Another one of Jonathan Neville’s catchphrases, that he likes to repeat often, is that “evidence of composition is also evidence of translation”. That is in the title of the above video, which is why I have chosen it for comment in this blog post — although he talks about it more in other videos that I have seen from him. But it would be too tedious to go back and rewatch all of his other videos, in order to extract everything that he has said on the subject to comment on it here. But what he is getting at (without explicitly saying so, if everything he has said on the subject is carefully examined), is that internal evidence suggests that Joseph Smith actually composed the Book of Mormon, rather than translating it — but then he is now being generous and kind to LDS, by providing them with an escape route, by suggesting that “evidence of composition is also evidence of translation” — which is a nonsensical statement. “Translation” is one thing, “composition” is another. Everybody knows what a “translation” is, and everybody knows a “composition” is; you don’t mix them up. The Book of Mormon is either a composition or a translation; it can’t be both, or neither, or half-and-half, or somewhere in between. In the above video Rick Bennett commences his conversation with Jonathan Neville as follows:
“Is the Book of Mormon a literal history or complete fiction? We are going to tackle that issue with Jonathan Neville; and he says that ‘evidence of composition is also evidence of translation’. What does that mean exactly? Jonathan is going to explain, check out our conversation.”
To that then Jonathan Neville gives the following reply:
“What you are leading into though is a really important point … and that is, any evidence of Joseph as having composed the Book of Mormon, is also evidence that he translated it, and this is such a basic point. Any evidence of composition is evidence of translation. The reason I say that is, a translator can only use his own lexicon …”
Which is a nonsensical statement. Joseph Smith either composed the Book of Mormon or translated it. He couldn’t have done both, or neither, or a mixture of the two. After that he goes into his “stone in a hat” narrative which is a digression. But taking into account everything that he has said, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that his ultimate aim is to undermine faith in the divine origin and inspired nature of the translation of the Book of Mormon. Further down into the video he makes one more comment that requires a further discussion. At around 6 minutes into the video he says the following:
“And then he’s got into the Isaiah chapters; and there is a very interesting distinction in the Isaiah chapters, if you look at the 1830 Book of Mormon and the King James — and Royal Skousen did an awesome analysis of this — and you can see that the first few chapters have a lot of changes, like added verses and stuff, and then there is four or five chapters that have just kind of random little changes, like a drop line, or a phrase inverted, stuff like that; and then there is some more substantive changes after that. And it is those little four or five chapters I talked about in my book, that I think Joseph dictated from memory during this demonstration; …”
He is referring to the lengthy Isaiah quotes (Isaiah chapters 2-14) which occur in 2 Nephi chapters 12-24, comprising 13 consecutive chapters in that book. He is saying that the middle 4 or 5 chapters of Isaiah given in that lengthy quote, which do not have substantive changes, are not “translations” as such, but are merely stuff that Joseph Smith “memorized,” and had quoted from a faulty memory as a “demo,” and then they somehow found their way into the Book of Mormon — which undermines the integrity of the translation of the Book of Mormon completely. (Actually his initial claim had been that the whole of the lengthy Isaiah quotes in 2 Nephi had been “memorized” quotations from the KJV given by Joseph Smith as a “demo;” and the variations found in them had been the result of a “faulty memory!” But later on when it dawned on him that some of those chapters contained significant variations which could not be dismissed or accounted for as “memory errors,” he changed his stance, and now claims that only the middle 4 or 5 chapters, which do not contain significant variations, are quotations from “memory” given by Joseph Smith as a “demo” — which is an even more absurd claim.) He then continues:
“… and the reason is, I looked at, I did the side by side comparison; and I looked at the changes he made; it is like, that is the kind of changes you make when you memorize something; you recite it from memory, and maybe you invert this little paragraph, or you drop this word or whatever. It was not like a re-translation of an original text by any means.”
The answer to that is that biblical quotes are scattered throughout the Book of Mormon; and many of them have this characteristic or feature, that they appear to contain superficial variations compared to the KJV, but not substantive changes; and if his theory was correct, we would have to conclude that they are all memorized passages from the KJV by Joseph Smith, and quoted from a faulty memory — which would undermine the integrity of the Book of Mormon translation completely. As an example, consider Isaiah chapter 53, which is quoted in its entirety in chapter 14 of the Book of Mosiah. I did a file comparison between the Book of Mormon version and the KJV, using Google Docs, a PDF copy of which can be seen or downloaded from here. If the file is downloaded and viewed in a browser, or in a PDF viewer, it can be enlarged to be seen clearly. The texts that appear in red are the Book of Mormon variants; and the texts that are crossed out are the KJV originals, replaced in the Book of Mormon by the red alternatives. The rest of the text is identical in both. As can be seen, most of these are minor changes that do not significantly alter or add to the meaning of the text. If Jonathan Neville’s theories are correct, that is due to a faulty memorization by Joseph Smith! But there is a better explanation. The correct explanation is that both the KJV as well as Book of Mormon are literal translations, and that explains both the minor variations; and more importantly; the close identity of the unchanged portions. I have already discussed that in some detail in an earlier blog post which I wrote some 3½ years ago, which can be seen here. Neville then continues:
“And it has always been kind of a mystery in Book of Mormon analysis, why these random weird changes are in these chapters; whereas the ones in 1 Nephi, and the first ones in 2 Nephi, have substantive changes that you can see would be translated.”
No “mystery” involved at all, see above. The earlier blog post which I had linked to provides the needed explanation. To summarize: the KJV is an extremely literal (word for word) translation, as explained in that post; and the same is true of the Book of Mormon; and that explains both the close identity of the unchanged portions of the text with the KJV; as well as the variations — great and small.
For the rest of the conversation Jonathan Neville digresses once again into his “stone in a hat” obsession, which I personally don’t have a serious problem with. I haven’t studied in detail all the historical data for the “seer stone” vs. the Urim and Thummim issue, to be able to express a definitive opinion on the subject; but if the historical data suggests that Joseph Smith used either or both instruments interchangeably to do the translation, I would have no problems with that. The reason why Jonathan Neville is so opposed to the idea of using the seer stone for the translation of the plates, is because he sees that instrument as a means of “dictation” of the text to Joseph Smith, instead of Joseph himself being intellectually involved in the translation process — which again is badly misconstrued. The truth of the matter is that the Urim and Thummim was a far more powerful means of receiving revelation than the seer stone had been; and if God wanted to simply dictate the text of the Book of Mormon to Joseph Smith, he could have done so by means of the Urim and Thummim far more efficiently, effectively, and conveniently than by means of the seer stone. We simply do not know the precise mechanism or process by which the Book of Mormon was translated — regardless of which instrument was used. Joseph Smith never told anyone. And all of Jonathan Neville’s relentless obsession with the “seer stone” vs. the Urim and Thummim is nothing more than a pointless digression. The only thing that really matters is that the Book of Mormon is a book of ancient scripture revealed from heaven, miraculously translated into superb, eloquent English by the gift and power of God; and every word of it is sacred and divine, and originates from God; and a man will get “closer to God” by abiding by its precepts than that of any other book, as Joseph Smith has said.
Hopefully this is my last blog post on this subject, unless something controversial comes up, or unless I discover something important in his arguments that I have missed, that requires a further reply.
No comments:
Post a Comment