Part 5: Archaic Book of Mormon Language.
The archaic language of scripture can be a barrier. It can make understanding the scriptures more difficult requiring extra thought and care (and a dictionary) to get the meaning. And often for the youth, it causes the text to feel distant. What myself and others frequently admit is that they simply gloss over things and get into the habit of subtly ignoring many parts of the text, phrases and grammar due to the difficult nature of the language. Even though we can get partially meaning from the context, even still, it's very easy to gloss over things and miss understanding God has offered.
And when it comes to scripture, that can make a difference.
I've of course gotten used to the King Jamesian language of the Bible and Book of Mormon and some of it is nice, but overall, it's been a bit of a barrier to understanding. But speaking specifically about the Book of Mormon. There was a really interesting blog post by the scripture committee who worked on the Restoration Edition Scriptures. I talked about that effort in part 2.
In any event on June 18th, 2017 they posted the following:
As mentioned prior on this series, in 1830 the Lord called the church “true and living” (D&C 1:30). By 1832 the Lord stated that the church is “condemned” (D&C 84:54-57). T&C 82:20. Another quick review of this because it's important.
Since we're dealing with 16th and 17th century English, now this whole topic starts to matter more to believers, because now we're to the point where we may be losing understanding, at an increasing rate simply due to passage of time. If we love God's word, and want to treasure it, then this is all the more relevant. We know Joseph translated the Book of Mormon by the gift and power of God, which was not a word for word translation such you might do today with a foreign language dictionary between say, Russian and English. The process Joseph followed was not that. It was by the gift and power of God. The language provided by God to Joseph was early English, not all Joseph's day English. So why would that be? And what does that mean for us?
To begin to answer that takes us back to the quote from the scripture committee earlier in the post.
"If it read like what was the gold-standard for God's word, then maybe it WAS God's word." So one answer to consider is that the language provided to Joseph was designed to accommodate the people at the time. Their beliefs, perceptions, tolerance level, and hearts. But then we have to deal with the issue of the word usage and meaning, and what that means for us.
One primary takeaway from the Critical Text Project described above is that the way modern readers commonly read and understand some passages in The Book of Mormon is not the same meaning as the original archaic language. It's modern readers, including me, (as a result of evolved language) who can easily misunderstand things. Due to how language has evolved and shifted, the Book of Mormon holds keys people may not have noticed because they just get glossed over. I don't know how to quantify just how much of the Book of Mormon gets glossed, as it will depend, but it can be significant.
In any event here are a few limited examples of archaic language that might offer some examples and be interesting.
3 Nephi 9:4
And behold, the whiteness thereof did exceed all whiteness, yea, even there could be nothing upon earth so white as the whiteness thereof. And Jesus said unto them, Pray on. Nevertheless, they did not cease to pray.
This is what Royal Skousen has to say:
"As discussed under this passage in volume 4, the normal "nevertheless" doesn't make sense here because these people do continue to pray. There seems to be no apparent reason why Jesus would tell them to pray on when they had no intention of stopping anyway. But the second edition of the OED, under definition 5b for "never", refers to the original transparent phrase "never the less" in Middle and Early Modern English and describes it as a negative emphatic with the meaning "not in any way less" or "by no means less". In other words, the equivalent sentence reads "and by no means did they cease pray". Even though this is a multiple negative, the basic meaning (in standard English) is "and by no means did they cease to pray".
The passage would read:
"And Jesus said unto them, Pray on. And by no means did they cease to pray."
Doesn't that make a whole lot more sense?
Alma 19:7. Alma is teaching his son about the resurrection and we get this phrase:
Alma's words would read:
Now, my son, I do not say that their resurrection comes at the resurrection of Christ, but behold, I give it as my expectation that the souls and the bodies of the righteous are reunited at the resurrection of Christ and his ascension into Heaven.
It's nice that we learn Alma isn't spouting off an opinion he's not really sure about, but it's instead an expectation based on a considered judgement.
SOME LEARNING
"There are a few things we’ve wanted to share that we’ve learned from Denver and that have shaped our understanding of this project. In response challenges that arise during the process of recovering the original scriptures, questions have been posed to him that have elicited the following:
"I have received many explanations from the Lord to help me to understand what has been done and what needs to be done. One of the things that I have had opened to my understanding is that the translation of the Book of Mormon was done under the inspiration of God to help a hard-hearted people accept it, and therefore it accommodated some of what their prejudices imposed as a condition for them to be willing to even read it while entertaining the possibility that it was from God.
