I will admit that I have a longstanding disagreement with non-linguists.
"About what?"--you may wonder.
The objection I have with non-linguists is that, although they freely admit to having no training in linguistics, this unfamiliarity does not seem to prevent them from propounding linguistic arguments.
"Why should it bother you that novices would propose linguistic arguments?"
To be honest, I welcome any linguistic arguments, and in many instances novices hit upon research gold. My only concern is when such arguments are intended to turn my brethren from the faith, and then it pains me to see some of my brethren falter and fall based on the apparent plausibility of usually faulty premises.
Take for example an argument touted among disaffected members for the last five years at least:
"The Book of Mormon has large quotations from the 1769 King James Bible which passages from 1769 have mistakes. Why are mistakes from the 1769 King James Bible found in a supposedly ancient text translated through divine means as the 'most correct book'!"
What Are The Mistakes?
One mistake that is touted is the word "dragon". In Isaiah 51:9 the KJV uses the word dragon, which word choice some critics of the last decade have been pleased to call an error of the 1769 King James text, an error which appears in 2 Nephi 8:9 of The Book of Mormon. Shall we fancy a look?
Isaiah 51:9
Awake, awake, put on strength,
O arm of the Lord;
awake, as in the ancient days,
in the generations of old.
Art thou not it that hath cut Rahab,
and wounded the dragon?
2 Nephi 8:9
Awake, awake! Put on strength,
O arm of the Lord;
awake as in the ancient days.
Art thou not he that hath cut Rahab,
and wounded the dragon?
Leaving aside the issue of the superior translation of "he" meaning The Lord as used in The Book of Mormon (The King James uses the odd "it"), my question as a linguist is why the 1769 edition of the King James Bible was targeted to begin with.
The answer these critics give is that Joseph Smith used the 1769 edition of the King James Bible.
True, but the 1769 passage in question is identical to the 1611 first edition passage save for two words that were spelled slightly differently (arme, dayes), so why has this simple fact not been mentioned? After all, if the allegation is that Joseph Smith copied whole portions out of the Book of Isaiah and wove them into his own composition, The Book of Mormon, and then tried to pass his work off as the translation of a bona fide ancient text but inadvertently included "errors" the King James translators had committed, if this is what these critics allege, what difference would it make to allege that Joseph Smith included errors from the 1611 King James Bible rather than the 1769 edition?
1611
Isaiah 51:9
Awake, awake, put on strength,
O arme of the Lord;
awake, as in the ancient dayes,
in the generations of old.
Art thou not it that hath cut Rahab,
and wounded the dragon?
The non-linguist would say that it makes no difference whether one alleges that Joseph Smith plagiarized the 1611 or the 1769 edition. The linguist will say that it does make a difference--not to acknowledge that the 1611 edition has the same putative (supposed) error is an admission that the critic has not done thorough research but may be rushing to a conclusion. The experienced linguist will tell you that rushed conclusions usually end up being wrong.
What Does The Hebrew Say?
I would ask what the underlying Hebrew word that got translated actually is, and as it happens, the Hebrew actually says "tannin" 'monster'. The critics in question claim that since the Hebrew says "monster" (in the sense of a large creature, such as a whale, among others), the King James translators made a "mistake" by writing "dragon", and Joseph Smith, the critics allege, being unsophisticated copied the mistake into The Book of Mormon.
Origin of the "Mistake"
As a linguist, however, I am aware of the challenges translators face when converting the names of flora and fauna from the language of one culture into the language of another. If the translator merely imports the names of flora and fauna the audience reacts with perplexity--"What is X?"--and the effect of the translation is ruined.
I also would ask the critics if they examined the other Bible translations of the era to see how their translators rendered that passage.
Now The Work Begins
Now the work begins, and none of it has been done by the aforementioned gleeful critics because, alas, lacking any familiarity with linguistics, they are unaware that this very question could undo and unravel their argument. That is, if I am going to allege that the King James translators made a "mistake" and Joseph Smith unwittingly carried it into his own composition, I must demonstrate that the word choice in question--"dragon" in this case--was indeed incorrect. Stating what the underlying Hebrew word actually means is useful, but to demonstrate that an erroneous word choice was effected, I should research how other translators of that era rendered that Hebrew word. In this instance there are several versions to choose from, thus the critics should have accounted for the contemporary translations. The critics, as you may guess, did not account for any contemporaneous translations of the same passage.
Inasmuch as I doubt the critics would even know what I am referring to when I say "contemporaneous translations of the same passage", I will be merciful and do so myself:
1611
Isaiah 51:9
Awake, awake, put on strength,
O arme of the Lord;
awake, as in the ancient dayes,
in the generations of old.
