67 replies to this topic

[William Schryver]

volgadon, on 06 July 2012 - 03:21 PM, said:

I hope that there wasn't a typo here.

Naw ... that was in the parking lot earlier ...

( )

[volgadon]

William Schryver, on 06 July 2012 - 07:31 PM, said:

Naw ... that was in the parking lot earlier ...

( )

As long as no musical instruments were harmed in the process.

[William Schryver]

volgadon, on 06 July 2012 - 07:50 PM, said:

As long as no musical instruments were harmed in the process.

That all depends on your point of view.  For my own part, I thought the organ solo from The Doors Light My Fire fit in quite well as an interlude between the 2nd and 3rd verses of Now Let Us Rejoice.

Edited by William Schryver, 07 July 2012 - 08:35 AM.

[JNclone]

Robert F. Smith, on 06 July 2012 - 08:46 AM, said:

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.

And no suggestion was made during the talk of how this mystery is to be solved?

William Schryver, on 06 July 2012 - 06:43 AM, said:

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

Skousen concludes that article by saying:

"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."

Did no-one in the audience of Skousen's talk ask the obvious question - who, then DID produce the translation that was delivered to Joseph Smith?

[William Schryver]

JNclone, on 07 July 2012 - 11:25 AM, said:

And no suggestion was made during the talk of how this mystery is to be solved?

No.  That's why it is a "mystery."

Quote

Skousen concludes that article by saying:

Quote

"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."

Did no-one in the audience of Skousen's talk ask the obvious question - who, then DID produce the translation that was delivered to Joseph Smith?

No one asked that question.  But I have.  Royal and I have also discussed this question, and I have some ideas about its possible answer: that the work of translation was very likely delegated (consistent with our understanding of the economy of God) to those who produced the original work (Mormon, Moroni, Alma, etc.).  To me, this makes complete sense.  As regards these angelic ministrants, we are told:

Quote

Angels are personages who minister for the Lord in carrying out his work. Joseph Smith taught that all angels who minister to the earth are “Those who belong to it or have belonged to it.”

Link

Edited by William Schryver, 07 July 2012 - 04:08 PM.

[Robert F. Smith]

JNclone, on 07 July 2012 - 11:25 AM, said:

And no suggestion was made during the talk of how this mystery is to be solved?
"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."

Did no-one in the audience of Skousen's talk ask the obvious question - who, then DID produce the translation that was delivered to Joseph Smith?

Even though he was not explicit about it, I thought that Skousen was suggesting that God himself was the source of the translation.  Particularly since he said that the complex non-English "if . . . and" conditional sentence constructions in the BOM was a "sign from God."

[William Schryver]

Robert F. Smith, on 07 July 2012 - 02:35 PM, said:

Even though he was not explicit about it, I thought that Skousen was suggesting that God himself was the source of the translation.  Particularly since he said that the complex non-English "if . . . and" conditional sentence constructions in the BOM was a "sign from God."

Bob:

Royal and I have talked about this quite a bit, and I am fairly confident that this is not what he thinks.  My impression from him is that his thoughts on the issue are more or less similar to what I have described above: that the work of translation was delegated to what we would characterize as "ministering angels."  That said, he would, I am certain, attach the word "speculative" to any thesis he might propose in relation to these questions.

In any event, I'll run the question by him, and then I'll make another post later this evening with his response, if he has one.

Edited by William Schryver, 07 July 2012 - 04:10 PM.

[Robert F. Smith]

William Schryver, on 07 July 2012 - 03:36 PM, said:

Bob:

Royal and I have talked about this quite a bit, and I am fairly confident that this is not what he thinks.  My impression from him is that his thoughts on the issue are more or less similar to what I have described above: that the work of translation was delegated to what we would characterize as "ministering angels."  That said, he would, I am certain, attach the word "speculative" to any thesis he might propose in relation to these questions.

In any event, I'll run the question by him, and then I'll make another post later this evening with his response, if he has one.

Interesting though that an angelic go-between might theoretically provide the actual very archaic words.  In such a case, the effect would be the same as if God himself had provided the words not otherwise available to Joseph.

[volgadon]

William Schryver, on 07 July 2012 - 08:32 AM, said:

That all depends on your point of view.  For my own part, I thought the organ solo from The Doors Light My Fire fit in quite well as an interlude between the 2nd and 3rd verses of Now Let Us Rejoice.

I might even walk to hear that.

[William Schryver]

Robert F. Smith, on 07 July 2012 - 04:50 PM, said:

Interesting though that an angelic go-between might theoretically provide the actual very archaic words.  In such a case, the effect would be the same as if God himself had provided the words not otherwise available to Joseph.

I fully agree that the implications tend toward the conclusion of divine intent.  

But why that particular era in the evolution of the English language?  Perhaps there is a connection to another event taking place at roughly the same time: the translation of the King James Version of the Bible.  It has also been suggested by some that the King James translators were the recipients of divine inspiration.

Edited by William Schryver, 07 July 2012 - 05:56 PM.

[William Schryver]

volgadon, on 07 July 2012 - 05:35 PM, said:

I might even walk to hear that.

How far?

[cinepro]

William Schryver, on 07 July 2012 - 05:56 PM, said:

But why that particular era in the evolution of the English language?  Perhaps there is a connection to another event taking place at roughly the same time: the translation of the King James Version of the Bible.  It has also been suggested by some that the King James translators were the recipients of divine inspiration.

