1500S Grammar In The Book Of Mormon. Help Me See Why That's "dramatically Exciting"

[mfbukowski]

.

Rational? Who? Me?

 

Naw -- I'm much more taken by the mystical muse --

the transcending of reason -- the life of prayer --

becoming ohutne with God -- and the final realization --

the ultimate theosis.

 

I just read the Journal of Mormon History to occupy my

attention during my increasingly frequent trips to the

"little boys' room."

 

UD

Baloney.

If that were true, you would not be here shoveling all this history s...tuff.

[mfbukowski]

I'll paste in below the final paragraph from Noel Carmack's

Summer 2014 MHA paper, "The Curious Case of Joseph Howard,

Palmyra’s Seventeen-Year-Old Somnium Preacher" --

 

 

I'm convinced that the young farmboy "Prophet" Joseph Howard (who lived

just north of Palmyra, in Sodus) was a fake -- what folks back then called

a "juggler" or a "necromancer." But he was evidently mimicking the more

likely authentic prophesying in biblical language, reported as coming from

Rachel Baker. She was a resident of Onondaga Co., New York -- the same

place that Samuel L. Mitchell identified as the ancient Garden of Eden. She

was brought to Mitchell for examination and analysis. This was the same guy

to whom Nephite "caractors" were later brought for examination and analysis.

 

At any rate, young Howard played the part of a prophet, to the satisfaction

of many of his upstate New York admirers. Whether his prophecies were

delivered in KJV English or in earlier, archaic literary English, I don't know.

However, I have the sneaking suspicion that Joseph Howard's trances were 

imitation Mesmerizings, produced by "Walters the Magician" of Sodus, who 

claimed to have traveled to Europe. Mesmer's hypnosis was in vogue there

quite awhile before it became popular in America. Either an authentic display

of hypnosis (or a con artist's bogus show of hypnosis) would have caused

quite a sensation in and around Palmyra in 1818-19 (the year before the

purported "first vision" of another prophetic farmboy from that same area).

 

???

 

UD

You still seem to holding to the impression that there is a rational way to discern a "true" prophet from a "fake".

As a good mystic, you should know the only way to know a true prophet from a fake is to be one yourself.

A testimony of Christ is the spirit of prophecy, it says in one of those ancient manuscripts that got canonized.

[mfbukowski]

Wife just set that book on my nightstand the other night, as luck would have it. I'll have to get into it.

My favorite single quote in the whole book:

 

At the same time, Mormon conceptions of a human nature unencumbered by original sin or inherited depravity comport perfectly with the nineteenth-century zenith of liberal humanism, with its celebration of human potential, sense of boundlessness, and Romantic optimism.

Givens, Terryl L. (2014-09-19). Wrestling the Angel: The Foundations of Mormon Thought: Cosmos, God, Humanity (p. 191). Oxford University Press. Kindle Edition.

In case your pagination is different, you can look it up in the index under "Humanism". Edited March 3, 2015 by mfbukowski

[The Nehor]

It is dramatically exciting in the same way a new social media app, a discovery of more Dead Sea Scrolls or a new Call of Duty game is dramatically exciting. It is generally exciting for only a small subset of the population.

This is normal. If I told you why I am excited for this weekend the general response would be "What?" followed by a Google search. The Google search would only happen in cases of extreme boredom.

Edited March 3, 2015 by The Nehor

[Uncle Dale]

You still seem to holding to the impression that there is a rational way to discern a "true" prophet from a "fake".

 

....

 

.

Not so much that, as for another reason -- do I draw attention

to history and the artifacts of the supposed "past" -- that

intangible speculation that Henry Ford called "bunk."

 

Typically (in fact almost without exception) the reply I get

from Mormons is "No, Dale -- The Book of Mormon is true;

there is no way on earth that the illiterate kid, Brother Joseph

could have concocted it. Why, he could barely write his name."

 

And, I must admit, that is a very effective way to shut down

a non-believer, or an investigator asking too many irritating

questions. In my younger days, as a missionary associate,

I probably said the same thing, now and then.

