Brant Gardner Posted October 24, 2013 Posted October 24, 2013 I would just say again that this adds a little more to my understanding of the cultural environment into which the Book of Mormon emerged.What does this prove? Nothing, of course.I agree completely with both ideas.I suppose that for clarity I would emeng the first sentence to "linguistic cultural environment," but that doesn't change the essence of what you have said.
canard78 Posted October 24, 2013 Posted October 24, 2013 I have never understood how reading the Book of Mormon in comparison to other samples of Joseph Smith's writing (i.e. the First Vision account in the Pearl of Great Price) causes a person to think they were written by the same person. To me Joseph Smith's writing is very distinctive and nothing like the Book of Mormon (or vice versa). I personally can say this without worrying about any other claim about where, then, its origins are, but it's very plain to me that Joseph Smith did not write the Book. If I was a teacher grading two submitted paper assignments that had the same degree of differences such as exist between the Book of Mormon and Joseph's other works, I would be positive that they were two different people and would not be able to give Joseph a grade for the Book of Mormon and would call him into my office to ask him why he is purporting to be the author of something he did not write (if he were to be making that claim as others are for him; but of course which he has not). I have never understood how reading the Book of Mormon causes someone who peruses more than shallowly (because I agree that at first glance it might not be apparent, but any further familiairity--) causes one to think that the Book of Mormon is written in one textual voice rather than several. Even people who are prolific writers and write different stories (varying content; varying fantasies) do not have drastic structure differences from story to story. They have a way of writing that is their own and that is more or less constant (although certainly a person can learn and develop and change somewhat--learning to use shorter sentences instead of more wordy ones, for example). I would be surprised if Joseph spoke in 17thC English while working on the farm/stick-pulling etc. "Verily, verily pass me the salt" would have probably got a punch from a brother. However, the question to answer is whether other scripture he produced has a comparable style? The first completed (but unpublished) revelations we can consider are not the Book of Mormon. D&C 3 was received in 1828, after the 116 pages were lost but before work restarted. Consider: 4 For although a man may have many revelations, and have power to do many mighty works, yet if he boasts in his own strength, and sets at naught the counsels of God, and follows after the dictates of his own will and carnal desires, he must fall and incur the vengeance of a just God upon him. I could find "boast" and "strength" in the KJV Bible, but not the phrase to boast in ones own strength. There are 5 appearances of the phrase in Scripture. 1 in D&C 3 and 4 in the BoM. They are all in Mosiah and Alma which were all dictated after D&C 3. Alma 38:1111 See that ye are not lifted up unto pride; yea, see that ye do not boast in your own wisdom, nor of your much strength. Alma 26:1111 But Ammon said unto him: I do not boast in my own strength, nor in my own wisdom; but behold, my joy is full, yea, my heart is brim with joy, and I will rejoice in my God. Mormon 3:99 And now, because of this great thing which my people, the Nephites, had done, they began to boast in their own strength, and began to swear before the heavens that they would avenge themselves of the blood of their brethren who had been slain by their enemies. Mosiah 11:1919 And now, because of this great victory they were lifted up in the pride of their hearts; they did boast in their own strength, saying that their fifty could stand against thousands of the Lamanites; and thus they did boast, and did delight in blood, and the shedding of the blood of their brethren, and this because of the wickedness of their king and priests. Mormon 4:88 And it came to pass that they were repulsed and driven back by the Nephites. And when the Nephites saw that they had driven the Lamanites they did again boast of their own strength; and they went forth in their own might, and took possession again of the city Desolation. http://www.lds.org/scriptures/search?lang=eng&type=verse&query=boast+own+strength So if the idea or expression "boast in my/own own strength" is found in both his early scriptural texts does that prove he made them both up? Not in the slightest. I'm not even trying to. But it does show that there are consistencies in language between language styles when Joseph was dictating scripture. This is certainly not the only one - just giving it as an example. We can find other 19thC works that use this phrase. I'm not saying that these were Joseph's sources, but it does stand as evidence that the idea/phrase was in existence at the time and this or other unavailable texts or sermons could have influenced Joseph's choice of words in both BoM and D&C. For example: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=MtcHAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA408&dq=boast+own+strength&hl=en&sa=X&ei=jptoUviZPIa20QXQxoDYDA&ved=0CDcQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=boast%20own%20strength&f=falseThe whole works of Richard Graves, collected by his son, R.H. Graves (published 1840 from sermons given in 1810s-1820s) And:http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=occ2AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA50&dq=boast+own+strength&hl=en&sa=X&ei=jptoUviZPIa20QXQxoDYDA&ved=0CEIQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=boast%20own%20strength&f=falseThe Christian Advocate, Volume 10 (published 1832) Includes the phrase: "Nothing but ignorance of themselves can make them boast of their own strength." (Given it's 1832 maybe the writer had read the Book of Mormon ). There's also this one from 1828:http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=yE8_AAAAcAAJ&pg=PA1156&dq=boast+own+strength&hl=en&sa=X&ei=jptoUviZPIa20QXQxoDYDA&ved=0CEcQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=boast%20own%20strength&f=false "The apostle had seemed to boast of himself, and of his own strength; I know how to be abased (v.12), but here he transfers all the praise to Christ." I repeat, I'm not saying that Joseph took any of the above and plagiarized them. I am happy with the BoM as an inspired text. But I think there is evidence that Joseph's revelatory texts do have consistencies in language and thought. This is why I lean so heavily towards a very loose translation.
