Response To Dr. Michael Coe

[Bill Hamblin]

Technically speaking, what Royal Skousen shows is that there is tight control between what Joseph said and what was written by the scribes (a tough thing to do if he is making it all up on the spot.) It does not, however, necessarily demonstrate anything about a loose or tight relationship between what Joseph says and what is written on the plates. Even words appearing in a stone does not tell us if the words that appeared represent a loose or tight relationship to the text on the plates. Since we do not have the original (and probably couldn't read it if we did), there is no way to evaluate a comparison. All suggestions are speculation. Furthermore, there is no reason to think that a translation might be very literal in some places in the BOM and much more evocative and nuanced in others.

[Bill Hamblin]

If you were to say merkavah to a modern Israeli you would evoke three possible ideas in the mind of the listener.

1- an ancient military vehicle or chariot

2- the modern IDF tank

3- the miraculous throne of God described in Ezek 1

This, of course, raises all sorts of problems for potential translators. The proper meaning and translation of merkavah can only be established by the context of its use.

Edited September 6, 2011 by Bill Hamblin

[Mortal Man]

BTW, Micah 5:8-15 (appearing in 3 Nephi 21:12-18,21 and coincidentally terminating at the end of the KJV chapter) is post exilic (p. 21).

Edited September 6, 2011 by Mortal Man

[Chris Smith]

One thing that bothers me about this debate is that the dichotomization of "critics" and "apologists" often means that the integrity of different production theories isn't maintained. Critics feel free to represent the text as recited from memory, invented off-the-cuff, or read from a written manuscript as each is convenient for their argument, and, similarly, believers feel free to appeal to tight or loose translation as convenient for their argument. If we're serious about finding out where the Book of Mormon came from, we have to weigh each theory against each of the others, not just compare the sets of theories found in each ideological camp.

[Chris Smith]

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.

That's one interpretation.

[Bill Hamblin]

One thing that bothers me about this debate is that the dichotomization of "critics" and "apologists" often means that the integrity of different production theories isn't maintained. Critics feel free to represent the text as recited from memory, invented off-the-cuff, or read from a written manuscript as each is convenient for their argument, and, similarly, believers feel free to appeal to tight or loose translation as convenient for their argument. If we're serious about finding out where the Book of Mormon came from, we have to weigh each theory against each of the others, not just compare the sets of theories found in each ideological camp.

True. But "tight" and "loose" are concepts on a spectrum, not either/or absolutes. (In reality it is impossible to ever do a completely literal and tight translation of any text.) Furthermore there is no reason to believe that the BOM might not represent a tight translation on some passages, and a loose translation on other passages. For example, theological concepts might be modernized to make sense to an early 19C reader, and hence be considered "loose" while passages about the journey through Arabia, for example, might be much more "tight". These are not incompatible concepts. On the other hand, memorization vs. on the spot invention vs. reading from a prepared English text of some sort are essentially incompatible models

[Bill Hamblin]

One thing that bothers me about this debate is that the dichotomization of "critics" and "apologists" often means that the integrity of different production theories isn't maintained. Critics feel free to represent the text as recited from memory, invented off-the-cuff, or read from a written manuscript as each is convenient for their argument, and, similarly, believers feel free to appeal to tight or loose translation as convenient for their argument. If we're serious about finding out where the Book of Mormon came from, we have to weigh each theory against each of the others, not just compare the sets of theories found in each ideological camp.

True. But "tight" and "loose" are concepts on a spectrum, not either/or absolutes. (In reality it is impossible to ever do a completely literal and tight translation of any text.) Furthermore there is no reason to believe that the BOM might not represent a tight translation on some passages, and a loose translation on other passages. For example, theological concepts might be modernized to make sense to an early 19C reader, and hence be considered "loose" while passages about the journey through Arabia, for example, might be much more "tight". These are not incompatible concepts. On the other hand, memorization vs. on the spot invention vs. reading from a prepared English text of some sort are essentially incompatible models

[Brant Gardner]

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?

I can't think of any reason that they should. You are dealing with theories of translation here, and apparently assuming one to which I do not subscribe. I can't argue someone else's idea with which I disagree. Unfortunately, this would be my response to the rest of your issues. You are arguing with someone else's ideas, not mine.

Seems pretty straightforward to me.

Not to me. Darn it, now we have competing interpretations. How did that happen?

[Chris Smith]

Actually, Bill, it's just as easy for the critics to mix and match for the apologists. Some parts could be memorized, others made up on the spot, and others copied from the KJV. But I think for the sake of parsimony, we should avoid this sort of mixing and matching as much as possible. I also think that if we feel we must mix and match, we should at least explain why multiple methods were used and offer some sort of criteria to sort one method from the other.

[Brant Gardner]

Actually, Bill, it's just as easy for the critics to mix and match for the apologists. Some parts could be memorized, others made up on the spot, and others copied from the KJV. But I think for the sake of parsimony, we should avoid this sort of mixing and matching as much as possible. I also think that if we feel we must mix and match, we should at least explain why multiple methods were used and offer some sort of criteria to sort one method from the other.

