Skousen: creative and cultural translation

[_Dr Moore]

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeters ... ion-1.html

I am completely floored by the part in bold. It seems a giant leap towards de-literalizing the Book of Mormon.

Skousen appears to be saying that God performed the creative and cultural translation. Is there some other way I should read the statement? This would suggest that it was not Joseph's bricolage at all, or in any way, but God doing all of that as a service for Joseph in advance, and showing the precise words as dictated on the stone/instrument. Whether or not that explanation is to be embraced, Skousen is clearly de-literalizing the book's historical claims, is he not?

All of this quoting from the King James Bible is problematic, but only if we assume that the Book of Mormon translation literally represents what was on the plates. Yet the evidence in The Nature of the Original Language (parts 3 and 4 of volume 3 of the critical text) argues that the Book of Mormon translation is tied to Early Modern English, and that even the themes of the Book of Mormon are connected to the Protestant Reformation, dating from the same time period. What this means is that the Book of Mormon is a creative and cultural translation of what was on the plates, not a literal one. Based on the linguistic evidence, the translation must have involved serious intervention from the English-language translator, who was not Joseph Smith. Nonetheless, the text was revealed to Joseph Smith by means of his translation instrument, and he read it off word for word to his scribe. To our modern-day, skeptical minds, this is indeed “a marvelous work and a wonder”.

[_moksha]

If not for the discrepancy in the timeline, wonder if Skousen was suggesting Jules Verne or H.G. Wells as the unknown author?

[_Shulem]

What this means is that the Book of Mormon is a creative and cultural translation of what was on the plates, not a literal one.

As opposed to:

I wish to mention here, that the title-page of the Book of Mormon is a literal translation, taken from the very last leaf, on the left hand side of the collection or book of plates, which contained the record which has been translated, the language of the whole running the same as all Hebrew writing in general; and that said title-page is not by any means a modern composition, either of mine or of any other man who has lived or does live in this generation. Therefore, in order to correct an error which generally exists concerning it, I give below that part of the title-page of the English version of the Book of Mormon, which is a genuine and literal translation of the title-page of the original Book of Mormon, as recorded on the plates.

I move that Skousen be excommunicated for teaching false doctrine and trampling on the words of Joseph Smith! The Book of Mormon was a literal translation! The very title page of the Book of Mormon was a literal translation.

[_Fence Sitter]

All of this quoting from the King James Bible is problematic, but only if we assume that the Book of Mormon translation literally represents what was on the plates. Yet the evidence in The Nature of the Original Language (parts 3 and 4 of volume 3 of the critical text) argues that the Book of Mormon translation is tied to Early Modern English, and that even the themes of the Book of Mormon are connected to the Protestant Reformation, dating from the same time period.

The KJB itself is intricately tied to the Reformation. Four-Fifths of the New Testament in the KJB is simply Tyndale's work from eighty years before. By imitating language in the KJB when he made up the Book of Mormon, Joseph was aping EmoD.

[_Dr Exiled]

I think we are witnessing a robbery in progress. How much has Skousen taken from the interpreter over the years?

I have a new theory: Inter-dimensional, shape-shifting nephites. These guys could travel through space and time and take on pretty much any form one can think of and they are known for their inventive theories about ghost committees. In fact, here is one posing as Dr. Skousen:

[_Gadianton]

You are reading correctly, Dr. Moore. The apologists barely care about Book of Mormon history anymore, anything they can get there is gravy. Their express concern has been that the book itself is historical. What if it's a historical novel? Well, I've psychoanalyzed the apologists and I've determined that their deep hidden concern has little to do with it being history (what they go after the new MI for being coy about) but rather, it needs to have been produced in a miraculous way, such that critics can't explain it. Skousen's theory, oddly, does exactly what the new MI's work has done at the end of the day, and "brackets" the Book of Mormon as an ancient text. If you watch enough Skousen on Youtube, I think you will find that he does claim there to be Hebraisms in the Book of Mormon, which can't be explained by Early Modern English, thus seemingly staying true to the Book of Mormon as a historical document. But it does no such thing. A Hebraism with Joseph Smith as author is impressive, how could he have known! But a translation committee in the spirit world, surrounded by all the greatest books in the universe, and with plenty of time to kill? They could have gotten the Hebraisms from anywhere. Oh yes, the apologists are onboard, because Joseph Smith can't cover either the Hebraisms or the Early Modern English, it's miraculous! That's what they really care about. Explain that, critics! But the Book of Mormon can now be miraculous without being a historical document. And since the evidence for it as historical is so utterly atrocious, if Skousen's theory were to take root, which I doubt, but if it does, then slowly but surely, the non-historical yet miraculous theories will be explored.

[Guest]

But the Book of Mormon can now be miraculous without being a historical document.

Gadianton, if I could be so bold as to suggest a variation on this, Skousen’s work allows the Book of Mormon to be miraculous, without Joseph Smith being held accountable for it not being a historical document.

It’s genius, really. It takes the question of fakery totally out of the picture, because if it was a fake, it was the faker masquerading as a ghost committee faking it, NOT Joseph Smith. His honor and intent are intact, and the historicity is someone else’s problem.

[_Lemmie]

Another thought. This frames the gold plates as fraudulently manufactured artifact in a different light. Suppose Smith nobly but misguidedly intended to convince his companions of the divinity of his ghost committee- seer stone communications. He was positive that the ghost committee sent him a translation from literal gold plates, but how could he convince others of that if they, NOT he, had the gold plates?

Answer: convince them he did have plates by making a set of fake ones. Problem solved. Sneakily and dishonestly, but whatever. Eyes on the prize.

[_Dr Moore]

I am so confused. Where are the hidden cameras? Is this Punk’d?

[_consiglieri]

It almost seems like Professor Skousen is willing to follow the evidence wherever it leads.



Except to the obvious conclusion.