September 10, 2008

Gardner on Ostler's Expansion Theory

Likening With Care, Part 3

In 1987 LDS writer/philosopher Blake Ostler published an article in Dialogue called "The Book of Mormon as a Modern Expansion of an Ancient Source."1 Ostler's theory essentially posited that Joseph Smith interacted with the Book of Mormon source material in a way that helped highlight pressing issues of his own day. Over time Ostler adjusted many of his findings, and almost two decades later on the Times & Seasons blog he posted:
It has now been 18 years since the expansion theory was first published and to date not a single critic of the Book of Mormon has attempted to explain the presence of convincing evidence of antiquity that I cited in my 1987 article: viz., ancient prophetic call forms, ancient Israelite covenant renewal rituals and forms and formal Hebrew legal procedures. In my view, the presence of these forms is fairly clear in the text of the BofM and they are very difficult to explain on the assumption that it was written by anyone in the 19th century. To date, the only theory that accounts for these ancient forms and the presence of modern expansions that are fairly evidence is the expansion theory.

I believe that the Book of Mormon is precisely what it claims to be: a book translated by the gift and power of God that tells us about the record of an ancient people. However, translation by the gift and power of God isn’t translation based upon an isomorphic rendering of an underlying text into English based on a knowledge of the ancient textual language; rather, it is a revelation from God which involves necessarily the limitations of vocabulary, conceptuality and horizons of God’s servant chosen to render it into English for us.2
Ostler's belief that Joseph Smith interacted with an actual historical record as he translated, that God inspired Joseph using the language with which he was familiar, is intended to account for (among other things) why the name "Jesus" or title "Christ" would appear in the Book of Mormon text long before "Jesus" appeared in the Greek speaking world where those forms of the name and title would begin. If the Book of Mormon is a translation, however, those exact words didn't appear in the Book of Mormon; they are the translated words of what was originally written there. Similarly, Book of Mormon writer Jacob's sign-off of "adieu," is French, leading some critics to wonder how such a word could appear in an ancient record. Ostler's theory would posit that the word didn't appear on the plates; it is a translation of a concept from the plates using vocabulary to which Joseph had access in his contemporary environment.

Book of Mormon scholar Brant Gardner believes the problem with Ostler's initial paper was that it seemed to give Joseph Smith too much modern input. Ostler wasn't suggesting that the Book of Mormon wasn't ancient, but as Ostler noted in the above-quoted T&S post, some critics and others believed that was his argument by neglecting the rest of the paper's input.

Gardner's new Second Witness series seems to hew somewhere nearer to Ostler's loose translation theory than to Royal Skousen's belief of a tight translation process which left Joseph very little wiggle-room.3 Gardner believes the process was more interactive; a view which is seen throughout the commentary. For example, instead of the name "Jesus" Gardner uses "Yahweh," which would have been in use at the time the Lehites left the Old World. Instead of "Christ," the Hebrew "Messiah" is used. This small decision is intended to set a unique tone throughout the commentary, keeping in the forefront the fact that readers are looking at the translation of an ancient source.

