Was Joseph Smith Smarter Than the Average Fourth Year Hebrew Student? Finding a Restoration-Significant Hebraism in Book of Mormon Isaiah

  • Formats:
  • PDF
  • ePub
  • MOBI
  • Kindle store
  • NOOK store
  • MP3 Audio
  • Print now
  • Order Print Copy

Abstract: The brass plates version of Isaiah 2:2, as contained in 2 Nephi 12:2, contains a small difference, not attested in any other pre-1830 Isaiah witness, that not only helps clarify the meaning but also ties the verse to events of the Restoration. The change does so by introducing a Hebraism that would have been impossible for Joseph Smith, the Prophet, to have produced on his own.

The English text of the Isaiah verse in 2 Nephi 12:2 contains a variation that is not found in any English translation of Isaiah 2:2 or in any Hebrew text.1 The variation may at first glance seem to introduce an awkward, even puzzling reading, possibly leading some to wonder what Joseph was thinking. Yet at the same time it opens up the text to a hitherto unrecognized Hebraism in the Book of Mormon that places Isaiah’s prophecy clearly in the context of the Restoration.

The King James translation of this verse reads (with King James accidentals): “And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the Lord’s house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it.”2

[Page 152]As the italicized that indicates, the Hebrew (i.e., Masoretic) text lacks any lexeme that corresponds with the English that.3 The King James translators supplied the that to help make the English text read smoothly. With or without the added that, the King James version makes perfect sense as a string of independent clauses that will find fulfillment “in the last days.”

English translations of Isaiah prior to the King James Bible are mixed with regard to the need for that. For example, the Wycliffe Bible — which was translated from the Latin Vulgate and not from the Hebrew — did not insert a relative pronoun. It reads “And in the laste daies the hil of the hous of the Lord schal be maad redi in the cop of hillis, and schal be reisid aboue litle hillis. And alle hethene men schulen flowe to hym.” However, both the 1537 Matthew Bible and the 1560 Geneva Bible insert that, without italics, where the King James also supplies that.4

Post King James translations are also mixed with regard to inserting that. Some translations include that, while others omit it. The three modern translations that follow, each from rather different types of Bibles, all omit the that: The New English Bible reads, “In days to come the mountain of the Lord’s house shall be set over all the other mountains, lifted high above the hills. All the nations shall come streaming to it.”5 The Holy Bible: Contemporary English Version reads, “In the future, the mountain with the Lord’s temple will be the highest of all. It will reach above the hills. Every nation shall rush to it.”6 The Jewish Study Bible (Jewish publication Society TANAKH translation) reads, “In the days to come, the Mount of the Lord’s House shall stand firm above the [Page 153]mountains and tower above the hills; and all the nations shall gaze on it with joy.”7

Given this emphasis on the mixed treatment of that in English translations, the reader already suspects that therein lies the tale of whether Joseph knew Hebrew or not.

If Joseph had been even moderately educated for his day, he might have known that italicized words in the King James Old Testament Bible of his day were added to aid in the translation. The italicized words are not translations of any Hebrew words, but were important to help make the English text read like English. Therefore, he could have simply, without much thought, omitted in the Book of Mormon version the italicized words of the King James translation and thereby could have created a text that was more Hebraic than the King James. In fact only twenty-nine percent of King James Isaiah italics was altered in the Book of Mormon renderings of Isaiah in the Book of Mormon version,8 which indicates Joseph was not mindlessly changing italicized words in the text.

In fact, in the Isaiah sections of the Book of Mormon, besides omitting italicized words, “many times the italics in the [King James Version] are replaced with other words.”9 Such is the case in the verse in question. Joseph’s dictated text omits the that in this verse and substitutes a different relative conjunction when in the place of the King James that: “And it shall come to pass in the last days, when the mountain of the Lord’s house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills, and all nations shall flow unto it.” This reading goes out on a rather precarious limb where no English translation — or any other translation that I am aware of — has gone. The Book of Mormon reading with when is unique among all Isaiah witnesses.10 If nothing else, Joseph can be credited with a daring emendation.

