How did Matthew's Gospel get into the BOM?

[flameburns623]

PaulDupre:

I’d like to point out that Jesus did not speak in Elizabethan English, and neither did the people of Joseph Smith’s day. Why then is the BoM and all of JS’s reveleations written in King James lingo? Because JS was trying to sound “scriptural”, and to him that meant KJV English.

It is perplexing that the Urim and Thummim (or Joseph’s seer stone in his hat) produces KJV grammar and vocabulary no matter what century it’s in. Maybe the dial is stuck.

I spoke to that issue and to the issue of how ‘literal’ the translation of the Book of Mormon might actually be in a prior post in this thread:

flameburns623:

I don’t think contemporary LDS apologists deny that Smith allowed his own personality and linguistic style to influence how he translated the BOM–so it would be a translation following rules of ‘dynamic equivalence’ more than of ‘direct quivalence’. There is, as you may know no small debate even in the translation of the Bible over whether a loose translation, using ‘dynamic equivalence’ is not in many ways more accurate than a strctly-literal translation using the rules of ‘direct equivalence’. Hence–the BOM could indeed be a ‘more-perfect’ translation than the KJV because it captures the SENSE of the originals, without necessarily being more literal than the KJV.

Of course–Smith used Elisabethan-sounding English in his BOM. One might argue that the BOM was translated from plates transcribed over a period of about a millenium, and that Nephite language(s) changed at least as much over that time as has English over the past thousand years. It can be further surmised that the plates preserved a form of Nephite language which was at least as antique-sounding to the Nephite peoples as is the KJV to English-speaking peoples today. This in fact IS what one article I read did argue.

I think these responses are PLAUSIBLE but UNPROVABLE given that we lack the original text of the Book of Mormon (the gold plates) and can therefore not falsify or verify them.

So far as the ‘language’ of Jesus and the Apostles: as it appears in the Greek New Testament, scholars tell us it is a highly stylised form of Koine Greek which would NOT have sounded like conversational Greek. The Septuagint (Greek Old Testament), widely quoted by New Testament authors, also had an ‘antique’ or ‘formal’ sound even to Greek speakers. It wouldn’t have been ‘Elisabethan English’ but it would have had a flavor quite distinct from that of daily language. Since we have no original manuscripts in Aramaic–the language Christ proably actually spoke in, we can’t be certain whether Christ spoke in such a formalized way in Aramaic as well.

The text of the Scripture however–which is inspired–lends itself to something approaching ‘liturgical’ language, formal language which has it’s own rhythym and cadence and which is highly memorable. The Latin Vulgate, incidentally was equally ‘formal’ in it’s phraseology: written in the Latin of the common people, to be certain, but NOT the Latin spoken commonly in the streets. Nor was the King James Version itself written in ‘street English’–people simply did not talk in quite the same way that the KJV is written, at least not by the time the KJV was executed.

For Joseph Smith to ‘translate’ using the same sort of ‘formal English’ could plausibly be accepted as within the tradition of how Scripture should be transmitted. It is modern translators who have rejected tradition in this respect, attempting to make the Bible sound like ordinary conversational language.

All of which begs the question, since I doubt that Smith had any gold plates, or that he translated from them.

 

[arieh0310]

flameburns623:

For Joseph Smith to ‘translate’ using the same sort of ‘formal English’ could plausibly be accepted as within the tradition of how Scripture should be transmitted. It is modern translators who have rejected tradition in this respect, attempting to make the Bible sound like ordinary conversational language.

I wouldn’t expect JS to translate the plates in gutteral or slang English but I would expect him to translate in contemporary formal English. If you look at our Constitution, Dec. of Indepenance, Federalist Papers, etc. you will find a contemporary, formal English that you wouldn’t find at your local pub in the late 18th century. I would fully expect that sort of language to be used by JS. However, what you find (in addition to KJV plagiarism) is 1600’s Shakespearian English.

 

[amgid]

majick275:

and this is my issue here. I can’t see the nephites hearing even the exact same sermon and the direct translation (in reformed egyptian) being so word for word identical with the KJV ( with all of its layers of translation) when “revealed” (as you stated) to a 19th century American.

The Nephites wrote and spoke in Hebrew. They only used “Reformed Egyptian” to transcribe on their plates, because it enabled them to condense large amounts of text in a small space. The Jews in Palestine spoke in Aramaic, which is a close cousin of Hebrew. Thus the Jews and the Nephites spoke pretty closely the same language, and the text of the Sermon would have been pretty close in the two languages. The Book of Mormon is not translated into “19th century American”. It is translated in the style, diction, and idiomatic language of the KJV, which is 16th century Elizabethan English, not 19th century American. People didn’t talk or write like that in 19th century America.

(curious as to your belief on wether JS had the specific words revealed to him or just the concepts and then he wrote them in his own words)

Why?

amgid

 

[majick275]

amgid:

The Nephites wrote and spoke in Hebrew. They only used “Reformed Egyptian” to transcribe on their plates, because it enabled them to condense large amounts of text in a small space.

How do you know that the nephites wrote and spoke in Hebrew?

amgid:

Why?

amgid

Well it would help to define and thus understand your views on how the BoM cam e to be written in the same “style” as KJV bible.

 

[Sherman63]

John Tvedtnes offered the following insight into the use of KJV language for translation of scripture (e-mail, Sept. 23, 2002):

To be sure, the Book of Mormon was translated into what we often call “King James” Language, though, in fact, the King James version (KJV) of the Bible retained some 80% of Tyndale’s English translation and Tyndale was partly dependent on the even older version by Wycliffe. It’s a long-standing tradition among Bible versions and only surprises people who are acquainted with modern translations prepared after Joseph Smith’s time. I should also point out that several renowned Bible scholars have mimicked KJV style in their own translations of ancient texts. Most notable was Robert Henry Charles, whose two-volume work on the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament is still published by Oxford. Because he did his work around the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries, he rendered the texts into KJV language because that was THE Bible par excellence in his day. So, too, with Joseph Smith.

 

[arieh0310]

The major difference between JS and Robert Henry Charles is that Charles was a scholar translating a language he understood using his own intellect. Smith on the other hand was not a scholar, did not understand the languages translated, and did not use his intellect to translate. Smith, similar Mohammed, claims a direct revelation. According to Smith’s own testamony the words just appeared to him, he called them out, and a scribe wrote them down. If there was a revelation of God being given at that time why did the translation appear in an archaic dialect, to sound more regal?

 

[amgid]

majick275:

How do you know that the nephites wrote and spoke in Hebrew?

Because the Book of Mormon says so. See Mormon 9:33.

Well it would help to define and thus understand your views on how the BoM came to be written in the same “style” as KJV bible.

Because the Lord wanted it that way.

amgid

 

[majick275]

amgid:

Because the Book of Mormon says so. See Mormon 9:33.

Because the Lord wanted it that way.

amgid

What an incredibly childish way to avoid answering the original question.

 

[flameburns623]

arieh0310:

I wouldn’t expect JS to translate the plates in gutteral or slang English but I would expect him to translate in contemporary formal English. If you look at our Constitution, Dec. of Indepenance, Federalist Papers, etc. you will find a contemporary, formal English that you wouldn’t find at your local pub in the late 18th century. I would fully expect that sort of language to be used by JS. However, what you find (in addition to KJV plagiarism) is 1600’s Shakespearian English.

One of the fights within Anglicanism is over this very issue: Toon and Tarsitano, for example, argue that what you are calling ‘Shakespearean English’ is in fact more appropriately understood as a litugical form of English, which carries just the right ‘register’ to invoke a truly prayerful and devout inner attitude for native speakers of English. No secular form of English–whether it is ‘slangy’, professional-sounding, or simply ‘formal’–has yet been developed capable of this same psychological impact. As a result, those who attempt to ‘modernize’ the language of worship have found, over a generation or two that the majority of their followers lose a sense of devotion, and piety, and in fact become theologically and scripturally illiterate. Hence one reason given for the preference of a great many traditionalist Anglicans for the 1928 or earlier (American version of the) Book of Common Prayer, rather than for the 1979 or similar versions.

