The Lost 116 Pages - Evidence of a Tight Translation?

[_Who Knows]

On another thread, someone said something about the lost 116 pages, and it made me think about the story we were told - on the reason why the lost 116 pages weren't retranslated. D&C 10 discusses the reason - here is the summary:

Revelation given to Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Harmony, Pennsylvania, in the summer of 1828. HC 1: 20–23. Herein the Lord informs Joseph of alterations made by wicked men in the 116 manuscript pages from the translation of the “Book of Lehi,” in the Book of Mormon. These manuscript pages had been lost from the possession of Martin Harris, to whom the sheets had been temporarily entrusted. See heading to Section 3. The evil design was to await the expected retranslation of the matter covered by the stolen pages, and then to discredit the translator by showing discrepancies created by the alterations. That this wicked purpose had been conceived by the evil one, and was known to the Lord even while Mormon, the ancient Nephite historian, was making his abridgment of the accumulated plates, is shown in the Book of Mormon

Joseph Smith and 'god' weren't worried about providing a word for word duplicate. They were only worried that the 'wicked men' would alter the manuscript, thus, Joseph Smith's translation wouldn't match up to it anymore.

Is this evidence for a tight translation?

[_William Schryver]

I think you make a good point here. And I believe that an increasing number of LDS believers would agree in the concept of a tight translation. Certainly the foremost expert on the Book of Mormon text, Professor Royal Skousen, is a staunch advocate of a "tight translation." I consider his arguments to this effect the definitive rationale for the theory.

[_Blixa]

For what it's worth, I've never seen much but evidence for "tight translation." Anything else reeks of after-the-fact-apologia.

[_beastie]

GEEZ! Why didn't I think of this? I have dissected this whole tight/loose debate, and this never, never occurred to me.

You are absolutely right, who. If Joseph Smith had translated the text via "loose translation", he could have simply explained that some minor deviations could be expected due to the process.

[_beastie]

For what it's worth, I've never seen much but evidence for "tight translation." Anything else reeks of after-the-fact-apologia.

Of course it's ad-hoc apologetics. All the contemporary evidence points to tight translation. Literally reading words off a rock.

To me, it's telling that the people who tend to be proponents of the loose translation theory are the people who know enough about ancient Mesoamerica to know that the historicity of the Book of Mormon, as an ancient American text, particularly in Mesoamerica, is pretty screwed otherwise.

[_moksha]

Am I being used as a tool of satan, when I think that this sounds like a cover story in case Martin Harris' wife carried her taunts to fruition?

[_beastie]

You really have to ask, moksha?

;)

[_Phaedrus Ut]

Am I being used as a tool of satan, when I think that this sounds like a cover story in case Martin Harris' wife carried her taunts to fruition?

smart smart smart smart smart

[_DonBradley]

Excellent point, WK. D&C 10 attributes the discrepancies that would be found between the 116 pages and the re-translation to purposeful modification, rather than to variation in how Joseph Smith wolud translate; and this implies that the author of the revelation wants or expects his audience to hold to a "tight" model of translation.

Don

[_Who Knows]

Wow, I feel so cool now. This is like the first actual thing i've ever contributed to the boards.

Now I know how all you smart people feel all the time. :)