David Bokovoy's explanation of OT

[Brant Gardner]

20 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I corresponded with him for several months and tracked down every anomaly he gave me. It didn't pan out. Stan is a smart guy and I like him, but this is a dead end. 

i would really love to have access to your work on this. Any way that might happen?

[canard78]

9 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Someone suggested that LDS dogma is that Joseph "translated" the BofM, and that this new theory falsifies that.  Since translation also means transmission, it is not in fact falsified, but accommodates Joseph merely reading the text off his stone.

As to the theory-fact question, even though it is a non sequitur here, in ordinary conversation, theories are typically called facts and vice-versa.  However, if one wants to get very persnickity, there are no facts, but only theories.  For a human to know a fact would require objectivity, and that is something beyond human capacity.

So does the "John Dee/16thC" theory (for want of a better name) still claim it was translated directly from the plates that time round?

If so, how does that resolve the issues mentioned by the OP that Bukovoy raises?

If there are Isaiah passages that couldn't reasonably have been on the Brass Plates, then how could they appear in the BoM? Are you suggesting that they weren't on the brass plates, they weren't on the gold plates... and yet "John Dee" still included them in 16th translation because... Why?

[ttribe]

17 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Someone suggested that LDS dogma is that Joseph "translated" the BofM, and that this new theory falsifies that.  Since translation also means transmission, it is not in fact falsified, but accommodates Joseph merely reading the text off his stone.

As to the theory-fact question, even though it is a non sequitur here, in ordinary conversation, theories are typically called facts and vice-versa.  However, if one wants to get very persnickity, there are no facts, but only theories.  For a human to know a fact would require objectivity, and that is something beyond human capacity.

You and I operate in very different worlds.

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, Brant Gardner said:

i would really love to have access to your work on this. Any way that might happen?

I guess you could ask Stan. I don't care if he shares with you. 

[Brant Gardner]

8 minutes ago, canard78 said:

Do you think Interpreter would publish it? They seem quite sold on this 16thC idea. 

John, if you ever do, let me know, I don't have the same writing acumen as yourself, but I did research this theory quite extensively early on. I found several 19thC examples of the language Skousen et al claim to be dead. 

I can tell you that Interpreter would be likely to publish it. There was at least one person who approved the publication of those articles who did not agree with them. I'm sure there must have been someone else, but I would--and have--pushed for an alternate view. I can affirm that they are willing to publish it. Of course, it requires good work. John has done the work and maybe someone else (perhaps even I) might be willing to do something with it.

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, Brant Gardner said:

I can tell you that Interpreter would be likely to publish it. There was at least one person who approved the publication of those articles who did not agree with them. I'm sure there must have been someone else, but I would--and have--pushed for an alternate view. I can affirm that they are willing to publish it. Of course, it requires good work. John has done the work and maybe someone else (perhaps even I) might be willing to do something with it.

If Stan is willing to share our correspondence, I'm fine with it. Stan obviously disagreed with my conclusions, but my honest opinion is that there isn't anything to this theory. 

[canard78]

Just now, Brant Gardner said:

I can tell you that Interpreter would be likely to publish it. There was at least one person who approved the publication of those articles who did not agree with them. I'm sure there must have been someone else, but I would--and have--pushed for an alternate view. I can affirm that they are willing to publish it. Of course, it requires good work. John has done the work and maybe someone else (perhaps even I) might be willing to do something with it.

I hope someone does soon. I don't personally believe that the Book of Mormon is an historical account of an ancient civilisation but I have several friends and family that do and have respect and affection for them.

This "John Dee/16thC" theory is, in my view, something that really shouldn't gain traction. It makes an origin story that already requires a leap of faith sound even less credible. 

Out of interest, returning to the OP, is the Bukovoy Isaiah issue one that you resolve with the "loose" translation theory?

Is it possible that Nephi and the plates both existed and yet they did not contain some of the Isaiah passages that have been put into the book?

[James Tunney]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

David Bokovoy is an excellent scholar and writes very clearly and simply.  However, all scholarship is a group or community effort and no particular work can be taken in isolation.  I highly recommend his Authoring the OT series as a good introduction to the subject, with the proviso that he makes mistakes here and there (as we all do in scholarship), and everything is subject to revision and clarification.

The problem here with his speculation on Joseph's possible midrashic used of post-exilic parts of Isaiah is that Joseph did not translate the BofM, but merely read it to his scribes.  The translation was done centuries before by some unknown person. 

What proof do you have to make the above translation claim?  At a certain point, the evidence needs to govern, not the conclusion.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, canard78 said:

Do you think Interpreter would publish it? They seem quite sold on this 16thC idea. 

............................................................ 

