posted
As I'm sure many of you know there has, in recent years, been somewhat of a flurry of publishing of "mainstream" sorts of books about the origin of the Bible, books not included in the Bible, sacred books of "non-Pauline christians" and so forth. While many Christians hold the creed of Biblical infallibility there are also many which do not, my own church included. In fact, in our canon is found the following statement about extra-biblical books:
quote: VERILY, thus saith the Lord unto you concerning the Apocrypha? There are many things contained therein that are true, and it is mostly translated correctly;
2 There are many things contained therein that are not true, which are interpolations by the hands of men.
So of course the easy access to many extra-biblical scriptures intrigues me and I have spent some time reading some of the available books. Of course most of it has such a different feel than the biblical text that I discount its authenticity immediately. For example, the "infancy gospel of Thomas" feels to me like the pathetic attempts of some over-zealous fellow to invent a backstory for young Jesus. Such things as recycled New-Testament dialogue with minor changes to fit unrelated situations as well as certain things which feel flatly contradictory to the character of the adult Jesus lead me to cross this one off the list.
Then there are a plethora of Gnostic gospels which I also pretty much dismiss out of hand. Oh, so Christ only pretended to resurrect eh? Curious.
However, one that really resonated well with me and that I think will also do so with others was 1 Clement. Here is a link to an online translation. The references to the ongoing apostasy, the citing of scripture to prove his points etc. It all strikes me as very authentic and in harmony with the rest of the NT. Have a look for yourselves and see what you think.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The epistle of clement has never really been contested as being anything other than it says it is (and I am not counting the title as part of what it says it is, since as with many texts in the bible the title was added later), which is one of the strongest arguments for its inclusion in the bible and one of the strongest against as well.
It is clearly a work of the early church, which is easily shown by textual and historical evidence. However, it is not early enough for most to consider it a valid book of the bible, as the preferred date for such was in the apostolic period of the early church (and the text itself states the apostolic period is past). However, recent scholarship about books in the bible such as Revelation suggest that not all books in the bible were written in the apostolic period, and in fact were likely written after Clement.
I'd like to briefly comment on another extra biblical work, namely the book of mormon. The problem I've always had with the Book of Mormon is that it reads to me like a bad science fiction novel written in the style of the King James bible, only less elegantly. Of course, in its explication the Book of Mormon was translated by man. However to me the King James bible has always been a very beautiful book, but not very beautiful scripture (insofar as I believe in scripture, which isn't very). The power of the bible has always been in its simplicity and straightforwardness, and were I to only know the King James version I doubt I'd be even slightly tempted to consider it a work of God. As such, I've never been particularly tempted by the Book of Mormon, either. And as OSC himself has amply pointed out, it certainly can be seen as a Science Fiction story .
Of course, ultimately the inclusion of any book, any sentence, or any word within a personal canon is a matter of faith. If one has faith in the Book of Mormon, thats it, no more questions. Not that faith cannot or should not be questioned, but that once that faith is there the objects of it are not questioned, but the faith itself, perhaps through a motivation of the objects, but this does not involve a direct questioning of the objects they only being a channel for indirection.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jacare, do you know when this was translated? The web page is (c)2002, but that doesn't really answer the question. It also says it was translated by J. B. Lightfoot -- I assume this is a relation of Gordon (?), but to be honest I don't know who that is, either, so it doesn't help me with time frame.
The reason I ask is this: why the archaic language? To sound more Biblical? And the related question I'll pose to you, since you're here -- why the archaic language in the BoM? Has it never been translated into anything more modern the way The Bible has? I'd have guesses as to why it hadn't happened, but is there a doctrinal reason? I know that accuracy of translation is considered both important and currently (chronically?) imperfect, so is translating into more modern language not done in fear of losing meaning? (Also, please don't consider me to be attaching any negative connotation to the term "archaic" -- it just seemed the best fit for what I mean here inside my head.)
The reason I ask is as follows (and I apologize for possibly derailing your thread so very early). I've heard many times that when one reads the Book of Mormon, one will receive some sort of testimony of its accuracy -- that it is the "most correct of any book on earth," as Joseph Smith said. The thing is that I've tried to read it quite a number of times, and I simply can't. Either I'm unable to get past the language being used, or my testimony of it is that I shouldn't be reading it. I doubt the latter, since I had just as much difficulty with the King James (though I forced myself through all of it because it was in a college class and being viewed as literature rather than theology, so different language with the same meaning wouldn't fly).
The closest I've come to reading it is the Homecoming series. But all the names are wrong. *smile*
Is there a more modern language translation of the BoM?
--Pop
[While I was typing this, fugu posted his reply, which kind of identifies some of the questions above. But I'm asking them.]
Posts: 6213 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think any translation of the Book of Mormon would have to be a secondary translation -- wasn't the original text Smith said he worked from destroyed at some point, with no surviving copies?
The odd thing about the KJV is its not a particularly archaic translation. More recent translations are much more faithful to the original flow of the text as I've had it explained to me by those who speak older languages. The KJV is really a pretty modern translation in terms of similarity to the original text and age.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: The problem I've always had with the Book of Mormon is that it reads to me like a bad science fiction novel written in the style of the King James bible, only less elegantly. Of course, in its explication the Book of Mormon was translated by man. However to me the King James bible has always been a very beautiful book, but not very beautiful scripture (insofar as I believe in scripture, which isn't very). The power of the bible has always been in its simplicity and straightforwardness, and were I to only know the King James version I doubt I'd be even slightly tempted to consider it a work of God. As such, I've never been particularly tempted by the Book of Mormon, either.
Forgive me if I'm out of line, being a newbie and all, but I'm not sure I understand what you are saying here. Are you saying that the Bible was not translated by man? And/or that the KJ version of the Bible is more simple and straightforward than the Book of Mormon? What would be or is beautiful scripture to you? What other version(s) of the Bible have you read? Do those other versions tempt you to consider the Bible a work of God?
Sorry for the 20 questions, but I'm curious to know where you're coming from.
Posts: 80 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Disclaimer: all of the below is provided as from my perspective. It is not meant to state an absolute.
The KJV is more elegant than the Book of Mormon. Both are in similar styles. Neither particularly inspires me to believe, as from my perspective something that was the work of God would be powerful in its simplicity, not its ornateness.
Some of the other versions of the Bible I've read at least large segments from: the New Jerusalem (both regular and standard editions, which largely differ in amount of annotation), the New Revised Standard, and the New American Standard Bible. I have a particular fondness for the New Jerusalem.
I consider the New Jerusalem the work most likely to persuade me of the holiness of its Truths, but think that being persuaded of the existence of a God qua the Christian God is an event unlikely in the extreme.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Book of Mormon is a much simpler style than the King James version of the Bible. In a lot of ways, it is even simpler than the Doctrine and Covenants, which is a book of revelations similar to The Koran. But where it has been translated into other languages, the Book of Mormon has been translated into as clear language as possible, following the tradition of protestant bibles.
Someone did publish a modern english version a while back, not realizing that the Church would get really upset. I don't know how upset, but my brother in law has a copy and all over it is stamped "This is NOT approved by the Church" in so many words.
I was looking at a LDS targeted books brochure the other day, and there is a simple English guide to the Book of Mormon.
I got into a pretty serious debate with my brother in law about whether they will ever update the language of the KJV Bible or the Book of Mormon. He had kind of absorbed a Biblical fundamentalist stand on it, but I thought it is pretty important for people to be able to understand it.
My husband says the Arabic translation of the book of Mormon is very "high" or classical. There is a Hebrew translation as well, but the church has agreed with Israel to not distribute it.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was just trying to figure out how to frame a form of this question a day or so ago. And, by the way, I blame Hatrack, so I wanted to start discussion here. Just...didn't.