[Page 154]At this juncture, it is not important here to speculate whether this when might indicate that the Urtext — the brass plates on which 2 Nephi 12–24 is based — could have contained a textual variant not attested in any Hebrew witness, or whether this when is simply an interpretation of how to understand this verse in English. For example, the when in the King James translation of Genesis 4:8, “and it came to pass when they were in the field,” is not a literal translation of a Hebrew subordinate conjunction. Rather, it is the translation of a Hebrew verb form meaning “and it was.” On the other hand, the when in the King James translation of Genesis 12:12, “Therefore it shall come to pass when the Egyptians shall see thee that they shall say, This is his wife, and they will kill me,” does reflect the Hebrew conjunction . (This verse provides a fitting analogue in my analysis of 2 Nephi 12:2.) Therefore, the important task at hand here is not to speculate on what might have been in the Urtext, but rather to explore what the otherwise unattested presence of when in an English text of Isaiah is doing there.11

The first issue is that the reading with when instead of that creates its own awkward syntax by changing the intelligible King James text into a difficult to understand construction. The subordinate clause, “When the mountain of the Lord’s house shall be established in the top of the mountains,” does not appear to be resolved by a main clause. In technical terms, the protasis does not seem to have an apodosis. To resolve the awkwardness, one of the subsequent phrases should begin with that or then in order to resolve the when, much like the verse in Genesis 12:12 quoted above. Instead, all we have are two remaining instances of and in 2 Nephi 12:2, the same two ands that are in the Hebrew text.12

There is, however, a possible Hebraism hiding behind the awkwardness of the Book of Mormon English text of this verse. Note that for a Hebraism to be acceptable, it is not enough that it make sense within the meaning of the pericope; it must also be congruous with Standard Biblical Hebrew grammar. To produce a Hebraism hidden in the English text by inserting when, an otherwise unattested reading of this Isaiah verse, would seem like an impossible task for Joseph Smith, given that he had much less schooling than the average reader today. Yet that is exactly what he produced.

[Page 155]The resolution to the missing apodosis can be found in that venerable grammar of biblical Hebrew, Gesenius, as it is affectionately called. It was first published more than two hundred years ago in German and has been revised numerous times. The standard English edition first appeared in 1910 and is a revision of the 28th German edition.13 As a budding young prophet, Joseph Smith must have had Gesenius on the top of his must-read list if he were going to create a Hebraism. In any case, §112 contains a lengthy explanation of the grammatical structure of the Hebrew main clause, that is, the apodosis.

Rather than going into the minutia of technical Hebrew grammar in this paper, it is sufficient to say that the Hebrew lexeme waw, usually translated as and, can have several other meanings, including even, that is, even so, but, or, then, therefore, etc.14 These meanings are necessary when translating from Hebrew because and in English does not usually introduce the main clause, the apodosis, after a preceding dependent clause, the protasis. For example, Genesis 24:8 literally reads, “And if the woman will not come to go after you, and you are freed from this my oath.”15 The conjunction and that introduces the actual main clause in Hebrew does not make sense in English. Therefore, the King James translators, clearly understanding the conditional nature of these phrases, translated then instead of and, “And if the woman will not be willing to follow thee, then [< and] thou shalt be clear from this my oath.”16 Here the Hebrew conjunction waw introduces “the second part of a conditional clause”17 and means then.

As Royal Skousen has pointed out, the Hebraism and, meaning then, to introduce an apodosis occurs several times in the earliest received [Page 156]text of the Book of Mormon.18 Beginning with the 1837 edition of the Book of Mormon, many such occurrences were edited out, no doubt because and does not introduce an apodosis in English. The most prominent example comes from Moroni 10:4. The and that can be found in the printer’s manuscript and in the 1830 edition between Christ and he was eliminated.19 If this and were the translation of a waw in a Hebrew vorlage, then Moroni 10:4 could have been read, “if ye shall ask with a sincere heart … then (< and) he will manifest the truth of it unto you.”

Some when … and pericopes in the Book of Mormon are long and complicated and others are simple. The shortest example, 3 Nephi 23:8, contains just three clauses (reading with the corrected printer’s manuscript): “and when Nephi had brought forth the records & laid them before him & he cast his eyes upon them & sayd.” The sense of the pericope is: “And when Nephi had brought forth the records and laid them before him, then (< and) he cast his eyes upon them and said.” A more complicated example of the Hebraistic construction in which and means then is found in Alma 8:13.20 Following my normalization of the printer’s manuscript, the verse reads, “Now when the people had said this and withstood all his words and reviled him & spit upon him and caused that he should be cast out of their City and he departed thence.”21 The final and really means then. Therefore, this verse could be read, following the reading and accidentals of the 2013 edition, except for the Hebraism, “Now when the people had said this, and withstood all his words, and reviled him, and spit upon him, and caused that he should be cast out of their city, then he departed thence.”