Interpreter doesn't have a position on this.  Indeed, Brant Gardner edits for them, and he doesn't buy the Carmack-Skousen approach.  He has some ideas of his own which could be added to the mix.  The debate should be interesting.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

Nah, what would be the point? All I did was check Stan's n-gram results and report what I found: no evidence of anomalous usage that pointed to an Elizabethan-Jacobean translator. I suppose I could review all my correspondence and write something up, but I would have to be way more interested than I am. 

It isn't that difficult to check his results. Someone with more time and interest could do it easily. 

Yeh, and who  might that be?

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, canard78 said:

So does the "John Dee/16thC" theory (for want of a better name) still claim it was translated directly from the plates that time round?

If so, how does that resolve the issues mentioned by the OP that Bukovoy raises?

If there are Isaiah passages that couldn't reasonably have been on the Brass Plates, then how could they appear in the BoM? Are you suggesting that they weren't on the brass plates, they weren't on the gold plates... and yet "John Dee" still included them in 16th translation because... Why?

You're getting way ahead of yourself here, canard.  I was commenting solely on the claim that Joseph Smith did the translation.  To go back several centuries to John Dee doesn't clarify the Isaiah question, but only shifts it to an earlier date.

[jkwilliams]

7 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Yeh, and who  might that be?

Well, most people here probably have more interest than I do. I'm working on a book, so I'm sure someone out there has more time than I do. 

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, ttribe said:

You and I operate in very different worlds.

I refer you to the frequent entries on this board by my colleague and friend, mfbukowski.  A lot of people here consider him otherworldly as well.

Humans are subjective creatures because they are trapped within their own sensory awareness and imaginative frames of reference.  Gods may be able to see objectively; we cannot.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, James Tunney said:

What proof do you have to make the above translation claim?  At a certain point, the evidence needs to govern, not the conclusion.

Did you take that approach in falling in love?

It depends on what you are talking about.  Religion is more like falling in love than splitting the atom.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, ttribe said:

You and I operate in very different worlds.

Logical positivism has been dead for years- I don't know if you take that view or not, though

This is essentially my view about "facts" corresponding to "reality": http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-deflationary/

I would encourage you to refute this point of view if you disagree with it.

But if you want to follow up on this, let's do it in another thread- I don't want to derail this one

[carbon dioxide]

7 hours ago, Gray said:

Or a third approach - scripture and history are two separate genres. Scripture does not have to be historical to be scripture - in fact most of it is historically inaccurate, whether ancient or modern.  

My approach is simple.  Perhaps these scriptures were not in the brass plates at the time Lehi left Jerusalem but they were included in the plates later by the prophet Mormon himself.  How would Mormon know these scriptures?  I think that when Christ came to the Nephites he told them lots of stuff.  Some of that stuff would be scripture that was given to in the Old World after Lehi left.  There would be no reason for Christ to withhold this material from the Nephites.  So the Nephites wrote this stuff down and when Mormon was going through the records, he decided to include these passages with the earlier Isaiah.  Its seems like a logical spot to put them.  So if these Deutro-Isaiah passages where put in there by Mormon, they were in the plates by the time they arrived to Joseph Smith.  Can't prove this of course because we don't have all the records that Mormon had but it could be not more complicated than that.

[Freedom]

What is wrong with the argument that all of Isaiah was written by Isaiah, but later writers modified the text? Does Isaiah have to be written by different authors?

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

Well, most people here probably have more interest than I do. I'm working on a book, so I'm sure someone out there has more time than I do. 

So is everyone else

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, Freedom said:

Does Isaiah have to be written by different authors?

It does if you don't really believe in things like prophets and revelation.

[jkwilliams]

Here is a bit of my first response to Stan, who had sent me a list of "obsolete" forms of words used in the Book of Mormon, which supposedly show it to be of an earlier period than Joseph Smith's day. He said these words were not in use in Joseph's day but had become obsolete after the Elizabethan era. Here's part of my reply, wherein I show him that the obsolete usage is present in Joseph Smith's day, not just in the 1500s and such.  I should note that anyone can use Google's n-gram viewer to duplicate what I found. This is just my partial response to the first list he sent me, but this went on for a few months, with similar results. 

Looking at n-grams in Google books (IOW, duplicating Stan's method), I found the words he listed as follows:

Quote

bellowses: Spikes around 1750 and 1760, with more frequent use after 1805

kindreds: spikes from 1560s to 1660s, gradual increase in use after 1698

 

kinsfolks: spikes in mid-1500s, late 1600s, more regular appearance after 1719

 

drownded: Used after 1719, especially after 1800

 

fraid: More frequent in 1600s-1700s, but in continual use through 19th century

 

had ought to: continual use through 19th century

 

massacreed: continual use through 19th century

 

tremendious: apparently revived in late 1700s

 

Some American examples just between 1806 and 1825

 

that incomprehensible being, who restrains the lawless storm; who kindles up the crushing and tremendious thunder and rolls the dark and vapid lightning ... (The American Monthly Magazine and Critical Review, Vol. 1, H. Biglow, ed; 1817)

