Language Structure Of The Book Of Mormon

[DBMormon]

 

The language used in the English translation of the Book of the Mormon is a constant topic of debate.  Those who believe the Book of Mormon is what it claims to be see parallels between the language structure of the book and Hebrew and use those parallels to augment their faith.  Those who do not believe the book is what it claims see parallels between the language structure of the book and other literature and use those parallels to explain the Book of Mormon as a product of Joseph Smith’s environment.

 

For those who believe the Book of Mormon is a product of Joseph Smith’s environment I would ask you to put aside your unbelief for a moment and perform a thought experiment with me.

 

Let us assume for a moment that the Book of Mormon is what it claims to be; an English translation made in 19th century America of an abridgment of an ancient record written possibly in Hebrew using modified Egyptian characters.  If this is actually the case what would we expect the language structure of the book to be like?  How would we be able to tell from the language structure of the book that “yes, this book was translated by the gift and power of God”?  Would we expect the book to be free from all word usage forms found in 19th century America?  Would we expect the book to share no language structure with the King James Version of the Bible?  Would we expect the English translation to bear no resemblance to any extant English literary work?

 

I have tried to envision what the language structure of the Book of Mormon would be like if all the literary forms that are objected to were replaced with alternatives.  Below is a sample of my conclusion:

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Nothing.  I couldn’t come up with anything.  I am sure some of you have better imaginations and are more well versed in literature than I (I lean toward science not art).  If the Book of Mormon was really what it claimed to be how could you tell from the language structure and what would that structure be like?

 

-guerreiro9 

 

 

 

Great Post Guerreiro9

[Robert F. Smith]

 

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

 

I think that's it, Canard.  Thanks.

[Gervin]

As I said, all translations of ancient documents were rendered in that style in those times. 

I think you are wrong, but am glad to consider your evidence.  I imagine that you won't include Campbell's Living Oracles (published in 1826), described as "a forerunner of modern language translations in its updating of the traditional King James language and use of the work of textual critics such as Giresbach."

[volgadon]

I think you are wrong, but am glad to consider your evidence.  I imagine that you won't include Campbell's Living Oracles (published in 1826), described as "a forerunner of modern language translations in its updating of the traditional King James language and use of the work of textual critics such as Giresbach."

 

And it was an extremely unpopular rendition because of that.

[Robert F. Smith]

I think you are wrong, but am glad to consider your evidence.  I imagine that you won't include Campbell's Living Oracles (published in 1826), described as "a forerunner of modern language translations in its updating of the traditional King James language and use of the work of textual critics such as Giresbach."

I have spent decades looking at the translations of the Egyptian and Assyrian texts rendered in the 19th and early 20th centuries, along with translations of apocrypha and pseudepigrapha.  All were rendered in archaic English until relatively recently.  The scholars themselves did this, and we even have them commenting on it from time to time, as with J. K. Elliott commenting on M. R. James' 1924 edition of The Apocryphal New Testament (Oxford Univ. Press):

 

One change I immediately decided upon was to replace the consciously archaizing English style that James affected with a translation, which I hope will be acceptable to modern readers.  In the 1920s those who were more likely to turn to a volume entitled The Apocryphal New Testament were probably familiar with the Bible, in the Authorized Version, and so it was appropriate for James to employ a style intended to remind the reader of it.  (Elliott, The Apocryphal New Testament [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993], x)

 

It always amazes me the degree to which these sorts of pseudo-issues are used to berate Joseph Smith despite their being normative practices.

Edited October 28, 2013 by Robert F. Smith

[Gervin]

I have spent decades looking at the translations of the Egyptian and Assyrian texts rendered in the 19th and early 20th centuries, along with translations of apocrypha and pseudepigrapha.  All were rendered in archaic English until relatively recently.  The scholars themselves did this, and we even have them commenting on it from time to time, as with J. K. Elliott commenting on M. R. James' 1924 edition of The Apocryphal New Testament (Oxford Univ. Press):

 

One change I immediately decided upon was to replace the consciously archaizing English style that James affected with a translation, which I hope will be acceptable to modern readers.  In the 1920s those who were more likely to turn to a volume entitled The Apocryphal New Testament were probably familiar with the Bible, in the Authorized Version, and so it was appropriate for James to employ a style intended to remind the reader of it.  (Elliott, The Apocryphal New Testament [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993], x)

 

It always amazes me the degree to which these sorts of pseudo-issues are used to berate Joseph Smith despite their being normative practices.

Your decades of looking notwithstanding, I don't see it.  "All" translations were rendered in archaic English, yet I provided an example that wasn't.  You still claim "all."  I looked at some 19th c. English translations of The Iliad and The Odyssey and don't see archaic English.  I looked at the Roberts-Donaldson English translation of Origen (Origen de Principiis, etc.) from the 1860s - it's not archaic English.  I looked at the English translations of Egyptian and Assyrian Monuments (S. Bagster and Sons, 1873) published under the sanction of the Society of Biblical Archaeology.  It's not archaic English.  

 

I notice that in the 1830s this Biblical-styled writing was used by some local papers (Palmyra) in a sort of mocking tone but, of course, these weren't translations.  

[cdowis]

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.

 

Did you find a moderator badge in your breakfast cereal?

 

You are being rude.

[Calm]

Did you find a moderator badge in your breakfast cereal?

I was pointing out you were changing what I was asking into something else...which would be fine as long as he treated my question separately from the new discussion you were creating.  I didn't want my question to be skipped as if it had been answered.

