Bart Ehrman and the Historical-Critical Approach

[Saint Bonaventure]

We can discuss the historical-critical approach in this thread, and with particular attention to Latter-day Saints' Article of Faith that "We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly...."

For starters, here's Catholic apologist Trent Horn:

 

[InCognitus]

On 7/5/2023 at 7:36 AM, Saint Bonaventure said:

We can discuss the historical-critical approach in this thread, and with particular attention to Latter-day Saints' Article of Faith that "We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly...."

For starters, here's Catholic apologist Trent Horn:

 

I finally got a chance to watch / listen to this this morning.

I like the "good Bart" and "bad Bart" portrayal at the 25:20 mark of the video (i.e. the scholarly Bart and the popular Bart.)  And I have to agree, they are right about how Bart comes across in the two different situations.  I'm not sure how they come up with the 99% accuracy numbers for the text of the New Testament.  I don't know how they could really know it is that accurate, but I'm sure it's something in the upper 90% range.

 

Edited July 6, 2023 by InCognitus

[InCognitus]

I meant to include this in my post above, but I was in a hurry when I posted it.....

It's sad that Bart Ehrman started out his studies with an Evangelical Christian view of scripture (as the "inerrant word of God"), because the shattering of that perception really impacted him.  He's a smart man and his biblical studies are valuable, but the "popular Bart" personality is obviously influenced by his shattered faith experience.   His research and publications could be so much better if he had began his studies with a realistic view of scripture to begin with.

[Saint Bonaventure]

15 hours ago, InCognitus said:

I meant to include this in my post above, but I was in a hurry when I posted it.....

It's sad that Bart Ehrman started out his studies with an Evangelical Christian view of scripture (as the "inerrant word of God"), because the shattering of that perception really impacted him.  He's a smart man and his biblical studies are valuable, but the "popular Bart" personality is obviously influenced by his shattered faith experience.   His research and publications could be so much better if he had began his studies with a realistic view of scripture to begin with.

Agreed. My intuition is that Ehrman is still hung up on sola scriptura, it's just that now he's on the shadow side of it.

[Kevin Christensen]

John Gee had an article in the Interpreter that offers some relevant responses to Ehrman and NT scholars who build their arguments on similar assumptions.

 

Quote

Before we get to the date of Matthew, let’s date a non-canonical text: the Didache. At the end of the first century, Ignatius knows of the following ecclesiastical offices: apostle,43 bishop,44 elder,45 and deacon.46 The office of apostle already seems to be in the past rather than the present.47 After the time of Ignatius, only the offices of bishop, elder, and deacon remain. The time of Ignatius at the end of the first century marks a firm date after which only those offices remain. Other offices, like prophet48 and evangelist,49 which are current in the middle of the first century, are not found in the church after the first century.

The Didache, however, treats both apostles50 and prophets51 as current offices as well as bishops52 and deacons.53 These are attested in book of Acts54 and the epistles of Paul55 in the middle of the first century. The Didache must date to sometime in the first century.

The Didache is labeled as “the teaching of the Lord to the Gentiles through the twelve apostles”56 It cannot date before the opening of the gospel to the Gentiles recounted in Acts 10. Based on the chronology of Paul’s life, this would have to be before Paul’s mission to the Gentiles in Tarsus.57 The Didache also refers to disciples as “Christians”58 which occurs after the mission of Paul and Barnabas to Antioch.59

[Page 29]Significantly, however, the Didache contains none of the instructions to the Gentiles on circumcision deriving from the Jerusalem council.60 The instructions of the Jerusalem council also contain none of the basic Christian teachings and practices enumerated in the Didache. The pronouncements of the Jerusalem council seem to be an appendix to the Didache. The Didache thus predates the Jerusalem council.61 This places the Didache sometime between Acts 11 and 15.

The Didache three times refers to something it calls “the gospel,”62 which is in the singular. It knows only one. When it quotes Jesus, the quotations are from Matthew 6:9–1363 and 7:6,64 not from Luke or Mark. The gospel of Matthew must predate the Didache and thus must date sometime before Acts 15 at latest, which puts it before the gospel of Mark.

Matthew, however, preserves the injunction of Jesus to his apostles not to preach to the Gentiles.65 Such prohibitions are absent from Luke and Mark, which were written after the permission to preach to the Gentiles. Thus, Matthew must have been written before the prohibition was lifted in Acts 9–10. This puts the writing of Matthew within a few years of the resurrection.

Other individuals date Matthew differently, and some may wish to dispute my arguments. I, however, have provided my reasoning for dating Matthew when I do. Those who disagree have an obligation to provide reasoned arguments for their dates.

This dating of Matthew based on historical sources has an unintended benefit when applied to the presuppositions that Lataster, Ehrman, and most New Testament scholars share. 

https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/the-implications-of-some-standard-assumptions-of-new-testament-scholars-responding-to-a-modern-anti-christ/

Gee also goes through the dates of the earliest available manuscripts of a range of important historical writings compared to earliest manuscripts and dates for the New Testament.

Quote

Let’s look at the time lag between text and manuscript. It is not unusual to have a gap of several centuries between when a text was written and the earliest manuscript of that text. Let us consider some examples from the genre of history (arranged from shortest to longest span):

The Roman historian Dio Cassius may have lived in the late second century ad,20 but the earliest manuscript of his work is fifth or sixth century.21 There is thus a gap of 300 or 400 years between the writing and the earliest manuscript.
Xenophon lived from about 428 bc to 354 bc.22 A third century ad fragment of his Anabasis survives, and the first [Page 25]full manuscript dates to the fourteenth century.23 Thus there are about 500 years between the historian and the earliest surviving manuscript of his work.
Gaius Plinius Caecilius Secundus (ca. ad 61–112) at the end of the first century generated a mass of correspondence with the emperor Trajan (ruled ad 98–117), which he then collected and published at the beginning of the second century.24 This is a useful treasure trove of primary documents, but the earliest surviving manuscript dates to the ninth century,25 at least 700 years later.
Cornelius Tacitus was born about ad 56 and died apparently after ad 115.26 The earliest manuscript of his Annals dates to the ninth century.27 Thus there are about 700 years between the two. His Histories are first attested later, in the eleventh century,28 with at least 900 years between the two.
Gaius Julius Caesar was born about 100 bc and was assassinated in 44 bc.29 The earliest manuscript of his Gallic Wars dates to the ninth century,30 about 900 years after it was written. The earliest manuscript of his account of the civil war is tenth century.31 This makes it about 1,000 years after it was written.
Herodotus of Halicarnassus was born a little before the Persian War (499–449 bc) and lived until the Peloponnesian War (431–404 bc).32 The earliest manuscript of Herodotus dates to [Page 26]the end of the first century or early second century ad,33 about 500 years later. The earliest manuscript upon which editions are based of Herodotus is tenth century ad,34 at least 1,300 years later.
Thucydides was born between 460 and 455 bc and probably died about 400 bc.35 The earliest manuscript for Thucydides, however, is fourteenth century ad,36 at least 1,700 years later.
The length of time between the writing of the gospels and their earliest manuscripts is less than any of these, no matter when one dates the gospels.

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[Dario_M]

I haven't seen the video yet because it's quite long. And i have a difficult time concentrate. I've always had a hard time believing everything that's written in the Bible btw. Especially the old testament. I resonate way more with the Book of Mormon. The book Book of Mormon is more interesting to read for me. And more believable i find. I never had it in me to finished reading the whole bible. The book of Mormon i've finished within a month. 

Edited July 14, 2023 by Dario_M

[Benjamin McGuire]

On 7/5/2023 at 9:36 AM, Saint Bonaventure said:

We can discuss the historical-critical approach in this thread, and with particular attention to Latter-day Saints' Article of Faith that "We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly...."

I think that we could have an entire discussion about this phrase - "as far as it is translated correctly." On it's surface, in its original context, what was meant by this is exactly what Joseph Smith said consistently about translating the Book of Mormon - an he used a phrase that he takes from the Book of Mormon as he nears its completion, from Omni 1:20 -

Quote

And it came to pass in the days of Mosiah, there was a large stone brought unto him with engravings on it; and he did interpret the engravings by the gift and power of God.

So what does Joseph Smith mean when he writes "as far as it is translated correctly"? He means to the extent that it has been translated by the gift and power of God. And Joseph felt that this dealt not with the sorts of technical concerns that we have when we use the word translation (a concept on which I have spent a lot of time), but rather with the substance - the doctrine - contained within the text. In 1844, shortly before his death, in his King Follett discourse, Joseph Smith said this:

Quote

I have an old edition of the New Testament in the Latin, Hebrew, German and Greek languages. I have been reading the German, and find it to be the most correct translation, and to correspond nearest to the revelations which God has given to me for the last fourteen years.

Do you see here what Joseph Smith does relative to the statement in the article of faith? He measures the correctness of the biblical translation - not against the meaning of words in the original language but in the way that it relates to the revelations he had received from God (beginning with the Book of Mormon translation). I note in passing that it would seem from other comments that he made, that Joseph seems to have acquired (or had access to) a Hutter polyglot, and the German translation he is referring to here is Martin Luther's New Terstament translation. A few years earlier he had described why he thought the text that he had (especially in the King James translation) was poor -

Quote

I believe the Bible as it read when it came from the pen of the original writers. Ignorant translators, careless transcribers, or designing and corrupt priests have committed many errors.

This isn't, strictly speaking, translation in the sense that we usually think of translation. A more technical notion of translation begins to surface within Mormon discourse at the end of the 19th century, with the publication of the ASV. Mormonism as a whole had a high level of distrust over the new translation, and this is when they firmly commit to the King James translation - even with the earlier statements about the poorness of its translation provided by Joseph Smith.

There is a second thing that I will be bringing up in my comments below. It is difficult at times to deal with a historical-critical approach to early Christianity. After all, it was a long time ago, and we have (at least for the first couple of centuries) a very small pool of resources from which to work. Mormonism, on the other hand, is still in its first two centuries - and we have a huge pool of resources - and yet even here we find that we can apply the tools of the historical-critical approach to rediscover things about early Mormonism. In this context, we can make arguments about the effectiveness of the theory. This is important in this discussion. Ok, on to the video (and I am going to focus only on the historical-critical stuff - the apologetic arguments on physics at the beginning is rather bizarre in my opinion).

1: The discussion about the comparison between Jesus and other figures is problematic in two ways. The first is that it is a very narrow comparison. By focusing in too narrowly on the idea of resurrection (or the ascension into heaven), we run into the problem that when we get to accounts that are at least as old as the New Testament, we often see fantastic claims that we simply don't accept as historical in the way that they understood it. Perhaps the best documented figure in my recent memory that I have been reading about is Socrates. One of the charges of which Socrates was convicted was the fact that he had the voice of Zeus in his head, telling him what (not) to do during his lifetime. The Greeks had a problem with this because they were in the process of democratizing religion - but there we go. In his defense, Socrates appeals to the fact that a friend of his went to the Oracle, and got a response to a question that involved Socrates. There are multiple accounts of these events - contemporary accounts. Should we believe that the Oracle provided information about Socrates? Should we believe that Socrates really was hearing a personal oracle from Zeus? I am confident that these are ideas that the apologist would not accept. At the same time, there is presented here a degree of evidence that the apologist assigns to the resurrection accounts that allow them to reflect a historical reality - and without that level of evidence, we don't have to accept accounts as evidence. This second principle would allow us to decide that Adam, Eve, Noah, and even Moses (and everyone in between plus a bunch beyond that) are merely fictions. That do not meet that evidentiary bar that the apologist suggests is necessary for belief.

2: On the issue of whether or not Jesus identified himself as God, there is a lot of support for Ehrman's approach among believers. Perhaps the most detailed analysis (from a believer aspect) comes from Larry Hurtado in his book Lord Jesus Christ (2003). The introduction is a must read. And Hurtado places the beginning of the belief in the divinity of Jesus at around 50 AD. Hurtado notes this (page 9):

Quote

 

So I wish to make it clear that, in approaching Christ-devotion as a historical phenomenon that can in principle be analyzed the way that historians study other historical phenomena, I do not intend thereby either to refute or to validate the religious and theological meaning of early devotion to Jesus. I have my views of traditional christological claims and readers will have theirs. To come clean, I confess to being guilty of Christian faith (although, Christians being what we are, not every one will be satisfied with my version of Christian faith!). But I do not believe that the religious validity of a Christian christological conviction necessarily rests upon the time or manner of its appearance in history.

