Meaning of "Translation"

[_Aristotle Smith]

While listening to Brant Gardner's Mormon Stories podcast he made a claim which was a bit surprising. The claim was that in the 1830's the word "translate" or "translation" did not necessarily mean what we mean today by that word, namely to convert from one language to another. And, while translate could mean that, it was not the more common meaning of the word. If true is is obviously beneficial in changing expectations about what Joseph Smith was doing when he said he was a translator.

I downloaded Webster's 1828 dictionary of the American Language to check on this. The link is here:

http://books.google.com/books/download/ ... %26hl%3Den

Here are all of the definitions for the word "translate"

1. To carry or remove from one place to another
2. To remove or convey to heaven, as a human being, without death
3. To transfer; to convey from one to another
4. To cause to remove from one part of the body to another
5. To change
6. To interpret; to render into another language; to express the sense of one language in the words of another.
7. To explain.

The definitions of "translator" and "translation" are all related to the meanings of the word "translate" (as you would expect).

I think we can safely throw away 1-4 as descriptiona of what Joseph was doing. I think 5 & 7 might be good ways of describing what Joseph was doing when he was working on the JST, he was mainly changing words and explaining meaning. But, the only reason this works here is because we can see the before and after and we know that Joseph wasn't working with the Greek or Hebrew originals.

But, I have a hard time thinking that Joseph was really applying 5 & 7 to the process surrounding the Book of Abraham or the Book of Mormon. He wasn't changing the Book of Mormon (except in the sense of changing it into a different language) and he wasn't explaining it either (except in the sense of explaining reformed Egyptian in English). I don't see any definition other than 6 working here.

Any ideas about why one might apply any of the other definitions to the process behind the Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham?

[_Runtu]

If the descriptions of the method of translation are accurate, he seems to have been engaged in dictation, not translation of any kind.

[_Aristotle Smith]

If the descriptions of the method of translation are accurate, he seems to have been engaged in dictation, not translation of any kind.

I agree that it was dictation. However, the apologists and the church itself still insist on using the word "translation." I assumed that this was just more word games and word redefinition, but Gardner seemed to put forward the idea that this was a genuine use of the word around 1830. This is why I was asking.

[_Darth J]

But, I have a hard time thinking that Joseph was really applying 5 & 7 to the process surrounding the Book of Abraham or the Book of Mormon. He wasn't changing the Book of Mormon (except in the sense of changing it into a different language) and he wasn't explaining it either (except in the sense of explaining reformed Egyptian in English). I don't see any definition other than 6 working here.

Any ideas about why one might apply any of the other definitions to the process behind the Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham?

Why would God command the ancient Nephite prophets to write if their words were not going to be "translated" in the regular sense of taking one language and changing it into another? Why would they express concern that they did not have enough room on the plates to write in Hebrew? Why would Moroni worry about his weakness in writing? Also, remember the Urim and Thummim that the faith-promoting narrative assures us was in the stone box with the golden plates?

Mosiah 8

11 And again, they have brought swords, the hilts thereof have perished, and the blades thereof were cankered with rust; [editor's note: just like wooden clubs lined with obsidian are wont to do] and there is no one in the land that is able to interpret the language or the engravings that are on the plates. Therefore I said unto thee: Canst thou translate?

12 And I say unto thee again: Knowest thou of any one that can translate? For I am desirous that these records should be translated into our language; for, perhaps, they will give us a knowledge of a remnant of the people who have been destroyed, from whence these records came; or, perhaps, they will give us a knowledge of this very people who have been destroyed; and I am desirous to know the cause of their destruction.

13 Now Ammon said unto him: I can assuredly tell thee, O king, of a man that can translate the records; for he has wherewith that he can look, and translate all records that are of ancient date; and it is a gift from God. And the things are called interpreters, and no man can look in them except he be commanded, lest he should look for that he ought not and he should perish. And whosoever is commanded to look in them, the same is called seer.

[_sr1030]

I agree that it was dictation. However, the apologists and the church itself still insist on using the word "translation." I assumed that this was just more word games and word redefinition, but Gardner seemed to put forward the idea that this was a genuine use of the word around 1830. This is why I was asking.

I have never heard a credible argument yet that can support dictation rather than translating words from one language to another. Can you provide one? I find it amazing that LDS still will attempt to find ways to explain inconsistencies with their religion. This is like two hill Cumorahs.

sr

[_Drifting]

Any ideas about why one might apply any of the other definitions to the process behind the Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham?

Because that is the only defence left for an incorrect translation purporting to be the Book of Abraham.

[_Drifting]

If the descriptions of the method of translation are accurate, he seems to have been engaged in dictation, not translation of any kind.

I agree that it was dictation. However, the apologists and the church itself still insist on using the word "translation." I assumed that this was just more word games and word redefinition, but Gardner seemed to put forward the idea that this was a genuine use of the word around 1830. This is why I was asking.

What facts and documentation etc is Brant relying on to form his opinion about the usage of the word 'translate'?

[_Daheshist]

When I was a Mormon apologist, I used to argue that Joseph Smith's "translations" of the Bible and the Book of Abraham were NOT "translations" but rather "targums" A "targum" is basically an "explanation". In other words, the "translation" of the Book of Abraham was not a "translation" in our terms, but an inspired "targum"; in other words, the pagan Book of Breathings was based upon more ancient works going back to Abraham, but had been corrupted over thousands of years.

I know...I was using some deep mental gymnastics. Joseph Smith said the Book of Abraham was written by the hand of Abraham. It wasn't. His explanations of the Egyptian drawings are mostly incorrect. A few things he got right, but most not.

Today, the word "Prophet" means "one who speaks for God, having the divine authority to do so." But, the early Mormons believed that "Prophet" meant one who spoke AS THE LORD, and also prophesied. So, the Church is changing its meanings all the time. The Church will eventually stop calling the Indians "Lamanites" and begin to suggest that the Lamanites were wipped out by the Indians.


I was told that Mary was a "virgin" but still had sex with God just like any man has with any woman. I asked, "How then could she be a virgin then?" I was told various things....mostly that if a woman has sex with God, she's still a virgin, NOT because there is any difference in the sex, but because...she just is.

[_moksha]

Any ideas about why one might apply any of the other definitions to the process behind the Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham

3. To transfer; to convey from one to another

This definition seems to fit with channeling very nicely. To convey from God to whoever was jotting down notes at the time, using the Egyptian breathing permits as a catalyst.

7. To explain.

As in any other definition requires an overload of tortuous explaining.

[_Chap]

"THE HOLY Bible,
Conteyning the Old Testament,
AND THE NEW:
Newly Translated out of the Originall tongues: & with the former Translations diligently compared and revised, by his Majesties speciall Comandement.
Appointed to be read in Churches.
Imprinted at London by Robert Barker, Printer to the Kings most Excellent Majestie.
ANNO DOM. 1611 ."

Of course no-one with the cultural heritage of New Englanders in the time of Joseph Smith could ever have used the verb 'to translate' in the sense used on the title page quoted above.

And back in the 17th century, King James's men must really have puzzled their readers by using that word to mean 'turn words in one language into words in another language having the same meaning'. Everyone knows that usage only became current in English around the time of the Kennedy presidency.