Cognate accusatives

[maklelan]

First of all to respond to your concerns would require more study. I readily concede this. But not everyone can be a Biblical scholar and I probably won't ever have the same knowledge of the Hebrew scriptures as you do. So I've got to make a judgement call. There are knowledgeable LDS scholars such as yourself. But there are also knowledgeable Protestant and Catholic scholars who would reject you interpretation. I don't think the LDS arguments stack up.

Here you make an appeal to authority, and it's a naked assumption as well. Can you provide any texts of Protestant or Catholic scholars that directly engage my concerns? As hard a pill as it may be to swallow, what you think about how my arguments stack up is not much of a concern.

I think this is a reasonable position.

It's an uninformed judgment based on an appeal to authority that is purely hypothesized. How is that a reasonable position?

I haven't tried to pretend that some verses are difficult to exegete or explain - they clearly are. However, I don't think the answer is to look towards some modern day prophet - but to study to scriptures and trust that the Spirit will lead you. From my reading of the Bible, I just don't think Mormonism is congruent with the religion taught in the Bible.

There is no one religion taught in the Bible. There are dozens of different religions that are manifested in the Bible. Congruency with your synthetic reading of the Bible is hardly an imposing standard.

Mormons don't have a monopoly on the testimony of the Spirit.p

But they are the only ones that require potential members to directly ask God whether or not their scriptures are his word in order to join. When is the last time you prayed to God to know whether or not the Bible was his word?

The Holy Spirit does lead me in my study of the scriptures and I can not accept Mormonism on this basis.

Sounds like a very post-Enlightenment Spirit.

I can't say that i've read the BoM from cover to cover. But I have read large sections of it.

When i say strain, i basically mean that often there is a plain interpretation of a verse or scripture. Often LDS apologists have to bypass this plain interpretation and seek some other new explanation that no one ever heard of before Mormonism. McConkie's explanation for Joseph's apparent Elijah/Elias blunder is a case in point.

The plain reading is not always the reading intended.

[Hamba Tuhan]

Why would God not simply provide a literal translation?

This question presumes that the 'problem' is with the translator, not with the act of translation itself. In other words, some perfect/literal translation theoretically could be rendered by an equally hypothetical perfect translator. The real problem, as the most skilled of translators will readily tell you, is that there is no such thing as a perfect/literal translation. The 'problems' you've identified are inherent to translation. Even if you want to assume a God-as-translator position (in opposition to numerous other possibilities), what makes you think God wouldn't also face the same kinds of choices, ambiguities, and trade-offs which simply exist in all translation?

[Hamba Tuhan]

Let me offer an example:

I work in encounter texts--in my case, documents written by Europeans (primarily Jesuit missionaries) in Southeast Asia and the islands of the Pacific. A hallmark of virtually all encounter texts is loan-shifting, where a word from the newcomers' language acquires a new meaning from the new locale whilst simultaneously maintaining its meaning from the old context. A perfect example of this which I frequently encounter in letters is figo, the Portuguese word for 'fig' which, in tropical Asia, came also to mean 'banana.' If you were to encounter figo in a text written by a European-bred, Bible-reading Portuguese Jesuit who lived out his life and then died on a Pacific island in the sixteenth century, what do you think should be the literal translation of this word? What would be the 'plain interpretation' that doesn't require any 'straining' to explain?

[urroner]

I wonder when canterdogs is going to start screaming, ranting, and raving about the use of the word "adieu" in the BofM.

[Benjamin McGuire]

canterdogs writes:

Richard Packham has stated in his convincing presentation on Youtube that chiastic structures were present in Joseph Smith's letters and even in John Taylor's writings.

Chiasmus and chiastic structures are two very, very different things.

Chiasm is a rhetorical figure. Rhetorical figures are, by definition, intentionally created by authors to add features to the text (sometimes it is used to enhance meaning, other times, it is strictly speaking more of an aesthetic thing).

Chiastic structure on the other hand is merely a reworking of the text so that it forms a pattern, but it can be completely accidental (i.e. not something intended by the author). And anyone with half a brain can find chiastic structures in just about any text (the Book of Mormon included).

The way that you differentiate between the two of them is by arguing about the rhetorical value of the chiasm. Just finding a structure (as Richard Packham does) means absolutely nothing in a discussion about whether or not there are valid chiasmus used as rhetorical figures in the Book of Mormon text. This of course also means that anyone who finds just structures in the Book of Mormon aren't producing anything of value either. The value is in the intentions of the author.

Ben M.

[krose]

... That's the nature of translation.

Have you ever translated a chapter from any book in the Bible? I'm curious if you're aware of what kind of issues confront translation from an ancient language.

Have you ever translated anything from a text you cannot read yourself?

I think talking of the "nature of translation" ignores the fact that what Smith purportedly did was nothing at all like the way you or I translate foreign text.

As part of my PhD research, I have translated several thousand pages of old texts. It has been my experience that those who insist they know precisely how translation should be done are those who've engaged in very little of the act themselves.

Same question, HT...

Do you ever translate text you can't read? I haven't, but I would have to guess that the process would be unlike any translation process you or I have experienced.

