Do Hebraisms In The Late War Undermine The Ones In The Book Of Mormon?

[canard78]

Elizabethan English was no more Joseph's language than early 19th century English is our language.  If someone commissioned you to translate a document would you do so in early 19th century English?

Surely the whole point of the Late War is that this is evidence of a common writing style of the 19thC that shows Jacobean English was a part of Joseph's environment. People can then draw a "loose translation" or "authorship" conclusion from this. But LW shows that at the very least, KJV writing was considered acceptable and even encouraged.

[cdowis]

Elizabethan English was no more Joseph's language than early 19th century English is our language.  If someone commissioned you to translate a document would you do so in early 19th century English?

 

Depends on what you are translating.  For example, an ancient Greek drama may lend itself to Elizabethan English than modern venacular.

 

Scriptural text lends itself to "Bible" English.

Edited November 7, 2013 by cdowis

[jkwilliams]

Scriptural text lends itself to "Bible" English.

What is Bible English?

The KJV reflects proper English as written and spoken circa 1611. It's a snapshot of the English language, and it's become "the language of scripture" simply because the KJV has been the most widely circulated English Bible in history. If Wycliffe's Bible had been accepted by the English church, that would be "Bible English."

[cdowis]

I think you answered your own question.

[jkwilliams]

I think you answered your own question.

How does scripture "lend itself to Bible English"? I don't know what you mean here. If you're saying that KJV Jacobean English is what people expect, you may have a point. But it seems as if you are suggesting that there's something inherent in Jacobean English that makes it better for translating ancient Hebrew and Greek scripture.

[cdowis]

Yes, No.

[jkwilliams]

Yes, No.

Never mind, then. Sigh.

[cdowis]

OK.

[Kevin Christensen]

Elizabethan English was no more Joseph's language than early 19th century English is our language.  If someone commissioned you to translate a document would you do so in early 19th century English?

Consider Hugh Nibley's comments on the topic of appropriate style in 1961:

Now as to your question, "Why did Joseph Smith, a nineteenth century American farm boy, translate the Book of Mormon into seventeenth century King James English instead of into contemporary language?"

The first thing to note is that the "contemporary language" of the country-people of New England 130 years ago was not so far from King James English. Even the New England writers of later generations, like Webster, Melville, and Emerson, lapse into its stately periods and "thees and thous" in their loftier passages.

For that matter, we still pray in that language and teach our small children to do the same; that is, we still recognize the validity of a special speech set apart for special occasions. My old Hebrew and Arabic teacher, Professor Popper, would throw a student out of the class who did not use "thee" and "thou" in constructing. "This is the word of God!" he would cry indignantly. "This is the Bible! Let us show a little respect; let us have a little formal English here!"

Furthermore, the Book of Mormon is full of scripture, and for the world of Joseph Smith's day, the King James Version was the Scripture, as we have noted; large sections of the Book of Mormon, therefore, had to be in the language of the King James Version—and what of the rest of it? That is scripture, too.

One can think of lots of arguments for using King James English in the Book of Mormon, but the clearest comes out of very recent experience. In the past decade, as you know, certain ancient nonbiblical texts, discovered near the Dead Sea, have been translated by modern, up-to-date American readers. I open at random a contemporary Protestant scholar's modern translation of the Dead Sea Scrolls, and what do I read? "For thine is the battle, and by the strength of thy hand their corpses were scattered without burial. Goliath the Hittite, a mighty man of valor, thou didst deliver into the hand of thy servant David." 10

Obviously the man who wrote this knew the Bible, and we must not forget that ancient scribes were consciously archaic in their writing, so that most of the scriptures were probably in old-fashioned language the day they were written down. To efface that solemn antique style by the latest up-to-date usage is to translate falsely.

At any rate, Professor Burrows, in 1955 (not 1835!), falls naturally and without apology into the language of the King James Bible. Or take a modern Jewish scholar who purposely avoids archaisms in his translation of the Scrolls for modern American readers: "All things are inscribed before Thee in a recording script, for every moment of time, for the infinite cycles of years, in their several appointed times. No single thing is hidden, naught missing from Thy presence."11 Professor Gaster, too, falls under the spell of our religious idiom.

By frankly using that idiom, the Book of Mormon avoids the necessity of having to be redone into "modern English" every thirty or forty years. If the plates were being translated for the first time today, it would still be King James English!

http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1112&index=12

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[jkwilliams]

Consider Hugh Nibley's comments on the topic of appropriate style in 1961:

http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1112&index=12

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Kevin,

My belief is that, scripture or not, the language of the Book of Mormon reflects the expectations of the readers. People in Joseph Smith's time (and even in our time) expect that formal, Jacobean English in scriptures. Writing it out in common vernacular seems almost disrespectful, not because the language is inherently so, but because readers expect that sort of "grandeur" that comes with Jacobean language. It's the same reason we don't often translate Shakespeare into 21st-century prose.

