Brian Hales latest BOM presentation -- dictation vs loose translation

[churchistrue]

I've heard Brian Hales latest presentation on the BOM a couple times now, but I'm still not sure if I understand it correctly, especially with regards to the possibility of a loose translation.

I think most informed and faithful LDS (avoiding the word Apologist which might be perceived as pejorative) view the Book of Mormon in some important ways to be loosely translated or modern or through the mind of Joseph.

That's typically how most informed faithful LDS seem to deal with issues like: anachronisms, New Testament intertextuality, KJV dependency, 19th century Protestant sounding phrases and themes, etc. 

Ostler's Expansion Theory would be one way to approach that. And there are probably a wide variety of how people fit that in to a historical Book of Mormon (ignoring a non-historical view for now and keeping this to a more traditional historical core combined with loose translation or expanded modern content theory). Maybe Joseph was given ideas and inserted his way of expressing it. Maybe Joseph inserted both his ideas and expression. Maybe Joseph significantly expanded the text beyond just inserting random ideas and expressions. 

But I think it's very rare at this point for an informed faithful LDS (aka Apologist) to assume there is nothing like that happening from Joseph and that he is acting 100% as the receiver of a dictated text, ie he's just speaking aloud the words given to him by God through the seer stone. With one important caveat, and that's represented by the 16c translation committee idea (or something like that), ie there was some sort of expanded/loose translation with heavy human component prior to Joseph dictating. ie Joseph might have been dictating, but it's not a situation where the flow is directly from the Reformed Egyptian on the plates to Joseph by way of the Holy Ghost. There's a human/modern/expanded element in there somehow.

Do I have that right? I think I heard Hales mention the 16c theory in Q & A in one of his presentations, but I could be wrong. 

I know Hales is trying to fit the data that Skousen/Carmack have shown in terms of Joseph dictated the text to Oliver, but that feels unnecessarily rigid to assume that data proves that Joseph had no contribution to the translation. 

If I have that wrong and Hales or other Apologists do believe the BOM was translated directly from the Reformed Egyptian on the plates to Joseph by way of Holy Ghost, what does Hales or those people believing that think of Ostler's Expansion Theory, and how do they get around the issues that the Expansion Model resolves (anachronisms, intertextuality, etc)?

 

 

 

[Ryan Dahle]

1 hour ago, churchistrue said:

I've heard Brian Hales latest presentation on the BOM a couple times now, but I'm still not sure if I understand it correctly, especially with regards to the possibility of a loose translation.

I think most informed and faithful LDS (avoiding the word Apologist which might be perceived as pejorative) view the Book of Mormon in some important ways to be loosely translated or modern or through the mind of Joseph.

That's typically how most informed faithful LDS seem to deal with issues like: anachronisms, New Testament intertextuality, KJV dependency, 19th century Protestant sounding phrases and themes, etc. 

Ostler's Expansion Theory would be one way to approach that. And there are probably a wide variety of how people fit that in to a historical Book of Mormon (ignoring a non-historical view for now and keeping this to a more traditional historical core combined with loose translation or expanded modern content theory). Maybe Joseph was given ideas and inserted his way of expressing it. Maybe Joseph inserted both his ideas and expression. Maybe Joseph significantly expanded the text beyond just inserting random ideas and expressions. 

But I think it's very rare at this point for an informed faithful LDS (aka Apologist) to assume there is nothing like that happening from Joseph and that he is acting 100% as the receiver of a dictated text, ie he's just speaking aloud the words given to him by God through the seer stone. With one important caveat, and that's represented by the 16c translation committee idea (or something like that), ie there was some sort of expanded/loose translation with heavy human component prior to Joseph dictating. ie Joseph might have been dictating, but it's not a situation where the flow is directly from the Reformed Egyptian on the plates to Joseph by way of the Holy Ghost. There's a human/modern/expanded element in there somehow.

Do I have that right? I think I heard Hales mention the 16c theory in Q & A in one of his presentations, but I could be wrong. 

