not intended to imply a belief that the earth was spheroid, for among its subcategories are "ends of," "four corners of," "four parts o f, " and "four quarters of." What concerns me about the category as a whole is that some of the other subcategories seem unrelated. We have. for example, "witnesses to God," "at rest," "treasures of," "be joyful," and "swear by" (p. 65). It is very difficult for me to grasp the rationale for these groupi ngs. The plain and simple fact is that, in Hebrew, the term 'ere$ refe rs to the land mass as opposed to the seas (Genesis 1 :910) o r the "planet" as opposed to its atmosphere, called in the King James Bible "fi rmamen t" or "heavens" (Genesis I: 1-2, 6-8).4 Generall y. it might best be rendered by the modem geologic lerm lithosphere. It is this same word that is rendered land in other Bible passages, both in the sense of, say, agricultural land, and the land belonging to a specific people or nation, such as "land of Egypt." Consequentl y, whenever the text has words like land, or earth, the underlying Hebrew word would often be the same.S I seriously question the wisdom of dev ising separate categories based on Engl ish usage. I also have reservat ions about Keller 's dedicating separate chapters to the discussion of "Ea rth " (chapter 4) and "Land and Lands" (chapter 6), particularly since, 4 The tripartite division of heavens. eanh. and seas is found in Nehemiah 9:6; Acts 14: 15; Mosiah 13:19. 5 It is, of course. possible that some occurrences of "earth" or "land" in the agricultur:at context may derive from the Hebrew 'drlamali, "ground. so il." Keller notes "Mormon's uniqueness in using El.mh to mean 'ground'" (p. 167). His st;Jtemcnt illustrates the difficulty of trying 10 do a study of Book of Mormon worus without laking Hebrew into account. 24 FARMS REVIEW OF BOOKS 9(2 (1997) as his own research indicates. the word earth is sometimes used in the same sense as a geographical designation of "land." Keller wrote that "on ly three writers use earth to mean a ' land ' or 'region'" (p.78). In each case, these authors-Nephi I. Samuel the Lamanilc, and Mormonarc referring to Nephite/ Lamanite lands in the New World. While I generally concur with his reading of the passages he cites (pp. 78-9),6 I see evidence for this use of the word earth in other passages. For example, when we read that the wickedness of inhabitants of the city of Jacobugath (not "the city of Jacob" as Keller has it, p. 72) was "above all the wickedness of the whole earth" (3 Nephi 9:9), should we under~ stand "the whole earth" to mean the entire planet (Keller's view) or the whole land inhabited by Lehi's descendants? I suggest that we have a clue in 3 Nephi 9: 1~2, where we read that, after the great destruction, the "inhabitants of the whole ear/h" heard the voice from heaven. This obviously refers on ly to lands in the New World, not to the entire planet. Another example: Was Nephi's power to "smite the earth with famine, and with pestilence" (Helaman 1 O:6~ 7) over the entire planet (see p. 72), or over the land in which he held prophetic stewardship? (Note the reference to "this temple ... this mountain ... this people" in verses 8~ 10.) From the description of his use of those powers in Hclaman 11 :6,13,17, one might conclude that he had such authority onl y in the land that was his stewardship. Finally, we have 3 Nephi 11 :41, where Jesus tells hi s disciples, ''Therefore, go forth unto this people, and declare the words which I have spoken, unto the ends of tile earth." In this case, I would contend that earth refers to the land over which the Nephite disciples had stewardship, not the entire planet. 6 I would modify the assessment of the destruction that took plllee on "the face of the whole eanh" (3 Nephi B: 17. cited by Keller on p. 79) to restrict it 10 the "land nonhward" mentioned in 3 Nephi B: 12, where "the whole face of the land was changed." i.c., I sec the destruction in 3 Ncphi 8:1218 as occurring not throughout all the lands occupied by the Nephi tes, but specificatly in the land northward. The destruction in the land southward is detailed in 3 Nephi 8:5II. 1 believe that, in the future. this distinction will assist archaeologists in their attempts \0 identify Book of Mormon sites. realizing that only in the land northward might one find great deformation of the earlh itself, including breaking up of bedrock during the earthquake. KELLER, BOOK OF MORMON AUTHORS (TVEDTNES) 25 I found Keller's assignment of part icular occurrences of the word earth to be somewhat arbitrary. For example, when 3 Nephi 22:9 speaks of the flood waters of Noah's time covering the earth, Keller assigns this to the subcategory of " the ground as the essence of the earth" rather than of " planet" or "globe" (p. 77). He may be right, but this assignmen t has theological implications with which others might disagree. Nevertheless. Keller makes some significant points in his discuss ion of the terms land and lands. "The emphasis among Lehi and his sons," he writes, "is on the promised land and the land of inheritance." He further notes that while all three view the New World as the promised land, they have different ideas about the land of inheritance. For Lehi, it is in the New World, while for Nephi and Jacob it is Jerusalem and its environs (p. 136). This seems to me to be hi gh ly significant. Here we have Lehi , havi ng fore told the coming capti vity of Judah, leaving his homeland for a distant land given him by the Lord for his inheritance. while his sons look forward to the restoration of Israel in the last days. This implies differen t mindsets and different personalities and therefore stands as evidence that the Book of Mormon is not, as the critics claim, the product of a single mind, that of