|
|
3 Nephi 12 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
With some changes, our chapters 3 Nephi 12-14 replicate the Sermon on the Mount as found in Matthew 5-7. Just as with the larger citations of Isaiah in 2 Nephi, the similarities between the Book of Mormon text and the KJV version are unmistakable. It is left to us to find the meaning of the presence of this text in the Book of Mormon, and it is on the level of meaning that the Sermon on the Mount in the Book of Mormon has been used to suggest that the whole of the Book of Mormon cannot be an ancient book. Stan Larson wrote an extensive examination of the Matthean and 3 Nephi versions of the Sermon on the Mount, and offers the following conclusion: “It is significant to note that among the thirty-eight known
variants and sub-variants of these eight secure examples, the Book of Mormon always
aligns itself with the derivative text found in the Textus Receptus which was
printed by Stephanus in 1550 and never agrees with either the original text or
anyh of the other known variant readings. If the Book of Mormon were a
genuinely ancient text, it would not always be expected to side with what
modern scholarship concludes is the original text, but certainly there ought to
be some agreement.” (Stan Larson. “The Historicity of the Matthean Sermon on
the Mount.” New Approaches to the
Book of Mormon. Ed. Brent Lee
Metcalfe. Signature Books, Salt Lake City, 1993, p. 129). Thus Larson uses the very nature of this text in the Book of Mormon to attempt to discredit the Book of Mormon. That is a serious issue. There are two parts of this statement that we should consider. The first is the evidence, and the second is the conclusion. There is really no reason to argue with the basic evidence. While certain variations may be argued in the textual development of the Sermon on the Mount, it is still quite true that the Book of Mormon will more consistently follow the KJV than any other text. Regardless of the details, the overall conclusion that the KJV forms the basis for the text is rather obvious. What becomes critical, therefore, is the conclusion. It is upon this evidence that Larson suggested: “if the Book of Mormon were a genuinely ancient text, it would not always be expected to side with what modern scholarship concludes is the original text, but certainly there ought to be some agreement.” (Larson’s analysis falls short on several accounts, but they are not important to the current question. For more information on the problems in his analysis, see John Gee. “La Trahison des Clercs: On the Language and Translation of the Book of Mormon.” FARMS Review of Books. Volume 6, Number 1 (1994). The problem with this conclusion is that it makes an assumption that has not been examined. The assumption is that the translation of the Book of Mormon ought to more accurately portray the earliest texts. It is only upon the acceptance of that assumption that the conclusion might have any merit. This underlying assumption is established before examining the evidence, and therefore the evidence examined appears to support the interpretive assumption. That very process rests Larson’s case on an unsupported hypothesis, and shakes the foundation of the entire analysis. If we are to truly understand the Book of Mormon, we must not only deal with it as a translation, but we must understand how it was translated. It really does us no good to assume that we understand the translation process. What we may assume is that the word translation indicates that the current English text is supposed to have a relationship to the text on the plates. What we need, is an understanding of the nature of that relationship. Rather than make assumptions of what that relationship ought to be, we will do better to examine the evidence from the text and allow that evidence to teach us about the process that produced the English text. The statements of early saints, even those who were direct witnesses to the process, seem to have only minor value in establishing the translation method. Royal Skousen reviewed those statements and noted that many of them agreed that the words would appear to Joseph, and remain their until they were copied correctly. Skousen notes that this interpretation is demonstrably incorrect based upon the evidence in the Original Manuscript (Royal Skousen. “Translating the Book of Mormon.” Book of Mormon Authorship Revisited. The Evidence for Ancient Origins. FARMS, Provo, 1997, p. 67). The contrary evidence from the Original Manuscript does not tell us that there was no translation process, but only that the descriptions of the process may not accurately represent the process. It is certainly not surprising that the “witnesses” would assume that there was a very close connection between the plate text and the English text. This was a matter of faith, not investigation. B. H. Roberts considered the evidence for the translation and suggested: “When Joseph Smith saw that the Nephite record was quoting the prophecies of Isaiah, of Malachi, or the words of the Savior, he, too, opened the English Bible and compared those passages as far as they paralleled each other, and finding that in substance, in thought, they were alike, he adopted our English translation… It should be understood also, in this connection, that while Joseph Smith obtained the facts and ideas from the Nephite characters through the inspiration of God, he was left to express those facts and ideas, in the main, in such language as he could command; and when he found that parts of the Nephite record closely paralleled passages in the Bible, and being conscious that the language of our English Bible was superior to his own, he adopted it, except for those differences indicated in the Nephite original which here and there make the Book of Mormon version of passages superior in sense and clearness. Of course, I recognize the fact that this is but a conjecture; but I believe it to be a reasonable one… (B.H. Roberts. “Bible Quotations in the Book of Mormon.” A Book of Mormon Treasury: Selections from the Pages of the Improvement Era [Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1959], 177.) There is no witness evidence that a Bible was present during the translation process. This absence of a Bible would preclude B.H. Roberts’ suggestion that Joseph “opened the English Bible and…. He adopted our English translation.” Nevertheless, the evidence suggests that this is the result, even if we are unsure of how the result was obtained. The KJV text is the model for the parallel passages. How it became the model is