I blame Hatrack because while I've read the gnostic gospels and the Nag Hammadi scriptures and the other various apocryphal and pseudopigraphal books, I'd never read Elaine Pagels's books. Well, now I have. All of them.
I am, by the way, still working on framing my question. Just felt the need to comment. Carry on.
quote:The odd thing about the KJV is its not a particularly archaic translation.
Actually, the KJV was modeled largely on the Tyndale Bible, which came about a century prior. So even when the KJV was new, it was slightly archaic. The Book of Mormon has many similarities in terms of style, structure, word choice, and so on, but it generally tends to fall somewhere between the 1600s and 1800s in terms of style.
Of course, the sentence structure of the Book of Mormon can be a little wacky, with lots of subordinate clauses. That's not very common in English, which tends towards coordinate clauses instead. I assume that it's left over from the original language it was translated from. Or it could be related more to the natural evolution of English, which started to pick up more of a tendency to subordination due to the influence of Latin in the Enlightenment.
There's a professor at BYU who's doing a contextual analysis of the Book of Mormon, actually. Too bad I haven't had any classes from him.
[ December 04, 2003, 07:47 PM: Message edited by: Jon Boy ]
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I meant archaic as compared to the original bible, in this case. While the KJV is certainly old, the original language is older, and (again, according to other people I've talked with who actually know the languages) more similar stylistically to some of the more recent translations.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
pooka, your husband sounds cool. The Arabic Book of Mormon (A copy of which I have and can read but not understand yet) is written in a "higher" language than spoken dialects because Classical/Koranic Arabic is a language that all spoken dialects stem from, and everyone in the Arab world reads and understands it from an early age. I'm currently learning fus-ha (Classical written) and amiyya (colloquial Egyptian--language of movies, tv shows, etc) because if I land myself in Iraq or Jordan and can't match my amiyya with their dialect, I can speak to them in fus-ha.
[/showingoffarabicknowledge]
Anyway, I realize some versions of the bible are easier to understand than the KJV, and I'm pretty sure John Welsh's evidence of chiasmus in the OT and NT were taken from other translations that were more true to the text, but I kinda like the KJV. Its 'thee's and 'thou's are poetic. I feel like I'm reading something important when I read the Bible, if that makes sense.
Posts: 4089 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
For me its just the opposite. Reading the KJV feels to me like I'm reading something that's trying to be important. From my perspective, the word of God (or any other Truth) would be awesome (such an overused word) in its simplicity.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
fugu, that reminds me of a bit from a favorite book of mine (Brushstrokes, by Gary Levine):
quote: "It's just that when you say 'holiness,' it calls up pictures of heavenly fires and Charleton Heston on the mountain. People who read the Torah in English keep seeing everything as gigantic, larger than life. 'Thou shalt take unto thyself . . .' Makes it sound like a Shakespearean soliloquy. And it's not that at all. It's a simple, straight-forward thing in the Hebrew. It's like going into a candy store and saying: 'Thou shalt impart unto me two sweetened confections.' That's just how it is. Holiness isn't up in the clouds. It's a practical thing, a law, part of a legal system. You see?"
"You'll have to let Marv run down gradually," Tzipporah said. "His hobby horse is all wound up again. We've had to listen to this since he came home in June."
posted
My current favorite bit of Apocrypha = "Lamb: The Gospel According to Biff, Christ's Childhood Pal," by Chrisopher Moore
Posts: 2911 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Jacare, do you know when this was translated?
No, I don't have any idea. I have read a couple of different translations and they were pretty close to one another, but I liked this one better (probably just because it "feels" like scripture to me due to the older style English).
quote: The reason I ask is this: why the archaic language? To sound more Biblical? And the related question I'll pose to you, since you're here -- why the archaic language in the BoM? Has it never been translated into anything more modern the way The Bible has?
Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon using his best King James- style English because frankly it would have been much more difficult for many to accept as scripture otherwise. This basically explains some of Fugu's comments too:
quote: The problem I've always had with the Book of Mormon is that it reads to me like a bad science fiction novel written in the style of the King James bible, only less elegantly.
I am baffled by the first part of your statement. Bad science fiction? In what way? The only thing that I know of which might possibly be construed as fiction is the idea that Israelites came to the Americas long before Columbus, and of course if it were untrue that would be historical rather than science fiction at any rate. And even this scenario is not implausible since archaeologist and explorer Thor Heyerdahl showed conclusively (by building a boat himself) that transoceanic voyages were possible using very primitive boat-making technology (see this link) As to the second part of your statement by response is: of course! The King James Bible was translatedby what, 50 or so scholars of ancient languages? The Book of Mormon was translated by a man who had maybe three years of formal education. The language he used in the translation is King James English as he read it from the Bible. And he made some grammatical errors. Another bit of difficulty is encountered because Joseph preserved much of the Hebrew/Aramaic influence in the book. These "Hebraisms" may impede progress in reading the book.
quote: Either I'm unable to get past the language being used, or my testimony of it is that I shouldn't be reading it. I doubt the latter, since I had just as much difficulty with the King James (though I forced myself through all of it because it was in a college class and being viewed as literature rather than theology, so different language with the same meaning wouldn't fly).
It might help if you made it also a bit of an intellectual exercise. Admittedly such an exercise may be pretty time consuming, but I thoroughly enjoy it myself. The paramount question in your mind as you read it should be "Is this book really what it claims to be?" If the book is an ancient record then we should see evidence of such literally everywhere we look. If it is an invention of the 19th century then such a fact should be painfully obvious to all who view it (see this article by OSC for a bit more discussion around this topic).
If the book really was written by Israelites-turned-mesoamericans we should see their mark upon every page. See this article for some interesting discussion on textual criticism of the Book of Mormon. Also, many of these papers cover some interesting points.
posted
I thought I posted a reply that Book of Mormon doesn't use -eth (for -ed) and Ye as much as the bible, which would have been a pretty easy change to make. It kind of seems there is an 18th century dialect for what the people are doing, and a KJV style for God or biblical quotations.
The Old Testament and the New Testament within the Bible are also different styles, moreso than the degree to which the individual books are different. (which is also true for the Book of Mormon)
I don't rely on textual analysis "wordprint" studies. I think they are interesting but unlikely to convince anyone who doesn't already have a testimony of the Book of Mormon.
I think right now my favorite part of the book of Mormon is Jacob 5 , the olive tree. I'm not sure if it conforms with what I've mentioned, since it is a quote from an apparently lost Old Testament Prophet. (the Lehi group left Jerusalem about 150 years after Isaiah was Prophet.) I've found it to be a useful rubrik of thought for many situations. Parenting, writing, the relationship of the spirit to the body. Pretty much everything important in life.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course, the bible doesn't use "-eth" or "ye" at all. Those are choices that were made in the translations of some bibles, which are not particularly appropriate textually (standard so I have been told by people who know the languages disclaimer).
Jacare -- note that I did say the style is explained by its explication.
As for the "bad science fiction" aspect of it, I'm mainly referring to the flow, though many aspects of the advocated theology are definitely science fiction-ish.
Something interesting I ran into -- apparently in places where the Book of Mormon quotes the Bible, it has the same translation errors as the KJV: http://www.2think.org/hundredsheep/bom/summary.shtml . Another interesting bit is that several biblical quotations occur chronologically before their original oration. Of course, this could be true due to textual errors in either text, or the quotations following the opposite descent (Malachi actually quoting Nephi, for instance).
The conclusions of the above page are certainly biased, but their textual discussion seems to be relatively free thereof, and a quite interesting guide to some of the similarities between the BoM and KJV.
