Translation Method

[the narrator]

As far as the translation of the text goes, I see Joseph entirely (and exclusively) as a reader of the text. I am a proponent of a very tight translation.

So you reject Skousen and Hardy's notion of Joseph Smith tightly reading a 19th century translation by a 16th century angel?

[Benjamin McGuire]

Chris Smith writes:

Isn't this a change for you, Ben? I seem to recall you arguing for a more Ostlerian approach in the past.

Not since at least my early years on ZLMB. So at least not in the last decade or so.

[Benjamin McGuire]

The Narrator writes:

Except for his belief in angels and the devil.

I think that on this point, we have three completely different issues. We have whatever he may have believed in personally. We have whatever it was he taught publicly. And we have what Jacob recorded about him. And that there are three decidedly different views here (which may overlap to some extent), as I said, there is a lot of room for interpretation.

Ben M.

[William Schryver]

Except for his belief in angels and the devil.

You obviously don't get it. You see, just as all atheists become believers once they're in a foxhole being shelled by enemy artillery, so all atheists believe in angels and the devil after they're struck dumb through miraculous means.

Not only that, but your rigid interpretation of the passage in question is such that it locks you into several inconsistent positions:

But behold, the devil hath deceived me; for he appeared unto me in the form of an angel, and said unto me: Go and reclaim this people, for they have all gone astray after an unknown God. And he said unto me: There is no God; yea, and he taught me that which I should say. And I have taught his words; and I taught them because they were pleasing unto the carnal mind; and I taught them, even until I had much success, insomuch that I verily believed that they were true; and for this cause I withstood the truth, even until I have brought this great curse upon me.

In Korihor's eyes, in what fashion did this apparition of the angel/devil actually occur? We're given no details. Was it in a dream? Was it a daylight vision?

Furthermore, does atheism mean that one must disbelieve in all things supernatural? It's quite obvious that Korihor is holding a belief that permits there to be "angels" and "devils" even in the absence of a "God." Korihor's angel/devil says, "... reclaim this people, for they have gone astray after an unknown God." Following which he says, "There is no God ..."

Don't you immediately see the problems inherent to dismissing his "atheism" on the basis of his "post-curse" conversion to the concept of angels and devils?

The point is that there is really no such thing as "pure atheism," except (apparently) in your lexicon. For example, to the 1st century Romans, Christians were atheists on account of their disbelief in certain kinds of gods--the Roman kind. Some atheists I have known are not at all dismissive of certain kinds of "supernatural" powers--they just don't believe that a conscious, supreme intelligence is behind it all.

At any rate, your definition of atheism is problematic, to say the least.

[Benjamin McGuire]

The Narrator writes:

So you reject Skousen and Hardy's notion of Joseph Smith tightly reading a 19th century translation by a 16th century angel?

Yes, I probably would. I see no reason to include such a mechanism in the translation. While I may agree in places with some of their other conclusions, I almost certainly do not start with the same set of assumptions.

Ben M.

[the narrator]

You obviously don't get it. You see, just as all atheists become believers once they're in a foxhole being shelled by enemy artillery,

except they don't all do that.

In Korihor's eyes, in what fashion did this apparition of the angel/devil actually occur? We're given no details. Was it in a dream? Was it a daylight vision?

It doesn't matter how it was received. What matters is that he claims to have had a supernatural experience.

Furthermore, does atheism mean that one must disbelieve in all things supernatural? It's quite obvious that Korihor is holding a belief that permits there to be "angels" and "devils" even in the absence of a "God." Korihor's angel/devil says, "... reclaim this people, for they have gone astray after an unknown God." Following which he says, "There is no God ..."

When you were saying that Korihor was a 20th century secular humanist, yes. It does mean that one must disbelieve in all things supernatural.

Don't you immediately see the problems inherent to dismissing his "atheism" on the basis of his "post-curse" conversion to the concept of angels and devils?

Except it wasn't a post-curse conversation. He said his experience with the devil taught him that there was no God. I don't recall him ever denying all gods or all supernatural entities. Rather, he affirmed his belief in supernatural entities.

The point is that there is really no such thing as "pure atheism," except (apparently) in your lexicon. For example, to the 1st century Romans, Christians were atheists on account of their disbelief in certain kinds of gods--the Roman kind. Some atheists I have known are not at all dismissive of certain kinds of "supernatural" powers--they just don't believe that a conscious, supreme intelligence is behind it all.

Actually there are a lot of pure atheists. I just heard Daniel Dennett speak in a debate a few weeks ago. He's a pure atheist. Dawkins would consider himself a pure atheist. I have friends who are pure atheists.

