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

[Robert F. Smith]

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

Strange thing is, when Smith worked up his own subsequent

version of the KJV, he reverted back to the original Jacobin

scholars' choices, in some cases. Why?

No such choices were made by the Jacobin scholars, as they followed Tyndale.

In any case, when Rigdon and Smith made their revision, it was by way of clarifying the text by their own lights, and only in unusual cases did revelation get mixed in (Book of Moses, Matthew, etc.).

 

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

Were I a Mormon, I'd just chalk it up to the JST MS being left "unfinished"

It was indeed unfinished and is not canonical.

[Uncle Dale]

Trouble is that the KJV is not Jacobin guesswork, but comes from Tyndale.  Virtually all of it.

 

What Tyndale was evidently able to do, was to identify some

of the Hebrew meanings that occurred only once in the biblical

text. Some hints come from the Greek, but the Alexandria

scribes were not such perfectionists as to never make a

mistake. Finding the single-occurring Hebrew words in Targums

and even in Samaritan texts seems to have been helpful. At 

least that sort of scholarship was built upon by James'

committees of specialists.

 

I was told that some of the italicized words are actually present

in the Hebrew -- but not as stand-alone entities. That is to say,

their presence is understood in the construction of a pair

(or a set) of written words, etc.

 

Still, even with all of this grammatical and linguistic knowledge 

at hand, some words remained puzzling. For example, what,

precisely is the meaning of "all the ships of Tarshish?" Might

it also be rendered into English as "all the ships of the sea?"

And, if so decided -- then upon what evidence should such a

change be made?

 

And, if such a change is made, and then later discovered to

be something less than accurate, upon what authority might

it be changed back to the prior translation -- or, perhaps to

a different word entirely?

 

These were the sorts of questions the Jamesian scholars had

to puzzle over, after 99% of their routine work was completed,

and a few unresolved issues remained.

 

They were pious men -- perhaps they "prayed about it" and

prayerfully meditated upon differing translations. Perhaps in

some cases they felt uneasy about their consensus decisions,

but still allowed the controversial translations to be approved.

Probably a few of the italicized words remained merely their

"best guesses," no matter what previous biblical translators

had come up with.

 

When it comes to Joseph Smith, we are given to believe that

he was so ignorant as to not know the particulars of Jerusalem,

as provided in the Hebrew Bible; nor even the proper location

of the Red Sea. And, perhaps not. It is well possible that he

never read the Bible from cover to cover; never looked at

a commentary; never saw a map depicting ancient lands.

 

Possibly his alterations of the KJV came as a series of ideas

into his head, "on-the-fly." Maybe, in a few instances he had

a scribe leave a blank in the written wording, and then went

back and filled in the missing part later on. Perhaps, in a

few cases, he discarded entire sheets of scribal work, and

re-did the "translation." Possibly he occasionally took a break

and consulted the wording of the KJV text, just to "make sure."

 

What I do not believe happened, was that his alterations of the

KJV italicized words came haphazardly, or without conforming 

to something like a standard or a pattern. And -- I doubt very

much that he acted like a robot, unaware of that pattern.

 

Does that mean that some of the passages were written out,

copied from the KJV (with decided upon alterations) in advance

of dictation? Dan Vogel would tell me that is an impossibility,

and that every word dictated flowed from Smith's lips without

any overt design or cunning -- that he never once consulted

an exterior source. And yet, somehow (perhaps from memory)

Vogel does admit a conscious dependance upon the KJV, not

only in replicating passages from Isaiah, Malachi and Matthew,

but also in Smith's decision to emulate entire phrases, idioms

and oddities from the English Bible.

 

How far observant Mormons will agree with Vogel, I do not know.

But it is a part of our shared history that I perceive few people

have bothered looking into very carefully.

 

UD

Edited March 16, 2015 by Uncle Dale

[Uncle Dale]

...

It was indeed unfinished and is not canonical.

 

And yet Smith thought it was close enough to completion to

engage the Law brothers as potential financiers for its

Nauvoo publication. I was told that it was that solicitation

by Smith which first got them inquiring in St. Louis and 

the east about printing presses, type, etc. -- even though

the Wasp (aka Neighbor) could have produced a rough

printing, with limited font, worn type.