The site has a number of other interesting textual bits, but they tend to be couched in far more bias, so I won't link to them directly, and if you're interested just go to http://www.2think.org/hundredsheep and click on the "Skeptical Mormon Information" (don't worry, they don't have a particular agenda against mormons; they page is a general clearing house for christian skepticism from an agnostic viewpoint).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Random comment on the Christian skeptics bit, though, particularly one called "Hard questions for the church." Most of them aren't. I'm skeptical of the "years of study" this guy has put in if these are the "hard questions" he's come up with. A lot of them could be answered with a cursory knowledge of ANE culture as regards his old testament questions.
I don't doubt that his questions are important to him. At least I hope they are and I hope he's actually looking instead of sitting back with that collection of queries, satisfied that he's waged a "thorough" study of what Christianity (or Judaism for that matter since he's being judeo-christian specific) has to offer. Seems to me he's barely scratched the surface.
posted
Remember that the tough questions bit is written by someone other than the site maintainer. Also, I wouldn't go to these people for a generally unbiased opinion, just pointing out that there's no particular agenda against Mormons involved. Mainly, the site is good as a textual resource, not as a source of rhetoric .
posted
Those sites that you linked contain objections that are easily answerable-
1) "Anachronistic quotes"-
quote: Of particular interest are quotes that appear long before their sources were written. These include several hundred New Testament quotes and allusions, as well as one Old Testament anachronism. Malachi 4:1-2 is quoted or alluded to several times in First and Second Nephi. (See I Nephi 22:15 and II Nephi 26:4, for example). The problem is that Lehi and his family left Jerusalem before the Babylonian conquest - Malachi, however, was a post-exilic prophet.
What if Malachi was quoting someone earlier? The Book of Mormon states that Lehi brought a record of the history of the his people up until the time he left. A quick survey of the New Testament will show that a great deal of the preaching is quoted or inspired by earlier prophets. A common source explains the quote as easily as forgery does.
2) "Words and phrases used only in a KJV context" Easily explained by the fact that Hebrew phrases would be found in both the Bible and Book of Mormon. Joseph simply decided that the KJV translation of those phrases conveyed the meaning of the Hebrew idea.
3) "Jesus quotes the Epistles". There is a bit of dishonesty here for the author in your link. For example, we don't know exactly when Christ visited the Nephites save that it was after his resurrection and must also have been after his stay of "forty days". Hence we do not know when Peter gave his discourse in relation to when Christ visited the Nephites.
4) "Narrative Sources". Ah yes, the old guilt by similarity tactic. Because the stories are similar they must have had a common origin. Astounding logic, that.
5)"Fatigue in the Book of Mormon"- should be labelled "grasping at straws for critics of the Book of Mormon.
6) Oh Boy! We even get Occam's razor in here too! Wow, I've never seen that one used as an argument against religion before.
The second link is just silly
quote: The original text betrays its New England origin in many ways, from inconsistent spelling to incorrect use of tenses and number, as well as incorrect usage of Jacobean English.
Right. Because we know that if Joseph was translating the text he wouldn't have made any grammatical errors in his King James English.
posted
Jacare, most of the stuff is just presented as textual comparison, its mainly at the end he tries to make a case, particularly with the first link. Notice my disclaimers.
I'm not even suggesting these are "attacks" that need to be answered, they're merely interesting textual crossovers.
If you want to engage in a debate on Mormon theology, I'd be happy to, but this is the wrong place, both this thread and this message board. I've tried to keep the talk "on text".
You aren't being attacked by anyone here. No need to get defensive.
posted
I'm not getting defensive, my fine fishy friend. I am assuming that you linked those sites because you believe they are relevant to the discussion at hand. Those sites raise doubts about the authenticity of teh Book of Mormon. I think that the doubts raised therein have answers, hence I briefly answered a few.
However, we are indeed far afield from the original intent of my post which was to get some folks to read and comment about I Clement.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
.![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
.
