Yeah. I'm interested in all this stuff. The Hebrew way’hi (Strongs H1961) translates to: to be, or become, or to come to pass, often written as hāyâ.
The Hebrew 'ăšer (Strongs H834) gets us the phrase "that when" for the larger, "And it came to pass, that when..." 'ăšer is a relative particle and a conjunction -- translated as which, that which, that or when...
Put together, these words are the way'hi ka-asher construct. Two separate Hebrew words working together. I would be interested in knowing if this phrasing relates more to the late hebrew period. We could probably do an analysis of the frequency of the appearance of this construct after Jerusalem's fall to Babylon to see how it relates to the Nephites leaving the Middle East. That would be interesting. Don't have time for that, though. Maybe someday.
I think it's useful to point out that in the BOM it is often paired with a temporal cause as well. 1 Nephi 1:4-"For it came to pass in the commencement of the first year of the reign of Zedekiah"
In fact, 1 Nephi 1:4-7 use a temporal clause in all but the last verse. To focus the "and it came to pass that" as a difference misses the frequent use of the temporal clause (1 Nephi 1:5-"Wherefore it came to pass that my father, Lehi, as he went forth prayed unto the Lord..."). I just noticed that analysis in a different comment and wasn't sure if it accounted for cases like that.
So where the KJV translators may have chosen to limit the AICTP translation of wayehi to the temporal clause construction, maybe Joseph Smith used it more broadly in his translation. Genesis 1:5 - "And the evening and the morning were the first day.” Herer the Hebrew uses wayehi, so it potentially could have been translated using the BOM convention as "And it came to pass that the evening and morning were the first day" Not a temporal clause but a narrative transition.
Interesting thought! I should clarify that I didn’t mean to say the BofM never uses AICTP as a temporal clause (or as a preface to one), only that it is often used as an action or sequence connector.
Interesting distinction. I've read the KJV, but it's been years, but it always read differently in the Book of Mormon, so it confirms what I was seeing.
The matter is not so settled as thou wouldst have it; for thou hast observed a pattern, yet mistaken the breadth of the field wherein that pattern moveth. Thy essay showeth wit and industry; yet it leaneth too heavily upon a narrow reading, and from thence draweth a conclusion overbold.
Good Kyle; thou hast taken quill in hand and struck at a phrase worn smooth by centuries of repetition: “and it came to pass.” Thou art not wrong to mark its frequency, nor to note the ear’s fatigue beneath its drum. Even Mark Twain, with his rustic malice, made sport of it; yet jest is not judgment, and repetition alone condemneth nothing.
Thy chief conceit standeth thus: that in the King James Bible the phrase heraldeth time; whereas in the Book of Mormon it driveth action. A fair distinction in places; yet thou hast made of a tendency a law, and of a law an indictment. That leap is too swift.
For consider: the Hebrew way’hi, which thou bringest forth by aid of Joel Baden, is no single instrument but a versatile one. It may, indeed, introduce a temporal clause; yet it may also bear the burden of narrative sequence, advancing the tale with no more ceremony than “and then.” The sacred tongue is not so rigid as thou wouldst bind it. The translators of 1611 rendered it oft with “and it came to pass,” whether time were marked or merely motion continued. Thus the English phrase inheriteth a double office: both clock and carriage; both bell and wheel.
Now to thy charge against the Book of Mormon: that it employeth the phrase as a chain of action rather than a frame of time. This much may be granted: the book delighteth in continuity. Its narrative runneth not in still tableaux, but in procession; event upon event, vision upon vision, like waves upon a shore. “And it came to pass” therein becometh a hinge, a linking iron, a cadence that bindeth thought to thought. Thou callest this deviation; it is rather emphasis.
Wilt thou condemn a chronicler because he chooseth to move rather than to pause? The ancient world knew both habits. Hebrew itself, in its histories, oft heapeth clause upon clause, action upon action, with little care to pause and dress each moment in temporal lace. If the Book of Mormon leaneth into this current, it is not thereby estranged from antiquity, but nearer to one of its streams than to the polished channel of later English taste.
Moreover, thy argument leaneth heavily upon selected passages, as though five verses in 1 Nephi were the whole kingdom. A broader survey would show mixture: times when the phrase setteth a scene; times when it carrieth motion; times when it doth both at once, though the English ear perceiveth chiefly the latter. To draw a bright line betwixt Bible and Book of Mormon upon this ground is to measure a forest by a handful of trees.
Thou endest with a neat aphorism: that the one introduceth time, and the other linketh action. It is a pleasing sentence; yet truth is seldom so obedient to symmetry. The difference is not of kind, but of degree; not of alien grammar, but of narrative preference. Thou hast found a rhythm; thou hast not proved a rupture.
Thus may it be said: the essay is sharp in observation, yet overbold in conclusion. It glimpseth a feature of style, yet mistaketh it for a fault of origin. The phrase “and it came to pass” remaineth what it ever was: a servant of narrative, sometimes a clock, sometimes a chain, and sometimes both together, though the reader mark but one.
Amend not thy curiosity; only temper thy certainty. For language, like history, refuseth to be governed by tidy maxims, and will ever slip the grasp of those who would make it march in single file.
At least you both gave me a good laugh for the day :) As a misisonary in Iceland we knocked on the door of an amazing older lady that let us right in (which was uncommon) and had an amazing dinner of chicken and mashed potatoes that were so good we had to ask her secret (which she said was sugar) ready for us to eat. We were blown away. She said she had been waiting for us, that she just had a feeling someone would be coming. As we got to talking, we let her know who we were, and asked if she'd like a Book of Mormon. She said she already had one, and excitedly referred to it as the "og svo bar við bók", meaning the "and it came to pass book."
I have pondered on the repetitive use of the phrase myself, while studying the book, and one thought that has come to mind could be an answer to your "I have no idea why. " I was reminded of the difficulty they had in engraving the plates, and the limited space they had. By using a single character that means an entire phrase, they could keep from having to engrave so many characters. 1000+ characters versus 1000+ phrases makes a difference. If I were engraving a book by hand, it would be much nicer to only need to engrave a pamphlet.
The other thing that has also come to mind is that even though they were going through such difficult circumstances, they were only temporal, and they made it through. It gives me hope when facing tough times, that someday I can record in my own journal, "og svo bar við" and know that I have made it through the trials.
Those are the answers I've received to my pondering and asking "why?"
I think best argument (for LDS / historicity) are two points I’ve read and summarized in the essay: way’hi (or its equivalent) was used differently in reformed Egyptian, or it was mnemonic. I don’t recall where I read those arguments.
"And It Came to Pass, that" / "And It Came to Pass" Count:
OT: 33 / 336 - 9.8%
NT: 28 / 60 - 46%
BOM: 995 / 1070 - 93%
D&C: 4 / 4 - 100%
Thanks!
Yeah. I'm interested in all this stuff. The Hebrew way’hi (Strongs H1961) translates to: to be, or become, or to come to pass, often written as hāyâ.
The Hebrew 'ăšer (Strongs H834) gets us the phrase "that when" for the larger, "And it came to pass, that when..." 'ăšer is a relative particle and a conjunction -- translated as which, that which, that or when...
Put together, these words are the way'hi ka-asher construct. Two separate Hebrew words working together. I would be interested in knowing if this phrasing relates more to the late hebrew period. We could probably do an analysis of the frequency of the appearance of this construct after Jerusalem's fall to Babylon to see how it relates to the Nephites leaving the Middle East. That would be interesting. Don't have time for that, though. Maybe someday.
I think it's useful to point out that in the BOM it is often paired with a temporal cause as well. 1 Nephi 1:4-"For it came to pass in the commencement of the first year of the reign of Zedekiah"
In fact, 1 Nephi 1:4-7 use a temporal clause in all but the last verse. To focus the "and it came to pass that" as a difference misses the frequent use of the temporal clause (1 Nephi 1:5-"Wherefore it came to pass that my father, Lehi, as he went forth prayed unto the Lord..."). I just noticed that analysis in a different comment and wasn't sure if it accounted for cases like that.
So where the KJV translators may have chosen to limit the AICTP translation of wayehi to the temporal clause construction, maybe Joseph Smith used it more broadly in his translation. Genesis 1:5 - "And the evening and the morning were the first day.” Herer the Hebrew uses wayehi, so it potentially could have been translated using the BOM convention as "And it came to pass that the evening and morning were the first day" Not a temporal clause but a narrative transition.
Interesting thought! I should clarify that I didn’t mean to say the BofM never uses AICTP as a temporal clause (or as a preface to one), only that it is often used as an action or sequence connector.
But your point is well-taken!
Interesting distinction. I've read the KJV, but it's been years, but it always read differently in the Book of Mormon, so it confirms what I was seeing.
The matter is not so settled as thou wouldst have it; for thou hast observed a pattern, yet mistaken the breadth of the field wherein that pattern moveth. Thy essay showeth wit and industry; yet it leaneth too heavily upon a narrow reading, and from thence draweth a conclusion overbold.