I tend to agree. The worst of the "all methods at any time" explanation for the translation is that it doesn't allow for much rigor in the discussion. It is too easy to use a different method to support a different idea, simply because we like the idea (and, as you noted, apologists and critics are equally susceptible to such favoring of evidence). For your information, my personal conclusion is that the majority of the text is a functional equivalence (not literal, but still connected to the text rather than a purely conceptual rendition). I do see both places where there are literal and conceptual translations, but I offer specific triggers for why they occur in those specific instances rather than the more common method. I expect that there may be other locations that will also be refined in the way they are considered, but that it should similarly require specific support.

Of course, that is just me and I am certainly not in the majority on this one.

[Bill Hamblin]

I tend to agree. The worst of the "all methods at any time" explanation for the translation is that it doesn't allow for much rigor in the discussion. It is too easy to use a different method to support a different idea, simply because we like the idea (and, as you noted, apologists and critics are equally susceptible to such favoring of evidence). For your information, my personal conclusion is that the majority of the text is a functional equivalence (not literal, but still connected to the text rather than a purely conceptual rendition). I do see both places where there are literal and conceptual translations, but I offer specific triggers for why they occur in those specific instances rather than the more common method. I expect that there may be other locations that will also be refined in the way they are considered, but that it should similarly require specific support.

Of course, that is just me and I am certainly not in the majority on this one.

I basically agree. The problem, however, is that in the absence of an original text, we are basically speculating, and should do it as little as possible. The fact of the matter is, we don't, and can't know what the relationship of the original to the translation is.

[Bill Hamblin]

Drat!

Edited September 6, 2011 by Bill Hamblin

[Brant Gardner]

I basically agree. The problem, however, is that in the absence of an original text, we are basically speculating, and should do it as little as possible. The fact of the matter is, we don't, and can't know what the relationship of the original to the translation is.

Of course you are absolutely correct that we can't know the relationship, and that anything is a guess. However, little problems like having to speculate have never stopped me before!

[Bill Hamblin]

Of course you are absolutely correct that we can't know the relationship, and that anything is a guess. However, little problems like having to speculate have never stopped me before!

One other thing I can say is that from my experiences translating texts from several ancient languages is that it is in fact absolutely necessary to vary your translating strategies in order to make sense of the text in a new language. That is why I assume that there were multiple translating strategies and a range of techniques from tight to loose used in the BOM. I don't see how it could be otherwise. Thus, although we don't know which specific passage may be tight or loose, I think we can know that there was a range of strategies used.

[Bill Hamblin]

D'oh!

Edited September 6, 2011 by Bill Hamblin

[Dan Vogel]

Brant,

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).

This is certainly a different approach that I’ll have to look at closer. However, as with the B H Roberts version, I have a hard time imagining what underlying text could trigger anachronistic use of the Bible—the longer the passage, the more it strains any definition of translation.

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.

But words are supposed to create an economy of language and unnecessary description. However, there is nothing to add to “horse” that couldn’t be slipped out of just as you do for the word “chariot”. There is no better way of conveying the concept of horse than to use the word “horse”.

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

I meant, of course, that he didn’t consider in his essay the OT influence on the BOM’s description of theocratic government and kings and judges. He was more focused on the simplistic claims of O’dea and Campbell about Americanisms and republican government.

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.

I’m not sure how unlike the BOM is to the American system of judges or how similar it is to the Mesoamerican system of higher and lower judges you mention, but how would this relate the BOM even if true? I suspect you are referring to a post-colonial period and using your “down-stream up-stream” method and projecting back to pre-classic Maya, whom you can’t link to the Nephites. But I’ll have to read what you have written on this before I make up my mind.

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.

It has nothing to do with my brilliance—the situation demands it. Either the BOM is history or its fiction made up by JS. My position is falsifiable the minute the BOM makes a direct connection to ancient America, or a highly probable case can be made.

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.

Sounds reasonable. As a believer, I think you give the text the benefit of the doubt, but non-believers are not motivated to do that. I just told you how my theory can be falsified, I think it’s difficult to falsify yours, especially since you have this nifty translation theory.

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.

I said: “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.” My point was correlations haven’t yet made BOM historicity probable. If that day ever comes, then I will doubt the strength of the anachronisms. Meanwhile, they stand with the other troubling aspects of the book.

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.

Motives? Hardly! I’m only describing your argument.

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.

Yes they can, because we have experience of such things—and they usually happen when historicity is questionable for other reasons.

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.

I would say the only way to make anachronisms go away is to more firmly establish historicity, and to the degree that you are successful in that endeavor will reflect directly on how anachronisms are viewed.

[kolipoki09]

For your information, my personal conclusion is that the majority of the text is a functional equivalence (not literal, but still connected to the text rather than a purely conceptual rendition). I do see both places where there are literal and conceptual translations, but I offer specific triggers for why they occur in those specific instances rather than the more common method.

In my own work in foreign languages, I tend to alternate from a close, literal translation (i.e. "Yodaspeak" for Latin), to a looser, more poetic structure (if I can get away with it and still reflect the original meaning).

Of course, myself and several others on this board are repetitively told by Rob Bowman that this simply can't be the case, because we're an attempting to have our "inspired" cake and eat it too.

[volgadon]

I tend to alternate from a close, literal translation (i.e. "Yodaspeak" for Latin),

Yodaspeak makes sense as Russian grammar and syntax BTW.