1611 English

[Jamie123]

This is something that's always bothered me, and quite a lot of other people from what I read. It's probably been discussed here many times before, so please forgive me if I'm beating a dead horse. Anyway, my question is why did Joseph Smith use 1611 English - not just when translating the BoM, but when describing his own experiences? For example....

I saw the transcendent beauty of the gate through which the heirs of that kingdom will enter, which was like unto circling flames of fire; Also the blazing throne of God, whereon was seated the Father and the Son.

Sounds nice I know, but is that how you'd have described it if you'd seen it yourself? I think I'd have said something like....

"I saw the beautiful gate through which the heirs of the kingdom will enter. It looked a bit like circling flames. I also saw the blazing throne of God upon which the Father and Son were seated."

("Flames of fire" is nice alliteration but have you ever seen flames that were not of fire?) The only explanation I can think of is that since in Joseph Smith's time there was no NIV or GNB, the only English translation most people knew was the KJV, and thus associated "thee's, thou's and wherefore's" with Holy Scripture. Perhaps some even vaguely thought that was how people really spoke in Biblical times. (I know I had that idea in my head as a kid.) Maybe JS thought people would be more likely to accept his works as scripture if they were written in a similar style.

However this seems to have attracted some ridicule even in the early days...

The author labored to give his words and phrases the quaint old fashioned sound and structure of our King James translation of the scriptures. The result is a mongrel, half modern glibbness and half ancient simplicity and gravity. The latter is awkward and constrained, the former natural, but grotesque by the contrast. Whenever he found his speech growing too modern, which was about every sentence or two, he ladeled in a few such scriptural phrases as, "exceeding sore," "and it came to pass," etc. and made things satisfactory again. "And it came to pass," was his pet. If he had left that out, his bible would have been only a pamphlet. (Mark Twain, Roughing It, 1872)

The irony is that the style of English used in the KJV would not have sounded remote or archaic 1611, but very modern and up-to-date. (Compare it with Shakespeare or Christopher Marlowe who wrote at about the same time.) I wonder what the KJV would be like if the translators had taken Joseph Smith's route and written in the style of Geoffrey Chaucer who lived about 2 centuries earlier...

Wepyng and waylyng, care and oother sorwe

I knowe ynogh, on even and a-morwe,'

Quod the Marchant, 'and so doon oother mo

That wedded been.

Edited November 5, 2010 by Jamie123

[Blackmarch]

This is something that's always bothered me, and quite a lot of other people from what I read. It's probably been discussed here many times before, so please forgive me if I'm beating a dead horse. Anyway, my question is why did Joseph Smith use 1611 English - not just when translating the BoM, but when describing his own experiences? For example....

Sounds nice I know, but is that how you'd have described it if you'd seen it yourself? I think I'd have said something like....

"I saw the beautiful gate through which the heirs of the kingdom will enter. It looked a bit like circling flames. I also saw the blazing throne of God upon which the Father and Son were seated."

("Flames of fire" is nice alliteration but have you ever seen flames that were not of fire?) The only explanation I can think of is that since in Joseph Smith's time there was no NIV or GNB, the only English translation most people knew was the KJV, and thus associated "thee's, thou's and wherefore's" with Holy Scripture. Perhaps some even vaguely thought that was how people really spoke in Biblical times. (I know I had that idea in my head as a kid.) Maybe JS thought people would be more likely to accept his works as scripture if they were written in a similar style.

However this seems to have attracted some ridicule even in the early days...

The irony is that the style of English used in the KJV would not have sounded remote or archaic 1611, but very modern and up-to-date. (Compare it with Shakespeare or Christopher Marlowe who wrote at about the same time.) I wonder what the KJV would be like if the translators had taken Joseph Smith's route and written in the style of Geoffrey Chaucer who lived about 2 centuries earlier...

Dunno for sure, I've always attributed it to his upbringing- that was the form he was most familiar with in text as he was growing up.

[volgadon]

Actually, for his day Joseph wasn't terribly ornate in his speech or writings.

I saw the beautiful gate through which the heirs of the kingdom will enter. It looked a bit like circling flames. I also saw the blazing throne of God upon which the Father and Son were seated.

If you read Joseph's statement carefully, your parphrase is not saying quite the same thing. Joseph wasn't stating that the gate was merely beautiful, but that it was exceptionally beautiful. Through it will enter the heirs of the specific kingdom which is beyond the gate. Joseph did not say that it looked a bit like circling flames, rather, it looked very much like circling flames. Why use circling flames of fire? Anyone familiar with the KJV would be able to associate the description with biblical accounts, and have a better idea of what Joseph was talking about. Your last sentence is modern syntax, hardly simpler or clearer than Joseph's.

[Just_A_Guy]

Remember, Joseph Smith is a contemporary of the Romantic authors/poets--for whom, as a group, Twain had little use (and many of whom actually came from your side of the pond--thanks for that!).

