Book of Mormon Critical Text and Kevin L. Barney on "Ramath" (vs. KJV Ramah) in 2 Nephi 20:29 (= Isaiah 10:29)

  

2 Nephi 20:29	Isa 10:29 KJV
They are gone over the passage; they have taken up their lodging at Geba, Ramath is afraid; Gibeath of Saul is fled.	They are gone over the passage: they have taken up their lodging at Geba; Ramah is afraid; Gibeah of Saul is fled.

 

From the Book of Mormon Critical Text:

 

Syr Rameta’ (cf Syr MT 27:57, Rametha = KJ “Arimathaea”); Targum Ramata’; 28 (Aiath), Josh 19:8, “Ramath”; Josh 13:26, “Ramath-mizpeh”; Judg 15:17, “Ramath-lehi”; I Sam 1:1; I Chron 27:27. (Book of Mormon Critical Text: A Tool for Scholarly Reference, 3 vols. [Provo, Utah: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1987], 1:231 n. 828)

 

From Kevin L. Barney, "Isaiah Interwoven," FARMS Review 15, no. 1 (2003): 391-95:

 

The second example I will mention occurs at Isaiah 10:29, which reads in part in the KJV as follows: “Ramah is afraid; Gibeah of Saul is fled.” Second Nephi 20:29 replaces “Ramah” with “Ramath.” Tvedtnes observes that Ramath “would be the more ancient form of the name, with the old feminine -ath suffix which, in later (usually even biblical) Hebrew disappeared in the pausal form of the noun,” being replaced by the later feminine ending -ah. As an example, Tvedtnes notes that the preceding verse (Isaiah 10:28) has Aiath, with the -t feminine ending (represented in the KJV by -ath). Tvedtnes points out that this was written with an -h ending as Aiah in 1QIsaa, with the -t being added above the line, apparently as an afterthought. I have seen this same phenomenon Tvedtnes describes, particularly in place names, which tended to preserve the archaic -t longer than other words.

 

Wright has three objections to the Book of Mormon variant here. First, he notes that the Book of Mormon Critical Text observes that the Peshitta has rameta and the Targum ramata, forms that show a -t ending for the place name. Wright rejects this support, because these versions generally have a form ending in -t where the MT has Ramah. Wright therefore concludes that this is simply the way those versions render the underlying text. While Wright is correct, in my view these readings should not be understood apart from Tvedtnes’s point. To me the Syriac and Aramaic -t forms are significant because they show what the name would have been like without the linguistic evolution of the feminine ending experienced by Hebrew. Consider a different example, in Joshua 19:12: Here we read of a Levitical city named Daberath at the foot of Mt. Tabor within the tribe of Issachar. In Joshua 21:28, however, the name of this same city is given in its later Hebrew form, “Daboreh.” The Aramaic (dabbarta) and Syriac (deboritha) forms of this name attest to the fact that without the shift to -h endings, the Hebrew name of the town would have continued with its -t ending as Daberath. Unlike the case of Daberath, we do not have an attestation of the early unbound (i.e., lexical) form Ramath in the Old Testament, but the general linguistic evolution of Hebrew coupled with the specific support of the Aramaic and Syriac cognates render it highly probable that the more ancient name of the city was “Ramath” as the Book of Mormon has it. Wright concedes this, call­ing it a “linguistic fact,” but I do believe that the Aramaic and Syriac forms provide a useful illustration for those who are not students of Hebrew.

 

Wright’s second objection is that the construct form of Ramah is sometimes transliterated in the KJV as “Ramath,” and Joseph Smith could have picked up that spelling from one of these other passages. Wright’s observation is correct; “Ramath” does occur in the KJV, and Joseph could have picked up this spelling from one of those passages. But, while this is certainly possible, is it likely? In order to have a basis for judgment, the following table sets forth all the forms of Ramah in the KJV Old Testament of which I am aware:

 

RAMA FORMS IN THE OLD TESTAMENT

 

KJV Spelling	Grammatical Form	Number of Occurrences or Citation
Ramah	Unbound feminine singular noun	36
Ramath-mizpeh	Singular Construct	Joshua 13:26
Ramath of the south	Singular construct	Joshua 19:18
Ramath-lehi	Singular construct	Judges 15:17
Ramathite	Gentilic	1 Chronicles 27:27
Ramoth	Plural	8
Ramoth-gilead	Plural Construct	19
Ramathaim-zophim	Dual	1 Samuel 1
Remeth (= Ramoth?)	(Corrupted?) plural	Joshua 19:21

 

Ramah means “height” in Hebrew and was the name for several different cities. Note that its most basic spelling, Ramah, is also the most common, occurring more than all other forms combined. The plural, plural construct, gentilic, and dual forms all involve spelling changes that make them unlikely candidates as a source for the Book of Mormon Ramath. The singular construct Ramath-mizpeh is unlikely because of the compound hyphenated form used in the KJV transliteration. This leaves us with only two possibilities: (1) “Ramath of the south,” and this only because the KJV translated the second part of the name rather than using the compound hyphenated form, and (2) “Ramath-lehi,” and this only because of Wright’s speculation as to whether Joseph might have noticed this one because of the possible connection between the -lehi element of the compound and the Book of Mormon’s “Lehi.”

 

While Wright’s argument is possible, it strikes me as unlikely. The putative sources for the spelling change occur in Joshua and Judges, far removed from Isaiah. Would Joseph have even taken notice of these other spellings? He had not yet studied Hebrew, so he would have had no way of knowing that “Ramath” was a related form to the more common “Ramah.” If Joseph were influenced by Ramath-lehi, why did he not reproduce the full hyphenated form? Also, what is the motive for Joseph to make the change from Ramah to Ramath? I frankly cannot see one. Further, as Wright himself notes, the Book of Mormon does use the form Ramah at Ether 15:11, so it is difficult to see that Joseph could have had a general objection to that spelling.

 

Further Reading:

 

“Ramath” in 2 Nephi 10:29 (=Isaiah 10:29)