67 replies to this topic

[Robert F. Smith]

JNclone, on 11 July 2012 - 12:21 AM, said:

Royal Skousen responded to this point in the article referenced by William Schryver above:



It is unclear to me what resources could be consulted to eliminate the possibility that Joseph Smith's rural American dialect did not contain the usages Royal Skousen lists and identifies as obsolete in an English context on the other side of the Atlantic ocean.

Your question points to the key issue. Which is more likely: Royal Skousen's suggestion of a so far unsuspected and unmentioned pre-existing (c. 1600) translation of the Book of Mormon being transmitted to Joseph Smith, or the survival of old usages in Joseph Smith's dialect?

You and mapman have hit the nail on the head in posing that question.  Skousen used the definitions and citations of published sources available in the OED to establish the meanings of words along with the early abeyance of those meanings back in merry old England.  The question is, what resources did he depend upon for an analysis of the dialects of English extant in early 19th century New England?  Published sources have their limitations in presenting spoken dialects, although we do get some vernacular conversation of people along the Erie Canal in those times from Frances Trollope (Domestic Manners of the Americans, London, 1832), and others.

[Robert F. Smith]

JNclone, on 10 July 2012 - 10:57 AM, said:

. . . .  As I understand what has been posted here and what I have I have read about Royal Skousen’s position,  the suggestion is that the Book of Mormon was not translated into English by Joseph Smith in any normal sense of the word.   All Joseph Smith did was to receive (through the seer stone) the words of an English translation that had already been made, by some person or persons unknown, perhaps as long before Joseph Smith’s time as 1600.  (William Schryver speculates that the translation may have been done by angels, who may have included Moroni.)

. . . .  Firstly:  if the translation of the Book of Mormon had long been in existence by the time Joseph Smith sat down to gaze at his seer stone and began to read off words to his scribes, what purpose was served by the golden plates?  But if we follow the account given by Joseph Smith in the Wentworth letter, as published in the Ensign (http://www.lds.org/e...entworth-letter), the plates seem to have been crucial:

. . . .  It is possible to imagine why the seer stone had to be near the plates if the stone was some kind of device for extracting a translation from the plates - which is of course the view that sees the Urim and Thummim as ‘translation spectacles’ which enabled Joseph to understand the Reformed Egyptian of the plates when he looked through them.   But if the translation had already been made, why did Joseph Smith need the plates at all?  And yet he clearly felt that he did.

Did the seerstone have to be near the plates?  Or did Joseph need them to be near at hand?  Did he need a pony?  Had a translation already been made?  Can we even know the answers to such questions?

Quote

Secondly:   if the translation was made in advance, then given the view that the role of the Prophet Joseph Smith as deliverer of the Book of Mormon in the Latter Days was foretold by prophecy, that translation would presumably have been made with Joseph Smith in mind.   Why was it made using a version of English which would in part have been incomprehensible to Joseph - as Royal Skousen points out?  

Thirdly:  The suggestion of a pre-existing translation that was simply transmitted to Joseph Smith seem out of tune with the revelation in Doctrine and Covenants 10, in reference to the loss of the 116 pages.  Throughout the Lord speaks in a way that assumes that the translated version of the Book of Mormon that Joseph produces comes from the plates.  Thus, for instance:

. . . .  This is not inconsistent in the strict logical sense with the idea that a pre-existing translation was being transmitted through the seer stone. - presumably including headings identifying the different sections of the text   But if that is what is happening, why does the Lord not simply speak in those terms?  It might be disrespectful to write a parody of D&C, but surely one would have expected some reference along the lines of “Fear not.  I have already caused to be prepared more translation to replace what you have lost, and it shall be given to you. Transmit it faithfully to the scribes”.  Then Joseph looks at the stone, and sees the name of the part of the Book of Mormon he is to dictate, followed by the first section of the text from the plates of Nephi.

None of these are intended as ‘killer points’ for Royal Skousen’s suggestion.  But they do seem to need discussion.

Perhaps they do need discussion, and I am not at all opposed to the suggestion of a God who has a sense of humor -- I am sure that he has one, and that irony is a key ingredient.

However, Skousen is not actually on record saying that there was a pre-existing translation (17th century or otherwise), only that some archaic words show up on the translation very much out of synch with the times.

[JNclone]

Robert F. Smith, on 11 July 2012 - 01:13 AM, said:

... Skousen is not actually on record saying that there was a pre-existing translation (17th century or otherwise), only that some archaic words show up on the translation very much out of synch with the times.

Excuse me?

http://maxwellinstit...25&num=5&id=436

"These new findings argue that Joseph Smith was not the author of the English-language translation of the Book of Mormon. Not only was the text revealed to him word for word, but the words themselves sometimes had meanings that he and his scribes would not have known, which occasionally led to misinterpretation. The Book of Mormon is not a 19th-century text, nor is it Joseph Smith's. The English-language text was revealed through him, but it was not precisely in his language or ours."

Plus see too the references by William Schryver above to further conversations with Royal Skousen.

[JNclone]

Robert F. Smith, on 11 July 2012 - 01:13 AM, said:

... I am not at all opposed to the suggestion of a God who has a sense of humor -- I am sure that he has one, and that irony is a key ingredient.

Please could you explain what you mean here?  Are you suggesting that Royal Skousen's suggestions should be treated as a joke, or what?