 

But -- since the Mormons themselves bring up "history," and

almost immediately refer the investigator to the PGP history

of young Smith -- and rebuff suggestions of a non-Nephite

BoM orgin, with appeals to the historic fact of young Smith's

purported activities....

 

...Well, if the Mormons are allowed to use history, almost

uniformly and predictably, to show us Gentiles (and apostates)

the "Truth," then I see nothing wrong with our looking into

history, just a little, to make sure we are not being sold a lemon.

 

On the other hand, just saying "OK, lead me to the Stake Center

baptismal font," would certainly be an easier, simpler, and finalizing

capitulation. Donate all the history books to the public library, or,

better yet, to the next Boy Scout paper-drive.

 

What was it Winston Smith said? -- At last he agreed Big Brother was right?

 

And I could end all of this internet nonsense -- just by saying that the

realization has finally hit me -- Jedediah M. Grant was right!

 

UD

(or was that Jedediah Clampett? I always get those two confused)

[Mystery Meat]

The correct answer to this is:

 

Who cares?

[The Nehor]

The correct answer to this is:

 

Who cares?

Just a bunch of nerds.

[mfbukowski]

.

Not so much that, as for another reason -- do I draw attention

to history and the artifacts of the supposed "past" -- that

intangible speculation that Henry Ford called "bunk."

 

Typically (in fact almost without exception) the reply I get

from Mormons is "No, Dale -- The Book of Mormon is true;

there is no way on earth that the illiterate kid, Brother Joseph

could have concocted it. Why, he could barely write his name."

 

And, I must admit, that is a very effective way to shut down

a non-believer, or an investigator asking too many irritating

questions. In my younger days, as a missionary associate,

I probably said the same thing, now and then.

 

But -- since the Mormons themselves bring up "history," and

almost immediately refer the investigator to the PGP history

of young Smith -- and rebuff suggestions of a non-Nephite

BoM orgin, with appeals to the historic fact of young Smith's

purported activities....

 

...Well, if the Mormons are allowed to use history, almost

uniformly and predictably, to show us Gentiles (and apostates)

the "Truth," then I see nothing wrong with our looking into

history, just a little, to make sure we are not being sold a lemon.

 

On the other hand, just saying "OK, lead me to the Stake Center

baptismal font," would certainly be an easier, simpler, and finalizing

capitulation. Donate all the history books to the public library, or,

better yet, to the next Boy Scout paper-drive.

 

What was it Winston Smith said? -- At last he agreed Big Brother was right?

 

And I could end all of this internet nonsense -- just by saying that the

realization has finally hit me -- Jedediah M. Grant was right!

 

UD

(or was that Jedediah Clampett? I always get those two confused)

Well I can't disagree.

It's my mission to show that history is irrelevant to religion and I think everyone is tired of hearing that from me, but no one has yet been able to refute it.

The purpose of religion is give one a unified view of their reason for being alive, to give purpose, meaning and direction to their lives. Factual evidence cannot do that.

No one gets out of bed in the morning to verify that water still boils at 212 degrees F. or because Washington did or did not cross the Delaware. They may get out of bed to argue about it because arguing gives them purpose in life. Even in that case, the evidence itself is unimportant- the arguing is the motivation. The problem around here is that people actually seem to think that historical facts make a difference.  What they do not recognize is that believing that the BOM, say, is historically accurate is itself a religious belief.  Same for the Bible, the Avesta, or pick your favorite scripture.

 

Hume knew that, many philosophers before him, and pretty much every philosopher since Hume have known that, but that has not trickled down to the common man.   When I am dictator of the universe, I will teach kids philosophy in High School, but I suppose then I will get the same treatment Socrates did.

[canard78]

You have certainly picked the least likely solution. I don't believe that one either but there are certainly several better ones so try again. I am sure that if you concentrate you can do it.

I'm aware of the alternative. That God/the translator placing words on the stone decided to put linguistic "Easter eggs" into the text to act as evidence for a doubting generation.

So far, I've only seen believers consider this to have any merit at all. I'm yet to see a doubter say: "well in that case I have no more concerns about the BoM given it has EmodE in it."

[canard78]

Please show us how Joseph could have "easily picked up on" that one form of syntax to the extent that is in the Book of Mormon. The article by Carmack argues against it.

Glenn

Because he was also using it in early sections of the D&C which are contemporaneous to the BoM translation.

[ERayR]

I'm aware of the alternative. That God/the translator placing words on the stone decided to put linguistic "Easter eggs" into the text to act as evidence for a doubting generation.

So far, I've only seen believers consider this to have any merit at all. I'm yet to see a doubter say: "well in that case I have no more concerns about the BoM given it has EmodE in it."

 

Keep trying.

[sundrytimes]

Please show us how Joseph could have "easily picked up on" that one form of syntax to the extent that is in the Book of Mormon. The article by Carmack argues against it.

 

Glenn

 

As canard78 pointed out, Smith was using the same ADP did in the D&C as found in the BM, which Carmack would argue is practically anachronistic.

 

I lay out this issue here – http://sundrytimes.org/lds-did-rejoice/

 

Of course, it could be argued that Smith uses the same archaic syntax having been influenced by (not the influencer of) the BM. So the issue becomes moot, really. The real question becomes, Why is there 16c EModE present if the BM (if it is there authentically). I think, in my humble opinion, that we're left with two options: (1) God favors Jacobean English over 19c American English for some unknown reason or (2) LDS scholars are seeing patterns where they do not exist – a writer's tic, like "and it came to pass" –  that has thrown them off trail a bit.

[pogi]

As canard78 pointed out, Smith was using the same ADP did in the D&C as found in the BM, which Carmack would argue is practically anachronistic.

 

I lay out this issue here – http://sundrytimes.org/lds-did-rejoice/

 

Of course, it could be argued that Smith uses the same archaic syntax having been influenced by (not the influencer of) the BM. So the issue becomes moot, really. The real question becomes, Why is there 16c EModE present if the BM (if it is there authentically). I think, in my humble opinion, that we're left with two options: (1) God favors Jacobean English over 19c American English for some unknown reason or (2) LDS scholars are seeing patterns where they do not exist – a writer's tic, like "and it came to pass" –  that has thrown them off trail a bit.

 

As an RN, I can't help but chuckle every time you use the abbreviation "BM" instead of BoM.  I hope Joseph was not influenced by a BM. 

[Robert F. Smith]

I think you're on to something there, omni -- but perhaps a

wider perspective is called for, in examining the BoM text.

 

Here and there we can pick out very poor attempts at emulating

KJV English -- they stand out like sore thumbs, when compared

alongside the book's actual copying from Isaiah, Malachi, etc.

The impetus to try and render Jacobin English of that style might 

have come from reading the Protestant KJV, or KJV Apocrypha,

or early translations of Josephus (printed in some Bibles) or even

from listening to Quaker vernacular.

 

But the Book of Mormon also includes rather proper and successful

Jacobin English emulations -- just the sort of dichotomy we might 

expect if the Nephite Record was a joint product of two 19th century

writers, one of whom was more adapt at mimicking biblical passages 

(say, Joseph Smith, Jr. and Hyrum -- or perhaps Mother Smith, or

even Oliver Cowdery being the second, more accomplished writer).

 

However, besides all of that, there are two other interesting phenomena

discernible in the BoM text (sans the biblical borrowings) -- one of those

is its incorporation of two different contemporary American English

vernaculars (a variety common to New England, and another style more

typically found in the late 18th century Appalachians). 

 

And the second discernible oddity is just what Carmack's article points to,

and that is occasional instances of an archaic (pre-KJV) literary English.

And, as I also mentioned here in this thread, it is the sort of English we

might see in a John Dee or Edward Kelley treatise on conjuring, which

included lengthy quotations from a previous era, a couple of generations

before their time. See Noel Carmack's article in the summer 2014 JofMH

for some background on this arcane literature.

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

 

Somebody who contributed passages to the 1830 Book of Mormon text

was familiar with this esoteric, magickal lore -- with the Faculty of Abrac;

either that, or else a contributor to that Nephite Record had access to

examples of archaic English relating to religion, theology, supernatural,

etc. Perhaps a "Walters the Magician" from Sodus, New York (from which

place came another early 19th century prophet, speaking biblical prose,

who shared Palmyra's Dr. McIntire with the Joseph Smith family). Or,

perhaps the Master of the Palmyra Lodge, attended by Joseph Smith, Sr.