On Ostler's view, Gardner said:
[T]here is much about the way I see the translation process that is parallel to what Blake suggested. I think he is right, but perhaps only in slightly different ways and for different reasons. I am curious to see whether people notice how similar my ideas are to Blake's (or if the differences can be perceived). I am sure that there are many who won't like the idea that there is more humanity in the Book of Mormon than they have previously thought. As a miraculously translated text, we tend to want it to be miraculous. I happen to think that it is still a marvelous work even though God did that work through human instruments.4
Gardner, Ostler, Kevin Christensen and Kevin Barney among others have all posited something between a completely loose or completely tight translation.5 Others, like Royal Skousen, view the translation as tight, where Joseph would have read the exact words and not played a very interactive role, which Barney calls the "teleprompter" theory.6 Taken to the extreme, some might view Joseph Smith's interaction as completely controlling; in other words, that Joseph Smith was somehow inspired to write a "pious fiction," a useful, Christian book, but not actually based on historical events in any way. Shawn McCraney, a former member of the Church-turned Evangelical explained:
Latter-day Saints...must take the time to learn for themselves the enormous amount of material (literally and thematically) that the Book of Mormon borrows from the Bible, as well as the pressing nineteenth-century themes Joseph used as supportive subplots in the construction of his stories. By understanding the Book of Mormon in these terms - magical, familial, cultural, social, and theological - Latter-day Saints who really want to know the truth, no matter how painful it may be, will certainly be more apt to see the Book of Mormon for what it is - a nineteenth-century fictional work which testifies of Jesus Christ in a literary form.7
Does Gardner think it is possible for a Latter-day Saint to believe in the book as inspired fiction?
I don't doubt that there will be some who find a way to believe in the Book of Mormon as inspired fiction. I sincerely doubt that the church will ever formally hold, encourage, or be passive toward that idea. The Book of Mormon stands as an evidence of Joseph's prophetic mission, and without a real connection to antiquity, it has no tie to the miraculous beyond simple hope. With a text that is ancient and appears only through Joseph, no matter how well he made his translation, it is that antiquity that cannot have anything but a miraculous explanation and therefore supports his other claims to divine communication.

That position differs dramatically from saying that the Book of Mormon is an ancient text that a human processed through the gift and power of God. While Joseph's humanity allows us to understand that it is unlikely to be the kind of word-for-word translation that we might expect of modern scholars, it is nevertheless inextricably tied to that ancient source text. Joseph may have interacted with the translation and certainly was the source of the KJV quotations and references, but the underlying antiquity of the text has no modern explanation.

More on Gardner's theory of Book of Mormon translation can be found in volume one of Second Witness, and throughout the whole series. For more with Gardner, see "Likening With Care" part 1 and part 2.

__________________________________________________

FOOTNOTES

[1]
Blake Ostler, "The Book of Mormon as a Modern Expansion of an Ancient Source," Dialogue 20:1 (Spring 1987) 66-123.

[2]
Blake Ostler, "Updating the Expansion Theory," Times & Seasons blog, April 26, 2005 (accessed Sept. 10, 2008).

[3]
Royal Skousen, "Joseph Smith's Translation of the Book of Mormon: Evidence for Tight Control of the Text,"
Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 7:1 (1998).

[4]
Gardner's comments in this series are from personal e-mails in possession of the author unless otherwise noted.

[5]
See Kevin Christensen, "Truth and Method: Reflections on Dan Vogel's Approach to the Book of Mormon," FARMS Review, 16:1, 287-354; Kevin Barney, "A More Responsible Critique," FARMS Review, 15:1.

[6]

See, for example, Royal Skousen, "Joseph Smith's Translation of the Book of Mormon: Evidence for Tight Control of the Text," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 7:1; Barney, op cit.

[7]
Shawn McCraney, I Was a Born-Again Mormon, 176-177, punctuation corrected. McCraney follows the writing of Dan Vogel, Brent Lee Metcalfe, H. Michael Marquardt, and others who have posited the Book of Mormon as a fiction.

28 comments:

Anonymous said...

I asked Gardner the same question about Ostler's expansion theory when I saw him at the FAIR Conference. The translation of the Book of Mormon is absolutely an important topic because it informs our expectations about God's revelations to individuals and what it means to be a prophet. Good post!

BHodges said...

Thanks. Interestingly, as late as 2005 Ostler did not believe in a Mesoamerican setting for the Book of Mormon, though he believed in a limited geography theory. I wonder if that has changed.

Anonymous said...

I also have heard Blake say that he isn't convinced about the geography of Mesomamerica. I think many people just want to make sure they don't get painted into a corner on having to defend a particular geography. I tend to believe in a Mesoamerican setting, but I'm not overly invested in it. I am invested in disabusing a hemispheric model though.

BHodges said...