 

How close to being finished?

 

Is it possible that the Book of Moses was put through the

press only 99% complete? If so, might the JST and the

PGP not contain an error or two, in those passages?

 

UD

[Robert F. Smith]

And yet Smith thought it was close enough to completion to

engage the Law brothers as potential financiers for its

Nauvoo publication. I was told that it was that solicitation

by Smith which first got them inquiring in St. Louis and 

the east about printing presses, type, etc. -- even though

the Wasp (aka Neighbor) could have produced a rough

printing, with limited font, worn type.

 

How close to being finished?

 

Is it possible that the Book of Moses was put through the

press only 99% complete? If so, might the JST and the

PGP not contain an error or two, in those passages?

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

For the most part, Rigdon and Smith used an 1828 Phinney Bible and marked it up as they proceeded to make small alterations in the margins.  It was truly a revision, even if inspired.  The Book of Moses was an entirely separate matter.

 

 Moreover, even had it been printed (like today's RLDS/CoC Bible is printed as the Holy Scriptures), I don't think it likely that the Joseph Smith would have given it canonical status.  

[Uncle Dale]

For the most part, Rigdon and Smith used an 1828 Phinney Bible and marked it up as they proceeded to make small alterations in the margins.  It was truly a revision, even if inspired.  The Book of Moses was an entirely separate matter.

 

 Moreover, even had it been printed (like today's RLDS/CoC Bible is printed as the Holy Scriptures), I don't think it likely that the Joseph Smith would have given it canonical status.  

 

.

Your opinion, and you're entitled to it, I suppose.

 

My conclusion is that Smith wanted to see the new text

in print at Nauvoo, and had he survived a little longer

would have expended more effort on that project.

 

Had the new bible been published, I'm convinced that

it would have become the standard for all members,

from the newest convert, to missionaries in the field,

to the topmost leaders. In fact, I can easily envision a

situation in which something like the later Deseret

Alphabet would have comprised the published text

and few besides Mormons would be able to read the

book. A scenario rather like the "simplified" Chinese

classics that I picked up in southern China, but

which were practically unintelligible to my Taiwanese 

colleagues. The reciprocal was also the case -- on

the mainland the printings authorized by the Communist

Party were different from the ancient books and the

new generation could not easily comprehend the meanings

of many of the characters in prohibited, pre-revolution

classics (or versions smuggled in from Formosa).

 

To what effect? Well, such an innovation would have made

the task of missionaries preaching in North America and

the British Isles more difficult -- but it could also have brought

in even more converts, curious to know about a Bible that

was essentially that of the 1st Century Apostles, published

in a holy script.

 

To what effect? Also to further isolate the gathered Mormons

from their perceived enemies, the encircling wicked Gentiles.

 

Imagine a generation, post-Nauvoo, in which only the Deseret

Alphabet was used internally, and only the JST was recognized

as the "restored Bible."

 

I really think things were headed that way, after the 1844 Spring

Conference discourses in Nauvoo.

 

UD

[canard78]

Tying the Bible to the BoM adds legitimacy. The Bible was the only scripture most of these people knew, why would he not created that connection?

Especially when those people were supposed to have come straight out of the very place and time when those scriptures were written.

On the question of Joseph's memorisation of the bible... How many people in their teens have have large sections of Malachi memorised, to the point of being able to notice it being misquoted.

He first quoted part of the third chapter of Malachi; and he quoted also the fourth or last chapter of the same prophecy, though with a little variation from the way it reads in our Bibles. Instead of quoting the first verse as it reads in our books, he quoted it thus:

Joseph Smith—History 1:36

Whether there was an angel or not, Joseph didn't seem to think it particularly remarkable to know this section so intimately.

[canard78]

No such choices were made by the Jacobin scholars, as they followed Tyndale.

In any case, when Rigdon and Smith made their revision, it was by way of clarifying the text by their own lights, and only in unusual cases did revelation get mixed in (Book of Moses, Matthew, etc.).

It was indeed unfinished and is not canonical.

Is that why it's called the "inspired" version?