canard78 Posted October 24, 2013 Posted October 24, 2013 It should not be news to anyone that the closer in time you come to a particular period the more your language will reflect that period. The use of "Elizabethan" English was more common in Joseph Smith's time than it is today, but was not as common as it was in "Elizabethan" times. The fact that many people only owned a single book which happened to be written in archaic English (KJV) preserved those language patterns in the society's conscience if not in their common speech. The comparison I was making is that the Doctrine and Covenants is a better comparison to a "first presidency" message than the Book of Mormon is. I am not saying the language structure of a 21st century "first presidency" message is the same as the 19th century Doctrine and Covenants, but that both are presented as modern revelation from Prophets in their respective time periods. I think your example has illustrated the point I was making better than my own, to Joseph Smith and I'm sure to others of the same time period revelation from God was expected to be transmitted in Elizabethan English. I agree that it does not make sense for God to choose a random century's (and location's) vernacular to communicate with us, but is that what Joseph was describing in his purported communications with God? Is the vernacular used by God in those instances random or could it have been chosen because it had meaning to the recipient? Would we expect God to speak to us in exactly the same way we speak to others even if we do not expect him to speak to us in that way? If Joseph Smith expected God to speak to him in Elizabethan English, should we assume God would ignore those expectations? -guerreiro9 The first translation of an ancient book Joseph completed was not the Book of Mormon but D&C 7 in April 1829 (I know BoM was published first, I specifically used "completed"). The revelation is a translated version of the record made on parchment by John and hidden up by himself....3 And the Lord said unto me: Verily, verily, I say unto thee, because thou desirest this thou shalt tarry until I come in my glory, and shalt prophesy before nations, kindreds, tongues and people. 8 Verily I say unto you, ye shall both have according to your desires, for ye both joy in that which ye have desired. The translation style is similar to BoM/KJV Bible. Also in April 1829 Joseph had a revelation for Oliver Cowdery (section 6), not a translation of an ancient text but a modern revelation for his friend, which had phrases like: 8. Verily, verily, I say unto you, even as you desire of me so it shall be unto you; and if you desire, you shall be the means of doing much good in this generation....31 But if they reject not my words, which shall be established by the testimony which shall be given, blessed are they, and then shall ye have joy in the fruit of your labors. It's also impressive that Joseph revealed to Oliver: 25 And, behold, I grant unto you a gift, if you desire of me, to translate, even as my servant Joseph.26 Verily, verily, I say unto you, that there are records which contain much of my gospel, which have been kept back because of the wickedness of the people; Impressive because in the same month Joseph dictated a translation of one such record that had been hidden/kept back (the translation of John's record now found section 7). My point is that whether Joseph was translating the ancient record of Mesoamericans, the ancient records of the Old world or giving a new revelation to his peers in 19thC America, he used similar language. I think the actual words that may have been written down by Alma/Ammon/Mormon/John is different to what Joseph dictated. I certainly believe he dictated inspired texts - but their language is comparable. But then the scriptures have always taught us this anyway. The opening section of the Doctrine and Covenants (1:34) says: "...these commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language…" This phrase was also on the title page of the Book of Commandments (1833). All of the scriptures are in the weakness of Joseph's preferred language for dictating scripture. 2
canard78 Posted October 24, 2013 Posted October 24, 2013 I suppose the very apt point made by Elkiakim the Scribe in his 1809 book Napoleon, Tyrant of the Earth (one of the books listed in the other thread as having linguistic comparisons to the Book of Mormon can provide some justification for why all of Joseph's scripture is in this language: "...condemn not the feebly imitative manner of writing therein occasionally employed, until though canst point out a language more impressive, or more appropriate, than that in imitation whereof these chapters are framed." http://archive.org/stream/firstbooknapole00gruagoog#page/n7/mode/2up This writing style produced things like this: 1. And behold, it came to pass, in these latter days, that an evil spirit arose on the face of the earth, and greatly troubled the sons of men.2. And this spirit seized upon, and spread abroad amongst the people who dwell in the land of Gaul.3. Now, in this people the fear of the Lord had not been for many generations, and they had become a corrupt and perverse people; and their chief priests, and the nobles of the land, and the learned men thereof, had become wicked in the imaginations of their hearts, and in the practice of their lives. 4. And the evil spirit went abroad amongst the people, and they raged like unto the heathen, and they rose up against their lawful king, and slew him, and his queen also, and the prince their son; yea, verily, with a cruel and bloody death. Having said that, I enjoy the NIV of the Bible too. I often wonder what a NIV of the Book of Mormon would sound like.
