Translation Method

[David Bokovoy]

Although I make no pretense to Biblical scholarship, I believe I do understand the arguments that undergird the conclusion to which you refer. I also agree that, from a purely academic perspective, the arguments (and the evidence adduced to support them) is very persuasive. That said, I continue to perceive "other possibilities" to explain the abrupt change that is seen between Isaiah 39 and 40 (and the chapters that follow). Today during Sacrament Meeting (my apologies to the speakers ) I took the time to read chapters 39 through 42. (BTW, reading Isaiah is such a spiritual feast, regardless of its origins!) And once again I found myself persuaded from a purely intuitive (spiritual?) standpoint, that Isaiah 40 - 42 (and the remainder of "Deutero-Isaiah") is prophetic in nature, rather than constituting a "prophetic exhortation" after the fact of the exile. While I did not make notes of the verses in question, I believe there are hints within these chapters that indicate their primarily "prophetic" before the fact rather than "exhortative" after the fact qualities. Perhaps one day, when I am not so exclusively focused on my Book of Abraham/Kirtland Egyptian Papers studies, I will take the time to address these questions in a more formal manner. At such time, I would so much enjoy sharing impressions with you--as a scholar, a fellow brother in the gospel, and as a friend.

Again, "great are the words of Isaiah"! What a pity that so many of the Saints are so intimidated by these things that they tend to avoid them, and thereby fail to place themselves in a position to be enlightened and spiritually edified by the words of this great prophet (or prophets).

No argument here, Brother. The book of Isaiah is the theological and literary backbone to the Book of Mormon and nothing speaks to my soul, let alone my personal interests, more than Isaiah. Yet part of what speaks to me spiritually is the book's message of restoration within the historical context of the exilic experience.

[Lamanite]

...I would see a problem for the Book of Mormon and the New Testament also if Isaiah truly has different authors two of which came after Lehi left Jerusalem.

Glenn

I definitely see a problem for the BoM if Isaiah has multiple authors. This is why my belief (spiritual assurance) that the BoM is exactly what it claims to be- seems to be in conflict with what the text of the BoM reveals about its origins.

Like always, reconciliation between these seemingly contradictory views generally comes. Sometimes quickly, sometimes slowly, but there is always peace to be found in the meantime by staying true and faithful to the spiritual verities God has bestowed.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[Lamanite]

I "got it," but I just wanted to underscore the fact that Royal is not a big fan of the message board environment. Both he and John Gee share this sentiment in spades. And although I have, in the past, been persuaded that the adversarial aspects of these online debates serve to knock the "rough edges" off incomplete or flawed arguments, I have increasingly come to believe that, in the final analysis, the positives of these forums don't outweigh their negatives. That said, they are addictive, and I have been discovering of late how difficult it can be to break that addiction.

I feel you. I don't think I posted from Spring of '09 until Fall of '09. I needed a break. I think a self imposed sabbatical is often wise.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[volgadon]

Fair enough. So long as no one is mistaken in terms of how biblical scholars understand the issue. "The first person to differentiate between them [isaiah and Deutero-Isaiah] was Doderlein, in 1975; his thesis was accepted by Eichhorn (1780-83); and since then, it has steadily won its way to universal recognition in Old Testament scholarship." Claus Westermann, Isaiah 40-66 (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1969), 8-9.

Unfortunately, far too many lay persons get hung up on the issue of Cyrus who appears mentioned by name as if this is the reason scholars universally accept the validity of Deutero-Isaiah. This fact, however, is really only an extremely minor piece of the evidence that leads to this "universal recognition." Isaiah 40 marks a brand new prophetic figure interacting with the Divine Council who receives a new prophetic message for the exilic community.

Though I personally reject Deutero-Isaiah, as in there being pre and post exilic parts, I find it fascinating that the notion is not an entirely new one. Moses ibn Chiquitilla and Abraham ibn Ezra, the medieval Spanish Jewish exegetes, were proponents of the idea.

