Archaic language versus modern language?

[Gaura Priya]

I would like to start memorising Scriptures again, but I have run into a problem...

These days, there are generally two styles of language in English for Scriptures (Qur'an and the Bible, mainly): archaic English (thou, thy, -eth, etc.) and modern formal English.

I have memorised Baha'i prayers, which are generally rendered in archaic idiom. Having been born and raised Catholic, I remember as a child my cousin and I arguing over whether one of us was right: I was taught to say, "...the Lord is with thee..." while she was taught to say, "...the Lord is with you..."

As far as I know, Mormons are taught to utilise the 'language of prayer' when utilising English to pray; that is, they are taught to make full use of archaic English, especially in reference to God. "Heavenly Father, we thank Thee for having given..."

Is there truly a place for archaic language as a testament of magnificence, awesomeness, and grandeur? I ask this, simply because both the Bible and the Qur'an were never written in a higher register of the original languages, but rather in the register of the common people.

It would be hard for me to relearn how to pray "Our Father, who are in the heavens, hallowed be Your name..."

[Badran]

Hi

I think if one is going to memorize a scripture, it is best to memorize it in the language and form that is most useful. Since none of those scriptures were actually written in English originally, i see absolutely no reason as to why we should make it harder by insisting to memorize it and write it in a more complicated form rather than the form which is used today and is more simple to understand.

Having those forms available is okay, since they give the scriptures a little bit more in terms of beauty and so forth, but using them primarily in my view defeats the purpose of those scriptures (unless the purpose of said scriptures were to be difficult to understand).

[BruceDLimber]

Originally Posted by Gaura Priya

Is there truly a place for archaic language as a testament of magnificence, awesomeness, and grandeur?

Shoghi Effendi certainly thought so!

Which is precisely the reason why he translated Baha'u'llah's Writings into that form of English, as well as the fact that the original languages use an especially high form of expression.

Please note also that 'Abdu'l-Baha's Writings are in modern English, so clearly we're satisfied with both.

Peace, :-)

Bruce

[Odion]

Modern all the way!

Sure, archaic English has a nice aesthetic, but it pushes people away. It also looks, well, pompous. I like my texts modern. "The LORD shall search thy loins and find thy hidden feelings thereof", or "God will see what lies within your heart, and know your true feelings", for example. I prefer the second one.

Poetic, sure, but I think that's all it comes down to. It unfortunately bars many people from understanding it. What's the point in beautiful, poetic and archaic language if you have to study to learn what this religion's text actually says? A lot of people probably don't bother because of things like this.

My view, anyway.

[Gaura Priya]

Originally Posted by Odion

Modern all the way!

Sure, archaic English has a nice aesthetic, but it pushes people away. It also looks, well, pompous. I like my texts modern.

I think that's the only thing that is considerably the staying factor of archaic English. It is utilised in the Authorised Version of the Bible, as well as many of the early English poets, from Shakespeare to John Milton.

But yeah, there sometimes can be an air of being a pompous **** through reciting texts utilising that register of language.

"The LORD shall search thy loins and find thy hidden feelings thereof"

I believe the ancient Jewish concept of emotional centre was in the bowels (stomach), and not the 'loins'. UNLESS...!! (never mind! )

Poetic, sure, but I think that's all it comes down to. It unfortunately bars many people from understanding it. What's the point in beautiful, poetic and archaic language if you have to study to learn what this religion's text actually says? A lot of people probably don't bother because of things like this.

My view, anyway.

I'm mainly doing this for memorising prayers. Take a look at this beauty (1 Chronicles 29:10-13) that is a potential:

Blessed be Thou, Lord God of Israel, our Father, for ever and ever. Thine, O Lord, is the greatness, and the power and the glory, and the victory and the majesty; for all that is in the heaven and in the earth is Thine. Thine is the kingdom, O Lord, and Thou art exalted as head above all.

Both riches and honour come from Thee, and Thou reignest over all. And in Thine hand is power and might; and in Thine hand it is to make great, and to give strength unto all.

Now therefore, our God, we thank Thee and praise Thy glorious name.

Amen.

Compared to a more modern rendition of this prayer. There is a bit more raw honesty in the latter:

Blessed are You, O Lord, the God of our ancestor Israel, for ever and ever. Yours, O Lord, are the greatness, the power, the glory, the victory, and the majesty; for all that is in the heavens and on the earth is Yours; Yours is the kingdom, O Lord, and You are exalted as head above all.

Riches and honour come from You, and You rule over all. In Your hand are power and might; and it is in Your hand to make great and to give strength to all.

And now, our God, we give thanks to You and praise Your glorious name.

Amen.

[Odion]

Originally Posted by Gaura Priya

I think that's the only thing that is considerably the staying factor of archaic English. It is utilised in the Authorised Version of the Bible, as well as many of the early English poets, from Shakespeare to John Milton.

But yeah, there sometimes can be an air of being a pompous **** through reciting texts utilising that register of language.

Yeah. It may look nice, but if you're quoting to someone, you'll look like a pompous bugger.

I believe the ancient Jewish concept of emotional centre was in the bowels (stomach), and not the 'loins'. UNLESS...!! (never mind! )

Hee

That's kind of the issue, IMHO. We aren't ancient Jews; the concept of the emotional centre being in the bowels isn't part of our beliefs. If we want the more poetic form, we could use heart, or we could just use mind. But, having to know that this is what is meant by this, and it's such an easy thing to correct, means it can be difficult for the less well-studied and so on. Religious scriptures, since they're for the masses, and not some esoteric, society with a secret handshake and password movement, is unnecessary.

