Evidence Case Study

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

But whether they are retired or not, the texts in question have been available for a while. Again, I'll fully confess my ignorance here, it just seems odd not one of the above have even asked the question of Hieratic or Meroitic. Or thought it worthy of inquiry. It definitely raises my skepticism flag when no one is willing to put the argument of how they're the same in print.

It's rather common to see Meroitic as an example of a reformed Egyptian script. Saying our Book of Mormon extant characters are like it seems to require a bit more. (IMO) After all if we have Meroitic coming from Joseph Smith in the 1820's that's rather significant to say the least from an apologetic position. Yet we have two indirect distant Egyptologists saying it's similar but no Mormon Egyptologist willing to commit to the idea beyond Nibley saying they look similar. (He brought it up in class as this weird aside once).......................................................

Once again, you miss the point entirely.  You and I do not know whether any of these gentlemen have addressed Meroitic (apart from Nibley, and he was not expert in it).  The use of standard Egyptian cursive script by speakers of a dead Nubian tongue (Meroitic) seems irrelevant to me.  Perhaps you have reasons why you think it so important.  Once again;  Meroiitic script can easily be read, but the language is unknown.  How it would apply to Lehi and Nephi seems to be a nonsense question, except for the declaration that nobody knows our language (Mormon 9:34).  The reasoning there is by analogy, and is otherwise of no importance for us.

You also misstate the position of the non-Mormon Egyptologists.  Only Parker mentioned both Demotic and Meroitic, and he only casually mentioned the similarity. Hayes saw it as Hieratic and provided detailed notes.  Speaking of these two experts as "indirect and distant" seems highly inappropriate.  At least give them their due, Clark.

[strappinglad]

Do we have any evidence that the flow of the translation from JS changed over time ? In other words , did JS get better at the process ? We have statements that Joseph would read off a line of text and the scribe would record it, then read it back and Joseph would correct it or pronounce it correct. It seems to me that the process must have had the translation remain ' in view ' until it was correct. If so , then it was more like reading off an iPhone than ' studying it out in your mind ' kind of thing. How much studying Joseph did at times when he wasn't formally translating we don't know  , but little old me would spend time looking at the translation manuscript and the plates and so try to understand the reformed characters.

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Once again, you miss the point entirely.  You and I do not know whether any of these gentlemen have addressed Meroitic (apart from Nibley, and he was not expert in it). 

I confess I'm quite confused on the point then. The reason I don't think anyone has addressed meroitic is because none of them have written on it. The significance of that is that this would be rather telling if the anthon transcript used a very very obscure Egyptian script likely unknown by Joseph. The apologetic implications would be huge. That none of them have written on it is I think very suggestive. You clearly think it isn't although I confess I'm still not sure why. It is quite possible they're all ignorant of it, yet it seems exactly the sort of thing they could become versed on to at least enough to tell if the anthon transcript is indeed in the script.

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The use of standard Egyptian cursive script by speakers of a dead Nubian tongue (Meroitic) seems irrelevant to me.  Perhaps you have reasons why you think it so important.  Once again;  Meroiitic script can easily be read, but the language is unknown.  How it would apply to Lehi and Nephi seems to be a nonsense question, except for the declaration that nobody knows our language (Mormon 9:34).  The reasoning there is by analogy, and is otherwise of no importance for us.

Again I am quite confused to your argument then. Do you think copied script from the plates was or was not in the meriotic script. I'm not arguing about the language encoded in that script. 

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You also misstate the position of the non-Mormon Egyptologists.  Only Parker mentioned both Demotic and Meroitic, and he only casually mentioned the similarity. Hayes saw it as Hieratic and provided detailed notes.  Speaking of these two experts as "indirect and distant" seems highly inappropriate.  At least give them their due, Clark.

Again, isn't this inherently problematic? Is it demotic, meroitic, or hieratic? Or just similar to them in some loose ways. I confess I'm just not following what you think is going on with the characters of the Book of Mormon. Further while it's quite possible that the Mormon Egyptologists are ignorant of meroitic, it's extremely dubious that they're all ignorant of demotic and hieratic. So if it is hieratic as Hayes says, does anyone else agree? If they don't, isn't that significant? If no one else agrees with Hayes, what's the point of quoting him?

Surely this is a true or false question so I'm not sure what the mystery is. Can we establish what the characters are or not? If not, then why quote these people? If yes, then surely it's objective and people with the proper training can establish this. While I'll fully admit to being confused here, it's because I honestly am not at all clear what it is you are asserting. It honestly comes off as trying to have it both ways.

