Concerning the Missing “Interpreters”

[MG 2.0]

The fact of the matter is that we have 500 pages of narrative, theology, and interwoven voices...all produced in a matter of months without significant revision.

Do you have access to a definitive timeline for production? For example, when exactly was “Zeniff” translated?

That would be very useful to my studies.

I would assume that you are able to punch in search terms that will bring up translation timelines. One place to start would be by typing "Eldon Watson Book of Mormon translation timeline".

There are other timelines easily accessible. Most of them putting the translation period under ninety days.

I do think you are giving Joseph Smith way too much credit.

Regards,
MG

[Limnor]

One place to start would be by typing "Eldon Watson Book of Mormon translation timeline".

There are other timelines easily accessible. Most of them putting the translation period under ninety days.

I do think you are giving Joseph Smith way too much credit.

Regards,
MG

Thank you.

I’ve seen Watson’s timeline, but it’s really more a theory than a definitive record.

My point is, no one kept a day-by-day log during that 1829 timeline, and even the “under ninety days” timeline only provides an external frame rather than what was actually written inside that window.

That’s why I asked about Zeniff, specifically. It reads like a self-contained, older narrative that pre-dates the main dictation, and in my reading, it is part of the “brass plates” that were found. Within the book, those “brass plates” had been produced much earlier, and I’m suggesting there is a historical-textual correlation that reflects what actually happened.

I’m not trying to make Joseph into Shakespeare - the writing is really not that captivating to me.

But if some material was already written or in an oral form before 1829, that makes the story more interesting to me, not less.

And, if someday the LDS Church decides to place less emphasis on the ancient provenance - as is possible with the Book of Abraham - I’d be very interested in scholarship that explains the book. I believe what comes forth will be somewhat in line with this thinking.

[Limnor]

Thanks Kish, for the link to Chris Smith’s paper.

Of interest to me:

Chris Smith wrote:

“A more important finding from the new manuscript evidence is that the fictionalization of these revelations was more elaborate than the mere substitution of code names. Significant additions and deletions were made in order to give these revelations an authentically ancient veneer. This new evidence of a more extensive fictionalization process.”

And

“Olihah, for example, may have been derived from the word olaah in the “specimen of some of the “pure language.’” Zombre resembles the word Zomar, which Smith had claimed was “the original word for Zion.” Gazelam was almost certainly the Gazelem of Alma 37:23, and Shule was borrowed directly from Ether 1:30. Significantly, these both seem to have been Jaredite (and therefore Adamic) words, uncorrupted by the confusion of Babel (Eth. 1:35).”

I’d go with a more simple explanation for “Olihah”: Oliver.

But the key points associated with my thinking include:

“Modern terminology not appropriate to an Adamic context was generally replaced with more neutral or ancient vocabulary.”

“Thus, for example, the “Firm” became the “order.” “Farms” became “inheritances.” The “Laws of the Land” became the “laws of the Lord.” “Dollars” became “talents.”

“Clearly the intention was for these revelations to sound believably ancient to outsiders.”

Taking that methodology backwards and applying it to the Book of Mormon, you get an encoded text reflecting real-world activities among those associated with Joseph Smith in the 1823-29 timeframe.

Does Chris Smith still post here?