still a mystery, but the evidence certainly presents that the model was there. (endnote: “As for the use of Bible passages and phrases throughout the Book of Mormon-beyond the obvious extensive quotations that have long been recognized-we do, as Sperry and others would say, have a problem. Since Joseph Smith did not choose to explain his methods, we can only lay out the possibilities. They would seem to include the following. (1) He was a skimmer, racing through the Bible, or skimming some of its pages, and then, having picked up some terms or expressions, using them in the manuscript he was dictating. (2) He had a phenomenal memory. Having stored away many biblical passages and terms, he used them when they served his purposes in the new work. (3) God, knowing all things past, present, and future, having all power, put into his prophet's mind the words to use and felt free to employ language that had proved satisfactory. My own inclination at the present stage is to favor the second explanation above, but it may combine to some degree with Num. 1 and 3. Although many would find this explanation unconvincing, it is, if unprovable, certainly adequate. Even to discuss the matter, of course, we need specific cross-referencing.” (Davis Bitton. Review of Brent Lee Metcalfe, Ed., New Approaches To the Book of Mormon: Explorations in Critical Methodology. FARMS Review of Books, vol. 6, no. 1 (1994), 4). It should also be noted that B. H. Roberts did not separate himself from the idea of the more direct translation from the plates at other times, and in particular, he uses the plate text as the explanation for variants in the inserted KJV text. What we require is some way of allowing the text to tell us about the translation process. There are different types of evidence available in the text that demonstrate certain aspects of the relationship between the plate text and the English text:
Before discussing the particular evidence for each of these statements, it is productive to understand the meaning that each might have for our understanding of the translation process. Human error: The existence of human errors in a text written by men is hardly surprising. Where our assumptions come in conflict with this evidence is when we presume that the English text is closely managed by God. If God is behind the words that appear in the English text, then they should not manifest error. They do manifest errors. Does that say that God is not behind the translation? It tells us that God is not the source of the language. There is no indication that he should be, only that the translation comes by the gift of God. The nature of that gift is the subject of our examination, and the errors in the text rather obviously inform us that there was a human hand involved in the process. Of course we knew that, but even the witnesses wanted to move the responsibility for this marvelous book closer to God, hence their statements that indicate a version of “inerrancy” in the translation, another “fact” unsupported by the evidence from the text. The evidence of the text tells us that Joseph Smith’s mind was a participant in the translation process, if only in that he made mistakes. Current vocabulary and concepts: Languages in all times and places develop both linguistic and stylistic tendencies. These tend to be unique to times and places. Certainly grammatical forms might be acceptable but awkward in the translated language, but perfectly normal in the original. The KJV style preserves many of the stylistic and grammatical tendencies of the Hebrew, and therefore at times reads less smoothly in modern English. Words also have their time periods. American slang mutates at a fairly rapid rate, and most Americans over forty can personally remember vocabularies that are attached to certain time periods that were prevalent during that time, but quite awkward in the modern context. For instance, many who endured the 60’s would have used “groovy” as a part of their normal vocabulary. In today’s linguistic climate, “groovy” is a word used to humorously refer to a time past, and having a character use the term in a cartoon evokes the humor of incongruity. The Book of Mormon contains both vocabulary and concepts that are related to his own time and culture rather than the time and culture of the people of the Book of Mormon. As with the errors in the text, this simply tells us that the translation process was one that allowed Joseph Smith to use his own vocabulary and understanding to translate what was on the plates rather than to replicate the vocabulary and concepts that were on the plates. The meaning could be the same, but the English translation uses vocabulary and concepts from the more modern world. Influence of the KJV New Testament: A special case of modern vocabulary and concepts comes from the presence of passages that are clearly dependent upon the KJV New Testament during times prior to when those texts were created. Those opposed to the Book of Mormon suggest that the presence of these texts is evidence of Joseph Smith’s “plagiarizing.” It should be noted that this association between the presence of these obvious references and the term “plagiarize” is sensational, but not at all accurate. Davis Bitton reviewed Stan Larson’s article on the Sermon on the Mount: “Personally, I take exception to Stan Larson's use of the word plagiarism to describe the sermon at the temple in Third Nephi, which, as everyone knows, is virtually identical to the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew. As so often, simple dictionary definitions need to be expanded upon if we are going to understand historical usage and overtones. Using another's work without acknowledgment and presenting it as your own is the general meaning of plagiarism. In a sense it is theft; it is certainly dishonest… But is that what is going on when the Book of Mormon quotes biblical passages? Was Joseph Smith indeed trying to claim that he, not Jesus, was the author of the Beatitudes? Was he trying to pretend that the beautiful prose of the Authorized Version was for the first time being produced by him? How foolish, then, to draw his quotations from the single work most familiar to the public in his lifetime! What intelligent reader of the Bible would fail to notice? If footnotes had been part of the apparatus of the original 1830 publication, most certainly he would have noted at the appropriate places: "Here I am using the most widely accepted English translation, the King James version, changing it only when I notice that it varies from the engravings before me." Far