Continuing with more
of our reader’s comments and our responses, and information about Royal
Skousen’s Critical Test Project and Webster’s monumental dictionary.
24. Land. “and I will cut off witchcrafts out of
thy land” (3 Nephi 21:16).
Skousen would replace
“land” with “hand.”
However, the verses before
make it clear that the Lord is talking about “the horses and chariots,” the
“cities of thy land,” and the “strongholds.” In verse 17 he switches to the
works of “thy hands” talking about graven images, then comes back to areas of
the land in “groves and cities.”
Since the Lord is talking
about the land mostly, and a much larger scale than just one person, land would
be the correct word here, not hand.
Again, Joseph Smith
transcribed the correct word and the scribe wrote down the right word.
25. Many. “And
it came to pass that when two hundred and ten years had passed away there were
many churches in the land; yea, there were many
churches which professed to know the Christ, and yet they did deny the more
parts of his gospel, insomuch that they did receive all manner of wickedness,
and did administer that which was sacred unto him to whom it had been forbidden
because of unworthiness” (4 Nephi 1:27).
Skousen wants to
remove the second “many.”
However, the point of
the entire verse is that many churches had sprung up that did not know Christ.
The previous verse, “they began to be divided into classes; and they began to build up churches unto
themselves to get gain, and began to deny the true church of Christ” To
remove the second “many,” is to eliminate the emphasis of the sentence to the
large number being discussed and lessens the meaning of the sentence that many
churches were coming into the land after the time of Christ’s advent, and they
did not know the Christ.
Again, Joseph Smith
used the right word and it was written down correctly.
Space in this blog does not
allow us to go over every single change Skousen is promoting, and no doubt, in
some cases he may be correct, such as in “And it shall come to
pass that their cry shall go, even
according to the simpleness of their words” (2 Nephi 3:20), which Skousen says
should read “their cry shall go forth,”
which clarifies the statement and makes it easier to read and understand, yet
the way it is, since “to go” means to “proceed or advance” (forth merely adds
forward) and still renders the passage easily understood; and the change
Skousen suggests for 1 Nephi 17:41, which reads “he sent fiery flying serpents” and should be “he sent flying fiery serpents,” yet there is little need to change this
since the reader can easily understand the intent; however, another: “To turn away the needy from judgment, and to take away the right from the
poor of my people” (2 Nephi 20:10), in which Skousen
claims “away” is the wrong word and it should be “aside.” However, Webster in
1828 tells us that “aside” means “On or to one side; out of a perpendicular or
straight direction,” while “away” is much used with words signifying moving or
going from; as, go away, send
away, run away etc.; all signifying departure,
or separation to a distance, which is far likely to be the correct word than
“aside.”
There are far more
that could be included, but these 25 of the 113 listed, should suggest to all
that making such changes would not be in the best interest of the scriptural
record, and certainly unnecessary and in most cases, downright inaccurate! We
have compiled another 20 of these, but they would take up too much space here
to include (if anyone would like a copy of those 20 other examples, email us
from the blog and we will send them to you).
The problem is that
when people like Skousen start playing around with words written over
two thousand years ago, and translated 185 years ago, they need to be careful
that they do not let their tendency to think in the present alter the use and
meaning of words as they were originally intended in the past. Skousen talks
about words that were in use in the 1500s and 1600s and today are archaic;
however, while they may be archaic in 2015, that does not mean they were
archaic in 1829 when Joseph Smith translated them, using the English of which
he was familiar. To go back and try to modernize ancient scriptural writing has
resulted in ten to fifteen modern bibles that do not all say the same thing. Do
we want the Church to follow the course of the sectarian world in trying to
bring ancient writing up to modern, 21st century standards, and in
so doing include this or that opinion, which may not be correct? I think not.
Besides,
when we decide to insert a word because it sounds better or has a clearer 21st
century meaning, we erase the proofs that show that Joseph Smith was
translating in 1829 words that were written between 600 B.C. and 400 A.D. Why
on Earth would we want to do that?
In addition, while Skousen
refers liberally to the Oxford dictionary, he does not refer to Webster’s 1828
dictionary of the English language as known and used at the same time in New
England where Joseph Smith grew up and translated the Book of Mormon. While the
Oxford dictionaries began in 1621 and continue through today, it has significantly
different views of England English from that of American English, especially at the
time Webster published his dictionary in 1828.
4) The letter-for-letter spelling of Book of
Mormon names.
This is a common
understanding among linguists who have worked on the Book of Mormon and
certainly makes sense. Many of the names in the scriptural record are so
different as to defy phonetic spelling when spoken.
As a matter of fact,
while both Emma and her brother Reuben Hale acted as scribes, it is of note
that Emma in 1856 recalled that Joseph dictated the translation to her word for
word, spelled out the proper names, and would correct her scribal errors even
though he could not see what she had written. At one point while translating,
Joseph was surprised to learn that Jerusalem had walls around it (E. C. Briggs,
"Interview with David Whitmer," Saints' Herald 31 [June 21,
1884]:396-97). Emma was also once asked in a later interview if Joseph had read
from any books or notes while dictating. She answered, "He had neither,"
and when pressed, added: "If he had anything of the kind he could not have
concealed it from me" (Saints' Herald 26 [Oct. 1, 1879]:290).
Still later, Emma added that after a meal or a night's rest they would return to the table
to work and Joseph would begin, without prompting, where he had previously left
off (The Saints' Herald 26 [Oct. 1, 1879]:290). Nor was there any time
taken for research, internal cross-checking, or editorial rewriting. Perhaps
for those who have never written, that may not sound so much; however, as an
author of eighteen books, both fiction and non-fiction, writing anything more
than a few pages without references, re-reading, research, or other prompts or
checking, would be next to impossible. Thus, Joseph Smith’s accomplishment in
transcribing to a scribe who wrote down over 500 pages in two months time with
numerous and important interruptions and many critical side-tracking events, is
downright miraculous, and without the spirit involved, could never have been
accomplished.
It might also be of
note that when Joseph and the three witnesses retired to a woods near the
Whitmer home to pray for fulfillment of the revelation. An angel appeared, and
they heard a voice from the light above them, saying, “These plates have been
revealed by the power of God and they have been translated by the power of God.
The translation of them which you have seen is correct, and I command you to
bear record of what you now see and hear.” (History
of the Church, 1:54–55).
This, and numerous
other experiences with the scriptural record of the Book of Mormon has
convinced me that when man today starts playing around with trying to correct
what they think are errors in the translation, I have grave doubts and
misgivings. Short of a revelation to the prophet that such should be done to
correct the claimed mistakes, I am in favor of keeping the scriptural record as
it is, and other than grammar and spelling, leave the translation as it is. We
would be far better off learning to understand the language of Joseph Smith in
1829, and some Hebrew history and language background understandings, to help
us better understand Joseph’s work, we have all that we need to understand the
scriptural record. Perhaps if we became more righteous, the Lord would reveal
the large plates for translation and the sealed portion of the Book of Mormon
for our enlightenment, and then we might know far more than we could ever learn
through the Critical Text Project, or anything else like it, which I find as much misleading as it may be
enlightening.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Thank you for, throughout the blog, sharing so much information about how the actual transcribing process occurred. Very interesting.
ReplyDelete