Royal Skousen’S Lecture

[Glenn101]

I think there is some evidence of certain types of stylistic changes. The therefore/wherefore shift can be demonstrated and I think is pretty clearly an aspect of the translator's style rather than the text. In other cases, it is difficult to know if perceived stylistic changes are due to the shift in the plate text source or the translator. Some of them, I believe can be traced to the plate text. Nephi's style owes more to Nephi than Joseph in spite of our dependence on English for the text itself.

 

 

We are grappling with too many unknowns here to make much more than educated guesses. Since Joseph had no knowledge whatsoever of the language on the plates, he was hardly the translator, in the normal sense of the word. It is difficult to understand just how Joseph could have influenced the translation process stylistically or otherwise without having any idea what the text on the plates was without the aid of his interpreters. I would really like for someone to explain to me how a person with no knowledge of a given language could have any influence on a translation. If Joseph was able to have much influence on the translation process, would not we expect to see more of the early nineteenth century vernacular particular to Josepeh's New England environment rather than the fifteen hundreds and sixteen hundreds vernacular which is found in the Book of Mormon?

 

Glenn

[Robert F. Smith]

We are grappling with too many unknowns here to make much more than educated guesses. Since Joseph had no knowledge whatsoever of the language on the plates, he was hardly the translator, in the normal sense of the word. It is difficult to understand just how Joseph could have influenced the translation process stylistically or otherwise without having any idea what the text on the plates was without the aid of his interpreters. I would really like for someone to explain to me how a person with no knowledge of a given language could have any influence on a translation. If Joseph was able to have much influence on the translation process, would not we expect to see more of the early nineteenth century vernacular particular to Josepeh's New England environment rather than the fifteen hundreds and sixteen hundreds vernacular which is found in the Book of Mormon?

 

Glenn

Those are good questions and observations, Glenn.

All most of us can do is hypothesize based on study of the text itself in comparison with modes of speech and writing actually available in Joseph's day:  As Royal Skousen himself points out, some of the very archaic language you allude to was available in the Geneva Bible as well as in earlier editions of the Book of Common Prayer.  Since the Geneva Bible and not the KJV was the most common Bible first brought by colonists from England (along with the ever present Book of Common Prayer), I suggest those as important sources.  Others have discussed likely sources as well (in this thread), so that we do not actually have to demand an archaic pretranslation source for Joseph.

 

The real question (and you put your finger on it) is how did Joseph manage to translate while not knowing the language of the plates?  If we say "by inspiration" (the gift & power of God), that will not of course satisfy a dyed-in-the-wool secularist.  However, the OT & NT certainly claim just such a methodology -- Acts 2, Daniel 5, Gen 40 - 41 -- even if we are still sidestepping the mechanical means.  I always suggest that the translation takes place in Joseph's inspired mind, even though all he sees is some English phrases on the face of his instrument (perhaps the characters being translated were visible also).  How is that possible?  Perhaps beings who can read minds and who can walk through walls are capable of some awesome achievements.  We mustn't underestimate the power of the Holy Spirit to communicate ideas to our minds, and which we then put into our own words.  How else do we imagine the gift of tongues to have operated on Pentecost, or at any other time?

[Glenn101]

Those are good questions and observations, Glenn.

All most of us can do is hypothesize based on study of the text itself in comparison with modes of speech and writing actually available in Joseph's day:  As Royal Skousen himself points out, some of the very archaic language you allude to was available in the Geneva Bible as well as in earlier editions of the Book of Common Prayer.  Since the Geneva Bible and not the KJV was the most common Bible first brought by colonists from England (along with the ever present Book of Common Prayer), I suggest those as important sources.  Others have discussed likely sources as well (in this thread), so that we do not actually have to demand an archaic pretranslation source for Joseph.

 

The real question (and you put your finger on it) is how did Joseph manage to translate while not knowing the language of the plates?  If we say "by inspiration" (the gift & power of God), that will not of course satisfy a dyed-in-the-wool secularist.  However, the OT & NT certainly claim just such a methodology -- Acts 2, Daniel 5, Gen 40 - 41 -- even if we are still sidestepping the mechanical means.  I always suggest that the translation takes place in Joseph's inspired mind, even though all he sees is some English phrases on the face of his instrument (perhaps the characters being translated were visible also).  How is that possible?  Perhaps beings who can read minds and who can walk through walls are capable of some awesome achievements.  We mustn't underestimate the power of the Holy Spirit to communicate ideas to our minds, and which we then put into our own words.  How else do we imagine the gift of tongues to have operated on Pentecost, or at any other time?

 

 

All of this has me wondering just how accurate the descriptions of the translation process were, i.e. Martin Haris and David Whitmer. Royal Skousen seems to think the original manuscript provides evidence that those descriptions were pretty accurate. It seems that the more questions that are asked only bares mor questions that need to be asked and answered. However, "by the gift and power of God" does cover the lot, it leaves the details maddeningly obscure.

 

Glenn

[Brant Gardner]

We are grappling with too many unknowns here to make much more than educated guesses

 

I agree that we are left with educated guesses. Those have to be built on available data, but there is nothing conclusive. The best we can hope for is a productive theory, that is, one that explains the greatest number of issues most succinctly.

 

Since Joseph had no knowledge whatsoever of the language on the plates, he was hardly the translator, in the normal sense of the word.

 

 

Actually, I think he was a translator in very much the way translators translate--after they have read the text to be translated. Of course, he didn't perform the same actions with the physical text, but a translator reads and understands a text, then translates from her understanding. Less than that is a learner and won't produce very good translations (I know, I have done several of these kinds--as well as the other with a different language that I understand better).

 

It is difficult to understand just how Joseph could have influenced the translation process stylistically or otherwise without having any idea what the text on the plates was without the aid of his interpreters. I would really like for someone to explain to me how a person with no knowledge of a given language could have any influence on a translation.

 

It is an educated guess, but I do answer that very question in the book.

 

If Joseph was able to have much influence on the translation process, would not we expect to see more of the early nineteenth century vernacular particular to Joseph's New England environment rather than the fifteen hundreds and sixteen hundreds vernacular which is found in the Book of Mormon?

 

 

Unless that New England environment preserved the older vocabulary and had not yet adopted the newer vocabularies being promulgated in written forms in locations and venues long distant from rural New England.

[Calm]

Brant, you might want to read this thread as morgan.deane was interested in the topic you mentioned in one of your presentations:

 

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/61633-research-request-book-of-mormon-elites/

[Brant Gardner]

Brant, you might want to read this thread as morgan.deane was interested in the topic you mentioned in one of your presentations:

 

I had read it, and when I did it sounded like he was looking for something I had written, but others had already pointed him to it. At least at the moment, there is nothing to add.