Art thou not it that hath cut Rahab,
and wounded the dragon?
1609
The Holie Bible
(Douay Rheims, Catholic translation of the Latin Vulagte to English)
Arise, arise, put on strength
ô arme of our Lord:
arise as in the old dayes,
in the generations of worldes.
Hast thou not stricken the proude,
wounded the dragon?
1595 (first edition 1569)
Bishops Bible
(Commisioned by Queen Elizabeth I)
Wake up, wake up, and be strong,
O thou arme of the Lorde,
wake up, like as in time past,
ever, and since the world began.
Art not thou the same arme
that hast wounded the proude,
and hewen the Dragon in pieces?
1560, Geneva Bible (Calvinist)
Rise vp, rise vp, and put on strength,
ô arme of the Lord:
rise vp, as in the olde time
in the generations of the worlde.
Art not thou the same,
that hast cut Rahab,
and wounded the dragon?
The Matthews Bible, 1537
(Permitted under Henry VIII)
Wake vp/wake vp/and be stronge:
O thou arme of the Lorde:
wake vp/lyke as in tymes past/
euer and sence the world begãne.
Art thou not he/
that hast wounded that proude lucifer/
and hewen the dragon in peces:
Well, I imagine it was as fun for you as for me to see the allegation have to amend itself:
Why does The Book of Mormon contain a mistake from the 1769 edition of the King James Bible?
I mean from the 1611 King James Bible.
I mean from the 1609 Douay Rheims Bible.
Well, actually from the 1595 (1569) Bishops Bible.
Well, actually from the 1560 Geneva Bible.
I mean from the 1537 Matthews Bible.
But as good academics, let us go further, let us go back as far as the data will allow:
Circa 1380, Wycliffe Bible
(Illegal translation from Latin to Middle English)
Rise thou, rise thou,
arm of the Lord,
be thou clothyd in strengthe;
rise thou, as in elde daies,
in generaciouns of worldis.
Whether thou smytidist not the proude man,
woundidist not the dragoun?
These are the English translations that predate or are contemporary with The King James Bible: The Douay Rheims (1609), The Bishops Bible (1569), The Geneva Bible (1560), The Matthews Bible (1537), The John Wycliffe Bible (1380).
However, the Wycliffe Bible and the Douay Rheims Bible are translations of the Latin Vulgate Bible, itself a translation of the Greek Septuagint Bible, which was a Greek translation of the Hebrew text current at that time (long since lost). Inasmuch as both the Latin and Greek translations predate the English translations and are extant, it is sound academic practice both to acknowledge their existence and to scrutinize them for relevance.
Latin Vulgate
(Circa fourth century AD, adapted later, this is a 1691 edition)
Consurge, consurge,
induere fortitudinem brachium Domini :
consurge sicut in diebus antiquis,
in generationibus sæculorum.
Numquid non tu percussisti superbum,
vulnerasti draconem?
The Septuagint, (Greek translation of a now lost Hebrew Old Testament, circa 200 B.C.)
Exegeirou, exegeirou Ierousalém
kai endusai tén isxun tou braxionos sou
Exegeirou ôs en arxé émèras
ôs genea aiônos
ou su ei é latomésasa plates
diarréxasa drakonta
Well, well, well. Let us allow the critics to amend their charge yet further:
Why does The Book of Mormon have a mistake from the Wycliffe Bible of circa 1380?
I mean from the Latin Vulgate from the fourth century AD?
I actually mean from the Greek Septuagint circa 200 BC?
Hopefully the reader now appreciates the point I have been striving to make all along, that although some of the principles of linguistics are very simple (such as comparing contemporary translations to see if I have grounds to allege that the King James translators made a "mistake"), these simple research principles can impact the outcome, as when the charge of a 1769 mistake gets carried back further and further till landing in 200 BC and forming an unbroken string of identical translations of the same word:
Septuagint, 200 BC: drakonta
Vulgate 4th century AD: draconem
Wycliffe, AD 1380: dragoun
Matthews, AD 1537: dragon
Geneva, AD 1560: dragon
Bishops AD 1569: dragon
Rheims, AD 1609: dragon
King James, AD 1611/1769: dragon
When the reader is provided with actual research rather than a hurried allegation that stirs doubt but, as we have seen, undeservedly, the question at hand is transformed. After all, eight successive translations all rendered the word for "dragon" for what technically could have been rendered "monster". This nearly 2000 year phenomenon greatly diminishes what initially may have struck some readers as problematic.