Anyway, your definition of atheism is problematic, to say the least.

Blame the dictionary.

[William Schryver]

So you reject Skousen and Hardy's notion of Joseph Smith tightly reading a 19th century translation by a 16th century angel?

Having spoken with Royal in just the past few days on this very topic, I think your sentence misrepresents what he really believes. It's almost as though you're deliberately trying to make a caricature of what he has said, with the intention of deriding it. For that matter, I don't think Royal has so much argued for an interpretation as much as he has presented the text critical evidence in such a way that it (the evidence) strongly suggests the conclusion. We shall yet see if Brant can offer us an alternative interpretation to the evidence that Royal has adduced.

I, for one, don't believe Joseph Smith was capable, by virtue of his own native talents, of producing any part of the Book of Mormon--or any of his other revelations.

[the narrator]

Having spoken with Royal in just the past few days on this very topic, I think your sentence misrepresents what he really believes. It's almost as though you're deliberately trying to make a caricature of what he has said, with the intention of deriding it. For that matter, I don't think Royal has so much argued for an interpretation as much as he has presented the text critical evidence in such a way that it (the evidence) strongly suggests the conclusion. We shall yet see if Brant can offer us an alternative interpretation to the evidence that Royal has adduced.

I, for one, don't believe Joseph Smith was capable, by virtue of his own native talents, of producing any part of the Book of Mormon--or any of his other revelations.

This is what Grant Hardy himself told me (and we spent a while discussion it) as well as Dan Peterson. Perhaps they were both inaccurately portraying Skousen's theory.

I also think that the BofM was too much for Joseph to write and believe that it is based on an ancient text. However, after seeing what the 'sense-lines' that Skousen proposes as evidence of him reading a text that was strictly given to him, I took quite the opposite position--they seem to be evidence of lines being constructed one and a time and in succession rather than being something that was read. If full-stop (periods) and changes of sense appeared in the middle of the lines that Joseph was reading, it would count as evidence of Joseph reading a text that was purely given to him. That these do not occur in any of the dictation lines, seems to me to be evidence that he was not simply reading a text that was shown to him.

For example, if the dictation lines looked like this, I would count is as evidence toward Skousen's argument:

I, Nephi, having been born of

goodly parents; therefore I was taught somewhat in all the

learning of my father; and having seen many afflictions

in my days, nevertheless...

The dictation lines do not take this form though.

[William Schryver]

the narrator:

/snip/

Blame the dictionary.

I have to admit that it fascinates me no end to observe the life path trajectory of Latter-day Saints who fully invest themselves in strict intellectual dogmatism. There's just something about the steadily building tension preceding the inevitable blow up that I find very compelling.

Since Kevin Graham completed his journey along that path a few months back, I've been wondering when the next one would appear. It didn't take long ...

[Benjamin McGuire]

Narrator: Would you please explain your reasoning for the above?

Ben M.

[the narrator]

the narrator:

I have to admit that it fascinates me no end to observe the life path trajectory of Latter-day Saints who fully invest themselves in strict intellectual dogmatism. There's just something about the steadily building tension preceding the inevitable blow up that I find very compelling.

Since Kevin Graham completed his journey along that path a few months back, I've been wondering when the next one would appear. It didn't take long ...

huh?

If all else fails, judge the faith of those you can't respond to.

[the narrator]

Narrator: Would you please explain your reasoning for the above?

Ben M.

which of the above?

[William Schryver]

huh?

If all else fails, judge the faith of those you can't respond to.

Wow! How strange is that?!!!!

It's almost like you're reading from the same script.

I really need to go back through Graham's posts from 2006-07 and start to juxtapose them with things you've been writing on this board in the past several weeks.

Although I realize you don't see it that way, your rigid dogmatism is pretty apparent to everyone else.

At any rate, Ben has matters well in hand, so I think I will gracefully--or at least immediately--exit the thread for the time being. Ben and I are pretty much on the same page when it comes to this particular topic, and he's not nearly as inclined to mock your arrogance as I am.

[Benjamin McGuire]

This piece:

If full-stop (periods) and changes of sense appeared in the middle of the lines that Joseph was reading, it would count as evidence of Joseph reading a text that was purely given to him. That these do not occur in any of the dictation lines, seems to me to be evidence that he was not simply reading a text that was shown to him.

For example, if the dictation lines looked like this, I would count is as evidence toward Skousen's argument:

Ben M.

[Glenn101]

This is what Grant Hardy himself told me (and we spent a while discussion it) as well as Dan Peterson. Perhaps they were both inaccurately portraying Skousen's theory.