Robert F. Smith Posted October 25, 2013 Posted October 25, 2013 In this case the answers I am looking for are the opinions of others about what they think the Book of Mormon should sound like if true, so it can be answered effectively by opinion mongering and imagination.As far as my own opinion, The Book of Mormon sounds pretty much like I would expect it to if it is what it claims to be, but I'm sure my opinion is biased by my belief................................................................................................. Well, as Brother Brigham used to say: "No man's opinion is worth a straw."
Robert F. Smith Posted October 25, 2013 Posted October 25, 2013 Good job; I'm in full agreement. As to the oft-heard protestation that the Book of Mormon sounds too much like the King James Bible (why this fact should bother someone, I don't understand), I offer the following:The Lord deliberately inspired the Prophet Joseph Smith to use King James style English in the translation so that the Book of Mormon would fulfill the prophecies found in both the Bible and Book of Mormon that the Nephite scripture would have a "familiar spirit" when read and compared side by side to the King James Bible, the KJV being the Bible version used in the LDS Church. Another prophecy found both in the Bible and in the Book of Mormon declares that the Stick of Judah (the Bible) and the Stick of Joseph (the Book of Mormon) would become one in the hands of the latter-day believers. Because the language in these two books of scripture are so stylistically as well as theologically and doctrinally similar, the Book of Mormon becomes an extension to the Bible in the hands of the Mormons. For the above reasons, truly, these two books have become as if they are one book in the hands of the Latter-day Saints -- the prophecies have been fulfilled.Everybody in the 19th century used the KJV style English for translations of ancient texts, and this continued right into the early 20th century.Your opinion as to why Joseph followed suit may be correct, but how would we know for sure? It would have been rendered in KJV English anyway.
Robert F. Smith Posted October 25, 2013 Posted October 25, 2013 I would expect the translation to be in the language of the day. Remember, this is the most important book ever produced--why translate it in an out-of-date and difficult to understand form of the English language? There is nothing special or holy about early 17th century English, it just happens to be the time period when the KJV was translated. If God came to President Monson today with a new revelation for the church, do you believe he would deliver it or command TSM to write it in early 17th century English?Brother Brigham once addressed that question by suggesting that, if the Book of Mormon had been translated in his day in the Great Basin, it would have been translated differently. Whether he meant a more modern version of English was likely, or that a translator different from Joseph would perforce use different phrasing and vocabulary (his own style of speech) is anybody's guess. If you will just flip open your D&C to section 138 and the two Declarations, it will immediately become apparent that you have answered your own question about what Thomas Monson would do. 2
Robert F. Smith Posted October 25, 2013 Posted October 25, 2013 Of course it is an over generalization, you can't expect me to cover all possible nuances in the few short paragraphs I wrote. There is a spectrum of possible interpretations, but my impression is that the vast majority of people are at one extreme end or the other. Every possible Hebrew parallel is viewed as evidence of the book's authenticity, while every possible 19th century parallel is viewed as evidence of its fabrication. The fact that neither of these statements is true has not impeded their acceptance by a large number of people.-guerreiro9I'd be interested to know how you came to the conclusion that both of these polar positions are untrue. I'd also like to see a citation on that suggestion, unless you are making a purely intuitive assertion.
