Reading Materials

So, I was going to add a picture of a fun FHE activity here, but I couldn't get the photo off my phone. Oh well. It was a bunch of [mostly] college students sitting around in the bishop's living room and playing pictionary with movie titles, followed by apple pie and ice cream. It was fun and sociable. That's about all for my life in this post, the rest is a lengthy discussion of Biblical language. Those easily bored should probably stop reading.

I've been reading the New Testament lately in the New International Version. The New International Version is a Bible translation that was done fairly recently, and renders the entire Bible in modern English. That's not to say casual English--it is still quite formal, just less archaic. There aren't too many LDS people that read the NIV translation (though I do know of a couple). As far as I can tell, the main argument against it is that the language is somehow less formal or less respectful. In particular, there exists a feeling that using "you" to address God is overly casual. I want to discuss that a bit.

The reference Bible translation for most Latter-Day Saints is the King James Version. It's familiar, it's comfortable, it's the version that our fairly expansive theological literature refers to, and it's difficult to read. The archaic style both gives it a ceremonial air of formality and slows down the reader. There have been some official statements on this: for example, using the pronouns "thee/thou/thy/thine" has been endorsed several times as being more respectful. This is a really interesting statement. It's true that in modern English, these words connote respect, but there is a chicken and egg problem here. The reason that we use thees and thous in the Bible is because William Tyndale used them in his translation in the 1500s to make clear the difference between "one of you" and "all of you," which are two different words in the original Greek. At the time, thee and thou were the singular, informal English forms, and it seems likely they acquired that air of formality because they were used in the Bible. (If you're interested, there's a wikipedia article that gives a much more thorough treatment than this post can). Now, when we read the scriptures, should we interpret them according to what the words mean now, or what was actually written in the first place?

By the way, most of the other Indo-European languages have kept their old plural-formal/singular-intimate distinction, and at least in the languages I'm familiar with (Spanish: ti/vosotros, French: tu/vous, Bulgarian: ti/vie), you always address God using the singular-intimate form. Here's a quick illustration from the Lord's prayer:

English: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.

Bulgarian (Latinized, dropping Biblical terminal vowels): Otče nash, Koyto si na nebesata, da se sveti Tvoeto ime! da doyde Tvoeto tsarstvo; da băde Tvoyata volya, kakto na nebeto taka i na zemyata.

French: Notre Père, toi qui es dans les cieux, que tu sois reconnu pour Dieu, que ton règne vienne, que ta volonté soit faite, et tout cela, sur la terre comme au ciel.

Spanish: Padre nuestro que estás en el cielo, santificado sea tu nombre, venga tu reino, hágase tu voluntad en la tierra como en el cielo.

Although the tu/ti form definitely has intimate and informal connotations in these languages, it's still used for addressing God. This usage even carries over into Book of Mormon translations. Here's Lehi praising God in 1 Nephi 1:14:

English: Great and marvelous are thy works, O Lord God Almighty! Thy throne is high in the heavens, and thy power, and goodness, and mercy are over all the inhabitants of the earth; and, because thou art merciful, thou wilt not suffer those who come unto thee that they shall perish!

Bulgarian (Latinized): Veliki i čudni sa tvoite dela, o Gospodi, Bože Vsemogâshtiy! Prestolât Ti e visoko v nebesata i Tvoyata sila, i dobrina, i milost sa nad vsički žiteli na zemyata; i poneže si milostiv, Ti ne shte pozvolish onezi, koito idvat pri Tebe, da poginat!

French: Grandes et merveilleuses sont tes œuvres, ô Seigneur Dieu tout-puissant! Ton trône est haut dans les cieux, et ta puissance, ta bonté et ta miséricorde s'étendent sur tous les habitants de la terre; et parce que tu es miséricordieux, tu ne souffriras pas que ceux qui viennent à toi périssent.

Spanish: ¡Cuán grandes y maravillosas son tus obras, oh Señor Dios Todopoderoso! ¡Tu trono se eleva en las alturas de los cielos, y tu poder, y tu bondad y misericordia se extienden sobre todos los habitantes de la tierra; y porque eres misericordioso, no dejarás perecer a los que acudan a ti!

I don't want to give the idea that these languages are being at all disrespectful (indeed, you might have noticed that the Bulgarians capitalize the pronouns). Rather, I want to show that using an intimate form of "you" need not be a sign of disrespect.

But why bring this up? Part of the problem is that the archaic forms simply aren't understood clearly anymore. They are turning into kind of ritual formula, repeated without truly understanding the words. In any given testimony meeting, at least a handful of the testimonies are going to end with "in the name of thy son..." The speaker is repeating a ritual phrase, without understanding its meaning. Can you imagine that same speaker ending a testimony "in the name of your son..."? I think not! Further, it's very rare for members to actually use the grammar properly--The "thee" form has a fairly complex set of rules, and it's often used incorrectly. If this is truly a question of respect, then is it really all that appropriate to address deity with halting, bad grammar?

A counter-proposal, of course, is that we should take the time to learn the Jacobean English properly. This, to me, seems similar to the Moslems requiring that you learn Arabic to read the Koran, or Catholics requiring that you learn Latin if you wish to understand the liturgy. In the Moslem case, the scriptures were felt to be the literal word of God, and translation would destroy their integrity. The Catholics settled on Latin because tradition acquires a momentum of its own, which I think is also why Jacobean English has stayed with us so long. The terrible irony in the Catholic case is that the Latin was originally translated from the Greek, so that the commoners might understand!

And that, in a nutshell, is the point. Modern English may not have the same religious gravitas, but it does add a certain electric quality to the scriptures. It bypasses that piece of your brain that has to work at decoding the language and goes straight to the meaning. While I would struggle to make it through a full chapter of Paul's letters in the KJV, I find myself reading entire books at a sitting in the NIV, and enjoying the flow of the text and the arguments. It's not that I don't understand the KJV, but it just doesn't feel the same. I've read maybe five-thousand pages worth of Jacobean English in my life, but my practice with modern English is perhaps a hundred times that. Is there really a good reason not to take advantage of that easier path to understanding?

Anyway, I have probably beaten the topic to death by now. I'll leave you with a few parting words:

"[M]y soul delighteth in plainness unto my people, that they may learn." (2 Ne 25:4)
"For it shall come to pass in that day, that every man shall hear the fulness of the gospel in his own tongue, and in his own language" (D&C 90:11)
"You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thornbushes, nor figs from thistles, are they? Even so every good tree bears good fruit; but the rotten tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a rotten tree produce good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down, and thrown into the fire. So then, you will know them by their fruits." (Matt 7:16-20, NIV)