You should check out Gardner's work on the mesoamerican possibilities, aye!? ;)

The Yellow Dart said...

I was just reading Gardner's remarks on 3rd Nephi 12-15 in his online commentary several days ago and I was also struck by how similar his position/views seem/s to be to Blake's. I have always enjoyed Blake's take on various issues. I am now further interested in reading through Gardner's published volumes, but that will have to wait for now.

Best wishes,

The Yellow Dart

BHodges said...

Thanks, the yellow dart.

Anonymous said...

Funny--the kinds of things that happen when faith is part of the translation process.

Jack

BHodges said...

I'm not sure I follow, Jack.

Clark Goble said...

I think being open to non-MesoAmerican locales is wise. Although I think the propondence of the evidence is for MesoAmerica. (None of the Great Lakes geographies in particular are terribly compelling)

I think the problem with Blake's model is that it explains too much. That is there is no criteria for determining what is or isn't in the text. Thus Blake can use it to discount items he doesn't like (such as texts about crucifixion prophecies)

BHodges said...

Well said.

Anonymous said...

The “tight” and “loose” translation concepts are not mutually exclusive. Some passages may be more literally rendered than others.

The “expansions” can mostly be explained in light of the fact that Joseph translated the Book of Mormon into ENGLISH. For “amen,” see the discussion on my web site at http://www.bookofmormonresearch.org/book-of-mormon-criticisms/specific-criticisms-of-the-book-of-mormon-by-scriptural-references/french-in-the-book-of-mormon.

Gardner’s “read YAHWEH instead of JESUS” on the plates is so much nonsense, as is Ostler’s comment on Jesus as Greek. Actually, the Greek derives from the Aramaic form of the Hebrew name rendered Joshua in the Old Testament and Jesus in the KJV Apocrypha. It’s a good Hebrew name and would have been known as such to Lehi and his descendants. See my discussion of this issue at http://www.bookofmormonresearch.org/book-of-mormon-criticisms/generic-criticisms-of-the-book-of-mormon/2-nephi-2519-etc-the-name-jesus. Also, see my discussion of the title “Christ” at http://www.bookofmormonresearch.org/book-of-mormon-criticisms/generic-criticisms-of-the-book-of-mormon/christ.

BHodges said...

Thanks for piping in, John. I agree that they are not mutually exclusive, though my orig. posting did not make it clear. In addition to the links you provided you'll note a new footnote was added this morning referring readers to Kevin Barney and Kevin Christensen's take.

BHodges said...

I think you may misunderstand Gardner's intent in using "Yahweh" throughout the commentary. It is intended to reflect Gardner's approach to the Nephite concept of God, rather than a hard and fast rule on word usage. I recommend the chapter in his volume one on the Nephite understanding of God, in which IIRC he posits represents a pre-exilic understanding of God, rather than our well-defined Godhead of Father, Son, Holy Ghost in the modern Church.

BHodges said...

That last sentence should read "in which (IIRC) he posits a pre-exilic understanding of God..."

BHodges said...

Brant Gardner sent me an email response, John, but won't be able to post it here yet so I'll throw it on the comments for him until he's able to access the site.

[Gardner]
John Tvetnes is correct that a tight and loose translation could exist simultaneously. The fact that names were spelled indicates that there was tight control over the names (at least it is a good argument for it). The problem with the hypothesis is that once you find any reason to argue for a loose translation (and I do mean translation rather than expansion) you must make a compelling reason to see any tight translation as more than coincidence. It requires argument, not supposition. In the end, we won't be able to come to any good conclusion about what kind of translation the text was until we are sure that it was a translation (more an issue for non-LDS than LDS) and then create a theory on how the translation proceeded that accounts for the largest amount of available evidence. To date, we don't have that theory.