I know Hales is trying to fit the data that Skousen/Carmack have shown in terms of Joseph dictated the text to Oliver, but that feels unnecessarily rigid to assume that data proves that Joseph had no contribution to the translation. 

If I have that wrong and Hales or other Apologists do believe the BOM was translated directly from the Reformed Egyptian on the plates to Joseph by way of Holy Ghost, what does Hales or those people believing that think of Ostler's Expansion Theory, and how do they get around the issues that the Expansion Model resolves (anachronisms, intertextuality, etc)?

 

 

 

Skousen's theory entails a tightly controlled revelation of words and ideas but doesn't necessitate a tight (vs. loose) translation itself. Both Carmack and Gardner, for instance, have assumed that the translation may be dynamic (ranging from tight to loose as far as literalness goes). This distinction often gets confused even by fairly informed scholars and commentators. In other words, even if God revealed the English words to Joseph Smith, those English words could possibly range from loose to tight (as far as how literally they represent the words and ideas in the source texts).

Why would God (or whatever entity or process was responsible for the divinely revealed English text) use a dynamic translation? Well that gets into speculating about specific rhetorical advantages or disadvantages for a tight or loose translation in specific instances. So there probably isn't a single overarching rationale, other than that a dynamic translation offers flexibility to achieve more rhetorical goals at once. 

I suppose my point is that your confusion may, in part, stem from your conflating a tight revelation of English words (God visually delivering them to Joseph Smith, word for word) with a tight translation of words (the idea that most or all of the English words Joseph Smith saw in his translation instruments literally approximate the ancient words from the source texts). 

Edited August 20, 2019 by Ryan Dahle

[CA Steve]

43 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

I've heard Brian Hales latest presentation on the BOM a couple times now, but I'm still not sure if I understand it correctly, especially with regards to the possibility of a loose translation.

Do you have a link to this?

[mfbukowski]

52 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

Skousen's theory entails a tightly controlled revelation of words and ideas but doesn't necessitate a tight (vs. loose) translation itself. Both Carmack and Gardner, for instance, have assumed that the translation may be dynamic (ranging from tight to loose as far as literalness goes). This distinction often gets confused even by fairly informed scholars and commentators. In other words, even if God revealed the English words to Joseph Smith, those English words could possibly range from loose to tight (as far as how literally they represent the words and ideas in the source texts).

Why would God (or whatever entity or process was responsible for the divinely revealed English text) use a dynamic translation? Well that gets into speculating about specific rhetorical advantages or disadvantages for a tight or loose translation in specific instances. So there probably isn't a single overarching rationale, other than that a dynamic translation offers flexibility to achieve more rhetorical goals at once. 

I suppose my point is that your confusion may, in part, stem from your conflating a tight revelation of English words (God visually delivering them to Joseph Smith, word for word) with a tight translation of words (the idea that most or all of the English words Joseph Smith saw in his translation instruments literally approximate the ancient words from the source texts). 

I think that since none of us are Joseph Smith and none of us have had his subjective experience of what it is like to have specific words revealed as the person he was with his personal cognitive quirks influencing or not influencing the process,  regardless of the meanings and their connotations of "translation" vs "revelation"- both incredibly ambiguous terms- , the alleged "problem" is insoluble.

It is not as if there is an available "true" text in English of God's intended words to compare against Joseph's version.

All we can possibly come up with will be interpretations and theories depending on the individual making the interpretation.  There is no objective evidence obviously for "what God intended to say".

 

 

Edited August 20, 2019 by mfbukowski

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, churchistrue said:

I've heard Brian Hales latest presentation on the BOM a couple times now, but I'm still not sure if I understand it correctly, especially with regards to the possibility of a loose translation.

I think most informed and faithful LDS (avoiding the word Apologist which might be perceived as pejorative) view the Book of Mormon in some important ways to be loosely translated or modern or through the mind of Joseph.

That's typically how most informed faithful LDS seem to deal with issues like: anachronisms, New Testament intertextuality, KJV dependency, 19th century Protestant sounding phrases and themes, etc. 