All I'm asking for is whether the script is objectively one of these ANE scripts. That seems a yes/no question even if perhaps a few characters have been modified somewhat. If it is, then presumably one can provide the argument. If they can't, then I'm not exactly sure why their opinion matters.

Edited July 6, 2018 by clarkgoble

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I confess I'm quite confused on the point then. The reason I don't think anyone has addressed meroitic is because none of them have written on it. The significance of that is that this would be rather telling if the anthon transcript used a very very obscure Egyptian script likely unknown by Joseph. The apologetic implications would be huge. That none of them have written on it is I think very suggestive. You clearly think it isn't although I confess I'm still not sure why. It is quite possible they're all ignorant of it, yet it seems exactly the sort of thing they could become versed on to at least enough to tell if the anthon transcript is indeed in the script.

Scholars prefer the moniker "Caractors Transcript," because it is clearly not the transcript described by Anthon.  Have you ever read his description?

6 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Again I am quite confused to your argument then. Do you think copied script from the plates was or was not in the meriotic script. I'm not arguing about the language encoded in that script. 

Meroitic script is easily read.  It is Egyptian cursive.  Meroitic is a lost Nubian language, and that is the reason we cannot translate Meroitic.  Scripts are written, languages are spoken.

6 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Again, isn't this inherently problematic? Is it demotic, meroitic, or hieratic? Or just similar to them in some loose ways. I confess I'm just not following what you think is going on with the characters of the Book of Mormon. Further while it's quite possible that the Mormon Egyptologists are ignorant of meroitic, it's extremely dubious that they're all ignorant of demotic and hieratic. So if it is hieratic as Hayes says, does anyone else agree? If they don't, isn't that significant? If no one else agrees with Hayes, what's the point of quoting him?

Early Demotic script is basically the same as Hieratic.  These are cursive scripts.  However, Demotic language is quite different from Middle Egyptian (Classical Egyptian).  There are Hieroglyphic Egyptian and Demotic dictionaries online. Even the grammar of Demotic language differs from Classical Egyptian, and Coptic is an even more distant development.

6 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Surely this is a true or false question so I'm not sure what the mystery is. Can we establish what the characters are or not? If not, then why quote these people? If yes, then surely it's objective and people with the proper training can establish this. While I'll fully admit to being confused here, it's because I honestly am not at all clear what it is you are asserting. It honestly comes off as trying to have it both ways.

All I'm asking for is whether the script is objectively one of these ANE scripts. That seems a yes/no question even if perhaps a few characters have been modified somewhat. If it is, then presumably one can provide the argument. If they can't, then I'm not exactly sure why their opinion matters.

Whether their opinion matters is not for you or me to say.  We are obligated to report it, rather than falsely claiming that non-Mormon Egyptologists say that the Caractors Transcript is not Egyptian.  Parker and Hayes did not equivocate.  They considered it Egyptian, and so do I.

[Ahab]

12 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

The problem is that it's not one or two phrases but many that are extinct in use by the time of Joseph Smith. If it was just a few examples then that objection would make sense. Once you have dozens of dead grammatical constructs it becomes far less likely.

Phrases from (EMod language periods?) that are extinct in use by the time of Joseph in the 1820s?  I would expect there to be many EMod language phrases used in the 1600s that were no longer used in the 1820s.  So what's the big deal about that?

Did Joseph somehow resurrect some old no  longer used EMod phrases in his 1820s translatiuons?  Is the questioning about where he would have heard or seen those phrases?  Like thees and thous that were in the KJV but no longer used in the 1820s?

I don't see what the hubbub is all about here.  Seems to me like it might just be much ado about nothing.

[jkwilliams]

13 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

The problem is that it's not one or two phrases but many that are extinct in use by the time of Joseph Smith. If it was just a few examples then that objection would make sense. Once you have dozens of dead grammatical constructs it becomes far less likely.

Of course, the other possibility is that the author of the Book of Mormon was exposed to one or more EModE documents. I've been told the books of magick and spells that were circulating in Joseph Smith's day had their origins in the proper time period, so given the Smith family's interest in folk magic, that's a possible source. I'm sure someone who knows this stuff better than I do can help my understanding.

[clarkgoble]

14 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Phrases from (EMod language periods?) that are extinct in use by the time of Joseph in the 1820s?  I would expect there to be many EMod language phrases used in the 1600s that were no longer used in the 1820s.  So what's the big deal about that?

