67 replies to this topic

[calmoriah]

Thank you, this is what I was hoping for.  

[calmoriah]

If you remember could you clarify please:

Quote

Only one text inspired by the Lord; Joseph saw it, but humans have erred in its transmission

Did he include Joseph in those who erred transmitting the text?

Quote

several BYU (Roman Catholic) conservators

Roman Catholics who worked for BYU?

Quote

Some frags not from O MS, but some are

What are the nonO MS frags from?

Edited by calmoriah, 03 July 2012 - 02:00 AM.

[calmoriah]

Quote

–presents the text in “sense lines” as equivalent to Joseph’s dictation

Very nice.

Quote

“Caractors” –not actually the Anthon Transcript (the one taken by Martin Harris to Professor Anthon) –rather a momento –no one has been able to translate it

Very interesting.

Quote

Book of Mormon is in early modern English

Any conclusions what this implies?

Quote

Skousen thinks this a sign from God.

How so?

Quote

One reading even from the Coverdale Bible of 1530s.

Did he identify any other reading 'sources'?

Edited by calmoriah, 03 July 2012 - 02:08 AM.

[William Schryver]

Robert F. Smith, on 03 July 2012 - 01:46 AM, said:

I went down to Cedar City to see what Royal had to say, and it was well worth the 3 hours down and 3 hours back -- and gasoline.  His presentation, aided by large screen Power Point, was very clear and he even told a few jokes.  There was a good crowd at the Stake Center and they seemed quite happy with Royal's efforts.   I took notes and attach them here in Adobe format in case someone wants get the skinny in short compass.

SKOUSEN FIRESIDE.pdf

P.S. Will Schryver was smokin hot on the organ.

I can't believe you didn't come up and introduce yourself afterwards!  I'm so disappointed.  The Skousens and Schryvers are going to Les Miserables today if you're still in town.

ETA: "... 3 hours back ..."  I didn't do very good textual analysis the first time around.

Edited by William Schryver, 03 July 2012 - 08:28 AM.

[David T]

Highly recommend Brant Gardner's The Gift and Power: Translating the Book of Mormon as a friendly but critical response to some of Skousen's interpetive conclusions. The book properly praises Skousen greatly for his exhaustive and incomparable critical text project - yet has some substantial problems with some of the interpretive conclusions Skousen makes with that data, IE, the "One True Pre-Translated English Text" theory.

Will, any idea if Skousen is planning on publishing a response to Gardner's criticisms of his theories, and what an ETA would be? It's a dialogue I would love to see play out - I bet both sides (both wonderful, faithful scholars) would benefit greatly from it, as would all of us bystanders.

Edited by David T, 03 July 2012 - 10:01 AM.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

I just finished Gardner's book the other day, and I really, really recommend it as well. I actually feel a little spoiled, since the very first analysis of the translation issues I ever read was Orson Scott Card's Joseph Smith: Reader or Translator?, which advances an argument pretty similar to Gardner's (who cites him approvingly) and which shaped my view of the Book of Mormon right from the start. But Gardner does a tremendous job expanding on the themes I first encountered in Card -- I particularly appreciated his breakdown of the "folk-magic" stuff (which has simply never bothered me, but has been a stumbling block for some), as well as the cognitive science he introduced in later chapters, even going so far as to reference Terrence Deacon, who's been a favorite of mine and who I've linked to on this board in the past.

Edited by JeremyOrbe-Smith, 03 July 2012 - 10:11 AM.

[William Schryver]

David T, on 03 July 2012 - 10:00 AM, said:

Will, any idea if Skousen is planning on publishing a response to Gardner's criticisms of his theories, and what an ETA would be?

Lots of other things are on the agenda, but I will confess that we talked about some of Gardner's propositions and potential responses to them.  I'm rather certain that any response, no matter its ETA, would touch upon the fact that Skousen's "interpretive conclusions" are founded upon very specific text-critical evidence.  I have not seen that the text-critical evidence has been satisfactorily addressed by Gardner.