If one presupposes what one really ought to prove–one could credit Joseph Smith with having a divinely-inspired awareness of the impact of various forms of of the English language upon one’s worship and prayer life. Hence–IF ONE COMES TO THE BOM PREDISPOSED TO ACCEPT SMITH’S ROLE AS PROPHET :nope: --one could justify the use of Tudor/Elisabethan/Shakespearean language in the BOM as being the best way to convey to it’s readers a prayerful and reverent sense of God and of the message of the BOM.

Incidentally–I assume you mean ‘gutter’ English and not ‘gutteral’ . I believe that our common tongue is already a ‘gutteral’ language–meaning that it’s vowels emanate from somewhere deep in the throat.

 

[majick275]

amgid:

Because the Book of Mormon says so. See Mormon 9:33.
amgid

That scripture states that the nephites had “altered” Hebrew, so I don’t see that as helping to define their language except to say that it was of Hebrew origin. It also was specific to their written language not their spoken language. Furthermore, if you read the next verse it is quite clear that the “alterations” were so significant that it was in fact a different language. It says “and also that none other people knoweth our language”. (Mormon 9:34) surely he knew that there were people in the world who did know hebrew so their language must have been very different indeed for NONE to know their language.

This would also, in my mind, render irrelevant any attempt to bolster JS “translation” due to similarities with hebrew style/grammar/etc.

 

[amgid]

majick275:

What an incredibly childish way to avoid answering the original question.

I am sorry that you think so. But I am not in God’s mind. You seem to think that I should be able to know everything that God is thinking! I wish I did. I would be a lot smarter if I could. All I know is that the Book of Mormon is true, and is the word of God, and that God has chosen to reveal it in this style and diction. I have some personal ideas as to why He might have chosen to do it in that way; but that is nether here nor there. My personal ideas are no substitute to the truth. The truth is that it is God’s word, and He has chosen to reveal it in that way, and I am in no position to argue with Him about that.

amgid

 

[majick275]

amgid:

I am sorry that you think so. But I am not in God’s mind. You seem to think that I should be able to know everything that God is thinking! I wish I did. I would be a lot smarter if I could. All I know is that the Book of Mormon is true, and is the word of God, and that God has chosen to reveal it in this style and diction. I have some personal ideas as to why He might have chosen to do it in that way; but that is nether here nor there. My personal ideas are no substitute to the truth. The truth is that it is God’s word, and He has chosen to reveal it in that way, and I am in no position to argue with Him about that.

amgid

You tell us that you don’t know but you expect us to believe that you “know”. you frequently distance from what is taught by your church to interject your personal ideas. What purpose do you think you are serving here?

 

[amgid]

majick275:

That scripture states that the nephites had “altered” Hebrew, so I don’t see that as helping to define their language except to say that it was of Hebrew origin. It also was specific to their written language not their spoken language.

It was a dialect of Hebrew. After a thousand years of indigenous development, their language had evolved into a different dialect. But structurally, it still remained Hebrew. Many languages have diverged into dialects that sufficiently different that they are incomprehensible to each other. But structurally they remain sufficiently the same that converting or translating from one dialect to another can be done with the minimum of structural or grammatical change. Aramaic was a dialect of Hebrew, spoken by the Jews in the time of Jesus. It probably would have been incomprehensible to Moses. But structurally it remained the same language.

Furthermore, if you read the next verse it is quite clear that the “alterations” were so significant that it was in fact a different language. It says “and also that none other people knoweth our language”. (Mormon 9:34) surely he knew that there were people in the world who did know hebrew so their language must have been very different indeed for NONE to know their language.