Or perhaps some neighbor Royal Arch Mason, interested in Enochian

lore promoted by that masonic fraternity (and explicated by Dee, Kelley

and other proto-masons, decades before Scottish Rite Freemason Bruce

actually tracked down and communicated the contents of Ethiopian Enoch).

 

Look for a Joseph Smith contemporary who was literate enough to have

an interest in archaic English, preserved in arcane and occult writings, and

then search for a possible association with the Smith family at Palmyra.

 

UD

You're drifting now, Dale, which is uncharacteristic of you.

 

Carmack and Skousen have been discussing the various archaic aspects of the Book of Mormon for some years now, and we are faced with a multifaceted phenomenon which cannot easily be explained away by some convenient scapegoat.  They are able to show, through a variety of consistent archaisms (vocabularly, syntax, tense, etc.), that around the time of Tyndale these phenomena peaked and then disappeared from literature and the vernacular.  This irks the environmentalists like Vogel (who insist that everything came from Joseph's day and time), as well as the true believers (who have thought that Joseph actually did the translation as described).

 

It doesn't matter whether you are a believer in Einsteinian mechanics or Newtonian mechanics, Quantum theory is likely to annoy you.  And that is the problem we face here, and we need to face up to the disorienting fact that we may have to find new explanations -- with all the risk and uncertainty which that brings.

[Uncle Dale]

You're drifting now, Dale, which is uncharacteristic of you.

Carmack and Skousen have been discussing the various archaic aspects of the Book of Mormon for some years now

...

It would be very helpful if somebody would chart these phenomena out,

all across the 1830 Book of Mormon text.

Metcalfe spent 40 pages, back in 1993, just showing us where in the text

to look for "wherefore" and those spots in which "therefore" appeared,

instead. He didn't bother to construct a chart, but others have. That's a

fairly simple distribution pattern to demonstrate graphically.

 

larger scale image of the above chart

.

But, extend that process -- and determine if any other word dichotomies,

or unexpected word occurrences follow that same distribution pattern

Metcalfe alerted us to, with just those two words.

Determine what the dozen most frequently found instances of vocabulary

or grammar peculiar to pre-KJV English are, in the Book of Mormon, and

overlay their distributions on a long chart, representing the full text.

To begin with, such a distribution should be expected to contain "blank"

spots where the reproductions from Isaiah, Malachi and Matthew occur;

and I presume that would be the case, with perhaps a couple of minor

exceptions. Within those biblical chapter "gaps," check each of the KJV

italicized words, to see what occurs in the BoM at those spots in the text.

Are there any indications of a pattern in the italicized words changed in

the BoM text? What relationship (if any) does that particular distribution

bear to the remainder of the book -- and more especially to whatever

patterns were discovered in the archaic (15th century) English occurences?

Then, chart out the occurrences of faulty KJV (early 17th century) emulation

across the entire Book of Mormon. What is their pattern of distribution? Do

they all bunch up in Alma? Are they spread evenly through the text? Are they

absent from Metcalfe's areas of wherefore (or therefore) locations?

Then, chart out the occurrences of the proper KJV emulations -- those unique

Book of Mormon sentences and passages where the vocabulary used and the

grammar employed are consistent with the book's copying from the Bible.

It would be best if the Mormon scholars did this work, in advance of any coming

non-LDS textual analysis. Just like it would have been better for an observant

Mormon to have "beaten to the punch" the publication of priority of Mosiah evidence.

However, if the Mormon scholars are not interested in reporting their discoveries

in such a graphic and comprehensive manner, then I know of at least two serious

non-LDS textual analysts who will compile and publish pretty much what I've outlined.

And that scenario doesn't even begin to touch upon the distribution of language

typical of late 18th century Appalachian vernacular -- nor the distribution of patterns

in the BoM text more resembling the "wordprint" of Joseph Smith, Jr. than that of

Mother Smith, Oliver Cowdery, etc. etc.

Or, I may not live to see a resolution. The doc says to expect

a few more years. I may lose interest one of these days.