Ostler's Expansion Theory would be one way to approach that. And there are probably a wide variety of how people fit that in to a historical Book of Mormon (ignoring a non-historical view for now and keeping this to a more traditional historical core combined with loose translation or expanded modern content theory). Maybe Joseph was given ideas and inserted his way of expressing it. Maybe Joseph inserted both his ideas and expression. Maybe Joseph significantly expanded the text beyond just inserting random ideas and expressions. 

But I think it's very rare at this point for an informed faithful LDS (aka Apologist) to assume there is nothing like that happening from Joseph and that he is acting 100% as the receiver of a dictated text, ie he's just speaking aloud the words given to him by God through the seer stone. With one important caveat, and that's represented by the 16c translation committee idea (or something like that), ie there was some sort of expanded/loose translation with heavy human component prior to Joseph dictating. ie Joseph might have been dictating, but it's not a situation where the flow is directly from the Reformed Egyptian on the plates to Joseph by way of the Holy Ghost. There's a human/modern/expanded element in there somehow.

Do I have that right? I think I heard Hales mention the 16c theory in Q & A in one of his presentations, but I could be wrong. 

I know Hales is trying to fit the data that Skousen/Carmack have shown in terms of Joseph dictated the text to Oliver, but that feels unnecessarily rigid to assume that data proves that Joseph had no contribution to the translation. 

If I have that wrong and Hales or other Apologists do believe the BOM was translated directly from the Reformed Egyptian on the plates to Joseph by way of Holy Ghost, what does Hales or those people believing that think of Ostler's Expansion Theory, and how do they get around the issues that the Expansion Model resolves (anachronisms, intertextuality, etc)?

 

 

 

To your second paragraph above, apologist is not inherently pejorative, though attackers might view it as such. 

And “faithful LDS” is not a synonym for defender, as one can be faithful without engaging in defense against attacks, as an apologist would do. 

If you don’t like “apologist,” use “defender” instead. 

Edited August 20, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[Damien the Leper]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

To your second paragraph above, apologist is not inherently pejorative, though attackers might view it as such. 

And “faithful LDS” is not a synonym for defender, as one can be faithful without engaging in defense against attacks, as an apologist would do. 

If you don’t like “apologist,” use “defender” instead. 

ἀπολογία literally means to make a defense in 1 Peter 3:15. It's odd to me that a person would liken more to one than the other based on an unnecessary idea that one is a pejorative. I'm not accusing you of this, @Scott Lloyd. It just seems pointless.

Edited August 20, 2019 by Valentinus

[Ryan Dahle]

3 hours ago, CA Steve said:

4 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

I've heard Brian Hales latest presentation on the BOM a couple times now, but I'm still not sure if I understand it correctly, especially with regards to the possibility of a loose translation.

Do you have a link to this?

I didn't say that. And, sorry, I don't have a link. 

[Calm]

1 minute ago, Ryan Dahle said:

I didn't say that. And, sorry, I don't have a link. 

Tricky using quote selection in a quote, screws up the name attached. 

[mfbukowski]

22 minutes ago, Valentinus said:

ἀπολογία literally means to make a defense in 1 Peter 3:15. It's odd to me that a person would liken more to one than other based an unnecessary idea that one is a pejorative. I'm not accusing you of this, @Scott Lloyd. It just seems pointless.

There are boards which refer to "Mopologists" in a deriding way,  limiting the comments to saying how stupid they are, and I also think  that some people still think that an "apologist" is someone who apologizes for being a member of the faith they are supposedly defending.  Obviously neither of those attitudes include the stronger image of being a "Defender of the Faith".

And so with some people "apologist" really is somewhat of a pejorative.  Additionally there seems to be a divide between "apologists" and "scholars" which roughly approximates the difference between an amateur and a professional.

So given all that, I definitely think that "apologist" has taken on a pejorative connotation unfortunately.

[clarkgoble]

6 hours ago, churchistrue said:

But I think it's very rare at this point for an informed faithful LDS (aka Apologist) to assume there is nothing like that happening from Joseph and that he is acting 100% as the receiver of a dictated text, ie he's just speaking aloud the words given to him by God through the seer stone.

There's two issues. Tight/Loose Control and then Tight/Loose Translation (or word for word fidelity to the underlying text). I think your statement above conflates the two but I think it wise to keep them separate. There's lots of people who think Joseph is just reading off the U&T but think that the translated text given to him in that fashion is a loose translation with various expansions.

I typically add in an other distinction which is translation dependency. That is Joseph might not have any conscious control of the translation process but the translation itself is making use of his unconscious habits, memories and so forth. 

My own view is that the evidence for loose translation is overwhelming due to the nature of KJV quotations. There's still a few people who argue quotations are due to identical pre-Christian texts, but I don't think there's many of them. However I'm pretty agnostic on the question of how consciously involved Joseph Smith was in the process. I understand the main argument against his involvement (primarily EModE although there's a few other things) but I think in a mixed translation with some involvement by Joseph you'd simply have some passages in EModE and others that aren't in a problematic fashion. So far as I know no one has done a distribution analysis of the text to see how that works out. You could also potentially have a quasi-dialog like process in using the seer stone where Joseph's mental questions result in new text. That to me would be conscious involvement even if the produced text might be from an EModE speaker.

There are a few other issues depending upon the nature of the underlying text - i.e. whether it is word based, ideogram based or has a lossy type of compression (say a mnemonic system or a shorthand that skips words). I think most have assumed the gold plates were word based but I'm not sure that's correct.

Edited August 20, 2019 by clarkgoble

[Damien the Leper]

4 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

There are boards which refer to "Mopologists" in a deriding way,  limiting the comments to saying how stupid they are, and I also think  that some people still think that an "apologist" is someone who apologizes for being a member of the faith they are supposedly defending.  Obviously neither of those attitudes include the stronger image of being a "Defender of the Faith".

And so with some people "apologist" really is somewhat of a pejorative.  Additionally there seems to be a divide between "apologists" and "scholars" which roughly approximates the difference between an amateur and a professional.

So given all that, I definitely think that "apologist" has taken on a pejorative connotation unfortunately.

I am reminded of Bednar's 2006 Ensign article about being offended. A person chooses to be offended. Likewise, a person chooses to accept certain terms as pejorative. In both cases this gives the antagonist more power.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Valentinus said:

ἀπολογία literally means to make a defense in 1 Peter 3:15. It's odd to me that a person would liken more to one than the other based on an unnecessary idea that one is a pejorative. I'm not accusing you of this, @Scott Lloyd. It just seems pointless.

Why would I think you are accusing me when I agree with you? Apologist is a fine term. It was churchistrue who suggested it is pejorative. I think that’s a wrongheaded notion. 

[Damien the Leper]

6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Why would I think you are accusing me when I agree with you? Apologist is a fine term. It was churchistrue who suggested it is pejorative. I think that’s a wrongheaded notion. 

It was for the sake of clarity. Over the years we've gotten better at agreeing with each other.

[Robert F. Smith]

47 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

....................My own view is that the evidence for loose translation is overwhelming due to the nature of KJV quotations. There's still a few people who argue quotations are due to identical pre-Christian texts, but I don't think there's many of them.

One doesn't need "identical" texts, since all texts can be expressed in a dynamically equivalent translation.  One culture may say "I love you with all my heart," while another may say "I love you with all my liver."  Both mean the same thing.  The OT and NT, for example, could have been translated as one continuous and harmonious, undifferentiated text, which most of us are not accustomed to.  We are overwhelmed by non-existent differences and distinctions, practically seeing them as night & day.

47 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

However I'm pretty agnostic on the question of how consciously involved Joseph Smith was in the process. I understand the main argument against his involvement (primarily EModE although there's a few other things) but I think in a mixed translation with some involvement by Joseph you'd simply have some passages in EModE and others that aren't in a problematic fashion. So far as I know no one has done a distribution analysis of the text to see how that works out. You could also potentially have a quasi-dialog like process in using the seer stone where Joseph's mental questions result in new text. That to me would be conscious involvement even if the produced text might be from an EModE speaker..............