Well, the dialect had evolved sufficiently that nobody knew it well enough to be able to make an accurate translation of the Book of Mormon into another language without divine assistance. Also, verse 34 doesn’t just refer to the Hebrew language that they spoke. It includes the “reformed Egyptian” that the Book of Mormon was written in. It refers to the whole dialect and script that the Book of Mormon was written in. At the time of Joseph Smith, even ordinary Egyptian was not well understood, never mind reformed Egyptian.

This would also, in my mind, render irrelevant any attempt to bolster JS “translation” due to similarities with hebrew style/grammar/etc.

Not at all. The language still remained structurally Hebrew and remained Semitic. All Semitic languages (e.g. Hebrew, Arabic, Aramaic) in fact have very close affinities which immediately distinguishes them as belonging to the same family group, and makes conversion from one language to another a whole lot easier than to a non-Semitic language such as English for example.

amgid

 

[majick275]

Perhaps you could tell us where you get this detailed knowledge of the nephite language?

The scripture that you referred me too made me think that no one could know enough about it to make any defeinitive statements. Joseph Smith is the only person to CLAIM to have read and understood it. I don’t recall him giving us this level of detail about it.

It was my understanding from this scripture as well, that reformed egyptian was a “scribe” language that was somewhat reluctantly used here out of necessity becuause their was insufficient space on the plates to write the abridgement in either the original language(s)/dialects/etc. that they were written in nor in Mormon’s/Moroni’s contemporary language. I got the impression that he was apologizing for EXPECTED errors that would be due to his own poor use of these languages before these writings even got to JS .

Your thoughts? (BTW good thought provoking post you had there)

 

[amgid]

majick275:

Perhaps you could tell us where you get this detailed knowledge of the nephite language?

The scripture that you referred me too made me think that no one could know enough about it to make any defeinitive statements. Joseph Smith is the only person to CLAIM to have read and understood it. I don’t recall him giving us this level of detail about it.

That is just common sense. All languages tend to evolve rapidly into dialects when they become separated without contact from the main branch of the language. That has been the experience of human history. The Book of Mormon itself has an interesting example of that. There were two groups of people who migrated from Jerusalem to the Americas. One group was Lehi and his family. They landed in an area in South America which they called “the land of Nephi”. The second group were those who came about a decade later with one of the sons of Zedekiah called Mulek. They landed in an area, still in South America, but much further north from the first group, which is called in the Book of Mormon “the land of Zarahemla”. This second group had the disadvantage that they had not brought any written records with them. For about 400 years these two groups evolved separately without any contacts between them. After about 400 years they merged, and they found that they could no longer understand each other. The language of the second group in particular had evolved to such an extent that it could no longer be comprehended by the first group (see Omni 1:17). By the same token, the “Hebrew” that the Nephites spoke, after 1000 years of indigenous development, would have evolved into a dialect quite different from that spoken by the Jews in Jerusalem when their ancestors originally cam from there. But it was still a Hebrew language.

It was my understanding from this scripture as well, that reformed egyptian was a “scribe” language that was somewhat reluctantly used here out of necessity becuause their was insufficient space on the plates to write the abridgement in either the original language(s)/dialects/etc. that they were written in nor in Mormon’s/Moroni’s contemporary language. I got the impression that he was apologizing for EXPECTED errors that would be due to his own poor use of these languages before these writings even got to JS .

Your thoughts? (BTW good thought provoking post you had there)

The original “brass plates of Laban,” which the Nephites had brought with them from Jerusalem, was written in the Hebrew language, but transcribed on the plates using the Egyptian script. Egyptian, incidentally, is also a Semitic language, so there is a great deal of affinity between it and Hebrew. The Nephites had apparently altered this script to their own liking, and used it to transcribe on their plates, because it enabled them to condense large amounts of text into a small amount of space. We don’t know how it worked, but it appears that there was a tradeoff, when using this script, between clarity and accuracy of expression, and saving of space; because Moroni clearly states that if they had been able to write in Hebrew, there would have been “no imperfection” in their records. Incidentally, Moroni also says that no one know their language, therefore it will have to be translated by the gift and the power of God—and he effectively puts his trust in the Lord that He would make up the difference! And indeed the Lord does. I see no “imperfections” in the text of the Book of Mormon. It is written in a beautiful and clear style. The Lord has ironed out the imperfections, and made up for the difference.

amgid

 

[majick275]

I don’t agree with you on the similarities between hebrew and egyptian.