Robert F. Smith Posted October 25, 2013 Posted October 25, 2013 The words you quoted were mine, although they may have appeared as Robert's due to his difficulties with the comment system.-guerreiro9I'll try to do better next time, guerreiro.
Calm Posted October 25, 2013 Posted October 25, 2013 I'd be interested to know how you came to the conclusion that both of these polar positions are untrue. I'd also like to see a citation on that suggestion, unless you are making a purely intuitive assertion.Do you believe that either of the below is likely to be true? "Every possible Hebrew parallel is....evidence of the book's authenticity." [E]very possible 19th century parallel is....evidence of its fabrication."
cdowis Posted October 25, 2013 Posted October 25, 2013 Do you believe that either of the below is likely to be true? "Every possible Hebrew parallel is....evidence of the book's authenticity." [E]very possible 19th century parallel is....evidence of its fabrication." Add a third option: Every possible 20th century parallel is.... evidence that parallelism is a phoney analysis In previous posts, I have given several examples of 20th century parallels, so the third option is the correct conclusion.
canard78 Posted October 25, 2013 Posted October 25, 2013 Add a third option: Every possible 20th century parallel is.... evidence that parallelism is a phoney analysis In previous posts, I have given several examples of 20th century parallels, so the third option is the correct conclusion. So would you argue that all parallels are bunk? I think Sorenson calls his 'Convergences' in Mormon's Codex. Is this a phoney analysis? There's very little by way of evidence for the Book of Mormon being a product of either ancient history or modern history that isn't parallelism. So what else is an option?
canard78 Posted October 25, 2013 Posted October 25, 2013 Brother Brigham once addressed that question by suggesting that, if the Book of Mormon had been translated in his day in the Great Basin, it would have been translated differently. Whether he meant a more modern version of English was likely, or that a translator different from Joseph would perforce use different phrasing and vocabulary (his own style of speech) is anybody's guess. If you will just flip open your D&C to section 138 and the two Declarations, it will immediately become apparent that you have answered your own question about what Thomas Monson would do. Do you have a reference for the Brigham quote? I'd read it before but can't find the quote. It's a fascinating idea and, in my opinion, supports a loose translation theory.
omni Posted October 25, 2013 Posted October 25, 2013 Brother Brigham once addressed that question by suggesting that, if the Book of Mormon had been translated in his day in the Great Basin, it would have been translated differently. Whether he meant a more modern version of English was likely, or that a translator different from Joseph would perforce use different phrasing and vocabulary (his own style of speech) is anybody's guess.If you will just flip open your D&C to section 138 and the two Declarations, it will immediately become apparent that you have answered your own question about what Thomas Monson would do.This is my point. Why is Section 138, OD 1, and OD 2 written in the "language of the day" but other scripture is written in the archaic Jacobean English? As I pointed out earlier in the First Vision accounts we have Joseph speaking 19th English and then switches over to Jacobean when the Lord speaks. I can't see the Lord speaking this way simply because Joseph may have expected him to speak this way.
boulder257 Posted October 25, 2013 Posted October 25, 2013 What about those claims that the BOM contains some of the same italicized (added) words and mistakes that are found in the KJV?
cdowis Posted October 25, 2013 Posted October 25, 2013 What about those claims that the BOM contains some of the same italicized (added) words and mistakes that are found in the KJV? "mistakes". I simply ask them for specific examples. Now, the italicized "added words" are merely adjusting the translation from the original language to English convention. It adds words so that it makes sense in English.
boulder257 Posted October 25, 2013 Posted October 25, 2013 "mistakes". I simply ask them for specific examples. Now, the italicized "added words" are merely adjusting the translation from the original language to English convention. It adds words so that it makes sense in English. Gotcha. Thanks!
Calm Posted October 25, 2013 Posted October 25, 2013 (edited) Add a third option: I was only asking about RFS and g9's particular comments about the two polar positions. Adding additional options that they themselves weren't discussing isn't appropriate for that. Edited October 25, 2013 by calmoriah
jkwilliams Posted October 25, 2013 Posted October 25, 2013 "mistakes". I simply ask them for specific examples. Now, the italicized "added words" are merely adjusting the translation from the original language to English convention. It adds words so that it makes sense in English. Which is why it's interesting that Joseph Smith took them out.
Robert F. Smith Posted October 26, 2013 Posted October 26, 2013 Do you have a reference for the Brigham quote? I'd read it before but can't find the quote. It's a fascinating idea and, in my opinion, supports a loose translation theory.I can't come up with it offhand, and am not sure where to look. Maybe a search of the Journal of Discourses. It does support the professional assessment that every translator uses his own syntax, style, and vocabulary.
Robert F. Smith Posted October 26, 2013 Posted October 26, 2013 This is my point. Why is Section 138, OD 1, and OD 2 written in the "language of the day" but other scripture is written in the archaic Jacobean English?As I pointed out earlier in the First Vision accounts we have Joseph speaking 19th English and then switches over to Jacobean when the Lord speaks. I can't see the Lord speaking this way simply because Joseph may have expected him to speak this way.I'm glad we agree on the Jacobean (or Elizabethan) usage and style.As I said, all translations of ancient documents were rendered in that style in those times. Joseph is doing the translation and it is his language which fulfills expectations. The same applies when attempting to render the speech of Deity, i.e., some means was sought by Joseph to place such august speech and such an extraordinary event in proper context. Hence the supposed honorific language. On the other hand, if you insist that God was speaking in that very mode. So be it. God can certainly perform as expected in that event.
Calm Posted October 26, 2013 Posted October 26, 2013 I can't come up with it offhand, and am not sure where to look. Maybe a search of the Journal of Discourses. It does support the professional assessment that every translator uses his own syntax, style, and vocabulary.I've read it before too. Maybe rongo knows...
canard78 Posted October 26, 2013 Posted October 26, 2013 (edited) I've read it before too. Maybe rongo knows... It's not the one that was mentioned, but this quote is a new one on me: B. H. Roberts was preoccupied with Joseph Smith’s role as translator. One reason was that critics turned Joseph’s phrase “by the gift and power of God” into a claim he never made, that of verbal inerrancy. Roberts wrote a whole treatise on these issues, concluding that Joseph Smith could not escape his own skin. Joseph’s vocabulary and grammar are as clearly imposed on the book as are fingerprints on a coin. When Harold Glen Clark asked President Roberts if the Book of Mormon would read differently had it been translated by someone else, B. H. Roberts replied, “Of course, not in substance and basic message but in modes of expression.” Although Joseph Smith affirmed he used a Urim and Thummim, the instrument did not do everything and the Prophet nothing. Roberts insisted that the translation process was neither so simple nor so easy a thing as has been supposed by both advocates and critics of the Prophet. On the contrary, “brain sweat” was required, and preparation, and labor. Further, as an illustration that exact word-for-word translation of one language into another is impossible, Roberts presented examples from the Greek New Testament showing that the word Master used in the authorized version is a translation of six different Greek words all having different shades of meaning. Judgment stands for eight different Greek words. He concluded, “Let us rid ourselves of the reproach of charging error, even though it be of forms of expression, unto God.” Elder Roberts hoped for the day when the President of the Church would authorize that the Book of Mormon be “made a classic in English . . . without changing the shade of a single idea or statement.” He did not live to see it become a classic in other translations.(Emphasis added)B. H. Roberts and the Book of Mormon, Truman G. Madsenhttps://rsc.byu.edu/archived/book-mormon-authorship-new-light-ancient-origins/1-b-h-roberts-and-book-mormon Edited October 26, 2013 by canard78 2
canard78 Posted October 26, 2013 Posted October 26, 2013 I can't come up with it offhand, and am not sure where to look. Maybe a search of the Journal of Discourses. It does support the professional assessment that every translator uses his own syntax, style, and vocabulary. Were you thinking of this one: When God speaks to the people, he does it in a manner to suit their circumstances and capacities. He spoke to the children of Jacob through Moses, as a blind, stiff-necked people, and when Jesus and his Apostles came they talked with the Jews as a benighted, wicked, selfish people. They would not receive the Gospel, though presented to them by the Son of God in all its righteousness, beauty and glory. Should the Lord Almighty send an angel to re-write the Bible, it would in many places be very different from what it now is. And I will even venture to say that if the Book of Mormon were now to be re-written, in many instances it would materially differ from the present translation. According as people are willing to receive the things of God, so the heavens send forth their blessings. If the people are stiff-necked, the Lord can tell them but little. Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 9:311. [13 July 1862] http://file.fairmormon.org/Journal_of_Discourses/9/64#311 1
Calm Posted October 26, 2013 Posted October 26, 2013 Were you thinking of this one: Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 9:311. [13 July 1862] http://file.fairmormon.org/Journal_of_Discourses/9/64#311 Sounds close, but not perfect but that might be due to the interpretations that are laid upon it as we talk about it...as in what that would have meant for JS.
Recommended Posts