It's not just phrases but structures of how phrases are formed. The grammatical structures. As for what's the big deal, it strongly suggests the Book of Mormon wasn't composed in 1820 New York. The speakers there simply wouldn't know these structures. Again one or two you might suspect survived in some fashion or were picked up from old books. For this many to have survived is extremely unlikely. (Or so the argument goes)

9 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Of course, the other possibility is that the author of the Book of Mormon was exposed to one or more EModE documents. I've been told the books of magick and spells that were circulating in Joseph Smith's day had their origins in the proper time period, so given the Smith family's interest in folk magic, that's a possible source. I'm sure someone who knows this stuff better than I do can help my understanding.

Yes although there are digitized records of such documents one can search. I've raised this possibility myself a few times. After searching some of the databases I'm less convinced this is likely.

Edited July 6, 2018 by clarkgoble

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

It's not just phrases but structures of how phrases are formed. The grammatical structures. As for what's the big deal, it strongly suggests the Book of Mormon wasn't composed in 1820 New York. The speakers there simply wouldn't know these structures. Again one or two you might suspect survived in some fashion or were picked up from old books. For this many to have survived is extremely unlikely. (Or so the argument goes)

Yes although there are digitized records of such documents one can search. I've raised this possibility myself a few times. After searching some of the databases I'm less convinced this is likely.

Haven't really looked into it. Of course, I'm still not persuaded that the variant usage in the Book of Mormon shows a consistent or significant EModE authorship. But then I'm not a linguist. 

[Ahab]

2 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

It's not just phrases but structures of how phrases are formed. The grammatical structures. As for what's the big deal, it strongly suggests the Book of Mormon wasn't composed in 1820 New York. The speakers there simply wouldn't know these structures. Again one or two you might suspect survived in some fashion or were picked up from old books. For this many to have survived is extremely unlikely. (Or so the argument goes)

 

Oh, okay.  So it sounds to me like all of the hubbub is a good thing.  We know the Book of Mormon wasn't composed in 1820s New York. We know it was translated by the gift and power of God with God helping Joseph to translate pre 400 A.D. reformed Egyptian writings into the language common to the KJV version of the Bible.  We presume the language(s) Joseph was familiar with somehow crept into the Book of Mormon as he translated those writings, but the goal apparently was NOT to translate those writings into the language still being used in the 1820s, but the language of the KJV Bible.  I like the way God thinks, and the way God works.  And I like the language used in the KJV Bible and the Book of Mormon.

[clarkgoble]

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Meroitic script is easily read.  It is Egyptian cursive.  Meroitic is a lost Nubian language, and that is the reason we cannot translate Meroitic.  Scripts are written, languages are spoken.

But when you assert that it is in meroitic I've been assuming you mean the script, not the language. Is that not the case?

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Scholars prefer the moniker "Caractors Transcript," because it is clearly not the transcript described by Anthon.  Have you ever read his description?

Yes, but I'm trying to write to be clear to other readers here. For those interested most of the original documents can be found here. I'm not sure I trust Anthon's description too much. He seems intentionally trying to portray it as an obvious fraud.

"This paper was in fact a singular scrawl. It consisted of all kinds of crooked characters disposed in columns, and had evidently been prepared by some person who had before him at the time a book containing various alphabets. Greek and Hebrew letters, crosses and flourishes, Roman letters inverted or placed sideways, were arranged in perpendicular columns, and the whole ended in a rude delineation of a circle divided into various compartments, decked with various strange marks, and evidently copied after the Mexican Calender given by Humboldt, but copied in such a way as not to betray the source whence it was derived."

The more compelling argument is the Wilhelm Poulson account. We also know there are other documents such as Martin Harris' document he was showing that was copied by Flanders Dyke. There's then two other documents by Oliver Cowdery and Fredrick Williams - the translation of Mormon being the one discussed in that Ensign I linked to.

But whether or not this is the Anthon Transcript it's been called it enough that everyone understands what one means. "Caracters" is a bit of a mystery to the average reader.

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Whether their opinion matters is not for you or me to say.  We are obligated to report it, rather than falsely claiming that non-Mormon Egyptologists say that the Caractors Transcript is not Egyptian.  Parker and Hayes did not equivocate.  They considered it Egyptian, and so do I.

Of course it's for us to say. We can ask why they thought that. If we don't know and no one else replicates the argument, then their opinion is irrelevant. Appeal to authority is simply a terribly weak argument particularly in cases like this where, by your own account, these are things that many should be able to know. It matters when there are huge incentives for people to verify this and no one does.