Good Kyle; thou hast taken quill in hand and struck at a phrase worn smooth by centuries of repetition: “and it came to pass.” Thou art not wrong to mark its frequency, nor to note the ear’s fatigue beneath its drum. Even Mark Twain, with his rustic malice, made sport of it; yet jest is not judgment, and repetition alone condemneth nothing.
Thy chief conceit standeth thus: that in the King James Bible the phrase heraldeth time; whereas in the Book of Mormon it driveth action. A fair distinction in places; yet thou hast made of a tendency a law, and of a law an indictment. That leap is too swift.
For consider: the Hebrew way’hi, which thou bringest forth by aid of Joel Baden, is no single instrument but a versatile one. It may, indeed, introduce a temporal clause; yet it may also bear the burden of narrative sequence, advancing the tale with no more ceremony than “and then.” The sacred tongue is not so rigid as thou wouldst bind it. The translators of 1611 rendered it oft with “and it came to pass,” whether time were marked or merely motion continued. Thus the English phrase inheriteth a double office: both clock and carriage; both bell and wheel.
Now to thy charge against the Book of Mormon: that it employeth the phrase as a chain of action rather than a frame of time. This much may be granted: the book delighteth in continuity. Its narrative runneth not in still tableaux, but in procession; event upon event, vision upon vision, like waves upon a shore. “And it came to pass” therein becometh a hinge, a linking iron, a cadence that bindeth thought to thought. Thou callest this deviation; it is rather emphasis.
Wilt thou condemn a chronicler because he chooseth to move rather than to pause? The ancient world knew both habits. Hebrew itself, in its histories, oft heapeth clause upon clause, action upon action, with little care to pause and dress each moment in temporal lace. If the Book of Mormon leaneth into this current, it is not thereby estranged from antiquity, but nearer to one of its streams than to the polished channel of later English taste.
Moreover, thy argument leaneth heavily upon selected passages, as though five verses in 1 Nephi were the whole kingdom. A broader survey would show mixture: times when the phrase setteth a scene; times when it carrieth motion; times when it doth both at once, though the English ear perceiveth chiefly the latter. To draw a bright line betwixt Bible and Book of Mormon upon this ground is to measure a forest by a handful of trees.
Thou endest with a neat aphorism: that the one introduceth time, and the other linketh action. It is a pleasing sentence; yet truth is seldom so obedient to symmetry. The difference is not of kind, but of degree; not of alien grammar, but of narrative preference. Thou hast found a rhythm; thou hast not proved a rupture.
Thus may it be said: the essay is sharp in observation, yet overbold in conclusion. It glimpseth a feature of style, yet mistaketh it for a fault of origin. The phrase “and it came to pass” remaineth what it ever was: a servant of narrative, sometimes a clock, sometimes a chain, and sometimes both together, though the reader mark but one.
Amend not thy curiosity; only temper thy certainty. For language, like history, refuseth to be governed by tidy maxims, and will ever slip the grasp of those who would make it march in single file.
I’m gonna need the NIV or NRSV version of this ;)
At least you both gave me a good laugh for the day :) As a misisonary in Iceland we knocked on the door of an amazing older lady that let us right in (which was uncommon) and had an amazing dinner of chicken and mashed potatoes that were so good we had to ask her secret (which she said was sugar) ready for us to eat. We were blown away. She said she had been waiting for us, that she just had a feeling someone would be coming. As we got to talking, we let her know who we were, and asked if she'd like a Book of Mormon. She said she already had one, and excitedly referred to it as the "og svo bar við bók", meaning the "and it came to pass book."
I have pondered on the repetitive use of the phrase myself, while studying the book, and one thought that has come to mind could be an answer to your "I have no idea why. " I was reminded of the difficulty they had in engraving the plates, and the limited space they had. By using a single character that means an entire phrase, they could keep from having to engrave so many characters. 1000+ characters versus 1000+ phrases makes a difference. If I were engraving a book by hand, it would be much nicer to only need to engrave a pamphlet.
The other thing that has also come to mind is that even though they were going through such difficult circumstances, they were only temporal, and they made it through. It gives me hope when facing tough times, that someday I can record in my own journal, "og svo bar við" and know that I have made it through the trials.
Those are the answers I've received to my pondering and asking "why?"
😅 sweet lady!
I think best argument (for LDS / historicity) are two points I’ve read and summarized in the essay: way’hi (or its equivalent) was used differently in reformed Egyptian, or it was mnemonic. I don’t recall where I read those arguments.