Personally, I lean to the idea that these were different collections of Isaiah's writings. Nephi mentions the words of Isaiah, but IIRC, never the book of Isaiah, perhaps supporting the idea that they weren't brought together and edited yet.

[William Schryver]

No argument here, Brother. The book of Isaiah is the theological and literary backbone to the Book of Mormon and nothing speaks to my soul, let alone my personal interests, more than Isaiah. Yet part of what speaks to me spiritually is the book's message of restoration within the historical context of the exilic experience.

Have I completely misremembered that in your 2007 (IIRC) FAIR conference address, you made mention of the fact that Deutero-Isaiah has been dated to within a period right around 587 - 550 B.C.? In other words, within the lifetime of Nephi?

[DonBradley]

I frankly see it as problematic to have it both ways. It seems to me that dual-method theories are simply ad hoc--when one wants to solve certain problems of the Book of Mormon (e.g., anachronisms) while preserving certain putative evidences favoring the book (e.g., non-English Hebraisms). Outside of these contrasting desires (which boil down to a single motive), why would one posit that the (non-biblical) text of the Book of Mormon was produced by multiple processes? And if it takes such ad hoc, unparsimonious theorizing to handle the anachronisms and retain the putative evidences, why should non-apologists take these evidences seriously?

My point isn't to argue that the Book of Mormon is thus ahistorical--which wouldn't remotely follow. Rather, I'd like to raise a question: Does Book of Mormon apologetics really require such ad hoc approaches, which offer one theory to deal with problems and a contrary theory to retain positive evidence? Wouldn't a more parsimonious model be preferrable, even if it required the anachronisms to be explained in some other way, or denied one the ability to use alleged non-English Hebraisms in its favor?

I'm not actually 100% sure I agree with my own implicit line of reasoning here. But I think these questions are naturally raised by the topic and the OP.

Don

[Lamanite]

I frankly see it as problematic to have it both ways. It seems to me that dual-method theories are simply ad hoc--when one wants to solve certain problems of the Book of Mormon (e.g., anachronisms) while preserving certain putative evidences favoring the book (e.g., non-English Hebraisms). Outside of these contrasting desires (which boil down to a single motive), why would one posit that the (non-biblical) text of the Book of Mormon was produced by multiple processes? And if it takes such ad hoc, unparsimonious theorizing to handle the anachronisms and retain the putative evidences, why should non-apologists take these evidences seriously?

My point isn't to argue that the Book of Mormon is thus ahistorical--which wouldn't remotely follow. Rather, I'd like to raise a question: Does Book of Mormon apologetics really require such ad hoc approaches, which offer one theory to deal with problems and a contrary theory to retain positive evidence? Wouldn't a more parsimonious model be preferrable, even if it required the anachronisms to be explained in some other way, or denied one the ability to use alleged non-English Hebraisms in its favor?

I'm not actually 100% sure I agree with my own implicit line of reasoning here. But I think these questions are naturally raised by the topic and the OP.

Don

For me, it's not problematic to employ multiple translation methods to find an explanation for textual anomalies within the text of the BoM. Scientists have done the same when seeking to reconcile two seemingly contradictory scientific disciplines, i.e. Quantum Physics and Newtonian Physics; Black Hole Information Paradox; Particle acceleration and Speed of light limiations et al. At times there is a refreshing honesty in blending competing theories as opposed to the rigid dismissal of one or the other.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[J Green]

I frankly see it as problematic to have it both ways. It seems to me that dual-method theories are simply ad hoc

Hi, Don.

I'm not sure I know what you mean by 'dual-method theories.' Are you referring to tight and loose translations or mechanical v. translator-controlled methods? Or both? Or something else entirely?

Regards

[DonBradley]

For me, it's not problematic to employ multiple translation methods to find an explanation for textual anomalies within the text of the BoM. Scientists have done the same when seeking to reconcile two seemingly contradictory scientific disciplines, i.e. Quantum Physics and Newtonian Physics; Black Hole Information Paradox; Particle acceleration and Speed of light limiations et al. At times there is a refreshing honesty in blending competing theories as opposed to the rigid dismissal of one or the other.

Big UP!

Lamanite

I certainly have sympathy with not making explanations overly simple. But I don't see the cases raised as parallel.

In the physics cases, scientists are essentially driven to take one of the above approaches, given the case. Each is extremely well-supported and quite rigorous and complete on its own terms, though recognizably deficient in dealing with all phenomena. Scientists could not operate in all these domains without the various theories. But if they could, they would dispose of one or more in order to obtain a simpler explanation. (Indeed, reducing these various theories to a single theory is the ultimate goal.)

How is this the case with Book of Mormon translation? The factors here are not entirely explanatory, but also apologetic. And it's entirely unclear why a given piece of bad or awkward BoM grammar needs to be a literal translation from the Hebrew, even if that is a possible explanation for it.

Rather than dealing with two well-developed theories that have each demonstrated systematic explanatory power within their respective domains, we have the ad hoc invocation of theories that compete with one another on the same turf. The theories juxtaposed in physics explain different phenomena, whereas these explanations compete on the same ground, and may thus each be invoked to explain the same phenomena. Should, for instance, a given piece of bad English grammar be attributed to overly literal translation from Hebrew or to entirely the opposite cause--Joseph Smith's very loose translation of the text into his own poor English? It seems to me that which attribution will be made likely depends on the apologetic value of the case: i.e., in this instance, an example of poor BoM grammar that can be seen as an overly literal translation from Hebrew probably will be.

It is simply slipshod methodology to invoke whichever translation view says the right things, rather than to develop some rule to explain when Joseph Smith used one method and when he used another.

Scientists will generally know in advance, based on the nature of the case, what theory will need to be invoked. Arey they dealing with the 'behavior' of ordinary objects? Then they'll typically use Newton. Are they dealing with questions of gravity or velocity at upward extremes? Then they'll look to relatively for answers. Are they dealing with the subatomic world? Then quantum theory will probably be most relevant.

But in the sort of "model" invoked here one translation method or another will be applied to a feature of the text only after and according to how it bears on the maintenance and promotion of Book of Mormon historicity claims. If one were to say, "Joseph Smith used tight control for the nonbiblical text but loosely applied his own changes to the KJV for the biblical text," or "Joseph Smith used tight control for the early parts of the Book of Mormon but gradually relied more and more on his own abilities as the translation progressed," then we'd be dealing with a genuine theoretical model. But if one says something like , "This feature of the text of the text would be problematic for Book of Mormon antiquity, so it's from a 'loose' translation by Joseph Smith, but this feature of the text would tend to support Book of Mormon antiquity, so it's from a 'tight' translation via the interpreters," then one has no real methodology other than to take whatever view reflects well on Book of Mormon historicity. Then, ironically, features of the text deemed original because they seem to match with historicity are adduced as evidence for historicity.

While I differ greatly from Brant Gardner on many things, and do not think his own views on Book of Mormon translation (at least as presented in the past) are entirely above such criticism, I think he is spot on in attempting a consistent explanation for the translation process. Brant, as I recall, questions the evidentiary value of apparent Hebraisms in the Book of Mormon because they don't fit with the translation method that would have produced the book's anachronisms and use of the King James Version. (This is intended to give kudos to Brant, so hopefully I've at least gotten him right!) Brant's approach here is exceptional.

And I'd be very happy to see such methodological consistency become the rule in Book of Mormon studies, rather than the exception.

Don

[J Green]

Thanks, Don. Great post. I agree entirely that any attempt to switch methods based on apologetics is counterproductive. Any theory proposed needs to be consistent.

Regards

[DonBradley]

Hi, Don.