With this lengthy introduction to the when … and Hebraism out of the way, it is time to return to 2 Nephi 12:2, with Joseph Smith’s unique introduction of when in place of the King James version that. As remarked earlier, the placement of when seems to create an unresolved syntactical issue. The dependent clause created by when does not seem to be resolved, at least not if an appeal to English syntax is made. However, [Page 157] the simple solution is to read the second and as a Hebraism for then. Thus the verse would read, “And it shall come to pass in the last days, when the mountain of the Lord’s house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills, then [< and] all nations shall flow unto it.”

Read thus, the missing apodosis appears exactly where it would be expected. In fact, our verse here complies with all the Book of Mormon examples of Hebraistic when … and clauses listed by Royal Skousen, in that all of them insert at least one other subordinate clause between the initial when subordinate clause and the main clause beginning with and.22

Not only does 2 Nephi 12:2 with its unique insertion of when make perfect sense when the final and is understood as then, but the passage aligns perfectly with Restoration doctrine: When the Lord’s restoration in the latter days has introduced the saving ordinances, including especially temple work, then will people of all nations flow to the temples of the Restoration. After all, Isaiah 2:2 is talking about the Restoration in the latter days, and reading whenthen resolves the meaning in a manner that astonishingly reflects the actual history of the Restoration.

Being the first Latter-day Saint — as far as I know23 — to suggest the meaning then in place of the final and in 2 Nephi 12:2, some may accuse me of imagining Hebraisms where none really exist. However, I am not the first person who has read the and before the last phrase in Isaiah 2:2 as then. For example, the Anchor Bible translation reads, “It will come to pass in the days to come that the mountain, Yahveh’s house, shall be established at the top of the mountains, raised high over the hills. Then all nations shall stream towards it.”24 The New Jerusalem Bible also translates with then: “It will happen in the final days that the mountain of Yahweh’s house will rise higher than the mountains and tower above [Page 158]the heights. Then all nations will stream to it.”25 The Book of Mormon version, dating back to at least 1829, creates the same temporal connection between its protasis and apodosis that more modern English translations make. How smart was Joseph Smith?

In returning to that question, as posed in the title of this paper, “Was Joseph Smith Smarter Than the Average Fourth Year Hebrew Student?” I have to admit that the question was a red herring. The translation of the Book of Mormon was not a product of Joseph’s intellect or any other mortal skills. Whether he understood Hebrew grammar or not is totally irrelevant. Joseph Smith produced, by the gift and power of God, not by any native abilities he might have possessed, a unique reading of Isaiah that also contained a prediction of future Restoration events enclosed within a possible, obscure Hebraism, years before its fulfillment. As the next verse prophesies, “And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths” (2 Nephi 12:3).


1. For that matter, the variant is not found in the Syriac, the Latin Vulgate, or Greek Septuagint translations.

2. This verse also appears in Micah 4:1: “But in the last days it shall come to pass, that the mountain of the house of the Lord shall be established in the top of the mountains, and it shall be exalted above the hills; and people shall flow unto it.” The Hebrew version of Micah differs from the Hebrew version of Isaiah only in a slightly different word order and vocabulary and therefore does not contribute to the discussion here.

3. Neither the Syriac version of Isaiah nor the Vulgate contain a lexeme corresponding to that. The Septuagint does have ῾’οτι, that, but it is placed at the beginning of the verse and not where the intrusive that of the King James is inserted.

4. The Geneva Bible: A Facsimile of the 1560 Edition (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2007), and Matthew’s Bible 1537 Edition (Peabody MA: Hendrickson, 2009). As the introduction to the King James Bible states, the translators were to use the previous English translations, which would have included the Geneva and Matthew Bibles. It should be noted here that the Hendrickson 2010 reprint of the 1611 King James Bible does not italicize that. However, the Phinney Bible printed in Cooperstown, NY, 1843, does italicize that, just as the 1979 LDS King James does.

5. The New English Bible (New York, NY: Oxford, 1971).

6. The Holy Bible: Contemporary English Version (New York, NY: American Bible Society, 1995).

7. The Jewish Study Bible (Oxford: Oxford, 1999).

8. Royal Skousen, “Textual Variants in the Isaiah Quotations in the Book of Mormon,” in Isaiah in the Book of Mormon, ed. Donald W. Parry and John W. Welch (Provo, UT: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1998), 382.