from making an effort to conceal this relationship, as notes were added they called attention to the biblical passages that are quoted in the Book of Mormon. (Davis Bitton. Review of Brent Lee Metcalfe, Ed., New Approaches To the Book of Mormon: Explorations in Critical Methodology, FARMS Review of Books, vol. 6, no. 1 (1994), 3 - 4.) As with human error and more modern vocabulary, the presence of these New Testament passages is evidence, but the real issue is, evidence of what? As with the usage of modern vocabulary and concepts, they are evidence that Joseph Smith was a participant in the process of translation. When information appeared on the plates to be translated, it would suggest passages with which he was familiar from the New Testament, and that familiar model became the translation. I had a first hand experience with this process in a beginner’s class in Greek. Our teacher gave us a passage to translate. As the class worked its way through the translation, it became apparent that it was a passage from the New Testament. The translation went rapidly at that point, and the passage was “translated” by virtually everyone in the class exactly as it is in the KJV. This uniform “translation” happened even though Greek does not dictate sentence structure the way English does, and so there was no reason to have the sentences in the same from. Even some of the vocabulary was technically different in the Greek than what we had “translated.” Clearly, the known was the model for the unknown, and the known reference replaced whatever translation process we were doing. We need look no farther for the explanation of the presence of these texts in the Book of Mormon. However, as evidence, they do tell us that the process of translation allowed for such substitutions. Interactive Participation: The only place where we will be able to ascertain Joseph’s interaction with the material he was translating is when we have a control text, and therefore this type of evidence can come only from the inserted KJV texts. The analysis of the nature of the changes will indicate that Joseph made certain types of changes that interacted with his text. In this case, the “text” was the KJV insertions. While the presence of such changes have been used to suggest that this is no translation, but rather a completely human endeavor, once again such a suggestion simply presumes what the translation process ought to have been. As evidence of the translation process, this information confirms the requirement that Joseph Smith be an active participant in the translation. With this background, we now turn to the text to see the evidence of each of these methods in the translation process. Human Error in Translation: Our first example has Joseph making a mistake in verb tense. The text as we currently have it is: 1 Nephi 19:13 13 And as for those who are at Jerusalem, saith the prophet, they shall be scourged by all people, because they crucify the God of Israel, and turn their hearts aside, rejecting signs and wonders, and the power and glory of the God of Israel. The original manuscript had the word “crucified” which was corrected in the printer’s manuscript to be “crucify.” This is an error of tense that comes from the difference in perspective of the original writer and the translator. The plate text would not have had the past tense, but it certainly would have been the first thing to come to Joseph’s mind from his time-perspective. This “error” tells us that there is no absolutely rigid connection between the plate text and the English text. There was no automatic self-correcting mechanism. The next error is likely due to a common phrase that inserted itself in the wrong place. The text is from Alma: Alma 5:48 48 I say unto you, that I know of myself that whatsoever I shall say unto you, concerning that which is to come, is true; and I say unto you, that I know that Jesus Christ shall come, yea, the Son, the Only Begotten of the Father, full of grace, and mercy, and truth. And behold, it is he that cometh to take away the sins of the world, yea, the sins of every man who steadfastly believeth on his name. Both the printer’s manuscript and the 1830 edition have the phrase: “yea the son of the only begotten of the Father.” (Book of Mormon Critical Text. FARMS 1987. 2:551.) There is no interpretation that allows us to see Jesus as “the son of the only begotten,” since “only begotton” is a reference to the son. Since this error was allowed to survive the editing process on the printer’s manuscript, it wasn’t one that jumped out at the editor. It is quite possible that this is the same type of artifact as when a typist intends a particular word, and a different word is typed. Frequently the typist does not catch the error because they read what should have been written, not what was actually written. A last example will suffice for the general category of grammatical errors. In this case, the error comes from Joseph Smith’s basic unfamiliarity with the Elizabethan familiar verb forms: Alma 11:21 21 And this Zeezrom began to question Amulek, saying: Will ye answer me a few questions which I shall ask you? Now Zeezrom was a man who was expert in the devices of the devil, that he might destroy that which was good; therefore, he said unto Amulek: Will ye answer the questions which I shall put unto you? Zeezrom is given these words: “Will ye answer the questions…” Joseph makes a grammatical mistake here that is due to his lack of true understanding of the thee/thou forms. Grammar assigns various attributes to how words and used, and two of them are the number (I/we; he/they) and another is the part of speech (I/me; we/us). Zeezom is asking a question, and therefore needs an indirect pronoun. In modern English, we have lost the distinction between “you” as a subject and “you” as an indirect object. Without the affected style, Zeezrom is asking “will you answer the questions….” The Book of Mormon text would be grammatically accurate if he were speaking to both Amulek and Alma, as “ye” is the plural form of the indirect object. However, the context makes it clear that only Amulek considers himself the object of the request. Thus grammatically, this should be a singular indirect object, which is “thou.” The text should say (making a similar correction in the verb) “wilt thou answer the questions…” Current Vocabulary and Concepts: Ancient texts in ancient languages contain terms and concepts that are current with the time in which the document was written, and sometimes become obscure to the modern reader. In the Book of Mormon, vocabulary issues