[omni]

Surely the whole point of the Late War is that this is evidence of a common writing style of the 19thC that shows Jacobean English was a part of Joseph's environment. People can then draw a "loose translation" or "authorship" conclusion from this. But LW shows that at the very least, KJV writing was considered acceptable and even encouraged.

 

 

You're correct the Jacobean English was a part of his environment, but that doesn't mean it was the language of the day.  Would God use/allow what amounts to an occasionally used fad in his eternal holy scripture?  Think about when you go to get your family picture, do you dress in what's the hottest fad of the day and do your hair in a style that may be "in" at the moment, but could be "out" within a years time?  If your smart you'll dress in something a little more conservative that will stand the "test of time", knowing years down the road when you're looking at the picture hanging prominently on your living room wall you won't look quite so ridiculous.  You can see the same principle in most good comedies.  They are rarely topical, instead relying on universal comedic principles knowing this will keep the laughs coming on repeated viewings years in the future.  

 

Take a look at this revelation from Warren Jeffs (no, I'm not comparing Jeffs to JS). 

 

1.  Thus saith the Lord Jesus Christ, to the nation of my coming, the United States of America:

2.  I have now enlightened all thy rulers by my Proclamation History and revelation writing, of pure unobstructed truth, not to be of a light way of receiving; to be my holy truth, that no governing power of man on earth hath any jurisdiction to judge my authority of Celestial authority and eternal keys of power I cause to be my Keyholder on earth.

3.  He shall be thy judge of me.  I am Judge, Ruler, Deliverer, God and Holy Eternal Power over all, and none can stay my hand.

4.  Though I have allowed my servant to be in bondage to prove the people of the land of my coming, I shall send power of pure cleansing to leave neither root nor branch of thine own household of present nation.

 

 

 

Did Jeffs write in Jacobean English because it was common to do so in our era or because that's how ancient documents are translated?  Most certainly not, I believe he did so because he believed that's how scripture had to be written and/or he used it as a kind of parlor trick, understanding that his followers most likely believed God speaks in KJV English or he had to make it sound "scriptural" for them to believe.  Admittedly I can't prove this, but in addition to likely being influenced by LW, I believe something similar to the above mentioned happened with the BoM, D&C, and PoGP.  

 

Did JS translate the BoM in Jacobean English because he thought that was the form scripture had to come in?  Possibly, but where's the divine intervention in all of this?  Where's God saying, "Look Joseph, there's nothing special or sacred about the language of the KJV, it just happens to be the style of writing of that time period.  No need to make it sound "scriptural", the book's contents and the Holy Ghost will do all the convincing needed"  God guided Joseph in every aspect of the restoration.  In the immortal words of Ron Burgundy, the language of the BoM is "kind of a big deal", this isn't like expecting God to intervene if the activity committee chooses turkey for the Christmas dinner when they should have chosen ham.      

[volgadon]

Le sigh. http://www.thefreelibrary.com/%22Written+in+the+Style+of+Antiquity%22%3A+Pseudo-Biblicism+and+the+Early...-a0244888045

 

"
It is surprising that an inspiring idiom such as the King James Bible's English, commonly singled out as a foundational influence on the development of the English language, has achieved its literary grace by accident, rather than design. Its distinctive antiquated language, its rhythms and cadences, which intentionally attempt to create a voice of divine wisdom and truth, were already becoming archaic in the standard English of the time it was being produced. The English used in that translation was associated with William Tyndale's (1484-1536) earlier and incomplete translation. Tyndale, the greatest of all English biblical translators and the foremost influence on the royal committee appointed by James I, used a language that was breaking down by the early seventeenth century. That language had become by then more of a metrical convenience than a spoken norm. Yet the King James Bible's translators intentionally retained the forms that were standard in Tyndale's translation because they had already come to signify liturgical decorum which represented the antiquity and dignity James and his committee wished to preserve. The king's translators were specifically forbidden to depart from the language used by earlier translations. Thus, the inbuilt conservatism of the translation process, reflecting the concerns of those who commissioned the new Bible, led directly--if unintentionally--to the retention of older ways of speaking in religious contexts by reproducing the English of nearly three generations earlier. Hence, the antiquated music and flow of the King James Bible does not sound archaic only to modern ears. That language was almost one hundred years older than the royal translation itself, and was already outdated and sounded distinct to contemporaries. (11)

A palpable characteristic of the King James Bible was its use of "thee," "thou," "thy," and "thine" where modern English would simply use "you," "your," and "yours." Similarly, verbal endings such as "-eth" which pervade the King James Bible were already mostly replaced with '--s," while the use of "thereof" was replaced by the possessive pronoun "its." (12) That archaic language was the language eighteenth-century Americans encountered when they opened their Bibles, as the King James Bible became the most influential text in the Anglophone world. (13) It conjured up visions of the sacred while signaling American readers to shift register from a colloquial cognitive mode of everyday speech to one of liturgical interpretation. (14) It was also the language Anglophones, notably Americans after 1765, came across in scores of modern political newspaper articles, pamphlets and books published from the mid-eighteenth century onward."