I'm not sure I know what you mean by 'dual-method theories.' Are you referring to tight and loose translations or mechanical v. translator-controlled methods? Or both? Or something else entirely?

Regards

J. Green,

Per the OP, I mean invoking one method for portions of the text and then invoking another method for other portions of the text, particularly, in this case, when those portions of the text are not distinguished before the fact as being in different categories.

Don

[DonBradley]

Thanks, Don. Great post. I agree entirely that any attempt to switch methods based on apologetics is counterproductive. Any theory proposed needs to be consistent.

Regards

Hey J. Green,

Thanks for that!

I evidently wrote my answer to your question a little late.

Don

[DonBradley]

To add a little to what I wrote above about Brant and systematic methodology....

Back in a time best described as "Ye Olden Days," I used to get in jousting matches with Brant and find his posts frustrating. Brant would begin with what I saw as exactly the right question--and often one almost no one else was asking, make a promising start at it, and then move off in a direction I found inconsistent with that start and found baffling. In retrospect, I see that I found Brant's posts frustrating, not because I was farther apart from him than I was from most posters, but because we were closer in our starter points and yet still so far apart in our conclusions.

In any case, I appreciate Brant's systematic framing of issues and his dogged attempts to hammer out consistent methodological approaches. Even should these turn out to lead to mistaken conclusions, I think we'll all gain much more from such efforts than we will from more haphazard approaches. A honed methodology can be fine-tuned to make it better and better. But a haphazard approach provides no system to be tinkered with, and therefore little chance of improving it.

In saying this I don't want to seem like I'm ragging on David. I think David's approaches to the Book of Mormon are usually several cuts above the norm, even among academics who study the Book of Mormon. But ultimately I disagree with him on a great many things too, this being one of them.

Don

[J Green]

In saying this I don't want to seem like I'm ragging on David. I think David's approaches to the Book of Mormon are usually several cuts above the norm, even among academics who study the Book of Mormon. But ultimately I disagree with him on a great many things too, this being one of them.

Hi, Don.

While I agree heartily with your call for a systematic methodology, I disagree just as strongly with your assessment of David. I don't recall ever seeing hm craft his work backwards vis-a-vis some kind of apologetic strategy. I know he feels that the BoM reflects instances of both tight and loose translations--as do I--but this doesn't mean that this fact can't be explained by a systematic methodolgy or that it is only apologetic in scope and intent. Would you be open to looking at a theory that involves both tight and loose translations if it were presented as a consistent methodology?

Regards

[David Bokovoy]

I frankly see it as problematic to have it both ways. It seems to me that dual-method theories are simply ad hoc--when one wants to solve certain problems of the Book of Mormon (e.g., anachronisms) while preserving certain putative evidences favoring the book (e.g., non-English Hebraisms). Outside of these contrasting desires (which boil down to a single motive), why would one posit that the (non-biblical) text of the Book of Mormon was produced by multiple processes? And if it takes such ad hoc, unparsimonious theorizing to handle the anachronisms and retain the putative evidences, why should non-apologists take these evidences seriously?

My point isn't to argue that the Book of Mormon is thus ahistorical--which wouldn't remotely follow. Rather, I'd like to raise a question: Does Book of Mormon apologetics really require such ad hoc approaches, which offer one theory to deal with problems and a contrary theory to retain positive evidence? Wouldn't a more parsimonious model be preferrable, even if it required the anachronisms to be explained in some other way, or denied one the ability to use alleged non-English Hebraisms in its favor?

I'm not actually 100% sure I agree with my own implicit line of reasoning here. But I think these questions are naturally raised by the topic and the OP.

Don

Hi Don,

Long time no chat. I sincerely hope all is well with you, Brother.

