Skip to main content

Afrikaans and Isaiah: Translating the KJV Book of Mormon Chapters

The Afrikaans Book of Mormon
A couple years ago, a faith promoting rumor circulated about Felix Mijnhard, a non-LDS scholar who translated the Book of Mormon into Afrikaans. As the story goes, he felt the English in the text was too awkward, and had difficulty translating from it. So he looked for a source language to translate it back into and found it was a natural fit with Egyptian.

This story was widely circulated, but many rightly expressed skepticism of several details. A partial transcript of Mijnhard’s comments has surfaced, and the truth is unsurprisingly more modest, though Mijnhard did, in fact, say “that this to me proves that the Book of Mormon was not thought up but had in fact a solid matter of fact origin of some Semitic language.”

I tend to share in Kevin Barney’s assessment:
It is true Mynhardt interpreted his experience as suggesting that there was an ancient Hebraic origin to the text, but this is really no different than the extensive literature on Hebraisms in the BoM and in and of itself does not prove such an origin; the value of his statement to this effect will be in the eye of the beholder.
While I would be cautious about overusing this story to promote faith, there is an important lesson about translation to be learned here. Mijnhard explained, “Direct quotation such as from Jeremiah [he probably means Isaiah], etc., could be rendered directly from the Afrikaans version [of the Bible].” Barney explains,
He pointed out that where there were direct quotations from the OT, he could simply use the existing Afrikaans OT as a source for those passages. And that is perfectly natural; any translator would do the same thing. (We call that “riding a translation pony.”)

In short, a professional, non-LDS translator translating the Book of Mormon opted to use the already existing translation of the Bible in that language instead of re-translating the Isaiah chapters. Barney explains that this is a common practice among translators. So common that there is even a nickname for the practice: “riding a translation pony.”

What might this common phenomenon tell us about the presence of word-for-word KJV Isaiah, etc. in the Book of Mormon? Critics have long insisted that this is evidence that the Book of Mormon is not a real translation, and yet it actually is exactly what would be expected from a real translation.

What about KJV errors in the Book of Mormon? Well, what about any imperfections or difficulties in the Afrikaans translation of the Bible? When you ride that translation pony, you import the errors it carries. That is just what happens.

Yeah, but the Book of Mormon is supposed to be an “inspired” translation. So what? There are two models for Book of Mormon translation. (1) Joseph Smith was an active, but inspired translator. (2) God simply directly revealed the Book of Mormon translation. I tend to favor (1), but it really does not make a difference. If it’s (1), there is no reason Joseph Smith couldn’t have done as “any translator would do,” to quote Barney. If it’s (2), I still see no reason why I should assume that God wouldn’t translate the way good translators do. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. Have you got any evidence God does not follow good translation practice? I didn’t think so. And there are plenty of good reasons for God to stick with the KJV of Isaiah, such a familiarity to his immediate, 1830 audience (which is an important consideration for any translation).

It would be nice if explaining this might lead at least some critics to stop insisting that the Book of Mormon cannot be a real translation just because it betrays the features of standard translation practice, but I won’t hold my breath. 


Popular posts from this blog

“The Dominant Narrative is Not True”: Some Thoughts on Recent Remarks by Richard Bushman

The following is making its rounds on Facebook (from this video): Questioner: In your view do you see room in Mormonism for several narratives of a religious experience or do you think that in order for the Church to remain strong they would have to hold to that dominant narrative?
Richard Bushman: I think that for the Church to remain strong it has to reconstruct its narrative. The dominant narrative is not true; it can’t be sustained. The Church has to absorb all this new information or it will be on very shaky grounds and that's what it is trying to do and it will be a strain for a lot of people, older people especially. But I think it has to change. As I have seen this quote flash across my Facebook news feed and thought about how to make sense of it, I have been reminded of the short essay response questions I would often have on tests or assignments in college or even high school. It would not be uncommon for these questions to be built around a quote from an important schola…

Unpublished Book by John L. Sorenson Now Available Online

Whether critics of the LDS faith know it or not, John L. Sorenson’s work on transoceanic voyaging in pre-Columbian times has garnered considerable respect among at least some non-LDS scholars. His publications on the subject span across six decades, and appear in a variety of peer-reviewed and academic publications, such as El México Antigo, New England Antiquities Research Association Newsletter, Man Across the Sea: Problems of Pre-Columbian Contacts (published by the University of Texas Press), Contact and Exchange in the Ancient World (published by the University of Hawai’i), and Sino-Platonic Papers (published by the University of Pennsylvania).
He has co-published a 2-volume annotated bibliography of the literature on pre-Columbian contacts, which received some positive reviews. He also co-wrote (with a non-Mormon scholar) World Trade and Biological Exchange before 1492, detailing all the biological evidence for transoceanic contact before Columbus. In a letter thanking Sorenso…