9. Royal Skousen, in a personal email to the author, dated 19 April 2015.

10. If there is a version of Isaiah somewhere with the relative conjunction when in this verse, I could not find it. And if I could not find one, it is unlikely that Joseph Smith could have found one from which to derive the unusual reading in 2 Nephi 12:2.

11. I thank the two anonymous reviewers who suggested that I clarify whether or not the Urtext might have had a textual variant.

12. The dependent clause could also be resolved if the second and were eliminated in the English text, which is exactly what some modern translations of the Hebrew do. See two of the three modern translations quoted above.

13. Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, ed. and enlarged by E. Kautzsch, 2nd English edition revised in accordance with the twenty-eighth German edition (1909) by A. E. Cowley (Oxford: Clarendon, 1910). Sometimes this tome’s designation is shortened to GKC.

14. See Ludwig Kohler and Walter Baumgartner, Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, CD-ROM, 2nd Edition (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), for ו, hereafter cited as HALOT.

15. The author’s own translation.

16. Hebrew does not always use and to introduce an apodosis. In Genesis 13:16, the King James slips in an italic then to introduce the apodosis, indicating that the then does not translate any word in the Hebrew text, not even a waw.

17. HALOT, ו, 23.

18. 18 “Towards a Critical Edition of the Book of Mormon,” BYU Studies 30/1 (1990): 42–3.

19. Royal Skousen, Analysis of Textual Variants of the Book of Mormon (Provo, UT: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 2004 2009), 6: 3950–1; hereafter ATV.

20. Royal Skousen, ATV 3:1739.

21. For the uncorrected text, see Royal Skousen, ed., The Printer’s Manuscript of the Book of Mormon, Part One (Provo, UT: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 2001), 427.

22. ATV 1:107–8.

23. I could find no mention of the Hebraism under discussion here in John A. Tvedtnes, The Isaiah Variants in the Book of Mormon (Provo, UT: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1981); Carol F. Ellertson, The Isaiah Passages in the Book of Mormon: A Non-Aligned Text, Master’s Thesis, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT, 2001; or in any of the chapters in Isaiah in the Book of Mormon, ed. Donald W. Parry and John W. Welch (Provo, UT: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1998).

24. Isaiah 1–39, Anchor Bible, trans. Joseph Blenkinsopp (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000), 189.

25. The New Jerusalem Bible (New York: Doubleday, 1998).

Posted in Article and tagged , on . Bookmark the permalink.

About Paul Y. Hoskisson

Paul Y. Hoskisson, retired professor of Religious Education at BYU, received his PhD from Brandeis University in ancient Near East languages and history. In addition to teaching in Religious Education at Brigham Young University beginning in 1981, he served as institutional representative on the Corporation Trustee board of American Schools of Oriental Research, Director of the Laura F. Willes Center for Book of Mormon Studies, Richard L. Evans Professor of Religious Understanding, Associate Dean of Religious Education at BYU, Coordinator of  Near Eastern Studies at BYU, and epigrapher for the 1983 ASOR excavation at Qarqur, Syria. Prior to coming to BYU, he taught ancient Near East languages at the Universität Zürich.

12 thoughts on “Was Joseph Smith Smarter Than the Average Fourth Year Hebrew Student? Finding a Restoration-Significant Hebraism in Book of Mormon Isaiah

  1. Excellent article and testimony.

    Joseph Smith did live up to and fulfilled his prophetic calling. Bro. Hoskisson’s article accents the marvelous work and wonder that is the Restoration. I like to say that if Joseph Smith’s testimony concerning the supernatural events of the Restoration are not true, then Joseph Smith still is a theological genius. As Einstein is to cosmology and physics so Joseph is to theology. But, Joseph’s testimony is true. He was callled of God and God has worked a marvelous work through him for all of us to admire, adhere to and sustain with all of our mortal efforts.

  2. This is a very thoughtful article which I enjoyed very much. Your points made about Joseph producing Hebraism in the Book of Mormon Isaiah are noteworthy indeed. However, I want to take issue with the following declarations:

    “Not only does 2 Nephi 12:2 with its unique insertion of when make perfect sense when the final and is understood as then, but the passage aligns perfectly with Restoration doctrine: When the Lord’s restoration in the latter days has introduced the saving ordinances, including especially temple work, then will people of all nations flow to the temples of the Restoration. After all, Isaiah 2:2 is talking about the Restoration in the latter days, and reading when … then resolves the meaning in a manner that astonishingly reflects the actual history of the Restoration.”

    What history of the restoration are you speaking about?

    It certainly cannot be the history of the restoration being spoken of in the 2nd chapter of Isaiah.

    By “restoration doctrine” you are obviously referring to the current correlated definition being proposed by the modern LDS Church, which assumes that the time of restoration being referred to in Isaiah 2 began with the ministry of Joseph Smith in the 1820s and 30s, rather than the “restoration doctrine” clearly presented in the 2nd chapter of Isaiah.

    This premise is problematic on many levels.

    It is certainly a romantic notion to think that Joseph’s ministry four generations ago resulted in modern day converts to the LDS church visiting the temple in Utah to do temple endowments. It is even more romantic to throw a global pilgrimage to all of the “temples of the Restoration” all over the world, despite the singular reference to a temple in a mountain, being spoken of in the passage.

    However, a contextual reading of verse two in conjunction with the rest of the chapter informs us that the time of restoration being spoken of by Isaiah results in the Lord judging and rebuking the nations, resulting in them, beating their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruninghooks, resulting in the obsolescence of war between nations.

    Do you honestly believe the so-called LDS restoration that took place over 160 years ago resulted in God judging and rebuking the nations and making war obsolete?

    Do you even see such a trend beginning to take place as we look at world events taking place around us four generations later?

    When did the wicked “..go into the clefts of the rocks, and into the tops of the ragged rocks, for the fear of the Lord, and for the glory of his majesty?

    How did the LDS restoration result in, or take place in conjunction with the shaking of the earth “terribly”?

    If Joseph’s ministry marked the beginning of the “restoration” spoken of in Isaiah 2, Joseph apparently did not get the memo.

    According to him, the restoration takes place at the time that the two prophets spoken of in the Book of Revelation begin their ministry:

    15 Q. What is to be understood by the two witnesses, in the eleventh chapter of Revelation?
    A. They are two prophets that are to be raised up to the Jewish nation in the last days, at the time of the restoration, and to prophesy to the Jews after they are gathered and have built the city of Jerusalem in the land of their fathers. (D&C 77:15)

    When did these two prophets make their appearance?

    Is this not a future event?

    As some Book of Mormon scholars have pointed out, the time of restoration which is referred to as the marvelous work and a wonder in Isaiah and the Book of Mormon, is yet a future event.

    This future event includes the coming forth of the sealed portion of the plates. It is at this future time that a remnant of the gentiles will finally repent of their iniquity and become clean before the Lord.

  3. Wonderful article Dr Hoskisson. While evidences such as this will never be totally satisfying to those who doubt the authenticity of the book, to the believers to adds a depth to study that is helpful in appreciating to complexity of the text.

  4. intereting article…. Won’t comment about the actual Hebrew analysis because I am not qualified, however, in my opinion what this can tell us is difficult because of the (hypothetical) numerous translation layers and other aspects about the text.

    However, no matter the issues, thanks Professor for an interesting and thought provoking article

  5. Kudos and thank you for a most interesting, thought provoking, and informative paper. As Gilgamesh, above, has pointed out, it underscores the complexity of the Book of Mormon and makes one say that it truly is a marvel and a wonder.

  6. I very much enjoyed reading this article. It helped me understand better the usage of Hebrew in its “if / then” English equivalent and helped me gain further insights on the genius that was Joseph Smith. Not by his “native abilities” but by the “gift and power of God”.

    I’ve been wanting to ask educated people about “on the top of the mountains”. Does “Utah” translate to that phrase or could it mean that phrase?

  7. Utah The Riddle behind the name
    by Lynn Arave Deseret News staff writer
    Deseret News July 10, 1994

    What’s in a name?

    Plenty if you’re talking about “Utah,” because there’s considerable disagreement in history and reference books regarding the original meaning of the name for America’s 45th state. This is one topic where the record would best be set straight before the state’s centennial in 1996.

    Consult five different history books, and you’ll likely receive five variations on the meaning of the word Utah.

    Two of the more common meanings ascribed to the word are “top of the mountains” and “people of the mountains.”

    You’d think if anyone has the definitive answer on what the name Utah really means, it should be members of the Ute Indian Tribe. But according to Larry Cesspooch, public relations director for the audio/visual department of the Ute Tribe in Fort Duchesne, the Utes don’t even have such a word in their language.