do not stem from the ancient text, but rather from the contemporary context of Joseph Smith. There are several examples where the translation is dependent upon these contemporaneous popular phrases or concepts. One set of these deals with the use of modern animal metaphors. For instance: Mosiah 12:4 4 And it shall come to pass that I will smite this my people with sore afflictions, yea, with famine and with pestilence; and I will cause that they shall howl all the day long. Mosiah 12:5 5 Yea, and I will cause that they shall have burdens lashed upon their backs; and they shall be driven before like a dumb ass. Abinadi uses the phrase "they shall be driven before like a dumb ass." The understandable reference to this is that the people will be used as beasts of burden, which is the state in which Ammon finds Limhi and his people. The translation problem comes with both the animal and the conception. There are no asses in the Western Hemisphere prior to European contact, and there are no known beasts of burden. Thus both the animal and the concept of using an animal in this way would be foreign to Abinadi. This is a case of translation of meaning rather than words. The modern reader clearly understands Abinadi, but might not understand a more culture-bound phrase, such as "tributaries with a tumpline" (the tumpline is a native method of carrying heavy burdens). The translation of the text of the plates would, in this case, be one of translating a concept rather than the specific words used on the plates. A similar conceptual problem comes with the cultural use of the meaning of the “right hand:” Mosiah 26:24 24 For behold, in my name are they called; and if they know me they shall come forth, and shall have a place eternally at my right hand. The imagery of the right hand comes form the ancient conceptions of the right hand as good and the left hand as evil. The Latin word for left is siniestra, which becomes the English sinister. Thus it is a blessing to be on the right hand of the Lord. This conceptual division between the left and the right is well known from the Old World, but less so from the New World. There is little literature on the meaning of the left hand in Mesoamerica, but there are hints that not only was it not considered evil, but that it may have been a sign of a connection to the powers of the other world. On a very simple plane, the left-handed warriors of the Mexica were considered the most fearful. One explanation has always been that they fought differently, and in that different posture lay a military advantage. However, it is also possible that there is more to it than that. The name of the Mexica tribal deity was Huitzilopochtli “hummingbird on the left/of the left.” Certainly that context is positive for the Mexica. Where the left/right dichotomy from Western civilization is a “good/bad” duality, the Mesoamerican worldview may have seen the left hand in a more favorable light. Nevertheless, the phraseology in the Book of Mormon assumes its meaning from the Western concept of the “right hand.” As a final example, some of Joseph’s contemporary phraseology finds its way into the Book of Mormon descriptions of religious events: Alma 5:26 26 And now behold, I say unto you, my brethren, if ye have experienced a change of heart, and if ye have felt to sing the song of redeeming love, I would ask, can ye feel so now? Such phrases as the “mighty change” and the “song of redeeming love” were common phrases in the religious revival camps with which Joseph was familiar. (See Thomas, Mark D. Digging in Cumorah. Signature Books, 1999, 132-4.) These phrases represented a type of religious meaning, and they were used to represent that meaning as it was found on the plates. There is little chance that the terms are literal translations of plate text. Influence of the KJV New Testament: This is an important category because it deals with texts that echo the New Testament prior to the time those texts were written. The New Testament is a model for the Book of Mormon text even when there is a clear Old Testament model available: 1 Nephi 10:7 7 And he spake also concerning a prophet who should come before the Messiah, to prepare the way of the Lord‑‑ 1 Nephi 10:8 8 Yea, even he should go forth and cry in the wilderness: Prepare ye the way of the Lord, and make his paths straight; for there standeth one among you whom ye know not; and he is mightier than I, whose shoe's latchet I am not worthy to unloose. And much spake my father concerning this thing. The text is referencing John the Baptist, the person we know as the voice crying in the wilderness. The New Testament reference looks back to Isaiah: Isaiah 40:4 ¶ The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the LORD, make straight in the desert a highway for our God. 4 Every valley shall be exalted, and every mountain and hill shall be made low: and the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough places plain: Based on the time-depth of the citation, Lehi must be referencing these passages, but the way we have the text is more reminiscent of the way that same verse is used by Mark: Mark 1:2-7 2 As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee. 3 The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight. 4 John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. 5 And there went out unto him all the land of Judaea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins. 6 And John was clothed with camel's hair, and with a girdle of a skin about his loins; and he did eat locusts and wild honey; 7 And preached, saying, There cometh one mightier than I after me, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to stoop down and unloose (see also Luke 3:16, and John 1:27). The specific manner in which the information is recorded in the Book of Mormon is referenceable to the King James Version New Testament. Joseph would have seen the meaning, and made the connection to a known text which supplied that meaning. The relationship of text to translation is not a direct copy of the words on the plates, but a placing of the meaning of the words into words and phrases of known and accepted meaning. The phrasing with which Joseph was most familiar would have been Mark, and thus Mark becomes the model for the English text, although Isaiah was the model for the plate text. Sometimes there is not clear Old Testament text that might have been the plate text reference. Mosiah 16:10 10 Even this mortal shall put on immortality, and this corruption shall put on incorruption, and shall be brought to stand before the bar of God, to be judged of him according to their works whether they be good or whether they be evil— This text is clearly dependent upon 1 Cor. 15:53-54: 53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. 