Edited October 28, 2013 by calmoriah

[Robert F. Smith]

Your decades of looking notwithstanding, I don't see it.  "All" translations were rendered in archaic English, yet I provided an example that wasn't.  You still claim "all."  I looked at some 19th c. English translations of The Iliad and The Odyssey and don't see archaic English.  I looked at the Roberts-Donaldson English translation of Origen (Origen de Principiis, etc.) from the 1860s - it's not archaic English.  I looked at the English translations of Egyptian and Assyrian Monuments (S. Bagster and Sons, 1873) published under the sanction of the Society of Biblical Archaeology.  It's not archaic English.  

 

I notice that in the 1830s this Biblical-styled writing was used by some local papers (Palmyra) in a sort of mocking tone but, of course, these weren't translations.  

I gave you  a rep point for your assiduous looking and reporting back to us.  Thanks.

So I take back the "all."  However, I continue to maintain that it was very common and accepted among scholars, which belies your claim that it is somehow not appropriate for Joseph.  Even the great Egyptologist, A. H. Gardiner, in the third edition of his Egyptian Grammar (Oxford, 1957), was using archaic English.  You say "I don't see it," but it is not clear what you don't see.  Could it be that you are determined to hold Joseph up to imaginary standards.  Why would you do that?  Is that fair and impartial?  What would a disinterested third party say?

[Gervin]

I gave you  a rep point for your assiduous looking and reporting back to us.  Thanks.

So I take back the "all."  However, I continue to maintain that it was very common and accepted among scholars, which belies your claim that it is somehow not appropriate for Joseph.  Even the great Egyptologist, A. H. Gardiner, in the third edition of his Egyptian Grammar (Oxford, 1957), was using archaic English.  You say "I don't see it," but it is not clear what you don't see.  Could it be that you are determined to hold Joseph up to imaginary standards.  Why would you do that?  Is that fair and impartial?  What would a disinterested third party say?

Thanks for the rep point.  Probably my first.  I cashed it in and bought a song on iTunes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHz0w-HG4iU

 

Will respond to your post at some future time when I'm not fulfilling obligations to my work.

[Robert F. Smith]

Thanks for the rep point.  Probably my first.  I cashed it in and bought a song on iTunes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHz0w-HG4iU

 

Will respond to your post at some future time when I'm not fulfilling obligations to my work.

Thanks.  It was a beautiful song.  I always like to listen to "christian" radio stations when driving long distances.  They always have inspiring music, and even Sunday school.  They only attack Mormons once in a while.  That song causes me to recall the early days of Bill & Gloria Gaither, of the Statler Brothers, and even of the Carter Family.  Here's one of my favorite Gospel songs:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6G0U8Vg6nY 

[Gervin]

I gave you  a rep point for your assiduous looking and reporting back to us.  Thanks.

So I take back the "all."  However, I continue to maintain that it was very common and accepted among scholars, which belies your claim that it is somehow not appropriate for Joseph.  Even the great Egyptologist, A. H. Gardiner, in the third edition of his Egyptian Grammar (Oxford, 1957), was using archaic English.  You say "I don't see it," but it is not clear what you don't see.  Could it be that you are determined to hold Joseph up to imaginary standards.  Why would you do that?  Is that fair and impartial?  What would a disinterested third party say?

I don't how "very common" it was among scholars, but it is a fact that using a KJV-styled language wasn't necessary for translating ancient - and making understandable - ancient texts.  So, I don't see your statement that this was common, I don't see that it was necessary, and I don't see it as cogent with reference to the Book of Mormon.  It has nothing to do with a standard (imaginary or otherwise) that I'm holding for Joseph Smith.  The mimicked style of the KJV that appears in the Book of Mormon is, in my estimation, a fractured pastiche of Biblical-sounding names, phrases, and stories. I understand that others see it differently.  

[Gervin]

Thanks.  It was a beautiful song.  I always like to listen to "christian" radio stations when driving long distances.  They always have inspiring music, and even Sunday school.  They only attack Mormons once in a while.  That song causes me to recall the early days of Bill & Gloria Gaither, of the Statler Brothers, and even of the Carter Family.  Here's one of my favorite Gospel songs:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6G0U8Vg6nY

What is a "christian" radio station (vs. a christian radio station)?  Shout to the Lord used to be a popular praise song (and may still be in some circles); don't know that I would call it a gospel song, but that is just semantics.  Our band did "Great Are You Lord" (youtube link) today for the first time and I think it was meaningful in the context of our worship.  Carter family?  Now, there's some good ol' time gospel.  And we also played "Just a Closer Walk With Thee" today to make sure folks don't lose touch with some of those great old songs.

Edited November 4, 2013 by Gervin

[Robert F. Smith]

What is a "christian" radio station (vs. a christian radio station)?  Shout to the Lord used to be a popular praise song (and may still be in some circles); don't know that I would call it a gospel song, but that is just semantics.  Our band did "Great Are You Lord" (youtube link) today for the first time and I think it was meaningful in the context of our worship.  Carter family?  Now, there's some good ol' time gospel.  And we also played "Just a Closer Walk With Thee" today to make sure folks don't lose touch with some of those great old songs.

Yes, I heard that recently, and it is quite beautiful -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHz0w-HG4iU .  Glad to hear that you know what I am talking about.  The younger generation usually draws a blank about this stuff.  I especially loved seeing "Shout to the Lord" (with a Black Gospel choir) done on American Idol for several reasons: (1) it got a massive audience thinking about Jesus Christ, (2) it got an otherwise non-Christian group of contestants to sing about Jesus,, (3) it included Mormon David Archuleta (now on an LDS mission), and (4) it created huge controversy -- http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-giltz/emamerican-idolem-jesus-c_b_96176.html .

 

I like the Calvary Chapel radio network best, but I'll listen to others as well.