Jump to content

A Minor Hebrew tidbit


Olavarria

Recommended Posts

1830 Edition of Alma 46 pg 353

"Now, Moroni being a man which was appointed by the chief judges . . . "

Current Edition of Alma 46:34

34) Now, Moroni being a man who was appointed by the chief judges and the voice of the people.

The original English translation used the word which; being grammatically incorrect in English, it was later changed to who in later editions. Using which might be bad English but it is good Hebrew. In Hebrew, the word asher(??????) can be translated as which(Genesis 1:7). It can also be translated as who(Genesis 24:15).

Link to comment

1830 Edition of Alma 46 pg 353

"Now, Moroni being a man which was appointed by the chief judges . . . "

Current Edition of Alma 46:34

34) Now, Moroni being a man who was appointed by the chief judges and the voice of the people.

The original English translation used the word which; being grammatically incorrect in English, it was later changed to who in later editions. Using which might be bad English but it is good Hebrew. In Hebrew, the word asher(??????) can be translated as which(Genesis 1:7). It can also be translated as who(Genesis 24:15).

That sounds like crazy talk! If that's true, clearly there would be chiasmus in the Book of Mormon as well as if-and clauses!

Link to comment

That sounds like crazy talk! If that's true, clearly there would be chiasmus in the Book of Mormon as well as if-and clauses!

There are chiasmus in teh BoM... and a LOT of hebreaisms...

Link to comment

Let me see if I understand you.

So Hebrew has just one relative pronoun (asher), whereas English has three (who, that, which), depending on whether the antecedent is human, and whether the clause is restrictive.

You are saying that since asher could be correctly translated as which in another sentence (one with a non-human antecedent) makes the incorrect use of which in this sentence "good Hebrew." Is that right?

If so, this may qualify as the biggest stretch you've made yet.

Link to comment

Let me see if I understand you.

So Hebrew has just one relative pronoun (asher), whereas English has three (who, that, which), depending on whether the antecedent is human, and whether the clause is restrictive.

You are saying that since asher could be correctly translated as which in another sentence (one with a non-human antecedent) makes the incorrect use of which in this sentence "good Hebrew." Is that right?

If so, this may qualify as the biggest stretch you've made yet.

Rebuttals like lthat are why I still post here. Just trowing it out there, seeing if it will stick....

Link to comment

Even if this Hebrew thing isn't true, I have no problem with them changing the wording to make it more grammatically correct. To do the translation, JS was told to "study it out in his mind." Therefore, JS could have gotten some of the grammar wrong when he put the thoughts into his own words.

Link to comment

Rebuttals like lthat are why I still post here. Just trowing it out there, seeing if it will stick....

I hope I don't sound so dismissive that it comes across as rude. My New Year's resolution is to be nicer in online encounters (starting next week, of course).

Link to comment

To do the translation, JS was told to "study it out in his mind." Therefore, JS could have gotten some of the grammar wrong when he put the thoughts into his own words.

This is something that continues to confuse me about the creation of the book. How could JS study anything out in regards to a document written in a language that he can't read?

I would like someone to explain what that process might look like. Take the verse in this discussion as an example:

Alma 46:34

Now, Moroni being a man who was appointed by the chief judges

and the voice of the people, therefore he had power according to

his will with the armies of the Nephites, to establish and to

exercise authority over them.

How would he have been given this information to "put into his own words"? In what form would he get it, if not words? Pictures? How, exactly, does he go about "studying it out" in his mind, and what would he have studied?

I can understand him being given the words to write down, and I can certainly understand him making it up, but I don't see how it would work any other way.

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...