Brigham Young on Bible Translation

[ChinoCoug]

Originally Posted by Chapel-Hill-Coug

Quoting the KJV directly is the least of the BOM problems. My understanding, from a colleague who studied this carefully, is that the ONLY reasonable conclusion is that he lifted straight from the KJV. I'd have to tap into this guy's research to refresh my memory, but I believe it has to do with the fact that in the *original* bom manuscript, it quotes the KJV EXACTLY, minus 100% of italicized words...no more, no less (then subsequent copies, including the first edition BOM, revised the Isaiah passages slightly from that point). Assuming this is true (the source is a faithful scholar member, fwiw), then cut and paste is the ONLY conclusion here. [It's possible I've gotten parts of the argument wrong here, I'm going off memory. But either way this source told me that there is no other option once you look at the evidence from the orig manu].

Here you go Tex, here's an anti-Mormon argument. Let's see how well your theory answers. Best wishes.

[Chapel-Hill-Coug]

Originally Posted by ChinoCoug

Here you go Tex, here's an anti-Mormon argument. Let's see how well your theory answers. Best wishes.

I don't want to be dragged into this particular argument. I will say though that I actually heard one of the hardest of the hardcore apologists at FARMS say in response to this point, "Well, I think Joseph probably had the Isaiah passages memorized and that could explain the verbatim agreements." I'm not arguing against that [though IMO it can't explain the departures from KJV *only* at italicized places], but I'm just pointing out that there is really no response from the apologists other than to say that Joseph's copying was from memory, and therefore more involuntary than voluntary. That brings Joseph through the issue looking the best, anyway.

[ChinoCoug]

Originally Posted by Chapel-Hill-Coug

I don't want to be dragged into this particular argument. I will say though that I actually heard one of the hardest of the hardcore apologists at FARMS say in response to this point, "Well, I think Joseph probably had the Isaiah passages memorized and that could explain the verbatim agreements." I'm not arguing against that [though IMO it can't explain the departures from KJV *only* at italicized places], but I'm just pointing out that there is really no response from the apologists other than to say that Joseph's copying was from memory, and therefore more involuntary than voluntary. That brings Joseph through the issue looking the best, anyway.

how long ago was this?

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by Chapel-Hill-Coug

I don't want to be dragged into this particular argument. I will say though that I actually heard one of the hardest of the hardcore apologists at FARMS say in response to this point, "Well, I think Joseph probably had the Isaiah passages memorized and that could explain the verbatim agreements." I'm not arguing against that [though IMO it can't explain the departures from KJV *only* at italicized places], but I'm just pointing out that there is really no response from the apologists other than to say that Joseph's copying was from memory, and therefore more involuntary than voluntary. That brings Joseph through the issue looking the best, anyway.

Could someone help me understand why Joseph looks bad if he copies from the KJV Isaiah (memorized or not) for sections of Nephi where Nephi is quoting Isaiah?

[Chapel-Hill-Coug]

Originally Posted by ChinoCoug

how long ago was this?

Hmm, either 3 or 4 summers ago (can't remember which at the moment), on campus at the Y.

[Chapel-Hill-Coug]

Originally Posted by jay santos

Could someone help me understand why Joseph looks bad if he copies from the KJV Isaiah (memorized or not) for sections of Nephi where Nephi is quoting Isaiah?

I suppose there is no reason, other than that the whole BOM is replete with passages influenced by the KJV, written in KJV language, perpetuating mistakes in the KJV, and including KJV material that postdates the internal chronology of the BOM. To the *outsider*, I should say, this looks suspicious.

From a scholarly perspective, you're correct I think. The copying isn't nearly as big a problem as the anachronism of having 2nd Isaiah on the brass plates, as well as the other problems relating to history and chronology.

[ChinoCoug]

Originally Posted by Chapel-Hill-Coug

Hmm, either 3 or 4 summers ago (can't remember which at the moment), on campus at the Y.

This is what I read:

A more recent study of the original and printer's manuscripts of the Book of Mormon shows that the words that are italicized in the King James Version of Isaiah were usually included in the manuscripts, but that they were dropped prior to the actual printing of the Book of Mormon.12 This argues against Wright's suggestion that Joseph Smith knew that the italicized words represented material not reflected in the Hebrew but necessary for the flow of the passage in English. It seems clear that the italics, the centerpiece of Wright's argument, did not influence Joseph Smith in making modifications to the biblical text. Based on the new data, we cannot know who decided to remove or modify those italicized words. It could have been Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, or even the typesetter.

http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=review&id=472

[Chapel-Hill-Coug]

Originally Posted by ChinoCoug

This is what I read:



http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=review&id=472

Hmm, that doesn't make sense to me. IF it was Joseph Smith who supervised the final prepublication editing, then this article is simply incorrect to say that the italics weren't the motivation for the editing of Isaiah (and yet it still leaves open the possibility that it was Smith himself who did it). Why would the italics be dropped in the prepublication manuscript, to the point of it reading like nonsense, and then reconstituted, by anyone other than Joseph Smith, or without his editorial direction?

[ChinoCoug]

Originally Posted by Chapel-Hill-Coug

Hmm, that doesn't make sense to me. IF it was Joseph Smith who supervised the final prepublication editing, then this article is simply incorrect to say that the italics weren't the motivation for the editing of Isaiah (and yet it still leaves open the possibility that it was Smith himself who did it). Why would the italics be dropped in the prepublication manuscript, to the point of it reading like nonsense, and then reconstituted, by anyone other than Joseph Smith, or without his editorial direction?

you're right, if JS supervised the publication it doesn't matter who took them off.

the point was that the original manuscript had the italicized words, when you said they had everything but. so there's no need to claim Joseph had everything memorized, etc.

i do believe he copy and pasted, but it doesn't vitiate his claim to prophethood.

[Archaea]

I even think is possible he read or received revelation regarding some quotes from Isaiah, looked them up in the KJV and added by midrash some of the provision of DeuteroIsaiah, unless we're mistaken as the timing of DeutorIsaiah.

I'm not convinced JS performed an academic translation but more or less a prophetic midrashic translation work.