Editing Book of Mormon (section)

====Linguistics and intertextuality====
{{main|Linguistics and the Book of Mormon}}

There are no widely accepted linguistic connections between any [[Indigenous languages of the Americas|Native American languages]] and [[Languages of the Middle East|Near Eastern languages]], and "the diversity of Native American languages could not have developed from a single origin in the time frame" that would be necessary to validate a hemispheric view of Book of Mormon historicity.{{sfn|Duffy|2008|p=46}} The Book of Mormon states it was written in a language called "[[Reformed Egyptian]]", clashing with Book of Mormon peoples' purported origin as the descendants of a family from the Kingdom of Judah, where inhabitants would have communicated in [[Aramaic]], not Egyptian.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Shields |first=Steven L. |date=2021 |title=The Quest for 'Reformed Egyptian' |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/27112676 |journal=The John Whitmer Historical Association Journal |publisher=[[John Whitmer Historical Association]] |volume=41 |issue=2 |page=101 |jstor=27112676 |issn=0739-7852}}</ref> There are no known examples of "Reformed Egyptian".{{sfn|Davies|1973|p=56}}

The Book of Mormon also includes excerpts from and demonstrates [[intertextuality]] with portions of the biblical [[Book of Isaiah]] whose widely accepted periods of creation postdate the alleged departure of Lehi's family from Jerusalem circa 600 BCE.<ref>"[A]ll major scholars on Isaiah view chapters 40–66 as written well after 600 BCE" (79n13) and "Many scholars have noted that other parts of Isaiah 2–14 were not written by Isaiah of Jerusalem but rather in the exilic or post-exilic periods" (87). See {{Cite journal |last=Townsend |first=Colby |date=Fall 2022 |title='The Robe of Righteousness': Exilic and Post-Exilic Isaiah in The Book of Mormon |url=https://www.dialoguejournal.com/articles/the-robe-of-righteousness-exilic-and-post-exilic-isaiah-in-the-book-of-mormon |journal=[[Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought]] |volume=55 |issue=3 |pages=75–106 |doi=10.5406/15549399.55.3.03 |s2cid=253368342 |doi-access=free}}</ref> No Latter-day Saint arguments for a unified Isaiah or criticisms of the Deutero-Isaiah and Trito-Isaiah understandings have matched the extent of scholarship supporting later datings for authorship.<ref>{{Harvtxt|Hardy|2010|p=291n28}}, summarizes, "The level of consensus on this issue, especially in a field as contentious as biblical studies, is remarkable (and certainly includes scholars who believe in inspiration and prophecy)."</ref>