Thus, for example, I do not think it is necessary for Jesus to have thought and spoken of himself in the same terms that his followers thought and spoke of him in the decades subsequent to his crucifixion in order for the convictions of these followers to be treated as valid by Christians today. A good many may disagree, both among those who assert and among those who oppose traditional Christian beliefs.

 

Hurtado would identify the apologist in this video as being a part of the anti-critical apologist movement that (page 8):

Quote

Wishing to preserve the religious and theological validity of traditional christologicl claims, the anticrical view attempted to deny or minimize as far as possible the historically conditioned nature of early Christ-devotion.

The point of all of this is to suggest that the view that is presented in this video as a way of contradicting Ehrman is itself a highly problematic view. Those views aren't limited to atheists like Ehrman. In the context of the historical-critical process, the approach of the apologetic views is perhaps even more problematic, because it is based on the same bad assumptions as the history-of-religions arguments that they are trying to confront. I have written about this problem in a couple of my published pieces - and like Christianity more broadly, this is a problem that confronts Mormonism in the study of its early period. There has been a lot of resistance to historical fact within the LDS Church in areas when there is a refusal to recognize the fact that early Mormonism developed over time - often in ways that are historically conditioned. And this same three groups occur with regard to Mormonism - those who believe that this historical conditioning is evidence that it is not revealed, those who believe that it is revealed (and so do not accept the historical conditioning) and those who believe that religion can be both revealed and historically conditioned. If you want to read the introduction (which is not available in the Google preview) you can access it with a free account here.

3: We get the clip on the twelve tribes. The apologist really doesn't engage Ehrman's argument and moves off on a tangent about YHWH and the relationship to the twelve tribes. The challenge here is that it better applies to Moses, not God. In fact, the twelve tribes has its own challenges in the New Testament (particularly in Revelation). Of the original twelve tribes, only eleven are given land in Israel. Levi is excluded, and Joseph is given two shares - one for Ephraim and one for Manasseh (as the birthright son). Revelations on the other hand, omits Dan, and has Joseph and Manasseh (as well as Levi). But, just as interestingly, in this section, the apologist engages in an argument from silence in support of his own view.

4: On the issue of differences, the apologist is simply off in left field. I am going to use some facts from the Old Testament for a moment - since I have some statements about it that help clarify the problem from a well-known Hebrew Scholar David Clines. He wrote this:

Quote

 

If we ask, How good is the text of the Hebrew Bible, text-critically speaking?, two thoughts immediately come to mind. The first is our general impression of the care with which the Masoretic text has been transmitted, the extraordinary measures taken to ensure its accurate preservation in all its details. The second is our conviction that emendation of the Masoretic text, though widely practised by biblical scholars a hundred years ago, should be undertaken only as a last resort when we are incapable of making sense of the text before us. We certainly do not think in general that our Hebrew Bibles contain a faulty text, nor do we act - as exegetes, as commentators, as lexicographers - as if we were dealing with a highly questionable text.We have had in our hands, however, in the Masoretic text itself the best evidence for its instability we could ask for, namely, the existence of variant parallel texts, i.e. texts in double transmission.

...

Of course all the figures are very notional. In the end, the argument of this lecture does not turn on the resultant figure; for it is much the same situation whether it is one word in two or one word in four that we can reasonably estimate is a variant in our Hebrew texts. For the overriding consideration is that (except for the cases where variants are still extant) we do not know which word it is that is the variant. For most practical purposes, it is as if every single word in the Hebrew Bible was a known variant, and as if we possessed an entirely uncertain text.The text of the Hebrew Bible is thus in a state of radical uncertainty.That means that we cannot be sure about any word or phrase in Hebrew Bible texts we have today that these were the words and phrases of their original author. It is not that the text is sometimes and at some identifiable places corrupt; it is rather that the text can at every point be suspected of being corrupt.However, this state of radical textual uncertainty does not mean that we no longer have a Hebrew Bible, that we do not know what the contents and the sequence of materials within the biblical books generally were. Viewed from a perspective of distance from text-critical enquiries, the text of the Hebrew Bible is reasonably sound; there are no major lacunae, large-scale disarrangements or wildly variant textual witnesses. For some purposes we can say that what remains of the Old Testament is good enough; but if our purpose is to say what the Old Testament contains, word by word and line by line, what remains of the Old Testament is in a sorry state.

 

What is fascinating about this issue of textual criticism through manuscripts is that we have for the Book of Mormon the tremendous work done by Skousen. If you thumb through any of the volumes, one thing is instantly clear to the issues raised here. Even with modern printing technology, and an excellent state of preservation. What do we have? We have 28% of the original handwritten text. We have all but three manuscript lines of the printers manuscript made from that original text. And then we have the first edition (1830) in many different copies - which show a number of corrections being made even while it was being printed. And then finally, we have copies of every subsequent edition. All things considered, the number of changes is significant. Even more importantly, until this work was done, many of the changes in the text were persistent. Once a change occurred (especially those from the original manuscript to the printer manuscript) those errors occur in every single subsequent edition. Even with this work completed, very few of the identified changes are targeted to be reverse in future publications. A state of uniformity in all known printer copies is not actually a good determination for whether or not something is original. If we didn't have the printer's manuscript or the parts of the original manuscript that we have, but we had an estimate for the number of words with errors (about 1.6%), we would know that there were errors, and we wouldn't know which words represented those errors. This is true for the Old and New Testaments - except on a much larger scale - in part because of the time gap between the original texts and the oldest known copies. It is made worse (and this is one of the central arguments made by Clines) because academics tend to avoid emending the Greek and Hebrew texts - that is, they are more likely to invent words rather than accept that there might be an orthographic variant present. The apologist's argument that many variants spread out over many manuscripts is more reliable than few variants spread out across few manuscripts is simply nonsense. Using a consensus text (creating a text using words that appear in the most manuscripts) will only create a text that is more error prone than the worst of those earlier manuscripts.

Variants are much more frequent and significant in earlier manuscripts. But this is what we expect once we get away from the New Testament and into classical studies (and as I pointed out, the Book of Mormon). In his chapter "The Text of the Synoptic Gospels in the Second Century," (Gospel Traditions in the Second Century: Origins, Recensions, Text, and Transmission) Helmut Koester wrote this:

Quote

the oldest known [New Testament] manuscript archetypes are separated from the autographs by more than a century. Textual critics of classical texts know that the first century of their transmission is the period in which the most serious corruptions occur. (p. 19)

This seems to ring true. It is even true (on a smaller scale) of textual reconstructions from the 19th century as we see with the Book of Mormon and other early Mormon documents. The challenge in this video is that there is nothing here that actually addresses anything that deals with historical criticism in a meaningful way. It reminds us of something that Ehrman himself wrote about this issue (the apologetic response) - this from his 2009 Jesus Interrupted:

Quote

There are certain views of the inspiration of Scripture, such as the one I had pounded into me as a late teenager, that do not stand up well to the facts of textual criticism. For most Christians, who don't have a conservative evangelical view like the one I had, these textual facts can be interesting, but there is nothing in them to challenge their faith, which is built on something other than having the very words that God inspired in the Bible. . . . In any event, as I indicated, these theses themselves were almost entirely noncontroversial. Who can deny that we have thousands of manuscripts? Or hundreds of thousands of variants? Or that lots of the variants involve spelling? Or that scholars continue to debate what the original text was in lots of places? All of these statements are factually true.

The one statement that has stirred up controversy is my claim that some of these variations are significant. This view has been objected to by some conservative evangelicals and no one else that I know of. That gives me pause—why is this criticism coming only from people with a particular set of theological views?

There is an attempt at the end of the video to dismiss Ehrman based on the fact that he will agree that what we have (at least in our academic reconstructions) is quite similar to the original text. The problem is that the video itself in its scriptural references frequently refers to specific phrasing and specific words in the text. You suggest that Ehrman is hung up on Sola Scriptura - but conceptually (as a Catholic) this is less interesting to you - and it is even less interesting to LDS. When Joseph Smith uses the "gift and power of God" to produce his revision of the Bible, the end result is largely the same - but he saw some of the changes as highly significant - sometimes in a single word. To Evangelicals, Joseph's new translation is a shocking disregard for the text (whatever it might be). In the past several decades, I have often been confronted (by Evangelicals) with the number of changes that Joseph Smith made in his new translation. And yet, it is patently clear that the thousands of changes he made to the existing King James text do not provide a radically different Bible.

Mormonism, is, I think, somewhat immunized to textual issues because of the article of faith that you mention. I don't think that most of them care much about historical-critical analysis. But, I think that the fact that we can take the same methods and apply them to our own modern texts and come up with meaningful observations says something about the methods and their relative validity. Most Christian apologists aren't interested in having a serious conversation about the methodology or the issue of whether it works or not. They especially aren't interested in its application outside of the narrow confines of scripture. They want to continue to privilege the text - as if it is something different from every other text out there. This video is no different. While there may be important critiques of Ehrman and his presentations, this isn't one of them.

[Saint Bonaventure]

On 7/14/2023 at 11:57 AM, Benjamin McGuire said:

I think that we could have an entire discussion about this phrase - "as far as it is translated correctly." On it's surface, in its original context, what was meant by this is exactly what Joseph Smith said consistently about translating the Book of Mormon - an he used a phrase that he takes from the Book of Mormon as he nears its completion, from Omni 1:20 -

So what does Joseph Smith mean when he writes "as far as it is translated correctly"? He means to the extent that it has been translated by the gift and power of God. And Joseph felt that this dealt not with the sorts of technical concerns that we have when we use the word translation (a concept on which I have spent a lot of time), but rather with the substance - the doctrine - contained within the text. In 1844, shortly before his death, in his King Follett discourse, Joseph Smith said this:

Thanks for sharing your interesting thoughts, and particularly as regarding the "as far as it is translated correctly" phrase.

I'll continue our conversation in pieces so that others can jump in too, and so that my own comments are less of a jumble.

We may not need a technical discussion of 'translation,' although this seems to be an area where Latter-day Saints share the word 'translation' with others and then have their own dictionary--or dictionaries--for its meaning. I'm not suggesting that you conform your use of the word to my expectation; I only request that you continue to clarify so that we can better understand one another. 

What you've described as Joseph Smith Jr's intent, and your citation in the Book of Mormon as evidence of his intent, has several thoughts percolating for me:

• When you describe Joseph Smith Jr's notion of translation as being by "the gift and power of God," you seem to be asserting that for Joseph Smith 'translation' goes beyond the words of a text to an intention that transcends the text (and whether that text were words were on the Golden Plates, on the Book of Abraham Scrolls, or in a version of the Bible, etc.). 
• If I'm following you, what you're describing is similar to translation by dynamic equivalence--idea to idea more than word to word--with a significant difference being that Joseph Smith Jr. was not limited by the words of the text which he was translating. Instead, he could work from the truths that were intended, truths that transcended the words either in the original texts or lost in compromised copies over the centuries, and then he would put those transcendent truths into words.
• I believe that one important area of disagreement is in the area of Sacred Scripture. I take you to be indicating that the Bible was in need of translation by Joseph Smith Jr., and specifically that the transcendent truths that were obscured by the Bible's words, or by corrupt priests who tampered with the Bible's texts, needed Joseph Smith Jr's translation in order to be present or clearly manifest.
• I'm drawing an implication that, for you, the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith Jr's other revelations are superior to the Bible because they were translated in the manner you've described, but the Bible was not so translated.
• I'm drawing an implication that Joseph Smith Jr's translation of the Bible was intended to introduce truths Joseph knew to be intended based on the Book of Mormon and his own revelations, but that there is some dispute about Joseph Smith's Jr's translation being completed.  
• I've heard so many different understandings of translation from LDS folks that I won't assume that your understanding is general. Some LDS folks seem to be thinking of 'transmission' more than 'translation.' 

 

On 7/14/2023 at 11:57 AM, Benjamin McGuire said:

Do you see here what Joseph Smith does relative to the statement in the article of faith? He measures the correctness of the biblical translation - not against the meaning of words in the original language but in the way that it relates to the revelations he had received from God (beginning with the Book of Mormon translation). I note in passing that it would seem from other comments that he made, that Joseph seems to have acquired (or had access to) a Hutter polyglot, and the German translation he is referring to here is Martin Luther's New Terstament translation. A few years earlier he had described why he thought the text that he had (especially in the King James translation) was poor -

This isn't, strictly speaking, translation in the sense that we usually think of translation. A more technical notion of translation begins to surface within Mormon discourse at the end of the 19th century, with the publication of the ASV. Mormonism as a whole had a high level of distrust over the new translation, and this is when they firmly commit to the King James translation - even with the earlier statements about the poorness of its translation provided by Joseph Smith.