I also think that the BofM was too much for Joseph to write and believe that it is based on an ancient text. However, after seeing what the 'sense-lines' that Skousen proposes as evidence of him reading a text that was strictly given to him, I took quite the opposite position--they seem to be evidence of lines being constructed one and a time and in succession rather than being something that was read. If full-stop (periods) and changes of sense appeared in the middle of the lines that Joseph was reading, it would count as evidence of Joseph reading a text that was purely given to him. That these do not occur in any of the dictation lines, seems to me to be evidence that he was not simply reading a text that was shown to him.

For example, if the dictation lines looked like this, I would count is as evidence toward Skousen's argument:

I, Nephi, having been born of

goodly parents; therefore I was taught somewhat in all the

learning of my father; and having seen many afflictions

in my days, nevertheless...

The dictation lines do not take this form though.

How would lines look if dictated from a Hebrew text, since the ancient Hebrew did not have punctuation? I do not know enough maybe to even ask the right questions.

Glenn

[the narrator]

This piece:

Ben M.

Part of Skousen's argument (as I understand it) is that because there is evidence that Joseph dictated the text one line at a time, that is evidence that he was reading a text one line at a time.

My point is that if each of these lines read like they do in a book (where each line begins mid-sentence, perhaps begins a new sentence midway through, and ends before the next sentence is finished) then it would perhaps be strong evidence of him reading from a text.

According to Skousen, though, this isn't the case. Rather each dictation line is a sense line which is either a full sentence or a full subclause of a larger sentences. Rather than being evidence of Joseph reading, this could easily be seen as Joseph simply dictating a sentence or clause of a sentence at a time.

[the narrator]

How would lines look if dictated from a Hebrew text, since the ancient Hebrew did not have punctuation? I do not know enough maybe to even ask the right questions.

Glenn

I Nephi having been born of

goodly parents therefore I was taught somewhat in all the

learning of my father and having seen many afflictions

in my days nevertheless...

[Benjamin McGuire]

My point is that if each of these lines read like they do in a book (where each line begins mid-sentence, perhaps begins a new sentence midway through, and ends before the next sentence is finished) then it would perhaps be strong evidence of him reading from a text.

Gotcha. I disagree. But I do understand what you are trying to say.

Ben M.

[William Schryver]

This is what Grant Hardy himself told me (and we spent a while discussion it) as well as Dan Peterson. Perhaps they were both inaccurately portraying Skousen's theory.

I also think that the BofM was too much for Joseph to write and believe that it is based on an ancient text. However, after seeing what the 'sense-lines' that Skousen proposes as evidence of him reading a text that was strictly given to him, I took quite the opposite position--they seem to be evidence of lines being constructed one and a time and in succession rather than being something that was read. If full-stop (periods) and changes of sense appeared in the middle of the lines that Joseph was reading, it would count as evidence of Joseph reading a text that was purely given to him. That these do not occur in any of the dictation lines, seems to me to be evidence that he was not simply reading a text that was shown to him.

For example, if the dictation lines looked like this, I would count is as evidence toward Skousen's argument:

I, Nephi, having been born of

goodly parents; therefore I was taught somewhat in all the

learning of my father; and having seen many afflictions

in my days, nevertheless...

The dictation lines do not take this form though.

What an odd notion!

You apparently assume that Skousen's putative "translator" would have just randomly chopped the text up into segments that crossed "sense lines". Why make this assumption? Why do you even believe it to be logical? Why would not said translator divide the text into logical segments based on sense? That is precisely what I would expect.

Intellectual rigidity manifests itself in such strange and unpredictable ways ...

[Glenn101]

glennthigpen, on 22 March 2010 - 05:01 PM, said:

How would lines look if dictated from a Hebrew text, since the ancient Hebrew did not have punctuation? I do not know enough maybe to even ask the right questions.

Glenn

I Nephi having been born of

goodly parents therefore I was taught somewhat in all the

learning of my father and having seen many afflictions

in my days nevertheless...

It is my understanding that the John Gilbert added most if not all of the punctuation for that first printing. Would that not indicate that the text as Joseph dictated it, was essentially what you have presented?

Glenn

[the narrator]

What an odd notion!

You apparently assume that Skousen's putative "translator" would have just randomly chopped the text up into segments that crossed "sense lines". Why make this assumption? Why do you even believe it to be logical? Why would not said translator divide the text into logical segments based on sense? That is precisely what I would expect.

Intellectual rigidity manifests itself in such strange and unpredictable ways ...

