The Debate Over Book of Mormon Translation: Loose or Tight?
by Jeff Lindsay
An
interesting debate is underway in the Church on theories regarding
the translation of the Book of Mormon from the gold plates. I'll
focus on two main schools of thought: tight control and loose
control.
Tight
control means that Joseph may have regularly seen or been inspired
with the specific words to use in his translation (sometimes even
specific spellings, as appears to have been the case for at least
some of the names in the Book of Mormon).
Loose
control, on the other hand, holds that generally what was revealed
was a concept or idea that Joseph then had to express in his own
language.
Neither
school insists that the translation was only done one way —
examples of apparent tight or loose control can still fit in either
theory.
Loose
control has been a reasonable theory and helps explain some of the
possible anachronisms in the Book of Mormon. One could argue that
concepts presented to Joseph's mind of specific plants or animals
would be "translated" into his vocabulary, thus giving
"horses," for example, when another unfamiliar species may
have been intended.
Loose
control can also seem to explain the bad grammar (i.e., non-standard
relative to modern English or the KJV) that was in the original
translation of the Book of Mormon, much of which led to minor
corrections to the text.
Brant
Gardner's 2011 book, The Gift and the Power, strongly argues
that loose control is how Joseph translated the Book of Mormon, and
that loose control and Joseph's use of his own language plus KJV
English even could have given us some of the apparent Hebraisms of
the Book of Mormon, in addition to possible anachronisms and strange
grammar.
See
a review at Common Consent.
I'm currently reading it, almost done, and find it thoughtful and
well done, though I disagree with some of the assumptions and
arguments.
Some
aspects of Gardner's book have been criticized by another LDS scholar
and writer, David Bokovoy. See Bokovoy's
remarks at MormonDialogue.com.
Bokovoy provides a great example of vigorous and intelligent
disagreement done with respect and courtesy. Definitely something to
ponder, fellow netizens.
Meanwhile,
a significant argument in favor of a significant degree of tight
control has recently emerged. This began with some early analysis by
Royal Skousen, which Gardner takes on in his book (some say his work
even decimates Skousen's theory, though I would disagree —
Bokovoy's remarks mentioned above remind us of why that judgment is
probably premature).
Royal
Skousen, as you may know, is the scholar who has done so much to help
us appreciate the granular details of the original and printers
manuscripts. After completing much of that groundbreaking work, he
made an observation in 2005 in a
short article for the Maxwell Institute's Insight publication
with a shocking statement.
In
summarizing his findings through studying the early Book of Mormon
manuscripts, he begins by listing the following:
1. The
original manuscript supports the hypothesis that the text was given
to Joseph Smith word for word and that he could see the spelling of
at least the Book of Mormon names (in support of what witnesses of
the translation process claimed about Joseph's translation).
2. The
original text is much more consistent and systematic in expression
than has ever been realized.
3. The
original text includes unique kinds of expression that appear to be
uncharacteristic of English in any time and place; some of these
expressions are Hebraistic in nature.
So
far so good. Then comes what I would call a shocker:
Over
the past two years, I have discovered evidence for a fourth
significant conclusion about the original text:
4.
The original vocabulary of the Book of Mormon appears to derive from
the 1500s and 1600s, not from the 1800s.
This
last finding is quite remarkable. Lexical evidence suggests that the
original text contained a number of expressions and words with
meanings that were lost from the English language by 1700. On the
other hand, I have not been able thus far to find word meanings and
expressions in the text that are known to have entered the English
language after the early 1700s. [emphasis added]
He
then lists some plausible examples. So strange. So unexpected.
While
Gardner responds to some of Skousen's work, Skousen's thesis was
greatly expanded and strengthened in a 2014 article at the Mormon
Interpreter.
See Stanford Carmack, "A
Look at Some 'Nonstandard' Book of Mormon Grammar."
Carmack
contends that so much of what were dismissing as Joseph's bad grammar
actually turns out to be acceptable grammar from Early Modern
English, featuring many elements that were from decades before the
English of the King James Bible, almost as if the translation given
to Joseph by inspiration had been deliberately translated into that
slightly earlier English.
So
strange. What is going on?
As interesting as it was, I
immediately thought I saw a flaw in the analysis and posted this
comment to Carmack's article:
One
of the criticisms the Tanners make of the grammar of the original
Book of Mormon when they discuss “the 3,913 changes” of
the Book of Mormon is the use of “a” before many verbs,
such as “As I was a journeying to see a very near kindred …”
[Alma 10:7], “And as I was a going thither …”
[Alma 10:8], “… the foundation of the destruction of
this people is a beginning to be laid …” [Alma 10:27],
“… he met with the sons of Mosiah, a journeying towards
the land …” [Alma 17:1], and “… the
Lamanites a marching towards them …” [Mormon 6:7].
I’ve
heard this described as “Pittsburgh dialect” I think,
with a suggestion that it might have been Oliver’s language.
But I also read someone say or guess that this construction can be
found in Chaucer. Haven’t had time to check. What are your
thoughts?