[krose]

For me all discussions regarding the text of the BoM eventually come down to the method of translation. Either Smith was given the exact words to write, or he had to come up with his own words to describe a vision of events.

Those who say "a little of both" -- sometimes 'tight' and sometimes 'loose' -- are trying to simultaneously save their cake and consume it, in my opinion.

[Hamba Tuhan]

Same question, HT...

Do you ever translate text you can't read? I haven't, but I would have to guess that the process would be unlike any translation process you or I have experienced.

I doubt this is what you meant, but three of the languages I can now read I had no experience with whatsoever when I began my translation work. I learnt these languages via the act of trying to translate texts. Since we know so little about the process of translating the Book of Mormon, I'm unclear how analogous my experience may have been, but I suspect it's not very similar in most regards.

Having said that, the problems inherent in translation simply don't disappear just because of the possibility of divine aid/intervention. Using my example above, how should a divinely inspired translator render the word figo in a sixteenth-century letter written by a Portuguese-speaking Jesuit resident on an island in Southeast Asia?

[maklelan]

Have you ever translated anything from a text you cannot read yourself?

I think talking of the "nature of translation" ignores the fact that what Smith purportedly did was nothing at all like the way you or I translate foreign text.

We don't know exactly how the translation took place. The Book of Mormon has all the indicators of an anaphoric translation, though. Literary conventions seep through that Smith could not directly have been responsible for, and yet his own framework is also evident.

Same question, HT...

Do you ever translate text you can't read? I haven't, but I would have to guess that the process would be unlike any translation process you or I have experienced.

Neither of us has ever translated a text through inspiration, either.

[cdowis]

The "It came to pass" phrase is similar to the Bible - it just gets overused in the BoM. I note that critics such as Richard Packham do not think that the "it came to pass" criticism is valid because the Hebrew term it is translated from is quite common in Hebrew. However, it is my belief that the phrase was taken from the KJV and was overused in the BoM and this does not point me to the BoM's authenticity.

I agree. It points to the fact that there was no punctuation in the BOM manuscript, and the phrase marks the end of a sentence.

The punctuatiion we find today in the BOM was placed by the printer.

[semlogo]

I don't think you're getting it. His name was not Christ. His name was Jesus (the Greek form of Jeshua). His title was Christ. Jesus Christ simply means Jesus the anointed. that text is an anachronism.

Since his name is Jeshua, a form of Yehoshua or Joshua (in Greek, I?sous), do you take exception with translations that call him Jesus?

[semlogo]

umm apparently you're still not getting it....

Messiah (Hebrew for Christ) and Jesus Christ (Greek) are used in the same passage. Why are the Hebrew and Greek terms for the same thing present in the same passage? And, again, Jesus (Greek) is His name, Christ is His title.

Let me illustrate how out of place this verse is. Suppose the reformed Egyptian term for Christ or Messiah (remembering that they mean the same thing) is "Carrot". The text would then read as follows:

Do you see? Messiah and Christ are the same thing. How could one have Messiah (Hebrew) and Christ (Greek) in the same sentence, or, more generally, in the same text? That's my point.

Since they mean the same in English, they may be used interchangeably. It doesn't matter what the Hebrew or the Greek was - not that the BOM was written in either language.

[volgadon]

Baptism in OT times (btw the apologetic arguments are not convincing at all!)

Considering the importance of liquid as a conveyor of purity and impurity, and various washings relating to purity in OT times, why is baptism such a stretch?

This is without even mentioning Diego de Landa.

[WalkerW]

Ron Moseley has an interesting article entitled "The Jewish Background of Christian Baptism." I don't think pre-Christian baptism is all that silly.

[maklelan]

Ron Moseley has an interesting article entitled "The Jewish Background of Christian Baptism." I don't think pre-Christian baptism is all that silly.

I think what's silly is the notion that the practice was invented ex nihilo by Christians.

[Vance]

I think what's silly is the notion that the practice was invented ex nihilo by Christians.

It is not like the Jews (scribes, Pharisees, Sadducees, priests, Levites and lawyers) got all upset when they discovered John the Baptist doing it. Instead of condemning him for this bizarre (if never seen before it would have been bizarre) ritual they sent an entourage to ask "Who are thou?" and then "Art thou Elias?" and then "Art thou that (the Messiah) prophet?"

Still no condemnation.

Then they asked "Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither that prophet?"

The question implies a knowledge of baptism on their part. They didn't ask "WHAT are you doing?" for they knew, but rather "WHY" are YOU doing it?

They didn't even question his authority to do it. Why? Did they know that he was entitled to the Aaronic Priesthood by right of birth?

[krose]

Neither of us has ever translated a text through inspiration, either.

Exactly, which is why I think it's a mistake to use your own expert translating experience (and my more amateur experience) to try to understand a process that had to be very different from anything you or I have ever done.

[maklelan]

Exactly, which is why I think it's a mistake to use your own expert translating experience (and my more amateur experience) to try to understand a process that had to be very different from anything you or I have ever done.

