Response To Dr. Michael Coe

[Dan Vogel]

Brant,

Preliminarily, however, I suspect that the definition of translation is so broad and loose that it isn’t like anything experienced before, and therefore ad hoc.

Always good to have an opinion prior to evidence. At least I don't think that I fall into that category.

Trying to provoke a response to get a better idea of your definition of translation. Bill and Kevin’s argument seems to be that it was inspired translation and since no one knows what that is, it can be as broad and loose as they need it to be. Is yours different?

Except those that are only consistent with a time-appropriate Mesoamerican setting. The difference is that most of the ones that are consistent with the nineteenth century origin depend upon vocabulary - not meaning, not structure, but vocabulary. That is precisely where we have translation anachronisms.

I’m having difficulty fitting the Mound Builder Myth into your vocabulary argument. But your vocabulary vs. meaning argument seems artificial and insufficient to explain a more complex relationship between the BOM and the 19th century. The anti-Universalist rhetoric in the BOM, for example, uses the same proof texts as 19th century anti-Universalists—even if anachronistically from the NT.

On the other hand, there are features of the text, assumptions it makes, descriptions it gives, that not only fit the Mesoamerican context, they contradict the nineteenth century expectations. The discussion of politics is the most obvious (I'm sure you have read Bushman on his discovery that he couldn't find the republican government that he originally thought he would find). At times, the vocabulary masks the actual foreignness of the actions/explanations.

Yes, but Bushman didn’t consider influence from the OT. Knowing JS was a theocrat, I would be surprised to find democracy and republican government. O’Dea and Campbell oversimplified the BOM. JS was trying to establish a New Jerusalem government in the American wilderness, and the BOM was the beginning of that endeavor. The BOM holds up the righteous king as the ideal; a sort of theo-democracy comes in second. The BOM, suspiciously, moves from government by righteous kings to a system of judges—the reverse of the OT.

It is therefore more appropriate to claim correlations to the nineteenth century and explain away things that don't correlate?

If a work of fiction, one wouldn’t expect the BOM to be an exact mirror of the 19th century. If a real history, the demands for correlation are higher. That’s your burden.

Unfortunately, virtually all historical endeavors encounter difficult information and part of the process is to find a way to explain all of them--and not dismiss any simply because they don't fit into a particular espoused worldview. The hard sciences have the same problem as well. Good theories account for all evidence, including apparent exceptions. Accounting for them and providing a place for them in the theory is not the same as dismissing them.

I think the “dismissing” came from Christensen’s “so what” to counter evidence.

I have known some that have. I know of quite a few that don't. I know of several who are working on such things and have talked with them about their approaches and methodologies, and they don't fit your description. I'm surprised that you are willing to make such a blanket statement inclusive of everything you have (and haven't) read.

It’s intended as a general methodological statement. It’s in line with one of Christensen’s favorite topics--the “theory-ladenness” of observation. Dan Peterson’s Asherah interpretation doesn’t come from any direct statement in the BOM’s text, but he sees possible implications in Lehi’s tree of life, which he links to the Virgin Mary instead of the more probable link to Jesus and his promise of eternal life.

Indeed, the correlations are not of sufficient strength to make historicity probable, and therefore can’t overturn the anachronisms.

According to what historical theory? On what basis do you claim that correlations are not of sufficient strength to make historicity probable, given that virtually all iconography, archaeology, and ethnohistory rely upon that method, and history makes use of it from time to time? Or are you saying that the correlations you see to the nineteenth century cannot be valid, or that they are only weak evidence?

My argument is that, as a believer, you are privileging the BOM over other documents similarly situated. And I’m not saying correlations in general are incapable of making historicity probable; I’m saying correlations between the BOM and ancient America are not sufficient to make historicity probable. Since you are relying on a translation argument to escape anachronisms that can’t be tested, your use of it should be contingent on the issue of historicity in general. This means that if historicity were probable, then your translation argument would also be probable; conversely, if historicity is remote, then your escape from anachronisms is also remote.

[Dan Vogel]

It is rather revealing that Vogel's theory of the eight witnesses and the golden plates requires the complete rejection of all the eyewitness testimony.

It only requires a rejection of an uninformed and superficial reading of the historical data.

[cdowis]

Cdowis,

Just as I thought—you don’t understand my argument at all.

And that is wishful thinking. I understand your argument perfectly, as we shall see.

My position is that the handling and seeing the plates are separate experiences—that they handled the plates while in a box or covered with a cloth and that they saw them with spiritual eyes.

I am very familiar with your imaginary scenario.

I base this reconstruction on the testimony of Martin Harris as reported in 1838 by Stephen Burnett and John Whitmer, one of the eight witnesses, as reported by Theodore Turley in 1845.

Just as I thought. Here is a list of the eight witnesses: CHRISTIAN WHITMER, JACOB WHITMER, PETER WHITMER, JUN., JOHN WHITMER, HIRAM PAGE, JOSEPH SMITH, SEN., HYRUM SMITH, SAMUEL H. SMITH

Can you underline and boldface the names of Martin Harris and John Whitmer on this list. My eyesight apparently if failing me. Don't tell me that the award winning historian is confusing the three witnesses with the eight.

This does not contradict the statements of the eight witnesses, which were simple affirmations of the published Testimony.

Those were two entirely different experiences. One was indeed spiritual, but the other was based on the ordinary senses.

But you already knew that, didn't you.

Dan, I understand your argument perfectly. You ignore the first hand testimony, create a fictitious scenario based on third hand reports of individuals who were not present.

I think that pretty well summarizes it. You don't like it, but that's the fact, Jack.

[cdowis]

Cdowis,

Just as I thought—you don’t understand my argument at all.

And that is wishful thinking. I understand your argument perfectly, as we shall see.

My position is that the handling and seeing the plates are separate experiences—that they handled the plates while in a box or covered with a cloth and that they saw them with spiritual eyes.

I am very familiar with your imaginary scenario.

I base this reconstruction on the testimony of Martin Harris as reported in 1838 by Stephen Burnett and John Whitmer, one of the eight witnesses, as reported by Theodore Turley in 1845.

Just as I thought. Here is a list of the eight witnesses: CHRISTIAN WHITMER, JACOB WHITMER, PETER WHITMER, JUN., JOHN WHITMER, HIRAM PAGE, JOSEPH SMITH, SEN., HYRUM SMITH, SAMUEL H. SMITH

Can you underline and boldface the names of Martin Harris and John Whitmer on this list. My eyesight apparently if failing me. Don't tell me that the award winning historian is confusing the three witnesses with the eight.

This does not contradict the statements of the eight witnesses, which were simple affirmations of the published Testimony.

Those were two entirely different experiences. One was indeed spiritual, but the other was based on the ordinary senses.

But you already knew that, didn't you.

Dan, I understand your argument perfectly. You ignore the first hand testimony, create a fictitious scenario based on third hand reports of individuals who were not present.

I think that pretty well summarizes it. You don't like it, but that's the fact, Jack.

[J Green]

Ah, I see what you're saying now. Well, that's interesting, but I don't see how it has any implications for the tight vs. loose translation argument. We wouldn't necessarily expect Joseph to make any bones about the spelling of common words, even under a theory of tight translation. Royal concludes that the manuscript evidence supports a theory of tight translation for the entire text.

Hi, Chris. I was simply responding to your post to LeSellers (page 12) about "credible witnesses" and their comments about the process. My point was not about tight/loose translations but that we need to carefully consider what the witnesses say when comparisons to the manuscript evidence start showing some differences. Just a slightly more nuanced position. Does it change our perception of their understanding of the process? Brant does a good job talking about the development of a shared sacred story as the early church transitions from an era of divining rods and seer stones to urban sensibilities.

But as far as translations go, you're right. Royal is an advocate of a tight translation through a mechanical process. Brant concedes some tight translations (mostly with the names) but by and large advocates for a functional equivalency through a (mostly) translator-controlled process. Possibly falling into a MM's trap of advocating both positions, I feel that there are instances of both but agree with Brant that the entire process is controlled by the translator. The process of visualizing and spelling proper names correctly usually bears on whether JS is spoon fed the translation graphically or whether he had any part in the process.

Cheers

[Bill Hamblin]

It only requires a rejection of an uninformed and superficial reading of the historical data.

Superficial and uninformed like saying people who claimed to have seen the plates really meant they saw them under a cloth, and people who said they were gold really meant they were tin? I get it.

[Dan Vogel]

Cdowis,

Just as I thought. Here is a list of the eight witnesses: CHRISTIAN WHITMER, JACOB WHITMER, PETER WHITMER, JUN., JOHN WHITMER, HIRAM PAGE, JOSEPH SMITH, SEN., HYRUM SMITH, SAMUEL H. SMITH

Can you underline and boldface the names of Martin Harris and John Whitmer on this list. My eyesight apparently if failing me. Don't tell me that the award winning historian is confusing the three witnesses with the eight.