[omni]

Consider Hugh Nibley's comments on the topic of appropriate style in 1961:

http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1112&index=12

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

 

 

The first thing to note is that the "contemporary language" of the country-people of New England 130 years ago was not so far from King James English. Even the New England writers of later generations, like Webster, Melville, and Emerson, lapse into its stately periods and "thees and thous" in their loftier passages.

 

 

The canonized History of Joseph Smith shows a language very different than what we see in the BoM and more in line with the language of Joseph's day.

 

To efface that solemn antique style by the latest up-to-date usage is to translate falsely.

 

 

So NIV and the numerous other modern versions are false translations?  They certainly seem to be a lot more popular than the KJV.

 

By frankly using that idiom, the Book of Mormon avoids the necessity of having to be redone into "modern English" every thirty or forty years. If the plates were being translated for the first time today, it would still be King James English!

 

 

 

This is silly.  When the church translates the BoM into other languages does it do so in the ancient style of those languages?  On my mission when we would have investigators read specific passages from their Bible we would often have to explain what certain words meant to them because it was written in an ancient style--and they were the native speakers.  They often enjoyed reading the BoM more than the Bible because it was easier to understand and was written in a contemporary style.  

 

I believe one of the biggest obstacles for people to read the scriptures is the archaic language structure.  This is especially true for young people.  How many times have you been teaching your kids or in primary/YM/YW and you asked one of them to read a couple of scriptures and then explain the meaning only to be met with a blank stare on their faces?  As a non-beleiver, it makes perfect sense why a 19th century uneducated farm boy would write new scripture in KJV style knowing he has to do whatever he can to convince his contemporaries it's scripture.  What doesn't make sense to me is why an omniscient God seeing the big picture and the problems it would cause would allow him to do this.  Just my two cents...

[cdowis]

The scriptures have their own "voice" in each language.  That does not mean it is necessary to use archaic language, but language appropriate to the "scriptural language" as known by the majority of believers.

[omni]

Its distinctive antiquated language, its rhythms and cadences, which intentionally attempt to create a voice of divine wisdom and truth, were already becoming archaic in the standard English of the time it was being produced...That language had become by then more of a metrical convenience than a spoken norm.

 

 

 

Then from Nibley we learn:

 

The first thing to note is that the "contemporary language" of the country-people of New England 130 years ago was not so far from King James English. Even the New England writers of later generations, like Webster, Melville, and Emerson, lapse into its stately periods and "thees and thous" in their loftier passages.

 

 

The KJV and the BoM translation were separated by 200 years.  So who's correct?

[prismsplay]

A palpable characteristic of the King James Bible was its use of "thee," "thou," "thy," and "thine" where modern English would simply use "you," "your," and "yours"

 

Of course you realize that "thee," "thou," and "thy" are singular, while "you," "your," and "yours" are plural, which means that the King James English is more accurate regarding second person pronouns. If both a group of people and one person are mentioned in a passage, knowing whether a pronoun is singular or plural can help one decide whether it refers to a group of people or one person. Blending both singular and plural into "you," "your," and "yours" can result in unnecessary confusion.

[jkwilliams]

The scriptures have their own "voice" in each language.  That does not mean it is necessary to use archaic language, but language appropriate to the "scriptural language" as known by the majority of believers.

 

That's the key, IMO: it's what the audience expects that matters. An American frontier audience in the 19th century expected KJV language. IIRC, the Spanish Book of Mormon we used sounded quite similar in "voice" to the Reina Valera version of the Bible that we used.

[canard78]

Of course you realize that "thee," "thou," and "thy" are singular, while "you," "your," and "yours" are plural, which means that the King James English is more accurate regarding second person pronouns. If both a group of people and one person are mentioned in a passage, knowing whether a pronoun is singular or plural can help one decide whether it refers to a group of people or one person. Blending both singular and plural into "you," "your," and "yours" can result in unnecessary confusion.

 

Did you know that sometimes the Book of Mormon gets its thees and yous mixed up. I wonder if that helps unnecessary confusion.