[Robert F. Smith]

calmoriah, on 03 July 2012 - 01:57 AM, said:

If you remember could you clarify please:

Did he include Joseph in those who erred transmitting the text?

He didn't say, but I assume so.

Quote

Roman Catholics who worked for BYU?

Yes, three of them, which Skousen appreciated since they were unlikely to want to filch frags as keepsakes.  BYU has had non-Mormons working for it, as well as non-Mormons attending for many years -- including Jewish teachers and students (I have spoken with both), and I knew one RLDS student who got his masters degree at BYU.

Quote

What are the nonO MS frags from?

They turned out to be statements unrelated to the Book of Mormon, but placed in the cornerstone as part of the time-capsule.

[Robert F. Smith]

calmoriah, on 03 July 2012 - 02:02 AM, said:

Quote




Book of Mormon is in early modern English

Any conclusions what this implies?

Quote

Skousen thinks this a sign from God.
How so?

Quote

One reading even from the Coverdale Bible of 1530s.
Did he identify any other reading 'sources'?

This very archaic material is somewhat surprising since (according to Skousen) it wasn't part of the English language at the time Joseph did his work.  Skousen's dating of it is based on the meanings contained in the great Oxford English Dictionary (OED).  The suggestion by Skousen is that this is God's way of affirming the authenticity of the translation, but he was not explicit to that effect.

[calmoriah]

Dan Peterson has thrown out a couple of ideas, it is fun to speculate about.  Thanks for the additional info.

[William Schryver]

calmoriah, on 03 July 2012 - 01:57 AM, said:

If you remember could you clarify please:

Did he include Joseph in those who erred transmitting the text?

If you think about it for a moment, you will realize that there is no way of ascertaining, via the field of text criticism, whether or not Joseph himself erred, since he is the origin of the text, and he was seeing it alone and dictating it.  The scribe produces the first actual text that can then be analyzed.

That said, in relation to his arguments against the notion of an "iron-clad" translation, he has identified instances where it is clear that the process of translation was permitted to continue even though there was a definite error in the original manuscript.  But even those errors are scribal in nature.

Quote

Roman Catholics who worked for BYU?

Yes, and it was fascinating to see, via photographs, the manner by which they went about resurrecting a page of text from a wadded up clump of extraordinarily fragile 170-year-old paper.

Edited by William Schryver, 04 July 2012 - 05:31 PM.

[William Schryver]

I do believe that Joseph made errors while dictating.  I think it is likely the grammar errors are his.  One might say, "How, if he is dictating a divinely translated text that he is reading, could he make grammar errors?"  To which I would reply, "You must have never heard people read passages of scripture in Sunday School."

I never cease to be amazed at how people can, in the process of dictating a written text they are reading, completely transform that text in many instances by introducing their own grammatical idiosyncrasies into it.  They see one thing, but read out loud another thing altogether.

Edited by William Schryver, 04 July 2012 - 05:43 PM.

[Robert F. Smith]

William Schryver, on 04 July 2012 - 05:38 PM, said:

I do believe that Joseph made errors while dictating.  I think it is likely the grammar errors are his.  One might say, "How, if he is dictating a divinely translated text that he is reading, could he make grammar errors?"  To which I would reply, "You must have never heard people read passages of scripture in Sunday School."

I never cease to be amazed at how people can, in the process of dictating a written text they are reading, completely transform that text in many instances by introducing their own grammatical idiosyncrasies into it.  They see one thing, but read out loud another thing altogether.

Royal might not agree with your suggestion that Joseph was the source of bad grammar.  But, if you are correct, then that might be taken as evidence for a very different theory of translation, namely, that ideas and not specific words were transmitted through Joseph's mind, thus producing a text which exhibits non-standard grammar.

[David T]

Robert, if you haven't, I highly suggest reading Brant Gardner's book, as I linked above. It is the most comprehensive look at Translation/Transmission theories and evidences. It directly addresses Skousen's views, and expresses why he feels his Trichotomy of Loose/Tight/Iron Clad is insufficient. Whether or not you agree with his ultimate conclusions, it certainly adds much to the discussion.

Edited by David T, 04 July 2012 - 07:39 PM.

[William Schryver]

Robert F. Smith, on 04 July 2012 - 06:54 PM, said:

Royal might not agree with your suggestion that Joseph was the source of bad grammar.  But, if you are correct, then that might be taken as evidence for a very different theory of translation, namely, that ideas and not specific words were transmitted through Joseph's mind, thus producing a text which exhibits non-standard grammar.

I don't think you read my post closely enough.

[Robert F. Smith]

David T, on 04 July 2012 - 07:39 PM, said:

Robert, if you haven't, I highly suggest reading Brant Gardner's book, as I linked above. It is the most comprehensive look at Translation/Transmission theories and evidences. It directly addresses Skousen's views, and expresses why he feels his Trichotomy of Loose/Tight/Iron Clad is insufficient. Whether or not you agree with his ultimate conclusions, it certainly adds much to the discussion.

I have been reading his book, am nearly finished, and will be writing a formal review.  Meantime you may want to have a look at my “Translation of Languages (hermēniea glōssōn I Cor 12:10),” online at http://www.scribd.co...on-of-Languages .

[JNclone]

I have heard that Mr Skousen made a point in his talk that does not seem to have been mentioned in this thread, either in the posts themselves or in the pdf notes provided.   From what I heard, the notion was put forward that the Book of Mormon was actually translated into English for the first time around 1600, and that the text Joseph Smith received in the early 19th century was that earlier translation.   Such a view would explain why a 19th century prophet could end up dictating a translation in 17th century English, or perhaps even earlier  English in some cases.

Can someone who was there confirm whether Mr Skousen said this?  If so, did he say who did this earlier translation, and what happened to it in the 150 years before Joseph Smith received it via seer stone (according to Mr Skousen's talk) and the scribes wrote it down?

[William Schryver]

JNclone, on 06 July 2012 - 05:46 AM, said:

I have heard that Mr Skousen made a point in his talk that does not seem to have been mentioned in this thread, either in the posts themselves or in the pdf notes provided.   From what I heard, the notion was put forward that the Book of Mormon was actually translated into English for the first time around 1600, and that the text Joseph Smith received in the early 19th century was that earlier translation.   Such a view would explain why a 19th century prophet could end up dictating a translation in 17th century English, or perhaps even earlier  English in some cases.

Can someone who was there confirm whether Mr Skousen said this?  If so, did he say who did this earlier translation, and what happened to it in the 150 years before Joseph Smith received it via seer stone (according to Mr Skousen's talk) and the scribes wrote it down?

The original text of the Book of Mormon appears to date to the 1500s and 1600s and employs meanings, words, and phrases that had "died out" of the English language by the 1700s.

Skousen first mentioned this discovery here: The Archaic Vocabulary of the Book of Mormon

Edited by William Schryver, 06 July 2012 - 06:44 AM.

[Robert F. Smith]

JNclone, on 06 July 2012 - 05:46 AM, said:

I have heard that Mr Skousen made a point in his talk that does not seem to have been mentioned in this thread, either in the posts themselves or in the pdf notes provided.   From what I heard, the notion was put forward that the Book of Mormon was actually translated into English for the first time around 1600, and that the text Joseph Smith received in the early 19th century was that earlier translation.   Such a view would explain why a 19th century prophet could end up dictating a translation in 17th century English, or perhaps even earlier  English in some cases.

Can someone who was there confirm whether Mr Skousen said this?  If so, did he say who did this earlier translation, and what happened to it in the 150 years before Joseph Smith received it via seer stone (according to Mr Skousen's talk) and the scribes wrote it down?

No, he did not say that, and did not even suggest it.  Rather he stated that the archaic English vocabulary used in the translation, which Joseph read off of his devices (clear Nephite interpreters and seer stone), goes back to 1600 or before, and the meanings of those words and phrases no longer obtained in Joseph's time.  If true, this does leave us with something of a mystery.

[volgadon]

Quote

P.S. Will Schryver was smokin hot on the organ.

I hope that there wasn't a typo here.