You are not familiar with historical methodology. Historians unlike courts of law do not exclude hearsay. Harris was on intimate terms with the eight witnesses and made his statements in a public meeting, evidently not fearing contradiction.

Notice I put the name of John Whitmer in bold as per your request. You might need glasses, or you might not know this subject as well as you think.

This does not contradict the statements of the eight witnesses, which were simple affirmations of the published Testimony.

Those were two entirely different experiences. One was indeed spiritual, but the other was based on the ordinary senses.

But you already knew that, didn't you.

You are not only are not responding to my statement but you are only reasserting your assumption. This assumption is challenged by John Whitmer’s statement to Turley that the plates were shown to him by “a supernatural power” (DHC 3:307-308). That doesn’t sound like ordinary senses to me. You didn’t respond to this.

Dan, I understand your argument perfectly. You ignore the first hand testimony, create a fictitious scenario based on third hand reports of individuals who were not present.

I think that pretty well summarizes it. You don't like it, but that's the fact, Jack.

This is better than accusing of inventing things out of “whole cloth”, but still wrong. I haven’t ignored first hand testimony; I have only challenged your assumption about what it says. You have ignored second hand testimony from reliable sources. See how it’s not as easy as you think. So-called anti-Mormons just aren't as dumb and uninformed as you think.

Edited September 5, 2011 by Dan Vogel

[Dan Vogel]

Bill,

It only requires a rejection of an uninformed and superficial reading of the historical data

Superficial and uninformed like saying people who claimed to have seen the plates really meant they saw them under a cloth, and people who said they were gold really meant they were tin? I get it.

My reconstruction doesn’t contradict the sources and even finds support in them—it only contradicts your assumptions about the vague language in the published Testimony. Similar vague language in the Testimony of Three Witnesses might cause readers to assume all three witnesses were present with JS when the angel appeared with the plates. In fact, in the Church History Library, there is a plaque showing all the witnesses together. That’s a faction as much as the one showing JS with the eight witnesses with the plates sitting on a tree stump.

[Bill Hamblin]

My reconstruction doesn’t contradict the sources and even finds support in them—it only contradicts your assumptions about the vague language in the published Testimony. Similar vague language in the Testimony of Three Witnesses might cause readers to assume all three witnesses were present with JS when the angel appeared with the plates. In fact, in the Church History Library, there is a plaque showing all the witnesses together. That’s a faction as much as the one showing JS with the eight witnesses with the plates sitting on a tree stump.

Well, Dan, all I can say is, I am utterly unconvinced by your arguments. However, artists might depict the witnesses (which are not primary sources, by the way), there are many, many first hand accounts by the actual eye-witnesses who clearly describe seeing and touching actual golden plates--not tin plates under a cloth.

[cdowis]

You are not only are not responding to my statement but you are only reasserting your assumption. This assumption is challenged by John Whitmer’s statement to Turley that the plates were shown to him by “a supernatural power” (DHC 3:307-308). That doesn’t sound like ordinary senses to me. You didn’t respond to this.

This is better than accusing of inventing things out of “whole cloth”, but still wrong. I haven’t ignored first hand testimony; I have only challenged your assumption about what it says. You have ignored second hand testimony from reliable sources. See how it’s not as easy as you think. So-called anti-Mormons just aren't as dumb and uninformed as you think.

What exactly did Whitmer say. Is this an interpretation of his statement, or what he actually said. Is this a summary of a longer statement. There is nothing to respond to, since we don't know what the context of his statement. For example, he may be stating that through revelation to JS, he was permitted to view the plates, and that Mormoni had made those plates available to JS. The first hand account makes it clear that he not only viewed the plates, but he hefted them, turned the pages and viewed the engravings.

2. You tell us how your scenario incorporates both the first and third hand accounts. Your imaginary scenario omits that he saw the plates, turned the pages, and viewed the engravings. Since it is not based on any witness statements, it is made of pure whole cloth, based on your idea of plausibility and not any statement from any of the eight witnesses.

Now are you going to respond on how your constructed your scenario. What sources your used, because the ones you mention here obviously were not used.

[cdowis]

You are not only are not responding to my statement but you are only reasserting your assumption. This assumption is challenged by John Whitmer’s statement to Turley that the plates were shown to him by “a supernatural power” (DHC 3:307-308). That doesn’t sound like ordinary senses to me. You didn’t respond to this.

This is better than accusing of inventing things out of “whole cloth”, but still wrong. I haven’t ignored first hand testimony; I have only challenged your assumption about what it says. You have ignored second hand testimony from reliable sources. See how it’s not as easy as you think. So-called anti-Mormons just aren't as dumb and uninformed as you think.