54 So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory. How is it that Abinadi should be citing Paul? Clearly Abinadi is not citing Paul - the text owes the similarity to the similarity of concepts that become couched in Paul's language because Joseph Smith was familiar with Paul. There is no reason to suppose that Abinadi would not understand the meaning, but the current English text obviously owes its specific form more to Paul than Abinadi. A last example will suffice to show the extent of this category of translation issue: Alma 5:52 52 And again I say unto you, the Spirit saith: Behold, the ax is laid at the root of the tree; therefore every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit shall be hewn down and cast into the fire, yea, a fire which cannot be consumed, even an unquenchable fire. Behold, and remember, the Holy One hath spoken it. This verse very clearly echoes Matthew 3:10 (and Luke 3:9): Matt. 3:10 And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. The language is so close that there can be no question that the New Testament phrases were the model for the phrases in the Book of Mormon. The imagery of cutting down unproductive trees would have been sufficiently familiar to a New World audience, but the specifics of the presentation of the concept is obviously reliant upon the KJV translation of Matthew. Interactive Translation: This last category may be the most important, but it is also the most subjective. It is known that the Book of Mormon includes large sections of text just as they exist in the King James Version of the Bible. It is also known that there are times when the Book of Mormon text diverges from the KJV. The nature of those changes may suggest more information about the translation process. David P. Wright notes: “A peculiarity of the KJV is the use of italics to mark words which do not have exact correspondences in the original biblical languages. The KJV was not the first to use italicized words in this way. Sebastian Muenster's Latin translation (1534-35), the French Bible of Olivétan (1535), the Great Bible of Cloverdale (1539), and the Geneva Bible (1557-60) used italics thus. The original KJV (1611) was printed in black-letter (gothic) with the "added" words printed in small roman type. In 1612 an edition of the KJV used italics for these words, and this became part of all standard editions of the KJV from that time. Many of the variants in the BM Isaiah over against the KJV occur precisely at these words and is a transparent indication that the KJV is the source of the BM Isaiah text.” (David P. Wright, “Isaiah in the Book of Mormon ...and Joseph Smith in Isaiah.” Completed January 1996; initially published August 1998 on the web). As did Stan Larson, Wright suggests that this evidence of the translation methodology must preclude the Book of Mormon from being an ancient text. However, we have the same problem of the assumption of the meaning of the evidence. At this point, we simply must accept this as evidence. There is something going on that tends to happen at italicized words in the Book of Mormon. It is not 100% consistent, but it is statistically significant enough to suggest that the italicized words formed “weak points” at which some change might be made. The impact of the concentration on the “weak points” of italicized words is that changes tend to cluster there. The nature of those changes can tell us something about the process that generated those changes. Wright notes some of the more telling types of changes: “The words omitted are those that translators would normally insert in translation for smooth conceptual and idiomatic flow in English. That these are missing is an indication that Smith was working with the KJV and struck them from the text. It also suggests that he did this at times rather mechanically. This is more transparent in cases where the want of italicized words yields an ungrammatical and even incomprehensible reading. A recurring phrase in Isaiah 5:25; 9:12, 17, 21; 10:4 is that God's "anger is not turned away, but his hand _is stretched out still." In the BM parallel passages the verb "_is" is absent producing the syntactically incomplete phrase "his hand stretched out still" (2 Ne 15:25; 2 Ne 19:12, 17, 21; 20:4). The difficulty had to be remedied in later editions of the BM by restoring the verb. The KJV's translation is wholly legitimate here. In Hebrew, nouns, adjectives, and adverbials can stand in predicate relationship to another noun without the verb "to be" being expressly stated. English idiom demands the verb "to be" in such cases. The lack of this verb is not only a sign that the italics of the KJV are being deleted, but of an ignorance of Hebrew. Other examples of incomplete and conceptually difficult or impossible readings where italicized words are missing include: "_There _is none to guide her among all the sons _whom she hath brought forth; neither _is _there _any that taketh her by the hand of all the sons _that she hath brought up" > "And none to guide her among all the sons she hath brought forth, neither that taketh her by the hand of all the sons she hath brought up" (Isa 51:18//2 Ne 8:18); "For every battle of the warrior _is with confused noise and garments rolled in blood, but _this shall be with burning..." > "For every battle of the warrior with confused noise and garments rolled in blood, but this shall be with burning..." (Isa 9:5//2 Ne 19:5); "For this _is _as the waters of Noah unto me, for _as I have sworn that the waters of Noah..." > "For this, the waters of Noah unto me, for as I have sworn that the waters of Noah..." (Isa 54:9//3 Ne 22:9). "Then said I, Here _am I" > "Then I said, Here I" (Isa 6:8//2 Ne 16:8); "woe _is me" > "wo me" (Isa 6:5//2 Ne 16:5). The change of "their roaring _shall _be like a lion" to "their roaring like a lion" (Isa 5:29//2 Ne 15:28) is also another case of a syntactically incomplete phrase, if it is to come at the beginning of v. 29 as the Hebrew text indicates it should. These cases remind one of the what Matthews observed in regard to crossing out italics in the Bible that Smith used in the revision of the Bible: "many italics are crossed out, even when it does violence to the sense." A similar phenomenon seems to have occurred in production of the BM Isaiah. (David P. Wright, “Isaiah in the Book of Mormon ...and Joseph Smith in Isaiah.” Completed January 1996; initially published August 1998 on the web). The evidence suggests that there is an interaction between Joseph Smith and the text that occurs at italicized words. While Wright presumes that this evidence of interaction is a negation of translation, it is rather simply evidence of this particular type of translation. The Lord revealed to Oliver Cowdery: Doctrine and Covenants 9:7-9 7 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. 