Amalekite(s) Amlicite(s) Variant: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
'''Amalekite(s) Amlicite(s)''' - Variant Spelling | '''Amalekite(s) Amlicite(s)''' - Variant Spelling | ||
- Alma 24:1a, 28 | -Alma 24:1a, 28 | ||
O: Amelicites | |||
General Discussion: Amalekites is standard in all instances of | -Alma 27:2 | ||
O: Amelic( ) | |||
-Alma 43:6a | |||
O: Amaleckites | |||
-Alma 43:6b | |||
O: Amelekites | |||
-Alma 43:13 | |||
O: Amalickites | |||
-Alma 43:20 | |||
O: Amelickites | |||
General Discussion: Amalekites is standard in all instances of P, but O shows variation. The gentilic may have been spelled Amalekite because of the earlier | |||
occurrence of Amaleki in the Book of Mormon, or the biblical group of the same name. The variation Amelicites is identical to Amlicites except for the | occurrence of Amaleki in the Book of Mormon, or the biblical group of the same name. The variation Amelicites is identical to Amlicites except for the | ||
"intrusive e". Skousen thinks this intrusive e was influenced by other Book of Mormon names where a vowel is found between the m and l, as in Amaleki, | "intrusive e". Skousen thinks this intrusive e was influenced by other Book of Mormon names where a vowel is found between the m and l, as in Amaleki, | ||
Amulek, and Amulon. The current spelling, Amalekites, is actually only found once in | Amulek, and Amulon. The current spelling, Amalekites, is actually only found once in O (as the last occurrence), in Alma 43:44; other instances are not extant. | ||
Fletcher and Tvedtnes also argue that these two groups should be merged (Lyle Fletcher, unpubl. paper, early 1990s; John Tvedtnes, The Most Correct Book | Fletcher and Tvedtnes also argue that these two groups should be merged (Lyle Fletcher, unpubl. paper, early 1990s; John Tvedtnes, The Most Correct Book | ||
[SLC: Cornerstone, 1999], 324-325). | [SLC: Cornerstone, 1999], 324-325). | ||
General Source: ATV 3: 1605-9 | General Source: ATV 3: 1605-9 | ||
General Summary: Skousen believes this gentilic should be merged with Amlicites in all cases, to be only Amlicites, because of textual evidence about the | General Summary: Skousen believes this gentilic should be merged with Amlicites in all cases, to be only Amlicites, because of textual evidence about the | ||
apostate group and variations in | apostate group and variations in O. | ||
Other occurrences discussed in ATV: Alma 2:11-12, 21:2, 3, 4 (2x), 5, 16; 22:7; 23:14; 24:1b, 29; 27:12; 43:44 discussed on pp. 1607-9. | Other occurrences discussed in ATV: Alma 2:11-12, 21:2, 3, 4 (2x), 5, 16; 22:7; 23:14; 24:1b, 29; 27:12; 43:44 discussed on pp. 1607-9. | ||
Revision as of 08:47, 18 February 2011
Amalekite(s) Amlicite(s) - Variant Spelling
-Alma 24:1a, 28
O: Amelicites
-Alma 27:2
O: Amelic( )
-Alma 43:6a
O: Amaleckites
-Alma 43:6b
O: Amelekites
-Alma 43:13
O: Amalickites
-Alma 43:20
O: Amelickites
General Discussion: Amalekites is standard in all instances of P, but O shows variation. The gentilic may have been spelled Amalekite because of the earlier occurrence of Amaleki in the Book of Mormon, or the biblical group of the same name. The variation Amelicites is identical to Amlicites except for the "intrusive e". Skousen thinks this intrusive e was influenced by other Book of Mormon names where a vowel is found between the m and l, as in Amaleki, Amulek, and Amulon. The current spelling, Amalekites, is actually only found once in O (as the last occurrence), in Alma 43:44; other instances are not extant. Fletcher and Tvedtnes also argue that these two groups should be merged (Lyle Fletcher, unpubl. paper, early 1990s; John Tvedtnes, The Most Correct Book [SLC: Cornerstone, 1999], 324-325).
General Source: ATV 3: 1605-9
General Summary: Skousen believes this gentilic should be merged with Amlicites in all cases, to be only Amlicites, because of textual evidence about the apostate group and variations in O.
Other occurrences discussed in ATV: Alma 2:11-12, 21:2, 3, 4 (2x), 5, 16; 22:7; 23:14; 24:1b, 29; 27:12; 43:44 discussed on pp. 1607-9.