OK, by your own selection process (using bold text), we can now exclude Martin Harris. We are left with the first hand account of the eight witnesses and the third hand account of something that Whitmer may have said.

What exactly did Whitmer say. Is this an interpretation of his statement. Perhaps a summary of a longer statement.

I find that here on this forum where people "summarize" what others have said, and take comments out of context. For example, he may be stating that through revelation to JS, he was permitted to view the plates, and that Mormoni had made those plates available to JS. The first hand account makes no mention of any vision or divine event, only that they viewed the plates, but hefted them, turned the pages and viewed the engravings. No mention of a covering cloth -- but turning the pages and viewing the engravings.

Your scenario is not based on any witness statements, but made of pure whole cloth, and your imagination. Whitmer was not a source, but a trigger to your fervid, glowing imagination.

Now show us how you used Whitmer to construct your scenario. In what manner was he able to view the plates and the engravings in your scenario, based on the sources. OK, we have both a first hand and a third hand account. We want to see the mind of an award winning historian at work.

Edited September 6, 2011 by cdowis

[Dan Vogel]

Bill,

Well, Dan, all I can say is, I am utterly unconvinced by your arguments.

I expect no less from someone who has been “Kicking Anti-Mormon Butt since 1984.”

However, artists might depict the witnesses (which are not primary sources, by the way),

I refer to the artists because they are a reflection of Mormon lore. This is how using the published Testimonies alone in reconstructing the historical event can lead readers to make false assumptions. They are only generalized unifying statements.

there are many, many first hand accounts by the actual eye-witnesses who clearly describe seeing and touching actual golden plates--not tin plates under a cloth.

Actually, the statements by the eight witnesses are rare, largely due to their early deaths. Three were dead before the end of 1840, and Hyrum and Samuel Smith died in 1844. Most of the statements are simple affirmations without any detail, which can’t be used to contradict Harris or Turley unless you want to beg the question. When John Whimter said in 1836 “I have most assuredly seen the plates from whence the book of Mormon is translated, and that I have handled these plates,” there is not enough detail to rule out his subsequent statement to Turley that they had been shown to him “by a supernatural power.” The only clear statement comes from an interview of John Whitmer conducted by P. Wilhelm Poulson in April 1878, which is one of those third hand statements Dowis wants to automatically exclude. However, Poulson’s version was published after Whitmer’s death and is otherwise a very questionable source due to significant inaccuracies.

[Bill Hamblin]

Actually, the statements by the eight witnesses are rare, largely due to their early deaths. Three were dead before the end of 1840, and Hyrum and Samuel Smith died in 1844. Most of the statements are simple affirmations without any detail, which can’t be used to contradict Harris or Turley unless you want to beg the question. When John Whimter said in 1836 “I have most assuredly seen the plates from whence the book of Mormon is translated, and that I have handled these plates,” there is not enough detail to rule out his subsequent statement to Turley that they had been shown to him “by a supernatural power.” The only clear statement comes from an interview of John Whitmer conducted by P. Wilhelm Poulson in April 1878, which is one of those third hand statements Dowis wants to automatically exclude. However, Poulson’s version was published after Whitmer’s death and is otherwise a very questionable source due to significant inaccuracies.

When the witnesses briefly affirm the written testimony of the eight witnesses found in the BOM, to me that means they affirm the written testimony of the eight witnesses as found in the BOM. This testimony explicitly contradicts your claims. When John Whitmer said he saw and handled the plates, to me that means he was claiming that he saw and handled the plates. It does not mean he is claiming he did not really see or handle the plates. But, I suppose I'm just too biased to properly see the important nuances of these statements.

Let's be frank. The only reason you question the claims of the first hand accounts by the witnesses that they saw and handled gold plates is that they contradict your theory that the witnesses only saw the form of tin plates covered by a cloth. In other words, your theory is clearly controlling the evidence.

But this is another one of those merry-go-round arguments. It's been done to death.

[Brant Gardner]

Trying to provoke a response to get a better idea of your definition of translation. Bill and Kevin’s argument seems to be that it was inspired translation and since no one knows what that is, it can be as broad and loose as they need it to be. Is yours different?

Of course. If it was the same, it wouldn't need to be presented.