 

The new year was ushered in with the most tremendious fire his whole artillery could produce ... (The History of the War, Between the United States and Great Britain (B & J Russell, 1815)

 

They fought their way to the city gates through a tremendious fire, but found them in the possession of the enemy (The Weekly Inspector, Vol 2, 1807)

 

... one of the most awful sights human imagination can form an idea of. The mountain burst forth in a most tremendious blaze, throwing up huge spouts of fire and burning stones (The Lady's Miscellany, Vol. 14, 1812)

 

I was suddenly aroused by a tremendious Indian whoop at the door of the wigwam (Shocking Murder by the Savages of Mr. Darius Barber's Family, 1818)

 

... that icy barier which Seperates me from my friends and Country, from all which makes life estimable, is yet white with the Snow which is maney feet deep. I frequently Consult the natives on the subject of passing this tremendious barier ... (The Journals of the Lewis & Clark Expedition, 1806)

 

Mormon 2:4

we did fortify the city with our mights.

1485 EEBO A21703 Sir Thomas Malory [15th cent.] Le morte darthur

[ then they let their horses run with all their mights ]

 thenne they lete renne theyr horses with all theyr myghtes

 

If all men who pretend to be christians, would watch with all their hearts, and with all their mights, be jealous of their liberties ... (The Columbian Union, 1814)

 

And let not proud and factious men against your wills oppose their mights (Samuel Johnson, A Dictionnary of the English Language, 1773)

 

 

Edited May 25, 2016 by jkwilliams

[stemelbow]

16 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I loved his most recent two pieces on deutero Isaiah that you linked to above.  I still haven't read Authoring the OT, although its on my wish list.  Question for you on the book, did you feel like it was super scholarly, or similar to the way he writes on his blog and the RF blog posts?  Reason I'm asking is I'm slogging through a couple scholarly works right now, and I can only take so many at a time.  If its similar writing style to his blogs, maybe I will pick up a copy sooner than later.  

I found the book much like his blog posts, very easy to follow.  As I said I ate it up.  So it wasn't overly laborious or exhaustive. 

[stemelbow]

15 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

For me...Deutro-Isaiah was a major death nail to the Book of Mormon's claim, just out of curiosity, does Bokovoy salvage the Book of Momon or lend further damage by giving further support for Deutro-Isaiah

hah.  You should read.  He doesn't do either in my mind.  He's addressing Isaiah, at the end of part two he says:
 

Quote

 

So what is a believing Latter-day Saint to do? Is there an effective apologetic approach given the weight of this evidence? I believe that there is (maybe are).   I believe that an effective apologetic argument would state, “I do not know why there is postexilic material in the Book of Mormon, but I do know that I feel connected with God through the book. I therefore believe, even though I do not have an answer. “

Another way of approaching this topic would be for Latter-day Saints to recognize that the Book of Mormon is a revelatory work that comes to us through Joseph Smith. The prophet didn’t sit down and work his way through ancient script line upon line. Shouldn’t Latter-day Saints therefore expect that the work would contain inspired prophetic, midrashic use of material known to Joseph Smith, including the material in Isaiah 40-66?

 

 

[stemelbow]

15 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

David Bokovoy is an excellent scholar and writes very clearly and simply.  However, all scholarship is a group or community effort and no particular work can be taken in isolation.  I highly recommend his Authoring the OT series as a good introduction to the subject, with the proviso that he makes mistakes here and there (as we all do in scholarship), and everything is subject to revision and clarification.

The problem here with his speculation on Joseph's possible midrashic used of post-exilic parts of Isaiah is that Joseph did not translate the BofM, but merely read it to his scribes.  The translation was done centuries before by some unknown person. 

Stating your conclusion as fact seems difficult to maintain. 

[stemelbow]

14 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

Nah, what would be the point? All I did was check Stan's n-gram results and report what I found: no evidence of anomalous usage that pointed to an Elizabethan-Jacobean translator. I suppose I could review all my correspondence and write something up, but I would have to be way more interested than I am. 

It isn't that difficult to check his results. Someone with more time and interest could do it easily. 

I have the scholarly chops of a platypus, but when I first read the theory I rolled my eyes, wondering how it was possibly going to be maintained.  It feels a little desperate, too convenient to me.  But how word usage is going to prove something like that is beyond me.  So, as I said, platypus chops here. 

[stemelbow]

14 hours ago, canard78 said:

 

Is it possible that Nephi and the plates both existed and yet they did not contain some of the Isaiah passages that have been put into the book?

I don't see why not, after all Joseph's translation did not involve him reading from the plates.  On this we wouldn't know what was on the plates, themselves.  I get this would really put questions to what is the translation and how would the rest of the BoM story fit with what Mormon and co actually put on the plates.  But, considering scripture has never seemed to be concerned about that stuff, I don't know why I would.