(Warning, sarcasm alert! If your sensibilities make saracsm difficult to swallow, please close this window now).
What is up with the obsessive use of the Webster’s 1828 Dictionary by so many patriocentric families? Are they aware that 181 years of language has developed since this dictionary was published? What is wrong with my good ole’ Webster’s that I picked up in college? You know how some folks believe that a certain edition of the King James’ Bible is the inspired Word of God in English and that it contains no errors, even in the translation? That’s what this obsession with the 1828 Webster’s Dictionary feels like to me. And just as conspiracy theories abound when it comes to modern translations, theories abound with “corrupt” dictionaries too!
What is up with that?
Oh, wait… just looked up Vision Forum’s description of this dictionary and I’m getting a much clearer picture:
This gigantic, oversized, heavy book is perhaps second only to the Bible in terms of importance in your home. When Noah Webster first published this book, he understood that whoever defined the words of a culture would capture that culture. So he sought to give the American people a dictionary in which words have meaning in terms of their relationship to Jesus Christ. In fact, this is the only comprehensive dictionary of the English language in print that seeks to communicate a distinctively biblical worldview, even to the point of using Scriptures in the definitions.
This idea goes back to the fallacy that the Bible contains the answer to every possible question… including the definition of words like “machinery” and “rakish”. The Bible doesn’t answer every question. It doesn’t even answer most questions. I look to it for the answers it intends to give, not the ones I project onto it.
Anyway, maybe this dictionary thing really is like the KJV-only controversy. Do I see the book “New Age Dictionaries” being published in the future? At this point, nothing would surprise me.
Ha ha, we used to have that dictionary too (in the early 90s), although it was being promoted by Bill Gothard back then. The thing that strikes me oddly about the VF description is what it implies about what dictionaries ARE. As I understand it, dictionaries compile information about common usage of a word, and generally pass some sort of judgment on whether a given usage is “correct” (or often just formal vs. slang). Webster didn’t *define* the words in order to “capture the culture” — he couldn’t have. You can’t just make up what you want words to mean and publish it, and expect that to govern usage. Dictionaries provide a standard of sorts by enabling us to learn how words are being used and understood by those with whom we try to communicate but it seems to me that it’s more of a tool for consensus than for control. Does that make any sense? Of course how we use language matters, and influences how we think, but i don’t think that switching dictionaries is going to fix the culture.
Hilarious! But very clever, too. Language control is a form of mind control. By controlling which words are used–and promoting some words as intrinsically more “spiritual” or “Biblical”–the leaders create a separate world.
Members of this world know each other by the code words they use. In the case of Vision Forum, 19th c. English usage is code for “Biblical” English.
Buyer beware.
“the leaders create a separate world”- Exactly!
I don’t understand this idea AT ALL, unless they are eventually going to open up their own towns like Jeffords did, or all settle in the same place like the Amish.
And “buyer beware” is right! I have been home schooling for thirteen years now, and the last convention I went to was in 2000, just when VF was getting its start.
Only last week did I open my last purchase, which I was told was an excellent resource on the Civil War. Yep, you guessed it, “Gods and Generals” YUCK!
It was horrible- portraying the Confederates as godly, pious men and their loving and submissive children, wives and yes even slaves adoring these Confederate generals. P. U.
It did spark a great conversation between my son and I though, about how if they (the South) were just following the Lord and if their cause was so just, why did the Lord hand them major FAIL and take away everything they held dear and rub their faces in the dirt? He is sovereign over all the earth (at least that’s the declaration of their Calvinist on steroids doctrine).
Can’t they see the writing on the wall for this movement trying to return to antebellum South mores and values? If it was epic FAIL the first time around, what makes them think it will work better this time around?
We have a Webster’s though, we rarely use it. We mostly use dictionary.com since we live in the computer age. We also use urbandictionary.com, as you might have guessed by my use of the word “fail” as a noun.
Dana’s right. In the nineteenth century there was a push to “Latinize” English because it had never enjoyed the intellectual clout of languages like French and Spanish. Hence, we have what is known now as prescriptive grammar–the idea that English rules of grammar are objective, logical, and inflexible. Of course, it’s not a Latin-based language; it is a mish-mash of many languages and has never existed in any kind of “pure” form. The best dictionaries–specifically English dictionaries–can do is document how words are currently used.
This isn’t exactly related, but I was reminded of it by continuing to think about this insistence on a fixed, objective *moral* standard of language (while simultaneously teaching Latin as objectively as possible: “we are doing a year’s worth of college Latin in six weeks here, so we don’t have time to debate this further. When you see X, translate as Y. K? Moving on.”
