David Bokovoy Issues a Devastating Critique of the Mopologists' "Scholarship"

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Lem
God
Posts: 2456
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 12:46 am

Re: David Bokovoy Issues a Devastating Critique of the Mopologists' "Scholarship"

Post by Lem »

Benjamin McGuire wrote:
Wed Jun 09, 2021 10:59 am
Lem wrote:
Tue Jun 08, 2021 7:05 pm
Not discussing a concept such as PG's because it is in "conflict with outcomes that a believer would look for," or that it is "inconsistent with the assumptions" a believer would make is not a legitimate, academic reason. It may be valid in an apologetic sense, but again, that takes it out of the realm of academic analysis. That may certainly be an option, and if this thread is about that, then I can see the argument for a purely apologetic approach.
But PG isn't making an academic argument.
I think you missed my point. I was talking about the difference between apologetic purposes and academic purposes, directly in response to your comment here:
Benjamin McGuire wrote:
Tue Jun 08, 2021 12:17 pm
I suppose it all depends on what the purpose of the dialogue is. If you want to convince a believer that the anachronisms in the text challenge belief, then you have to argue from that perspective. Simply labeling the text fiction isn't going to generate meaningful dialogue. If on the other hand, you are able to make a coherent argument adopting the same assumptions, it can lead to meaningful dialogue. The reason why the suggestion that PG makes doesn't work in that context is because the outcomes he sees conflict with the outcomes that a believer would look for. A believer is not going to effectively attribute everything in the text to Joseph Smith (in a final redaction layer) because this is generally inconsistent with the assumptions that they make about the nature of the text, its purpose and its contents.
Concern over whether a believer would or would not be convinced by an argument has no bearing on determining the validity of that argument. If the context is convincing a believer, we are already out of the realm of academic analysis, so I suppose the point is moot.
But in any case, I haven't seen much here that would rise to the level of academic analysis.
Really? Well, we are just having a discussion on a forum, so in that extremely strict sense you may be correct.(although stem I think was advocating for turning on the footnote feature, which would help!)

In any case, you seem to have missed my point again. I was noting that dismissing an argument because, in your words, it would “conflict with outcomes that a believer would look for” would not constitute legitimate reasoning in an academic analysis.
The Book of Mormon is not read in the same way by two individuals, one of whom believes it is an ancient record translated into English and the other of whom believes it is a modern fiction.
By that argument, any book is read differently by every single person who reads it. So what? We still can analyze it. If you mean there is a difference in the sense that believers already have made up their minds and won’t want to read anything that disagrees with what they think they already know, again that would fall outside the realm of academic analysis.
Benjamin McGuire
Sunbeam
Posts: 50
Joined: Wed May 26, 2021 1:14 pm

Re: David Bokovoy Issues a Devastating Critique of the Mopologists' "Scholarship"

Post by Benjamin McGuire »

There are a number of significant discussions about literary fakes. I have a handful of books on the subject. One of the features of the Book of Mormon that puts it into a relatively small group of contested texts is that it claims to be a translation, it involves citations of unknown works, and so on.

The text itself offers us an opportunity (should we test the idea that it is a translation of a historical text) to analyze it using the same sorts of tools as we used with Biblical texts. However, as this thread was originally about, those tools are often misunderstood, misapplied with the LDS community. The value of this analysis will always be dependent on the accuracy of the underlying assumptions. You cannot prove the historical reliability of the narrative using these tools. And of course, if it is not a historical narrative but a modern work, such an analysis will only increase the misinterpretation of the text.

My purposes here (in making the comments that I made) were to offer a critique of the essay from the perspective of a believer. That is, under the assumption that it is a historical text, to point out that the way in which the essay approached the text was badly flawed. This evolved into a discussion of anachronisms. I pointed out that in the discussion over a text and its alleged history (including its presentation as a translation) there are different possible kinds of anachronisms. The views of the text as a translation of a historical record and the view of the text as an entirely modern production deal with these different types of anachronisms in different ways. In the dialogue between the two positions, some of these anachronisms are put into a nearly identical space. The use of the King James language is one of these. Most believers (and all unbelievers) are, I think, willing to assign the use of the King James specific language to the modern author/translator. Other anachronisms are split, with the believer assigning them to the original text and the non-believer assigning them to the modern author/translator.

I believe that these issues are the ones that are interesting to discuss. But in order to get there, I think that there needs to be some shared understanding of how to differentiate between features of the text that should be attributed to a modern author/translator under both sets of assumptions and which ones should not. That discussion is linked to the narrative. It is not unique to the Book of Mormon, since any text that we assume is a translation faces the same challenges. And it is the ways that we read the narrative that (should) places limits for believers on how they divide up these anachronisms into these two categories.

On top of this, I have tried to assert a couple of additional premises.

1: That the Book of Mormon is a text like any other text. No matter what the mechanics of the translation process were, that if it is a translation it should function in specific ways as a communicative act. There is a corollary to this, which I have not discussed directly here, but have in the presentation that I linked, which is that if it is an entirely modern work, the alleged translation (and the translationese that comes with it) functions with a specific rhetorical purpose to engage its audience in a specific way.

2: Any analysis of the text should follow appropriate methods and models (the article felt like more a free-for-all). These models and methods should be coherent. It is a problem, for example, to use principles of higher criticism while pushing a literal translation of the text or an inerrant text. It is also incoherent (as another example) to engage the DH while positing previously unknown sources that allow the Book of Mormon to exist outside of the conclusions of the DH.

3: Any analysis of the text which assumes that the text is a translation should follow an appropriate understanding of translation and the way in which translation works. Further, the idea of a 'literal translation' is something of a myth, necessitated by doctrine of an inerrant Bible. In modern translation studies, the notion of a 'literal translation' is considered equivalent to a paraphrase (which is usually the opposite of what is intended by such a phrase). As such, a literal translation usually involves a good deal of mistranslation. To the extent that Mormons use the idea of a literal translation for the Book of Mormon, they have merely adopted a theology of an inerrant Book of Mormon from Christian doctrines of the Bible.

At any rate, I think that for me at least, the discussion has run its course, and you all are welcome to have the last words with regards to my comments.
User avatar
Kishkumen
God
Posts: 6121
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 2:37 pm
Location: Cassius University

Re: David Bokovoy Issues a Devastating Critique of the Mopologists' "Scholarship"

Post by Kishkumen »

I appreciate your point about the term "literal translation," Benjamin, and I think it is most unfortunate that certain external Christian concepts of scripture have exercised so much influence over Mormonism. Of course, for me that would include the belief that something claiming to be written by author X in period Y must have been written by author X in period Y or else that "problem" undermines a work's scriptural status.
“If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about the answers.”~Thomas Pynchon, Gravity’s Rainbow
Tom
Area Authority
Posts: 613
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2020 3:41 pm

Re: David Bokovoy Issues a Devastating Critique of the Mopologists' "Scholarship"

Post by Tom »

Benjamin,

Could you describe your involvement with the Interpreter Foundation? Do you still serve as a member of the board of editors? If so, what are your responsibilities?

Thanks,

Tom
“But if you are told by your leader to do a thing, do it. None of your business whether it is right or wrong.” Heber C. Kimball, 8 Nov. 1857
User avatar
Bought Yahoo
High Councilman
Posts: 523
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 8:59 pm

Re: David Bokovoy Issues a Devastating Critique of the Mopologists' "Scholarship"

Post by Bought Yahoo »

Benjamin McGuire wrote:
Wed Jun 09, 2021 2:18 pm
To the extent that Mormons use the idea of a literal translation for the Book of Mormon, they have merely adopted a theology of an inerrant Book of Mormon from Christian doctrines of the Bible.
Isn't this just a cop-out argument? Translation doesn't mean translation.
User avatar
Gabriel
Deacon
Posts: 232
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2021 10:20 pm

Re: David Bokovoy Issues a Devastating Critique of the Mopologists' "Scholarship"

Post by Gabriel »

I read Keith Thompson's new and improved paper at Interpreter. It seems to me that all he did was to remove his explicit assertion that the Documentary Hypothesis involves the entire Old Testament, while at the same time, leaving all the supporting arguments that flow from this assertion intact.

As of today, there is only a single comment on his improved opus.
Brant Gardner wrote: on June 2, 2021 at 9:19 am said:
Please note that this paper had been updated, both in editing and for some content by the author. The previous comments may no longer be relevant. Please make any comments based on this revised copy only.
Lacking the source material, I am unable to discern what portions were redacted by the unknown editors and what by the author.