I posit an authentic ancient text as a beginning point, mostly because it is an entirely different book to examine the reasons for considering the Book of Mormon to be ancient (that is supposed to be the next one). Assuming that it is a translation, the next question is what kind of translation, with choices ranging from a literal translation, to a functional, and then a conceptual. Each has a different relationship to the source text, with a literal being the closest and a conceptual the most distant. My analysis of the data finds evidence for all three, with the largest majority of the text a functional translation (and specific triggers that account for the times when the other two are used rather than the more common functional translation). In a functional translation, the desire is to translate intent without translating precise vocabulary or sentence structure (see the difference between Allen Christensen's two translations of the Popol Vuh, with one being literal and the other functional--the functional is much more readable).

But your vocabulary vs. meaning argument seems artificial and insufficient to explain a more complex relationship between the BOM and the 19th century.

You would have to read the argument to actually judge. I would not be so simplistic as to suggest that all difficulties disappear with the difference between meaning and vocabulary. What I have said (for a long time, now) is that when the anachronism is specifically related to noun (more common than verbs), that it is insufficient to declare an anachronism because of the particular noun. What is then required is an analysis of the text. For example, the noun "horse" is controversial. However, if you replace that noun with some made up word and tried to discover what that creature might be (it does eat and move) there is nothing in the text that would every hint that it is a horse. It never does anything that we associate with a horse (save eat and move, which are rather too general to make a correlation). On the other hand, metalworking is clearly a different issue because there is ample evidence that when the text says metal plates, it means metal plates.

Yes, but Bushman didn’t consider influence from the OT.

Really? You are that well acquainted with his body of knowledge prior to writing his article?

Knowing JS was a theocrat, I would be surprised to find democracy and republican government. O’Dea and Campbell oversimplified the BOM. JS was trying to establish a New Jerusalem government in the American wilderness, and the BOM was the beginning of that endeavor. The BOM holds up the righteous king as the ideal; a sort of theo-democracy comes in second. The BOM, suspiciously, moves from government by righteous kings to a system of judges—the reverse of the OT.

Which rather goes against your theocracy argument. While there is an indication that a righteous king is good (a rather necessary theological position if Christ is to be King), the adoption of a particular type of political system including judges is not like the Old Testament, and certainly isn't like anything Joseph experienced. It is a very different kind of government based on principles that differ from anything in the Bible or the American experience, but (interestingly enough) known to have existed in Mesoamerica.

If a work of fiction, one wouldn’t expect the BOM to be an exact mirror of the 19th century. If a real history, the demands for correlation are higher. That’s your burden.

It is convenient to be able to take any contradictory evidence and account it to literary license in fiction. That allows you to be very selective with evidence and dismissive of anything that doesn't fit the theory in a completely non-falsifiable context. What you have left is a scenario that is suggestive to those who wish to believe the suggestion, but without any requirement to rigorously deal with evidence. It is, I admit, a brilliant position.

My argument is that, as a believer, you are privileging the BOM over other documents similarly situated.

Perhaps that might describe someone else's work. I certainly believe that I have made every attempt not to do that. Of course, one always has to begin with some position, and I admit I begin as a believer. However, I begin that way so that I allow evidence to be considered that I might immediately dismiss if I were not a believer (having seen that happen rather frequently). From that initial position, however, if one does not allow for the falsification of the original hypothesis, then they haven't actually given full weight to all the evidence. A good historical theory ought to account for the widest possible range of evidence, providing even an explanation for the apparently contradictory evidence.

And I’m not saying correlations in general are incapable of making historicity probable; I’m saying correlations between the BOM and ancient America are not sufficient to make historicity probable.

I see. The method is correct unless it is used in connection with the Book of Mormon. In all other cases, it is fine. I'm not sure how you justify that interesting position. Now, if you are arguing the specifics of an argument, that is different. However, we should be clear when there is a difference between method and application of method. I would therefore expect that any future discussions you have will clarify that there is no problem with the methodology and that you can concentrate on the specifics of its application.

Since you are relying on a translation argument to escape anachronisms that can’t be tested,

Please do not ascribe motives to me that are demonstrably inapplicable.

your use of it should be contingent on the issue of historicity in general. This means that if historicity were probable, then your translation argument would also be probable; conversely, if historicity is remote, then your escape from anachronisms is also remote.

Right. When there is a potential that there are anachronisms of vocabulary, those cannot be used as a priori arguments against historicity. They are relegated to secondary issues than can only be resolved when the larger question of historicity is resolved. We therefore agree. Anachronisms related to vocabulary shouldn't be the issue in discussing Book of Mormon historicity. With that agreement, we can move to more important discussions.

