Book of Mormon "Horses"

[born_user]

What about the mention of chariots? Could tapirs pull chariots?

Also, I don't think Joseph smith just used his own mental imagery and personal impressions and experiences to put general "concepts" into scripture, as is suggested, above. That can be disproven be noting very specific, different writing styles of the various authors in the Book of Mormon.

At any rate, I am still on the fence.

[Confidential Informant]

Brant has answered these questions before. Run a search and you'll get the threads.

C.I,

[Teetering]

It seems to me that there is a certain tension between the theories implicit in different apologetic arguments. The notion that JS was not just a reader, but had real input into the translation, would appear to be inconsistent with the findings of different "wordprints" or other literary styles by Book of Mormon authors. However, that theory does seem to give people like Brant more room to argue that anachronisms can be attributed to the translation efforts of JS. On the other hand, if JS was just a reader, the different literary forms argument is more persuasive, but it is tougher to understand why there would be any anachronisms in a document dictated by God himself. Am I oversimplifying or worse, completely missing the boat here?

[Brant Gardner]

Teetering:

On the other hand, if JS was just a reader, the different literary forms argument is more persuasive,

Good question. Literary forms that do not depend upon vocabulary but more upon the structure can survive translation. Legitimate chiasmus would typically survive if it is built upon structured meaning and not just the specific words.

Wordprints is a different matter since they do deal with vocabulary. The less Joseph created the surface text, the stronger the wordprint argument's logic (the issue of wordprints themselves is a discussion in and of itself). The more Joseph creates the surface text, the less the wordprints may be conclusive. That means that I cannot strongly propose wordprints as a "proof" of the Book of Mormon because the depend upon a different definition of translation that I see. I don't think that they are dismissed entirely, but I have to include them as an ancillary argument, not a principal one.

For the record, I don't believe that there was no connection between plate text and English text - only that there was a loose connection between the two. I depend upon basic data surviving the translation method - whatever it was. Ben, on the other hand, prefers a tight translation explanation. If you think that means that LDS who work on the Book of Mormon do not agree completely with each other you would be quite correct.

My approach is to follow the data of the text to a conclusion about the translation method. It has nothing to do with having the latitude to deal with anachronisms. Ben has his explanations that fit with a tight translation. I argue for a particular position because that is the way I see the data lining up.

[Teetering]

Brant: What do you make of expresssions such as "dwelt" on a rock (I hope I am remembering that one correctly) or "plates of brass", "river of water", and similar short phrases which are sometimes offered as evidence of semitic origins. Structural or vocabulary?

Could you elaborate on what a loose translation would look like? Are concepts conveyed to Joseph's mind which he articulates. What about something like King Benjamin's address--how is a sermon communicated to him under the loose translation model? It seems like there is a difference between conceptualizing a narrative such as Lehi's journey, or the Laban story, and something like King Benjamin's sermon or Jesus' sermon at the temple.

Is your loose translation model consistent with the theory that Nephi might have used his word for "horse" to describe an animal that struck him as horse-like? Given a loose translation model, what would prompt JS to use the word horse for an animal that is not a horse to 19th century English readers, but is instead a deer or a tapir? I guess I could understand JS using the term sword to describe something used in the way a sword is used even though it does not have a metal blade, but horse seems like, well, a horse of a different color. I can see myself describing something sword-like as a sword, for lack of a better term, without feeling like I had altered the meaning in any significant way. I am not so sure I could ever see myself conceptualizing of a deer or a tapir, and applying the term horse to it.

[Mighty Curelom]

I haven't read everything on this thread, but if I were an apologist, this is how I'd respond to Vogel's arguments.

Yes, Joseph DID read the translation directly from the seer stone/urim & thummim. Yes, the translation WAS a dictation. But the words that appeared on the seer stone were a projection of concepts and vocabulary from Joseph's mind. His mind received the translation from God, interpretted it using the words and phrases available, and projected the result onto the stone for JS to read, just as my thoughts are projected onto this computer screen (albeit not by miraculous means).

[Tarski]

I haven't read everything on this thread, but if I were an apologist, this is how I'd respond to Vogel's arguments.

Yes, Joseph DID read the translation directly from the seer stone/urim & thummim. Yes, the translation WAS a dictation. But the words that appeared on the seer stone were a projection of concepts and vocabulary from Joseph's mind. His mind received the translation from God, interpretted it using the words and phrases available, and projected the result onto the stone for JS to read, just as my thoughts are projected onto this computer screen (albeit not by miraculous means).

LOL, that is pretty good. I predict this will become a classic apologetic. But will it be remembered who came up with it?

[Benjamin McGuire]

And of course, had MC read through this thread, he would have come across my comments a little over a week ago:

The problem here, though, is that anyone who writes a text (God included) writes to a specific intended audience. And God (we presume that God knows how a person will understand something that is written more accurately than we will) can write a text so that it will be read in a certain way (at least by the intended audience). So while we may assert that God translates into another language, that language (at least for God) can be individual specific - which is to say, that the language into which a text is translated can be circumscribed within a single individuals verbal repretoire. So, what you assert here doesn't address my point - which is, the vocabulary, the vernacular, and the working repretoire of Joseph Smith may well have determined the language and the content of the Book of Mormon without Joseph ever being directly involved in the translation process.

Which is, essentially, what MC said.

Ben

[enummaelish]

LOL, that is pretty good. I predict this will become a classic apologetic. But will it be remembered who came up with it?

Dang! How come the feaken' atheists are the only guys bright enough to come up with these things?! Oh

[Brant Gardner]

Teetering:

What do you make of expresssions such as "dwelt" on a rock (I hope I am remembering that one correctly) or "plates of brass", "river of water", and similar short phrases which are sometimes offered as evidence of semitic origins. Structural or vocabulary?

I put those in the category of unknown and therefore not of evidentiary value. The KJV replicates many of these "Hebraisms" and therefore it cannot be discerned whether they come from the plates or the imitation of the language.

Could you elaborate on what a loose translation would look like?

I'll give you one I remember from Fray Bernardino de Sahagun. Here is text I wrote up on a translation issue moving from Nahuatl (Aztec) to Spanish (and English) with "loose" translations in both the English (tighter) and the Spanish (looser).

The Florentine Codex is one of the manuscripts prepared under Sahag

[Benjamin McGuire]

Brant writes:

That explanation is usually part of a tight translation model. The argument is that the original vocabulary shift occured in the original clash of a language from the Old World that was unequipped for the vocabulary of the New. That original labeling was then accurately translated by Joseph Smith.

To this, I add that within the sacred writings of the Nephites (most particularly the Brass Plates), the "horse" in its old world sense fits a certain model within the religious texts - particularly as it relates to kings. If (and I need to emphasize the if here) there was a vocabulary shift, the new "meaning" of horse was then used when reading the older texts and writing new ones. So, despite the expanded meaning of "horse", the new "horses" were still viewed in certain ways as being the original "horse" and of being referred to in the Brass Plates. So, allusions in the Nephite records which refer back to the Brass Plates when dealing with "horses", while having the meaning added in the vocabulary shift, also need to maintain the meaning that was traditionally viewed as a "horse" in Palestine - since that is a textual model which in which the notion of a horse is included in the Book of Mormon.

Ben

[Addictio]

Earlier on this thread I said I might get back to try to summarize the nature of my disagreement with Brant about his proposed methodology.

As I see it, the three main categories of evidence bearing on the authenticity of the BoM are "contents" "provenance" and "transmission/translation" issues. (For present purposes, "contents" means the sum of all the document's express and implied factual assertions about past events. I say "transmission/translation" rather than "translation," btw, simply to mark the uncertainty regarding JS's actual function and role. Critics tend to see him as author rather than translator, and defenders of historicity as translator. Yet even certain defenders of BoM historicity such as Ostler acknowledge that the Book can be read as an "expansion" by JS of an ancient text. In any event, please note, I'm not assuming JS is author instead of "translator" of the BoM.)

My position (as it relates to my criticisms of Brant's methodology) can be summarized in three points. I'll summarize each, followed by an explanation.

First point: if we consider all texts that claim to be translations of a historical record, all three of the above-referenced categories of evidence may be relevant to the authenticity issue.

Explanation: I say "may be" rather than "are" relevant because we don't actually know in advance or in general whether facts about provenance or translation/transmission ("t/t") issues will turn out, when we focus on a particular document, to be relevant to its authenticity or not, or whether they will even be in dispute. The "contents" of a document will always in principle be relevant to its authenticity, even in situations where they do not determine it.

Second point: If we are speaking in general, about all such texts, there is no useful, non-trivial scholarly consensus about the relative weight to be accorded the first two categories of evidence, "contents" and "provenance." With respect to one text, for example, contents may prove more weighty than provenance, and with other documents, issues of provenance could instead outweigh their supporting "contents" evidence. Therefore, there is no pertinent scholarly consensus about the proper analysis of all historical texts which supports Brant's methodology regarding the BoM and yet would not equally support any serious alternative approach. (A serious alternative approach, btw, obviously does not deny the relevance of content evidence. See First point.) Simply put, with respect to the first two categories of evidence, I can identify no legitimate inference on the merits which would be precluded by adopting Brant's approach.