I think I'm understanding you. To no one's shock I'm not keen on Martin Luther's version.

I'm interpreting your comments as indicating that the ASV contributed to a changing notion of "as far as it is translated correctly." Specifically, I believe you are indicating that there has been slippage from the definition of translation that you've described to something that found the ASV wanting in comparison with the KJV. 

Again, thanks for the conversation. I'll address your other points as I have time to do so.

 

 

Edited July 21, 2023 by Saint Bonaventure

[Benjamin McGuire]

10 hours ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

We may not need a technical discussion of 'translation,' although this seems to be an area where Latter-day Saints share the word 'translation' with others and then have their own dictionary--or dictionaries--for its meaning. I'm not suggesting that you conform your use of the word to my expectation; I only request that you continue to clarify so that we can better understand one another. 

You can read my take on the idea here (at least relative to the Book of Mormon).

10 hours ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

When you describe Joseph Smith Jr's notion of translation as being by "the gift and power of God," you seem to be asserting that for Joseph Smith 'translation' goes beyond the words of a text to an intention that transcends the text (and whether that text were words were on the Golden Plates, on the Book of Abraham Scrolls, or in a version of the Bible, etc.).

I don't think that Joseph Smith translates in the same sense that we consider translation. Normally, translation involves a double act of communication. A translator reads a text in one language and then provides an equivalent communication in another language. There are lots of ways in which that equivalency can occur. While Joseph Smith (and his associates) do a bit of dabbling in what we might call translation, for the most part, it doesn't occur in the production of these texts. For the Book of Mormon, it is suggested that he simply read the text as it appeared to him (looking at the text using a seer stone or the Nephite interpreters). As he reads it, someone writes down what he is reading. There is no double act of communication here - only a single act. I spell this out in my presentation I link above. We can call the text a translation perhaps, but we cannot call the activity that creates it 'translating' if that makes sense. And if Joseph is merely a reader of the text, then to discuss what Joseph does, as you do here, is problematic.

10 hours ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

If I'm following you, what you're describing is similar to translation by dynamic equivalence--idea to idea more than word to word--with a significant difference being that Joseph Smith Jr. was not limited by the words of the text which he was translating. Instead, he could work from the truths that were intended, truths that transcended the words either in the original texts or lost in compromised copies over the centuries, and then he would put those transcendent truths into words.

Actually, I don't really take a position on this. I think that most LDS have some sort of belief that the Book of Mormon is some sort of word-for-word translation of an original source. I think that this is unlikely. I also think that we run into a problem - even when we start to deal with the idea of dynamic equivalence - in part because the Book of Mormon is (by any technical evaluation) a rather lousy translation. The poorness of the translation, however, would seem to be a part of the rhetorical strategy of the translation. This is part of why it is important to understand the idea of a translation as a double-communicative act. We can suggest that there are things about the text that are a part of its intention that exist separately from the text as it is. Again, I discuss this to some extent in the linked presentation.

10 hours ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

I believe that one important area of disagreement is in the area of Sacred Scripture. I take you to be indicating that the Bible was in need of translation by Joseph Smith Jr., and specifically that the transcendent truths that were obscured by the Bible's words, or by corrupt priests who tampered with the Bible's texts, needed Joseph Smith Jr's translation in order to be present or clearly manifest.

Not particularly. I think that Joseph Smith believed that there was a need. This idea came from two sources. First, Joseph Smith was heavily influenced by Sidney Rigdon, who prior to his encountering Mormonism was associated with Alexander Campbell of the Stone-Campbell movement. Campbell had completed his own first personal translation of the New Testament in 1826. This influence carried over to Joseph Smith's efforts - and there are some changes in the text of the Joseph Smith translation project which can be linked to ideas from Campbell's efforts - presumably introduced by Rigdon. The second issue was that while the Book of Mormon engages the King James text extensively, there were differences in quoted passages, and there were differences in interpretations of the biblical text from what he had experienced. Joseph Smith took this to mean that the text (the original language text) could be (and should be) translated differently in places. When Joseph gets to Kirtland, he had acquired Hebrew and Greek grammars and lexicons, and hired an instructor to come teach some of the members of the Church biblical Hebrew. These efforts certainly informed later work. We can see places where these tools influenced some of the Abraham 'translation' materials. But this all comes after the Book of Mormon and the JST. I think that we also forget that even though we had the existence of material like Campbell's personal translation, we didn't have the large variety of English translations of the biblical text. In early 19th century America, we only had the King James in ready supply. Joseph doesn't manage to get his polyglot until the Nauvoo period (early 1840s). We don't see a new English translation until the Revised version is published in 1885, and then the ASV in 1901. I personally don't find the JST to be as interesting as I did when I was younger - and the significant additions to the text that were put into Joseph Smith Matthew and the Book of Moses were not 'translations' but again provided through revelation. So as I noted at the beginning of this paragraph, I don't think that the Bible needed a translation by Joseph Smith. The idea of rewriting the text fit into the restorationist theology that the early LDS Church incorporated. It isn't long after the JST that the LDS Church begins to separate from this idea and to build its own scripture - the Book of Commandments and later the D&C - where we see less of an interest in trying to retranslate and more the idea of creating progressive scripture. And it is this trend that also contributes to the LDS Church more strongly embracing the KJV text beginning in the late 1880s, when the first KJV revisions started to be published on a large scale. The other thing is that there were four known manuscripts of the Joseph Smith translation project. They didn't agree everywhere. And since these manuscripts were split between the LDS Church and the RLDS Church, there was (at least for a while) some uncertainty as to the genuineness of the changes made in the JST - this kept the JST (except for the two sections which were canonized) from becoming terribly mainstream in LDS usage - until a lot of work was done with the texts in the later part of the 20th century.

10 hours ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

I'm drawing an implication that, for you, the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith Jr's other revelations are superior to the Bible because they were translated in the manner you've described, but the Bible was not so translated.

Probably - but not in the way that I think you are inferring. I personally think revelation is written to specific audiences (and not to a single global non-temporal audience). The further we are from that original audience, the more difficult the texts are to read, and the less relevant they are for us in our circumstance. The Book of Mormon deals with this problem by suggesting that rather than worrying about the original context, we do better with scripture by "likening it unto ourselves." And in this way, there is less about the text and more about its interpretation. In this sense, much of what we view as "translation" in the LDS Church is more appropriately labeled (inspired) interpretation. By nature, then, modern revelation, which is written for an audience that more closely resembles us as readers, and which addresses more current issues, is of more value to us. This, at least, reflects my own experience. I have, over the years, managed to find the time to do a bit of my own work (I took my first class in Biblical Hebrew in 1996). Translation is always a poor substitute for original language studies ... depending, of course, on what your real objective is.

