© 2024 The Interpreter Foundation. A 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization.
All content by The Interpreter Foundation, unless otherwise specified, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available here.
Interpreter Foundation is not owned, controlled by or affiliated with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. All research and opinions provided on this site are the sole responsibility of their respective authors, and should not be interpreted as the opinions of the Board, nor as official statements of LDS doctrine, belief or practice.
Thanks very much for this thoughtful and helpful review. I have one question: early on, you say that “For conservative readers of the Book of Mormon who are interested in how the study of the language can enhance their scripture study, Parry’s perspective will capture interest.”
Can you explain what is meant by “conservative” in this sentence?
Rick,
Happy to explain! I use conservative here to say that a reader who prefers a more progressive view of the Book of Mormon (e.g. that it’s a 19th century document) will not agree with much of the book’s content. I thought “conservative” was a more easily recognizable word than “maximalist”, if less precise.
Got it — thanks, Amanda!
Egyptologist John Gee has commented that “many of the Hebraisms deduced for the Book of Mormon were true of Egyptian as well,” in FARMS Review, 6/1 (1994):81 n.99.
My own experience has been that, not only are nearly all Hebraisms in the Book of Mormon also good Egyptianisms, but also, in many other cases, it turns out that the Book of Mormon contains a plethora of unique Egyptianisms which cannot be Hebraisms — which tells us that the Book of Mormon was engraved in Egyptian language by scribes who actually knew ancient Egyptian. I detail the evidence for this in my recent book, Egyptianisms in the Book of Mormon and Other Studies (Provo: Deep Forest Green Books, 2020), which is available online at https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Eohnr9TsQJ7ATDusfDUB9H8SQ03yaaa6/view?usp=sharing .
The Egyptian angle is always quite interesting, especially since the Egyptian angle removes even the shadow of “he was just copying the Bible”, which I’ve mostly seen as the go-to response of choice.
I haven’t read your book yet but I’m looking forward to it.