UD

Edited March 4, 2015 by Uncle Dale

[omni]

Please show us how Joseph could have "easily picked up on" that one form of syntax to the extent that is in the Book of Mormon. The article by Carmack argues against it.

Glenn

The article states that the usage of the syntax in the Bible occurred about 2% of the time. This may not sound like a lot, but over a book the size of the Bible you'll get quite a few instances. Joseph may have very well picked up on this either consciously or subconsciously and used it throughout the BoM, but at a greater frequency.

If one today were to write a 500 page book in Jacobian English then they too may very well discover a greater/lesser usage of certain syntaxes or idioms than what was commonly used at the time. And perhaps just one of those syntaxes (and I'm sure there are many) may come close to matching the frequency of another time period. If you can't find a match for English, try the test with Hebrew, then Egyptian, then Mayan, Olmec, or one of the many Native American languages. Throw enough spaghetti at a wall and one of them is bound to stick.

Edited March 4, 2015 by omni

[Robert F. Smith]

The article states that the usage of the syntax in the Bible occurred about 2% of the time.  This may not sound like a lot, but over a book the size of the Bible you'll get quite a few instances.  Joseph may have very well picked up on this either consciously or unconsciously and used it throughout the BoM, but at a greater frequency.

As I pointed out in one of my comments following Carmack's Interpreter article, the size of the Bible is not the problem, rather it is the variety of literary genres therein.  The BofM is nearly all narrative, with narrative style verbal usage, whereas very large parts of the Bible are poetry, legislation, and such, with very different verbal patterns.  I was very surprised that, in his reply, Carmack did not understand the statistical problem.  He counts the rate of narrative usage over the whole Bible and whole BofM as though they were commensurables.  Like any non-scientific poll, that is valueless.

 

If one today were to write a 500 page book in Jacobian English then they too may very well discover an greater/lesser usage of certain syntaxes or idioms than what was commonly used at the time.  And perhaps just one of those syntaxes (and I'm sure there are many) may come close to matching the frequency of use of another time period.  If you can't find a match for English, try the test with Hebrew, then Egyptian, then Mayan, Olmec, or one of the many Native American languages.  Throw enough spaghetti at a wall and one of them is bound to stick.

Non-scientific polls will always fail, no matter how much spaghetti you throw at the wall.

[Robert F. Smith]

It would be very helpful if somebody would chart these phenomena out,

all across the 1830 Book of Mormon text.

Metcalfe spent 40 pages, back in 1993, just showing us where in the text

to look for "wherefore" and those spots in which "therefore" appeared,

instead. He didn't bother to construct a chart, but others have. That's a

fairly simple distribution pattern to demonstrate graphically.

Brent was one-dimensional in his approach, and it never occurred to him that one can change preferences as a translator over time.  I've even done it.  It tells us nothing.

I thought my approach to the usage of "it came to pass" far superior because it was nuanced and scientific.  Apparently you agreed since you published in on your website:  http://premormon.com/resources/r003/003Smith.pdf .

 

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

Determine what the dozen most frequently found instances of vocabulary

or grammar peculiar to pre-KJV English are, in the Book of Mormon, and

overlay their distributions on a long chart, representing the full text.

To begin with, such a distribution should be expected to contain "blank"

spots where the reproductions from Isaiah, Malachi and Matthew occur;

and I presume that would be the case, with perhaps a couple of minor

exceptions. Within those biblical chapter "gaps," check each of the KJV

italicized words, to see what occurs in the BoM at those spots in the text.

Are there any indications of a pattern in the italicized words changed in

the BoM text? What relationship (if any) does that particular distribution

bear to the remainder of the book -- and more especially to whatever

patterns were discovered in the archaic (15th century) English occurences?

Then, chart out the occurrences of faulty KJV (early 17th century) emulation

across the entire Book of Mormon. What is their pattern of distribution? Do

they all bunch up in Alma? Are they spread evenly through the text? Are they

absent from Metcalfe's areas of wherefore (or therefore) locations?

Then, chart out the occurrences of the proper KJV emulations -- those unique

Book of Mormon sentences and passages where the vocabulary used and the

grammar employed are consistent with the book's copying from the Bible.

