Recovering The Original Text Of The Book Of Mormon

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

I just finished Gardner's book the other day, and I really, really recommend it as well. I actually feel a little spoiled, since the very first analysis of the translation issues I ever read was Orson Scott Card's Joseph Smith: Reader or Translator?, which advances an argument pretty similar to Gardner's (who cites him approvingly) and which shaped my view of the Book of Mormon right from the start. But Gardner does a tremendous job expanding on the themes I first encountered in Card -- I particularly appreciated his breakdown of the "folk-magic" stuff (which has simply never bothered me, but has been a stumbling block for some), as well as the cognitive science he introduced in later chapters, even going so far as to reference Terrence Deacon, who's been a favorite of mine and who I've linked to on this board in the past.

Edited July 3, 2012 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[William Schryver]

Will, any idea if Skousen is planning on publishing a response to Gardner's criticisms of his theories, and what an ETA would be?

Lots of other things are on the agenda, but I will confess that we talked about some of Gardner's propositions and potential responses to them. I'm rather certain that any response, no matter its ETA, would touch upon the fact that Skousen's "interpretive conclusions" are founded upon very specific text-critical evidence. I have not seen that the text-critical evidence has been satisfactorily addressed by Gardner.

[Robert F. Smith]

If you remember could you clarify please:

Did he include Joseph in those who erred transmitting the text?

He didn't say, but I assume so.

Roman Catholics who worked for BYU?

Yes, three of them, which Skousen appreciated since they were unlikely to want to filch frags as keepsakes. BYU has had non-Mormons working for it, as well as non-Mormons attending for many years -- including Jewish teachers and students (I have spoken with both), and I knew one RLDS student who got his masters degree at BYU.

What are the nonO MS frags from?

They turned out to be statements unrelated to the Book of Mormon, but placed in the cornerstone as part of the time-capsule.

[Robert F. Smith]

Quote

Book of Mormon is in early modern English

Any conclusions what this implies?

Quote

Skousen thinks this a sign from God.

How so?

Quote

One reading even from the Coverdale Bible of 1530s.

Did he identify any other reading 'sources'?

This very archaic material is somewhat surprising since (according to Skousen) it wasn't part of the English language at the time Joseph did his work. Skousen's dating of it is based on the meanings contained in the great Oxford English Dictionary (OED). The suggestion by Skousen is that this is God's way of affirming the authenticity of the translation, but he was not explicit to that effect.

[Calm]

Dan Peterson has thrown out a couple of ideas, it is fun to speculate about. Thanks for the additional info.

[William Schryver]

If you remember could you clarify please:

Did he include Joseph in those who erred transmitting the text?

If you think about it for a moment, you will realize that there is no way of ascertaining, via the field of text criticism, whether or not Joseph himself erred, since he is the origin of the text, and he was seeing it alone and dictating it. The scribe produces the first actual text that can then be analyzed.

That said, in relation to his arguments against the notion of an "iron-clad" translation, he has identified instances where it is clear that the process of translation was permitted to continue even though there was a definite error in the original manuscript. But even those errors are scribal in nature.

Roman Catholics who worked for BYU?

Yes, and it was fascinating to see, via photographs, the manner by which they went about resurrecting a page of text from a wadded up clump of extraordinarily fragile 170-year-old paper.

Edited July 5, 2012 by William Schryver

[William Schryver]

I do believe that Joseph made errors while dictating. I think it is likely the grammar errors are his. One might say, "How, if he is dictating a divinely translated text that he is reading, could he make grammar errors?" To which I would reply, "You must have never heard people read passages of scripture in Sunday School."

I never cease to be amazed at how people can, in the process of dictating a written text they are reading, completely transform that text in many instances by introducing their own grammatical idiosyncrasies into it. They see one thing, but read out loud another thing altogether.

Edited July 5, 2012 by William Schryver

[Robert F. Smith]

I do believe that Joseph made errors while dictating. I think it is likely the grammar errors are his. One might say, "How, if he is dictating a divinely translated text that he is reading, could he make grammar errors?" To which I would reply, "You must have never heard people read passages of scripture in Sunday School."

I never cease to be amazed at how people can, in the process of dictating a written text they are reading, completely transform that text in many instances by introducing their own grammatical idiosyncrasies into it. They see one thing, but read out loud another thing altogether.

Royal might not agree with your suggestion that Joseph was the source of bad grammar. But, if you are correct, then that might be taken as evidence for a very different theory of translation, namely, that ideas and not specific words were transmitted through Joseph's mind, thus producing a text which exhibits non-standard grammar.

[David T]

Robert, if you haven't, I highly suggest reading Brant Gardner's book, as I linked above. It is the most comprehensive look at Translation/Transmission theories and evidences. It directly addresses Skousen's views, and expresses why he feels his Trichotomy of Loose/Tight/Iron Clad is insufficient. Whether or not you agree with his ultimate conclusions, it certainly adds much to the discussion.

Edited July 5, 2012 by David T

[William Schryver]

Royal might not agree with your suggestion that Joseph was the source of bad grammar. But, if you are correct, then that might be taken as evidence for a very different theory of translation, namely, that ideas and not specific words were transmitted through Joseph's mind, thus producing a text which exhibits non-standard grammar.

I don't think you read my post closely enough.

[Robert F. Smith]

Robert, if you haven't, I highly suggest reading Brant Gardner's book, as I linked above. It is the most comprehensive look at Translation/Transmission theories and evidences. It directly addresses Skousen's views, and expresses why he feels his Trichotomy of Loose/Tight/Iron Clad is insufficient. Whether or not you agree with his ultimate conclusions, it certainly adds much to the discussion.

I have been reading his book, am nearly finished, and will be writing a formal review. Meantime you may want to have a look at my “Translation of Languages (hermēniea glōssōn I Cor 12:10),” online at http://www.scribd.com/lighthorseharry/d/46307834-Translation-of-Languages .

[JNclone]

I have heard that Mr Skousen made a point in his talk that does not seem to have been mentioned in this thread, either in the posts themselves or in the pdf notes provided. From what I heard, the notion was put forward that the Book of Mormon was actually translated into English for the first time around 1600, and that the text Joseph Smith received in the early 19th century was that earlier translation. Such a view would explain why a 19th century prophet could end up dictating a translation in 17th century English, or perhaps even earlier English in some cases.

Can someone who was there confirm whether Mr Skousen said this? If so, did he say who did this earlier translation, and what happened to it in the 150 years before Joseph Smith received it via seer stone (according to Mr Skousen's talk) and the scribes wrote it down?

[William Schryver]

I have heard that Mr Skousen made a point in his talk that does not seem to have been mentioned in this thread, either in the posts themselves or in the pdf notes provided. From what I heard, the notion was put forward that the Book of Mormon was actually translated into English for the first time around 1600, and that the text Joseph Smith received in the early 19th century was that earlier translation. Such a view would explain why a 19th century prophet could end up dictating a translation in 17th century English, or perhaps even earlier English in some cases.

Can someone who was there confirm whether Mr Skousen said this? If so, did he say who did this earlier translation, and what happened to it in the 150 years before Joseph Smith received it via seer stone (according to Mr Skousen's talk) and the scribes wrote it down?

The original text of the Book of Mormon appears to date to the 1500s and 1600s and employs meanings, words, and phrases that had "died out" of the English language by the 1700s.

Skousen first mentioned this discovery here: The Archaic Vocabulary of the Book of Mormon

Edited July 6, 2012 by William Schryver

[Robert F. Smith]

I have heard that Mr Skousen made a point in his talk that does not seem to have been mentioned in this thread, either in the posts themselves or in the pdf notes provided. From what I heard, the notion was put forward that the Book of Mormon was actually translated into English for the first time around 1600, and that the text Joseph Smith received in the early 19th century was that earlier translation. Such a view would explain why a 19th century prophet could end up dictating a translation in 17th century English, or perhaps even earlier English in some cases.

Can someone who was there confirm whether Mr Skousen said this? If so, did he say who did this earlier translation, and what happened to it in the 150 years before Joseph Smith received it via seer stone (according to Mr Skousen's talk) and the scribes wrote it down?

No, he did not say that, and did not even suggest it. Rather he stated that the archaic English vocabulary used in the translation, which Joseph read off of his devices (clear Nephite interpreters and seer stone), goes back to 1600 or before, and the meanings of those words and phrases no longer obtained in Joseph's time. If true, this does leave us with something of a mystery.

[volgadon]

P.S. Will Schryver was smokin hot on the organ.

I hope that there wasn't a typo here.

[William Schryver]

I hope that there wasn't a typo here.

Naw ... that was in the parking lot earlier ...

( )

[volgadon]

Naw ... that was in the parking lot earlier ...

( )

As long as no musical instruments were harmed in the process.

[William Schryver]

As long as no musical instruments were harmed in the process.

That all depends on your point of view. For my own part, I thought the

from The Doors Light My Fire fit in quite well as an interlude between the 2nd and 3rd verses of Now Let Us Rejoice. Edited July 7, 2012 by William Schryver

[JNclone]

No, he did not say that, and did not even suggest it. Rather he stated that the archaic English vocabulary used in the translation, which Joseph read off of his devices (clear Nephite interpreters and seer stone), goes back to 1600 or before, and the meanings of those words and phrases no longer obtained in Joseph's time. If true, this does leave us with something of a mystery.

And no suggestion was made during the talk of how this mystery is to be solved?

The original text of the Book of Mormon appears to date to the 1500s and 1600s and employs meanings, words, and phrases that had "died out" of the English language by the 1700s.

Skousen first mentioned this discovery here: The Archaic Vocabulary of the Book of Mormon

Skousen concludes that article by saying:

"These new findings argue that Joseph Smith was not the author of the English-language translation of the Book of Mormon. Not only was the text revealed to him word for word, but the words themselves sometimes had meanings that he and his scribes would not have known, which occasionally led to misinterpretation. The Book of Mormon is not a 19th-century text, nor is it Joseph Smith's. The English-language text was revealed through him, but it was not precisely in his language or ours."

Did no-one in the audience of Skousen's talk ask the obvious question - who, then DID produce the translation that was delivered to Joseph Smith?

[William Schryver]

And no suggestion was made during the talk of how this mystery is to be solved?

No. That's why it is a "mystery."

Skousen concludes that article by saying:

"These new findings argue that Joseph Smith was not the author of the English-language translation of the Book of Mormon. Not only was the text revealed to him word for word, but the words themselves sometimes had meanings that he and his scribes would not have known, which occasionally led to misinterpretation. The Book of Mormon is not a 19th-century text, nor is it Joseph Smith's. The English-language text was revealed through him, but it was not precisely in his language or ours."

Did no-one in the audience of Skousen's talk ask the obvious question - who, then DID produce the translation that was delivered to Joseph Smith?

No one asked that question. But I have. Royal and I have also discussed this question, and I have some ideas about its possible answer: that the work of translation was very likely delegated (consistent with our understanding of the economy of God) to those who produced the original work (Mormon, Moroni, Alma, etc.). To me, this makes complete sense. As regards these angelic ministrants, we are told:

Angels are personages who minister for the Lord in carrying out his work. Joseph Smith taught that all angels who minister to the earth are “Those who belong to it or have belonged to it.”

Link

Edited July 7, 2012 by William Schryver

[Robert F. Smith]

And no suggestion was made during the talk of how this mystery is to be solved?

"These new findings argue that Joseph Smith was not the author of the English-language translation of the Book of Mormon. Not only was the text revealed to him word for word, but the words themselves sometimes had meanings that he and his scribes would not have known, which occasionally led to misinterpretation. The Book of Mormon is not a 19th-century text, nor is it Joseph Smith's. The English-language text was revealed through him, but it was not precisely in his language or ours."

Did no-one in the audience of Skousen's talk ask the obvious question - who, then DID produce the translation that was delivered to Joseph Smith?

Even though he was not explicit about it, I thought that Skousen was suggesting that God himself was the source of the translation. Particularly since he said that the complex non-English "if . . . and" conditional sentence constructions in the BOM was a "sign from God."

[William Schryver]

Even though he was not explicit about it, I thought that Skousen was suggesting that God himself was the source of the translation. Particularly since he said that the complex non-English "if . . . and" conditional sentence constructions in the BOM was a "sign from God."

Bob:

Royal and I have talked about this quite a bit, and I am fairly confident that this is not what he thinks. My impression from him is that his thoughts on the issue are more or less similar to what I have described above: that the work of translation was delegated to what we would characterize as "ministering angels." That said, he would, I am certain, attach the word "speculative" to any thesis he might propose in relation to these questions.

In any event, I'll run the question by him, and then I'll make another post later this evening with his response, if he has one.

Edited July 7, 2012 by William Schryver

[Robert F. Smith]

Bob:

Royal and I have talked about this quite a bit, and I am fairly confident that this is not what he thinks. My impression from him is that his thoughts on the issue are more or less similar to what I have described above: that the work of translation was delegated to what we would characterize as "ministering angels." That said, he would, I am certain, attach the word "speculative" to any thesis he might propose in relation to these questions.

In any event, I'll run the question by him, and then I'll make another post later this evening with his response, if he has one.

Interesting though that an angelic go-between might theoretically provide the actual very archaic words. In such a case, the effect would be the same as if God himself had provided the words not otherwise available to Joseph.

[volgadon]

That all depends on your point of view. For my own part, I thought the

from The Doors Light My Fire fit in quite well as an interlude between the 2nd and 3rd verses of Now Let Us Rejoice.

I might even walk to hear that.

[William Schryver]

Interesting though that an angelic go-between might theoretically provide the actual very archaic words. In such a case, the effect would be the same as if God himself had provided the words not otherwise available to Joseph.

I fully agree that the implications tend toward the conclusion of divine intent.

But why that particular era in the evolution of the English language? Perhaps there is a connection to another event taking place at roughly the same time: the translation of the King James Version of the Bible. It has also been suggested by some that the King James translators were the recipients of divine inspiration.

Edited July 8, 2012 by William Schryver