Lacking that comprehensive theory, we remain with the data that we see, and those data more strongly suggest a loose than a tight translation. With that larger set of data, I can only suggest caution and the need for more supporting evidence for tight translation proposals. There was certainly a time we might have assumed a tight translation as a more theologically satisfying hypothesis, but the data should rule our conclusions if and until there is divine revelation on the subject (which I honestly do not expect to happen).

As for the reason for using Yahweh in the commentary, you are correct that it has nothing to do with what Joseph translated. I don't (and wouldn't) change anything in the text itself. The change is for the reader of the commentary to more easily make the shift from modern presumptions to a more ancient context. We carry too much historical and theological baggage into the text when we see "Christ." The modern world has fewer connotations associated with Jehovah, and fewer yet with Yahweh. Using the less familiar Yahweh as the name of the Nephite God makes it easier to see God through Nephite rather than Modern LDS concepts.

Unknown said...

Booking IPL Ticket Online ipl9 buy tickets ipl live ipl live streaming ipl scoreipl cricket cricket live score ipl live score ipl 2016 ipl match VIVO IPL LIVE VIVO IPL SCORE VIVO IPL CRICKET cricket live score ipl live score vivo ipl 2016 vivo ipl match 2016 ipl Buy IPL Tickets VIVO ipl9 buy tickets

Megan Valish said...

T20 World Cup Final
England vs Afghanistan
India vs Bangladesh
Online Health Care Tips
IPL 2016 Schedule
Dhoom 4
T20 World Cup 2016
Ipl 2016
Ipl 2016 Schedule
Happy Mothers Day
Happy Mothers Day 2016
IPL 2016 Schedule
IPL 2016 Match
Vivo ipl 2016 live
Vivo ipl 2016 schedule
Watch IPL Live
IPL Live Streaming
ipl 2016 opening ceremoney
IPL 2016 Draft
IPL 2016 Auction
IPL 2016 Live
VIVO IPL 2016
VIVO IPL 2016 Schedule
VIVO IPL 2016 Match
VIVO IPL 2016 Draft
VIVO IPL 2016 Auction
VIVO IPL 2016 Live
ipl 2016 Live Streaming
VIVO IPL 2016
VIVO IPL 2016 Live Streaming
IPL 9 Schedule
IPL 9 Match
ipl 2016 Live Score
IPL 9 Draft
IPL 9 Auction
IPL 9 Live
VIVO IPL 9
ipl 2016 Opening ceremony
VIVO IPL 9 Schedule
VIVO IPL 9 Match
ipl 9 Live Match
ipl 9 Schedule Time table
Vivo ipl live score
VIVO IPL 9 Live
VIVO IPL 9 Live
VIVO IPL 9
VIVO IPL 9 Live Streaming

Priyanka said...

Indian Premiere League (IPL)Starting from April 9 to 29 May 2016.Check out latest IPL 2016 Schhedule



I hope KKR will win this year because the team have ability to beat all the teams playing in IPL 2016

Their is a hope in Rising Pune Supergiants because of MS Dhoni

Top Scorer In IPL
IPL 2016 Points Table
Most Six In IPL
Man Of The Series in IPL
Mumbai Indians vs Kings XI Punjab

Akansha said...

really like you blog . Thanks for writing this
Indian Premiere League (IPL)Starting from April 9 to 29 May 2016.Check out latest
IPL 2016 Schedule | IPL 2017 Schedule

Unknown said...

Thanks for sharing your info. I really appreciate your efforts and I will be waiting for your further write
Signature:
i like play games happy wheels online and play happy wheels 2 games friv , girlsgogames , games2girls

Unknown said...


nach baliye 8 contestants list 2016
nach baliye 8 contestants 2016 photos
nach baliye 8 judges list
nach baliye 8 watch live
nach baliye 8 contestants list start date host judges

Unknown said...

http://www.tvmaxlive.com/

http://www.postdiretta.com/

http://www.frdirect24.com/

http://www.teenporn0.com/

http://eurovivo16.com/

Unknown said...

happy memorial day 2016
happy memorial day message 2016
happy memorial day wishes 2016
happy memorial day images 2016
happy memorial day sms wishes 2016
happy memorial day sms 2016
happy memorial day sms wishes 2016
happy memorial day quotes 2016
happy memorial day greetings 2016
happy memorial day speech 2016
memorial day Quotes 2016
memorial day Poems 2016
memorial day Images 2016
memorial day Status 2016
Memorial Day Text Message 2016
Memorial Day best Quotes 2016
Memorial Day thank you message 2016
Memorial Day outfits ideas 2016
Memorial Day gift ideas 2016
Memorial Day unique sms 2016
Memorial Day parade 2016
Memorial Day SMS Wishes 2016

Unknown said...

memorial day 2016
memorial day quotes 2016
memorial day images 2016
memorial day sms 2016
memorial day weekend activity 2016
memorial day Parade 2016
memorial day Quotes 2016
memorial day FB Whatsapp Status 2016
memorial day FB Wishes 2016
memorial day poems 2016
Best Memorial day SMS 2016
Memorial day Sayings 2016
Memorial day Status 2016
Memorial day wishes for twitter 2016
Memorial day HD Images 2016
Memorial day Special Quotes 2016
Memorial day heart touching Images 2016
Memorial day Best SMS 2016
Memorial Day Greetings 2016
Memorial Day Nail Arts 2016
Memorial Day Outfits Ideas 2016
Memorial Day Gift Ideas 2016

Unknown said...

Father's Day 2016
Father's Day wishes 2016
Father's Day Message 2016
Father's Day Quotes 2016
Father's Day Greetings 2016
USA Father's Day SMS 2016
USA Father's Day Wishes 2016
USA Father's Day Message 2016
Father's Day Images 2016

Unknown said...

Independence Day USA 2016 Flag Wallpaper
Independence Day USA 2016 Gif images
Independence Day USA 2016 Whatsapp images and wallpaper
Inpendence Day USA 2016 Instagram pic Images
Independence Day USA 2016 Whatsapp Wallpaper
Independence Day USA Nail ART Design
Independence Day USA 2016 Ballon Images
Independence Day USA 2016 Tablet Wallpaper
Independence Day USA Whatsapp sharing images and wallpaper
Independence Day USA 2016 Fourth of July Flag Wallpaper
Independence Day USA 2016 Fourth of July Instagram Sharing Wallpaper
Independence Day USA 2016 Fourth of July Snapchat Filter Images
Independence Day USA 2016 Fourth of July Facebook Cover Pic Download
Independence Day USA 2016 Fourth of July Mobile Wallpaper
Inpendence Day USA 2016 Fourth of July Desktop Wallpaper
Inpendence Day USA 2016 Fourth of July HD Wallpaper

Unknown said...

cheap oakley sunglasses
ugg sale
christian louboutin sale
michael kors outlet
michael kors outlet online sale
jordan shoes
fitflops
michael kors handbags
louis vuitton
coach factory outlet
basketball shoes
christian louboutin outlet
ugg boots
fitflops sale clearance
ralph lauren
lebron james shoes 13
hollister outlet
ugg slippers
longchamp sac
cheap jordans
christian louboutin sale
oakley sunglasses wholesale
rolex watches outlet
los angeles clippers jerseys
oakley sunglasses
vans shoes outlet
adidas yeezy
lebron james shoes
jordan 8
canada goose coats
ugg outlet
coach outlet
curry 3
ralph lauren polo outlet
michael kors outlet clearance
toms shoes
christian louboutin flats
nike outlet
mont blanc pens
ralph lauren outlet
20168.18wengdongdong

Anonymous said...

good correctly readable and will be typically misread. check this website put it to use all time. official caspar snapchat app site Casper Snapchat Android APK nice.

Post a Comment

All views are welcome when shared respectfully. Use a name or consistent pseudonym rather than "anonymous." Deletions of inflammatory posts will be noted. Thanks for joining the conversation.