[Robert F. Smith]

JNclone, on 11 July 2012 - 06:16 AM, said:

Excuse me?

http://maxwellinstit...25&num=5&id=436

"These new findings argue that Joseph Smith was not the author of the English-language translation of the Book of Mormon. Not only was the text revealed to him word for word, but the words themselves sometimes had meanings that he and his scribes would not have known, which occasionally led to misinterpretation. The Book of Mormon is not a 19th-century text, nor is it Joseph Smith's. The English-language text was revealed through him, but it was not precisely in his language or ours."

Plus see too the references by William Schryver above to further conversations with Royal Skousen.

Excuse me, sir, but this is not the same as saying that a pre-existing translation was made.  Presumably, any real-time translation could be rendered into any dialect or language desired without being a pre-existing translation.  To say that the language or dialect was not Joseph's (which is an assertion which has to be proved) is not to say that some previous translation had been made, but rather that the process of translation may be more complex than some imagine.

If one wants to maintain that any amanuensis will do, why even bother with Joseph?  What qualities does he bring to the process?  In the case of Jeremiah, after his scroll was cut up and burned by the King of Judah, Jeremiah dictated a duplicate to one of his scribes.  Is that an example of divine, plenary dictation such as has been suggested here?

[Robert F. Smith]

JNclone, on 11 July 2012 - 06:18 AM, said:

Please could you explain what you mean here?  Are you suggesting that Royal Skousen's suggestions should be treated as a joke, or what?

I thought my statement pretty clear in context:  "I am not at all opposed to the suggestion of a God who has a sense of humor -- I am sure that he has one, and that irony is a key ingredient."

But, if it makes you happy, I can parse it for you:  If Skousen is correct about the very early, non-19th century nature of the English dialect which one finds in the Book of Mormon in manuscript, then it could very well be a joke devised by God Himself.  Wouldn't put it past Him.  It would be a joke for everyone, but especially for those who doubt the authenticity of the BofM.  How to explain it being translated into a language unavailable to Joseph? There are many other ironies which I won't go into here, but the God I know enjoys them, I'm sure.

Edited by Robert F. Smith, 11 July 2012 - 09:50 AM.

[JNclone]

Robert F. Smith observed:

Quote

... Skousen is not actually on record saying that there was a pre-existing translation (17th century or otherwise), only that some archaic words show up on the translation very much out of synch with the times.

I posted:

Quote

Excuse me?

http://maxwellinstit...25&num=5&id=436

"These new findings argue that Joseph Smith was not the author of the English-language translation of the Book of Mormon. Not only was the text revealed to him word for word, but the words themselves sometimes had meanings that he and his scribes would not have known, which occasionally led to misinterpretation. The Book of Mormon is not a 19th-century text, nor is it Joseph Smith's. The English-language text was revealed through him, but it was not precisely in his language or ours."

Plus see too the references by William Schryver above to further conversations with Royal Skousen.

To which the reply made was:

Robert F. Smith, on 11 July 2012 - 09:41 AM, said:

Excuse me, sir, but this is not the same as saying that a pre-existing translation was made.  Presumably, any real-time translation could be rendered into any dialect or language desired without being a pre-existing translation.  To say that the language or dialect was not Joseph's (which is an assertion which has to be proved) is not to say that some previous translation had been made, but rather that the process of translation may be more complex than some imagine.
...

Well, the position stated in Skousen's article is that the Book of Mormon text  as we have it today was not authored by by Joseph Smith, but was revealed to him.  We are also told by Skousen that the Book of Mormon is not a 19th century text.   If 'Book of Mormon' means the text as we have it today, rather than the Reformed Egyptian on the gold plates (why would one need to say that was not 19th century?), then the article is implying that the Book of Mormon text as we now have it pre-dates the 19th century, when Joseph dictated the text to his scribes.  It was therefore a pre-existing translation by at least three decades on this basis alone.   It may be that I am misreading Skousen, and I am not advocating that his point of view is correct.    But that does seem the most obvious interpretation of his words above.

Maybe William Schryver can tell us which of our interpretations is closer to what he has learned of Royal Skousen's views in private conversation?

[Robert F. Smith]

JNclone, on 11 July 2012 - 03:42 PM, said:

Well, the position stated in Skousen's article is that the Book of Mormon text  as we have it today was not authored by by Joseph Smith, but was revealed to him.  We are also told by Skousen that the Book of Mormon is not a 19th century text.   If 'Book of Mormon' means the text as we have it today, rather than the Reformed Egyptian on the gold plates (why would one need to say that was not 19th century?), then the article is implying that the Book of Mormon text as we now have it pre-dates the 19th century, when Joseph dictated the text to his scribes.  It was therefore a pre-existing translation by at least three decades on this basis alone.   It may be that I am misreading Skousen, and I am not advocating that his point of view is correct. But that does seem the most obvious interpretation of his words above.

Maybe William Schryver can tell us which of our interpretations is closer to what he has learned of Royal Skousen's views in private conversation?

What Schryver may have learned from Skousen in private conversation would be interesting, I'm sure.  However, you still miss the point, which is that a standing, pre-existing translation was not offered by Skousen in his article, nor in his lecture, as an explanation of the appearance of very archaic and no-longer used meanings in the early 19th century version of the Book of Mormon.  The Book of Mormon first appears in English as we know it in 1829, not before.  It was not translated decades or centuries earlier by someone and then held in abeyance until Joseph's time.  No such claim has been made by anyone but you.

Given the capacity of a god to govern a translation, one need only postulate a real-time translation into a version of English which includes outdated words and meaning, thus stupifying scholars who later come along and study the early manuscripts.  A joke or a sign, if you will.  Not a pre-existing translation.