My point is only that Skousen's sense lines do not make for a good argument for strict reading. If the dictation lines did come mid-sense, it would make for a good argument. They just don't.

[rameumptom]

I personally believe the translation was a combination of some actual text given, as Royal Skousen observes, but also certain concepts that Joseph was allowed to put in his own words, or a combination of the two. Otherwise, the 19th century concepts and language that the Book of Mormon uses would not be found in it as much, nor would we see so much KJV, etc.

I do think that certain terminology, such as the Hebraism "must needs be" definitely shows a textual reading, otherwise Joseph would have placed it in 19th century phrases.

His use of context to catalyze new "translations" of things also seem apparent with the Bible "translation" and the Book of Abraham papyri.

[William Schryver]

I personally believe the translation was a combination of some actual text given, as Royal Skousen observes, but also certain concepts that Joseph was allowed to put in his own words, or a combination of the two. Otherwise, the 19th century concepts and language that the Book of Mormon uses would not be found in it as much, nor would we see so much KJV, etc.

Why?

I'm serious.

Think about it for a minute. Why could not a "third-party" translator have used 19th century concepts and language and KJV quotes verbatim in the "translation" that was prepared and delivered to Joseph Smith? (Bear in mind that I am not convinced that all--or even any--of the allegedly 19th century concepts are, in fact, exclusively 19th century concepts.)

Skousen's primary point is that the text bears all the marks of having been read by Joseph Smith. I understand what Royal has posited as his explanation for the evidence. I actually have solutions that vary from his, but respond to the same evidence that he has adduced. I cannot see that the presence of KJV quotes and (alleged) 19th century elements discredits in any way the fundamental thesis that Joseph Smith was effectively a "reader" rather than an "active translator."

I am also prepared to argue that the text of the Book of Abraham was received in more or less the same fashion as Skousen argues for the Book of Mormon. I am personally convinced that Joseph Smith was not a "translator" in the modern sense of the word, nor was he a creative writer. He was a medium through which ancient texts and modern revelations were delivered. And I believe he was as amazed and instructed by his revelations as were those who came to view him as a modern oracle. Indeed, I'm not sure he ever even came to fully understand, prior to his death, the import of everything he produced in the way of revelation. I believe he continued to learn from his own revelations until the very end.

[William Schryver]

My point is only that Skousen's sense lines do not make for a good argument for strict reading. If the dictation lines did come mid-sense, it would make for a good argument. They just don't.

My point is that your argument is nonsensical.

What is most fascinating to me is that you are utterly impervious both to counter-argumentation as well as demonstrated flaws in your own argumentation. It's like you don't even stop for a moment to consider the possibility of your being mistaken about anything. I think many of us have struggled with just such a tendency. But most of us got over it at about 22 or 23, right about the time our parents grew smart again after that 10 year period when they were so stupid.

[the narrator]

My point is that your argument is nonsensical.

What is most fascinating to me is that you are utterly impervious both to counter-argumentation as well as demonstrated flaws in your own argumentation. It's like you don't even stop for a moment to consider the possibility of your being mistaken about anything. I think many of us have struggled with just such a tendency. But most of us got over it at about 22 or 23, right about the time our parents grew smart again after that 10 year period when they were so stupid.

I'm not understanding why this is difficult to understand.

Which would create stronger evidence for Joseph reading a line and not coming up with the line himself:

1. the dictation line beginning mid-sense; having a change of sense in the middle and ending before a sense is over

ex. "of goodly parents therefor i was taught in"

2. the dictation line containing a whole sense-line

ex. "therefore i was taught somewhat in all the learning of my father."

Which would make it seem more like Joseph was coming up with each line himself, and not reading something that was given to him:

1. the dictation line beginning mid-sense; having a change of sense in the middle and ending before a sense is over

ex. "of goodly parents therefor i was taught in"

2. the dictation line containing a whole sense-line

ex. "therefore i was taught somewhat in all the learning of my father."

William, here is a fun little game you can play to test it out yourself. Find someone near you and try ask them to dictate a story that you are going to tell them. Tell him the story sentence by sentence (as in #2) , waiting for him to write it down each sentence before you give him the next one. See if you can do it. I'm guessing this wouldn't be too difficult for you.

Next find someone else and do the same thing. However this time, break apart the sentences so that you dictate a line at a time beginning and ending mid-sentence (as in #1). Are you capable of doing this?

Now open up a book and read a story to him, do the same thing, but this time read one line of the book at a time. I'm guessing this wouldn't be too difficult.

Now ask yourself, which of these (1 or 2) was more akin to coming up with each line yourself and which of this was more like reading the passage from a prepared text?