Deciding Between Functional and Conceptual Equivalence

The evidence allows for limited conditions supporting a literalistic connection by the plate text, specifically in the transliteration of names such as Sariah, Alma, and Paanchi, and perhaps name-phrases like “father of heaven and earth.” That kind of specificity does not, however, extend to the vast majority of vocabulary that comprises the English text. Most of the book’s words and phrases depend on the cultural influences exercised by Joseph Smith’s language culture.

Because the evidence rules out both an inerrant translation and an exclusively literalist translation, the remaining choices are either a functional or conceptual translation. The difference between the two is the distance between the plate text and the translation, with a functional equivalent more closely connected to the plate text and a conceptual equivalent having a lesser connection to what was on the plates.

We may posit functional equivalence when analysis of the English text shows a reasonable connection to the plate text, even though the precise term in the English text should not or cannot be seen as the exact equivalent of the plate text, the type of correlation we see in the KJV’s use of “candle,” which is not the equivalent of the term described in the Greek text. We can rely on this conclusion because the knowledge of making candles postdated the New Testament world, which used oil lamps. A more accurate translation is the story of the five virgins who had insufficient oil for their lamps (Matt 25:1-4), a conclusion supported by the Greek manuscripts. As already noted, such direct confirmation is unavailable for the Book of Mormon.

The presence of “candles” is anachronistic and therefore is an inaccurate translation of the underlying word. Nevertheless, both a candle and an oil lamp provide light, and the intent of the verses using “candle” (Matt 5:15, Mark 4:21, Luke 11:33, all repeating the saying about hiding the candle under a bushel), communicates the fact of the light, not the physical form in which the light is provided. Therefore, “candle” is a functional equivalent—close, but not precisely representative of the word in the source text.

Perhaps the most obvious case of a functional equivalent comes in the use of “Jesus Christ” in the Book of Mormon. The phrase is anachronistic in two ways: (1) it is used as a given name plus a surname (like “Joseph Smith”) rather than as a name (“Jesus”) plus a title (the “Anointed One”). Even without access to the original language, “Jesus Christ” as s name plus surname is incorrect. In antiquity, people had given names, but no surnames; when individuals needed to be differentiates, the biblical formula was “the son/daughter of [father’s name].” (2) “Christ” is anachronistic for the time period and cultural background of the Book of Mormon. Christ is the anglicized version of the Greek word meaning “anointed” (christos). The Hebrew word for “anointed” is mashiah, anglicized as “Messiah.” Based on the connection to Hebrew religion and the time period of the Book of Mormon, “Jesus Christ” is a functional equivalent for what would have been translated as “Messiah” (or perhaps, “Jesus the Messiah”). Nevertheless, while not as accurate a literal translation, it is still connected to the intent of the underlying text.

The functional equivalent of this name-title is not easily seen in 2 Nephi 25:19: “For according to the words of the prophets, the Messiah cometh in six hundred years from the time that my father left Jerusalem; and according to the words of the prophets, and also the word of the angel of God, his name shall be Jesus Christ, the Son of God” (emphasis mind). This particular verse could easily be retranslated to a more correct from: ”The Messiah cometh in six hundred years . . . [and] his name shall be Jesus, the Son of God.” It is only the appearance of “Christ” in the verse that is both redundant and anachronistic. That it appears in the context of his name points to a language culture that was far distant from the original meanings, reflecting the modern naming custom with which Joseph Smith was familiar. Nevertheless, there is no reason to assume that the underlying text contained this particular “error.” It is best seen as representative of functional equivalence.

. . .

To summarize then, evidence about the types of translation represented by the English text of the Book of Mormon provides at least traces of the full range of translation options: literalist equivalence, functional equivalence, and perhaps even the most extreme conceptual equivalence. If we must decide on a single descriptor, perhaps Kevin Barney’s suggestion of a “complex translation” will be the best fit.

Nevertheless, for analytical purposes, the assumption that a given passage might represent any one of these translation types is an unsatisfying and ultimately useless analytical took. Appealing ot a complex translation may allow an easy label that simply reinforces whatever assumption we bring to a text, accepting one type of translation over another, not because of textual evidence but because we prefer that analysis. (By no means I am suggesting that is Barney’s method or intent.)

I propose that the best way to begin identifying characteristics of the Book of Mormon translation is to posit functional equivalence—unless a very specific detailed textual analysis supports an argument that particular words or passages are either literalist or conceptual. I therefore caution readers against using literalist or conceptual equivalence or making general assumptions about the translation. Such labels require specific evidence and preferably an explanatory context to indicate how they vary from the default functional translation.