I'm mainly doing this for memorising prayers.

For prayers, I'd say go with the one you like most. Doesn't really have much effect on others after all.

[Gaura Priya]

Originally Posted by Badran

Hi

I think if one is going to memorize a scripture, it is best to memorize it in the language and form that is most useful. Since none of those scriptures were actually written in English originally, i see absolutely no reason as to why we should make it harder by insisting to memorize it and write it in a more complicated form rather than the form which is used today and is more simple to understand.

Having those forms available is okay, since they give the scriptures a little bit more in terms of beauty and so forth, but using them primarily in my view defeats the purpose of those scriptures (unless the purpose of said scriptures were to be difficult to understand).

It's difficult because it's a quirk that exists mainly in English. Because of the influence of the Bible in Jacobean style English and its relative untouched form utilised in poetry, any time Scriptures from other religious texts were translated, such as the Egyptian Book of the Dead, the Qur'an, and even early translations of the Bhagavad Gita, they were all translated into the archaic form of English to give that sense of otherworldliness and reverence.

That being said, was the Qur'an merely for its beauty, or was it mainly a Message given in clear Arabic for the people to understand? :P

It reminds me of one of my Muslimah friends when she was a young girl. She was going to madrassah here as a Tunisian, Canadian born child, learning how to recite the Qur'an in Arabic. One day, she asked the teacher why they had to learn it in Arabic, even though they couldn't understand what they were saying.

At first, her teacher was quite taken aback by her outspoken behaviour. However, she pondered and told her that she was right. The next day, the teacher began teaching about the Qur'an and giving a simple translation in English for the children's benefit.

It's hard to balance both reverence and worshipfulness with that which is supposed to be given and understood easily for the people.

[Badran]

Originally Posted by Gaura Priya

That being said, was the Qur'an merely for its beauty, or was it mainly a Message given in clear Arabic for the people to understand? :P

It reminds me of one of my Muslimah friends when she was a young girl. She was going to madrassah here as a Tunisian, Canadian born child, learning how to recite the Qur'an in Arabic. One day, she asked the teacher why they had to learn it in Arabic, even though they couldn't understand what they were saying.

At first, her teacher was quite taken aback by her outspoken behaviour. However, she pondered and told her that she was right. The next day, the teacher began teaching about the Qur'an and giving a simple translation in English for the children's benefit.

It's hard to balance both reverence and worshipfulness with that which is supposed to be given and understood easily for the people.

There is a couple of things though about this situation that is different from what you mentioned in the OP. In OP the choice was between two forms, neither of which is actually the original language of the text. So the only serious advantage of writing it or memorizing it with the more complicated version was the whole reverence thing.

However, in this case you're talking about either English, or Arabic, the text's original language. The benefit of learning the text in its original language doesn't only lie in the beauty of it. There are other things that you benefit from learning the original language and reading the text in it, especially regarding the meaning of the verses in the text.

When you read a translation you're reading the text after it passed through an intermediate who both interpreted and translated the text, so you're certainly missing something important. All that said though, i don't particularly disagree with what happened in the scenario you shared. As i understood they didn't actually learn Arabic, but rather they were just memorizing the sounds without knowing the meaning, correct?

If so, i think thats actually foolish. I think its best to either learn the language and memorize the text in it, or simply memorize the one in the translation of the language you speak the best, if you don't intend to learn Arabic. Also since they are kids, in your example, i think its okay and beneficial to teach it to them in whichever way that will be simpler and more suitable. Later on they can decide to learn Arabic if they want (and i think they should), then memorize it in it if they want to.

[Father Heathen]

Originally Posted by Gaura Priya

I would like to start memorising Scriptures again, but I have run into a problem...

These days, there are generally two styles of language in English for Scriptures (Qur'an and the Bible, mainly): archaic English (thou, thy, -eth, etc.) and modern formal English.

I have memorised Baha'i prayers, which are generally rendered in archaic idiom. Having been born and raised Catholic, I remember as a child my cousin and I arguing over whether one of us was right: I was taught to say, "...the Lord is with thee..." while she was taught to say, "...the Lord is with you..."

As far as I know, Mormons are taught to utilise the 'language of prayer' when utilising English to pray; that is, they are taught to make full use of archaic English, especially in reference to God. "Heavenly Father, we thank Thee for having given..."

Is there truly a place for archaic language as a testament of magnificence, awesomeness, and grandeur? I ask this, simply because both the Bible and the Qur'an were never written in a higher register of the original languages, but rather in the register of the common people.

It would be hard for me to relearn how to pray "Our Father, who are in the heavens, hallowed be Your name..."

My question is why would people think such trivialities actually matter to god?

[Copernicus]

Religion used to be one of the primary means by which accumulated folk knowledge and customs were passed from generation to generation. Oral histories can be in very poetic language, because poetry is easier to memorize for repetition. For whatever reason, religious language--liturgical language--tends to resist change over time. Hindu scholars developed very advanced linguistic theories in order to help preserve the Sanskrit liturgical language, which was quite different from spoken language (called Prakrits). Latin was retained as the liturgical language of the Catholic Church until a few years ago. Old Church Slavonic and Old Russian were preserved by the slavic orthodox traditions. Hebrew was the liturgical language of the Jews. And so on.

Although the original language of the Bible was not Early Modern English, the King James version came to be the standardized translation of the Bible that was accepted by the Church of England. Hence, that is the form of the language that many Christians tend to prefer when citing biblical passages. Various attempts have been made to modernize the language and bring the translations up to date, but most people seem to prefer tradition when it comes to religion.