[prismsplay]

Did you know that sometimes the Book of Mormon gets its thees and yous mixed up. I wonder if that helps unnecessary confusion.

 

Here is an example of what I was referring to:

 

Notice how second person singular and plural pronouns are used in John 4:19-22, King James Version:

 

The woman saith unto him, Sir, I perceive that thou [singular] art a prophet. Our [samaritan] fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye [plural referring to the Jews] say that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship.

 

Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye [plural referring to the Samaritans] shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father. Ye [Samaritans] worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.

 

Now see how the first modern English version, that of Ferrar Fenton, caused confusion by blending second person singular and plural pronouns into undistinguishing usage:

 

"I perceive, Sir," said the woman, "that You [capitalized to refer to Jesus] are a prophet. Our forefathers worshipped in this very mountain; but you [not capitalized referring to the Jews] say that in Jerusalem is the spot [reminds me of Rameumptom] where one ought to worship."

 

"Woman, believe Me," Jesus answered her, "the time is coming, when neither in this mountain, nor yet in Jerusalem, will you [the woman or the Samaritans?] pay homage to the Father. You [the woman or the Samaritans?] pay homage without knowledge; we pay homage with knowledge: because the salvation comes from among the Judeans."

 

Except where capitalization was used to distinguish who pronouns were referring to, there is unnecessary confusion in Fenton's modern English translation.

Edited November 8, 2013 by prismsplay

[volgadon]

That's the key, IMO: it's what the audience expects that matters. An American frontier audience in the 19th century expected KJV language. IIRC, the Spanish Book of Mormon we used sounded quite similar in "voice" to the Reina Valera version of the Bible that we used.

 

The Russian BoM has a lot of Slavonicisms, such as one would encounter in Orthodox writings.

[volgadon]

Then from Nibley we learn:

 

 

The KJV and the BoM translation were separated by 200 years.  So who's correct?

 

Sorry, I'm not sure that I get the point of your question.

[Robert F. Smith]

Kevin,

My belief is that, scripture or not, the language of the Book of Mormon reflects the expectations of the readers. People in Joseph Smith's time (and even in our time) expect that formal, Jacobean English in scriptures. Writing it out in common vernacular seems almost disrespectful, not because the language is inherently so, but because readers expect that sort of "grandeur" that comes with Jacobean language. It's the same reason we don't often translate Shakespeare into 21st-century prose.

By George, I think you've got it!

[Robert F. Smith]

................................................................................   

So NIV and the numerous other modern versions are false translations?  They certainly seem to be a lot more popular than the KJV.

You might want to obtain and read the free eBook on various biblical translations by an excellent biblical scholar at http://us-mg204.mail.yahoo.com/neo/launch?.partner=sbc&.rand=9mevtauj8mrma#mail .He can provide a fair evaluation of the value of the various translations -- which are often directed at different types of people.

  

 

This is silly.  When the church translates the BoM into other languages does it do so in the ancient style of those languages?  On my mission when we would have investigators read specific passages from their Bible we would often have to explain what certain words meant to them because it was written in an ancient style--and they were the native speakers.  They often enjoyed reading the BoM more than the Bible because it was easier to understand and was written in a contemporary style.  

 

I believe one of the biggest obstacles for people to read the scriptures is the archaic language structure.  This is especially true for young people.  How many times have you been teaching your kids or in primary/YM/YW and you asked one of them to read a couple of scriptures and then explain the meaning only to be met with a blank stare on their faces?  As a non-beleiver, it makes perfect sense why a 19th century uneducated farm boy would write new scripture in KJV style knowing he has to do whatever he can to convince his contemporaries it's scripture.  What doesn't make sense to me is why an omniscient God seeing the big picture and the problems it would cause would allow him to do this.  Just my two cents...

The notion of an omniscient God is most at home in Protestant and Catholic concepts of Scripture being inerrant and infallible, something quite foreign to Mormon theology.

 

We all have our preferences, and I see nothing wrong with that. Your intolerant tendency to make absolute and uninformed judgments is, however, unacceptable. You ought to be broadminded enough to accept the reality that not everyone shares your narrow view.

[cdowis]

Did you know that sometimes the Book of Mormon gets its thees and yous mixed up. I wonder if that helps unnecessary confusion.

 

The Georgia edition uses "you all" to avoid the confusion.

[omni]

Sorry, I'm not sure that I get the point of your question.

 

In your post you quoted an expert who essentially said that the spoken form of Jacobean English was on its way out when the KJV Bible was produced.  But in Kevin's post, Nibley claims that two hundred years later in Joseph's time the language wasn't far removed and some authors still even used it.