In describing experiences with the divine, most of us try to take our language a step above the vernacular (ever hear someone in testimony meeting describe an experience as "wicked cool!"? Yeah, me neither. ) It's just that Joseph lived in an era when language was slightly more formal, and lots (certainly not all--c.f. Twain--but lots) of authors used very flowery prose. (Dickens, anyone?)

By the way--other than the archaic spellings, the extract of Chaucer you quote doesn't really seem all that out-there--certainly no less accessible than some of the mid-twentieth-century stuff I read in high school).

Edited November 5, 2010 by Just_A_Guy

[volgadon]

Quoth was used throughout the 19th century.

[mnn727]

Actually this is incorrect, 1611 KJV is almost incomprehensable to modern readers, the version of the King James Bible that is in use today was created in 1769, 61 years before the Book of Mormon was translated. English doesn't change a whole lot in 61 years. I'm 54 myself and still speak pretty much the same style of English I learned growing up.

Here is an example

1 Corint 13 1-3 From the 1611 version

1. Though I speake with the tongues of men & of Angels, and haue not charity, I am become as sounding brasse or a tinkling cymbal. 2 And though I haue the gift of prophesie, and vnderstand all mysteries and all knowledge: and though I haue all faith, so that I could remooue mountaines, and haue no charitie, I am nothing. 3 And though I bestowe all my goods to feede the poore, and though I giue my body to bee burned, and haue not charitie, it profiteth me nothing.

From the 1769 version:

1. Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. 2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. 3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.

In these three verses, there are eleven changes of spelling, three changes of punctuation, and one variant text - where "not charity" is substituted for "no charity" in verse two, in the erroneous belief that the original reading was a misprint. Edited November 5, 2010 by mnn727

[mnn727]

("Flames of fire" is nice alliteration but have you ever seen flames that were not of fire?) ..

Actually thats is a proof FOR the Book of Mormon as that is how a Hebrew would have spoken during the time it was written (approx 400 BC to 400 AD).

Flames of fire, river of water, etc.

[Just_A_Guy]

Flames of fire, river of water, etc.

"Harpers harping with their harps" . . .

[mrmarklin]

The familiar convention used in the KJV (thee, thou and the conjugations) is used in other language translations as well. This has fallen so out of favor that many Protestant religions have dropped it altogether. Mormons are still taught to pray this way.

I think JS in his translations etc sought to use the conventions he knew. The language of the bible was pretty basic in rural US during his times.

[volgadon]

the only English translation most people knew was the KJV, and thus associated "thee's, thou's and wherefore's" with Holy Scripture. Perhaps some even vaguely thought that was how people really spoke in Biblical times. (I know I had that idea in my head as a kid.)

'Thee' and 'thou', etc., was how people spoke in biblical times. 'You' is a formal plural address.

[Dravin]

'Thee' and 'thou', etc., was how people spoke in biblical times. 'You' is a formal plural address.

Which is interesting when you think about it.

Edited November 5, 2010 by Dravin

[Just_A_Guy]

A little Pygmalion may be in order here:

Remember that you are a human being with a soul and the divine gift of articulate speech, that your native language is the language of Shakespeare and Milton and The Bible. Don't sit there crooning like a bilious pigeon.

[mnn727]

'Thee' and 'thou', etc., was how people spoke in biblical times.

Thats funny, I thought they spoke Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, etc. Didn't know English was around in Biblical times.

As a charector in a story I wrote told another charector "Jesus didn't speak the Kings English"

It is however true that in the 1600's Thee and Thou were common speak rather than a show of respect.

[rameumptom]

Joseph used 1611 KJV Bible language, because the KJV was the main English Bible of the day, and the main text for school aged children. Joseph learned to read by studying the Bible, so it was second nature for him to use such language in the translation of the BoM, and etc.

[mnn727]

Joseph used 1611 KJV Bible language,

No he used the 1769 edition of the KJV, which was itself updated from the 1611 version.

[Still_Small_Voice]

My favorite Bible version next to the Inspired Version is the 21st Century King James Version. It cleans up the King James Version text, but it does not change doctrine. Here are a few examples:

21st Century King James Version John 11

21 Then Martha said unto Jesus, "Lord, if Thou hadst been here, my brother would not have died.

22 But I know that even now, whatsoever Thou wilt ask of God, God will give it Thee."

King James Version John 11

21 Then said Martha unto Jesus, Lord, if thou hadst been here, my brother had not died.

22 But I know, that even now, whatsoever thou wilt ask of God, God will give it thee.

21st Century King James Version Amos 3

7 Surely the Lord GOD will do nothing, unless He revealeth His secret unto His servants the prophets.

King James Version Amos 3

7 Surely the Lord GOD will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets.