Translation Method

[Brant Gardner]

With the JS-as-passive-reader paradigm, I don't understand why there would be signs of both tight and loose translations.

Actually, the "passive reader" paradigm doesn't answer anything about the translation. It simply posits that a translation existed, in English, prior to Joseph Smith's participation in the process. It moves all translation issues one step away from Joseph, but retains all of the problems. I have seen one person suggest that it was Moroni who did it. Skousen doesn't give a name, but suggests (based on the vocabulary of the text) that it was someone who learned their English in the 1700s and stopped learning new words after that time (as you might guess, I disagree with the suggestion--though not with the data).

The issue of the relationship of the English text to the plate text is separate from the issue of the person of the translator. It is an issue of the nature of the translation. The next issue, of course, is the who and the how of the translation that produced the text that shows the relationship we discover.

In my reading on the topic, too many decisions have been made based on assumptions rather than data, and when data have been used, they have been used selectively to support the assumptions. We don't have any answer until we can answer all of the data.

[J Green]

Actually, the "passive reader" paradigm doesn't answer anything about the translation. It simply posits that a translation existed, in English, prior to Joseph Smith's participation in the process. It moves all translation issues one step away from Joseph, but retains all of the problems. I have seen one person suggest that it was Moroni who did it. Skousen doesn't give a name, but suggests (based on the vocabulary of the text) that it was someone who learned their English in the 1700s and stopped learning new words after that time (as you might guess, I disagree with the suggestion--though not with the data).

The issue of the relationship of the English text to the plate text is separate from the issue of the person of the translator. It is an issue of the nature of the translation. The next issue, of course, is the who and the how of the translation that produced the text that shows the relationship we discover.

In my reading on the topic, too many decisions have been made based on assumptions rather than data, and when data have been used, they have been used selectively to support the assumptions. We don't have any answer until we can answer all of the data.

Well articulated, Brant. Thanks for your participation.

[the narrator]

Royal Skousen theorizes that an angel or other divine being did the actual translating. This, for him, allows for both a strict/tight -reading- of the text via the seer stones by Joseph Smith and the anachronistic KVJ and what Skousen believes is actually 16th English. Grant Hardy postulates just as much, believing that Joseph Smith tightly -read- a text that was translated by another mystery translator/angel who introduced the KJV and other 19th century anachronisms to the text.

I think this is a rather unnecessary step. It could very well have been that Joseph is a visual thinker, who created/translated/produced a text in his mind, which he then read from his own mental image of the text. I do this very thing when someone asks me to spell a word: I mentally envisage the word in front of me and then read off each letter in from of me. In this way, I am both the source for the spelling and am reading the source from a mental image at the same time.

This, I believe, could account for both the 19th century elements of the BofM and Skousen's evidence of Joseph's tight -reading- of the text, without having to postulate a divine mystery translator. I think the early visionary/magical notion of seeing things in the mind's eye is too much ignored by most Mormon thinkers.

*I just realized, after writing this, that Brant had already brought up Skousen's mystery translator.

[MAsh]

David, this is going to sound like a random drive-by thread-derailer, but some of your comments in this thread brought another topic to mind. Have you read "The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Isreal and the Origin of Sacred Texts" by Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman. If so, what do you think of it (I'm about 1/2 way through). To keep from derailing this thread, if you care to share any thoughts you can contact me off-list (mash@xmission.com).

Now back to our regularly scheduled program....

[Uncertain]

Hi All,

Well as for me certainly the kind of dual translation methodology discussed in this thread is logically possible perhaps even likely. However as it is applied it does seem at least in my impression as an ad hoc means to have your cake and eat it to. As has been alluded to on this thread far more compelling would be to first arrive at a logical and consistent methodology to determine what is "loose" and what is "tight" apply this methodology to the text and let the chips fall where they may. If it so happens favored apologetic or critical evidences are effected positively/negatively so be it the goal is not to arrive at that methodology that best allows a person to retain preexisting beliefs the goal is to arrive at that methodology that helps to form conclusions that best approximate how the universe really is.

Second I wanted to briefly talk about how we determine which observations must be explained by a given model. For example on this thread the dual translation approach has been promoted because it explains both anachronisms and hebraisms. Clearly enough which model a person will prefer will be the model that solves what they see as the most "important" problems (at this point we need Kevin Christensen in this conversation ). But how are we supposed to determine which observations are most "important" and need to be explained by a given model? My own person view is observations that need to be explained are observations determined to be significant by the use of appropriate controls/comparisons.

That is suppose I have observations X, Y and Z i.e.(hebraisms etc. ) and I am arguing these observations are evidence that the BOM is either historical or a 19th century fraud. Then I need to use appropriate control texts to estimate what the "baseline" level of similarity would be. For example say I am arguing the set of parallels is good evidence for historicity. I need to use appropriate control texts like for example pseudo scriptural texts known not to be ancient. In order to estimate what degree of similarity for texts known not to be ancient have with the ANE etc. Then I can start arguing the set of parallels X, Y and Z have much greater similarity with the ANE etc. than the parallels I obtained from my set of control texts. And the same process reversed if I was arguing the BOM is a 19th century fraud.

With regards to where my assumptions come from it is probably due to my training in the hard sciences. It has been beaten into my head from day one that observations without proper comparisons are worthless. For example suppose someone claims ginger is a cure for cancer. It does not help at all to observe out of 10 people that took ginger 4 got better and six died without also knowing what the expected rate of remission for that cancer using a placebo would be. If the the expected rate of remission is 40% this exactly matches my observation and it is likely ginger has no effect on the given cancer. If on the other hand the expected rate of remission is say 90% then ginger actually makes the cancer worse. The same observation (i.e. 4 out of 10 people got better) is given a very different meaning based on appropriate comparisons with control groups.Once I know people taking ginger have more/less frequency of cancer than control groups then this observation needs to be incorporated into whatever model I arrive at. In the case of the BOM it does not help at all to point out similarities X, Y and Z with the ANE or the 19th century. Without also knowing what degree of similarities would be expected by random chance or common human experiences. In other words the presence of things like hebraisms in and off themselves tell me nothing about the translation method without also knowing in a rigorous fashion the "baseline" level of similarity that would be expected with the ANE for similar psuedo scriptural works known not to be ancient.

Without such rigorous comparisons it becomes highly subjective. Someone comes along and finds parallel X to be highly significant and impressive and claims a given model must "explain" parallel X. Someone else comes along and finds it to be not at all interesting and a stretch. It is not because one or the other of them are being willfully blind it is because of the highly subjective nature of evaluating the significance of observations without using appropriate comparisons. I think we see this all the time on this board when believers or critics are evaluating the parallels for or against BOM historicity.

Appropriate use of controls is fundamental to science for some very good reasons and I see no reason right off hand why the scholarly study of the BOM is exempt from those reasons.

All the Best,

Uncertain

[William Schryver]

Royal Skousen theorizes that an angel or other divine being did the actual translating. This, for him, allows for both a strict/tight -reading- of the text via the seer stones by Joseph Smith and the anachronistic KVJ and what Skousen believes is actually 16th English. Grant Hardy postulates just as much, believing that Joseph Smith tightly -read- a text that was translated by another mystery translator/angel who introduced the KJV and other 19th century anachronisms to the text.

I think this is a rather unnecessary step. It could very well have been that Joseph is a visual thinker, who created/translated/produced a text in his mind, which he then read from his own mental image of the text. I do this very thing when someone asks me to spell a word: I mentally envisage the word in front of me and then read off each letter in from of me. In this way, I am both the source for the spelling and am reading the source from a mental image at the same time.

This, I believe, could account for both the 19th century elements of the BofM and Skousen's evidence of Joseph's tight -reading- of the text, without having to postulate a divine mystery translator. I think the early visionary/magical notion of seeing things in the mind's eye is too much ignored by most Mormon thinkers.

*I just realized, after writing this, that Brant had already brought up Skousen's mystery translator.

I think Royal's postulated translator is not only the most parsimonious explanation, but the one most consistent with what I understand to be the typical economy of God. In other words, I do not subscribe to the notion that the "head honcho" actually performed the translation of the BoM, but that it is more likely that he sent Alma and Moroni (and/or others) down to the Globe Theater for the summer shows in the early 1600s; they mastered the King's English, then they prepared their translation and waited for the time when it would be required of them to deliver it to the young prophet.

All things considered, this explanation answers to the evidence far better than any convoluted notions of Joseph Smith "producing a text in his mind" and then reading it. Indeed, my honest opinion as to why the theory hasn't gained more traction is that, frankly, there is, among many of the "learned" Saints, a pervasive reluctance to believe in the notions of "angels" and "heavenly messengers" and (for that matter) "miracles." In such minds, parsimony can only be reflected in naturalistic explanations.

[Brant Gardner]

All things considered, this explanation answers to the evidence far better than any convoluted notions of Joseph Smith "producing a text in his mind" and then reading it.

I'm with the narrator on this one. The evidence simply doesn't support the gap in the learning process for the positing divine being. There are textual features that require a closer time period to Joseph in order to reproduce some of the particular phrases (not the vocabulary that Skousen is looking at, but the phrases using that vocabulary).

[the narrator]

it is more likely that he sent Alma and Moroni (and/or others) down to the Globe Theater for the summer shows in the early 1600s; they mastered the King's English, then they prepared their translation and waited for the time when it would be required of them to deliver it to the young prophet.

Perhaps it was King James, himself, who did the translating. Then it would be the KJV of the gold plates.

[Lamanite]

I think Royal's postulated translator is not only the most parsimonious explanation, but the one most consistent with what I understand to be the typical economy of God. In other words, I do not subscribe to the notion that the "head honcho" actually performed the translation of the BoM, but that it is more likely that he sent Alma and Moroni (and/or others) down to the Globe Theater for the summer shows in the early 1600s; they mastered the King's English, then they prepared their translation and waited for the time when it would be required of them to deliver it to the young prophet.

I think "parsimonious" would be a bit of a stretch for this scenario.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[the narrator]

I'm with the narrator on this one. The evidence simply doesn't support the gap in the learning process for the positing divine being. There are textual features that require a closer time period to Joseph in order to reproduce some of the particular phrases (not the vocabulary that Skousen is looking at, but the phrases using that vocabulary).

Yes. I think that Mark Thomas has shown all too well that the BofM utilizes 19th century religious language.

[William Schryver]

I'm with the narrator on this one. The evidence simply doesn't support the gap in the learning process for the positing divine being. There are textual features that require a closer time period to Joseph in order to reproduce some of the particular phrases (not the vocabulary that Skousen is looking at, but the phrases using that vocabulary).

Based on my discussions with him, as well as my reading of his proposed theory, it is not my understanding that Royal means to suggest that the putative "angelic translator(s)" would have ceased their acquisition of English at some point in the 17th century. He only observes that there are several elements of the language of the Book of Mormon that date to the 17th century and were obsolete or archaic by the 19th century. So the presence of 19th century elements does not, in my judgment, constitute a valid argument against the thesis.

[William Schryver]

Yes. I think that Mark Thomas has shown all too well that the BofM utilizes 19th century religious language.

Assuming that is true (and I don't necessarily deny it) what does it mean? Or rather, does it necessarily mean what you think it means?

As I wrote above, I think there are definitely other possibilities that are not being entertained because they fail to rely sufficiently on naturalistic explanations, which are (in my estimation) inordinately favored by many of the "learned" Saints. On the other hand, I am personally convinced that if anyone attempts to account for the production of the text of the Book of Mormon using (at least predominantly) naturalistic explanations, then he or she will never arrive at a knowledge of the truth of how it really did come about.

(As always, your mileage may vary ...)

[the narrator]

Assuming that is true (and I don't necessarily deny it) what does it mean? Or rather, does it necessarily mean what you think it means?

It means that the BofM utilizes 19th century theological vernacular and concepts.

[Lamanite]

In hopes of clarification can I get some responses to this brief summary?

There is the product of translation which is the text we have today. Or the text we have thanks to Royals early manuscript. Discussing this work product will naturally bring up issues like hebraisms or anachronisms. These issues have recently been explained through Loose and/or Tight control of translation.

Then we have the actual process used, mechanical vs. translator controlled, to create the product. What does this process look like and is it consistent throughout the duration of Josephs work?

Brant has mentioned a couple of times that the process explains KJV elements in the BoM but then never gave additional insight. I'm curious to know if there is a way for you to elaborate at this time.

I'm also really interested into why Brant wants to separate reading/translating from work product (J Green had some things to say about this too). To study them independently is fine, but they do not exist independently and IMO are extremely dependent upon each other for existence.

Functional equivalence. literal vs. overly conceptual. My answer is yes.

Then the apologetic issues of ad hoc arguments vs. real faithful scholarship. I have loaded the previous sentence but it makes the point.