It would be best if the Mormon scholars did this work, in advance of any coming

non-LDS textual analysis. Just like it would have been better for an observant

Mormon to have "beaten to the punch" the publication of priority of Mosiah evidence.

However, if the Mormon scholars are not interested in reporting their discoveries

in such a graphic and comprehensive manner, then I know of at least two serious

non-LDS textual analysts who will compile and publish pretty much what I've outlined.

And that scenario doesn't even begin to touch upon the distribution of language

typical of late 18th century Appalachian vernacular -- nor the distribution of patterns

in the BoM text more resembling the "wordprint" of Joseph Smith, Jr. than that of

Mother Smith, Oliver Cowdery, etc. etc.

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

Some of what you suggest was already done by me years ago, and much of it in the first two editions of the FARMS Book of Mormon Critical Text, 3 volumes (1984-1987), of which I was editor.  I am working on a third edition of it accessible online.

 

I don't care who does the work, only that it be professional and above board.

[Uncle Dale]

 

... It tells us nothing....

 

Actually, I believe that it does.

 

It strengthens and confirms (to me at least) that the first quarter

and the last quarter of the Book of Mormon were "translated"

apart from a continuing rendering of the text from Mosiah onward.

 

I know that there are some skeptics, who insist that the text was

set down in the manuscript, in just the same chronological order

as we see them compiled in the 1830 book (priority of 1st Nephi).

 

But, I see also that numerous (perhaps the majority of) BoM scholars

now accept the "priority of Mosiah" -- and that the "few pages retained"

when Harris took the Book of Lehi away (and lost it) were ones beginning

the set "translated" from April 6, 1829 onward.

 

There are other reasons for accepting this transcription order, but if 

Metcalfe's paper "tells us nothing," then those additional points are

weakened and the entire "Mosiah priority" wikipedia page should be

scrapped.

 

I'm one who believes that graphic depiction communicates textual analysis

in ways that the typical reader does not pick up reading page after page

of prose. In an instant he/she comprehends that "it came to pass" is almost 

entirely lacking in Moroni, and rare in 2nd Nephi. (Some guy whose name I

forget at the moment showed me that a couple of years back -- made for

a pretty chart).

 

Oh well...

 

UD

Edited March 4, 2015 by Uncle Dale

[mfbukowski]

I'm aware of the alternative. That God/the translator placing words on the stone decided to put linguistic "Easter eggs" into the text to act as evidence for a doubting generation.

So far, I've only seen believers consider this to have any merit at all. I'm yet to see a doubter say: "well in that case I have no more concerns about the BoM given it has EmodE in it."

Gosh, do you think that might be because evidence doesn't convince people of spiritual truths?

 

Nah, it couldn't be that.

[canard78]

The correct answer to this is:

Who cares?

Me, I guess

[canard78]

Keep trying.

Had we but world enough, and time,

This coyness, ERayR, were no crime...

...But at my back I always hear

Time's winged chariot hurrying near

[sundrytimes]

As an RN, I can't help but chuckle every time you use the abbreviation "BM" instead of BoM.  I hope Joseph was not influenced by a BM. 

 

... Well, I mean, he did live in the 19c, so who knows what his diet consisted of? (minus hot and strong drink, of course)

[stemelbow]

Certainly, I would say, the bigger question that seems outstanding is what influenced the syntax?

I agree that something like this piece isn't going to mean much to critics, after all they've approached the issue that Joseph created the book, most likely, with some help. The critic points to different books as influence, and different people. We'll never satisfy critics until or unless we can figure out how the translation actually occurred. I realize, largely Skousen has tried and is trying to answer some of this, but it seems like the issue remains unresolved.

Every time we hear that it is likely Joseph read words, in groups of 20 or so, and that he couldn't move on unless it was copied correctly, we'll be at a huge disadvantage when you consider all the problem that resulted from direct transmission. And as it is everyone wants to say, well if God did it then it ought to be pristine. And I still say what does it mean to say it was done by the power of God?