). I was homeschooled, and for fifth grade (I think) we used the Rod and Staff English, which has a few chapters of character-building lessons before it starts the actual grammar. I remember a very odd statement which I cannot confirm, having not come across the book since then, but this is how it came across to and stuck in my 10-year-old brain. I think it was a lesson about greed, and it used as an example the fact that a modern dictionary has so many more words than the KJV Bible. This was an example of man’s innate greediness, that he always wants more. It struck me as strange even then, so I may well have misunderstood, but I’d really be interested if someone has access to the book and could check what it actually said. I don’t have a problem with the assertion of man’s greediness, just the relevance of the example as I remember it. 
btw I’ve been a lurker here since you started and am happy to see some discussion going again.
P.S. Speaking of Rod and Staff, I somehow as a child never associated the name with the 23rd Psalm. I thought it was a guy named Rod and his staff, like Rod & Sons, or Rod & Co. So I wouldn’t be surprised if I also misunderstood what they were trying to say about the dictionary.
HAAAAAAAAA! We got the 1828 dictionary too!!!
It goes along well with the whole, “If only we could get back to the way things used to be…” theme. Back then, you know, when people were righteous and stuff. Yeah. (Just don’t read any *real* history).
Yeah, right! And that’s why it’s perfectly OK to end sentences prepositions with.
OK, ok, you can take it too far . . . but I’m so glad to be freed from that stupid rule about prepositions.
“It goes along well with the whole, “If only we could get back to the way things used to be…” theme. Back then, you know, when people were righteous and stuff. Yeah. (Just don’t read any *real* history)”.
I have two stories to go along with this, Molly. One was regarding the naming of our children. We’d named the previous three Jared, Matthew and Sarah. The next one came along (a girl) and we named her Linda. My friend said to me, rather snootily I might add, “But, Linda is not a Bible name.”
I told her pointedly, “Those people in the Bible sinned, too!”
Somehow my friend thought that naming the children after some Biblical person was more godly and righteous.
The second story is about boys. My boys loved war guys. Their favourite toys were lego and those little plastic soldiers, because they could be used to create enormous battlefield all over the bedroom. Along with the war guys, they enjoyed drawing detailed depictions of stick men at war. One of their best friends had a dad who was a soldier, and at their young (pre-teen) age, the boys thought he was pretty cool.
One of the friends brought a new toy gun to church one day; my son Daniel had a poster-sized drawing. After church, during the coffee time when there was just fellowship going on, an older boy (late teens) soundly rebuked all the young boys for having war materials in church. He did it loudly, and the boys were embarrassed and upset.
I took him aside, and asked him if he’d ever read the Old Testament. There were soldiers, armour, war horses, battles, strategies, treachery . . . it was all there!
Real history, whether in the Bible or in historical accounts, shows that the “good old days” weren’t all that good. Sin had the same wages as it does today – death. The Bible is full of real history, which shows sinners sinning.
But, thank God, it also shows God working! And thankfully, He still works in our lives today!
Janet, this comment reminds me of a book I read last year called The Sea captain’s Wife by Martha Hodes. I’m borrowing the description from the book because I don’t have a lot of time to summarize at the moment… to my left is a HUGE pile of laundry that begs to be folded… but I digress…
I read this book and was blown away by the experience of this incredibly courageous woman. She was basically abandoned by her husband and she had to forge her own way in the world to provide for her two children. She literally had no choice. When I read her story, I couldn’t help but contrast Eunice’s life with the rather glorified picture of Southern Living that Vision Forum promotes. Um, there were sinners even then. There were men who abused women. There were loose women. There were incredibly intelligent women whose talents were encouraged (i.e. Harriet Beecher Stowe) and those whose talents were overlooked or stifled simply because of their sex. Antebellum Southern society based its economy on SLAVERY for pete’s sake and that’s a system they want to return to? I wonder what Eunice Connelly would say…
It’s a clever marketing trick, isn’t it? Getting people to buy your books, CDs, DVDs and OUTDATED dictionaries by promising them Christian Utopia circa 1863? Minus, of course, the pesky facts (slavery? what slavery? who? huh?).
Yeah. Who’s whitewashing history now?
Ooh, I’m quite excited about commenting on this, because I know a little about the history of dictionaries (yes, I am fun at parties)!