If the text had not been rendered in a way to appeal to their hard hearts, they would not have taken it seriously...I have understood that the reason the "King Jamesian" language usage was employed was precisely to make the revelations seem consistent with the familiar language of scripture. PERIOD. It was a way to break down resistance to having something new claiming to be scripture. If it read like what was the gold-standard for God's word, then maybe it WAS God's word.
I have often thought it would be possible to render a better modern language version, but have not done anything with that thought. We now face an almost identical issue: If we change the language to become modern, then there are many who are familiar with Mormonism and who may yet be willing to consider the ongoing restoration work as God's work--but who will become offended solely because we alter the language of the Book of Mormon. Their reaction will mirror the reaction of the 1830s because of prejudice and assumptions about the unchangeable "word of God."
I have tried to use modern language in anything I have written in order to forge a transition between people's prejudice in favor of arcane language, coming from Joseph's time, into a future when using our own plain language will become commonplace. Thankfully Joseph's history was written in common language and we have that to use in scripture."While people are free to cling to prejudice and assumptions about the unchangeable word of God, I hope you keep reading this post.
As mentioned prior on this series, in 1830 the Lord called the church “true and living” (D&C 1:30). By 1832 the Lord stated that the church is “condemned” (D&C 84:54-57). T&C 82:20. Another quick review of this because it's important.
And your minds in times past have been darkened because of unbelief, and because you have treated lightly the things you have received, which vanity and unbelief have brought the whole church under condemnation. And this condemnation rests upon the children of Zion, even all, and they shall remain under this condemnation until they repent and remember the new covenant, even the Book of Mormon, and the former commandments which I have given them, not only to say but to do according to that which I have written, that they may bring forth fruit meet for their Father’s kingdom.
There is an easy assumption to make that latter day saints were "saying" correctly all along. But as the Restoration Edition Scripture Project showed, there were many things we had been saying incorrectly. Alterations and conspiracies altered the records and a recovery repentance effort had to take place.
The Restoration Edition Scriptures project was a necessary step of remembering, recovering and repenting. The Book of Mormon text was restored to as pure a version to what Joseph Smith had produced as was possible. It's a great thing. A necessary step for the Restoration. I love the new scriptures. It helps us to "say" the things the Lord has said more correctly.
As I read the scriptures and begin now to "say" more correctly, since we have restored the scriptures as best we are able, there's also the other part of the condemnation about "doing". We also have to do what the scriptures say. And to do that, we'll all need to understand what they say. The Holy Ghost is our guide of course to understand the scriptures. But sometimes the nature of the language poses a difficulty for understanding. There are numerous archaic phrases, words, grammar, and expressions that are obsolete for modern English or so archaic as to be a different reading than the original.
Royal Skousen, since the 1980's, has been working on a Book of Mormon Critical Text project for the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies. He has gone through the Book of Mormon, it's textual history, the manuscripts, it's transmission, it's grammar, and it's language to a degree that shows proper respect to this book of Scripture. This post will focus on volume 3 of the critical text project since it's all about the language and grammar of the Book of Mormon.
The Restoration Edition Scriptures project was a necessary step of remembering, recovering and repenting. The Book of Mormon text was restored to as pure a version to what Joseph Smith had produced as was possible. It's a great thing. A necessary step for the Restoration. I love the new scriptures. It helps us to "say" the things the Lord has said more correctly.
As I read the scriptures and begin now to "say" more correctly, since we have restored the scriptures as best we are able, there's also the other part of the condemnation about "doing". We also have to do what the scriptures say. And to do that, we'll all need to understand what they say. The Holy Ghost is our guide of course to understand the scriptures. But sometimes the nature of the language poses a difficulty for understanding. There are numerous archaic phrases, words, grammar, and expressions that are obsolete for modern English or so archaic as to be a different reading than the original.
Royal Skousen, since the 1980's, has been working on a Book of Mormon Critical Text project for the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies. He has gone through the Book of Mormon, it's textual history, the manuscripts, it's transmission, it's grammar, and it's language to a degree that shows proper respect to this book of Scripture. This post will focus on volume 3 of the critical text project since it's all about the language and grammar of the Book of Mormon.
