Translation
As often happens, I’m involved in a discussion on Facebook and have a response that’s much too long for what amounts to an extended tweet. Long-time readers may remember my posts to Brian Dunning regarding the Book of Abraham. This will be much of the same, but since old questions die hard, I’ll be responding to it again. The rest of this post will therefore be directed to Facebook member Darren Ashby.
First of all, Darren, you asked me a few questions. However, that was just before I headed to lunch and ran some errands, and when I returned, I found over 100 comments following them. So that being said, I’m going to ignore most of the comment thread and focus on you. Hope you don’t mind me jumping back over 100 some-odd comments and answering the questions you asked. :-) So without any further ado, let’s start at the beginning. You asked:
Actually, I’m not saying it’s not direct translation; I’m saying that when a translator translates something, it’s more important to convey the meaning than the actual words. To use your example, you are correct: “Mi nombre es Darren” would translate as “My name is Darren.” However, very few Spaniards would actually say “Mi nombre es [insert name]”; they would say “Me llamo [insert name].” When I translate “Me llamo Jeff,” I don’t translate it as “I call me Jeff’; I translate it as “My name is Jeff.” It’s less technically accurate, but it better conveys the intended message.
Let’s take another example: about 17 years ago, I was part of a team that was translating Alfred Hitchcock stories into Castilian. The Spaniard with whom I was working (and who, being a native speaker, did the lion’s share of translation) was completely stumped as to how to translate a child asking his father a seemingly simple question: “What are those?”
From the context, I, a native English speaker, understood perfectly that the child was referencing some bugs on a nearby log. But for whatever reason, the Castilian speaker just couldn’t comprehend the sentence’s implied object, even though it was later clarified by the father’s response. So, rather than translate it exactly, we finally decided to reword the question completely: “Esos bichos, ¿qué son?”—or in English, “Those bugs, what they are?” Obviously, that’s not what the original said, but that was the best translation. The exact wording wasn’t as important as the meaning, which is exactly the point I was making. So let’s continue. You asked:
Now, does the fact that the Egyptian document was used as an illustration mean there was some “hidden meaning”? I suppose it could be read that way; obviously the interpretations of figures 8-23 of Facsimile #2 seem to fall into that category. But for the most part, it would seem that it wasn’t hidden at all; it was simply a situation where the meaning was described (at least in part) by the attached text. Even Jesus Himself did this, when He reworked an old Egyptian parable as Divas and Lazarus. He even used some of the same imagery as J-red apparently did, e.g. placing Abraham in the position normally occupied by Osiris.
Bottom line: Joseph Smith did indeed “translate” the Egyptian document, but he translated it from Hebrew, not Egyptian. It’s still a translation, and it’s still direct; he just wasn’t starting from the source language his critics like to claim.
Hope that helps!
First of all, Darren, you asked me a few questions. However, that was just before I headed to lunch and ran some errands, and when I returned, I found over 100 comments following them. So that being said, I’m going to ignore most of the comment thread and focus on you. Hope you don’t mind me jumping back over 100 some-odd comments and answering the questions you asked. :-) So without any further ado, let’s start at the beginning. You asked:
“So you define translation as not direct translation? When I translate the words "mi nombre es Darren" from Spanish to English I get 'my name is Darren.' I don't get the phrase 'Darren is remarkably good looking.'”
Actually, I’m not saying it’s not direct translation; I’m saying that when a translator translates something, it’s more important to convey the meaning than the actual words. To use your example, you are correct: “Mi nombre es Darren” would translate as “My name is Darren.” However, very few Spaniards would actually say “Mi nombre es [insert name]”; they would say “Me llamo [insert name].” When I translate “Me llamo Jeff,” I don’t translate it as “I call me Jeff’; I translate it as “My name is Jeff.” It’s less technically accurate, but it better conveys the intended message.Let’s take another example: about 17 years ago, I was part of a team that was translating Alfred Hitchcock stories into Castilian. The Spaniard with whom I was working (and who, being a native speaker, did the lion’s share of translation) was completely stumped as to how to translate a child asking his father a seemingly simple question: “What are those?”
From the context, I, a native English speaker, understood perfectly that the child was referencing some bugs on a nearby log. But for whatever reason, the Castilian speaker just couldn’t comprehend the sentence’s implied object, even though it was later clarified by the father’s response. So, rather than translate it exactly, we finally decided to reword the question completely: “Esos bichos, ¿qué son?”—or in English, “Those bugs, what they are?” Obviously, that’s not what the original said, but that was the best translation. The exact wording wasn’t as important as the meaning, which is exactly the point I was making. So let’s continue. You asked:
“Let me see if I have this right, in the J-red theory what is written on the papyri isn't really what the Egyptians that put it there meant to be there. There is some hidden original meaning that only Jews would have been able to see. And since JS was a prophet he could see it too. JS thought he was translating, but he really wasn't, he was subconsciously activating a judeo/egypto decoder ability that produced the BoA. Do I have the essence of the theory right?
“I know there are other theories as well, but since this is the first one presented, let's discuss it before moving on.”That’s actually not a bad description. For several decades now, scholars have been discovering a surprising number of ancient Egyptian documents attached to later Hebrew documents and used as illustrations therefor. This was apparently the purpose of the three extant facsimiles attached to the Book of Abraham scrolls, as evidenced by an offhand statement in Abraham 1:12: “that you may have a knowledge of this altar, I will refer you to the representation at the commencement of this record.” Scientists have shown that the extant copies of the facsimiles—including the one referenced in Abraham 1:12—date to between 100-300 BC, so if the author was indeed referring to that specific copy (which seems likely, given contemporary use of Sensen documents), that author was obviously not Abraham but a later Jewish redactor—“J-red,” for short. It‘s no different than a Protestant minister basing a sermon on some current event; most current events weren’t intended to teach people about Jesus, but association is a powerful thing. Why wouldn’t the minister illustrate Christ’s teachings using something with which the people are already familiar?
Now, does the fact that the Egyptian document was used as an illustration mean there was some “hidden meaning”? I suppose it could be read that way; obviously the interpretations of figures 8-23 of Facsimile #2 seem to fall into that category. But for the most part, it would seem that it wasn’t hidden at all; it was simply a situation where the meaning was described (at least in part) by the attached text. Even Jesus Himself did this, when He reworked an old Egyptian parable as Divas and Lazarus. He even used some of the same imagery as J-red apparently did, e.g. placing Abraham in the position normally occupied by Osiris.
Bottom line: Joseph Smith did indeed “translate” the Egyptian document, but he translated it from Hebrew, not Egyptian. It’s still a translation, and it’s still direct; he just wasn’t starting from the source language his critics like to claim.
Hope that helps!
Comments
Post a Comment