Are we having to throw the JST under the bus these days too? I can understand apologists doing it. I wasn't aware of official publications doing so.

[canard78]

A lot depends upon whether Peter, James & John lied, and whether John the Baptist lied at crucial points.

Your approach leads us into a morass from which there is no extricating one's self.

Your reasoning leads us into an infinite regress -- period.

So many "ifs" and so little time to resolve them.

But flights of fancy are so much fun . . .

Why would PJ&J/JtB need to be lying? I don't remember them going on record saying they were there.

I have to agree with UD though. Either it's all true, or Cowdery was "in on it." I can't believe that it's a fabrication and Cowdery was an innocent bystander. I appreciate the complications his excommunication and subsequent affirmation of the plates/BoM presents. The combination of those two things remains among the most persuasive evidence.

[churchistrue]

Anything new from the conference?

[Uncle Dale]

 

...his excommunication and subsequent affirmation of the plates/BoM presents

...

 

We definitely have Oliver's personal testimony from the 1830s. What it

was in the 1840s, I do not know. But I doubt very much that he would

have been accepted as an associate member of the Methodist congregation

in Ohio, had he then (early 1840s) been testifying to having met Christ

face-to-face in a Mormon temple.

 

It seems that he was never made a full member of that congregation,

so perhaps he held his tongue and did his best to blend in with those

Protestants when he attended their business meetings, etc.

 

We have one letter of his from later in that period, after he'd moved

from Ohio to Wisconsin -- and a passing mention from J. J. Strang,

who then lived nearby. It sounds as if Oliver was well on the road

back to Mormon testimony by the time he reached Kanesville. There

he met with George W. Harris, the head of the local High Council

(and the husband for time, of Joseph Smith's wife-for-eternity, Lucinda

Morgan Harris Smith).

 

Cowdery and Harris appear to have been old friends from 1820s

western New York -- at least they were associates during the early

part of the Far West period. Harris no doubt accepted whatever

Mormon testimony Cowdery was then able to voice.

 

Did Cowdery actually say the exact words attributed to him, upon

being accepted back into the LDS Church? I do not know. I wasn't

there. Nobody who was there wrote down those exact words at

the time and had them published. We depend upon hints left in

preserved correspondence and contemporary journal entries.

 

But it should be made clear that Cowdery's testimony given at

the time of his re-baptism was not published during his remaining

short lifetime, and we have no way of knowing whether or not he

would have then endorsed the supposed typescript as being either

full or accurate.

 

UD

Edited March 16, 2015 by Uncle Dale

[churchistrue]

I've tried to study up on this topic, but I'm thoroughly confused.  From what I understand, this makes it more difficult to defend the BOM not easier.  Does anyone know what Dan Peterson meant by this?

 

"The implications of this article, if it’s valid, are extraordinarily important.  Profound.  And a serious challenge to skeptics."
 

[Uncle Dale]

I've tried to study up on this topic, but I'm thoroughly confused.  From what I understand, this makes it more difficult to defend the BOM not easier.  Does anyone know what Dan Peterson meant by this?

 

"The implications of this article, if it’s valid, are extraordinarily important.  Profound.  And a serious challenge to skeptics."

 

 

.

I suppose that he meant to say that the Book of Mormon does not

just contain English language similar to that found in the King James BIble;

but that the book also contains examples of even older English, which a

boy like Joseph Smith, Jr. could not possibly have known about.

 

The 17th century version of English, he could have copied from the

Bible, but the 16th century English would have been unknown to him.

However it might have gotten into the Book of Mormon, readers cannot

blame the phenomenon upon the boy.

 

Either it appears there through some miraculous means, or else it is

evidence of some unexplainable connection between the book and

the archaic English of 16th century England.

 

I agree that there are some examples of that earlier type of English to

be found in the book -- but I doubt that those examples are there due

to any supernatural influences.

 

UD

[mfbukowski]

For the most part, Rigdon and Smith used an 1828 Phinney Bible and marked it up as they proceeded to make small alterations in the margins.  It was truly a revision, even if inspired.  The Book of Moses was an entirely separate matter.

 

 Moreover, even had it been printed (like today's RLDS/CoC Bible is printed as the Holy Scriptures), I don't think it likely that the Joseph Smith would have given it canonical status.  

I presume you went to the conference Saturday?

 

I almost drove up for it-  do you have any comments about the article from the conference?

[stemelbow]

I've tried to study up on this topic, but I'm thoroughly confused.  From what I understand, this makes it more difficult to defend the BOM not easier.  Does anyone know what Dan Peterson meant by this?

 

"The implications of this article, if it’s valid, are extraordinarily important.  Profound.  And a serious challenge to skeptics."

I guess we're being told when people try to mimick syntax from previous eras they fail, at least to remain consistent. The possibility that Joseph could have done that are vanishingly small--so small it'd be impossible.

then we arrive at the conclusion:

And the 16c printed books containing the heavy use

of this syntax were still largely to be found only in British libraries. So

a compelling position — on account of the lack of any specific, credible

evidence to the contrary — is that the words of the BofM were revealed

to Joseph Smith through the instrument, that they came from a divine

source.

So Joseph didn't have much access to this syntax, although it existed to some extent in the English speaking world. But if he caught it from a newspaper or book, he wouldn't have been able to consistently employ it anywho.

I'm not sure the work really draws the conclusion he states here--the compelling position of it coming from the divine. Maybe it leaves that door open. Don't know. i'm not too excited about it. if the situation is exactly like Carmack describes people would have to trust his word. it seems like those with a critical voice see this and aren't impressed by his effort in saying it'd be impossible for Joseph to use this syntax. So they either 1. have a point, or 2. don't know what they are talking about. if they don't. I don't either. It sounds like he did some rigorous study. It sounds like he knows what he's saying. But what do I know?

[Uncle Dale]

...

then we arrive at the conclusion:

>And the 16c printed books containing the heavy use

>of this syntax were still largely to be found only in

>British libraries.

...

 

.

As I've mentioned elsewhere, this point about the availability

of the ORIGINAL 16th century English books is valid.... but,

there were later reprints and later scholarly works which

quoted extensively from early English writings.

 

Where, in the rural America of the early 19th century, might

such scholarly works be found? Rarely in a public library.

Rarely in an educated minister's home. Rarely in the home

of a countryside farmer.

 

More likely -- among the books of the Master of a Masonic

Lodge (or of a Royal Arch Chapter) -- or among the books

and pamphlets of occultists, astrologers, magicians, etc.

 

Immediately to the south of the Smith farm at Manchester,

sat the Stafford family's farm (along with other Stafford homes

within a mile's radius). And the Staffords, back in Rhode Island,

had been just that sort of occultist family.

 

They even had a seerstone.

 

Gad Stafford (one of the younger members of the extended

family at Manchester) was listed as being one of young Joe

Smith's money-digging followers, before Mormonism began.

 

This same Gad Stafford later moved to southern Geauga Co.,

Ohio (within walking distance of Sidney Rigdon's cabin). He was

tentatively identified (by Dr. Carl M. Brewster of Ohio) as having

been the "juggler" (confidence man) and "glass-looker" who

was mentioned in Elder Lawrence Greatrake's 1826 pamphlet,

published in nearby Ravenna, Ohio.

 

If anybody wishes to see examples of pre-KJV English prose, I

suggest looking at the almanacs and "magus" guides composed

by those New England occultists, quoting John Dee, etc. -- And,

while they are at it, a visit to a major Masonic library may also be

advisable (in order to see what Craft manuscripts circulated among 

the Masonic leaders is western New York -- some composed in code).

 

UD

[Robert F. Smith]

I presume you went to the conference Saturday?

 

I almost drove up for it-  do you have any comments about the article from the conference?

I heard some good things about the conference (Skousen, Welch), but I was not able to attend.  The powers that be had me in the hospital and refused to release me in time to attend.

[Robert F. Smith]

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

Immediately to the south of the Smith farm at Manchester,

sat the Stafford family's farm (along with other Stafford homes

within a mile's radius). And the Staffords, back in Rhode Island,

had been just that sort of occultist family.

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

 

Gad Stafford (one of the younger members of the extended

family at Manchester) was listed as being one of young Joe

Smith's money-digging followers, before Mormonism began.