10 hours ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

I'm drawing an implication that Joseph Smith Jr's translation of the Bible was intended to introduce truths Joseph knew to be intended based on the Book of Mormon and his own revelations, but that there is some dispute about Joseph Smith's Jr's translation being completed.  

Joseph Smith's translation of the Bible wasn't really a 'translation' so much as it was a revision of sorts - an interpretive revision (with a couple of revealed insertions). To the extent that Joseph finished what he was doing, it was completed. It seems clear, however, that Joseph also wanted to go back and go through the process again - and in doing so, apply all of the new understanding he had received through revelation to the text. This wouldn't have been a translation in the technical sense either. So, I personally think that the argument that he wasn't complete isn't particularly useful or relevant. That argument comes out of a specific polemic and apologetic response over what the purpose of the JST was and what was supposed to be done with it. I think that in that case, I have differences of opinion with both the polemic and the response.

11 hours ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

I've heard so many different understandings of translation from LDS folks that I won't assume that your understanding is general. Some LDS folks seem to be thinking of 'transmission' more than 'translation.' 

Yeah, I don't disagree with you here. I think you might enjoy the presentation I linked at the beginning of my response.

11 hours ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

I'm interpreting your comments as indicating that the ASV contributed to a changing notion of "as far as it is translated correctly." Specifically, I believe you are indicating that there has been slippage from the definition of translation that you've described to something that found the ASV wanting in comparison with the KJV. 

Yeah, if I am understanding you. I think that it was in the context of the Revised version and the ASV version that thew LDS understanding of the idea of translation was reformulated - and then read backward onto earlier Mormonism - in a way which made it more difficult (not less difficult) to understand what was previously happening.

[Teancum]

On 7/5/2023 at 9:36 AM, Saint Bonaventure said:

We can discuss the historical-critical approach in this thread, and with particular attention to Latter-day Saints' Article of Faith that "We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly...."

For starters, here's Catholic apologist Trent Horn:

 

Wow.  Two minutes in and the dude about the resurrection?  I watched this in the past and Ehrman just destroyed that guy. But Trent just give a brief excerpt.  Justin failed miserably.  Selective apologetics at their best.  But that is what religious apologists do.  In the same video with Justin Ehrman uses Mormonism and the BoM to see what Justin reject Smith's claims but does not reject the claims he has in the NT.  It was quite interesting. 

[Teancum]

On 7/5/2023 at 9:36 AM, Saint Bonaventure said:

We can discuss the historical-critical approach in this thread, and with particular attention to Latter-day Saints' Article of Faith that "We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly...."

For starters, here's Catholic apologist Trent Horn:

 

Next comment.  God can intervene and do things in different ways such as reversing entropy?  Really?  Because why?  Who says?  Trent?  Trent you made an assertion with nothing to back it up.  So not Trent, we do not have to trust that God can reverse entropy just because you say so.

[Teancum]

On 7/7/2023 at 3:49 PM, InCognitus said:

I meant to include this in my post above, but I was in a hurry when I posted it.....

It's sad that Bart Ehrman started out his studies with an Evangelical Christian view of scripture (as the "inerrant word of God"), because the shattering of that perception really impacted him.  He's a smart man and his biblical studies are valuable, but the "popular Bart" personality is obviously influenced by his shattered faith experience. 

As are you by your own personal faith experience and journey.  

On 7/7/2023 at 3:49 PM, InCognitus said:

 

 

 His research and publications could be so much better if he had began his studies with a realistic view of scripture to begin with.

What is a realistic view of scripture?  Why is your view any better than what Ehrman's view was or the Protestant view?  

[Teancum]

On 7/5/2023 at 9:36 AM, Saint Bonaventure said:

We can discuss the historical-critical approach in this thread, and with particular attention to Latter-day Saints' Article of Faith that "We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly...."

For starters, here's Catholic apologist Trent Horn:

 

Bwaaa hahaha!  Good Bart and Bad Bart from Lane.  How ridiculous. 

[InCognitus]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

As are you by your own personal faith experience and journey.  

Of course, my personal faith experience and view of scripture does not depend on an inerrant text of the Bible, and in fact it anticipates that there will be differences.

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

What is a realistic view of scripture?  Why is your view any better than what Ehrman's view was or the Protestant view?  

A realistic view of Bible scripture is that the originals were recorded by fallible men, copied by fallible men, and the copies of the copies may have been tampered with by fallible men (many of which may not have been inspired). This is actually acknowledged and accounted for in one of our articles of faith.  This view also holds true of latter-day scripture, but the main difference being that the Book of Mormon and revelations of the Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price, are closer to the original inspired author, or had changes made to them by the inspired men who received them.

As for Ehrman, he started out his study of the Bible texts with the Protestant view that the "Bible is the inerrant word of God" (see:  Bart and the Bible: What Made Bart Ehrman Change His View on Biblical Inerrancy?).  And as he began to study the manuscripts they started bothering him, because he found that some of the manuscripts were missing parts and he came to realize that for some passages we don't know what the original words are, and this troubled him.  This created "an avalanche of doubt" for him, and seems to have left him with an understandable contempt for his original perception of the text.  These feelings aren't really shown in his written scholarly works (although some of his conclusions may be influenced by his loss of faith), but they are evident in the "popular Bart" public discussions. 

Edited July 21, 2023 by InCognitus

[Saint Bonaventure]

20 hours ago, Teancum said:

Next comment.  God can intervene and do things in different ways such as reversing entropy?  Really?  Because why?  Who says?  Trent?  Trent you made an assertion with nothing to back it up.  So not Trent, we do not have to trust that God can reverse entropy just because you say so.

I don't speak for Trent or for any other person you may be referring to, but for a Catholic it is not controversial to believe that God is sovereign over all creation. 

If I may, respectfully, ask a couple of questions:  Do you believe that God cannot "intervene and do things in different ways such as reversing entropy"? Do you not believe in God?

Edited July 22, 2023 by Saint Bonaventure

[Teancum]

19 hours ago, InCognitus said:

Of course, my personal faith experience and view of scripture does not depend on an inerrant text of the Bible, and in fact it anticipates that there will be differences.