I still think your own scriptures claim an imperfect translation themselves. (and I acknowledge their rationale; hurried abridgement, unskilled scribe, multiple language conversions, the aforementioned tradeoof betwen accuracy and space saving)

I would ask you to compare the 1830 version with the current one though. There seems to have remained a lot of work to correct JS.

I find your linguistic theory interesting but I would challenge that it was still a hebrew language. This would be much like calling English a germanic language which is technically true but misleading when we are speaking to translation accuracy, writing style, etc.

Have you seen the “reformed egyptian” characters that were taken to Prof. Anthon? I find them to be an obvious proof of JS fraud.

 

[Casen]

majick275:

I still think your own scriptures claim an imperfect translation themselves. (and I acknowledge their rationale; hurried abridgement, unskilled scribe, multiple language conversions, the aforementioned tradeoof betwen accuracy and space saving)

I would ask you to compare the 1830 version with the current one though. There seems to have remained a lot of work to correct JS.

After studying Book of Mormon textual changes for awhile I must say that I don’t see much to complain about. Some of them are mistakes made by Joseph’s scribes and others are corrections of mistakes made by the printer in copying the original manuscripts. There were also hundreds minor small corrections to spelling and grammar which update and standardize the text but rarely affect meaning. There are also a few corrections that attempt to clarify theology (most were made in the Kirtland and Nauvoo periods and overseen by Joseph himself). Examples include: 1 Nephi 12:18, Mosiah 21:28 and Ether 4:1.

For anyone interested, Grant Hardy’s “Reader’s Edition” of the Book of Mormon lists textual changes to the Book of Mormon in the appendix. It’s also my favorite Book of Mormon edition because it’s formatted like a regular book and I find that formatting more enjoyable. I just started reading the Book of Mormon once again and even after reading it so many times I still marvel at its ability to help a person feel the Holy Spirit, learn new insights and draw a person’s thought to Christ. I find it strange that so many that CLAIM to know “facts” about Mormonism have never even bothered to read the Book of Mormon.

 

[majick275]

I can asure you that I have read the BoM many times. I respect your belief in it but I do not share it.

My comments on the changes were’nt meant to imply a change in its doctrine so much as a refutation to amgids theories on clarity of translation. My main premise on these lines is that we simply do not have reason to place any confidence in perceived similarities in style between BoM and ancient Jewish writings. Some have theorized that these are “proof” of JS status is a prophet.

My claim is that the numerous layers of “human” involvement negate this. (various dialects of nephite, jaredite and hebrew “hurriedly” abridged by a nephite speaking his own dialect in an imperfect scribe language called “reformed egyptian” then found by JS and translated into English) Even if you accept the BoM as true you have Mormon/Moroni telling you that there are human imperfections in it.

This, in my mind makes it difficult at best to find any meaningful similarities in style, grammar, etc. between BoM and Jewish writings. (not to mention the cultural drift that SHOULD have resulted in a different nephite style anyway)

 

[Casen]

majick275:

This, in my mind makes it difficult at best to find any meaningful similarities in style, grammar, etc. between BoM and Jewish writings. (not to mention the cultural drift that SHOULD have resulted in a different nephite style anyway)

I wasn’t referring to you specifically when I criticized those that critique the LDS faith and claim to know the innermost secrets of the temple yet have never even read the Book of Mormon. Anyone the least bit curious about Mormonism should start with the Book of Mormon. If you aren’t convinced after reading and praying about it then so be it; at least you would have put forth more effort than 95% of the so-called “experts” on the internet.

Regarding your point on style, grammar etc. between the BoM and Jewish writings, I think I see your point and understand that even if you assume the book is what it claims to be there was some human involvement. However, I don’t think there was so much that the styles and patterns wouldn’t show up. Anyway, I see Semitic patterns, styles and structure throughout the text.