 

This same Gad Stafford later moved to southern Geauga Co.,

Ohio (within walking distance of Sidney Rigdon's cabin). He was

tentatively identified (by Dr. Carl M. Brewster of Ohio) as having

been the "juggler" (confidence man) and "glass-looker" who

was mentioned in Elder Lawrence Greatrake's 1826 pamphlet,

published in nearby Ravenna, Ohio.

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

Yes, and Stafford Road ran right in front of the Smith log cabin and the later Smith house further west on the other side of the road.

[Robert F. Smith]

I've tried to study up on this topic, but I'm thoroughly confused.  From what I understand, this makes it more difficult to defend the BOM not easier.  Does anyone know what Dan Peterson meant by this?

 

"The implications of this article, if it’s valid, are extraordinarily important.  Profound.  And a serious challenge to skeptics."

 

Since skeptics and anti-Mormons like Dan Vogel are convinced that everything Joseph did came from his immediate environment, this latest data leaves them in limbo -- it shifts the Book of Mormon into a time warp which cannot be explained by contemporary information.

[Robert F. Smith]

What Tyndale was evidently able to do, was to identify some

of the Hebrew meanings that occurred only once in the biblical

text. Some hints come from the Greek, but the Alexandria

scribes were not such perfectionists as to never make a

mistake. Finding the single-occurring Hebrew words in Targums

and even in Samaritan texts seems to have been helpful. At 

least that sort of scholarship was built upon by James'

committees of specialists.

 

I was told that some of the italicized words are actually present

in the Hebrew -- but not as stand-alone entities. That is to say,

their presence is understood in the construction of a pair

(or a set) of written words, etc.

Read the introduction to the 1611 KJV.  It is written by the editor, Miles Smith, and is very informative.

Most italics were used to indicate lack of the Hebrew source in making a smooth translation.  However, different editions of the KJV have differing italics, differing orthography, and differing marginal notes.  In 500 years, vast changes were made, not even considering the Tyndale version.

 

Still, even with all of this grammatical and linguistic knowledge 

at hand, some words remained puzzling. For example, what,

precisely is the meaning of "all the ships of Tarshish?" Might

it also be rendered into English as "all the ships of the sea?"

And, if so decided -- then upon what evidence should such a

change be made?

"Change" by whom?

You probably ought to read Sidney B. Sperry, The Voice of Israel's Prophets (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1965), 90–91, in which he discusses that very issue.  See also Dana M. Pike and David Rolph Seely, “'Upon all the Ships of the Sea, and Upon All the Ships of Tarshish': Revisiting 2 Nephi 12:16 and Isaiah 2:16," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 14/2 (2005):12–25, 67–71, online at  http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/jbms/14/2/S00005-50c257241c7d12Pike:Seely.pdf .

 

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

Possibly his alterations of the KJV came as a series of ideas

into his head, "on-the-fly." Maybe, in a few instances he had

a scribe leave a blank in the written wording, and then went

back and filled in the missing part later on. Perhaps, in a

few cases, he discarded entire sheets of scribal work, and

re-did the "translation." Possibly he occasionally took a break

and consulted the wording of the KJV text, just to "make sure."

 

What I do not believe happened, was that his alterations of the

KJV italicized words came haphazardly, or without conforming 

to something like a standard or a pattern. And -- I doubt very

much that he acted like a robot, unaware of that pattern.

 

Does that mean that some of the passages were written out,

copied from the KJV (with decided upon alterations) in advance

of dictation? Dan Vogel would tell me that is an impossibility,

and that every word dictated flowed from Smith's lips without

any overt design or cunning -- that he never once consulted

an exterior source. And yet, somehow (perhaps from memory)

Vogel does admit a conscious dependance upon the KJV, not

only in replicating passages from Isaiah, Malachi and Matthew,

but also in Smith's decision to emulate entire phrases, idioms

and oddities from the English Bible.

 

How far observant Mormons will agree with Vogel, I do not know.

But it is a part of our shared history that I perceive few people

have bothered looking into very carefully.