[Dan Vogel]

Cdowis,

What exactly did Whitmer say. Is this an interpretation of his statement, or what he actually said. Is this a summary of a longer statement. There is nothing to respond to, since we don't know what the context of his statement. For example, he may be stating that through revelation to JS, he was permitted to view the plates, and that Mormoni had made those plates available to JS.

Now, who is spinning ad hoc theories? I haven’t quoted some rare or unpublished source; it’s right in the DHC.

The first hand account makes it clear that he not only viewed the plates, but he hefted them, turned the pages and viewed the engravings.

Where do you get the turning pages? The published testimony isn’t a first hand account unless you believe John Whitmer wrote it. The best guess is that Cowdery drafted it and the eight signed.

2. You tell us how your scenario incorporates both the first and third hand accounts. Your imaginary scenario omits that he saw the plates, turned the pages, and viewed the engravings. Since it is not based on any witness statements, it is made of pure whole cloth, based on your idea of plausibility and not any statement from any of the eight witnesses.

Now are you going to respond on how your constructed your scenario. What sources your used, because the ones you mention here obviously were not used.

I already explained the turning of the pages is your assumption, although not impossible even when covered. I gave you the reference in the DHC where John Whitmer said the plates were shown to him “by a supernatural power”; since he also hefted and handled them, how does one reconcile the visionary with the physical? Harris provided the answer in the very same meeting that he disclosed the eight witnesses didn’t view the plates with their natural eyes. They like him saw the plates through the cloth. The cloth part is intentionally being left out—hence Harris’s statement that the eight hesitated to sign the statement. But there are no direct statements about the cloth, because there are no detailed descriptions of the event at all. However, you are also obliged to explain the Harris and Turley accounts.

OK, by your own selection process (using bold text), we can now exclude Martin Harris. We are left with the first hand account of the eight witnesses and the third hand account of something that Whitmer may have said.

Sorry, it doesn’t work that way. I have good reasons to believe Harris knew what he was talking about.

What exactly did Whitmer say. Is this an interpretation of his statement. Perhaps a summary of a longer statement.

I find that here on this forum where people "summarize" what others have said, and take comments out of context. For example, he may be stating that through revelation to JS, he was permitted to view the plates, and that Mormoni had made those plates available to JS.

If you think I’m misquoting, look it up. You have a DHC don’t you?

The first hand account makes no mention of any vision or divine event, only that they viewed the plates, but hefted them, turned the pages and viewed the engravings. No mention of a covering cloth -- but turning the pages and viewing the engravings.

You can’t get turning the pages out of your mind. The Testimony of Three Witnesses doesn’t mention the table with the Liahona, sword of Laban, Brass plates, and Urim and Thummim either. It also makes it sound like the angel was objectively there, but David Whitmer said the atmosphere had changed and there was a soft haze. Harris said he saw it with spiritual eyes. The Testimonies are only generalized unifying documents, not historical accounts.

[Mortal Man]

Andrew,

Based on my own education and professional experience, I have to disagree with this fairly strongly. Almost all translations fluctuate between the two on a continuum, so if this is really a translation we should expect to see both. Do you have any experience with translation or translation theory yourself or are you speaking from assumption?

Regards

Back in the day, I had a fair knowledge of Spanish and was reasonably fluent in Greek. (I served a Greek-speaking mission.) I've done some translating in both languages. These days I'm pretty rusty but I know what constitutes a tight vs. loose translation. I agree that a translator can go back and forth between the two but in the case of the BoM that is an extremely problematic case to make. The first-hand witnesses would have cried foul at any suggestion of loose (idea-based) translation.

[J Green]

Back in the day, I had a fair knowledge of Spanish and was reasonably fluent in Greek. (I served a Greek-speaking mission.) I've done some translating in both languages. These days I'm pretty rusty but I know what constitutes a tight vs. loose translation. I agree that a translator can go back and forth between the two but in the case of the BoM that is an extremely problematic case to make. The first-hand witnesses would have cried foul at any suggestion of loose (idea-based) translation.

How would the witnesses have known the difference? David Whitmer and Hiram Page providing a little quality control with their own seer stones? Oliver looking over Joseph's shoulder like he's trying to help with the crossword?

A mission in Greece sounds like a lot fun. Where did your Spanish come from?

Cheers

[Mortal Man]

Hi Mortal Man, can you provide a brief summary of these two theories and where I could find more details (other discussions / offsite articles)?

Hi SouthBayMC,

Royal Skousen has articulated the theory of tight control.