If so, it's an interesting example of "revelation by committee":

Quote

[The translators of the King James Bible] went about their work in a precise and orderly way. Each member of the six subcommittees, on his own, translated an entire section of the Bible. He then brought that translation to a meeting of his subcommittee, where the different versions produced by each translator were compared and one was settled on. That version was then submitted to a general revising committee for the whole Bible, which met in Stationers' Hall in London. Here the revising scholars had the suggested versions read aloud—no text visible—while holding on their laps copies of previous translations in English and other languages. The ear and the mind were the only editorial tools. They wanted the Bible to sound right. If it didn't at first hearing, a spirited editorial discussion—extraordinarily, mostly in Latin and partly in Greek—followed. A revising committee presented a final version to two bishops, then to the Archbishop of Canterbury, and then, notionally at least, to the King.

[JNclone]

I have been waiting to see if William Schryver posted any further comments from Royal Skousen on his views of the mode by which the Book of Mormon was translated.

Since it seems that there will be nothing further for the moment, may I say a little more on how the present situation seems to me?   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.)

Royal Skousen appears to be the person who has devoted most attention in recent times to the text of the Book of Mormon, as text.  Any suggestion by him is therefore not to be treated lightly.   But there do seem to be some obvious problems here, and I should like to see them discussed.

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:

“I was also told where were deposited some plates on which were engraven an abridgment of the records of the ancient prophets that had existed on this continent. The angel appeared to me three times the same night and unfolded the same things. After having received many visits from the angels of God, unfolding the majesty and glory of the events that should transpire in the last days, on the morning of the 22nd of September, A.D. 1827, the angel of the Lord delivered the records into my hands.

These records were engraven on plates which had the appearance of gold. Each plate was six inches wide and eight inches long, and not quite so thick as common tin. They were filled with engravings, in Egyptian characters, and bound together in a volume as the leaves of a book, with three rings running through the whole. The volume was something near six inches in thickness, a part of which was sealed. The characters on the unsealed part were small, and beautifully engraved. The whole book exhibited many marks of antiquity in its construction and much skill in the art of engraving. With the records was found a curious instrument, which the ancients called “Urim and Thummim,” which consisted of two transparent stones set in the rims of a bow fastened to a breastplate. Through the medium of the Urim and Thummim I translated the record by the gift and power of God.”

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.

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:

“38 And now, verily I say unto you, that an account of those things that you have written, which have gone out of your hands, is engraven upon the aplates of Nephi;

39 Yea, and you remember it was said in those writings that a more particular account was given of these things upon the plates of Nephi.

40 And now, because the account which is engraven upon the plates of Nephi is more particular concerning the things which, in my wisdom, I awould bring to the knowledge of the people in this account—

41 Therefore, you shall translate the engravings which are on the plates of Nephi, down even till you come to the reign of king Benjamin, or until you come to that which you have translated, which you have retained;”

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.

[calmoriah]

Quote

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.

I think the key is in your second sentence.  It made sense to Joseph that he would need the plates and therefore he had greater confidence and thus greater peace and therefore greater ease listening to the Spirit initially by possessing the plates.  However, IIRC, later on weren't there times the plates were not present?

Plus there is the value of just their existence demonstrating to the witnesses the truth of Joseph's claims.

Edited by calmoriah, 10 July 2012 - 11:06 AM.

[calmoriah]

Quote

Why was it made using a version of English which would in part have been incomprehensible to Joseph - as Royal Skousen points out?

To demonstrate that it was not merely a production of the 19th century?

[JNclone]

calmoriah, on 10 July 2012 - 11:08 AM, said:

To demonstrate that it was not merely a production of the 19th century?

But if the style of language was intended to suggest a date, then it would carry the suggestion that the Book of Mormon was a production of the early 17th century, surely?  

Or maybe I have not understood what you mean.   Surely there would have been no problem about Joseph Smith producing a translation of the Book of Mormon, taken to be an ancient text,  in the language of the time when he produced the translation - i.e. the early 19th century?

[calmoriah]

I mean it could be viewed as giving another reason to consider that Joseph Smith was not its author...and given the 17th century language, nor any of the usual suspects....

Edited by calmoriah, 10 July 2012 - 12:21 PM.

[mapman]

How do we know that Joseph didn't know some of this antique language?  I'm not a linguist, but I suspect that certain demographics might preserve old usages that aren't used by most people and aren't found in the dictionaries.  I guess the question is whether it is more likely that Joseph knew antique English words or that he was receiving an earlier translation of the Book of Mormon.

[volgadon]

William Schryver, on 07 July 2012 - 05:57 PM, said:

How far?

How good is the solo?

[JNclone]

mapman, on 10 July 2012 - 04:13 PM, said:

How do we know that Joseph didn't know some of this antique language?  I'm not a linguist, but I suspect that certain demographics might preserve old usages that aren't used by most people and aren't found in the dictionaries.  I guess the question is whether it is more likely that Joseph knew antique English words or that he was receiving an earlier translation of the Book of Mormon.

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

Quote

Another argument against this analysis would be that all these archaic meanings might have still existed in Joseph Smith's upstate New York dialect. Thus far there is no evidence to support such a hypothesis. Lexical studies consistently show that the archaic meanings for these words did indeed become obsolete in England prior to 1700. Nor have any vestiges of their use in the American colonies been found as of yet.

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?