Volume 3 was less applicable to the RE project but has come to light as hugely important as the restoration continues. Parts 3-4 of Volume III for example are called: The Nature of the Original Language of the Book of Mormon. Parts 1 and 2 are Grammatical Variation. Part 5 The King James Quotations in the Book of Mormon. Part VI is Spelling in the Manuscripts and Editions. And parts 7 and 8 also contain interesting research into the Book of Mormon. Volume 3 is very dense with research regarding the language itself.
The overall Critical Text Project is a monumental project with significant, valuable, and worthwhile insight into the Book of Mormon. I’m not trying to get you to go buy it, I'm only showing how much work has been done by dedicated scholars. One of the tools used in this volume is the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) that you have to have a special subscription to even access. That dictionary covers over 1000 years of the English language. Here's why that matters in context of the Book of Mormon.
The overall Critical Text Project is a monumental project with significant, valuable, and worthwhile insight into the Book of Mormon. I’m not trying to get you to go buy it, I'm only showing how much work has been done by dedicated scholars. One of the tools used in this volume is the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) that you have to have a special subscription to even access. That dictionary covers over 1000 years of the English language. Here's why that matters in context of the Book of Mormon.
With how much languages change over a period of 500 years, early English would be almost unintelligible to modern readers. First lets meet two poets:
Beowulf is an Old English epic poem and one of the most important works of Old English literature. The manuscript was produced between 975 and 1025.
Geoffrey Chaucer was a 14th century English poet.
From the Oxford Dictionary Page:
What time period is the Book of Mormon language?
Beowulf is an Old English epic poem and one of the most important works of Old English literature. The manuscript was produced between 975 and 1025.
Geoffrey Chaucer was a 14th century English poet.
From the Oxford Dictionary Page:
Prof. Glanville Price (Languages in Britain & Ireland (2000) 148) has remarked with some truth that ‘the language of Beowulf would be almost as unintelligible to a man of Chaucer's time as it is to the modern reader.’Professor Price says the language of Beowulf would be almost unintelligible to an English speaker of the 14th century. What does that mean for us reading ancient scripture? Given what history shows about language becoming harder, not easier to understand, this becomes pertinent for modern students of scripture. If we simply assume Joseph Smith used language from his day, earily to mid 1800's we may pay a high price for that assumption.
What time period is the Book of Mormon language?
Some of the language of the Book of Mormon dates back older than Joseph Smith. One might expect Joseph would have used words with meanings current to the early 1800's. Such as you can find in the Webster's 1828 American English dictionary. But that isn't the case. What the Critical Text Project shows is that the Book of Mormon text dates more to Early Modern English than to Joseph Smith’s own times. The nonstandard English grammar is in fact good Early Modern English, found in academic and scholarly texts, from the 1500s and 1600s. The word meanings, phrases, and expressions date from the 1530s through the 1730s. The syntax dates mostly from the second half of the 1500s and the early 1600s. And the scriptural language, also dates from the 1500s and 1600s.
Here's an excerpt from an Interpreter article (see here) covering Royal Skousen, and Stanford Carmack's research on this:
Here's an excerpt from an Interpreter article (see here) covering Royal Skousen, and Stanford Carmack's research on this:
Stanford Carmack and Royal Skousen have painstakingly documented a strange argument—that much of the language used in the Book of Mormon reflects usage patterns that align with the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, making it unlikely that Joseph or anyone else in the nineteenth century authored the book. The statistical case they make is extremely strong. Even assuming that they’re missing a substantial amount of evidence that doesn’t fit their narrative, the probability that Joseph produced those patterns by trying to copy biblical style are vanishingly small (p = 5.24 x 10-24). Evidence of Early Modern English can be counted as powerful evidence in favor of the Book of Mormon’s authenticity.
Evidence Score = 20+ (A critical strike in the Book of Mormon’s favor, increasing the probability of authenticity by over 20 orders of magnitude).
Since we're dealing with 16th and 17th century English, now this whole topic starts to matter more to believers, because now we're to the point where we may be losing understanding, at an increasing rate simply due to passage of time. If we love God's word, and want to treasure it, then this is all the more relevant. We know Joseph translated the Book of Mormon by the gift and power of God, which was not a word for word translation such you might do today with a foreign language dictionary between say, Russian and English. The process Joseph followed was not that. It was by the gift and power of God. The language provided by God to Joseph was early English, not all Joseph's day English. So why would that be? And what does that mean for us?
To begin to answer that takes us back to the quote from the scripture committee earlier in the post.
