{"id":14683,"date":"2011-03-04T19:46:48","date_gmt":"2011-03-05T00:46:48","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/?p=14683"},"modified":"2011-03-08T00:43:07","modified_gmt":"2011-03-08T05:43:07","slug":"the-original-text-of-the-book-of-mormon-iv-word-for-word-control-over-the-original-text","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/2011\/03\/the-original-text-of-the-book-of-mormon-iv-word-for-word-control-over-the-original-text\/","title":{"rendered":"The Original Text of the Book of Mormon IV: Word for Word Control over the Original Text"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"In this last section, I want to mention the evidence that the original text of the Book of Mormon is a precise English-language text, specified word for word, and that when it was given by means of the instrument to Joseph Smith, he could see that text and he read it off to his scribe. B. H. Roberts thought that reading off the text was too easy, but of course B. H. Roberts himself never received a text from the Lord in that way. There\u2019s a lot of evidence that the translated text of the Book of Mormon was controlled down to the very word, in fact, to the very letter (at least for the spelling of Book of Mormon names).<\/p>\n

The first type of evidence involves the occurrence of Hebrew-like constructions that are unacceptable in English and have consequently been edited out of the text. One example is the extra use of the conjunction and <\/em>that follows a subordinate clause and comes right before the main clause. Recently I\u2019ve discovered that these extra and <\/em>\u2019s do not occur if the subordinate clause is simple. They only occur when there is some complexity in the subordinate clause, either an extra clause or a phrase that interrupts the flow of the text. When that happens, the Hebrew-like and <\/em>usually appears. Here are some examples involving various subordinate conjunctions:<\/p>\n

1 Nephi 8:13<\/p>\n

and as<\/strong> I cast my eyes around about<\/p>\n

that perhaps I might discover my family also<\/p>\n

and<\/strong> I beheld a river of water<\/p>\n

Helaman 13:28<\/p>\n

and because<\/strong> he speaketh flattering words unto you<\/p>\n

and he saith that all is well<\/p>\n

and <\/strong>then ye will not find no fault with him<\/p>\n

3 Nephi 23:8<\/p>\n

and when <\/strong>Nephi had brought forth the records<\/p>\n

and laid them before him<\/p>\n

and <\/strong>he cast his eyes upon them and saith …<\/p>\n

Mormon 3:4<\/p>\n

and it came to pass that after <\/strong>this tenth year had passed away<\/p>\n

making in the whole three hundred and sixty years<\/p>\n

from the coming of Christ<\/p>\n

and <\/strong>the king of the Lamanites sent an epistle unto me<\/p>\n

Moroni 10:4<\/p>\n

and if <\/strong>ye shall ask with a sincere heart with real intent<\/p>\n

having faith in Christ<\/p>\n

and <\/strong>he will manifest the truth of it unto you<\/p>\n

by the power of the Holy Ghost<\/p>\n

The last example is one of the most famous passages in the Book of Mormon.<\/p>\n

All of these extra and <\/em>\u2019s have been removed from the Book of Mormon text \u2013 and that\u2019s because they are such bad English. But what does the occurrence of these extra and <\/em>\u2019s say about the translation? It says that Joseph Smith had to have seen the and <\/em>\u2019s. If he had just been getting ideas in his mind, there would have been no reason for him to have put these and <\/em>\u2019s in \u2013 they\u2019re non-English, and they haven\u2019t occurred in any known dialect of English or in the history of the language. And their occurrence isn\u2019t just an accident since there are so many examples of the extra and<\/em>. Moreover, there is this wonderful passage from Helaman 12:13-21 where seven of them occur in the original text, virtually one after another, beginning with this one in Helaman 12:13:<\/p>\n

yea and if <\/strong>he saith unto the earth<\/p>\n

move<\/p>\n

and <\/strong>it is moved<\/p>\n

These extra Hebrew-like and<\/em> \u2019s were really there. Joseph could see them, and so he read them off.<\/p>\n

Another type of evidence, one even more surprising (and controversial to some) is that the meanings of the words in the Book of Mormon come from the 1500s and 1600s. To be sure, there are examples of archaic Book of Mormon word usage that can also be found in the 1611 King James Bible, such as the phrase \u201cto cast an arrow\u201d, which means ‘to shoot an arrow’. This is found in Alma 49:4: \u201cthe Lamanites could not cast<\/strong> their stones and their arrows<\/strong> at them\u201d. But we also find that expression in the King James Bible, in Proverbs 26:18: \u201cas a mad man<\/em> who casteth<\/strong> firebrands arrows<\/strong> and death\u201d.<\/p>\n

Another example that also occurs in the King James Bible is the verb require<\/em> with the meaning ‘to request’. In Enos 1:18 the Book of Mormon text reads \u201cthy fathers have also required<\/strong> of me this thing\u201d \u2013 in other words, Enos\u2019s fathers requested this thing of the Lord. Similarly, in the King James Bible, in Ezra 8:22, Ezra refrains from requesting troops from the Persian king: \u201cfor I was ashamed to require<\/strong> of the king a band of soldiers and horsemen to help us against the enemy in the way\u201d.<\/p>\n

A third example is the use of the verb wrap <\/em>with the meaning <\/em>‘to roll\u2019, in 3 Nephi 26:3: \u201cand the earth should be wrapped<\/strong> together as a scroll\u201d. Compare this with the usage in 2 Kings 2:8: \u201cand Elijah took his mantle and wrapped<\/strong> it <\/em>together and smote the waters\u201d.<\/p>\n

All of these meanings can be found in the Oxford English Dictionary (referred to as the OED). For each of the three verbs already mentioned, their archaic meanings were typical of 1600s language and can therefore be found in the King James Bible. And one could argue, then, that they are in the Book of Mormon simply because Joseph Smith knew his Bible that well.<\/p>\n

The problem with this proposal is that there is archaic 1500s and 1600s usage in the Book of Mormon text that is not found in the King James Bible. Consider the original occurrence of the conjunctive but if <\/em>in Mosiah 3:19: \u201cfor the natural man is an enemy to God … and will be forever and ever but if <\/strong>he yieldeth to the enticings of the Holy Spirit\u201d. Here but if <\/em>means ‘unless\u2019, and that meaning occurred in Early Modern English (for this meaning the OED gives citations dating from 1200 to 1596). We have this 1580 example from Sir Philip Sidney: \u201cHe did not like that maids should once stir out of their fathers\u2019 houses but if <\/strong>it were to milk a cow.\u201d The editors for the 1920 LDS edition of the Book of Mormon decided to emend the reading in Mosiah 3:19, replacing but if <\/em>with unless, <\/em>which is semantically correct and makes the text understandable for modern readers.<\/p>\n

Another Book of Mormon example uses the verb commend<\/em> in a sentence with the meaning ‘to recommend\u2019: \u201cand now I would commend<\/strong> you to seek this Jesus\u201d (Ether 12:41), which in today\u2019s English would read \u201cand now I would recommend<\/strong> you to seek this Jesus\u201d. The OED gives a date in the 1600s for this usage, which has now died out.<\/p>\n

Another very interesting example of archaic usage in the original text is the phrase \u201cto counsel someone\u201d with the meaning ‘to counsel with someone\u2019. There are two examples of this usage in the original text (in Alma 37:37 and Alma 39:10), for which the 1920 LDS committee added the preposition with <\/em>(which is correct as far as the meaning goes). But when we go back to Early Modern English, we get uses of the phrase \u201cto counsel someone\u201d with the meaning ‘to counsel with someone\u2019, as in this 1547 example from John Hooper: \u201cMoses … counseled<\/strong> the Lord and thereupon advised his subjects what was to be done.\u201d<\/p>\n

Another example is the original use of the verb depart <\/em>with the meaning ‘to part, divide, or separate\u2019. This meaning for depart <\/em>was regularly used in English Bibles up to the 1611 King James Bible. But by then that meaning for depart <\/em>had become archaic, so the King James translators systematically eliminated that use of depart <\/em>from their translation, so there are no examples in the King James Bible of what had regularly occurred in earlier English translations. Yet the Book of Mormon has this particular use of depart <\/em>in Helaman 8:11 in the printer\u2019s manuscript: \u201cto smite upon the waters of the Red Sea and they departed<\/strong> hither and thither\u201d. The 1830 typesetter just couldn\u2019t believe that departed <\/em>was correct, so he replaced the word with parted<\/em> (thus he set \u201cto smite upon the waters of the Red Sea and they parted<\/strong> hither and thither\u201d). We have examples from the 1557 New Testament of the Geneva Bible like \u201cthey departed<\/strong> my raiment among them\u201d (John 19:24), translated in the 1611 King James Bible as \u201cthey parted<\/strong> my raiment among them\u201d.<\/p>\n

In the following example from Helaman 9:17, language usage from the 1500s and 1600s leads us to consider assigning the meaning of ‘to expose\u2019 to the verb detect: <\/em>\u201cand now behold we will detect<\/strong> this man and he shall confess his fault\u201d. Such usage can be found, for instance, in this example from Richard Hooker in 1594: \u201cThe gentlewoman goeth forward and detecteth<\/strong> herself of a crime.\u201d<\/p>\n

The adjective extinct <\/em>now refers to the death of a species, but in Early Modern English it could refer to the death of a person, as we find in a 1675 English translation of Machiavelli\u2019s The Prince: <\/em>\u201cthe Pope being dead and Valentine extinct<\/strong>\u201d. And we find such usage in the original (and current) text of the Book of Mormon: \u201cand inflict the wounds of death in your bodies that ye may become extinct<\/strong>\u201d (Alma 44:7).<\/p>\n

Here is an interesting example from Helaman 7:16 where the text uses the verb hurl <\/em>but it more likely refers to dragging rather than throwing: \u201cyea how could ye have given away to the enticing of him who art seeking to hurl<\/strong> away your souls down to everlasting misery and endless woe\u201d. And the OED provides a 1663 citation from Robert Blair where hurl<\/em> is assigned the meaning ‘to drag or pull with violence\u2019: \u201cThe new creature was assaulted, hurled<\/strong>, and holed as a captive.\u201d And this is what we expect in Helaman 7:16, that Satan will drag us down to hell.<\/p>\n

The expression \u201cto pitch battle\u201d no longer exists as such in modern English; today we have it only in the set phrase \u201ca pitched battle\u201d. In fact, we generally think of a pitched battle as an intensively fought one, but originally what it referred to was a fully set battle. Interestingly, the Book of Mormon uses the original, now archaic, syntactic expression in Helaman 1:15: \u201cand they came down again that they might pitch battle<\/strong> against the Nephites\u201d. In Early Modern English there is Christopher Marlowe\u2019s 1590 example in the passive, \u201cOur battle<\/strong>, then, in martial manner pitched<\/strong>.\u201d But such general use of the verb phrase \u201cto pitch battle\u201d no longer exists in English.<\/p>\n

Finally, I give an example of an unexpected extension of the noun rebellion <\/em>in Mosiah 10:6: \u201cand he began to stir his people up in rebellion<\/strong> against my people\u201d. In today\u2019s English, we think of the word rebellion<\/em> as hierarchical, that rebellion occurs in opposition to higher authority. But this example from the Book of Mormon refers to the Lamanite king as stirring up his people, the Lamanites, against the people of Limhi, a Nephite people that are in virtual slavery to the Lamanites. The meaning of the phrase \u201cin rebellion\u201d in Mosiah 10:6 seems to simply mean ‘in opposition\u2019; there the phrase \u201cin rebellion\u201d lacks any kind of hierarchical implication. Thus far I have found only one example (and an early one at that) with this more general meaning for the noun rebellion <\/em>(used by Gilbert Haye in 1456, as cited in the OED): \u201cif man should have this rebellion<\/strong> and contrariety, any against another, when they are of diverse complexions?\u201d<\/p>\n

The third type of evidence that shows the preciseness of the original text of the Book of Mormon deals with various set expressions and word forms that were consistently used in the original text but are no longer consistent in the standard text. In over a hundred different expressions and word forms, the text has developed various exceptions to its original consistency, exceptions that we might call \u201cwrinkles in the text\u201d. The original translated text is so consistent in this respect that it doesn\u2019t look like it\u2019s the result of a translator freely choosing how he should translate a given expression or word form each time he comes across it. Here are some examples; I first give the numerical count for usage in the current standard text, then in the original text:<\/p>\n

whatsoever<\/em>, never whatever <\/em><\/p>\n

72 to 2 in the current text; 75 to 0 in the original text<\/p>\n

conditions, <\/em>never condition <\/em><\/p>\n

12 to 2 in the current text; 14 to 0 in the original text<\/p>\n

this time, <\/em>never these times <\/em><\/p>\n

60 to 1 in the current text; 61 to 0 in the original text<\/p>\n

\u201cobserve to keep<\/strong> the commandments\u201d, never \u201cobserve the commandments\u201d<\/p>\n

10 to 1 in the current text; 11 to 0 in the original text<\/p>\n

\u201cthus ended <\/strong>a period of time\u201d, never \u201cthus endeth <\/strong>a period of time\u201d<\/p>\n

43 to 4 in the current text; 47 to 0 in the original text<\/p>\n

\u201cto do iniquity<\/strong>\u201d, never \u201cto do iniquities<\/strong>\u201d<\/p>\n

21 to 1 in the current text; 22 to 0 in the original text<\/p>\n

\u201cif it so be<\/strong> that …\u201d, never \u201cif it be so<\/strong> that …\u201d<\/p>\n

36 to 2 in the current text; 38 to 0 in the original text<\/p>\n

\u201cto have hope<\/strong>\u201d, never \u201cto have hoped<\/strong>\u201d<\/p>\n

17 to 1 in the current text; 18 to 0 in the original text<\/p>\n

\u201cthe Nephites and the <\/strong>Lamanites\u201d, never \u201cthe Nephites and Lamanites\u201d<\/p>\n

14 to 1 in the current text; 15 to 0 in the original text<\/p>\n

Thus the original text appears to be a fully controlled text. The Yale edition restores more than one hundred of these kinds of systematic phrases and word choices.<\/p>\n

Another type of evidence for the systematic nature of the original text can be found in identical citations that come from completely different parts of the text. One well-known pair of citations involves a reference to Lehi\u2019s vision of the heavenly scene. Originally identified by John W. Welch, this language is first quoted in 1 Nephi 1:8 as \u201cand he thought he saw God sitting upon his throne surrounded with numberless concourses of angels in the attitude of singing and praising their God<\/strong>\u201d, then the same precise language, word for word, is used considerably later, in Alma 36:22: \u201cyea and methought I saw \u2013 even as our father Lehi saw \u2013 God sitting upon his throne surrounded with numberless concourses of angels in the attitude of singing and praising their God<\/strong>\u201d.<\/p>\n

Another example of identical citation involves a liturgical expression found in Mosiah 3:8, which originally read as follows: \u201cand he shall be called Jesus Christ the Son of God \/ the Father of heaven and of earth \/ the Creator of all things from the beginning<\/strong>\u201d. Later, in Helaman 14:12, we get the same language, word for word: \u201cand also that ye might know of the coming of Jesus Christ the Son of God \/ the Father of heaven and of earth \/ the Creator of all things from the beginning<\/strong>\u201d. Interestingly, in Mosiah 3:8 the 1830 typesetter accidentally deleted the preposition of <\/em>before the noun earth,<\/em> giving \u201cthe Father of heaven and earth\u201d rather than the correct \u201cthe Father of heaven and of <\/strong>earth\u201d. So in the current text these two liturgical citations are no longer identical.<\/p>\n

There is also evidence for letter for letter control over the spelling of Book of Mormon names. The witnesses of the translation process indicated that whenever the scribe had difficulty in spelling an unknown name correctly, Joseph Smith would spell it out for him. And we can find clear evidence of the spelling out of Book of Mormon names in the original manuscript. For instance, in Alma 33:15, when Oliver Cowdery had to spell the name Zenoch <\/em>for the first time in the original manuscript, he initially spelled it as Zenock.<\/em> Then he immediately crossed out the misspelling, Zenock, <\/em>and wrote inline the correct spelling, Zenoch. <\/em>Later on, in Helaman 1:15, Oliver originally spelled the first occurrence of the name Coriantumr <\/em>as Coriantummer, <\/em>a phonetic spelling. <\/em>Again, he crossed out the misspelling and then wrote inline the correct Coriantumr. <\/em>In this instance, Joseph would have been required to spell out the name letter for letter in order to get the otherwise impossible sequence mr <\/em>at the end of the name.<\/p>\n

Conclusion<\/strong><\/p>\n

There are three goals that have guided me in producing The Book of Mormon: The Earliest Text. <\/em>First of all, I wanted to present the text in an inviting format and provide a clear text with minimal editorial intrusion, one that would be fully accessible and easy to read \u2013 and for both LDS and non-LDS readers. Second, I wanted to publish the most accurate text possible, one with readings based on the two manuscripts and the earliest editions. And finally, I wanted to provide access to all the significant textual changes that the text has undergone over the years, from the manuscripts and early editions up to the current LDS and RLDS editions. But since I did not want these variants to intrude upon the text itself, I placed them in an appendix.<\/p>\n

As I have studied the original text and the evidence of how it was transmitted, it\u2019s become very clear to me that this text was revealed to Joseph Smith word for word and that he could actually see the spelled-out English words. We do not know the precise mechanism that allowed Joseph to received the text in this way, but the evidence argues that the text was a specific English-language translation that was revealed through him. It is indeed a marvelous work and a wonder.<\/p>\n

Royal Skousen is editor of the Book of Mormon Critical Text Project and professor of linguistics and English language at Brigham Young University. The first two parts of this series are here<\/a>, here<\/a>, and here<\/a>.
\n<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In this last section, I want to mention the evidence that the original text of the Book of Mormon is a precise English-language text, specified word for word, and that when it was given by means of the instrument to Joseph Smith, he could see that text and he read it off to his scribe.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":136,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-14683","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-corn"],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14683","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/136"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=14683"}],"version-history":[{"count":9,"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14683\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":14698,"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14683\/revisions\/14698"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=14683"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=14683"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=14683"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}