I am hoping that Ben hasn't shaken the dust off his shoes here, because I have genuinely learned a few things as a result of his contributions (eg. Tolkien's borrowing of the dwarrow's names from the Edda, W.W. Phelps equating the Teraphim with the Urim and Thummim, etc.).

That being said, there is plenty of room for comments on Thompson's article for Ben to contribute if he wishes. The field is white, all ready to harvest. (You all can quote me on that one).
Last edited by Gabriel on Wed Jun 09, 2021 5:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Symmachus
Valiant A
Posts: 177
Joined: Sat Feb 20, 2021 3:53 pm
Location: Unceded Lamanite Land

Re: David Bokovoy Issues a Devastating Critique of the Mopologists' "Scholarship"

Post by Symmachus »

Bought Yahoo wrote:
Wed Jun 09, 2021 4:52 pm
Benjamin McGuire wrote:
Wed Jun 09, 2021 2:18 pm
To the extent that Mormons use the idea of a literal translation for the Book of Mormon, they have merely adopted a theology of an inerrant Book of Mormon from Christian doctrines of the Bible.
Isn't this just a cop-out argument? Translation doesn't mean translation.
No way to know without the source text. I find a lot of sympathy with Benjamin's summary, and I think it is a fruitful place for believers to go, but it is unreasonable to think it can serve as a common ground of discussion for any but believers. There is absolutely nothing broadly meaningful (i.e. beyond the divide between the believer and the non-believer) that you can say about the nature of the translated text if you don't have the source text.

We don't even know for sure what language the Book of Mormon was supposedly translated from. The only reason anyone calls it a translation is because someone as credible as Joseph Smith said it was, but we don't have any independent means by which to verify that claim. We don't even know if it is a translation.
(who/whom)

"As to any slivers of light or any particles of darkness of the past, we forget about them."
—B. Redd McConkie
Lem
God
Posts: 2456
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 12:46 am

Re: David Bokovoy Issues a Devastating Critique of the Mopologists' "Scholarship"

Post by Lem »

Symmachus wrote:
Wed Jun 09, 2021 5:23 pm
Bought Yahoo wrote:
Wed Jun 09, 2021 4:52 pm


Isn't this just a cop-out argument? Translation doesn't mean translation.
No way to know without the source text. I find a lot of sympathy with Benjamin's summary, and I think it is a fruitful place for believers to go, but it is unreasonable to think it can serve as a common ground of discussion for any but believers. There is absolutely nothing broadly meaningful (i.e. beyond the divide between the believer and the non-believer) that you can say about the nature of the translated text if you don't have the source text.
This is a significant point. I agree with your sympathy for Benjamin's approach, in that it seems to focus on supporting and uplifting believers, but realistically, if one is restricted to analysis that a believer would accept, that is just an apologetic effort. It may serve to start a dialogue, as Ben mentioned, but ultimately it's not an actual analysis of the text.
We don't even know for sure what language the Book of Mormon was supposedly translated from. The only reason anyone calls it a translation is because someone as credible as Joseph Smith said it was, but we don't have any independent means by which to verify that claim. We don't even know if it is a translation.
Exactly.
¥akaSteelhead
Deacon
Posts: 207
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2020 8:33 pm

Re: David Bokovoy Issues a Devastating Critique of the Mopologists' "Scholarship"

Post by ¥akaSteelhead »

I remember a few years back Hamblim was asserting that the Brass Plates of Laban were indisputably written in Hebrew. How you can assert anything about a pre-exilic copy of the Old Testament - for which there are no analogs, written entirely on metal plates that have never been seen - is entirely beyond my "ken".
Lem
God
Posts: 2456
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 12:46 am

Re: David Bokovoy Issues a Devastating Critique of the Mopologists' "Scholarship"

Post by Lem »

¥akaSteelhead wrote:
Wed Jun 09, 2021 5:40 pm
I remember a few years back Hamblim was asserting that the Brass Plates of Laban were indisputably written in Hebrew. How you can assert anything about a pre-exilic copy of the Old Testament - for which there are no analogs, written entirely on metal plates that have never been seen - is entirely beyond my "ken".
A little off topic, but maybe not. You remind me of one of my favorite lines from the big bang theory (which I watched because I was raising a Sheldon of my own at the time):
Sheldon: Woman, you are playing with forces beyond your ken.

Penny: Yeah, well, your Ken can kiss my Barbie.
:lol:
Post Reply