View source for Question: Do academic translators copy translations of other documents to use as a "base text"?

{{Main Page}}
<onlyinclude>
==Question: Do academic translators copy translations of other documents to use as a "base text"?==
===In some translations of the Dead Sea Scrolls, approximately 90% is simply copied from the King James Bible===

Even academic translators sometimes copy a previous translation if it serves the purpose of their translation.  For example, the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) provided previously unknown texts for many Biblical writings.  However, in some translations of the DSS, approximately 90% is simply copied from the KJV.  

Surely we are not expected to believe that the DSS translators dropped back into King James idiom and just happened to come up with a nearly identical text!  They, in fact, unabashedly copied the KJV, except where the DSS texts were substantially different from ''already known Hebrew manuscripts''.<ref>See, for example, Martin G. Abegg, Jr., Peter Flint, Eugene Ulrich, ''[http://books.google.ca/books?id=Jmm8Mvjw2WQC&redir_esc=y The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible]'' (New York: HarperCollins, 2012). Other examples of similar choices in translation include: Robert H. Charles, ''The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament'' (Oxford: Clarendon, 1913), Theodor H. Gaster, ''The Dead Sea Scriptures'', 3rd ed. (Garden City, NY: Anchor, 1976), and Robert Lisle Lindsey, ''A Hebrew Translation of the Gospel of Mark'' (Jerusalem: Baptist House, n.d.).</ref>

===The purpose of the DSS translation is to highlight the differences between the newly discovered manuscripts and those to which scholars already had access===

Why was this done?  Because, the purpose of the DSS translation is to highlight the differences between the newly discovered manuscripts and those to which scholars already had access.  Thus, in areas where the DSS manuscripts agree with the Biblical texts that were already known, the KJV translation is used to indicate this. Here, for example, is how the first verses of Genesis are treated:

<blockquote>
'''Dead Sea Scrolls Translation:''' 1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. [2 And] the earth [was] formless and void; and darkness was upon the fac[e of the dee]p: and the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. 3 And God said, "Let there be light," [and there was light. 4 And] God saw that the light was good, and God separated the light [from the darkness.] 5 And God called the light daytime, and the darkness he cal[led ni]ght. And there was evening [and there was morning,] one day.
</blockquote>

<blockquote>
'''KJV:''' 1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. 3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. 5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
</blockquote>

We can see that it generally follows that same King James language. In places, it has variant readings, and it footnotes what ancient texts caused these different readings. You can also see from the various punctuation marks that there is a system in place to help us understand what part of the text comes from which source. Why would a translation made in 1999 (170 years after the Book of Mormon gets published) generally follow the King James Version? It isn't because the King James Version is the best, or the easiest to understand. In 1830, it was the only mass produced translation (the next major translation wouldn't be published for another half century). And it remains today one of the most common translations of the Bible. You don't have to be a specialist to compare the two texts and see what the differences are. In this way, we can (as non-specialists) get a better feel for the various ancient versions of the biblical texts. The same is true for the Book of Mormon except perhaps in reverse. By using the KJV language, we are probably being clued in to the fact that the potential differences aren't the important parts of the Book of Mormon. Rather than focusing on how this or that word was changed, we can focus on what the passages are trying to teach us.

This is not to argue that there may not be a better way to render the text than the KJV&mdash;but, it would be counterproductive for the DSS committee spent a lot of time improving on the KJV translation.  A reader without access to the original manuscripts could then never be sure if a difference between the DSS translation and the KJV translation represented a true difference in the DSS, or simply the choice of the DSS translators to improve the KJV.

===The situation with the Book of Mormon is likely analogous===

The situation with the Book of Mormon is likely analogous.  For example, most of the text to which the Nephites had access would not have differed significantly from the Hebrew texts used in Bible translations.  The differences in wording between the KJV and the Book of Mormon highlight the areas in which there were ''theologically significant'' differences between the Nephite versions and the Masoretic text, from which the Bible was translated.  Other areas can be assumed to be essentially the same.  If one wants an improved or clearer translation of a passage that is identical in the Book of Mormon and the KJV, one has only to go to the original manuscripts available to all scholars.  Basing the text on the KJV focuses the reader on the important clarifications, as opposed to doing a new translation from scratch, and distracting the reader with many differences that might be due simply to translator preference.

Furthermore, using a KJV "base text" also helps us to identify the source of some scriptural citations that might be otherwise unclear. Consider this bit from {{s||Jacob|1|7}}:

<blockquote>
Wherefore we labored diligently among our people, that we might persuade them to come unto Christ, and partake of the goodness of God, that they might enter into his rest, lest by any means he should swear in his wrath they should not enter in, as in the provocation in the days of temptation while the children of Israel were in the wilderness.
</blockquote>

This sounds nice, but its real impact on our reading Jacob occurs when we recognize that Jacob is alluding to {{b||Psalm|95|8-11}}:

<blockquote>
8 Harden not your heart, as in the provocation, and as in the day of temptation in the wilderness: 9 When your fathers tempted me, proved me, and saw my work. 10 Forty years long was I grieved with this generation, and said, It is a people that do err in their heart, and they have not known my ways: 11 Unto whom I sware in my wrath that they should not enter into my rest.
</blockquote>

Jacob wants us to understand what follows in the context of Israel being led in the wilderness by Moses. Drawing that connection is hard enough for people who don't have a lot of familiarity with the Old Testament. But had it followed language not found in the Bible they had (the KJV)&mdash;even if conceptually it was the same&mdash;it would have been far more difficult for readers to connect the two to understand the point Jacob was trying to make.

In this way, it makes a lot of sense for a translation&mdash;even a divinely inspired translation which is being read through revelation (from a seer stone) - to follow a conventional text where it duplicates the same original source material. It isn't just about trying to duplicate the source material, it is also about getting the reader who then reads the text to understand it.
</onlyinclude>
{{endnotes sources}}


<!-- PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE -->
[[Category:Letter to a CES Director]]
[[Category:MormonThink]]

[[es:Pregunta: ¿Los traductores académicos copiar las traducciones de otros documentos para utilizar como un "texto base"?]]
[[pt:Pergunta: Não tradutores acadêmicos copiar traduções de outros documentos para usar como "texto base"?]]
[[Category:Questions]]