We're not talking about some events someone saw and no one else did (or could). We're talking about something that in theory should be easy to replicate and that people can give arguments for. If the only argument is an appeal to the authority of a dead man then that's simply bad argument. It'd be akin to saying dark matter is axions because a dead but smart physicist was convinced they were.The only thing that matters in cases like this are the arguments produced. 

Edited July 6, 2018 by clarkgoble

[jkwilliams]

7 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Oh, okay.  So it sounds to me like all of the hubbub is a good thing.  We know the Book of Mormon wasn't composed in 1820s New York. We know it was translated by the gift and power of God with God helping Joseph to translate pre 400 A.D. reformed Egyptian writings into the language common to the KJV version of the Bible.  We presume the language(s) Joseph was familiar with somehow crept into the Book of Mormon as he translated those writings, but the goal apparently was NOT to translate those writings into the language still being used in the 1820s, but the language of the KJV Bible.  I like the way God thinks, and the way God works.  And I like the language used in the KJV Bible and the Book of Mormon.

I don't think you quite understand. The argument here is that the language used in the Book of Mormon reflects language that pre-dates the KJV Bible.

[clarkgoble]

21 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Haven't really looked into it. Of course, I'm still not persuaded that the variant usage in the Book of Mormon shows a consistent or significant EModE authorship. But then I'm not a linguist. 

You don't have to be a linguist to search the databases for the forms that have been presented. You can search the pre-modern corpus and the various modern corpus to see if they appear. Searching Google Books by date, while a pretty limited corpus, is also pretty easy and is what initially moved me from skeptic to considering it. (Although what it all means is not at all clear to me)

Again it's not a total slam dunk. There's not good ethnographic linguistic records for the region in the relevant time frame. So it's still possible there were pockets of archaic speakers. It's also possible some esoteric pre-modern document was passed around but we can search the documents of that sort we know about.  At this point though I think the burden of proof is now definitely on the skeptic arguing against it.

Edited July 6, 2018 by clarkgoble

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

You don't have to be a linguist to search the databases for the forms that have been presented. You can search the pre-modern corpus and the various modern corpus to see if they appear. Searching Google Books by date, while a pretty limited corpus, is also pretty easy and is what initially moved me from skeptic to considering it. (Although what it all means is not at all clear to me)

Again it's not a total slam dunk. There's not good ethnographic linguistic records for the region in the relevant time frame. So it's still possible there were pockets of archaic speakers. It's also possible some esoteric pre-modern document was passed around but we can search the documents of that sort we know about.  At this point though I think the burden of proof is now definitely on the skeptic arguing against it.

I've done that, and my results looking at the ngrams have sometimes been at odds with what I'm told I should find. I don't find the variant forms to be significant, mostly because they aren't consistent, making the variants relatively sparse in such a large document. I respect what Stan is doing, and maybe I just don't quite grasp its importance. Not the first time that's happened.

[Ahab]

14 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I don't think you quite understand. The argument here is that the language used in the Book of Mormon reflects language that pre-dates the KJV Bible.

That is what I understood.  The language used in the Book of Mormon is from around 600 B.C. to around 400 A.D.   That language was then translated into Early Modern English, similar to what is found in the KJV Bible.

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Ahab said:

That is what I understood.  The language used in the Book of Mormon is from around 600 B.C. to around 400 A.D.   That language was then translated into Early Modern English, similar to what is found in the KJV Bible.

No, that's not it. It's not similar. It's an earlier form of English than KJV/Jacobean English.

[Ahab]

1 minute ago, jkwilliams said:

No, that's not it. It's not similar. It's an earlier form of English than KJV/Jacobean English.

When I read the Book of Mormon, as it is currently translated, it seems to me to be a language that is similar to the language of KJV Bible.   If you're saying you can see indications that the language from which the Book of Mormon was translated was from a time before the KJV Bible was written, I am agreeing with you on that.  And the closer you get to between 600 B.C. to 400 A.D, the more I will agree with you.

[Exiled]

8 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

At this point though I think the burden of proof is now definitely on the skeptic arguing against it.

Really? It seems the above statement can only be justified in a vacuum, and that may be a stretch. I think the utter lack of good evidence of hebrews in the new world keeps the burden on those pushing for the EmodE theory.