Explanation: By way of aside, contrary to what Brant has said on this thread about my "approach," I don't claim that one can't "bracket" provenance and "t/t" issues, and proceed to test the BoM or any other document focusing only on the "contents" evidence. Indeed, in the context of the population side of the LGT debate, and otherwise, Brant and I have done just that in numerous threads here and at ZLMB. Where I appear to disagree with Brant is over the logical status and point of his claim that he is adopting the same approach/method that "scholars" (typically in the form of invoked "historians" or "ethnographers" or "anthropologists") uniformly adopt when considering the authenticity of any other allegedly historical, translated document. In my view, except in the trivial sense discussed below, there is no such justifying consensus in scholarly approach for appraising the authenticity of such texts in general. Again, that is because there is no single or uniform way of assessing (with respect to all such documents as a class), either the actual relevance of, or the relative significance and weight of, the three types of potentially relevant evidence I've identified.

One could try to "justify" or "vindicate" Brant's method in the way he sometimes does, by identifying a specific "BoM-proxy" document such as the Grolier Codex, and pointing out, for example, that it was eventually authenticated based almost entirely upon its "contents." Its relatively mysterious/uncertain provenance hence could justifiably be ignored because of the eventual strength, indeed the determining effect, of the "content" evidence for its authenticity. Authentication of the GC through its contents, however, is not an example of some (non-trivial) scholarly concensus about the proper method/approach for authenticating all allegedly historical (but disputed) texts, much less all such texts that also purport to be translations, which the Grolier did not purport to be. Put differently, no one denies that the quality of the "contents" evidence with respect to an individual text may be so weighty, compelling, that it could outweigh problems (if any) regarding that text's provenance and/or problematic "t/t" issues (if any) associated with it. Note that it's the quality of the evidence within each of the three categories that ends up determining the conclusion regarding an individual document's authenticity. Yet the quality (logical weight) of such evidence with respect to any specific document is not determined by the methodological approach. So again, what is the logical (in this context, methodological) point of invoking a "BoM proxy" document like the Grolier? I can see none.

By way of explanation, what do I mean by a "trivial" scholarly consensus? One that involves agreement regarding a logical assertion that no one disputes. (Such as that both content and provenance evidence are relevant to the authenticity inquiry.) Another defective way to "justify" Brant's methodology thus would be to invoke its conformity with a scholarly consensus on issues that are obvious and not even in dispute. See sidebar, below.

Thus when Brant says that, "I'm merely proposing/doing what all other scholars do, or would do, with respect to investigating/assessing the authenticity of any other assertedly historical document," in my view he's just engaging in rather pointless rhetorical bootstrapping. It is merely rhetorical because it mistakenly suggests there is a non-trivial scholarly consensus about how all allegedly historical documents of disputed authenticity should be analyzed. It also involves mere "bootstrapping" to the extent that Brant's approach is thought to receive added persuasive support or "credentials" because it conforms to that imaginary scholarly consensus.

For the reasons explained above, even leaving the "t/t" issues aside, there still is no pertinent scholarly consensus which justifies or confirms Brant's methodology with respect to the BoM and yet undermines or excludes some serious alternative, competing approach. (Hence Brant's conduct above in this thread, btw, providing an utterly fanciful strawman as the competing approach.)

[sidebar on the strawman: Before I "called in the band" as it were, to satirize his position, above, Brant was trying to make what is actually a correct, undisputed and trivial claim: that "content" evidence is always relevant to the authenticity question, appear to be what, something significant, perceptive, non-trivial? What I found irritating -- hence the satire -- was that he tried to do so by groundlessly claiming that I was denying that "content" evidence is relevant to the issue of BoM authenticity, thus rendering the BoM "untestable." Really, Brant. After years of discussing and debating the merits of the "content" evidence for BoM historicity with you, my position is suddenly that all such evidence is simply irrelevant? Hmm, why would you want to believe that? It's very bad form to pretend, btw, that some obvious and undisputed assertion you're making is significant merely because some crazed interlocutor you're imagining denies it.]

In summary, at least until we address the "translation/transmission" issues, I can see no outcome-affecting ("merits-affecting") substance to Brant's proposed methodology. Instead, there is a disagreement about whether his approach is supported or justified by some non-trivial scholarly consensus about how all historical documents are to be authenticated. Since his proposed initial handling of the "contents" evidence and his apparent position on the relevance of provenance evidence appear netiher to mandate nor preclude any inference that would affect the outcome of the BoM authenticity inquiry, however, any disagreement about the existence of such a supporting/confirming consensus is, in my judgment, essentially rhetorical rather than substantive.

Third point: Assuming the BoM was anciently recorded, there is insuffient information for there to be any certainty or consensus about how JS's mind or brain was involved in the process of translating the etchings on the plates into English words. The truth of this assertion is clear, I think, but Brant and I appear to disagree about what follows from it. Here, at least, the disagreement appears more likely to affect the outcome of the inquiry.

When I have the time, I'll return to explain what I believe is the significance of the third point.

[Confidential Informant]

Addictio,

Can you cite a single source to support any of your assertions? You claim no scholarly consensus exits. Is that your opinion or do you have a source that support that claim?

C.I.

[Addictio]

Addendum to my last post, still navel-gazing.

Pausing a little longer at Point 2, still focusing only on the "contents" and "provenance" categories of evidence, suppose the only methodological assertions of Brant's I'm inclined to question and reject are that (1) the "contents" inquiry is always logically and temporally (?) prior to the "provenance" inquiry and (2) that a document (as opposed to an artifact) can never be rejected as inauthentic solely because of problems with its provenance, as opposed to problems with its "contents." If we're still addressing texts in general and not the BoM in particular, there does not appear to be any justification for the first claim, and the second is demonstrably false. But why is either such assertion worth arguing about?

Thus suppose I reject those two specific features of (claims within) Brant's methodology and you accept them. Are there any plausible or significant arguments I could make against the authenticity of the BoM which would be foreclosed/rejected by you solely as a result of your acceptance of the two claims? I can't think of any. Can anyone else?

Next, suppose that everything I claimed in my last post about the logical underpinning for Brant's position regarding those two categories of evidence as applied to all disputed historical texts were correct. That is, there is no non-trivial consensus among scholars which justifies, dictates or controls the application of such evidence to that entire class of texts. It would be interesting if Brant or someone else would identify such a non-trivial scholarly consensus regarding either of these two categories of evidence. Suppose, however, that none is forthcoming. Would the existence (or not) of such a consensus make any practical difference to the merits of any debate about BoM historicity? Perhaps I can't speak to the existing consensus until one is proffered, but suppose the conclusion is that none exists. What follows? What plausible argument in favor of BoM authenticity would an advocate lose as a result? What argument would a critic gain? Any come to mind?

What I'm trying to figure out, of course, is whether any such conceptual differences/disagreements with respect to how these two types of evidence apply to all disputed historical texts make any practical difference when we turn from the general to the particular and assess/debate the merits of a specific text, like the BoM's, authenticity. My hunch is that they do not.

Based on recent exchanges between Dan and Brant, I think it will be easier to identify examples of such practical differences when analyzing what I've dubbed the third category of relevant evidence.

On the other hand, if the disagreement involves two competing sets of "test" criteria, say one group purportedly developed for ancient "historical texts" and some version of the "documentary" approach for "historico-religious" texts, it's easier to see how arguments about scholarly consensus could affect the merits. Then the debate inevitably involves contentions about the value-laden nature of Brant's or anyone else's supposedly neutral "test" criteria.

Note to CI: Hmm, are you looking for an appeal to authority? Michael Coe on the existence of a scholarly consensus regarding the authenticity of the BoM and the Grolier Codex, perhaps? Naw, the contentions of my last post are essentially conceptual. I don't deny the existence of scholarly consensus, but the only types of consensus I see that could apply across the board, to all disputed texts in such a broad class are ad hoc and unhelpful. For example, once the BoM, one of the purported Hofmann forgeries, the Grolier Codex, the Howard Hughes will, and a host of allegedly pseudepigraphic religious texts are addressed together merely as members of a class of disputed documents, what is the scholarly consensus regarding how these two categories of evidence function and apply to all members of the class? One response is to narrow the class of documents to which the alleged consensus applies. Once that occurs, however, as I think it must, there is still not a single scholarly consensus that either applies or is rejected. Rather, there is a choice among competing scholarly approaches. Another response is to maintain that the sponsored "tests for historical documents" which apply equally to all class members have sufficient uniformity and content to be characterized as the result of a single scholarly consensus. I understand that to be Brant's position.

[Benjamin McGuire]

I have to wonder what exactly Addicto means when he discusses "provenance". After all, isn't this what is in dispute?

I have many volumes in my bookshelves dealing with documents and texts of disputed origins. One is a two volume set edited by James Charlesworth entitled The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. This text covers a number of texts with specific claims of authorship, many of which are likely translations from no longer extant original language texts and so on. For every text, in the introduction by the specific authors who translated them, there is a section on "provenance". So, I figured I would take the first several from Volume Two (the one I had handy) and provide some excerpts (some sections are longer than others):

Letter of Aristeas

A gentile, even a proselyte to Judaism, would hardly have obtained such a knowledge of Jewish practices, and of the Temple worship, as the Letter of Aristeas exhibits (e.g. vss. 83-120). It is highly probable therefore that the author was a Jew. His knowledge of Alexandria needs to be taken into account (e.g. vs. 301). The most attractive conconjecture is that he lived in Alexandria.

Jubilees

The author of Jubilees was a Jew who lived in Palestine. That view may be supported by a number of observations. The fact that he wrote in Hebrew would favor a Palestinian background. His writings may reflect an awareness that not all of his contemporaries were thoroughly familiar with the language because he reports that even father Abraham had to learn Hebrew. Nevertheless, he understood that a knowledge of Hebrew was absolutely necessary for the study of sacred books (12:25-27). He made use of a Palestinian biblical text. The earliest external witness to his work is found in a writing from Qumran (CD). He has special praise for the land of Lebanon from Jordan to the sea (10:29). Jerusalem was holy (1:28), and Zion was the navel of the earth (8:19). Although his knowledge of world geography in chapters 8-10 is seriously deficient at many points, it is clear that he is more familiar with the area assigned to Shem, his knowledge of Canaan from the Jordan to the sea (10:29) is the greatest. Despite the fact that many place names have been corrupted in the transmission of the Ethiopic text, scholars have been able to reconstruct most of them, indicating that the author of Jubilees had a detailed knowledge of many cities and towns within Canaan.

    The author probably belonged to a priestly family. That may account for his special interest in the origin of festivals, the determination of sacred times, and his incessant concern for ritual details (21:7-18). In the supplemental material which he brings to the Genesis account, Levi is given priority over the sons of Jacob (chs. 30-32), even being set before Judah (31:12f.). Levi is also the one who is entrusted with a library of books (45:16) containing heavenly lore revealed to Jacob (32:21-26) and sacred traditions passed down from earlier patriarchs. ...(much more text here)

Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah

It is generally assumed that the Martyrdom was composed in Palestine, and this seems to be correct given that the language of composition was almost certainly Hebrew, and given the hostility shown towards it by the Samaritans (cf. 2:12, 14; 3:1, 3). The fact that the legend is referred to in the rabinic writings tends to support the view of Palestinian composition. There is no evidence to suggest where 3:13-4:22 or the Vision was composed. It is also not known where the three parts of the Ascension were put togther.

(It should be noted that no copies or fragments of a Hebrew original exist).

Joseph and Aseneth

...

On the other hand, Joseph and Aseneth presupposes at least some of the Septuagint, and probably all of it. It is hard to decode this into dates, but we are probably safe to say that the book was written between 100 B.C. and Hadrian's edict against circumcision, which has to do with the Second Jewish War of AD 132-135. If Joseph and Aseneth comes from Egypt, the Jewish revolt under Trajan (c. AD 115-117) is the latest possible date. It does appear to have originated in Egypt, since Aseneth, and not another woman such as Ruth or Rahab (Josh 2), is the heroine of the story.

    Other suggestions for dating and locating Joseph and Aseneth are mere speculation. Surely no individual incident such as the conversion of Queen Helena of Adiabene, an elderly lady (died c. AD 65), was needed to trigger the composition of Joseph and Aseneth. That Egypt figures in the book as an independant country ruled by a philo-Semitic dynasty does not prove that the novel was written under the later Ptolemies before the Romans took over. The absence of a reference to proselyte baptism is of little avail since we do not know when the custom began. Lexical chronology is also of little help. We may note that words like anazoopoiein (8:9; 15:5), brimema (10:15), eidolomanes (12:9), ekliparein (1:7; 15:7), hemithanes (27:3), male parthenos (4:7; 8:1), proskairos (12:15), sitistos (10:13), sitodotes (25:5), sygkleronomos (24:14) are not attested with certainty until the first century BC or even later. But Greek lexicography is not advanced enough to enable us to be certain when a word first appeared.

...

I could reproduce all of them. But what becomes quite obvious in each of these discussions of provenance of a text is that provenance is derived from the contents.

So, what does Addicto mean when he discusses provenance? And how does he separate provenance from the contents?

Is he referring to the statements describing the process of producing the text? And if so, does he actually believe that they are an accurate description of the process by which the text was produced? (This is of course, significant, since if the sources are inaccurate, regardless of whether their authors believed them to be accurate, they become useless in any discussion about the process). Is Addicto referring to something else? Part of provenance, is of course, the language in which a text was written, and the language of its sources. How does one discuss this without an appeal to the contents?

Ben

[Addictio]

Thanks for your input and questions, Ben.

In this thread I've been trying to understand and determine the significance of Brant's methodology. So I've been talking about "provenance" as I took him to be using it, so we would be not be talking at cross purposes for that reason.

I'm not invested in this terminology and way of dividing the issues up, but it goes like this. I've been using "authenticity" and "historicity" with respect to the BoM interchangeably, as the ultimate issue driving all the other "relevance" and "weight" assessments. "Contents" issues are just that, all the express or implied claims about past events and about itself a document makes, as well as the inferences made by the investigator based on its contents. "Provenance" then refers to all other information (apart from text contents) about the origin and creation of the text, including the medium (plates, paper) on which the text is recorded. I understand Brant to be dividing things up that same way. Note his above examples about authenticating various things. The Maya pottery or sherds on which graphics appear may be of unknown provenance (untraceable or unusual origin), he notes, but can still be authenticated as genuine because of the graphical information they bear. The fun example of the stuck-together codex he provides is an example of how a document can be authenticated solely by its in situ provenance and physical characteristics, even though its contents can't yet be accessed.

So that's the terminology I've been using. (Actually, it's been a bit more sloppy than that, since I've been referring to "contents" issues as express or implied claims the text makes about past events, without always making clear that this would also include content-based claims and inferences about its own origin.)

With respect to your examples, I think they illustrate that in many cases the only way origin and authorship of a text can be addressed/determined is through the contents of the text. Fine, we work with the information we have. In other cases, though, we also have extra-textual information that is clearly relevant to the source/origin of a text and hence, in some cases, to its authenticity. An extreme example is Brant's stuck-together codex. Or consider the Hofmann forgeries. He was good at faking the words, the "expected" linguistic information, and sometimes also the authenticating "provenance" story (excitedly opening up that sealed pocket in an old Bible while in someone else's presence). Perhaps your view is that only a text's contents are or can be relevant to inferences about its authorship, origin, or authenticity. I would hope not.

On this thread, for reasons that are truly mystifying to me, Brant has claimed (I'm using the above terminology) that my approach is to rule out (by mere fiat) any "content" based inquiry into the BoM authenticity/historicity question. No. The more interesting question, rather, is the logical relationship between the BoM "provenance" information as it bears on the authenticity question and the set of inferences and arguments about authenticity/historicity resulting from the content-based inquiry. For the record (patting myself heartily on the back) the er, "immanently" reasonable position I've held for some time is that both types of information are in principle relevant to the BoM authenticity question. On the "provenance" side of things, that's the point of the BoM witness statements, isn't it?

At that point the logical/conceptual issues get more interesting and more controversial.

Finally, on the mode-of-translation issue you asked about, and the significance of the "witness" statements, I happen to agree more with Skousen than with Brant about what "scenario" the evidence supports. (Btw, Mighty Curelom's above comment was rather astute, I thought. A defender of the stone-gazing scenario doesn't have to believe that God "alone" did the translation. If a stone can somehow be made to display words, or appear to display them, through some extra-natural/unknown means, why can't JS's brain function as an instrument, a conceptual prism, affecting the content of the display? Why should one be any more or less surprising than the other?)

I don't believe, btw, that the uniqueness and deep oddity of the seerstone scenario means that "provenance" issues settle the BoM authenticity question and/or automatically "trump" any set of inferences or conclusions that result from the content-based inquiry.

[Golden Tapir]

LEEUNIVERSE:

ppls Pardon (or excuse) me for jumping in late here, But:

were the pics you posted (much) earlier in this thread supposed to mean something?

If so, what?

[Benjamin McGuire]

Addicto writes:

I'm not invested in this terminology and way of dividing the issues up, but it goes like this. I've been using "authenticity" and "historicity" with respect to the BoM interchangeably, as the ultimate issue driving all the other "relevance" and "weight" assessments. "Contents" issues are just that, all the express or implied claims about past events and about itself a document makes, as well as the inferences made by the investigator based on its contents. "Provenance" then refers to all other information (apart from text contents) about the origin and creation of the text, including the medium (plates, paper) on which the text is recorded. I understand Brant to be dividing things up that same way. Note his above examples about authenticating various things. The Maya pottery or sherds on which graphics appear may be of unknown provenance (untraceable or unusual origin), he notes, but can still be authenticated as genuine because of the graphical information they bear. The fun example of the stuck-together codex he provides is an example of how a document can be authenticated solely by its in situ provenance and physical characteristics, even though its contents can't yet be accessed.

I think other concepts probably could be added (like the issue of historicity vs. verisimilitude). But, I think what would be more enlightening is if you could produce some examples of the process as you envision it, that have been published in peer reviewed works.

One final comment -

On the "provenance" side of things, that's the point of the BoM witness statements, isn't it?

The critic who claims that Joseph Smith is the author of the text is essentially claiming that Joseph Smith is lying about the origins of the text. Theoretically, all of the statements by witnesses to the production of the text can be viewed as coming from Joseph Smith. What makes these statements reliable - that they can be considered part of the "provenance" of the text?

Ben

[Addictio]

Ben, I'd be interested to know what you mean about the historicity/verisimilitude duality. How do you think it's related to the logic of document authentication?

Don't have time just now to discuss the translation process evidence. One thing that makes the evidence interesting, complicated, is that the eyewitness statements about what people saw JS doing, his behavior, face in hat, etc, dictating, needn't have come from his statements. Why would they have any reason to make up witnessing the occurrence of the behavior? Do you doubt the accuracy of the behavioral reports? Anyway....

[Benjamin McGuire]

Addicto writes:

Ben, I'd be interested to know what you mean about the historicity/verisimilitude duality. How do you think it's related to the logic of document authentication?

Well, take the Book of Esther. It is generally considered to be a work of fiction - a work of fiction that is very verisimilar. Which is to say, it has all the trappings of being a real ancient historical work, without being about real people and events. In the case of the Book of Mormon, without archaeological confirmation, the arguments for historicity all argue from a position of verisimilitude. Most believers do not differentiate between the two, however. But, I think it is important to recognize this distinction.

One thing that makes the evidence interesting, complicated, is that the eyewitness statements about what people saw JS doing, his behavior, face in hat, etc, dictating, needn't have come from his statements. Why would they have any reason to make up witnessing the occurrence of the behavior? Do you doubt the accuracy of the behavioral reports? Anyway....

But this misses the point. Unless we start from the position that Joseph Smith was doing what he said he was - and this is a correct position, then these witnesses were describing something - but what does it have to do with the text?

You are still avoiding the most significant issue for the rest of us right now. You have offered a notion of how you think the material should be evaluated. I want you to provide us with an example of this kind of process occuring in a scholarly work. I want to see someone doing what you say should be done.

Ben

[beastie]

Well, take the Book of Esther. It is generally considered to be a work of fiction - a work of fiction that is very verisimilar. Which is to say, it has all the trappings of being a real ancient historical work, without being about real people and events. In the case of the Book of Mormon, without archaeological confirmation, the arguments for historicity all argue from a position of verisimilitude

"it has all the trappings of being a real ancient historical work"

If you're making this assertion in the manner Brant has in the past, you are saying that a real ancient historical document would inflate, exaggerate, and omit crucial information, which the BoM does, and that we would expect a translation to contain anachronisms, which the BoM does.

So using that approach, let's try this experiment. Pretend that Ethan Smith asserted that his book View of the Hebrews was actually a translation of a real ancient historical document. How would you prove that it was actually written in the nineteenth century?

[Benjamin McGuire]

Beastie writes:

So using that approach, let's try this experiment. Pretend that Ethan Smith asserted that his book View of the Hebrews was actually a translation of a real ancient historical document. How would you prove that it was actually written in the nineteenth century?

From its contents of course. The only thing that allows you to make this request is the obvious fact that you are unfamiliar with those contents. So, allow me to quote a few passages from this text:

Page 68:

It is fourteen years since a society was formed in London to aid the christianization of this people. A chapel has been erected by this society for their benefit. The New Testament they have caused to be translated into the Hebrew language; also many tracts written in Hebrew. These tracts and Testament have been liberally distributed among the Jews, and been read by multitudes of them with no small attention. Missionaries have been sent among them; schools opened, and various means used. A Seminary was opened in 1822 for the instruction of the youth of this people. Four students of the seed of Abraham entered it; one of them the celebrated Mr. Wolff, a Jewish convert and missionary. In various parts of the United Kingdoms, auxiliary societies have been formed; and the amount of monies received in 1822, was upwards of

[beastie]

Come on, Ben. You had to realize I was talking about the assertions he makes about ancient America. If he had written those assertions as if it were a translated historical document, how would you falsify it?

Link to View of the Hebrews, he begins discussing the ancient american inhabitants around p 76

http://www.2think.org/hundredsheep/voh/voh_3a.shtml

It really shouldn't take much imagination to picture those assertions written as a "translated" historical document, Ben. It would be full of exaggerations, omissions, anachronisms, just like the BoM. How would you falsify it?

[Confidential Informant]

Ah, Beastie is back.

I wondered how long it would be before the self-proclaimed Mesoamerican expert (she's read some books) made a return appearance to expose to us her enlightenment once more.

C.I.

Edited in the interest of civility

[Benjamin McGuire]

Beastie writes:

Come on, Ben. You had to realize I was talking about the assertions he makes about ancient America. If he had written those assertions as if it were a translated historical document, how would you falsify it?

The problem is Beastie, is that these assertions which he makes occur within a thoroughly 19th century text. They can't be read as if they were a translated historical document. So it makes it hard to actually do what you want me to do. Why don't you find a text which is more analogous to the situation? Otherwise, I can't really respond to it in the same fashion.

Link to View of the Hebrews, he begins discussing the ancient american inhabitants around p 76

Which is why my quotes from pages 80 and 84 are so problematic to what you want me to do. Here is the full content of page 76:

have been lately discovered in that sequestered region, appearing as we should rationally expect the nation of Israel to appear at this period, that the account given by the writer in Esdras been a fact. Suppose them to be found in tribes, with heads of tribes; but destitute of letters, and in a savage state. Suppose among different tribes the following traditionary fragments are by credible witnesses picked up; some particulars among one region of them, and some among another; while all appear evidently to be of the same family. Suppose them to have escaped the polytheism of the pagan world; and to acknowledge one, and only one God, the Great Spirit, who created all things seen and unseen. Suppose the name retained by many of them for this Great Spirit, to be Ale, the old Hebrew name of God; and Yohewah, whereas the Hebrew name for Lord was Jehovah; also they call the Great First Cause, Yah; the Hebrew name being Jah. Suppose you find most of them professing great reverence for this great Yohewah; calling him "the great beneficent supreme holy spirit," and the only object of worship. Suppose the most intelligent of them to be elated with the idea that this God has ever been the head of their community; that their fathers were once in covenant with him; and the rest of the world were "the accursed people," as out of covenant with God. Suppose you find them, on certain occasions, singing in religious dance, "Hallelujah," or praise to Jah; also singing Yohewah, Shilu Yohewah, and making use of many names and phrases evidently Hebrew. You find them counting their time as did ancient Israel, and in a manner different from all other nations, They keep a variety of religious feasts, which much resemble those kept in ancient Israel. You find an evening feast among them, in which a bone of the animal must not be broken; if the provision be more than one family can eat, a neighbor must be called in to help eat it, and if any of it be still left, it must be burned before the next rising sun. You find them eating bitter vegetables, to cleanse themselves from sin. You find

By the way, for those who are interested, the transliteration seems to follow traditional Sephardic transliterations of Hebrew. But I am puzzled how you think that this is somehow similar to the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon is a narrative text. This part of the text of the Ethan's book is headed by the phrase "The Present State of Judah and Israel" and doesn't relate at all to an ancient people, or an ancient text. Not even the least bit. It doesn't read that way. On the next page, Ethan writes:

Suppose you should find things like those among such a people, without books or letters, but wholly in a savage state, in a region of the world lately discovered, away in the direction stated by the aforenoted writer in the Apocrypha; and having been ever secluded from the knowledge of the civilized world; would you hesitate to say you had found the ten tribes of Israel? and that God sent them to that sequestered region of the earth to keep them there a distinct people, during an "outcast" state of at least 2500 years?

The text is inundated with references that make it clear that it could not be an ancient work. Now, you are more than welcome to eliminate this kind of language and produce a text for me if you want. You are more than willing to eliminate the ambiguities and talk about specific events and specific people instead of the vagaries which Ethan gives us. But, you need to come up with something at least a little analogous. I don't think that should be too hard, or too much to ask do you?

It really shouldn't take much imagination to picture those assertions written as a "translated" historical document, Ben. It would be full of exaggerations, omissions, anachronisms, just like the BoM. How would you falsify it?

Which assertions did you have in mind, and how did you imagine them occuring in the text?

If you can produce a text, I will discuss that text. But, once more, it needs to be analogous. It isn't so much a series of assertions - those assertions are meaningless. Ethan mentions a Jubilee? But what does that mean? How is it seen in practice? The Book of Mormon isn't a series of assertions but details the events of individuals and communities over a lengthy period of time.

Ben