EModE is the key problem, and you are right to ask for a distribution analysis.  The ultimate problem is to show hard evidence that anything attributable to the 19th century (in the BofM) could not just as well have been produced in the 16th century.  The lack of systematically demonstrated hard evidence clinches the claims of Stanford Carmack that the EModE of the BofM was extinct in Joseph's day, leaving no other choice than to describe Joseph as no more than a ventriloquist.

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

.....................................

It is not as if there is an available "true" text in English of God's intended words to compare against Joseph's version.

All we can possibly come up with will be interpretations and theories depending on the individual making the interpretation.  There is no objective evidence obviously for "what God intended to say".

That is indeed a problem.  We do need the actual language on the plates, for purposes of comparison with the dictated manuscript.  Since the Small Plates of Nephi would have to have been in standard Egyptian of 600 BC, a third party (non-LDS) Egyptologist could quickly determine whether the translation was literal or a dynamic equivalence.

Short of that, however, we do have many examples of concepts, phrases, and names which do not exist in any biblical Hebrew texts, but which are commonly available in ancient Egyptian literature.  We can make some reasonable extrapolations from such facts.  Indicative, even if not proof.

[Robert F. Smith]

7 hours ago, churchistrue said:

I've heard Brian Hales latest presentation on the BOM a couple times now, ..................................

Perhaps you could be so kind as to cite such a Hales presentation, with link.  

[mfbukowski]

10 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Perhaps you could be so kind as to cite such a Hales presentation, with link.  

As I see it that will not work unless you paid for the streaming videos.  I think that is how it works and I bought  the streaming but I have not had  a chance to study them yet.

[Calm]

I will try and keep an eye out for word on the FM transcript (I am assuming this is the one being discussed), but Mom keeps distracting me right now including about a half an hour ago , so probably a good idea to check the FM presentation page every few days to begin with and then maybe once a week (generally the easy ones get done pretty quickly) if you want it quickly.

https://www.fairmormon.org/conference/august-2019#schedule

[CV75]

14 hours ago, churchistrue said:

I've heard Brian Hales latest presentation on the BOM a couple times now, but I'm still not sure if I understand it correctly, especially with regards to the possibility of a loose translation.

I think the word “sufficient” captures the quality of translation, which the Lord uses in relation to Joseph’s wherewithal to translate and its product (D&C 9:16). Neither Joseph with his capacity nor Oliver who developed none were condemned. As with the words of Nephi which are included in the translation, the rest of the Book of Mormon is "sufficient" (2 Nephi 25:28). And the Lord’s grace described as "sufficient" a number of times in these scriptures. The Lord also expresses His approval of the Book of Mormon as a product of Joseph’s sufficient translation a number of times in the D&C (e.g. 1:29; 27:5; 33;16; 2:12; 84:57)

[churchistrue]

13 hours ago, CA Steve said:

Do you have a link to this?

Here's a link to a published article in Dialogue. I didn't compare, but I think this is mostly the same presentation that I'm talking about that he did at Sunstone and FairMormon. https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V52N02_1.pdf

 

[churchistrue]

14 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

Skousen's theory entails a tightly controlled revelation of words and ideas but doesn't necessitate a tight (vs. loose) translation itself. Both Carmack and Gardner, for instance, have assumed that the translation may be dynamic (ranging from tight to loose as far as literalness goes). This distinction often gets confused even by fairly informed scholars and commentators. In other words, even if God revealed the English words to Joseph Smith, those English words could possibly range from loose to tight (as far as how literally they represent the words and ideas in the source texts).

Why would God (or whatever entity or process was responsible for the divinely revealed English text) use a dynamic translation? Well that gets into speculating about specific rhetorical advantages or disadvantages for a tight or loose translation in specific instances. So there probably isn't a single overarching rationale, other than that a dynamic translation offers flexibility to achieve more rhetorical goals at once. 

I suppose my point is that your confusion may, in part, stem from your conflating a tight revelation of English words (God visually delivering them to Joseph Smith, word for word) with a tight translation of words (the idea that most or all of the English words Joseph Smith saw in his translation instruments literally approximate the ancient words from the source texts). 

Yes, that's what I'm getting at. So, do I have it right?