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

 

Actually, you would be wrong:  Many people have looked into the matter with great care, and the following scholars believe that Joseph did in fact consult a Bible from time to time while in the midst of translation in 1829, but only for long quotations:  B. H. Roberts, H. Grant Vest, Sidney Sperry, Daniel H. Ludlow, Stanley R. Larson, me, and others. 

 

By the way, CFR on Vogel:

 

Dan Vogel would tell me that is an impossibility,

and that every word dictated flowed from Smith's lips without

any overt design or cunning -- that he never once consulted

an exterior source.

Edited March 18, 2015 by Robert F. Smith

[Uncle Dale]

Read the introduction to the 1611 KJV.  It is written by the editor, Miles Smith, and is very informative.

Most italics were used to indicate lack of the Hebrew source in making a smooth translation.  However, different editions of the KJV have differing italics, differing orthography, and differing marginal notes.  In 500 years, vast changes were made, not even considering the Tyndale version.

 

"Change" by whom?

You probably ought to read Sidney B. Sperry, The Voice of Israel's Prophets (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1965), 90–91, in which he discusses that very issue.  See also Dana M. Pike and David Rolph Seely, “'Upon all the Ships of the Sea, and Upon All the Ships of Tarshish': Revisiting 2 Nephi 12:16 and Isaiah 2:16," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 14/2 (2005):12–25, 67–71, online at  http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/jbms/14/2/S00005-50c257241c7d12Pike:Seely.pdf .

 

 

Actually, you would be wrong:  Many people have looked into the matter with great care, and the following scholars believe that Joseph did in fact consult a Bible from time to time while in the midst of translation in 1829, but only for long quotations:  B. H. Roberts, H. Grant Vest, Sidney Sperry, Daniel H. Ludlow, Stanley R. Larson, me, and others. 

 

By the way, CFR on Vogel:

 

Dan Vogel would tell me that is an impossibility,

and that every word dictated flowed from Smith's lips without

any overt design or cunning -- that he never once consulted

an exterior source.

There is a lengthy conversation between him and myself preserved

in the on-line archives of another forum (which I'm not sure I'm allowed

to cite here). His stance on these matters is drawn from a literal and

trusting reliance upon the early Mormon witnesses.

Thus, he agrees that Smith wrote the book, but that it came from

his lips as a continuous stream of consciousness dictation. While

he relied upon sections of the KJV, he never had it upon the

table (or in his lap, I suppose) as he dictated.

You're more familiar with the rules here, so perhaps you can

go over to that hostile, anti-LDS site and lift some quotes

for reference here.

UD

[canard78]

Since skeptics and anti-Mormons like Dan Vogel are convinced that everything Joseph did came from his immediate environment, this latest data leaves them in limbo -- it shifts the Book of Mormon into a time warp which cannot be explained by contemporary information.

Yes, you're right. If it could be shown, conclusively, that the Book of Mormon has content that couldn't possibly have been written but Joseph then it would indeed by strong evidence.

But I haven't seen that established at all.

[mfbukowski]

I heard some good things about the conference (Skousen, Welch), but I was not able to attend.  The powers that be had me in the hospital and refused to release me in time to attend.

Hope all is well.  These "golden years" are not all they are cracked-up to be! 

[Robert F. Smith]

Yes, you're right. If it could be shown, conclusively, that the Book of Mormon has content that couldn't possibly have been written but Joseph then it would indeed by strong evidence.

But I haven't seen that established at all.

D'accord.  The discussion on all that EarlyModernEnglish aspect of things has merely gotten started, although this has already been shown in other areas of Book of Mormon inquiry -- much to the consternation of Vogel and friends.

[stemelbow]

D'accord.  The discussion on all that EarlyModernEnglish aspect of things has merely gotten started, although this has already been shown in other areas of Book of Mormon inquiry -- much to the consternation of Vogel and friends.

If its just getting started then why is he concluding that the most compelling argument for BoM translation is that it came from a divine source?

No one accepts that but believers at this point.

[UtahTexan]

If its just getting started then why is he concluding that the most compelling argument for BoM translation is that it came from a divine source?

No one accepts that but believers at this point.

 

And?  No one but believers accept the Bible as coming from a Divine Source, either.....