What
I didn't say was that this "a going" and "a marching"
pattern really annoyed me, for it sounded like "hick language"
to my ears. Why no mention of that in the article? I suspected it
must be because it didn't fit the Early Modern English hypothesis.
After
all, Carmack is not claiming that every case of awkward grammar is
squarely from standard Early Modern English. But this form isn't
Hebraic either, as far as I know — it's just bad, even
embarrassing grammar.
Turn out I was wrong. After
posting my comment, I poked around for more information about this
verb form. It's very hard to search for since the key term "a"
is ignored or obscured in many of the search strings one might try.
But I did stumble upon some articles that led me to look up the
history of the English progressive form, and that's where I found
interesting material.
Some
earlier scholars (e.g. Jesperson MEG IV: 168-9) espouse the
theory that be + -ing goes back to the combination of the
preposition on > a + the verbal noun ending in -ing
(I am a-reading > I am reading). The available evidence
makes it more likely, however, that the verbal type without a
preposition and the nominal type with one represent two separate
constructions which lived side by side from Old English on. In the
course of the Modern English period, the verbal type superseded the
nominal one. In the seventeenth century the nominal type can be found
even in formal and educated writing, but it becomes non-standard in
the course of the eighteenth (Nehls 1974: 169-70). There are only
half a dozen Helsinki Corpus instances of the nominal type dating
from 1640-1710, all of them in fiction, private correspondence or
comedies. Lowth (1775 [1979]: 65) gives the following comment on the
principles preceded by a: 'The phrases with a…
are out of use in the solemn style; but still prevail in familiar
discourse . . . there seems to be no reason, why they should be
utterly rejected.'
The full form of the preposition on
is much less common than the weakened a in Early Modern
English. Also other prepositions are possible; instances with upon
can be found as late as the eighteenth century (159)….
So
yes, that annoying verb form is also good Early Modern English.
Carmack's thesis still works on that issue as well. I'm surprised,
though pleasantly. But still tentative about this theory.
Carmack would later
respond to my comment by confirming that it is an Early Modern
English form, and one that can even be found in the Bible. He
mentioned Luke 8:42 and 9:42. Sure enough, there's "a dying"
and "a coming." Never noticed that. It's a rare occurrence
to me, but it is there.
So yes, much of the awkward grammar
of the original Book of Mormon appears to reflect language that is
not typical of the KJV, being earlier than the KJV era and earlier
than Joseph's dialect, though remnants persisted in his day and in
ours as nonstandard forms in modern grammar.
Carmack
sees this as evidence against a modern, fraudulent origin and
evidence for divine translation — but why would a divine
process result in English forms predating the KJV? Was some sort of
Celestial Translator Device set the wrong century by a clumsy angel?
However
the divine translation process worked, however the language was
selected or "seasoned" for delivery to Joseph's mind, what
came out can no longer be explained as mere imitation of the KJV or
as a modern fabrication that Joseph and his friends or family were
capable of.
The
debate over Carmack's work continues in the
comments at Mormon Interpreter
and in the comments in a
discussion at Mormanity.
I look forward to learning more and appreciate those who have shared
what they have found in their own digging.
If Carmack and
Skousen are right, then why would pre-KJV have been used so heavily
in a divinely aided translation? Here's one hypothesis: The
translation into language actually predating the KJV is an example of
one of God's little jokes. A helpful little joke, that is, a humorous
gem to bless and strengthen those willing to pay attention, offering
surprising evidence that there is far more to this text than meets
the eye.
Yes,
it is quiet and easy-to-overlook evidence that the Book of Mormon is
not a modern translation, is not merely drawn from the KJV or any
other modern source. It's a little joke, but the real joke is on
those who cry plagiarism.
Now
the difficulty of explaining the origins of the Book of Mormon text
might be even greater than we ever imagined. But there's still a lot
to explain and figure out, and a lot more research needed. Looking
forward to learning more!
Jeff Lindsay has been defending the Church on the Internet since 1994, when he launched his
LDSFAQ website under JeffLindsay.com. He has also long been blogging about LDS matters on
the blog Mormanity (mormanity.blogspot.com). Jeff is a longtime resident of Appleton,
Wisconsin, who recently moved to Shanghai, China, with his wife, Kendra.
He works for an Asian corporation as head of intellectual property. Jeff and Kendra are the parents of 4 boys, 3 married and the the youngest on a mission.
He is a former innovation and IP consultant, a former professor, and former Corporate Patent
Strategist and Senior Research Fellow for a multinational corporation.
Jeff Lindsay, Cheryl Perkins and Mukund Karanjikar are authors of the book Conquering
Innovation Fatigue (John Wiley & Sons, 2009).
Jeff has a Ph.D. in Chemical Engineering from Brigham Young University and is a registered US
patent agent. He has more than 100 granted US patents and is author of numerous publications.
Jeff's hobbies include photography, amateur magic, writing, and Mandarin Chinese.