Tight vs loose: dictation vs translation

[churchistrue]

There was a specific point I wanted to get some discussion on from my article, and since the other thread is going a different discussion, I'm opening a new thread for this specific point.  

In the article, I went into detail about what Joseph meant by the term "translate", drawing on the examples of the JST and the Book of Abraham (catalyst theory).  

Then I quote Whitmer:

Quote

Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English.

Then I go into a discussion of dictation vs translation, which is the key point I'd like some feedback for here.

Quote

Joseph never specifically clarified how the Book of Mormon translation process went.  He never added to the simple declaration of the Book Mormon’s title page that it was by the “gift and power of God.”  We can trust that we understand a bit about the dictation process, ie how it went from Joseph’s mind to the scribes.  But we still don’t understand the translation process, which is how it got into Joseph’s mind.

I believe the accounts like David Whitmer’s on how the Book of Mormon was dictated have led us to ignore other clear evidence that suggests the translation process was a very “loose” process.

Following that, I go into the Book of Commandments Oliver translating account and a quote from the church's topic essay, suggesting a "loose" translation.

http://www.churchistrue.com/blog/book-of-mormon-modern-expansion-theory-midrash/

Do you think this distinction between dictation and translation is valid?  Do you think it could be used to bring together some of the Royal Skousen research and make it compatible with the Ostler expansion theory?

Edited March 24, 2016 by churchistrue

[Brant Gardner]

One of the problems I see with our discussions of translation is that we have adopted the loose/tight vocabulary to the concept of translation. If you read what Skousen wrote, it applies to the nature of the dictation, not the translation. Skousen hasn't looked at the relationship between the English text and whatever the plate text was, perhaps because we don't have the plate text and Skousen is data-oriented (and that is certainly not a bad thing at all).

Nevertheless, we are left with a vocabulary that doesn't actually talk about the translation process, and data that do not apply to translation, but rather to the dictation. That does leave us open to a translation theory that does not require literal translation, and I believe that there is ample information that points away from literal translation.

Therefore, yes, I agree that we can have a functional translation and a "tight" dictation. I think that meets the data requirements. As for Ostler's ideas, I have heard (but not seen in print) that he has changed his mind on some of the particulars of his earlier article without changing his overall description of a text that has some modern expansions.

[churchistrue]

10 minutes ago, Brant Gardner said:

One of the problems I see with our discussions of translation is that we have adopted the loose/tight vocabulary to the concept of translation. If you read what Skousen wrote, it applies to the nature of the dictation, not the translation. Skousen hasn't looked at the relationship between the English text and whatever the plate text was, perhaps because we don't have the plate text and Skousen is data-oriented (and that is certainly not a bad thing at all).

Nevertheless, we are left with a vocabulary that doesn't actually talk about the translation process, and data that do not apply to translation, but rather to the dictation. That does leave us open to a translation theory that does not require literal translation, and I believe that there is ample information that points away from literal translation.

Therefore, yes, I agree that we can have a functional translation and a "tight" dictation. I think that meets the data requirements. As for Ostler's ideas, I have heard (but not seen in print) that he has changed his mind on some of the particulars of his earlier article without changing his overall description of a text that has some modern expansions.

Thanks, Brant.  I might have even gotten this idea from you.  I thought it might have been original but probably not.  Oster can speak for himself, but I don't think he is backing down from his expansion theory.  In 2005, he wrote a short post http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2005/04/updating-the-expansion-theory/  "I believe that the expansion theory is more cogent now than it has ever been."  Additionally, I heard him in a recent podcast and he was using the same logic in that interview.

 

 

 

Edited March 24, 2016 by churchistrue

[HappyJackWagon]

I don't think "translation" correctly reflects the origin claims of the BoM but neither does "dictation". Neither term is accurate.

At best, it is an inspired text received by revelation.

If Joseph is receiving revelation (not dictating, not translating from plates) then it wouldn't be surprising that God inspired him to include portions of Isaiah that Lehi would not have had access to. It would make sense that Joseph might be inspired to include thoughts or 19th century doctrines. The trouble comes from the claim that "here is a literal history on literal plates that Joseph 'translates' or 'dictates' perfectly."

I don't see that as a likely source of the BoM, but if I accept it as inspirational then I have no problem finding many good things.

"translate" and "dictate" are the wrong words.

 

[hope_for_things]

I don't like the word translation at all.  The way Joseph uses that word is a complete misuse of the term.  There isn't any evidence of taking one language and translating it into another.  Joseph had no training in other languages anyway.  The BoA creation shows how they attempted a translation but the resulting text of the BoA demonstrates that no reliable translation actually took place.  .

Dictation is a good word to use because that is how so many witnesses described the process.  However, you're right that it doesn't explain where the content for the BoM or other books came from.  I just don't like the translation description.  Maybe inspiration is a better word that can accommodate the various perspectives about tight or loose methods.  

[readstoomuch]

Blake Ostler did a very faithful and informative interview with Bill Reel.  Whether you like Bill or not, it is hard not to like Blake.  This interview was in 2015.  He stated that his ideas about the Book of Mormon as a Modern Expansion of an Ancient Text are basically the same as his Dialogue article from 1987.  He is very intelligent and has some big ideas about the Church and belief.  I think almost any one would enjoy the interview.  It is mostly about believing, why he believes and a thoughtful approach to the Church.