"If it read like what was the gold-standard for God's word, then maybe it WAS God's word." So one answer to consider is that the language provided to Joseph was designed to accommodate the people at the time. Their beliefs, perceptions, tolerance level, and hearts. But then we have to deal with the issue of the word usage and meaning, and what that means for us.
One primary takeaway from the Critical Text Project described above is that the way modern readers commonly read and understand some passages in The Book of Mormon is not the same meaning as the original archaic language. It's modern readers, including me, (as a result of evolved language) who can easily misunderstand things. Due to how language has evolved and shifted, the Book of Mormon holds keys people may not have noticed because they just get glossed over. I don't know how to quantify just how much of the Book of Mormon gets glossed, as it will depend, but it can be significant.
In any event here are a few limited examples of archaic language that might offer some examples and be interesting.
3 Nephi 9:4
And behold, the whiteness thereof did exceed all whiteness, yea, even there could be nothing upon earth so white as the whiteness thereof. And Jesus said unto them, Pray on. Nevertheless, they did not cease to pray.
This is what Royal Skousen has to say:
"As discussed under this passage in volume 4, the normal "nevertheless" doesn't make sense here because these people do continue to pray. There seems to be no apparent reason why Jesus would tell them to pray on when they had no intention of stopping anyway. But the second edition of the OED, under definition 5b for "never", refers to the original transparent phrase "never the less" in Middle and Early Modern English and describes it as a negative emphatic with the meaning "not in any way less" or "by no means less". In other words, the equivalent sentence reads "and by no means did they cease pray". Even though this is a multiple negative, the basic meaning (in standard English) is "and by no means did they cease to pray".
The passage would read:
"And Jesus said unto them, Pray on. And by no means did they cease to pray."
Doesn't that make a whole lot more sense?
Alma 19:7. Alma is teaching his son about the resurrection and we get this phrase:
Now, my son, I do not say that their resurrection cometh at the resurrection of Christ, but behold, I give it as my opinion that the souls and the bodies are reunited of the righteous, at the resurrection of Christ and his ascension into Heaven.
This is what Royal Skousen has to say:
"In today's English, we tend to interpret the word 'opinion' as representing simply one's point of view and not especially backed up by evidence. But here in Alma [19:7], the word is being used more strongly, with considerable more conviction than what the modern meaning implies." The OED (Oxford English Dictionary) has this: "thought of what is likely to be the case" or "expectation based on knowledge or belief".
This is what Royal Skousen has to say:
"In today's English, we tend to interpret the word 'opinion' as representing simply one's point of view and not especially backed up by evidence. But here in Alma [19:7], the word is being used more strongly, with considerable more conviction than what the modern meaning implies." The OED (Oxford English Dictionary) has this: "thought of what is likely to be the case" or "expectation based on knowledge or belief".
Alma's statement being based on knowledge makes more sense than his statement being based in mere opinion, as we define opinion in 2021.
Alma's words would read:
Now, my son, I do not say that their resurrection comes at the resurrection of Christ, but behold, I give it as my expectation that the souls and the bodies of the righteous are reunited at the resurrection of Christ and his ascension into Heaven.
Alma 26:25
"And now the cause of these our embarrassments, or the cause why they did not send more strength unto us, we knew not."
Skousen shows that here embarrassments does not take its modern meaning, with its implication of being ashamed. What we find as the earliest meaning for the nominal form embarrassment in English is - "something which is a hindrance or encumbrance; an impediment, obstruction, or obstacle; a difficulty, a problem".
Skousen shows that here embarrassments does not take its modern meaning, with its implication of being ashamed. What we find as the earliest meaning for the nominal form embarrassment in English is - "something which is a hindrance or encumbrance; an impediment, obstruction, or obstacle; a difficulty, a problem".
It would read: And now we do not know the cause of these difficulties....
A few from Jacob:
A few from Jacob:
Jacob 4:1 - "And they are a stiffnecked and a gainsaying people, but as many as will not harden their hearts shall be saved in the kingdom of God."
From Skousen:
The archaic verb "gainsay" - "to speak against". It appears 5 times in the KJV Bible - Romans 10:21; Luke 21:15, Acts 10:29; Titus 1:9; Jude 1:11. In summary of this word Skousen he gives the definition of "given to contrariness".
Most readers interpret errand here as referring to the task that Jacob was sent to perform....But here Jacob's meaning is more likely the original one in English, now an obsolete meaning: 'A message, a verbal communication to be repeated to a third party'.