I can certainly understand your concern that dual method theories are fundamentally ad hoc apologetic readings that preserve Hebraisms while solving anachronistic elements in the work. I would agree with you therefore that this approach leaves something to be desired in terms of raising a compelling apologetic argument. Leaving apologetics aside, however, what should we do as interpreters if the book possesses both compelling Hebraisms and historical anachronisms?

Falling back on my own experiences as a translator of ancient texts, I can state that if possible, I made use of previous translation efforts, and in a larger literary work such as Gilgamesh, for example, moved back and forth between providing a highly literal rendering, versus taking some extraordinary liberties with the grammar, in order to properly capture the Akkadian in contemporary English. I simply can't imagine that if Joseph Smith truly translated the book in any way, that the Prophet would not have followed a similar course.

When all is said in done, from my perspective, the BofM possesses a number of extremely profound Hebraisms, i.e. traces of a possible Hebraic linguistic background to the text. In addition, the BofM clearly possesses a number of compelling anachronisms, even one of which, given the book's non-traditional origin, would be more than enough to justify an academic dismissal of the book in terms of ancient authenticity.

This is precisely why, as a believer, I have no real interest in BofM apologetics, per se. I'm trying to interpret the text, and as an interpreter, I see evidence for both ancient influences and 19th century anachronisms; so despite its admitted problems in terms of formulating a compelling apologetic argument, I maintain that a dual method approach in terms of textual production makes the best sense as an interpretive guide for believers who base their acceptance of the book's authenticity upon spiritual assurances.

Best

[David Bokovoy]

Hello Will,

Have I completely misremembered that in your 2007 (IIRC) FAIR conference address, you made mention of the fact that Deutero-Isaiah has been dated to within a period right around 587 - 550 B.C.? In other words, within the lifetime of Nephi?

Not at all Will. Those are more or less the dates. My basic argument was/is that the chapters of Deutero-Isaiah that appear in the BofM were some of the initially added literary addendums to the work during the first wave of exilic migration. There's a lot more to this argument than mere speculation, and the basic premise ties in with the way biblical books had a tendency to historically develop. I'll get around to publishing on it eventually.

Suffice it to say, however, that I'm convinced that the DI citations in the Book of Mormon are too completely interwoven into Book of Mormon narrative to represent a mere inspired anachronistic insertion on the part of Joseph Smith. For example, under Nephi's direction, Jacob explains the DI chapters that Lehi alluded to at his death bed sermon. Since Jacob's sermon appears at the foundational ceremony of the new Nephite kingdom, Jacob's explanatory discourse illustrates that Nephi and his descendants represent the true spiritual/political heirs to the great Patriarchal figure, etc.

Best

[Lamanite]

My textual interpretation of the Book of Mormon always works backwards to support my belief in the Book of Mormon as a historical text and as a spiritual testament of Jesus Christ.

As such, my approach to the interpretation method(s) employed by Joseph must always support explanations for Hebraisms and anachronisms. Otherwise, I would be forced to accept the possible reality that anachronisms exist because Joseph plagiarized the Bible. This I am unwilling to do. And I'm quite positive this may be the very definition of intellectual dishonesty, but it must be that way so that I stay faithful to the spiritual manifestations I've been given regarding Joseph and the BoM.

I honestly don't have an apologetic interest in this fight. I don't need to explain anything to those critical of Joseph or the BoM. I do however have a personal interest in reconciling two conflicting paradigms. To date, this has been done by employing several different translation methods. A dual methodology seems to satisfy both the problems of Hebraisms and anachronisms. Nice and neat.

Now, I don't have a problem with a single consistent method for translation, I just don't think it is an absolute necessity. I also don't see any type of scriptural precedent requiring a consistent method for revelation or translation. In fact, given what we know about Joseph and his Apostolic successors, we can clearly see that revelation is quite different for each man and each situation.

This is where I need to begin using some faith based language,(which drives some scholars (Bushman) crazy.) My relationship with God, and the means by which we communicate is complex and evolving. God is often in "the still small voice." However, he can make the bold declarative, "I AM", from the temple Mount. How is it that Joseph translated? By the power of God. What was the process? Of course we don't know, and are ultimately left to play at games. And my best guess is that because of Josephs humanity, his circumstances, his spiritual maturity, and the will of God, there was a number of ways that Joseph produced the text of the BoM.

Fascinating discussion. Thanks to everyone contributing. I am enriched for following along.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[Lamanite]

Scientists will generally know in advance, based on the nature of the case, what theory will need to be invoked. Arey they dealing with the 'behavior' of ordinary objects? Then they'll typically use Newton. Are they dealing with questions of gravity or velocity at upward extremes? Then they'll look to relatively for answers. Are they dealing with the subatomic world? Then quantum theory will probably be most relevant.

Don

But born out of the need to explain really big stuff and really small stuff is Super String Theory. They took the contradictory sciences of Quantum and Classical physics and tried to fill in the blanks so as to make the relationship work; out comes a new theory about tiny little strings.

My parallel is weak, but my point is that I am taking what I know of the text and what I know about the revelatory/translation process and trying to fill in the blanks. This results in a dual translation methodology that may or may not be "consistent."

Big UP!

Lamanite

[DonBradley]

My textual interpretation of the Book of Mormon always works backwards to support my belief in the Book of Mormon as a historical text and as a spiritual testament of Jesus Christ.

***And I'm quite positive this may be the very definition of intellectual dishonesty, but it must be that way so that I stay faithful to the spiritual manifestations I've been given regarding Joseph and the BoM.

Friend, I would say to hold fast to the truths you've been given and to any experience God has given you. I would also point out that He has given us a more basic gift even than scripture--minds, created in the image of His own mind and illuminated by the light of truth. Scripture is a gift He has given only to some, and given externally. And scripture is not itself a characteristic of divinity. But the mind is a primary gift given to all, and is something God Himself possesses and part of what makes Him God.

So, if your way of defending the Book of Mormon, or of reading certain evidence surrounding it, requires you to be dishonest with your mind--in the perception of that very mind--surely there is something wrong with that approach, and God has given you the ability to see that fact for yourself. Perhaps another approach to defending the Book of Mormon would be better, not involving any compromise of your God-given faculties?

My 1.9 cents.

Don

[DonBradley]

Hi, Don.

While I agree heartily with your call for a systematic methodology, I disagree just as strongly with your assessment of David. I don't recall ever seeing hm craft his work backwards vis-a-vis some kind of apologetic strategy. I know he feels that the BoM reflects instances of both tight and loose translations--as do I--but this doesn't mean that this fact can't be explained by a systematic methodolgy or that it is only apologetic in scope and intent. Would you be open to looking at a theory that involves both tight and loose translations if it were presented as a consistent methodology?

Regards

This makes me wonder if I somehow came across as saying precisely the opposite of what I intended about David! I was offering praise.

In answer to your question, I'd like to think I'm open to just about anything that might emerge from the use of a truly systematic methodology.

Don

[DonBradley]

Hi David,

Things actually are very well with me! And I hope the same is very true of you.

I understand the distinction between being a believing interpreter of the text and being an apologist for the text, and I appreciate your honesty in acknowledging that the proferred approach would not work to convince someone of the truth of the text if they were not convinced already. I think you and I could have some very interesting conversations on the proper domains of apologetics and faithful scholarship. I wish more Latter-day Saints saw the distinction between reading the text as a believer and drawing evidence from the text. Often both are done together, resulting in arguments that are merely circular.

That said, I still think that as a believing interpreter of the text you'd develop something more useful by creating a systematic approach to the translation method. I also wonder about the value of the parallel between your translation efforts and Joseph Smith's. I have trouble seeing these as very similar. Joseph Smith didn't know the other language--any other language, and wasn't relying on previous translations, except in the case of the biblical texts, which I regard as a separate issue.