Joseph Smith. Several of Keller's observations lead to thi s same conclusion. For the category Law/Command, Keller (pp.213, 17 12, 178-9) separates the words into command, commanded, commandest, commanderh , commanding, commandment, commandments, commands, law, law of Moses, and laws. I question the advisability of separating out differen t verbal forms. Similarl y, it makes little sense to me to separate the singular commandment from its plural form. But perhaps that was a requi rement imposed by the computer program. In any event, what is significant is the different way in whic h the same word would be used by different Book of Mormon authors . Thus, for example, Keller shows that some authors (Alma2, Amulek, Benjamin, Mosiah, Neph i,) use words in this group primarily in the sense of eth ical and secular laws and commandmen ts, while others (Abinadi, Jacob, Lehi, Moroni1) use them in the theological sense of man's relationship to God (pp. 23-30) . (In each case, Keller ex plains the orientation of the author.) Mosiah's use ratio of words from the "command" group was established at 14.4 1, wh ich might be expected of a king whose 26 FARMS REVIEW OF BOOKS 912 (1997) commandments were equated with the commandments of God in Mosiah 2:31 (p. 26). Significantly, Mormon is the only author to use the word command in the sense of military or social " leadership" (p.3 1). or particular importance is Keller' s observation that "Mormon used the terms of the Law/Command word group in his own unique ways, despite the manner in which these same words may have been used in the surrounding materia l which he was editing" (p. 32). But "when Mormon is not editi ng and speaks for himself-in that case the Lord commands" (p. 164). Here, we have the kind of mix one would expect of a prophet who also served as military leader. From hi s personal perspective, God is the one who commands. But when speaking as a histori an, the commands he describes are essentially military o r political in nature. Keller also calls attention to the significance of the distribution of references to Israel in the Book of Mormon. He writes "t hat the divine figures (for whom Israel is a special people) and persons recently removed from the Near East use the word Israel the most per thousand words of thei r text" (p. 84). Among the mortal authors who employ the word most are Isaiah, Jacob, Nephi !, Zenos, and Lehi, all of whom had lived in the Old World and hence had a more direct connection with their Israelite heritage. Lowest in use (in occurrences per thousand words of text) are, significantly, Moroni2 and his father Mormon. Keller finds it noteworthy that some authors (Alma2, Amulek, Benjamin, Captain Moroni , Enos, Helaman, Mosiah, Samuel, and ZenifO never use the term (pp. 84-5, 159). The importance of thi s distribution cannot be overstressed, and Keller rightl y devotes an entire chapter to the subject. On pages 18-19, Kelle r lists, in alphabetical order, all hi s designated authors of the Book of Monnon and the principal word clusters or topics discussed by each (i .e., those ranked 1.5 or higher). The li st is useful for showing what was important to each author and goes a long way toward establishing individual authorship. For example, Keller notes that Mormon and his son Moroni are the only authors who use "directi ona l designations with respect to various land regions," using such terms as land north(ward), land soulh(ward), and the like. He further notes that KELLER, BOOK OF MORMON AUTHORS (TVEDTNES) 27 th is father~son team share "unique language ... in referring to the lands of which they speak" (p. 126). He illustrates thi s by means of a chart (p. 127). If, in fact, Mormon is not drawing these terms from the records he is abridging, this is sign ificant indeed. It emphasizes that, for these two military leaders who saw action over a widespread area of Nephite lands and who had to plan their strategy in accordance with the topography of the land, geography was an importam issue. Keller writes, "Mormon shows almost no interest in the theological implications of land. As indicated earlier, he is the geographer par excellence. Even hi s few references in the 'special use' category are, for the most part, geograph ic in natu re" (p. 144). A sample chart of word clusters comparing the sermons of Nephi, and Almu1 also shows vastly different priorities in subject matter (p. 12). While Nephi places more emphas is on the ancient Near East, the gathering of Israel, and prophecy than on other areas, Alma places both of these at the bottom of his list and emphasizes instead eschatology, spiritual matters, slavery, and ethics.7 Keller notes that these results parallel the fact that Neph i came from the ancien t Near East and, as part of scattered Israel, was in~ tense ly interested in its gathering, while Alma, who lived fi ve hundred years later, had different priorities. And while both writers give about equal weight to the subject of Christ. they emphasize different aspects. Thus Nephi uses the title Lamb 22 times, Alma only twice, while Al ma makes much more use of the term resurrection (pp. 12-3). 1 found Keller's examination of individual author word use to be an important cont ribution to the study of the Book of Mormon, although I disagree wit h some parts of hi s categorization methodology. However, I suspect that in his final conclusions he and I see eye to eye. for he wrote that "even though there is yet much refinement necessary in the tools being used, clear differences are seen between individual author uses of the thirty meas~ ured word clusters, indicating important differences in word use" (p. 1\), No summar)' I might write could say it better. 7 See Keller's in-depth discussion of the variant emphases in chapter 7.