8 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. 9 But if it be not right you shall have no such feelings, but you shall have a stupor of thought that shall cause you to forget the thing which is wrong; therefore, you cannot write that which is sacred save it be given you from me. B. H. Roberts notes these verses, and then concludes: “This is the Lord's description of how Oliver Cowdery could have translated with the aid of Urim and Thummim (see context of the revelation quoted), and it is undoubtedly the manner in which Joseph Smith did translate the Book of Mormon through the medium of Urim and Thummim. This description of the translation destroys the theory that Urim and Thummim did everything, and the seer nothing; that the work of translating was merely a mechanical process of looking at a supplied interpretation, in English, and reading it off to an amanuensis. This description in the D&C implies great mental effort; of working out the translation in the mind, and securing the witness of the Spirit that the translation is correct. In all this, Urim and Thummim are helpful. They are an aid doubtless to concentration of mind. They may have held at the time just the characters to be translated at the moment, and excluded all others; the translation thought out in the seer's mind may also have been reflected in the interpreters and held there until recorded by the amanuensis, all of which would be incalculably helpful. But since the translation is thought out in the mind of the seer, it must be thought out in such thought-signs as are at his command, expressed in such speech-forms as he is master of; for, man thinks, and can only think coherently, in language; and, necessarily, in such language as he knows. (B. H. Roberts. “Translation of the Book of Mormon.”, Improvement Era, 1906, Vol. Ix. March, 1906. No. 5. .) In this case, the evidence suggests precisely what the scriptures tell us, that Joseph Smith had to use his own mind in the process. It should not surprise us that this is the method that Joseph Smith used when he later turned his attention to the translation of the Bible: “The translation was not a simple, mechanical recording of divine dictum, but rather a study-and-thought process accompanied and prompted by revelation from the Lord. That it was a revelatory process is evident from statements by the Prophet and others who were personally acquainted with the work.” (Robert J. Matthews. Joseph Smith’s Translation of the Bible. Brigham Young University Press, Provo, 1975, p. 41.) The two translations differ in that Joseph did not use the Urim and Thummim or the Seer Stone in the translation of the Bible. However, those tools were mediums to facilitate the translation, not to create the translation. Orson Pratt specifically asked Joseph about this difference in translation: “We are indebted to Elder Orson Pratt for an enlightening comment on this point, which is an excerpt from the minutes of the School of the Prophets in Salt Lake City, 14 January 1871, and has to do with the translation of the Book of Mormon and also the Bible: "He [Elder Pratt] mentioned that as Joseph used the Urim and Thummim in translation of the Book of Mormon, he wondered why he did not use it in the translation of the New Testament. Joseph explained to him that the experience he had acquired while translating the Book of Mormon by the use of the Urim and Thumim had rendered him so well acquainted with the Spirit of Revelation and Prophecy, that in the translating of the New Testament he did not need the aid that was necessary in the 1st instance." (Robert J. Matthews, Selected Writings of Robert J. Matthews: Gospel Scholars Series [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1999], 302.) Joseph does not indicate that the basic translation method changed, but rather that he was more familiar with the Spirit who guided it. It would appear that we may apply the obvious experience of the translation of the Bible back to the time of the translation of the Book of Mormon. The translation of the Bible included interaction between the text and the translator. There is no reason to suppose that such a method was not present in the translation of the Book of Mormon, particularly when the evidence suggests that it did happen in just that way. The presence of changes at the italicized words suggests that Joseph Smith was aware of the meaning of the italicized words, and made attempts to “improve” the text by “returning” the text to the pre-italicized state as he would have understood it. These alterations are not indicative of the nature of the plate text, because they are dependent upon his analysis of the KJV text, however he interacted with that text. Other examples of the changes to the KJV Isaiah text also suggest that there was some interactive analysis that was part of the translation process. 1 Nephi 20:10 10 For, behold, I have refined thee, I have chosen thee in the furnace of affliction. The Book of Mormon removes a parenthetical phrase from the Isaiah text, which has “but not with silver” following the text “I have refined thee.” Ludlow has suggested that the phrase “but not with silver” is an anomaly that was added after the compilation of the brass plates text. (“The King James Version phrase “but not with silver” is deleted from the Book of Mormon. It disrupts the flow of the verse so badly that many commentators have said that its “meaning is obscure,” that it has “defeated all commentators up to the present,” and that it was probably “altered by a scribe who took the meaning to be ‘I have not sold thee for money.’” However, by omitting the phrase “but not with silver,” the verse becomes simple and clear. Perhaps this verse is an example of a “gloss,” an addition made by a later scribe in order to clarify the verse as he understood it. If so, the gloss was assuredly written after 600 BC when the Brass Plates of Laban were taken from Jerusalem, because the phrase is not quoted in the Book of Mormon version of this verse.” Ludlow 1982, p. 404. ) This is certainly possible, but is perhaps not the best explanation for this change. First, while the phrase “but not