    He said Utah – Anglicized from “Yuta” — is what the Spanish called the Utes, and his research indicates it meant “meat eaters.” Cesspooch has used this explanation in various public presentations, and he said he’s never been challenged on it.

    The Ute name for themselves as a people is “Noochee” — meaning “the people,” Cesspooch said.

    Of the many books written about Ute Indians, few have come from tribe members themselves. However, Fred A Conetah, a Ute born in Fort Duchesne, wrote “A History of the Northern Ute People.” His account agrees with Cesspooch that the Utes own name for themselves is “Noochee.”

    Conetah, who died in 1980, stated that Spanish writers also referred to the Utes as “Quasutas,” a for of the word Yutas. This word apparently referred to all Indians who spoke a Shoshonean dialect.

    One of the most recent books written on the subject — “Utes, The Mountain People” — was published by Jan Pettit in 1990. This book says Utah’s name comes from the Ute word “Yutas,” also said to mean “the people.”

    Pettit also uses the word “mountain” in the title of her book because, she says, the neighboring Pueblo Indians referred to the Utes as “the mountain people.”

    W.H. Jackson, a photographer on the U.S. Geological Survey expedition to Utah in 1877, recorded an interesting description of the Utes. He reported: “The Utah, Yutas or Utas, as the name is variously written, occupy the mountainous portion of Colorado with parts of Utah, New Mexico and Nevada. Those living in the mountains where game abounds have a fine physical development, are brave and hardy and comparatively well to do.”

    So where did the “top of the mountains” reference to the Utes name originate?

    It is likely a “Mormonization” of Ute Tribe references to mountains and may have had its beginning in a verse in the Old Testament — Isaiah 2:2:

    “And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the Lord’s house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it.”
    The completion of the Salt Lake Temple at least partially fulfilled that prophecy for many members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

    It’s also amazing how many Utah history books skim over the origin of the stat’s name. Most provide ample detail of the meaning of Deseret — the original name provided for the territory and state — but usually provide only limited details about “Utah” itself.

    Spanish spellings of the word Utah also vary considerably.

    Here are a few of the published references to Utah and the Ute Indians — none of which is entirely correct or complete: The “Utah Place Names” book by John W. Van Cott (1990) states only that the word Utah was taken from native Ute Indians. It includes information about the name “Deseret,” but nothing else on the origins of the word “Utah.”

    “‘Utes,’ a term meaning ‘upper people’ or ‘hill dwellers.’ Early journals spelled the name a number of different ways, including Yuta, Eutaw, Utah, etc. Yuta was Anglicized to Utah.” — From a 1954 publication by the Daughters of Utah Pioneers.
    “The word ‘Utah’ means ‘top of the mountains’ and is derived from the Ute Indian language.” –From a Utah tourist brochure dated June 1955.
    “The word ‘Utah originated with the people inhabiting that region..of the Utah nation, which belongs to the Shoshone family. There were many tribes…There were the Pah Utes…and many others. Pah signifies water. …Pah Utes, Indians that live about the water.” –from Hubert H. Bancroft’s “History of Utah.” published in 1964.
    “Utah comes from the Ute tribe and means ‘people of the mountains.” –From the Information Please 1994 almanac.
    “Utah — from a Navajo word meaning upper, or higher up, as applied to a Shoshone tribe called Ute. Spanish form is Yutta. English is Uta or Utah.” –From The 1979 World Almanac and Book of Facts.
    “Ouray — Chief of the Utes,” a book by P. David Smith, refers to the Utes by a white man’s nickname — “The Blue Sky People.” It spells the word “Yutahs” and states that the word refers to the Utes as people who speak clearly.
    “People of the Shining Mountains,” by Charles S. Marsh, is titled after the nickname the Utes had for their own territory. This book spells the original Utah word from the Spanish “yuutaa.”
    The book “American Indians of the Southwest,” by Bertha P. Dutton, says the Utes called themselves “Nunt’z” a term that means “The people.”
    An article in the January 1928 Utah Historical Quarterly says “Utah” was originally spelled “Ute-ahs,” “Uintas,” or “”Wa-tue-weap-ah-ute-ah,” is said to mean “lad or country of the Utes.”
    23 state names stem from words of Indians
    Indian words are among the most popular sources for the naming of states — at least 23 owe their names to such words.

    Of course, American Indians already had pretty much everything named by the time the white explorers and settlers arrived on the continent, and so a lot of renaming took place.