Yes I know that. I after all have a similar background in Mormonism that you do.  But that was not my point. Your faith is influences by what you have been taught, what your religion teaches.  You would not have the view you have of the Bible likely but for the position of Mormonism on it.

 

19 hours ago, InCognitus said:

A realistic view of Bible scripture is that the originals were recorded by fallible men, copied by fallible men, and the copies of the copies may have been tampered with by fallible men (many of which may not have been inspired). This is actually acknowledged and accounted for in one of our articles of faith.  This view also holds true of latter-day scripture, but the main difference being that the Book of Mormon and revelations of the Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price, are closer to the original inspired author, or had changes made to them by the inspired men who received them.

Yes yes I know that is your opinion.  Whether it is realistic or not can be debated.  

19 hours ago, InCognitus said:

As for Ehrman, he started out his study of the Bible texts with the Protestant view that the "Bible is the inerrant word of God" (see:  Bart and the Bible: What Made Bart Ehrman Change His View on Biblical Inerrancy?).  And as he began to study the manuscripts they started bothering him, because he found that some of the manuscripts were missing parts and he came to realize that for some passages we don't know what the original words are, and this troubled him.  This created "an avalanche of doubt" for him, and seems to have left him with an understandable contempt for his original perception of the text.  These feelings aren't really shown in his written scholarly works (although some of his conclusions may be influenced by his loss of faith), but they are evident in the "popular Bart" public discussions. 

I am well aware of Ehrman's background.  Your spin on how he feels about such things and how he was influenced is just that. Your spin and a bit disparaging actually.  And by the way if you read his book God's Problem you will find his loss of faith was more due to the problem of evil and suffering than it was his discovery that the protestant position of inerency was not tenable.

Edited July 22, 2023 by Teancum

[Teancum]

3 hours ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

I don't speak for Trent or for any other person you may be referring to, but for a Catholic it is not controversial to believe that God is sovereign over all creation. 

Sure.  I understand.  But it is illogical to conclude that God can violate the very rules that govern the physical world that He set up does it not?  Maybe this is my Mormonism background speaking though since Mormonism teaches God is subject to the physical laws on the Universe.  And what does sovereign over all creation meant?  The old question for example-if God is omnipotent can God create a rock to heavy for God to lift?

 

3 hours ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

If I may, respectfully, ask a couple of questions:  Do you believe that God cannot "intervene and do things in different ways such as reversing entropy"? Do you not believe in God?

Sure.  no problem.  I would say I am a skeptic.  Maybe I border on agnostic. I am not atheist. I sort of like Deism.  I hope there is a higher power of some sort.  But I don't believe the God of the old and new testament is a real being.  To many contradictions especially the character in the OT.  To much cruelty.  To much demanding worship and that being seems to be an unstable megalomaniac. Even orthodox Christianity conflicts about what this God is. Do you adhere to the ideas of Calvinism?  I imagine not.  But that God seems like a monster. Same for a God that would send its creations to burn in a hell forever because they got religion wrong. I also think the problem of evil and suffering is problematic for the biblical god-whichever version one believes.

[InCognitus]

25 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I am well aware of Ehrman's background.  Your spin on how he feels about such things and how he was influenced is just that.

He explains exactly what I said in the interview that I linked (see:  Bart and the Bible: What Made Bart Ehrman Change His View on Biblical Inerrancy?).  I didn't "spin" it.  I provided direct quotes (the textual problems led to an "an avalanche of doubt").  Those feelings also contribute to how Ehrman handles those who believe that "the Bible is inerrant".  

25 minutes ago, Teancum said:

And by the way if you read his book God's Problem you will find his loss of faith was more due to the problem of evil and suffering than it was his discovery that the protestant position of inerency was not tenable.

He also explains that in this video interview:  Why Doesn't Bart Believe in God?  

[Teancum]

23 hours ago, InCognitus said:

He explains exactly what I said in the interview that I linked (see:  Bart and the Bible: What Made Bart Ehrman Change His View on Biblical Inerrancy?).  I didn't "spin" it.  I provided direct quotes (the textual problems led to an "an avalanche of doubt").  Those feelings also contribute to how Ehrman handles those who believe that "the Bible is inerrant".  

He also explains that in this video interview:  Why Doesn't Bart Believe in God?  

Sorry if I missed the links. I will take a look.

[Saint Bonaventure]

On 7/22/2023 at 2:46 PM, Teancum said:

Sure.  I understand.  But it is illogical to conclude that God can violate the very rules that govern the physical world that He set up does it not?  Maybe this is my Mormonism background speaking though since Mormonism teaches God is subject to the physical laws on the Universe.  And what does sovereign over all creation meant?  The old question for example-if God is omnipotent can God create a rock to heavy for God to lift?

Thanks for responding; I'll try to clarify.

I think you're right that your LDS background is coming through, so to speak. And this is an important area of belief. Specifically, I think there are fundamental differences between Latter-day Saints and Catholics in their understandings of God. This is why I keep asking questions on the board about God having a body, etc., because for Catholics, God is Creator, and is beyond space and time. This is fundamental to Catholic understandings of the Creation and the Incarnation, to name just two vital areas of belief.

When I say that God is beyond space and time, I'm implying that God is a category of one ("A" or "Creator" if you will), and that everything else is in another category ("Non-A" or "Creation"). This is a way of saying that God can do all things that can be done, and that God is not beholden to any rules or laws. When Latter-day Saints discuss the possibility of God being beholden to some laws, I want to point to those laws and say something like, "those laws that you're referring to suggest that God isn't the ultimate authority in your framework. If you move toward those laws, you're moving in the direction of God being all powerful in a sense that Catholics can discuss with you."

I believe the old question about "Can God create a rock too heavy for God to lift?" is a logical fallacy. Specifically, I believe it presumes incompatible categories.

Support for the idea that the Creator is beyond Creation is often found in Colossians 1:15-17:

Quote

 

15 ¶ He is the image of the invisible God, the first-born* of all creation; 16 for in him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. 17 ¶ He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

The Holy Bible, Revised Standard Version; Second Catholic Edition. (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2006), Col 1:15–17.

 

In Romans 9:

Quote

 

20 ¶ But who are you, a man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me thus?”

The Holy Bible, Revised Standard Version; Second Catholic Edition. (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2006), Ro 9:20.