Then there is some talk about heavenly visitors positing information. I can't get on board that train. Can someone detail this process please?

I've gotta run, but I thought I would do my best to sum up. Perhaps someone can take these puzzle pieces and put together something intelligible.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[William Schryver]

It means that the BofM utilizes 19th century theological vernacular and concepts.

And ...?

So what?

The question is: what conclusions can logically derive from that observation? (to the extent it is true, of course).

In the first place, the observation may very well be flawed, or incomplete. We would need to discuss specifics in order to judge that.

In any event, the question remains: does the presence of 19th century "theological vernacular" necessarily indicate that the BoM material to which it relates is not of ancient origin? This has been the accepted conclusion. I consider it patently flawed on many levels.

.

.

.

Hey, it would be helpful if you were to learn how to properly handle quotes and replies. A casual observer will read your reply above and not understand where my statement ends and yours begins. It looks like you simply quoted me and then said nothing.

[the narrator]

And ...?

Thus the BofM is clearly not a word-for-word translation.

So what?

So it's not a word-for-word translation.

The question is: what conclusions can logically derive from that observation? (to the extent it is true, of course).

That the BofM was translated no earlier than the 19th century.

In the first place, the observation may very well be flawed, or incomplete.

Except it isn't. Thomas shows very clearly that the BofM utilizes 19th century vernacular. Phrases such as "plan of...." "natural man" etc were a part of 19th century, largely American, theological language.

We would need to discuss specifics in order to judge that.

Thomas's Digging in Cumorah has a boat load of them.

In any event, the question remains: does the presence of 19th century "theological vernacular" necessarily indicate that the BoM material to which it relates is not of ancient origin?

No. It just means that the language (and perhaps content of the narratives within) utilize 19th century theological language and thought. Dan Vogel does an excellent job of showing that 19th century anti-universalist caricatures are used as descriptions (and self-descriptions) of Nephite universalists. Vogel will later argue that this is evidence of a 19th century origin of the text. A believer, such as Ostler, may argue that Joseph introduced anti-universalistic rhetoric either wholey into the text or partly into the text (to describe universalists during the BofM times). To say that the 19th century anti-universalist caricatures found in the BofM are accurate translations of description of universalists in the BofM seems a bit problematic.

This has been the accepted conclusion.

No it hasn't.

I consider it patently flawed on many levels.

From what perspective? From a perspective of naturalistic origins of the BofM, it seems quite logical--now the absence of 19th century theological vernacular in the BofM would certainly be a challenge for those who want a naturalistic origin.

Hey, it would be helpful if you were to learn how to properly handle quotes and replies. A casual observer will read your reply above and not understand where my statement ends and yours begins. It looks like you simply quoted me and then said nothing.

I know how to use them. It was just a simple one-time mistake.

[Brant Gardner]

Based on my discussions with him, as well as my reading of his proposed theory, it is not my understanding that Royal means to suggest that the putative "angelic translator(s)" would have ceased their acquisition of English at some point in the 17th century. He only observes that there are several elements of the language of the Book of Mormon that date to the 17th century and were obsolete or archaic by the 19th century. So the presence of 19th century elements does not, in my judgment, constitute a valid argument against the thesis.

What it does is create a tension between the nature of his evidence and the text. His suggestion is that there are no vocabulary items postdating about 1700. If we have phrases that clearly point to the 1800s, then we have a tension between acquired vocabulary and acquired phrases, where there is a limitation on the one and not the other. That is going to be a difficult position to hold.

I believe that there must be a different explanation for the "archaic" vocabulary, and I suspect that it lies in the more conservative nature of the less educated parts of American society. Same data, different explanation.

the narrator, on 16 March 2010 - 11:23 AM, said:Yes. I think that Mark Thomas has shown all too well that the BofM utilizes 19th century religious language.

Assuming that is true (and I don't necessarily deny it) what does it mean?

What it means is that the text was produced in the late 1830s by someone (Joseph Smith) familiar with the phraseology used in the revivals he attended. That literary context influenced his choice of words during the translation. That is a piece of the information that tells us that Joseph Smith actively participated in the translation (and there are others).

As I wrote above, I think there are definitely other possibilities that are not being entertained because they fail to rely sufficiently on naturalistic explanations, which are (in my estimation) inordinately favored by many of the "learned" Saints.