From Skousen:
The archaic verb "gainsay" - "to speak against". It appears 5 times in the KJV Bible - Romans 10:21; Luke 21:15, Acts 10:29; Titus 1:9; Jude 1:11. In summary of this word Skousen he gives the definition of "given to contrariness".
(Side note: Other related biblical words might be "froward")
Another expansion of the definition of gainsaying is: quarrelsome and contradictory, opposing one another, disagreeing and arguing and challenging one another, refusing to reach agreements when they ought to be achievable.
Keep that in mind as you read the phrase again (with some parenthesis thoughts stuck in there temporarily by me) and see if the passage doesn't hit home a lot more to our day:
Jacob 4:1 -
Another expansion of the definition of gainsaying is: quarrelsome and contradictory, opposing one another, disagreeing and arguing and challenging one another, refusing to reach agreements when they ought to be achievable.
Keep that in mind as you read the phrase again (with some parenthesis thoughts stuck in there temporarily by me) and see if the passage doesn't hit home a lot more to our day:
Jacob 4:1 -
"And they are a stiffnecked and a quarrelsome people (given to contrariness, refusing agreement when it ought to be achievable), but as many as will not harden their hearts shall be saved in the kingdom of God."
Jacob 1:4
"Wherefore, I, Jacob, gave unto them these words as I taught them in the temple, having firstly obtained mine errand from the Lord."
Most readers interpret errand here as referring to the task that Jacob was sent to perform....But here Jacob's meaning is more likely the original one in English, now an obsolete meaning: 'A message, a verbal communication to be repeated to a third party'.
This helps us identify Jacob as a true messenger because the message he brought was first and foremost from the Lord. It was not his own message. He was a messenger.
2 Nephi 11:8
...for we know that it is by grace that we are saved after all that we can do.
From Skousen. Here in 2 Nephi, we have this famous statement on grace versus works in the Book of Mormon. Others have found examples showing that the meaning of the subordinate clause “after all that we can do” is ‘even after all we can do’ or ‘despite all we can do’ (in other words, “no matter what we can do”). There are at least nine examples of “after all we can do” that took this negative, exclusionary meaning from 1704 through 1840. Searching for the more expanded version of this phrase, (“after all that we can do”), Skousen was able to find examples from Early Modern English up to Joseph Smith’s time, all of which mean ‘despite all we can do’:
Rendered modern this might read: for despite all that we can do, we know that it is by grace that we are saved
Rendered modern this might read: for despite all that we can do, we know that it is by grace that we are saved
These are just a few isolated examples. There are hundreds, more. These are words and phrases that don't delve into the syntax and grammar, which Royal has 2 full books about where he collaborates with Stanford Carmack to deep dive into the grammatical variations and archaic language. These grammatical elements and syntax also cause modern readers to simply gloss over the text, getting mentally bored or tuned out due to reading repeated words, phrases, and word sequences which are sometimes more distracting than informative.
The research done for the Critical Text Project is fascinating. This post only touches on all the material covered in those volumes.
Summary:
The Book of Mormon we all read today may still have a certain "seal" on it due to the archaic nature of the language. This leads to limited understanding, "glossing over", and in some cases barriers to understanding. We need to do more that gloss over the words of the book if we want to show God that we want to understand it and receive the gift and goodness it offers. If we love God's word, and recognize the effort and diligence of those who have labored on scriptures since the beginning, then the matter is clear. We need to do more then just watch it age and slip away into a poorly understood relic that inflates our pride. We need to do as they of old did, and heed them, and then wisely preserve, keep, and maintain the Word of God will all the care and respect it deserves. Neither doing more, nor less than what God, in his Wisdom, directs.
The research done for the Critical Text Project is fascinating. This post only touches on all the material covered in those volumes.
Summary:
The Book of Mormon we all read today may still have a certain "seal" on it due to the archaic nature of the language. This leads to limited understanding, "glossing over", and in some cases barriers to understanding. We need to do more that gloss over the words of the book if we want to show God that we want to understand it and receive the gift and goodness it offers. If we love God's word, and recognize the effort and diligence of those who have labored on scriptures since the beginning, then the matter is clear. We need to do more then just watch it age and slip away into a poorly understood relic that inflates our pride. We need to do as they of old did, and heed them, and then wisely preserve, keep, and maintain the Word of God will all the care and respect it deserves. Neither doing more, nor less than what God, in his Wisdom, directs.
Continued in part 6.
No comments:
Post a Comment