with silver” is indeed problematic, it is problematic only in the word “with.” Note the following uses of the combination of “silver” and the refining process (here given as “tried”): Ps. 12:6 6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Ps. 66:10 10 For thou, O God, hast proved us: thou hast tried us, as silver is tried. Zech. 13:9 9 And I will bring the third part through the fire, and will refine them as silver is refined, and will try them as gold is tried: they shall call on my name, and I will hear them: I will say, It is my people: and they shall say, The LORD is my God. In each of these three cases there are important elements in common with the phrase in Isaiah - the refining process, and the use of silver as the exemplar of the refining process. In addition, both Psalms 66:10 and Zechariah 13:9 explicitly apply the example to the children of Israel. In that context, the appearance of “silver” in the Isaianic passage fits quite well with its theme of refinement through trial. The problem is that the “with” should better be read “as.” In fact, there is a high likelihood that there is a scribal error here, but that it occurs in the similarity of the Hebrew word for “as” and “with.” Both words appear as a single consonant, and those consonants are very similar in appearance. It would appear that some early copyist wrote the wrong letter, and therefore the locus of the error is a single character rather than a whole phrase. (Claus Westermann suggests that the word be read ke rather than be. He renders the “as” rather than “with.” Claus Westermann. Isaiah 40-66. Westminster Press, 1969, p. 195.) Since the explanation of a change involving the miscopying of a single letter is simpler than the addition of a phrase that includes the offending meaning, it is most likely that the original text contained the phrase “but not as silver.” What, then, happened to that phrase in the Book of Mormon? We have two possibilities. The first is that the phrase was missing from the brass plates, and therefore was not translated. The second appears more likely, and that is that we have an instance where Joseph was interacting with, and attempting to understand the text as part of the translation process. This change would be due to Joseph’s translation, not to the plate text. An interesting case is presented when we see a similar alteration between the Original Manuscript and the Printer’s Manuscript. 1 Nephi 20:11 11 For mine own sake, yea, for mine own sake will I do this, for I will not suffer my name to be polluted, and I will not give my glory unto another. The KJV text for this verse has “for how should I suffer my name….” The Original Manuscript follows the KJV, but was corrected and appears as above in the Printer’s Manuscript and all printed editions. In this case we have an excellent “view” of the translation process, since it occurs after the actual translation. Joseph Smith certainly saw no problem with making such an interactive alteration to the KJV text, even though it had come through the original version without the change. This would seem to indicate that the process of making such thoughtful alterations was part of the way that Joseph understood his translator’s mission. The
Translation Method and the Sermon on the Mount
There is evidence that the Book of Mormon contains direct copies (without dealing with how they were “copied”) of KJV texts into the Book of Mormon. We also see that there are several examples in the translation process that show that the process that produced our current text was not one that proceeded from a direct, word-for-word translation of the plate text. The presence of Joseph Smith as translator is apparent in the English text of the Book of Mormon in the presence of various errors, vocabulary and concepts from his contemporary world, and in the use of the KJV with which he was familiar. In particular the use of that text occurs in multiple ways, where sometimes it is directly copied, sometimes it forms the model for the language and phrasing of concepts, and sometimes it served as a thought process where his input made modifications in the text so that it differs in certain locations from the KJV. All of this information is evidence. Of what is it evidence? If one were to be disposed to disbelieve the Book of Mormon as an ancient text, it might be taken to be evidence of the modernity of the work. That very conclusion, however, presumes a definition of translation that is applied before the analysis. The evidence absolutely tells us that the translation is modern, but we knew that from the beginning. For questions of discerning the antiquity of the text, it simply tells us that we must look elsewhere. In the nature of the text itself we will see only the result of the translation process. For the Sermon on the Mount, this allows us greater latitude in understanding the particular nature of the text. In order to see the Book of Mormon version as more closely tied to the ancient text, John W. Welch has suggested that the Sermon on the Mount is an esoteric temple text (John W. Welch. Illuminating the Sermon at the Temple and Sermon on the Mount. FARMS, Provo, 1999). Robert A. Cloward is unconvinced of Welch’s hypothesis, and proposes his own means of providing a “unity” in the Matthean text. (Robert A. Cloward. “The Savior’s Missionary Training Sermon in 3 Nephi.” The Book of Mormon: 3 Nephi 9-30, This is My Gospel. Religious Studies Center. Brigham Young University. Provo, 1993, p. 122 ). The analysis of the translation method suggests that there is a loose connection at times between the plate text and our English text. In particular, it is safe to say that the English KJV took precedence over the plate text in many places. Regardless of the explanation of how or why, this evidence may be accepted and applied to the Sermon on the Mount. We need not worry about the textual history of the Sermon on the Mount, because it is irrelevant to the nature of the translation. What is inserted at this point in the Book of Mormon really is the Matthean text, just as it exists in the KJV. In that copied text, however, we will find instances where there are interactive alterations, just as there were in the Isaiah passages. All of this is simply part of the translation process, and is an artifact of the modern redaction. It has no bearing on the antiquity of the rest of the text. Note: John W. Welch has published a book length treatise arguing a very different point of view. That argument deserves analysis, but not integral to this commentary. Please see the appendix on that subject.
