Response to Jockers, Criddle, et al., Now Available

[_Dan Vogel]

Roger,

A few items on Mormon doctrine and ten tribes in addition to Glenn’s response:

First, ten tribes are in the “north country” as a group. There is no doubt about this. However, that doesn’t mean that all representatives of the lost tribes went to this unknown region. Some were scattered. Hence Lehi lived in Jerusalem. This is so prophecies, especially in Isaiah, could be fulfilled that mentions them being restored to their homeland from the “four corners of the earth,” etc. (1 Ne. 22:3-5; 2 Ne. 10:20-22)

The Nephites and Lamanites are a “remnant of the house of Israel” (Book of Mormon, Title Page). This means just what it says. They don’t represent the ten tribes; in fact, nothing is said about the ten tribes. It just says they are Israelites, which we very well know is the tribe of Joseph. However, the tribe of Joseph is also represented among the lost tribes in the north country. D&C 110:11 is an interesting passage that shows Mormon believe in both scattered Israel and the myth of the northern location.

… and Moses appeared before us, and committed unto us the keys of the gathering of Israel from the four parts of the earth, and the leading of the ten tribes from the land of the north.

There were many theories about the location of these tribes, but Canada is not one of them. Probably the leading theory was the north pole. Orson Pratt expressed this theory on 11 April 1875 (Journal of Discourses 18:26). William W. Phelps said in 1835:

Let no man marvel at this statement, because there may be a continent at the north pole, of more tha 1300 square miles, containing thousands of millions of Israelites, who, after a high way is cast up in the great deep, may come to Zion, singing songs of everlasting joy. (Messenger and Advocate 2 (Oct. 1835): 194)

Glenn’s comment about not knowing who the Lamanites are is a reflection of Mormon apologetic, which tries to harmonize the Book of Mormon with the Asiatic origin of Indian populations. This is an ad hoc hypothesis. The Lamanites are all the Indians, and all the Indians are descendants of either Lehi’s or Mulek’s colonies. The Book of Mormon was to be taken to the Indians to tell them that they are Israelites and to gather to the New Jerusalem, located in Independence, MO. A July 1831 revelation mentions “every tract lying westward, even unto the line running directly between Jew and Gentile” (D&C 57:4).

[_Roger]

Glenn:

Roger, I am not off in la la land. Of course the archaic language that the Book of Mormon is translated into did not exist when the Book of Mormon was written.

Good. Then how is emulation of that language possible for someone who lived centuries before it existed?

The English that the Bible is written in did not exist when the King James version was translated.

What?? The Bible was not written in English.

The bad grammar in the Book of Mormon comes from several venues.

Really? Which ones?

It would help your understanding if you would read several articles that Royal Skousen has written on the Book of Mormon translation, the underlying language, and the grammar. To try to present it here would take up too much space.

I have to admit I get annoyed when people do this. In the first place I have read several Skousen articles--including the one you linked to--and find my "understanding" not much changed. In the second place, if YOU have a perfect understanding then we don't need to consult Skousen since we have you to consult right here. In the third place, if your understanding relies on Skousen such that you can't possibly restate it on your own, then, by all means, post from Skousen whatever you need to make your point. But assigning me homework, as though I only conclude the things I conclude because (you incorrectly think) I haven't read the unquestionable logic of your expert, does not have the effect you hope for, unless annoying me is your only goal.

Skousen has produced several volumes on the Book of Mormon text. Some of the grammatical mistakes were made by the translation team, but there are others that appear to come from a literal translation of what appears to be the original Hebraic language.

I will quote Royal Skousen from an article on the language of the Book of Mormon.

What is important here is to realize that the original text of the Book of Mormon apparently contains expressions that are not characteristic of English at any place or time, in particular neither Joseph Smith's upstate New York dialect nor the King James Bible. Subsequent editing of the text into standard English has systematically removed these non-English expressions from the text—the very expressions that provide the strongest support for the hypothesis that the Book of Mormon is a literal translation of a non-English text. Further, the potential Hebraisms found in the original text are consistent with the belief, but do not prove, that the source text is related to the language of the Hebrew Bible.

I have no doubt that if Spalding were here, he would chuckle at the thought of Skousen concluding his original text "is related to the language of the Hebrew Bible."

So what were you hoping to accomplish with this citation? How do you expect me to react to this? Royal Skousen says "the original text of the Book of Mormon apparently contains expressions that are not characteristic of English at any place or time, in particular neither Joseph Smith's upstate New York dialect nor the King James Bible." *Roger then throws up his hands and concedes the argument to Glenn* (roll eyes).

Royal Skousen can say whatever he wants. I'm having a discussion with you, not Royal Skousen. The fact of the matter is no reputable non-LDS scholar would agree with Skousen's conclusion on this. Dan won't even agree with you on this one. In fact, Dan and I often disagree but here, he's right on:

Emulating KJV could also look Hebraic.

That explains why Skousen (erroneously) thinks there is an underlying Hebrew text lurking beneath the surface. The question... which hasn't changed... is: who did the KJV emulation?

But since you bring up Skousen, let's consider his conclusions. Skousen argues for a tight translation--as I noted earlier. He quotes B. H. Roberts as saying:

if . . . it is insisted that the divine instrument, Urim and Thummim, did all . . . then the divine instrument is responsible for such errors in grammar and diction as occur. But this is to assign responsibility for errors in language to a divine instrumentality, which amounts to assigning such errors to God. But that is unthinkable, not to say blasphemous.[6]

On this conclusion, I agree with Roberts. Nevertheless, Skousen finds a way around the dilemma and he does this by using D & C 1:24.

It seems to me that since God is not a native speaker of English nor a respecter of tongues, he is perfectly willing to speak to his "servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding" (D&C 1:24). In fact, internal evidence from the original manuscript as well as statements from witnesses of the translation provide strong support that the Lord exercised "tight control" over the translation process and that he indeed is the source for the original text of the Book of Mormon.[7] From this perspective, Joseph Smith's editing for the second edition of the Book of Mormon may be viewed as translating the text into standard English rather than cleaning up grammatical errors.[8]

So... of course God knows proper King James English, but he doesn't speak it to Joseph since Joseph doesn't understand it. Instead God speaks to Joseph in his weakness, after the manner of his language.

It's a stretch by anyone's imagination, but certainly as creative as one might expect from LDS apologists whose precedent has been set by Joseph Smith himself. So much for blasphemy, B.H.

All of this, Glenn, is why I posted what I did:

As I explained earlier, under S/D it would seem to depend on whether one accepts a tight version of S/D or a loose version. In the tight version God is responsible for King James emulation and in the loose version, it must be Joseph Smith. Either way, there should not be much variance in KJV emulation. Even if one assumes some sort of scenario in which God supplies some words and Joseph supplies some others, you'd still only have two individuals contributing to the Book of Mormon translation process. Only two personalities who could potentially effect the English rendition of what was allegedly written centuries before King James in a completely different language.

So... none of what Skousen says in the article you cited negates this nor does it magically improve my "understanding" which is exactly the same as it was before you assigned me homework. In fact, as anyone can see, I wrote the above paragraph with Skousen's tight/loose theory in mind.

On another note, its interesting that Skousen cites this quote from John Gilbert (the printer):

On the second day [of printing]—[Martin] Harris and [Hyrum] Smith being in the office—I called their attention to a grammatical error, and asked whether I should correct it? Harris consulted with Smith a short time, and turned to me and said: "The Old Testament is ungrammatical, set it as it is written."[1]

This should make it obvious that emulation of the Bible was indeed being practiced by Joseph Smith & Co.

[_Uncle Dale]

"unto the line running directly between Jew and Gentile" (D&C 57:4).

OK -- that should help Glenn out. If the surviving Lamanites were/are Jewish,
then they are of Judah and/or Benjamin -- (southern tribes which were dispersed,
rather than scattered), and thus never became "lost" to the rest of humankind.

UD

[_GlennThigpen]

]Roger, I am not off in la la land. Of course the archaic language that the Book of Mormon is translated into did not exist when the Book of Mormon was written.

Good. Then how is emulation of that language possible for someone who lived centuries before it existed?

You have missed the boat entirely here. Read below.

The English that the Bible is written in did not exist when the King James version was translated.

What?? The Bible was not written in English.

Of course it wasn't. Neither was the Book of Mormon. They are both translated works. And you do realize that the King James Bible also has been criticized for its bad grammar also.

Skousen has produced several volumes on the Book of Mormon text. Some of the grammatical mistakes were made by the translation team, but there are others that appear to come from a literal translation of what appears to be the original Hebraic language.

I will quote Royal Skousen from an article on the language of the Book of Mormon.

What is important here is to realize that the original text of the Book of Mormon apparently contains expressions that are not characteristic of English at any place or time, in particular neither Joseph Smith's upstate New York dialect nor the King James Bible. Subsequent editing of the text into standard English has systematically removed these non-English expressions from the text—the very expressions that provide the strongest support for the hypothesis that the Book of Mormon is a literal translation of a non-English text. Further, the potential Hebraisms found in the original text are consistent with the belief, but do not prove, that the source text is related to the language of the Hebrew Bible.

Royal Skousen can say whatever he wants. I'm having a discussion with you, not Royal Skousen. The fact of the matter is no reputable non-LDS scholar would agree with Skousen's conclusion on this. Dan won't even agree with you on this one. In fact, Dan and I often disagree but here, he's right on:

Emulating KJV could also look Hebraic.

That explains why Skousen (erroneously) thinks there is an underlying Hebrew text lurking beneath the surface. The question... which hasn't changed... is: who did the KJV emulation?

Before we go any further, you need to back up two assertions. (1) "no reputable non-LDS scholar would agree with Skousen's conclusion, and (2) that Skousen erroneously thinks that there is an underlying Hebrew text.

Since you say you have read many of Skousen's articles and do not accept them, it is up to you to refute them. For your back up, you have quoted Dan Vogel, who is not a linguist or a Hebrew scholar, but is a historian with whom you disagree on concerning historical issues. There are several Hebrew scholars who do agree with Skousen.

And here, for your edification, is a link to an article about some non-LDS scholars and their views on the Book of Mormon.

http://www.ldsmag.com/component/zine/article/6312?ac=1

As for the archaic language of the Book of Mormon and the "bad English grammar" which often turns out to be pretty good Hebrew grammar, it came through the translation process.

So, tell me who you think is responsible for archaic language in the Book of Mormon.

Glenn

[_MCB]

There are several Hebrew scholars who do agree with Skousen.

good one!!

[_Dan Vogel]

"unto the line running directly between Jew and Gentile" (D&C 57:4).

OK -- that should help Glenn out. If the surviving Lamanites were/are Jewish,
then they are of Judah and/or Benjamin -- (southern tribes which were dispersed,
rather than scattered), and thus never became "lost" to the rest of humankind.

UD

Jews--meaning from Judah or Jerusalem regardless of tribe.

[_Uncle Dale]

...

Jews--meaning from Judah or Jerusalem regardless of tribe.

If the Lehites and their descendants were Jewish, then I'd say that
distinctive designation covers something more than just the place
of their departure for the Land of Promise. The D&C pairs it in opposition
to Gentile, which is not a word indicating a particular place of departure.

Lehi's religion appears to resemble that of the southern tribes from
the days of King Josiah onward. But then again, the Lehites construct
a separate temple --- which was sacrilege under the proto-Judaism
then developing in and around Jerusalem (and later at Babylon).

Perhaps we can call Lehi and his sons quasi-Jewish; retaining some of
the northern tribes' old predilections, such as allowing non-Levitical sacrifices
and building a House of the Lord away from Mount Moriah, while at the same
time, ostensibly paying homage to the pre-Jewish Deuteronomic reformation.

UD

[_Dan Vogel]

Glenn,

The English that the Bible is written in did not exist when the King James version was translated.

I was confused by this statement also.

What is important here is to realize that the original text of the Book of Mormon apparently contains expressions that are not characteristic of English at any place or time, in particular neither Joseph Smith's upstate New York dialect nor the King James Bible. Subsequent editing of the text into standard English has systematically removed these non-English expressions from the text—the very expressions that provide the strongest support for the hypothesis that the Book of Mormon is a literal translation of a non-English text. Further, the potential Hebraisms found in the original text are consistent with the belief, but do not prove, that the source text is related to the language of the Hebrew Bible.

The problem with Skousen’s approach is that he cherry picks the bad grammar (and Hebraisms) for examples to 1500s English. He has only a few of these examples, which in no way explains the entire English text. Skousen is trying to support his theory that Joseph Smith didn’t participate in the translation process, that he simply read the translation—that God did it. This would make God responsible for the anachronistic use of the Bible—not Joseph Smith. In other words, Skousen has taken away a major apologetic tool for explaining bad grammar and anachronistic use of the New Testament, as well as the KJV. This is a serious problem with Skousen’s methodology.

Before we go any further, you need to back up two assertions. (1) "no reputable non-LDS scholar would agree with Skousen's conclusion, and (2) that Skousen erroneously thinks that there is an underlying Hebrew text.

Since you say you have read many of Skousen's articles and do not accept them, it is up to you to refute them. For your back up, you have quoted Dan Vogel, who is not a linguist or a Hebrew scholar, but is a historian with whom you disagree on concerning historical issues. There are several Hebrew scholars who do agree with Skousen.

No one can deny Hebraisms are in the Book of Mormon, but they are also in the D&C. You wouldn’t argue that there is an underlying Hebrew text for Joseph Smith’s revelations, would you? Obviously, Joseph Smith is emulating the KJV, not just in his revelations but also in is early letters. What patriarch in the early church (and some even now) doesn’t emulate KJV? The problem arises when these Hebraisms in the Book of Mormon are used as evidence of antiquity.

And here, for your edification, is a link to an article about some non-LDS scholars and their views on the Book of Mormon.

Here is another article Roger might want to read:

“A Record in the Language of My Father”: Evidence of Ancient Egyptian and Hebrew in the Book of Mormon, by Edward H. Ashment http://signaturebookslibrary.org/?p=10284

As for the archaic language of the Book of Mormon and the "bad English grammar" which often turns out to be pretty good Hebrew grammar, it came through the translation process.

So, tell me who you think is responsible for archaic language in the Book of Mormon.

Joseph Smith is responsible, of course. Skousen has it wrong.

[_Dan Vogel]

Dale,

If the Lehites and their descendants were Jewish, then I'd say that
distinctive designation covers something more than just the place
of their departure for the Land of Promise. The D&C pairs it in opposition
to Gentile, which is not a word indicating a particular place of departure.

It divides the world between Jew and Gentile—which group would the Israelites be in? There is a specific and a general meaning.

“he shall be rejected of the Jews, or of the house of Israel” (1 Ne. 15:17, 20).

“in the last days, or in the days of the Gentiles—yea, behold all the nations of the Gnetiles and also the Jews, both those who shall come upon this land and those who shall be upon other lands of the earth …” (2 Ne. 27:1).

“And then shall the remnant of our seed know concerning us, how that we came out from Jerusalem, and that they are descendants of the Jews” (2 Ne. 30:4).

Lehi's religion appears to resemble that of the southern tribes from
the days of King Josiah onward. But then again, the Lehites construct
a separate temple --- which was sacrilege under the proto-Judaism
then developing in and around Jerusalem (and later at Babylon).

Perhaps we can call Lehi and his sons quasi-Jewish; retaining some of
the northern tribes' old predilections, such as allowing non-Levitical sacrifices
and building a House of the Lord away from Mount Moriah, while at the same
time, ostensibly paying homage to the pre-Jewish Deuteronomic reformation.

All this is foreign to the author of the Book of Mormon.

[_Roger]

Glenn:

You have missed the boat entirely here. Read below.

Glenn, no offense, but its becoming increasingly obvious that you're the one missing the boat on this.

The English that the Bible is written in did not exist when the King James version was translated.

What?? The Bible was not written in English.

This was obviously a mistake on your part. You could just admit it and move on. But the thing is, I still don't understand what point you were trying to make? And if what you say below is the point you were trying to make, then you are seriously missing the boat:

Of course it wasn't. Neither was the Book of Mormon. They are both translated works. And you do realize that the King James Bible also has been criticized for its bad grammar also.

Diverting to an attack on the KJV of the Bible is not going to get you off the hook. In fact, it only makes things worse for S/D. Ancient copies in the original languages from which the KJV was translated by humans still exist. There is not even any proof that the alleged original language of the Book of Mormon even exists, let alone an ancient copy of anything (!), secular or otherwise, written in it!

