Whack a Mole, err. Horse

[_Blixa]

The "translation" response really floors me.

Whatever faults one can find in arguments about the meanings of Hebrew words themselves or Biblical translation, etc. it strikes me the whole thing rests on a hugely problematic assumption: that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon.

Although Mormons often describe the process of its production as "translation," I was always taught, over and over, that this was not the kind of translation that one does when say, taking a French class. No. This was no human translation between two languages where all kinds of mistakes and slight differences in nuance can occur. No. This may be called "translation," but it was something different. It was god telling Joseph Smith word by word what was written on the plates. Thus the Book of Mormon is, quite literally, the most correct book on earth. This is also why I was taught that "we" believe the Bible insofar as it is translated correctly because here we have the problematic result of traditional translation methodologies.

And this isn't just something I randomly overheard in primary once. This understanding of "translation" is spelled out quite clearly throughout the basic texts of Mormonism from Joseph Smith's own writings to contemporary CES materials. The Book of Abraham may be a different anima, but the Book of Mormon was NOT translated in any way admitting of human error.

There is much in apologetics that absolutely gobsmacks me, but this one strikes me as outrageously bizarre.

[_Blixa]

heh...I meant "the Book of Abraham may be a different animal" not anima. I'm no Jungian.

[_beastie]

Well, the Book of Mormon apologists with training in ancient Mesoamerica have been forced into this corner. They literally have no choice in the matter. If they were to accept the "word by word" methodology that is well supported by contemporary witnesses, they would have to concede defeat from the get-go. The Book of Mormon just contains too many hopeless anachronisms, otherwise.

I put together a small essay on the information about the translation process here:

http://zarahemlacitylimits.com/wiki/ind ... ion_Issues

Of course, the apologists who stress the Hebraic connections of the Book of Mormon, like chiasmus, prefer to rely on the normal "word for word" model, instead, because they lose many of their arguments, otherwise.

I once tried to get Brant Gardner, a proponent of the "translation artifacts" model, to be more explicit about exactly what the process was. He wouldn't, or couldn't. I still am left wondering what these folks think happened. Did Joseph Smith have a little movie playing in his mind? Did he get a vague "idea of a story" and then put it into his own words? And why would God choose such a flawed method for the "most correct book" when he could have used "word for word" instead? (as many of the contemporaries insisted he did)

[_Blixa]

As you say, whichever way you turn on this point, you run into trouble. Which is why I don't understand why there isn't more of an effort to avoid this kind of thing with a total emphasis on faith and an abandonment of all efforts to "prove" anything.

Surely this would solve many problems, wouldn't it?

That Mormonism is unique because "scientifically" verifiable is an attitude that has haunted the church from the beginning; it speaks to the way that Joseph Smith (or whoever's) ideas were perfectly congruent with the popular anthropology of the time. It always struck me that the church was moving in this direction until I started my "research" into contemporary apologetics. Was I in for a surprise!

And while the Shadian Paradigm does explain the asymmetrical distribution of apologetic explanations across the rank and file, it doesn't explain why efforts to "prove" haven't been officially stamped by decree from on high. Yes, I know there have been semi-official (or maybe even completely official) efforts to gently discourage speculative amateur archaeology/anthropology. Still.

I guess it comes down to an institutional bifurcation: "plausible deniabilty" for the powers that be/scatter shot apologetics to sooth the rank and file.

[_Blixa]

Ah, just read through your essay. Thanks. It covers all the bases I'm talking about. Thanks again.

[_Enuma Elish]

Hello Beastie,

Thanks for posting your link. I really enjoyed reading your collection of quotes which clearly provides a number of interesting theories concerning the translation process shared by some of the Prophet’s associates.

May I humbly suggest that you add what the Prophet himself had to offer on the subject. Only Joseph knew the actual process, and he declined to describe it in public.

At a Church conference in 1831, Hyrum Smith invited the Prophet to explain more fully how the Book of Mormon came forth. Joseph Smith responded that “it was not intended to tell the world all the particulars of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon; and…it was not expedient for him to relate these things” (HC 1:220).

My own views on the matter suggest that the entire process was revelatory in nature. Hence, this process could never be summed up completely into a "loose" versus "tight" translation theory. I believe that at times, Joseph seems to have dictated a very tight translation of the plates. In contrast, Joseph however, clearly used the King James Version of the Bible to assist in producing the Isaiah chapters.

Based upon my own efforts as a translator of ancient texts (which are very much traditional rather than revelatory in scope), I have worked back and forth between relying upon previous efforts, producing a literal rendering, and more often than not, attempting to convey the text’s inherent meaning by rendering a non-literal translation.

I also consider myself fairly well-versed in Church curriculum matters and yet am unaware of a CES manual that supports the notion of a perfect, God-sent, word for word translation.

I believe that most Latter-day Saints, myself included, comfortably acknowledge the legitimacy of the words featured in the opening title page of the Book of Mormon, “if there are faults they are the mistakes of men.”

[_Runtu]

Now, where have I heard this before? Tiny ceremonial pets carried on platforms?

Honestly, that piece of apologism forever makes me giggle when I read anything from Brant.

I think Brant himself is a bit embarrassed by it as well. He once commented that he realized this had become a favorite of critics, and he didn't currently adhere to it anyway, it was just brainstorming.

So I'm not holding him to this idea, but I do think it demonstrates the desperation of Book of Mormon apologetics.

I have to say that I really like Brant. He's a nice guy and pretty openminded. I don't hold him to it either, but I did think it was one of the funnier pieces of apologetics I'd ever seen. It's an extreme example, but sort of illustrative.

One of his other pieces I found equally creative is the suggestion that since we know the Maya elite had spiritual animal companions, called way[/] (which were an integral part of their religious world view), and they believed their [I]way not only accompanied them into battle but the battle was won or lost based on the success of their way in fighting the way of the opponent, then what the Nephites REALLY meant by "horse and chariot" was the litter the elite were carried on by humans, accompanied by his spiritual animal companion.

You've got to admire his determination.

Hadn't heard that one, but yes, that's pretty creative.

Bokovoy has engaged in another creative piece of apologia by claiming that the word "horse" can, in Biblical translations, mean a human transporter. Of course, the word in the Bible is "horsemen", not "horse", as he does explain, but never tells us why we should reasonably expect it could be "horse" as well.

I wouldn't know. That doesn't make much sense to me, but I'd have to hear David explain it.

[_Blixa]

Sorry, perhaps my notion of what's "contemporary" is itself out of date. And I guess I'm both surprised and not surprised that such an understanding isn't explicitly spelled out in CES materials.

Still, I have to say once you believe in the Book of Mormon as revelatorialy revealed, I don't know why it matters to even look into ancient Hebrew, Egyptian hieroglyphics, or even address the nature of "reformed Egyptian." I mean, haven't you got your answer? Case closed.

I'm not being flip here. I'm actually kind of curious about what sends one down this scholarly path as an addendum to religious beleif.

[_Enuma Elish]

Hello Runtu,

Hope all is well.

I wouldn't know. That doesn't make much sense to me, but I'd have to hear David explain it.

When it come right down to it, I hold a very non-traditional view of the Book of Mormon "translation." As I explained in the previous post, I believe that the Prophet moved back and forth between methods and that he relied upon the King James Version to assist in the work.

Here is what I shared concerning the matter on the other board:

I've pointed this out before, however, the Book of Mormon claims to be a translation, making any sort of hypothesis as to what words may or may not have appeared on the original plates quite speculative.

Since I believe that Nephite authors used an Egyptian script to write their native Hebrew language, it is, however, helpful to consider possibilities for an original Hebrew meaning for "horse."

When it comes to "horse" in the Book of Mormon, we really have a number of possible meanings. Assuming that the Nephites used an Egyptian script to write their native Hebrew dialect, then the Nephites might have used the Hebrew word parash for the "horses" linked with chariots in the Book of Mormon.

This would, in fact, reflect the pattern attested in the Hebrew Bible:

"And I, behold, I will harden the hearts of the Egyptians, and they shall follow them: and I will get me honor upon Pharaoh, and upon all his host, upon his chariots, and upon his horsemen [parash]" (Ex. 14:17)

"And the Egyptians shall know that I am the LORD, when I have gotten me honour upon Pharaoh, upon his chariots, and upon his horsemen [parash]" (Ex. 14:18).

"For the horse of Pharaoh went in with his chariots and with his horsemen [parash] into the sea, and the LORD brought again the waters of the sea upon them; but the children of Israel went on dry land in the midst of the sea" (Ex. 15:19)

As witnessed in these verses, in addition to "horse," the Hebrew word parash may refer to those who operate the chariot. Therefore, parash actually carries two meanings.

The term can mean "horse" as in 1 Samuel 8:11:

"He said, This will be the practice of the king who will rule over you: He will take your sons and appoint them as his charioteers and horses [parash], and they will serve as outrunners for his chariots."

Hence, parash is both something that a man can ride upon, i.e. 1 Samuel 8:11 and a human being, i.e. a "horseman."

Both are technically correct, even though they are in reality the same word.

Consider two different Bible translations for Is. 28:28:

"It is cereal that is crushed. For even if he threshes it thoroughly, And the wheel of his sledge and his horses [parash] overwhelm it, He does not crush it." (JPS)

"Bread corn is bruised; because he will not ever be threshing it, nor break it with the wheel of his cart, nor bruise it with his horsemen [parash]." (KJV)

Therefore, as a translation, the references to "horses and chariots" in the Book of Mormon could reflect the biblical pattern. We could theorize that the original word that appeared on the plates was "horse," even though the author/editor intended "chariot operator."

It certainly is possible given the Biblical pattern.

Admittedly, this is highly speculative, since, if the Book of Mormon is what it claims to be, we don't have an original text.

I simply share this information to illustrate that if the Book of Mormon is a translation, then a variety of possibilities would logically explain why the English translation contains the word "horse," even though the original author might not have meant the animal we think of today.

Given the speculative nature of this exercise, together with the logical explanations for why "horse" appears in the Book of Mormon, this has always seemed, at least from my perspective, an extremely weak argument raised against a book that claims to be a translated work.

[_Blixa]

I may just have my answer in your reply to runtu.