The Next Step: Hypothesis and Evidence
All this research notwithstanding, I will still indulge the critics with an analysis, an answer if you will, though in honesty I will amend the initial accusatory question to reflect the actual situation:
Q: Why does The Book of Mormon render the Hebrew word for "monster" as "dragon", the same as every one of the previous six English translations of Isaiah 51:9 and the Vulgate and Septuagint translations of that passage as well?
A: I believe that The Lord, the actual Translator (Joseph Smith had a gift to *read* the English text that would appear on his seer stone), used what I will call a deferential transitional translation.
Q: What do you mean by "deferential transitional translation"?
A: I mean that whenever The Book of Mormon source text has actual passages that are quotations from Isaiah (as the prime example), The Lord showed regard for the work rendered by His previous translator-servants, so long as there were no doctrinal errors. As an example of an error, the King James translators turned the focus of the first question in Isaiah 51:9 to the "arm" rather than the Lord Himself--"Art thou not it that hath cut Rahab"--and this is the actual mistake. The Lord corrected the "it" in The Book of Mormon passage--"Art thou not *he* that hath cut Rahab?" Aside from this minor doctrinal error the rest of the passage was sound, so The Lord showed regard for nearly 1800 years of translation service and preserved the word choice "dragon".
That is to say, inasmuch as all of His previous translator-servants had rendered "monster" as "dragon", from 200 BC up to 1769, The Lord deemed that word choice not to be disruptive of the doctrine and countenanced its inclusion in The Book of Mormon.
Q: That would be what you call a "deferential" translation, or one that shows deference or respect for precedence. But what do you mean by "transitional"?
A: By "transitional" I mean that elsewhere in The Book of Mormon, where the prophet, in this case Nephi, makes reference to Isaiah and expounds on Isaiah's teaching, but not by way of quoting actual passages, simply by making reference to a key point, here The Lord delivers the more precise translation of "monster".
Q: Are you saying that The Book of Mormon actually delivers the translation of "monster" just as critics initially demanded, just in parts that are not quotes from Isaiah?
A: That is precisely what I am asserting. We have already seen at length that Isaiah 51:9 is reflected almost identically in 2 Nephi 8:9. However, the Prophet Nephi expanded on the doctrine of The Lord "wounding the dragon", and here Nephi says, not "dragon", but "monster", just as he should have if he were a Hebrew-speaker familiar only with the Hebrew text:
2 Nephi 9: 10, 19, 26
10: O how great the goodness of our God,
who prepareth a way
for our escape from the grasp
of this awful monster;
yea, that monster,
death and hell,
which I call the death of the body,
and also the death of the spirit.
19 O the greatness of the mercy of our God,
the Holy One of Israel!
For he delivereth his saints
from that awful monster the devil,
and death, and hell,
and that lake of fire and brimstone,
which is endless torment.
26 For the atonement satisfieth
the demands of his justice upon all those
who have not the law given to them,
that they are delivered from that awful monster,
death and hell, and the devil,
and the lake of fire and brimstone,
which is endless torment;
and they are restored to that God
who gave them breath,
which is the Holy One of Israel.
It is actually quite astonishing that Nephi's words are translated from Hebrew to English using the term "monster" just as the Hebrew does in Isaiah 51:9, except in the passage that was a direct quote of Isaiah, Isaiah 51:9, and here The Lord showed deference for the 2000 years of translation work His servants had rendered.
Conclusion
As I am very fond of saying, when man raises his puny arm to assail the work of God, the weapon man supposes he has deals no discrediting blow on the Word of God but rather goes on to open up a line of inquiry that confirms the truthfulness of the work of God.
Critics latched on to the fact that Isaiah 51:9 says "monster" in Hebrew, the King James Bible, however, says "dragon", and inasmuch as 2 Nephi 8:9 also says "dragon", these critics who were more eager to use doubt to induce departures from devotion than actually to do honest research and present their findings, ended up rushing to a hasty and ultimately groundless accusation. Their allegation, nevertheless, spurred this blogger to inquire of The Lord, the greatest Scientist of all, and He led me from point to point up to a conclusion that, yet again, adds yet more credence to what The Holy Ghost so willingly reveals to all who ask God, The Father, in the name of Jesus Christ: The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ is true.
The readers are clearly at liberty to draw their own conclusions from what I have presented here. The readers may even be prompted to yet other relevant investigations.
I only ask that as regards what I have shared you bear in mind that it is actually textual.
No comments:
Post a Comment