Yes, the KJV has grammar errors. That is not news. Humans are responsible for them. Under his tight version of S/D, Skousen leaves you no alternative but to blame the many errors we find in the Book of Mormon on God. And, ironically, Skousen does this for the same reason Dan speculates that a Bible would not have raised red flags for honest dupes--he wants to believe his witnesses and he knows he can't do that unless God produces all the errors. So he thinks he has rescued the whole thing by an appeal to D & C 1:24. Like I said, creative, as most LDS apologetics are, but credible? Hardly.

Nevertheless, if you're going with Skousen (tight) over Roberts (loose) then you have no alternative but to view every error in the 1830 text as coming from God (except whatever few errors may have been introduced by Cowdery producing the printer's copy or whatever few errors might have been introduced by the type-setter.) That is a huge problem when it comes to errors that could only have originated through direct plagiarism of the KJVB. See the problem, Glenn, is that there is a difference between KJVB emulation and KJVB plagiarism.

When the Book of Mormon uses the phrase: "And it came to pass" it is emulating the language of the KJV. When it uses the incorrect words "Seraphims" and "Cherubims" it is directly plagiarizing the KJV. (The equivalent is "mices"). That is a real problem for Skousen's tight theory. Either Joseph Smith's "weak understanding" is apparently so weak that God can't even give him the proper plural form of a word, or God is so lazy that he's copying from the flawed KJV--or, worse, God didn't realize what a serious error he was making when he copied the KJV.

Now of course I realize that, as a TBM, your first instinct when you're backed into a corner like this is to divert attention and say something like: "And you do realize that the King James Bible also has been criticized for its bad grammar also" but that does virtually nothing to get you off the hook Joseph Smith and Royal Skousen have put you on. (You might want to reconsider Robert's position as it allows you to blame the errors on Joseph Smith and there's a D & C proof text for that one too).

The reason your diversion doesn't work is that while Christians claim the Bible is an inspired work, they recognize that human translators are only human. That's why King James had so many of them working on it, and yet we still find a few occasional translation and grammar errors. The Book of Mormon, on the other hand, was said to have been a divine translation--lest any man should boast. And that, of course, is Skousen's take on it. But what of all those pesky--and numerous--errors? They obviously exist, so who should we blame them on? For the KJV, the answer is simple: we blame them on humans. But with Skousen's creative attempt to harmonize the testimonies of his witnesses (funny how people keep having to save them from what they said!) with the obvious errors he concludes that we can just blame the errors on God! And he thinks that by taking this approach he gains the added benefit of arguing that what in some cases may appear to be an error in English, is really an underlying Hebrew construction! No wonder Skousen is willing to have God spouting off error after error! What a payoff!

But, as Dan points out, Skousen can only get away with this because

1. there is no original we can compare to and
2. emulation of KJV (for which there is an underlying Hebrew text!) can give the illusion of an underlying Hebrew.

Before we go any further, you need to back up two assertions. (1) "no reputable non-LDS scholar would agree with Skousen's conclusion, and (2) that Skousen erroneously thinks that there is an underlying Hebrew text.

No I don't. In both cases you're asking me to prove a negative. So you need to present a reputable, non-Mormon expert in ancient languages who agrees, not merely that the Book of Mormon can occasionally give the illusion of an underlying Hebrew, but that God should be credited with all the errors we find in the Book of Mormon. Good luck on that!

Since you say you have read many of Skousen's articles

I did not say "many." And you're the one appealing to Skousen and his logic. He's your expert, not mine. So it's up to you to demonstrate why you think he's right.

and do not accept them, it is up to you to refute them. For your back up, you have quoted Dan Vogel, who is not a linguist or a Hebrew scholar, but is a historian with whom you disagree on concerning historical issues. There are several Hebrew scholars who do agree with Skousen.

And here, for your edification, is a link to an article about some non-LDS scholars and their views on the Book of Mormon.

http://www.ldsmag.com/component/zine/article/6312?ac=1

Oh my! Still more homework! We'll see, Glenn. I note that it's from "LDS mag" but I'm not supposed to let that bother me, right?

As for the archaic language of the Book of Mormon and the "bad English grammar" which often turns out to be pretty good Hebrew grammar, it came through the translation process.

So, tell me who you think is responsible for archaic language in the Book of Mormon.

I already have. Solomon Spalding, Sidney Rigdon, Joseph Smith & Oliver Cowdery.