For as much as I believe that revelation comes through human beings and therefore responds to certain naturalistic explanations, I don't see those explanations extending to the content of the revelations--only the form. The Book of Mormon is a translation, but a translation that came from the mouth of a human being. I believe that there is very good evidence that Joseph was an active participant in the creation of the English text of the Book of Mormon--not that he created the Book of Mormon itself.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I'm with the narrator on this one. The evidence simply doesn't support the gap in the learning process for the positing divine being. There are textual features that require a closer time period to Joseph in order to reproduce some of the particular phrases (not the vocabulary that Skousen is looking at, but the phrases using that vocabulary).

I'm sitting on the side of the aisle right now as well, but enjoying the chorus from all sides!

[LifeOnaPlate]

btw, great thread, Lamanite!

[Bunk]

Royal Skousen theorizes that an angel or other divine being did the actual translating. This, for him, allows for both a strict/tight -reading- of the text via the seer stones by Joseph Smith and the anachronistic KVJ and what Skousen believes is actually 16th English. Grant Hardy postulates just as much, believing that Joseph Smith tightly -read- a text that was translated by another mystery translator/angel who introduced the KJV and other 19th century anachronisms to the text.

I think this is a rather unnecessary step. It could very well have been that Joseph is a visual thinker, who created/translated/produced a text in his mind, which he then read from his own mental image of the text. I do this very thing when someone asks me to spell a word: I mentally envisage the word in front of me and then read off each letter in from of me. In this way, I am both the source for the spelling and am reading the source from a mental image at the same time.

This, I believe, could account for both the 19th century elements of the BofM and Skousen's evidence of Joseph's tight -reading- of the text, without having to postulate a divine mystery translator. I think the early visionary/magical notion of seeing things in the mind's eye is too much ignored by most Mormon thinkers.

*I just realized, after writing this, that Brant had already brought up Skousen's mystery translator.

I remember reading something from David Wright about the Book of Mormon Isaiah text clearly responding to italicized words in the KJV. You pundits and scholars are more qualified to judge the merits of his analysis than I. But for those of you who believe in a mystery translator, do you think this entity was responding to the italicized words in the KJV? And if so, why would the mystery translator do this?

[ttribe]

I'm sitting on the side of the aisle right now as well, but enjoying the chorus from all sides!

+1

[the narrator]

I remember reading something from David Wright about the Book of Mormon Isaiah text clearly responding to italicized words in the KJV. You pundits and scholars are more qualified to judge the merits of his analysis than I. But for those of you who believe in a mystery translator, do you think this entity was responding to the italicized words in the KJV? And if so, why would the mystery translator do this?

I think Wright's assessment is correct concerning the italicized words. This is just one of the many reasons why the mystery translator explanation falls apart.

[Bunk]

I think Wright's assessment is correct concerning the italicized words. This is just one of the many reasons why the mystery translator explanation falls apart.

But you think Joseph Smith, a visual thinker, created/translated/produced a text in his mind complete with responses to italicized KJV words?

[the narrator]

But you think Joseph Smith, a visual thinker, created/translated/produced a text in his mind complete with responses to italicized KJV words?

I think it gives a better explanation than a mystery divine translator. For the Isaiah texts, I am open to the idea that Joseph used directly used a KJV during the process. I know many apologists want to state that Joseph did not do so, but the evidence against it is still fairly limited. In a discussion I recently had with Richard Bushman, he seemed unsure of the apologetic surety that Joseph Smith did not use a Bible in the process.

Another avenue that I don't think has ever been really explored is Joseph Smith's memory. I think there is evidence (such as his ability to apparently recite a revelation word-for-word) that Joseph had a photographic memory. This could explain Joseph ability to extensively quote the Bible while translating. I can understand why apologists may not want to explore this, as it's being true would certainly provide skeptics with new powder for their ammunition.

[David Bokovoy]

David, this is going to sound like a random drive-by thread-derailer, but some of your comments in this thread brought another topic to mind. Have you read "The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Isreal and the Origin of Sacred Texts" by Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman. If so, what do you think of it (I'm about 1/2 way through). To keep from derailing this thread, if you care to share any thoughts you can contact me off-list (mash@xmission.com).

Now back to our regularly scheduled program....

Hey Mike,

I just used the book as a reference in the thread on the question concerning the historical authenticity of the Book of Mormon, so yes, dear Brother, I believe it's a great source. The authors provide a nice introduction for an educated lay audience.

Best,

--DB