In their excellent review of The New Mormon Challenge (2002), John A. Tvedtnes and Matthew Roper addressed the use of KJV verbiage in the Book of Mormon:
But Joseph Smith was not alone in following
this practice. Nearly a century after the publication of the Book of Mormon,
Robert H. Charles prepared his magnum opus, a two-volume translation of ancient
texts known as The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament.
Charles made it a point to imitate the style of the King James Version of the
Bible. He did so for several reasons; for example, the New Testament cited some
of these works or earlier writings on which they were dependent. Because the
KJV was the Bible most commonly read in the English speaking world, this
ensured that readers of Charles’s work would readily make the tie between the
KJV and those other texts. Oxford University Press continues to publish
Charles’s book. Jewish scholar Theodor H. Gaster intermingled KJV language and
modern English in his Dead Sea Scriptures. When citing passages from the
Dead Sea Scrolls that were also found in the Bible, he employed the older style
of English. When Robert L. Lindsey began his work in Israel with the Gospel
of Mark, he initially translated it “into simple modern Hebrew from the Greek
text. The text was then distributed to Hebrew-speaking readers and comments
invited.” Many of those who reviewed the work expressed “the desire that the
Gospels, as ancient works, should be read in Old Testament Hebrew style.”
Lindsey returned to the task and prepared a translation of Mark in biblical
Hebrew that has received wide acclaim. (John A. Tvedtnes and Matthew Roper,
“One
Small Step,” FARMS Review 15, no. 1 [2003]: 159-60, emphasis in bold
added)
In the
above note (no. 24), we read the following reference to Lindsey’s work:
From Robert L. Lindsey’s introduction to A
Hebrew Translation of the Gospel of Mark (Jerusalem: Baptist House, n.d.),
76; see also 78–79
I managed
to find a copy of Lindsey’s translation of Mark. Here is the section “The
Problem of Style” reproduced en toto:
The
Problem of Style
The most important goal in the
translation of the Bible is the achievement of a translation which will be read
with understanding and pleasure by persons whose mother tongue is that of the
translation itself. From this statement of purpose to the actual accomplishment
of it is quite another matter, however. The multiplicity of modern English
versions sufficiently testifies to both the demand and difficulty of achieving
such a goal.
It is easier to translate with
the goal of understanding than with that of both understanding and pleasure.
Most translators begin with the first goal and towards this end our first
attempts were made. After the initial experiment described earlier the Gospel
of Mark was carefully and for the most part quite literally rendered into simple
modern Hebrew from the Greek text. The text was then distributed to
Hebrew-speaking readers and comments invited.
There were few criticisms of the
accuracy of the text but a good many of the style. A fair section of the latter
were found to emphasize the desire that the Gospels, as ancient works, should
be read in Old Testament Hebrew style. Some suggested the use of Mishnaic
Hebrew style. None, or almost none, appeared to desire the use of a
"good" modern style. The criticisms considered of most weight were
naturally those of Israelis whose mother tongue was Hebrew.
Underlining these evaluations
were other important considerations. The long tedious research into the Greek
text had emphasized the high probability that the narrative elements of our Gospels
had once been current in a Hebrew much like that of the OT. This style revealed
several idioms which suggested a certain deliberate choice of archasims but
even the narrative elements in Jesus' former teaching appeared to have been given
in Biblical Hebrew. On the other hand many of the conversations of Jesus were
filled with Mishnaic Hebrew expressions and here and there words or phrases had
been used which suggested the language of the Qumran scrolls.
The importance of the use of BH
style in our Gospels can be illustrated most simply by reference to the high
frequency of the conjunction "and" (kai and de in the
Greek texts). The Mishnaic Hebrew idiom that we know has descended largely from
notes made by the rabbis in their discussion on the texts of the Bible and the
result is that a kind of shorthand developed which rudely leaves out most of
the "ands" the older Hebrew demanded. Indeed, it is now clear from
the Qumran models that Jews in the period of the Second Temple refused to use
the Mishnaic expressions of their daily speech when writing serious
compositions, preferring to attempt to imitate the Biblical style.
In the modern Israeli
rejuvenation of spoken and written Hebrew this limitation has long since been
abandoned. No one today writes in Biblical Hebrew. On the other hand the
attempt to return to a "pure" Mishnaic Hebrew style by some writers
cannot be said to have created many disciples among modern novelists and poets.
At the same time the demands of life and the literary models of non-Semitic
languages have left their impression on the spoken and written language and the
result is that "New" Hebrew is the heir of numerous influences. Thus,
for instance, the "and" of BH is capable of much less acceptable
employment in modern Hebrew than it was in the Biblical period. On the ground
of the conjunction "and" alone the literal translation of our Greek
text to modern Hebrew is completely anachronistic.
Quite apart from these
considerations of Israeli taste is the question what importance is to be
attached to the probability that the more literal the translation the more
certain it often is that the ancient Hebrew text has, as it were, reappeared.
In this kind of translation the tantalizing possibility is constantly held out
that we may often recover the exact words of Jesus himself, or at least that of
the Hebrew undertext. This cannot be done without careful assessment of the extent
to which many texts have been subjected to the interpretive and paraphrastic
tendencies of our Greek composer nor can we avoid rendering what the Greek
author intended even when it is clear that the obvious meaning of the Hebrew vorlage
was different but where a Greek text clearly transmits a word by word equivalence
of the earlier Hebrew it would be a great loss if we were to fail to translate
with great literalness.
There is also an area of
reconstruction which leaves the trans- lator free in a way not suggested by the
above remark Frequently, as in the Greecizing of "Kingdom of Heaven"
to "Kingdom of God" there is no reason in the actual work of
translation for not restoring the original expression, especially if it is
clear that the author had no intention other than that of clarity in making his
translation variant. It is unfortunate that sometimes, as in the example just
given, this freedom is denied the translator due to translation tradition or
some other consideration. Nonetheless it is the translator's obligation to
retain as many ancient usages as are readily acceptable to his readers.
When all these features are borne
in mind it will come as no surprise that the present translation appears in BH
style yet includes whatever Mishnaic and Qumranic words and phrases are
demanded by the Greek text. To the Hebrew purist who would iike to discard even
this admixture we can only say that back of our Gospels lies a Hebrew text
which was itself apparently characterized by this admixture For similar reasons
Delitsch adopted a style which was partly BH and partly Mishnaic. To the translation
modernist who would expunge many an ancient term in his zeal for a language
known by every immigrant Israeli building worker we can only say that the
churches in Israel need in a NT translation first of all a book whose language
will adequately reflect the early Jewish-Christian linguistic scene and will
give literary pleasure as well as understanding. Let the Hebrew-of-the- street
translations come, for they are needed, but hardly for the public and
educational reading of our congregations.
These remarks are not meant to suggest that no attempt has been made to modify the wording of the present translation in the direction of modern Hebrew usage. Quite the contrary is true. Wherever possible only words and phrases have been used which are readily understandable to well-read Israelis whose mother tongue and school experience have been in Hebrew. Three earlier editions of this text were mimeographed or lithographed and used experimentally with individuals and groups and the present version incorporates many of the criticisms of these persons. Of course only much further testing will prove whether the public in general will find the translation acceptable. (Robert L. Lindsey, "Introduction," in A Hebrew Translation of the Gospel of Mark ספר הבשורה על-פי מרקוס [Jerusalem: Dugith Publishers, n.d.], 76-79, italics in original)