In any event, I understand that EmodE structures have been found, but how many? What is the frequency compared to other english structures found in the book of mormon? Is the entire thing now viewed as being EmodE or is EmodE just a tiny fraction, putting the theory back into the mere possibility realm?

How long has Mr. Carmack been working on this project? Would finding EmodE in a book take a long time or would it take a few months? It seems to me that a linguist wouldn't need much time if the entire thing was EmodE but would need a long time if there were only a few structures and the linguist was having to blur his eyes a lot to find more.

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Exiled said:

Really? It seems the above statement can only be justified in a vacuum, and that may be a stretch. I think the utter lack of good evidence of hebrews in the new world keeps the burden on those pushing for the EmodE theory.

In any event, I understand that EmodE structures have been found, but how many? What is the frequency compared to other english structures found in the book of mormon? Is the entire thing now viewed as being EmodE or is EmodE just a tiny fraction, putting the theory back into the mere possibility realm?

How long has Mr. Carmack been working on this project? Would finding EmodE in a book take a long time or would it take a few months? It seems to me that a linguist wouldn't need much time if the entire thing was EmodE but would need a long time if there were only a few structures and the linguist was having to blur his eyes a lot to find more.

That's a good summary of my issues with this. If the book showed a consistent usage of EModE, it would be much more compelling. I just don't see it. Obviously, smarter, better-read people than I am, such as Stan, disagree. But no, I don't feel there's any burden of proof on me as a skeptic. 

[jkwilliams]

4 minutes ago, Ahab said:

When I read the Book of Mormon, as it is currently translated, it seems to me to be a language that is similar to the language of KJV Bible.   If you're saying you can see indications that the language from which the Book of Mormon was translated was from a time before the KJV Bible was written, I am agreeing with you on that.  And the closer you get to between 600 B.C. to 400 A.D, the more I will agree with you.

It's not my argument at all. I just don't think you grasp what the EModE theory is proposing. Fair enough. 

[clarkgoble]

12 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Really? It seems the above statement can only be justified in a vacuum, and that may be a stretch. I think the utter lack of good evidence of hebrews in the new world keeps the burden on those pushing for the EmodE theory.

It seems to me completely orthogonal to the question of whether there were historic Nephites or the Book of Mormon fictional. After all critics have long adopted theories where Joseph didn't write the book by himself but largely cribbed View of the Hebrews or the Spaulding Manuscript. For such critics this just means he cribbed from some 16th century book. For Mormons it's just as big of a problem since while one can make an argument that God would have translated in the vernacular of the early 19th century it appears he didn't. Further these grammatical structures typically don't resemble Hebrew, from what I understand.

12 minutes ago, Exiled said:

In any event, I understand that EmodE structures have been found, but how many? What is the frequency compared to other english structures found in the book of mormon? Is the entire thing now viewed as being EmodE or is EmodE just a tiny fraction, putting the theory back into the mere possibility realm?

How long has Mr. Carmack been working on this project? Would finding EmodE in a book take a long time or would it take a few months? It seems to me that a linguist wouldn't need much time if the entire thing was EmodE but would need a long time if there were only a few structures and the linguist was having to blur his eyes a lot to find more.

There's quite a few. Do a search for Carmack at The Interpreter and you'll find his papers and can trace through the arguments yourself.

As I said the implications aren't at all clear beyond it seeming dubious that Joseph wrote the book himself. That might make an interpretation like say Taves' faithful reconstruction theory problematic, but it really says little about fraud or faith in general. If anything I think it more of a problem for the faithful interpretation than the fraudulent one.

9 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

That's a good summary of my issues with this. If the book showed a consistent usage of EModE, it would be much more compelling. I just don't see it. Obviously, smarter, better-read people than I am, such as Stan, disagree. But no, I don't feel there's any burden of proof on me as a skeptic. 

That's a fair feature to note, but again isn't that more of a problem for the believer than the skeptic of the Book of Mormon?

Edited July 6, 2018 by clarkgoble

[jkwilliams]

4 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

That's a fair feature to note, but again isn't that more of a problem for the believer than the skeptic of the Book of Mormon?

Assuming the proponents are correct in saying the BofM uses an EModE vernacular if not consistently then significantly, I still don't understand what that's supposed to tell us about the book. I'm not sure it's problematic either way. 

[clarkgoble]

32 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Assuming the proponents are correct in saying the BofM uses an EModE vernacular if not consistently then significantly, I still don't understand what that's supposed to tell us about the book. I'm not sure it's problematic either way. 

It undermines the Joseph as author - that's all. Although that's significant. As I said I think it completely undermines the Taves model for instance.

