Hebraisms in the Book of Mormon

[Kevin Barney]

Those interested in my views on BoM translation theory will find them at the link I posted at p. 14 of this thread, under the caption (over halfway down) Shepherd on Pseudotranslation. In brief, I argue that the BoM reflects what I call a "complex" translation, including examples of both tighter and looser control, and that our approach to BoM translation issues should therefore be appropriately eclectic. The illustrative example for such a translation I give is an Aramaic targum.

[Alf O'Mega]

I don't think that your "complex translation" hypothesis fits the facts, Kevin. In both examples cited in your article (Ovide Moralise and the targumim), these works were produced for audiences that were familiar with the source material and therefore would be able to distinguish between original text and commentary. They were not presented as true translations.

In the case of the Book of Mormon, we have an actual, modern translator claiming to have translated an ancient text. You may speculate that this translation included silent contributions by the translator, but as it stands this is an ad hoc theory, unsupported by anything the translator himself had to say about it.

Now in principle, it should be possible to distinguish the modern from the ancient threads in the text using critical tools of well established utility (much as J, E, P, and D are distinguished in the Pentateuch under the documentary hypothesis.) I am open to considering such a reconstruction, but so far that work remains to be done.

[William Schryver]

Alf O'Mega:

Actually, what I find yawnsome (i.e., entirely to be expected) is not the form but the chance that contorted English might occasionally accidentally resemble Hebrew, especially when the Hebraisms are vastly outnumbered by idiomatic English in parallel constructions elsewhere.

The presence of idiomatic English in the text of the Book of Mormon is certainly "yawnsome", I suppose. After all, it was the very purpose of this "translation" to render the ancient language in a fashion that modern English-speaking readers would be able to comprehend it. However, in a development that adds even further to the mystery of the translation of the Book of Mormon, we now have emerging from Royal Skousen's studies the revelation that the English idiom employed was not Joseph Smith's 19th century usage, but rather that of the Elizabethan era.

In a brief conversation in Provo last week, and in an e-mail I cite below, Professor Skousen sets forth both his views regarding the nature of the translation process in the Book of Mormon and this new claim to which I have just referred:

Joseph Smith received by means of the interpreters or the seer stone an actual text of English written out in some form. He was able to spell at least the book of Mormon names. It was not ideas in his mind, but actual words of English. What he saw was a revealed text, but from then on, everything depends upon human beings in making sure the transmission is accurate. Errors could creep in and did. The human stages include Joseph Smith reading off the text that he

[The Dude]

I have recently been arguing that the vocabulary of the original English-language text dates from the 1500s and 1600s. It is not Joseph Smith

[Kevin Barney]

Alf, the whole point of the targums was that most of the Jews could no longer understand classical Hebrew. I doubt that the average post-Exilic Jew understood the Hebrew Bible well enough to parse an oral targum and distinguish what corresponded to the source text, what was paraphrase and what was addition. For most of them, the targums *were* the Bible.

You're right that there is nothing from Joseph suggesting this theory. In my view, Joseph himself did not understand the nature of the text. The theory derives from the characteristics of the text itself, not from any self-understanding on the part of Joseph.

[William Schryver]

The Dude:

Now it looks even more like a crop circle.

Well, I find the evidence rather persuasive. Simply put, there are words and constructions being employed which were no longer in use in 19th century America, but which date to the era of Shakespeare instead. Skousen is not drawing any conclusions at this point in time, he is simply pointing out what the evidence suggests. I look forward to his detailed analysis of the topic.

[The Dude]

The Dude:

Now it looks even more like a crop circle.

Well, I find the evidence rather persuasive. Simply put, there are words and constructions being employed which were no longer in use in 19th century America, but which date to the era of Shakespeare instead. Skousen is not drawing any conclusions at this point in time, he is simply pointing out what the evidence suggests. I look forward to his detailed analysis of the topic.

Persuasive of what?

[William Schryver]

The Dude:

Now it looks even more like a crop circle.

Well, I find the evidence rather persuasive. Simply put, there are words and constructions being employed which were no longer in use in 19th century America, but which date to the era of Shakespeare instead. Skousen is not drawing any conclusions at this point in time, he is simply pointing out what the evidence suggests. I look forward to his detailed analysis of the topic.

Persuasive of what?

Perchance it is I whose English clear is not. Forsooth?

In any event, he can cite specific examples of long-since archaic English language elements being employed in the original manuscripts of the Book of Mormon. Language elements which were not in use in the 19th century, nor the 18th for that matter. He has some persuasive evidence of that.

[The Dude]

Perchance it is I whose English clear is not. Forsooth?

Please ask Skousen what Yoda's mode of speech represents, and what we can conclude about it.