A few examples:

Mosiah 11:8 – Mentions decorating buildings with precious metals and “ziff”. So, what the heck is “ziff” and where did Joseph Smith get that word? Some have linked it to Hebrew “zph” which means “splendor”.

Words of Mormon 17 – Mentions the “stiffneckedness” of the people. Why would Joseph Smith use this word? Why not use “stubborn”? In Semitic cultures it is common to this day to refer to an obstinate person as “stiff-necked”.

Omni 18 – Says, “Zarahemla gave a genealogy of his fathers according to his memory.” This is of course a common custom to this day for Arabs and other Semitic peoples.

Jarom 2: “It must needs be…” Why would Joseph write this awkward way? Well, in Arabic this is excellent grammar. Other expressions that are awkward in English but not so in Semitic languages are: “did eat” and “did smile”. How did Joseph Smith know these would be perfect grammar in Semitic languages? Lucky guess I suppose?

Alma 63:11 mentions “Helaman, son of Helaman”. Since Joseph Smith was named after his father and went by Joseph Smith Jr. why wouldn’t he have written “Helaman Jr.” in the Book of Mormon? It’s interesting that most Semitic languages have no word for “junior” to cover such a circumstance.

Helaman 3:18-19 - Why does the Book of Mormon say “forty and six” instead of forty-six? Well, in Semitic languages that are written right to left an “and” is used because it helps to separate the columns.

So many sentences and paragraphs in the Book of Mormon start out with, “And it came to pass…”, unlike the Bible. Why would Joseph write this way? Well, in Hebrew “and” has many English possibilities such as: or, then, perhaps, certainly, in order to, like, therefore, so, thus, and but. When translators translated the Bible into English they had to chose which of all these choices fit each situation best whenever they ran across the Hebrew word “and”. In Moroni 9:4 it says, “and when I speak the word of God with sharpness they tremble and anger against me; and when I use no sharpness they harden their hearts against it." This is an example where the word “but” would have been a better choice. More evidence of Book of Mormon Hebraic origins.

There are others we could discuss because the text is literally full of them and that is without even beginning to look at all the Book of Mormon names with Hebraic or Egyptian origins. We could also discuss at length all the complex chiasmus throughout the Book of Mormon which rival those in the Bible in complexity and beauty.

So yes, Majick275, Semitic similarities, style and grammar are found extensively throughout the Book of Mormon on almost every page. Does this prove the Book of Mormon is true? Well… no… but it’s further compelling evidence. If Joseph Smith was a fraud he was a darn clever one… and a smart sucker too… and also darn lucky! He couldn’t have known that much about Semitic languages since no one did at that time and we’re talking about a farm boy with little education. So how do you explain the Book of Mormon? And how did he get those 11 people to testify that they saw the gold plates and then stick by and defend their testimonies of the event to their deaths; every single one of them! Lucky again I guess? And then you send thousands of missionaries out to the world to read the book and ask people to simply ask God in prayer if it’s true and suddenly you get hundreds of thousands of people claiming that God answered their prayers! How the heck did lucky Joseph get them all to do that??

Put it all together and the case is pretty compelling in my humble opinion. Of course, I tried the reading and praying thing and God answered my prayer… so I might be a little biased.

 

[Casen]

One more example of Book of Mormon Hebrew origins I read about somewhere…

Since the 1830 publication of the Book of Mormon the word “that” has been deleted from subsequent publications more than 188 times. However, there are still examples left where the word “that” seems out of place.

“And because that they are redeemed from the fall” (2 Nephi 2:26)

“because that my heart is broken” (2 Nephi 4:32)

Why would Joseph Smith write this way inserting all these unnecessary “thats”?

Well, Hebrew begins subordinate clauses with prepositions plus a word that translates into “that” in English. The subsequent “that” is totally redundant in English in many cases but if the translation is literal and the translator doesn’t know to delete it you end up with unnecessary “that’s”.