I'm not trying to understand the process, I'm just trying to show that these particular criticisms don't take certain universal phenomena into consideration, like the nature of anaphoric translation and the fact that equivalency is never, ever exact. When these things are taken into consideration, those particular criticisms disappear.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I don't think pre-Christian baptism is all that silly.

Neither did John the Baptist, although something about his practice made him stick out enough to be given the appellation "the Baptist" even outside of the NT.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I'm not trying to understand the process, I'm just trying to show that these particular criticisms don't take certain universal phenomena into consideration, like the nature of anaphoric translation and the fact that equivalency is never, ever exact. When these things are taken into consideration, those particular criticisms disappear.

[The_Monk]

"I note that critics such as Richard Packham do not think that the "it came to pass" criticism is valid because the Hebrew term it is translated from is quite common in Hebrew."

As an atheist, critics such as Richard Packham would laugh you out the door that you think the Bible is self-evidently true.

Do you know any Hebrew? Does Packham?

[kolipoki09]

"I note that critics such as Richard Packham do not think that the "it came to pass" criticism is valid because the Hebrew term it is translated from is quite common in Hebrew."

As an atheist, critics such as Richard Packham would laugh you out the door that you think the Bible is self-evidently true.

Do you know any Hebrew? Does Packham?

Packham taught linguistics, but focused primarily on Germanic, not Semitic or Afro-Asiatic languages (though I believe he has working knowledge of some Semitic languages). Packham lost credibility with me when he tried to claim that Hieratic and Demotic were not abbreviated (and ironically 'reformed') forms of Egyptian Hieroglyphic symbols. Packham's criticisms are really a mixed bag in my opinion. Most of them have been more than sufficiently answered, to the point that Packham would rather poison the well than respond to those who disagree with him. I think he's raised some moderately important issues and concerns, but in the long run probably won't amount to much in the same way that Fawn Brodie did 64 years ago.

[canterdogs]

Packham taught linguistics, but focused primarily on Germanic, not Semitic or Afro-Asiatic languages (though I believe he has working knowledge of some Semitic languages). Packham lost credibility with me when he tried to claim that Hieratic and Demotic were not abbreviated (and ironically 'reformed') forms of Egyptian Hieroglyphic symbols. Packham's criticisms are really a mixed bag in my opinion. Most of them have been more than sufficiently answered, to the point that Packham would rather poison the well than respond to those who disagree with him. I think he's raised some moderately important issues and concerns, but in the long run probably won't amount to much in the same way that Fawn Brodie did 64 years ago.

I understand the need to think you have thoroughly discredited a critic in order to continue on in the faith. This is the sort of response all LDS apologists have to any critics. Dismissal. Yes you grant some minor points to Packham, but ultimately you just wipe him out as if none of his arguments are really serious....

I loved when the eminent Israeli archaeologist Gabriel Barkay stated that the Book of Mormon "doesn't make sense to me. . . . I don't think it has anything to do with the culture of 600 BC, and I'm an expert on that period."

True, he probably hasn't delved much into it, but he hasn't had to and wouldn't waste his time in doing so. His statement is accurate nonetheless. Even on hearing the barest of details about the BoM such an assessment can be made by an expert such as Barkay.

I think that i'm coming to the realization that the BoM apologists really are clutching at straws and it is probably not much use trying to discuss or persuade them (altho I do enjoy the nature of the arguments). They have already made up their minds. further, and this is where the intellectual dishonesty comes in, they use their formidable academic prowess to try to explain away any criticism of the BoM sometimes with the most outrageous of explanations (horses and chariots in the BoM for instance). Sometimes they come up with some clever little innovations. But at the end of the day, these are more clever than convincing.

[The_Monk]

I loved when the eminent Israeli archaeologist Gabriel Barkay stated that the Book of Mormon "doesn't make sense to me. . . . I don't think it has anything to do with the culture of 600 BC, and I'm an expert on that period."

CFR

FWIW, Margaret Barker a non-LDS scholar (whom I have some disagreements with, btw) has publicly stated that the BoM fits very well into the pre-Exilic Israelite religion, particularly with respect to Wisdom literature and a focus on the temple.

[cdowis]

I loved when the eminent Israeli archaeologist Gabriel Barkay stated that the Book of Mormon "doesn't make sense to me. . . . I don't think it has anything to do with the culture of 600 BC, and I'm an expert on that period."

True, he probably hasn't delved much into it, but he hasn't had to and wouldn't waste his time in doing so. His statement is accurate nonetheless. Even on hearing the barest of details about the BoM such an assessment can be made by an expert such as Barkay.

And this is a common technique of the BOM critic, to quote an "expert" with no facts, no evidence.

What exactly does the BOM tell us about the Jews in 600BC, and how much do we actually know, even the experts, about that time period. It would be useful to have a specific parallel description of what he is talking about -- specific information about Jerusalem at that time period, and placing it next to the BOM text.

Perhaps a bibilography of ancient writings from that time period giving specifics on the culture of the Jews would be useful and we can make that comparison.

I have learned the difference between opinion and facts, specific data. Give us the specific evidence and let us make our own opinion.

He may call himself an expert, but what does that really mean. If you wish to quote him, then let's see specifically his evidence.