First, the first comprehensive disctionary of the English language was started by Samuel Johnson in 1755, it took him 9 years to complete it. It was commissioned by a group of London booksellers who were desperate to standardise English spelling and grammar, which varied greatly from county to county, let alone how it was used in Scotland, Ireland and Wales. It was not a political undertaking but a commerical one. A comprehensive dictionary was needed at a time when the publication of printed materials was exlpoding – it’s a time akin to the one we’re in today, where there was this brand new method of communicating which was both exciting and troublesome – also, and concurrent with, this explosion in publishing was massive rise in literacy, the average man and woman could now read.
The Johson dictionary was used in America for many years, however its use irked Webster, who felt that the dictionary was as currupt as the country and literature from which it originated. He wrote the 1828 Webster dictionary as an attempt to assert a distinctive American cultural identity, it was an attempt to claim an American language, freeing it from the shackles of British imperialism. He understood that language and culture were intimately intwined. Now, I may be leaping to a few too many conclusions here, but aren’t dominionist Christians all about asserting a distinctive Christian (and America) culture? Is this why it appeals so?
Also, isn’t the 1828 Webster a friend of American lawyers and is often used in the legislature? When they discuss and evolve laws they need to know the original definition of the words used when the law was first made, with all its original cultureal nuances. Isn’t Mr Phillips a lawyer? Considering his profession and personal beliefs I imagine the Webster appeals to something deep within his soul…oh, and don’t we all feel that way about our favourite books?
Yours sincerely
Dictionary Nerd
Ouch! Sorry about the typos.
Christian Reconstructionists like Doug Phillips believe that America (at least at its founding and up to the “War of Northern Aggression” – a title I think is very telling) and Christianity are synonymous. American culture WAS Christian culture. This is why they are always trying to get back to the good old days. Of course, there are more holes in that idea than there are in a block of Swiss Cheese, but that’s what they believe nonetheless.
I’m a big believer that VF (and probably just about every company in the WORLD) regularly engages in this marketing trick- creating the problem so they can sell you the solution:
College is evil and it will turn your daughters (but not your sons) into God-hating feminists! What should they do instead? Here’s a book for you! Do Americal Girl dolls give you the creeps because their parent company funds programs you don’t like? We’ll sell you alternative dolls and your money can go to helping us win the culture war! Can’t decide between the Constitution Party candidate and the Republican? Well GOD himself has principles for voting- you must obey them, they are found in the Bible- and we’ll SELL you the information for $16.99. A modern dictionary isn’t good enough because its been corrupted by 150 years of secularism and God-hating culture. Buy THIS dictionary and we’ll sell it to you! This dictionary uses Bible verses to define words therefore it must be better.
I have no problem with the dictionary itself. Heck, I’ll probably buy one at some point because it is actual quite an important work, historically. If Doug Phillips loves this dictionary, wonderful! Yay! But saying that its the second most important book in your home is a bit fo a stretch.
Dulce,
Thanks for the history lesson. Cool.
” The Bible doesn’t answer every question. It doesn’t even answer most questions. I look to it for the answers it intends to give, not the ones I project onto it.”
Cally,
Very profound.
Excellent post and discussion.
Okay, Johnny come late to this discussion but had some time today to catch up reading.
Dana!
Your remark on Rod and “his” Staff made my day. What a hoot!
I have this dictionary, and use it to help understand authors who wrote back in that time period. I also have a few other new dictionaries. Language changes, and so does our understanding of it. Certain words’ meanings change over time, so what I think something means, may not be exactly what an author was intending.
I do think there is merit to the old book if only to seek understanding, but you can get the thing for free on the internet.
I have no idea why this would be second in importance to the Bible… now that is quite a bit off base.
Do I read this right? The Webster 1828 is Divinely Inspired just like the 1611 KJV?
Anyway, maybe this dictionary thing really is like the KJV-only controversy. Do I see the book “New Age Dictionaries” being published in the future? At this point, nothing would surprise me.
That’s because in a time of extreme push-the-envelope True Believers, nothing is too extreme and parody is impossible.
As far as you push into absurdity for parody and humor, there is some unsmiling True Believer out there who will push farther beyond absurdity and be Dead Serious.
Well, now I understand why I once got whomped with a cyber-copy of the 1828 Webster’s on a Christian ladies’ discussion list. It was about 4 years ago – yes, around 2005 – and I was on the outside for having the temerity to assert that indeed, a person could be a Christian and a feminist.
I just kept thinking, “1828? But Jane Austen was already dead by then!”
I know, it didn’t make any sense, but neither did the other poster’s infatuation with the 1828 Webster’s!