An Argument Against The If/And Conditional As Evidence Of Translation

[Olavarria]

Much has been made of the if/and conditionals that are in the original manuscripts or printer's manuscripts of the Book of Mormon. Are they Hebraisms? Yes. Are they evidence of translation? Maybe not.

I'm reading Bountiful Harvest and Kent Jackson has a paper , where he shows that the if/and was used in the original manuscript of Moses 6:52. The interesting thing to me, is that unlike the Book of Mormon the text being translated is not ancient but rather the King James Version of the Holy Bible. Joseph is translating an English text into English. One might argue that The Book of Moses is the original of Genesis. But Joseph himself says that this isn't the case. When speaking about the original of Genesis:

I shall comment on the very first Hebrew word in the Bible, Berosheit. I want to analyze the word; baith--in, by, through, and everything else. Rosh--the head. Sheit--grammatical termination. When the inspired man wrote it, he did not put the baith there. A man, a Jew without any authority, thought it too bad to begin to talk about the head. It read first, "The head one of the Gods brought forth the Gods"; that is the true meaning of the words. Baurau signifies to bring forth.

The BoMoses is not the translation of the original of Genesis. What it is? The Book of Moses describes itself as:

The words of God, which he ^aspake unto Moses at a time when Moses was caught up into an exceedingly high mountain,

So, for me, it seems that the BoMoses is a MODERN expansion of the KJV, a modern rendition of an ancient event. If modern then so are the contents, that includes the if/and conditional.

What do you all think?

Edited April 29, 2012 by Olavarria

[volgadon]

Much has been made of the if/and conditionals that are in the original manuscripts or printer's manuscripts of the Book of Mormon. Are they Hebraisms? Yes. Are they evidence of translation? Maybe not.

I'm reading Bountiful Harvest and Kent Jackson has a paper , where he shows that the if/and was used in the original manuscript of Moses 6:52. The interesting thing to me, is that unlike the Book of Mormon the text being translated is not ancient but rather the King James Version of the Holy Bible. Joseph is translating an English text into English. One might argue that The Book of Moses is the original of Genesis. But Joseph himself says that this isn't the case. When speaking about the original of Genesis:

The BoMoses is not the translation of the original of Genesis. What it is? The Book of Moses describes itself as:

So, for me, it seems that the BoMoses is a MODERN expansion of the KJV. If modern then so are the contents, that includes the if/and conditional.

What do you all think?

That is certainly a possibility, Nack I think has posted along those lines, but it could also be an ancient alternative of the Creation, etc...

[Log]

Too many assumptions.

Joseph translated the Book of Moses. His catalyst, or whatever, was the KJV. What he produced was not a translation of the KJV, but a lost Book of Moses, which Moses supposedly wrote by his own hand. Moses undoubtedly spoke and wrote in some variant of a Semitic language whilst alive. If the text of the Book of Moses is a translation of a real text that Moses wrote at any point in time in his life, it stands to reason Joseph would be as literal in its production as he apparently was with the Book of Mormon. Therefore, the if-and conditional is not out of place. The text is not a modern expansion of the KJV on its face. I cannot see where the argument of the OP has any traction.

Edited April 29, 2012 by Log

[Olavarria]

Too many assumptions.

What would Moses be if not a translation? Joseph certainly wasn't writing fiction.

Joseph isn't writing fiction. The Book of Moses is a true history, an account of an actual event. But it isn't a translation in the conventional sense of the word. It's the "translation" of the KJV.

Joseph himself tells us how the original of Genesis read. So if the BoMoses isn't the original of Genesis then what is it? Answer: a modern work, divinely inspired, historically accurate but modern nonetheless.

What does everyone else think?

Edited April 29, 2012 by Olavarria

[Log]

I have revised the post you cited to clarify my concerns.

Edited April 29, 2012 by Log

[Olavarria]

In contradiction to my OP, this occurrence of if/and in Moses occurred AFTER the translation of the BoM. So, one could always say Joseph accessed it from the BoM.