It still seems to me, it's as if stories were given to Joseph, he saw things and perhaps even read some of it. But the text was put down to craft "scripture", thus the attempted KJV English, and tell the stories that were coming at him. Word for word just doesn't seem feasible to me. But I'm wrong about nearly everything, so whateves.

[rongo]

I think Hugh Nibley's point at the end of this excellent section (bolded) is very relevant to the OP:

 

“The next most devastating argument against the Book of Mormon was that it actually quoted the Bible. The early critics were simply staggered by the incredible stupidity of including large sections of the Bible in a book which they insisted was specifically designed to fool the Bible‐reading public. They screamed blasphemy and plagiarism at the top of their lungs, but today any biblical scholar knows that it would be extremely suspicious if a book purporting to be the product of a society of pious emigrants from

Jerusalem in ancient times did not quote the Bible. No lengthy religious writing of the Hebrews could conceivably be genuine if it was not full of scriptural quotations.  

 

“ . . . the emphasis [in criticisms] has now shifted to two other points, (1) that the Book of Mormon contains, to quote another writer of Christianity Today, ‘passages lifted bodily from the King James Version,’ and (2) that it quotes, not only from the Old Testament, but also the New Testament as well . . . As to the ‘passages lifted bodily from the King James Version,’ we first ask, ‘How else does one quote scripture if not bodily?’ And why should anyone quoting the Bible to American readers of 1830 not follow the only version of the Bible known to them?  

 

“Actually the Bible passages quoted in the Book of Mormon often differ from the King James Version, but where the latter is correct there is every reason why it should be followed. When Jesus and the Apostles and, for that matter, the Angel Gabriel quote the scriptures in the New Testament, do they recite from some mysterious Urtext? Do they quote the prophets of old in the ultimate original? Do they give their own inspired translations? No, they do not. They quote the Septuagint, a Greek version of the Old

Testament prepared in the third century B.C. Why so? Because that happened to be the received standard version of the Bible accepted by the readers of the Greek New Testament. When ‘holy men of God’ quote the scriptures it is always in the received standard version of the people they are addressing.  

 

We do not claim the King James Version or the Septuagint to be the original scriptures—in fact, nobody on earth today knows where the original scriptures are or what they say. Inspired men have in every age been content to accept the received version of the people among whom they labored, with the Spirit giving correction where correction was necessary.  

 

Since the Book of Mormon is a translation, ‘with all its faults,’ [this was the title of a series of articles on Bible manuscripts and texts in Christianity Today at the time of Nibley’s article]  into English for English‐speaking people whose fathers for generations had known no other scriptures but the standard English Bible, it would be both pointless and confusing to present the scriptures to them in any other form, so far as their teachings were correct.  

 

What is thought to be a very serious charge against the Book of Mormon today is that it, a book written down long before New Testament times and on the other side of the world, actually quotes the New Testament! True, it is the same Savior speaking in both, and the same Holy Ghost, and so we can expect the same doctrines in the same language. But what about the "Faith, Hope and Charity" passage in Moroni 7:45? Its resemblance to 1 Corinthians 13 is undeniable. This particular passage, recently singled

out for attack in Christianity Today, is actually one of those things that turn out to be a striking vindication of the Book of Mormon. For the whole passage, which scholars have labeled ‘the Hymn to Charity,’ was shown early in this century by a number of first‐rate investigators working independently (A. Harnack, J. Weiss, R. Reizenstein) to have originated not with Paul at all, but to go back to some older but unknown source: Paul is merely quoting from the record.  Now it so happens that other Book of Mormon writers were also peculiarly fond of quoting from the record. Captain Moroni, for example, reminds his people of an old tradition about the two garments of Joseph, telling them a detailed story which I have found only in a thousand‐year‐old commentary on the Old Testament, a work still untranslated and quite unknown to the world of Joseph Smith. So I find it not a refutation but a confirmation of the authenticity of the Book of Mormon when Paul and Moroni both quote from a once well‐known but now lost Hebrew writing.

 

Now as to [the] 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 non‐biblical 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.’   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 . . . 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.’ 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!” (Hugh Nibley, “The Prophetic Book of Mormon,” [salt Lake City:

Deseret, 1990] pp. 214‐218).