 

In Isaiah 64:
 

Quote

 

    8 Yet, O LORD, you are our Father; we are the clay, and you are our potter; we are all the work of your hand. 

The Holy Bible, Revised Standard Version; Second Catholic Edition. (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2006), Is 64:8.

 

And is also embedded in the idea of Creation ex nihilo. I'm not giving an exhaustive treatment here. 

On 7/22/2023 at 2:46 PM, Teancum said:

 

Sure.  no problem.  I would say I am a skeptic.  Maybe I border on agnostic. I am not atheist. I sort of like Deism.  I hope there is a higher power of some sort.  But I don't believe the God of the old and new testament is a real being.  To many contradictions especially the character in the OT.  To much cruelty.  To much demanding worship and that being seems to be an unstable megalomaniac. Even orthodox Christianity conflicts about what this God is. Do you adhere to the ideas of Calvinism?  I imagine not.  But that God seems like a monster. Same for a God that would send its creations to burn in a hell forever because they got religion wrong. I also think the problem of evil and suffering is problematic for the biblical god-whichever version one believes.

I value the skeptical approach, and have some very dear skeptics in my life. I'm also not someone who wants to reinforce the "believer vs. skeptic" polarization that happens so frequently, and very angrily, in social media, on message boards, on the street corner, etc. 

I'd enjoy discussing the issues you mention with you.

[Saint Bonaventure]

On 7/21/2023 at 8:44 AM, Benjamin McGuire said:

You can read my take on the idea here (at least relative to the Book of Mormon).

On 7/21/2023 at 8:44 AM, Benjamin McGuire said:

 

Actually, I don't really take a position on this. I think that most LDS have some sort of belief that the Book of Mormon is some sort of word-for-word translation of an original source. I think that this is unlikely. I also think that we run into a problem - even when we start to deal with the idea of dynamic equivalence - in part because the Book of Mormon is (by any technical evaluation) a rather lousy translation. The poorness of the translation, however, would seem to be a part of the rhetorical strategy of the translation. This is part of why it is important to understand the idea of a translation as a double-communicative act. We can suggest that there are things about the text that are a part of its intention that exist separately from the text as it is. Again, I discuss this to some extent in the linked presentation.

 

I read your take; very interesting.

Do you believe that the references to Reformed Egyptian, and to the professor supposedly authenticating the Book of Mormon characters, contribute to the word-for-word tendency that some have as they consider the Book of Mormon?

[Benjamin McGuire]

3 hours ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

Do you believe that the references to Reformed Egyptian, and to the professor supposedly authenticating the Book of Mormon characters, contribute to the word-for-word tendency that some have as they consider the Book of Mormon?

Probably. But, I think that these things had less of an impact than other factors did. The whole thing about the authentication was viewed more in the context of prophetic fulfillment. The only thing we can say with certainty about the competing accounts of that authentication is that Martin Harris really did take a writing sample to Charles Anthon (who really was a highly respected scholar of ancient languages - I have an old Liddell-Scott lexicon with a dedication to Anthon). I am not sure that the encounter would have survived in any historical accounts if it wasn't for the fact that Joseph translated 2 Nephi 27 not long after the encounter happened, and the early readers of the Book of Mormon applied the description of the events in 2 Nephi 27 to that encounter - creating a new context for Isaiah 29. And it was only after the early Mormon publications of the account and its interpretation reached Anthon that he published a contradiction. He did not want to be associated with the Book of Mormon.

In its early context, this event did nothing to create the idea of a word-for-word translation. I noted in that presentation what Brigham Young said about the Book of Mormon in 1862:

Quote

When God speaks to the people, he does it in a manner to suit their circumstances and capacities. … Should the Lord Almighty send an angel to rewrite the Bible, it would in many places be very different from what it now is. And I will even venture to say that if the Book of Mormon were now to be rewritten, in many instances it would materially differ from the present translation.

This really builds off of what Joseph Smith said about his revelations, and his approach to scripture - that he believed translations to be accurate to the extent that they agreed with the personal revelations that he had received. There is very little in Joseph's or Brigham's approaches that tend to lead us to a 'correct' word-for-word sort of translation - or to the idea that there existed some accurate or perfect translation with language that wasn't dependent on context. There are a couple of things that I think are much stronger contributions. There is the problem faced by the Church when they were confronted with the new translations (the RSV and the ASV). Here there was a lot of discussion (mostly in the religious community outside of the LDS Church) over the nature of the King James text and the best way to translate the biblical record from its ancient sources. Using the fact that these new translations often disagreed with the parallel passages in the Book of Mormon, there was an introduction to the idea that since Joseph Smith was given the wording of the Book of Mormon and that wording supported the King James text, then it must be a revelatory confirmation of the accuracy of the King James version. This is completely different from Joseph's view (which had fallen out of circulation) that the King James text wasn't a particularly good translation. The LDS Church has adopted the KJV as its official translation - for a variety of reasons - none of which have anything to do (in my personal opinion) with the quality of the translation or the text. These issues work together to build this idea.

Now, in a more recent context, we see all of this coming back in the question that occurs within Mormon thought (and referenced in my presentation) of the loose versus tight translation of the Book of Mormon - my comments deal with that paradigm. The tight translation theory could suggest that Joseph Smith read the text verbatim - that is, the text was revealed word for word to Joseph Smith. This isn't an act of translation - it is as if God himself provided the words (which naturally must be accurate if God provided them). I think that neither loose or tight is terribly helpful in understanding the text of the Book of Mormon. What matters is more the questions of authorship and readership.

Finally, I would add something else, which is that religion more generally, has taken a very dim view of the ideas of post-structuralism and post-modernism in terms of texts and their meaning. Conservative religion often tries to argue that the author of a text is the sole authority of its meaning, rather than the reader (or some partnership between the two). The resistance is even more forceful when it comes to discussing scripture - that is, where traditional conservative religious interpretations assign the authorship of scripture directly to God. In the theological context, when Barthes declared the death of the author, he was seen as declaring the death of God. Without getting to mired in the thinking behind all of that, Mormonism really saw the Book of Mormon as confirming the idea that God could be an author and could stand behind the text of scripture in a very real sense. I believe that the Book of Mormon itself tends to provide the strongest arguments against such an interpretation - but my take certainly isn't widely held. Most people are not really interested enough in the ideas to move beyond anything but an intuited view of all this.