Anyway...

All My Best,

Don

[Lamanite]

Friend, I would say to hold fast to the truths you've been given and to any experience God has given you. I would also point out that He has given us a more basic gift even than scripture--minds, created in the image of His own mind and illuminated by the light of truth. Scripture is a gift He has given only to some, and given externally. And scripture is not itself a characteristic of divinity. But the mind is a primary gift given to all, and is something God Himself possesses and part of what makes Him God.

So, if your way of defending the Book of Mormon, or of reading certain evidence surrounding it, requires you to be dishonest with your mind--in the perception of that very mind--surely there is something wrong with that approach, and God has given you the ability to see that fact for yourself. Perhaps another approach to defending the Book of Mormon would be better, not involving any compromise of your God-given faculties?

My 1.9 cents.

Don

I wish I had it in me to just lie...

My beliefs become truths when spirit and intellect merge. In the most important of ways, the BoM is truth. In certain ways there is hope waiting for confirmation. And there is never a need to defend things I am not yet certain of...

Big UP!

Lamanite

[Nomad]

Hello Will,

Not at all Will. Those are more or less the dates. My basic argument was/is that the chapters of Deutero-Isaiah were some of the initially added literary addendums to the book of Isaiah during the first wave of exilic migration. There's a lot more to this argument than mere speculation, and the basic premise ties in with the way biblical books had a tendency to historically develop. I'll get around to publishing on it eventually.

Suffice it to say, however, that I'm convinced that the DI citations in the Book of Mormon are too completely interwoven into Book of Mormon narrative to represent a mere inspired anachronistic insertion on the part of Joseph Smith. For example, under Nephi's direction, Jacob explains the DI chapters that Lehi alluded to at his death bed sermon. Since Jacob's sermon appears at the foundational ceremony of the new Nephite kingdom, Jacob's explanatory discourse illustrates that Nephi and his descendants represent the true spiritual/political heirs to the great Patriarchal figure, etc.

Best

I am just a casual observer of this discussion, but this is a possible moment of inspiration you've given me. If Deutero-Isaiah was authored shortly after the fall of Jerusalem, then why not consider the very real possibility that it somehow found its way into Nephi's hands even before they set sail in their ship?

Just a thought ...

[J Green]

This makes me wonder if I somehow came across as saying precisely the opposite of what I intended about David! I was offering praise.

In answer to your question, I'd like to think I'm open to just about anything that might emerge from the use of a truly systematic methodology.

Don

No worries, Don.

I think the answer lies in the question of who had control of the process. With the JS-as-passive-reader paradigm, I don't understand why there would be signs of both tight and loose translations. (There might be good reasons, I just don't know what they would be.) However, if JS had some control over the process and made real decisions about the wording, then I actually would expect to see both because this is how most untrained human translators operate--they fluctuate along a continuum. I've seen that every day for almost two decades. The real question is whether there is consistency, progression, or development involved.

Regards

[David T]

Hello Will,

Not at all Will. Those are more or less the dates. My basic argument was/is that the chapters of Deutero-Isaiah that appear in the BofM were some of the initially added literary addendums to the work during the first wave of exilic migration. There's a lot more to this argument than mere speculation, and the basic premise ties in with the way biblical books had a tendency to historically develop. I'll get around to publishing on it eventually.

Suffice it to say, however, that I'm convinced that the DI citations in the Book of Mormon are too completely interwoven into Book of Mormon narrative to represent a mere inspired anachronistic insertion on the part of Joseph Smith. For example, under Nephi's direction, Jacob explains the DI chapters that Lehi alluded to at his death bed sermon. Since Jacob's sermon appears at the foundational ceremony of the new Nephite kingdom, Jacob's explanatory discourse illustrates that Nephi and his descendants represent the true spiritual/political heirs to the great Patriarchal figure, etc.

Best

David, I'm very, very interested in hearing more of your thoughts on this.