A reader sent in a comment
regarding Royal Skousen’s (left) Critical Text Project as a basis for
disagreeing with some of the value of Noah Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language. In order to respond to
his comments, and hopefully illustrate some of the values and questions
regarding the Critical Text Project, we decided to answer his inquiry in a post
rather than attempt a short, simple answer. We do this because we feel it is
extremely important for us to understand the concept, meaning and purpose
behind the words Joseph Smith used and their initial meaning, i.e., the meaning
of the words as he would have known them in his time and local as opposed to
how they might be interpreted today.
First, we’ll deal with the
comments, then expand on the Critical Text Project, and also on Webster’s words
and the work and knowledge behind his dictionary and its coincidental
publication the year before the Book of Mormon was translated.
Reader Comment: “I
base my opinion on the actual findings of the Critical Text Project of the Book
of Mormon recently completed by Royal Skousen, not on Joseph's "love"
of King James language.”
The
second-person pronoun distinction is crucial for a close reading of the Bible
Response: The King James language Joseph preferred and used
in his translation was in words like “thou” and “thee” and “ye” instead of
“you,” “shalt,” instead of “shall,” “art,”
instead of “are,” etc. Thus King James style of Elizasbethan period of Early
Modern English usage has no impact on the meaning of the words being used when
comparing with today’s usage—Joseph simply preferred the honorific language of
the Bible to the more “common” usage of his day in describing words the Lord
spoke or were referenced. Consequently, the words he substituted do not
change the original English of his day “you,” “shall,” “are,” etc., as seen in
“Thou savest,” for “You save;” “Thou shalt,” for “You shall,” “Thou didst
save,” for “You saved,” “Sent thee,” for “Sent you,” “Thy salvation,” for “Your
salvation.” In this sense, the word “ye” could also mean “the,” as in “Ye Old
Tavern,” however, no one is going to try to interpret that as “You Old Tavern.”
In addition, “My soul delighteth” for “My soul delights,”
“Then cometh a remission” or “Then comes a remission” or “He speaketh unto men”
for “He speaks to men,” or “wilt not suffer” for “will not suffer.” As can be
seen, the usage of the King James language does not change the meaning in any
way.
Therefore, the meaning of the words are not altered by the
King James Biblical language Joseph used at times.
Reader Comment: “Scientifically
speaking, much of the language in the BOM ‘formerly’ attributed to Joseph's New
England dialect is now known to actually be perfect early modern English from
the 15th-18th century and was completely defunct and out of usage well before
Joseph's time.”
Response: This simply is not true. As I have suggested so
many times in the past, and did to this reader before his comment, the language
found in Noah Webster’s 1828 dictionary was that of the current and
contemporary usage of his day (late 1700s and early 1800s) in New England,
where both Webster and Joseph Smith grew up (about 90 miles apart), and Webster
shows very extensively how those words, used in New England in his day, were
basically the same as they were used in earlier periods, giving a reference of
writing for almost every word by very well known early American, European, and
Asian writers, poets, authors, philosophers, etc., including kings, statesmen,
and government officials throughout history from as early as 1300 and through
to the early 1800s. While words may be spelled slightly different and even
pronounce differently in places, Webster traces their meaning from origin to
his day.
Reader Comment: “These
findings are some of the most startling and paradigm-altering to come from the
critical text project.”
Response: Making no attempt to criticize or downplay this
monumental effort and accomplishment known as the Critical Text Project, especially
since I have not read every word in its thousands-plus pages, this project is
the work of one man over a 25-year period, sponsored and printed by FARMS and
does not have any official Church backing, approval or endorsement. According
to its own abstract: “The Book of Mormon
Critical Text Project, under the editorship of Royal Skousen, began in 1988 and
is now nearing completion. In 2001, facsimile transcripts of the two Book of
Mormon manuscripts (volumes 1 and 2 of the critical text) were published by the
Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (FARMS). From 2004 to 2009
the six books of volume 4 of the critical text, Analysis
of Textual Variants of the Book of Mormon,
were published, also by FARMS. Parts 1 and 2 of volume 3 of the critical text, The
History of the Text of the Book of Mormon, were published in early 2015. These two parts will describe all the
grammatical editing that the Book of Mormon text has undergone, from 1829 up to
the present. When all six parts of volume 3 of the critical text have been
published, volume 5 of the critical text, A Complete Electronic
Collation of the Book of Mormon, will be
released…Nearly all of the work of the project has involved the knowledge and
periodic involvement of the Scriptures Committee of the Church of Jesus Christ
of Latter-day Saints. The project itself, however, remains independent of the
Church, and none of its findings have involved any ecclesiastical approval or
endorsement.”
This, in no way, minimizes anything about the project, only
that it is Skousen’s work, a professor of linguistics at BYU, and bears no
official setting. When compared to Noah Webster, perhaps the most accomplished
linguist of history, who in his lifetime mastered 26 languages and brought
about the separation of American English from that of England and elsewhere, I
prefer to rely upon his knowledge and understanding of the words of his day in
New England, as would have been known to Joseph Smith and obviously used by him
in his translation, since he believed in the fact that the Lord communicates
with man in man’s own language.
Certainly, the definitions and meanings are of great import
in interpreting the words Joseph Smith knew and used. The grammatical
corrections Skousen brings to light in some cases may be important, but their
existence and change has no bearing on word meaning.
Reader Comment: “Some
others include the evidence for strict control over the translation
process--meaning that it now looks like Joseph's own ability and vocabulary had
little--if any--impact over the translation process.”
Response: If that is true, it makes a liar out of The Church,
several General Authorities, several modern Prophets, and the Lord himself.
When Oliver Cowdery failed in his attempt to translate the very work Joseph
Smith was doing, the Lord told him: “Behold, you have not understood; you have
supposed that I would give it unto you, when you took no thought save it was to
ask me. But behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind,
then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right, I will cause that your
bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right” (D&C
9:7-8), and also “You cannot write that which is sacred save it be given you
from me” (D&C 9:9).
This was not a passive process, the interpreter or
translator had to study out in his own mind what was before him and, after
coming to a conclusion over it, ask of God if he was correct. According to the
Lord, it was solely dependent upon the translator’s ability! And as for
vocabulary, it is said of Joseph on the Church website under “Book of Mormon
Translation” (https://www.lds.org/topics/book-of-mormon-translation?lang=eng): “Joseph
Smith stands out among God’s prophets, because he was called to render into his own language an entire volume of
scripture amounting to more than 500 printed pages, containing doctrine that would
deepen and expand the theological understanding of millions of people. For this
monumental task, God prepared additional, practical help in the form of
physical instruments” (emphasis mine); and it was Nephi who said, “For my soul
delighteth in plainness; for after this manner doth the Lord God work among the
children of men. For the Lord God giveth light unto the understanding; for he speaketh unto men according to their
language, unto their understanding” (2 Nephi 31:3, emphasis mine).
(See the next post, “The
Critical Text Project or Webster’s 1828 Dictionary: An Interesting Comparison-PtII,”
for more of the reader’s comments and our responses, and information about
Royal Skousen’s project and Webster’s monumental dictionary)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment