Verbal Punctuation in the Book of Mormon III—Behold

There are 4 thoughts on “Verbal Punctuation in the Book of Mormon III—Behold”.

1. oops … one more thought / question …

   I’ve learned from Stan Carmack that in order for JS to have written the BoM himself, JS would have needed to have been trained in “scribal diglossia.” Which of course is ridiculous!

   Is the BoM use of the word “behold” as verbal punctuation evidence of scribal diglossia?

   Thanks, Blair Lucas

   Reply ↓

2. Thanks for this wonderful article. Truly, the BoM is a work of depth, complexity and beauty. The evidence for its ancient origin, it seems, is just laying around in plain sight waiting for readers to notice it! I still don’t have a full/working understanding of the word “deictic”, but I’ll keep trying. I presume your analysis supports the idea of “tight” control? (Or maybe JS really was simply a religious genius!)

   Were it not for my new understanding of the word “behold”, my testimony of the BoM may have diminished. But behold, my appreciation for the beauty, depth and complexity of the the BoM has been strengthened.

   Your scholarship over the last 40+ years continues to help in my appreciation of the BoM.

   Thank you, Blair Lucas

   Reply ↓

3. This article is inspiring. I find my mind energized as I read this. As best I could, I looked up all the uses of “behold” in the books I am told are First Temple (Job, Tobit, Isaiah, Hosea etc.) and I have to say your description seems to perfectly match the usage of “behold” there.
   I think it is noteworthy that many of the places “behold” comes closest to lining up with large textual breaks are all written by Jacobites. Enos’ writings are so unique in that we aren’t hearing from an official Nephite historian. He seems to not care about superscriptions (I wish we called them that instead of colophons). I will also note Amaron and Chemish have pseudo-superscriptions followed but the word “behold.” Ultimately you have 8/8 Jacobites using “behold” to indicate author change in a deictic manner. Jacob, also seems to indicate where the third-person section of his superscription ends. So I think you hit on a Jacobitism here. As you systematically went through the book Nephite authors do not use “Behold” like them.

   I also looked at the Book of Moses since Jeff Lindsay recently strongly suggested it was on the brass plates (based on parallel phrases). The usage seemed to match First Temple and Nephite use (not Jacobite). Perhaps this gives us a look into how separated these “ites” were.

   Jacob: … For behold…
   Enos: Behold…
   Jarom: Now behold …
   Omni: Behold…
   Amaron: And Now I… behold…
   Chemish: Now I… behold…
   Abinadom: Behold I…
   Amaleki: Behold I…

   Happy for your thoughts and thank you again.

   Reply ↓

4. I hate to say that my first thought, after reading the title, was of Victor Borge and his phonic punctuation. The article got better after that.

   Reply ↓

Close this window