[Log]

One could say a great many things. Post hoc ergo propter hoc, however, does not necessarily a sound argument create.

[mfbukowski]

Nevermind

Edited April 29, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Log]

Yes, MFB, I understand your point - it could all just be poor grammar; Joseph was unlearned, after all, just like your hero plumber. However the if-and conditionals appear, so far as I am aware, solely in those writings of Joseph wherein he was the translator / revelator of ancient Middle-Eastern works, and not in his personal writings.

Therefore, if Olavarria wants to eliminate the if-and conditional as evidence for the translation of ancient Middle-Eastern documents, he's got to show Joseph used it in some other context.

Edited April 29, 2012 by Log

[Xander]

Joseph translated the Book of Moses. His catalyst, or whatever, was the KJV. What he produced was not a translation of the KJV, but a lost Book of Moses, which Moses supposedly wrote by his own hand. Moses undoubtedly spoke and wrote in some variant of a Semitic language whilst alive. If the text of the Book of Moses is a translation of a real text that Moses wrote at any point in time in his life, it stands to reason Joseph would be as literal in its production as he apparently was with the Book of Mormon. Therefore, the if-and conditional is not out of place. The text is not a modern expansion of the KJV on its face. I cannot see where the argument of the OP has any traction.

I don't understand your reasoning. The Book of Moses was not translated from a preexisting Hebrew text so there is no reason to expect Hebraisms. There are an endless supply of quirky things that differ between languages, things that make sense in one language but make no sense in another. For example, double-negatives are normal in Portuguese but when used in English, you get not only a differnt meaning, but a completely opposite one. (i.e. "I didn't do nothing" means I actually did do something). So if Joseph Smith wasn't translating a Hebrew document word for word when producing the Book of Moses, then there is no reason to expect this "Hebraism" to slip through the cracks.

For that matter, the evidence of if/and in the Book of Mormon rests on a number of assumptions just the same. Royal Skousen has argued for tight-control of the translation process. His use of the if/and conditional later in his article actually runs contrary to what he had previously showed regarding a tighty controlled translation. Why on earth would God provide a literal word for word translation in a sequence of 20 straight words, when literal word for word translations, without exception, make absolutely no sense? The best way to understand this is by trying out Google Translator. Take a text from a foreign website and try translating it to English. You get all sorts of screwed up phrases that make no sense. I get these translated texts sent to me from friends in Brasil all of the time, and the only reason I can make sense of them is because I speak Portuguese and understand how to rearrange the sentence structure in a way that makes sense to Portuguese speakers. For example, when almost all of their letters start out by calling me "face," I understand that the word "cara" (literally "face") is just an idiom in Portuguese that means "Hey man." When they say the "house yellow," I know they mean the "yellow house," because I understand that in Portuguese the adjective comes after the subject.

But the point is if this is how God did it, then we'd expect these kinds of phenomena in virtually every sentence. Either that is how God did it or it isn't. You can't have it both ways and say he only did this in these anomalous instances where a Hebraism might be inferred.

And it makes more sense that God would provide the best translation possible in the language of the person dictating the translation. Professional translators never translate word for word. They always absorb an entire sentence before speaking because it is important to know how to make the necessary conversions to produce a coherent translation. Skousen said there is evidence that Joseph Smith would read off as many as twenty words at a time, which would be perfectly consistent with how translations are generally done. But in so doing, you don't get the kind of mistakes the apologists have to assume took place for a "Hebraism" like this to slip through the cracks. This would be like me listening to the Portuguese phrase, "me da um beijo" and then translating it to mean "me give one kiss," when I know perfectly well that makes no sense in English. The proper translation would be "Give me a kiss."

This so-called Hebraism is an anomaly that could only be interpreted as a Hebraism by someone who was actively seeking Hebraisms in the text for apologetic purposes.