[jkwilliams]

Just now, clarkgoble said:

It undermines the Joseph as author - that's all. Although that's significant. As I said I think it completely undermines the Taves model for instance.

I don't think it changes things either way. The argument rests on the idea that Joseph would not have been familiar with these EModE constructions, and that's a really difficult thing to prove, IMO. For example, the "of which hath been spoken" usage shows up in Joseph's writing outside the text of the Book of Mormon. If that is really an EModE usage, then it seems he was familiar enough with it to use it in his own writing, which suggests that he could easily have written the occurrences of that phrase in the Book of Mormon. Where did he learn that phrase? Now, that could be interesting, but it's not probative either way.

[Ahab]

17 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

It's not my argument at all. I just don't think you grasp what the EModE theory is proposing. Fair enough. 

Okay, I researched this a little and I think I understand the issues better now.  Languages come from earlier languages, with the Early Modern English (EModE) language coming from Middle English (ME) language and ME language coming from Old English.  The EModE language is dated between the late 1400s to the mid/late 1600s.  The ME is dated between the mid 1100s and 1500s, and Old English is dated from probably the mid 5th century to the late 1000s.

Btw, the KJV Bible was commissioned in 1604 and finished in 1611.  The language used in the KJV Bible didn't originate in King Jame's time, though. That language came from other, older languages, as all or most languages do.

Anyway, some people wonder how EModE influences no longer dominant in Joseph Smith's lifetime could have crept into Joseph's translation of Book of Mormon  records written between 600 B.C. and 400 A.D.

I say Joseph was influenced by God as he translated those writings and that all languages have traces of older languages that were used before them.  That's a simple answer but it's one I can understand and see is the truth.

[mfbukowski]

On 7/3/2018 at 10:51 AM, cinepro said:

Someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but I think this is what is being theorized.

The traditional understanding is that we have Mormon and Moroni engraving Reformed Egyptian on golden plates, and Joseph was given the ability to translate this Reformed Egyptian into English (even if the plates weren't present at the time, it is still presumed that the text is derived from what was engraved on the plates, even if there were errors in what was engraved).

 

This new theory posits an additional step.  The plates are buried around around 400 AD.  Then, sometime in the middle ages, some unknown agent who is familiar with both the Reformed Egyptian and the English vernacular of the time (or "tyme"), gets access to the plates, either physically or through a vision, and then translates them.  Then, when Joseph is assigned to render a version in English in the late 1820s, he is given a spiritual dictation of this olde English version, instead of creating a new version himself (or God having an English speaker from the 1820s do it).

Or, when it comes time for Joseph to do the translation, God assigns the task of doing the actual  translation to an angelic being who studied English in the middle ages and he or she performs the translation from the Reformed Egyptian to English.  They are apparently also told not to correct errors or "loan shifting" in the process.   Again, why God would do this instead of assigning an Angelic Being who knew 1820s English is a mystery.

 

I think you are making up a whole theory which is yours alone about what is considered the "raw data" which IS the mystery- and your interpretation is completely YOURS.  I don't know of anyone who has put forth such a theory to fit the data, but I could be wrong and stand to be corrected if that is so.

The "raw data" I think is pretty simple- it is "simply" that Joseph translated using a version of English he could not have known.

THAT is the mystery.

Your solution/interpretation of the "data" is, I think, yours although it is what seems to be an easy theory to put together.  As we know the simplest solution may not be the "true" one.  I have not studied this much so if that interpretation has also been put forward, and you have a reference I would like to check it out.

I would just caution against jumping to conclusions and therefore throwing out the data instead of seeing the mystery AS a mystery and trying to figure it out

This really is as much as a caution to myself as to it is to anyone else.   I kind of came up with similar theories myself which seemed pretty goofy until very recently, and realized that I was just making them up myself to try to explain it all.

I have decided that it is 1- really true that Joseph used older English than he could have known and

2- that that is a totally WEIRD fact and mystery that we should not throw out with some glib weird theory about the supernatural.

My first impulse is to figure out how it could have happened naturalistically of course.

It really does seem to be a fact that the translation was in older English than was used in his day.  Very strange.  How could that have happened?

I think we should look at it as a genuine scholarly mystery.   The data seems genuine, at least to me.  I tended before to kind of ridicule it but of late I am a "convert". 

Clearly the answer is in the lost pages which tells the whole story. 

Or something. 

Edited July 6, 2018 by mfbukowski