As for the theory of loose control, I wouldn't say that what's been argued actually constitutes a "theory" but rather an excuse of last resort when no better explanation can be found for an anachronism. Appeals to loose translation come in a wide variety of flavors depending on the type of anachronism. For example, some might argue that when JS encountered an unknown noun for a creature that eats and moves, he might have loosely translated it "horse". These people are apparently not bothered at all by the fact that all 7 instances of the presumably unknown noun "chariot" are closely associated with the "horse" thingy and that both are associated with warfare and the conveyance of important people from one place to another.

Probably the closest thing to an comprehensive theory of loose translation would be Blake Ostler's expansion theory.

[SouthBayMC]

Hi SouthBayMC,

Royal Skousen has articulated the theory of tight control.

As for the theory of loose control, I wouldn't say that what's been argued actually constitutes a "theory" but rather an excuse of last resort when no better explanation can be found for an anachronism. Appeals to loose translation come in a wide variety of flavors depending on the type of anachronism. For example, some might argue that when JS encountered an unknown noun for a creature that eats and moves, he might have loosely translated it "horse". These people are apparently not bothered at all by the fact that all 7 instances of the presumably unknown noun "chariot" are closely associated with the "horse" thingy and that both are associated with warfare and the conveyance of important people from one place to another.

Probably the closest thing to an comprehensive theory of loose translation would be Blake Ostler's expansion theory.

Thank you for the references. I have the 1997 'Book of Mormon Authorship Revisited' on my shelf where the Royal Skousen's article you mention begins on page 61. I also have the 1st two volumes of Blake Ostler's book and have been meaning to read those. The Dialogue Article is difficult to read page by page in the link you sent. Wish there was a way to just print the whole article. There probably is. Need to figure it out.

Your statement that all 7 instances of chariot is closely associated with the horse is interesting. I just looked them up and a straightforward reading of chariot, or Hebrew "riding thing" as Kevin wrote back on post #146, seems to serve a function for the horse. Horse normally pulls Chariot rather than Tapir, Deer, or LLama pulls riding thing. I wonder if Kevin, Brant, J Green, cdowis, or Bill might comment on why we would expect to find bridles and saddles, or hooves, and horse shoes, and neighing, manes and tails, of pulling plows or riding bareback to be apart of the text in addition to the Horse and Chariot association. If the presumed inspired text was meant to contain that type of information wouldn't it have been included? Looking for insight.

Edited September 6, 2011 by SouthBayMC

[Brant Gardner]

Your statement that all 7 instances of chariot is closely associated with the horse is interesting.

Interesting, but inaccurate. There are expected associations in verses from Isaiah, and there is the best association when the story is Ammon and the Lamoni. However, the "association" when the Nephites are creating a scorched earth policy by gathering their goods to a central defense location is simply that they are in lists of things. They are not associated together. Horses appear in that list with other animals, not with goods.

I just looked them up and a straightforward reading of chariot, or Hebrew "riding thing" as Kevin wrote back on post #146, seems to serve a function for the horse.

That is certainly frequent, but not exclusive in Hebrew usage. The point of the argument for the Book of Mormon is that we don't known what chariot means in the Book of Mormon. It is not described.

I wonder if Kevin, Brant, J Green, cdowis, or Bill might comment on why we would expect to find bridles and saddles, or hooves, and horse shoes, and neighing, manes and tails, of pulling plows or riding bareback to be apart of the text in addition to the Horse and Chariot association. If the presumed inspired text was meant to contain that type of information wouldn't it have been included? Looking for insight.

Those things are not necessarily expected. What would be expected is that if there were horses and chariots in the same relationship as understood from the Old Testament, that we should see the impact of both in other descriptions. For example, descriptions of warfare should include the impact of chariots. Chariots were important tactical weapons and when the fighting is in the open, they should have had a major impact on the turn of the battle. We should see horses used with messengers in military situations, or at least the speed of travel mentioned. Horses have had an impact on civilization, and we should see some indication of that impact as the natural description of events unfolds. None of those things occur in the Book of Mormon.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, if you change the names of horse and chariot to some made up word and then tried to find out what it was, you would not be able to decide from the text. You would know that whatever word you used for horse was an animal and whatever word you was a possession (I don't think you would even know it was a conveyance, since it is never described as carrying anything - just being moved). Of course, that isn't the case for the passages from Isaiah, but those are clearly copies of the KJV, so there is no available argument that they must necessarily be the same thing.

[J Green]

Aside from Brant's comments, I'll just point out that there are better candidates of possible loose translations than the word "horse." (Those who consider "horse" a possible case of loan-shifting usually believe it started with Nephi, not Joseph.) Mortal Man simply has an unbridled sense of humor.