[Log]

The Book of Moses was not translated from a preexisting Hebrew text so there is no reason to expect Hebraisms.

That, unfortunately, is known as petitio principii. Whether he was translating (from) a preexisting Hebrew text is precisely the point at issue.

If you wish to break the if-and conditionals as evidence for the translation or revelation of ancient Middle-Eastern texts, you must again show Joseph employed them in contexts that did not involve translating or revealing ancient Middle-Eastern texts.

Nothing else suffices, or is even relevant.

Edited April 29, 2012 by Log

[Xander]

That, unfortunately, is known as petitio principii. Whether he was translating (from) a preexisting Hebrew text is precisely the point at issue.

Not at all. The question is asked and answered, not begged. We know for a fact that Joseph Smith wasn't translating from a Hebrew text when producing the Book of Moses. He never claimed he was, and there is no evidence that such a document ever existed.

If you wish to break the if-and conditionals as evidence for the translation or revelation of ancient Middle-Eastern texts, you must again show Joseph employed them in contexts that did not involve translating or revealing ancient Middle-Eastern texts.

Nonsense.

I've already shown that the if/and argument is incoherent on its face and makes absolutely no sense in light of what we know about how translations work and the process by which the Book of Mormon was produced. You want to just take for granted a false dilemma, supposing that either 1) Joseph Smith produced a Hebraism via divine revelation or 2) that this had to be the result of Joseph Smith employing his back-woods ignorance of the English language. You argue that if #2 cannot be proven using other examples in Joseph Smith's writings (and to be clear, there very well might be; after all, how much of his daily journal writings are written in King James English?), then it remains to be evidence that #1 is true.

But why must it be either or? Why couldn't it have been a simple mistake that got overlooked? This is entirely possible given Skousen's rejection of the Iron-clad theory. This mistake could have come from either Cowdery or Smith. Or why couldn't it have been another example of Joseph Smith using awkward grammar intentionally to give his proposed scriptures that alien (ancient?) feel? After all, there was really no necessity for translating modern scriptures using King James English, right? He was cognizant of what he was purporting to produce.

As I explained, if this were a legitimate Hebraism then it was from a word for word translation, and if it was a word for word translation, then we'd expect the same kinds of problems to be found all over the original manuscript. This would be true with any other language much closer to English (i.e. German), so how much more would the problems be found with an ancient Semitic language? You can't just pick and choose which portions of the text you want to have been translated one way, and then pick portions you want to have been translated another way. This is what the folks at FARMS have done.

Nothing else suffices, or is even relevant.

Says who? Frankly I'm stunned that any multi-lingual person with experience in translations, as those working for Maxwell Institute, would forward such a silly argument.

Edited April 29, 2012 by Xander

[Log]

Not at all. The question is asked and answered, not begged. We know for a fact that Joseph Smith wasn't translating from a Hebrew text when producing the Book of Moses. He never claimed he was, and there is no evidence that such a document ever existed.

That Joseph was not translating from a physical Hebrew text, as he said and as we admit, is not evidence that he did not produce a translation of a perhaps once existing Hebrew (or related language) text (which is our claim). Thus, you have indeed begged the question of whether he translated a Hebrew text by asserting that he did not; the translation itself is evidence that the document existed.

I've already shown that the if/and argument is incoherent on its face and makes absolutely no sense in light of what we know about how translations work and the process by which the Book of Mormon was produced.

The mere assertion is not an argument.

As I explained, if this were a legitimate Hebraism then it was from a word for word translation, and if it was a word for word translation, then we'd expect the same kinds of problems to be found all over the original manuscript.

It is unclear that this is necessarily the case - that for each translation containing a legitimate Hebraism, that translation was completely word-for-word - and the mere assertion that it is necessarily the case is not a cogent argument. Indeed, it appears your assertion is false.

Once again - to eliminate the if-and conditionals as evidence of translation of ancient Middle-Eastern documents, you must show Joseph used them in contexts other than translation of ancient Middle-Eastern documents.

It is passing strange that such a simple thing - find any example of the if-and conditional in Joseph's writings other than his translations or revelations of ancient accounts - seems so hard to do. After all, if he was making it all up, you'd expect the same grammatical errors, if such they be, to be found throughout his writings. And yet, no example is forthcoming.

Edited April 29, 2012 by Log

[Brant Gardner]

. . .it stands to reason Joseph would be as literal in its production as he apparently was with the Book of Mormon.

Your assumption does not fit with the evidence available for the JST or for the Book of Mormon. Based on other data, I think he JST information on the if/and conditional should put this one to bed. I would love for it to be true, but it isn't.

Once again - to eliminate the if-and conditionals as evidence of translation of ancient Middle-Eastern documents, you must show Joseph used them in contexts other than translation of ancient Middle-Eastern documents.

I have found one. There are, perhaps understandably, few documents directly from Joseph prior to the time when he had someone watching out for his grammar. More telling, however, is that the if/and conditional occurs in less that a third of the conditional sentences that might produced it. Because the argument requires very tight control over two small words in order to be a valid representation of the underlying text, the inconsistent presence of the construction provides the contradiction to the assumption. There was no tight control over the conditional construction, therefore there was no tight control that would have generated the if/and construction. The data from the JST clearly indicate that Joseph did not use a tight control process. There is evidence of a passage that he translated twice, and the two are not identical.

One might argue this question from assumption, but the data do not support the use of the if/and condition as a representation of an underlying Hebrew text.

I did find, however, that there is a less than random connection between the onomasticon and an underlying Old World language. The process of translating names differs from that of translating other types of information and I believe that allowed for their preservation when there is no other evidence for a tight translation.

It is passing strange that such a simple thing - find any example of the if-and conditional in Joseph's writings other than his translations or revelations of ancient accounts - seems so hard to do. After all, if he was making it all up, you'd expect the same grammatical errors, if such they be, to be found throughout his writings. And yet, no example is forthcoming.

Much of what Joseph "wrote" after the formation of the church comes from the hands of scribes. There is no way to discover whether or not they corrected his grammar. In any case, the process of the corrections Joseph made to the Book of Mormon (beginning with the 1837 edition) indicate that he had become more aware of grammar and was attempting to improve his usage. Some of the cleanup in 1837 was to correct a few grammatical issues from the 1830 edition. That is particularly interesting since when the 1830 edition was being typeset Joseph specifically indicated that it should be typeset as written. He had been told that it was ungrammatical and replied that the Old Testament was ungrammatical and that it should be typeset as written.

However you take that comment from Joseph, I'm glad he did. Skousen couldn't have done what he did in reconstructing the dictated text had he been unable to know who had actually been behind the words printed.

Edited April 29, 2012 by Brant Gardner

[Olavarria]

Yes, MFB, I understand your point - it could all just be poor grammar; Joseph was unlearned, after all, just like your hero plumber. However the if-and conditionals appear, so far as I am aware, solely in those writings of Joseph wherein he was the translator / revelator of ancient Middle-Eastern works, and not in his personal writings.

Therefore, if Olavarria wants to eliminate the if-and conditional as evidence for the translation of ancient Middle-Eastern documents, he's got to show Joseph used it in some other context.

I think I just did. Moses 6:52 is not the translation of an ancient text and yet it is used by Joseph.

[Log]

Your assumption does not fit with the evidence available for the JST or for the Book of Mormon.

How?

I have found one.

Where?

More telling, however, is that the if/and conditional occurs in less that a third of the conditional sentences that might produced it. Because the argument requires very tight control over two small words in order to be a valid representation of the underlying text, the inconsistent presence of the construction provides the contradiction to the assumption.

I want to be sure I am understanding your argument here. Are you claiming that "If the if-and conditional were an authentic Hebraism, it would always occur whenever the words represented were translated, given a tight control schemata"? How does that necessarily follow, and how is that any different from Kevin Graham's position that Hebraisms in translated material require the translation to be completely word-for-word, which is demonstrably false, and who said anything - at all - about a "tight control" schemata? I merely said it stands to reason Joseph would be as literal in his translation of Moses as he was in the Book of Mormon.

You appear to be making many unwarranted assumptions.

There was no tight control over the conditional construction, therefore there was no tight control that would have generated the if/and construction. The data from the JST clearly indicate that Joseph did not use a tight control process. There is evidence of a passage that he translated twice, and the two are not identical.

It has yet to be established that any of that is even relevant.

Edited April 29, 2012 by Log

[Log]

Moses 6:52 is not the translation of an ancient text and yet it is used by Joseph.

The text itself claims to be the translation of an ancient text - Moses 1:40-41. To assert otherwise is petitio principii.

Edited April 29, 2012 by Log

[Olavarria]

The text itself claims to be the translation of an ancient text - Moses 1:40-41. To assert otherwise is petitio principii.

Hmmm.

[Xander]

That Joseph was not translating from a physical Hebrew text, as he said and as we admit, is not evidence that he did not produce a translation of a perhaps once existing Hebrew (or related language) text (which is our claim). Thus, you have indeed begged the question of whether he translated a Hebrew text by asserting that he did not; the translation itself is evidence that the document existed.

Wrong. The question is immediately begged when you claim something for which there is absolutely no evidence. There is no reason to even entertain this "possibility" aside from trying to legitimize the if/and argument in some convoluted way. Joseph Smith never claimed he was translating a Hebrew text, or even a narrative based on a Hebrew text. As recent apologists have argued, the Book of Moses is evidence that he had a completely different concept of "translation" since it wasn't based on a Hebrew text. Accordingly, he was interested in "translating" in the sense that he was transferring truth from one time period to another. Whether this was based on some previous text called the "Book of Moses" is just an irrelevant assumption that begs the question.

The mere assertion is not an argument.

Agreed, and yet you continue to do this. I, on the other hand, have done far more than "merely assert." I explained in detail how the argument is incoherent based on what we know about how valid translations work. You seem to know nothing about how translations work - no offense intended - and so you have avoided these points pertaining to this.

It is unclear that this is necessarily the case

It is clear to anyone who understands how to properly translate. You must assume that God was in the business of providing really bad translations to his prophet. You can't say it was Joseph Smith's fallibility as a human that led to the error.

I deal with translations on a daily basis, and I have to deal with my wife mangling the English language because she cannot seem to get away from forming sentences the way a native Portuguese speaker would. The only way Joseph Smith could have made such an error was if he were thinking as an ancient Nephite, whose native tongue was "Reformed Egyptian." Otherwise, you're left with God as the culprit, who presumably placed the wrong word in the seer stone when these verses were translated. You see the FARMS scholars only address this in so far as they think it can be used to draw a connection with ancient Hebrew and the BoM, but they never really take it to its logical end in the context of properly understanding how these translation errors are committed.

that for each translation containing a legitimate Hebraism, that translation was completely word-for-word - and the mere assertion that it is necessarily the case is not a cogent argument. Indeed, it appears your assertion is false.

As I said, in order to confuse the word "then" for "and" (which is what the apologetic argument requires) you would have to be dealing with an error found only in a word for word translations. And calling my thorough critique a "mere assertion" doesn't make it so. You haven't even begun to deal with my argument which is based on Skousen's analysis and the nature of translation errors such as these.

Once again - to eliminate the if-and conditionals as evidence of translation of ancient Middle-Eastern documents, you must show Joseph used them in contexts other than translation of ancient Middle-Eastern documents.

You just ignored everything I said about this false dilemma you created. Do you really not see how you're allowing for only two possibilities here? I have already explained that this context (translating scripture)is the only context that matters since he was probably trying to make the sentence sound foreign in some sense. Why would he use such awkward sentence structure in every day conversation or in his daily journals? Did he speak in King James English on a daily basis as well? No, which is proof positive that he was intentionally trying to give his purported scriptures a different "feel."

The fact that the same phenomenon appears in the Book of Moses is pretty much the coffin nail against the apologetic argument, because what are the chances that this same exact "Hebraism" would accidentally slip through God's divine translation process, in two completely different translation projects, both of which dealt with two different languages (the former was "Reformed Egyptian" and the latter is claimed to have been "Hebrew")? You don't see any question begging here at all? SERIOUSLY?

It is passing strange that such a simple thing - find any example of the if-and conditional in Joseph's writings other than his translations or revelations of ancient accounts - seems so hard to do. After all, if he was making it all up, you'd expect the same grammatical errors, if such they be, to be found throughout his writings. And yet, no example is forthcoming.

OK. so you did ignore everything I said on this point. You keep repeating this same straw man, insisting the only other possibility was that this was just how Joseph Smith spoke on a daily basis and he injected his back-woods lingo into the text. Apologetically convenient, but I'm not letting you get away with it as if it is what I've argued.

[Xander]

I think I just did. Moses 6:52 is not the translation of an ancient text and yet it is used by Joseph.

Somehow, in Log's world, he is not obligated to prove otherwise. He can assert whatever he wants and then he expects it to be taken for granted until someone proves the opposite. Weird.

[Log]

Kevin,

I know by having watched your behavior in like arguments with others that you shall, by incessantly asserting and repeating your assertions, combined eventually with accusations and belittling, wear me down until I cease interacting with you on this topic. You are incorrigibly antagonistic on this and other like topics and, frankly, I don't care about appearing to win. It is sufficient to know that I have, in fact, got a cogent position that as yet has not been undermined. Therefore, you may have the final, and post-ultimate words on the subject.

Edited April 29, 2012 by Log

[Pahoran]

Much has been made of the if/and conditionals that are in the original manuscripts or printer's manuscripts of the Book of Mormon. Are they Hebraisms? Yes. Are they evidence of translation? Maybe not.

I'm reading Bountiful Harvest and Kent Jackson has a paper , where he shows that the if/and was used in the original manuscript of Moses 6:52.

Let's begin with that then, shall we?

What does Jackson tell us about this verse?

Thanks,

Pahoran

[Xander]

Kevin,

I know by having watched your behavior in like arguments with others that you shall, by incessantly asserting and repeating your assertions, combined eventually with accusations and belittling, wear me down until I cease interacting with you on this topic. You are incorrigibly antagonistic on this and other like topics and, frankly, I don't care about appearing to win. It is sufficient to know that I have, in fact, got a cogent position that as yet has not been undermined. Therefore, you may have the final, and post-ultimate words on the subject.

This isn't personal unless you want to make it so. Nor is it about appearing to win. It is about you asserting, contrary to the evidence, that I've done nothing but assert. I think I have made perfectly clear my detailed argument, much of which you've failed to address. How in the world have I "belittled" you? By pointing out that you do not understand how translations work? Sorry, but it wasn't intended as a knock against you personally, only against your understanding of how translations work. Until you have this understanding, you're really in no position to judge an argument based on translations, including this one.

And twice now you have ignored the fact that you keep presenting a false dilemma.

[mfbukowski]

Kevin,

I know by having watched your behavior in like arguments with others that you shall, by incessantly asserting and repeating your assertions, combined eventually with accusations and belittling, wear me down until I cease interacting with you on this topic. You are incorrigibly antagonistic on this and other like topics and, frankly, I don't care about appearing to win. It is sufficient to know that I have, in fact, got a cogent position that as yet has not been undermined. Therefore, you may have the final, and post-ultimate words on the subject.

[Xander]

When you cannot address the points, complain that you're victim of antagonism.

Par for the course.