    As with the origin of Utah’s name, Idaho’s is in dispute. By one source, the name Idaho is a coined word with an invented Indian meaning ” “gem of the mountains.” The name was supposedly originally given to Pike’s Peak mining territory in Colorado, then applied to this newer mining area of the Pacific Northwest. Other sources claim there is no clear cut knowledge where Idaho’s name comes from.

    Utah Colorado, New Mexico and Arizona encompass may places and features named after the Utes, but Utah’s state name is the most prominent of all. here are the brief origins of three other Western state names:

    Montana is a latinized Spanish word for “mountainous.”
    The origin of the name “Oregon” is unknown, but it apparently came from the writings of English army officers.
    “Nevada” is a Spanish term meaning “snowcapped.”

  8. After reading the Abstract and looking up 2 Nephi 12:2 in my wife’s scriptures (which were nearby at the time), I successfully predicted that this article would suggest that an “and” should be understood as a “then,” which would then complete the “when” found at the beginning of the verse. I could make this prediction because I had figured this out several years earlier after either reading and/or hearing Royal Skousen talk about the “if/and” Hebrew construct.

    During my mission (1986-1987) I had noticed that the “when” found in 2 Nephi 12:2 was never resolved, and wondered where the “then” should have appeared in the text that followed. I even wrote “then?” in red ink in the margin to remind me that something was missing. Years later after learning about the “if/and” Hebrew construct, and marking the examples cited in my Book of Mormon, I also found that it could solve the mystery I had first noticed on my mission.

    After reading the above article, I immediately picked up my Book of Mormon to see if I had noted this in my book, and found that I had written in black ink “then?” in the little white space immediately after the end of verse 2 with an arrow pointing up to the last “and” in verse 2.

    Although I can’t prove anything (my note is not dated, but my best guess is sometime during 2012-2013, although I have no way of really knowing), I was glad to find that I had independently discovered the “when/and” = “when/then” possibility prior to reading this article. Maybe I should publish my scriptural notes . . . ? Nah. Nice article, though. You went to a far greater depth than I ever would have and I enjoyed the explanation and information very much. (I’m a little surprised Royal didn’t find it. 😉

  9. Daniel 3:17 is another possible example of “if/and” usage that I’ve noticed. If the “and” were changed to “then”, it would say the following, “If it be [that] our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, then he will deliver us out of thine hand, O king.”

  10. I’ve enjoyed reading Paul’s article and the comments after it as well. Steve Skabelund, this is your old law school classmate thanking you for the article you also attached. As I read the Paul’s paper and comments, I was reminded that Avraham Gileadi, no stranger to Hebrew himself, years ago in his lectures and book “The Book of Isaiah” explained that the reference in Isaiah 2:2 to “mountain of the Lord’s house” should be interpreted as the nation or land in which the Lord’s house is located, and the “top of the mountains” referred to that nation or land which is preeminent among all other nations. The “hills” were lesser nations. This explanation clarifies why in the Old Testament the land of Gilead or the land of Ephraim or other places were referred to often as “mount Gilead”or “mount Ephraim”, etc., because of the multiple meanings attached to the Hebrew words for mountain or mount. If Gileadi’s interpretation is correct, then Isa. 2: 2 and 2 Nephi 12:2 could be read to mean simply that in the latter days people will go to the Lord’s dwelling place in the New Jerusalem on the American continent to learn of His ways.

    • Latter-day Saints commonly misunderstand Isaiah 2:1-3 (and parallel texts) to refer to a Latter-day Saint temple. As Jeffrey Chadwick systematically pointed out during his October 26, 2013, Sperry Symposium presentation, the context is clearly the Kingdom of Judah and old Jerusalem, and one can read his published argument in Seely, Chadwick, and Grey, eds., Ascending the Mountain of the Lord: Temple, Praise, and Worship in the OT, 2nd ed. (Deseret Book, 2013), 367-383, or view it on YouTube at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSvLpebaBN0 .

      Moreover, in his 1841 prayer on the Mount of Olives dedicating Palestine to the final gathering of the Jews, Elder Orson Hyde specifically included the rebuilding of the temple at Jerusalem by the Jews. We need to fight the common tendency to forget what that means, and we need to avoid the Catholic and Protestant error of supersessionism.

Add Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

All comments are moderated to ensure respectful discourse. It is assumed that it is possible to disagree agreeably and intelligently and comments that intend to increase overall understanding are particularly encouraged.