I think most LDS Defenders would go with some sort of loose/expanded translation.

Then within that, there would be two subsets.

1) Those that think the loose/expanded translation came through the mind of Joseph and are not so insistent on a tightly controlled revelation of words and/or they believe that Joseph had some contribution in how those tightly controlled revelation of words appeared. This would be Ostler I think? And I think most LDS Defenders would come in line with this.

2) Those that think the loose/expanded translation came external of Joseph and he was simply a conduit for the tightly controlled revelation. And further, that loose/expanded translation was likely very humanistic in terms of doing things that don't seem perfect or the way God would do it with no human involvement. This would be Carmack-Skousen and also Hales.

 

Is this right? Is there tension between these two perspectives? Are there any articles or otherwise accessible discussion of these two concepts? I'm primarily interested in LDS Defenders engaging each other and not critics on this.

 

 

 

 

[clarkgoble]

9 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

One doesn't need "identical" texts, since all texts can be expressed in a dynamically equivalent translation.  One culture may say "I love you with all my heart," while another may say "I love you with all my liver."  Both mean the same thing.  The OT and NT, for example, could have been translated as one continuous and harmonious, undifferentiated text, which most of us are not accustomed to.  We are overwhelmed by non-existent differences and distinctions, practically seeing them as night & day.

I agree with that, but it seems unlikely that say quotations from Paul in the small plates of Nephi can be explained in that way. (Sorry - don't have a handy list of those sorts of anachronisms but I think we both know they are there) While some KJV use could be explained by the above, and in other cases explained by having very similar underlying texts, the quotations and paraphrases seem to go well beyond that demanding a loose translation. I think one rather interesting theory trying to explain this is that they represent a kind of reference — what today we use footnotes with cross references for.

9 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

EModE is the key problem, and you are right to ask for a distribution analysis.  The ultimate problem is to show hard evidence that anything attributable to the 19th century (in the BofM) could not just as well have been produced in the 16th century.  The lack of systematically demonstrated hard evidence clinches the claims of Stanford Carmack that the EModE of the BofM was extinct in Joseph's day, leaving no other choice than to describe Joseph as no more than a ventriloquist.

I think though that if you have a text that's common in both the 19th and 16th century language that you then have a kind of undecidability. That is you can't really establish that Joseph is just a ventriloquist since he could have produced those parts with 19th century voice. Some might be convinced he's just a copyist but technically the evidence would be indeterminate. (Ventriloquist isn't a good metaphor since a ventriloquist appears to not be producing the voice but actually is)

9 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

That is indeed a problem.  We do need the actual language on the plates, for purposes of comparison with the dictated manuscript.  Since the Small Plates of Nephi would have to have been in standard Egyptian of 600 BC, a third party (non-LDS) Egyptologist could quickly determine whether the translation was literal or a dynamic equivalence.

I'm not convinced it'd need to be standard 6th century Egyptian. It could easily be using hieratic to encode Hebrew for instance - non-standard but something we have evidence for in the region. Or it could be something unique we don't have extant evidence for.

I think there are some indications within the text itself for the tradition of such encoded texts - in Ether perhaps. It's not completely explicit so some of it is speculative. More to the point, Nephi doesn't indicate he's using a special cipher with the Egyptian. I'm not sure it follows though that Nephi was using standard Egyptian hieratic though.

 

[Ryan Dahle]

1 hour ago, churchistrue said:

Yes, that's what I'm getting at. So, do I have it right?

I think most LDS Defenders would go with some sort of loose/expanded translation.

Then within that, there would be two subsets.

1) Those that think the loose/expanded translation came through the mind of Joseph and are not so insistent on a tightly controlled revelation of words and/or they believe that Joseph had some contribution in how those tightly controlled revelation of words appeared. This would be Ostler I think? And I think most LDS Defenders would come in line with this.

2) Those that think the loose/expanded translation came external of Joseph and he was simply a conduit for the tightly controlled revelation. And further, that loose/expanded translation was likely very humanistic in terms of doing things that don't seem perfect or the way God would do it with no human involvement. This would be Carmack-Skousen and also Hales.