[Brant Gardner]

Those who consider "horse" a possible case of loan-shifting usually believe it started with Nephi, not Joseph.

I am the only exception of whomI am aware. I see it occurring in Joseph's translation, not in Nephite cross-labeling--though I do understand that process and know that it is quite common.

Edited September 6, 2011 by Brant Gardner

[Mortal Man]

How would the witnesses have known the difference? David Whitmer and Hiram Page providing a little quality control with their own seer stones? Oliver looking over Joseph's shoulder like he's trying to help with the crossword?

I don't see how any of them could have known for certain what JS actually saw in his hat. They are relating either what Joseph told them or what they imagined was happening. The common feature of their testimonies is emphasis on a pure channel of communication with the Divine. For example, David Whitmer's overly detailed description of the words appearing in the stone is his attempt to drive home the clear direct unambiguous nature of the translation. God does not make mistakes! Likewise, when Emma points out Joseph's ignorance and illiteracy, that's her way of saying the text is direct from God. IOW, JS and OC both functioned as mere scribes, with JS converting written text to oral text and OC doing the reverse.

A mission in Greece sounds like a lot fun.

Actually, it was Melbourne Australia, there were many Greek communities in the city.

Where did your Spanish come from?

School

Aside from Brant's comments, I'll just point out that there are better candidates of possible loose translations than the word "horse." (Those who consider "horse" a possible case of loan-shifting usually believe it started with Nephi, not Joseph.) Mortal Man simply has an unbridled sense of humor.

I just don't want to saddle anyone with unrealistic expectations.

[Mortal Man]

There are expected associations in verses from Isaiah

Yes there are. Nephi would have known, as he copied Isaiah 2:7 into 2 Nephi 12:7, the plain and precious meanings of "horses" and "chariots". Five centuries later, his descendant, having the ability to compare Isaiah 2:7 from the Brass Plates to 2 Nephi 12:7, apparently chose the same Reformed Egyptian words for "horses" and "chariots", as previously used, when he copied Micah 5:10 into 3 Nephi 21:14. How then could the meanings of those words have become lost or associated with something else? Why did the connection between "horses" and "chariots" persist?

Alternatively, why would the Divine Translator display those words on the seer stone, knowing that they meant different things to Americans than they did to the Nephites?

The point of the argument for the Book of Mormon is that we don't known what chariot means in the Book of Mormon. It is not described.

Isaiah, Micah and at least two Nephis all had the same understanding of the word "chariot". Where exactly did the switch take place?

What would be expected is that if there were horses and chariots in the same relationship as understood from the Old Testament, that we should see the impact of both in other descriptions. For example, descriptions of warfare should include the impact of chariots.

Only if JS had extensive knowledge of the role of chariots in ancient warfare. I doubt he did.

Chariots were important tactical weapons and when the fighting is in the open, they should have had a major impact on the turn of the battle. We should see horses used with messengers in military situations, or at least the speed of travel mentioned. Horses have had an impact on civilization, and we should see some indication of that impact as the natural description of events unfolds. None of those things occur in the Book of Mormon.

That's a lot to ask of young Joseph. The story was already pretty complicated and he didn't have as much time as Tolkien.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, if you change the names of horse and chariot to some made up word and then tried to find out what it was, you would not be able to decide from the text. You would know that whatever word you used for horse was an animal and whatever word you was a possession (I don't think you would even know it was a conveyance, since it is never described as carrying anything - just being moved). Of course, that isn't the case for the passages from Isaiah, but those are clearly copies of the KJV, so there is no available argument that they must necessarily be the same thing.

And they said unto him: Behold, he is feeding thy horses. Now the king had commanded his servants, previous to the time of the watering of their flocks, that they should prepare his horses and chariots, and conduct him forth to the land of Nephi; for there had been a great feast appointed at the land of Nephi, by the father of Lamoni, who was king over all the land.

Seems pretty straightforward to me.

[LeSellers]

Yes there are. Nephi would have known, as he copied Isaiah 2:7 into 2 Nephi 12:7, the plain and precious meanings of "horses" and "chariots". Five centuries later, his descendant, having the ability to compare Isaiah 2:7 from the Brass Plates to 2 Nephi 12:7, apparently chose the same Reformed Egyptian words for "horses" and "chariots", as previously used, when he copied Micah 5:10 into 3 Nephi 21:14

There were no "Reformed Egyptian" words on the Brass or the golden Plates.

The characters were "reformed Egyptian", not the words; the words were (Nephite) Hebrew. This is a distniction with a huge difference. It's not subtle.

Lehi