 

Is this right? Is there tension between these two perspectives? Are there any articles or otherwise accessible discussion of these two concepts? I'm primarily interested in LDS Defenders engaging each other and not critics on this.

Well, yes, I think that generally all groups of defenders/apologists appeal to a loose translation to explain certain features of the text. However, there are also various types of evidence for a more literal translation that are generally accepted in the Latter-day Saint scholarly community. I don't think there is much tension or really much discussion at all around this specific issue. Most of the discussion revolves around the source of the English wording of the text. Both theories can accommodate a dynamic translation, so there isn't much to debate, IMO.

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I agree with that, but it seems unlikely that say quotations from Paul in the small plates of Nephi can be explained in that way. (Sorry - don't have a handy list of those sorts of anachronisms but I think we both know they are there) While some KJV use could be explained by the above, and in other cases explained by having very similar underlying texts, the quotations and paraphrases seem to go well beyond that demanding a loose translation. I think one rather interesting theory trying to explain this is that they represent a kind of reference — what today we use footnotes with cross references for.

Yes, exactly.  Understanding intertextuality is awfully difficult, and I have lengthy lists of quotations and allusions between the testaments (including intertestamental literature) which hardly touches the surface.  The problem is that so little literature has survived that we do not know the full extent of the parallels.  Scribes and literati used a common store of expressions.  You can see Paul and others doing it all the time:  

Rom 3:10-18 ~ Pss 5:9, 10:7, 14:1-3, 36:1, 51:1-3, 53:1-3, 140:3 (5:10, 9:28, 13:1-3, 35:2, 50:3-5, 52:2-4, 139:4 LXX), Isa 59:7-8

Rom 9:21-23 ~ Wisdom of Solomon 12:12-22

Gal 5:6 ~ 1 Esdras 4:38 (= 3 Ezra); 4 Macc 17:2,4; 1 Thess 1:3, Coloss 1:4-5, Heb 10:22-24, 1 Pt 1:21-22; cf. Stoic “faith, truth, love, hope”

Eph 6:11-16 ~ Wisdom of Solomon 5:17-21

Heb 3:7 - 4:10 ~ Ps 95:7-11 (Ps 94:7-11 LXX)

1 Pt 2:22-25 ~ Isa 53:4-12

2 Pt 2:1-3,12-16,18 ~ Assumption of Moses (Test of Moses) 7:1-9,11, and unrecovered section

Jude 4,9-10,12-13,16 ~ Assumption of Moses 7:1-9, and unrecovered section

5 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I think though that if you have a text that's common in both the 19th and 16th century language that you then have a kind of undecidability. That is you can't really establish that Joseph is just a ventriloquist since he could have produced those parts with 19th century voice. Some might be convinced he's just a copyist but technically the evidence would be indeterminate. (Ventriloquist isn't a good metaphor since a ventriloquist appears to not be producing the voice but actually is)

O.K.  More like the Ventriloquist's dummy.  

5 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I'm not convinced it'd need to be standard 6th century Egyptian. It could easily be using hieratic to encode Hebrew for instance - non-standard but something we have evidence for in the region. Or it could be something unique we don't have extant evidence for.

I think there are some indications within the text itself for the tradition of such encoded texts - in Ether perhaps. It's not completely explicit so some of it is speculative. More to the point, Nephi doesn't indicate he's using a special cipher with the Egyptian. I'm not sure it follows though that Nephi was using standard Egyptian hieratic though.

In order to be intelligible and useful, the Brass Plates had to be in standard Egyptian (that means Hieratic).  Otherwise trained scribes could not read them.  Lehi and Nephi both had to have been trained scribes, or having the Brass Plates would have been useless.  The Reformed Egyptian used by Mormon and Moroni would have been far more abbreviated ("short-hand").

[Robert F. Smith]

15 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

As I see it that will not work unless you paid for the streaming videos.  I think that is how it works and I bought  the streaming but I have not had  a chance to study them yet.

O.K.  I didn't realize that he had just made a Fair presentation.  I was too lazy to go.