1 And it came to pass that when Jesus had spoken these words unto Nephi, and to those who had been called, (now the number of them who had been called, and received power and authority to baptize, was twelve) and behold, he stretched forth his hand unto the multitude, and cried unto them, saying: Blessed are ye if ye shall give heed unto the words of these twelve whom I have chosen from among you to minister unto you, and to be your servants; and unto them I have given power that they may baptize you with water; and after that ye are baptized with water, behold, I will baptize you with fire and with the Holy Ghost; therefore blessed are ye if ye shall believe in me and be baptized, after that ye have seen me and know that I am. 3 Nephi 12:2 2 And again, more blessed are they who shall believe in your words because that ye shall testify that ye have seen me, and that ye know that I am. Yea, blessed are they who shall believe in your words, and come down into the depths of humility and be baptized, for they shall be visited with fire and with the Holy Ghost, and shall receive a remission of their sins.
The emphasis also moves from the twelve to the many as Jesus recognizes their belief. The twelve may be presumed to believe, as indicated by their very selection. The rest of the people are now explicitly recognized. However, it is also recognized that they are in need of the baptism by water and fire, indicating the gift of the Holy Ghost. Some of the people may have been baptized previously. Some may not have been previously baptized. The need of baptism into this new covenant was before all of them equally. Literary: The transition comes in the form of a shift in the instruction to the twelve and the blessing statements to the people. The twelve and their charge to preach repentance and baptism become the foundation of Jesus’ gospel, and the people are blessed if they believe. This leads directly into the charge to accept the ministry of the twelve: first by believing, and then by doing. The process of creating the transition from the first set of instructions to this next sermon hinges on the blessing phrases. Those blessing phrases are the beginning of the Sermon and the Mount, and they are the opening here. The Matthean Sermon on the Mount contains beatitudes that follow a specific formula. The exhortation of blessing begins the statement, followed by a relative clause. This gives us the “blessed are…. for” structure, although the “for” clause is optional. The idea of the relative clause, however, is to provide some description of the individual possessed of the quality noted in the “blessed” clause. (Robert Guelich. A Foundation for Understanding the Sermon on the Mount. Word Publishing, Dallas, 1982, pp. 63-4). The blessing statements that serve as the link between the two narrative scenes in 3 Nephi begin with the “Blessed are…” half of the formula, but only one phrase completes the formula with the “…for” clause. The first two have “Blessed are… if” constructions, which alters the nature of the exhortation. The “if” creates a conditional, not a firm description. In the Matthean beatitudes, the people have a certain quality, and they are blessed for it. In these “blessing” in 3 Nephi, they are conditional covenants. There will be blessings, if the conditions are met. Blessed are ye if ye shall give heed unto the words of these twelve whom I have chosen from among you to minister unto you, and to be your servants” Blessed are ye if ye shall believe in me and be baptized, after that ye have seen me and know that I am. More blessed are they who shall believe in your words because that ye shall testify that ye have seen me, and that ye know that I am. Blessed are they who shall believe in your words, and come down into the depths of humility and be baptized, for they shall be visited with fire and with the Holy Ghost, and shall receive a remission of their sins. These additional blessing statements imitate the form, but do not completely replicate the form as found in the Old World. This suggests that when the Savior began his sermon to the people, the blessing statements were part of the sermon, but the particular literary form was not part of the cultural world of the Nephites. Therefore, when Nephi is writing his text, the transitional statements imitate the blessing form, but without an understanding of the complete form, only part of it was imitated. Of course this should not be taken as supposing that Jesus did not speak in such a way to the people. It is simply a recognition that Nephi wrote this after the fact, and would have had no way to record a word for word sermon as it was given. All sermons in ancient texts must have an element of authorial construction in them simply because there were no recording tools that could accurately record continuous speech.
3 Yea, blessed are the poor in spirit who come unto me, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Comparison to the Matthean text: The only difference between this verse and Matthew 5:3 is the addition of the word “yea” to the beginning of the verse. This provides a linkage between the unique Book of Mormon text preceding this verse and the text which follows. Comments: Jesus blesses a set of people who are defined as “poor in spirit,” with “the kingdom of heaven.” The blessing form sets up a current/future contrast that contains a reversal. Those who are poor in this earth do not have access to the wealth and power of the world. Nevertheless, it is these very people who will have the whole of the kingdom of heaven in the next. That which is denied on earth will be bestowed in heaven. This analysis requires that we understand that “poor” contrasts with “kingdom,” a position that should not be difficult. Nevertheless, it becomes even more pertinent when we realize that the poor of Jesus’ time were a different type of poor than had existed in previous ages. “Since the agricultural productivity of the Land of Israel was never exceptionally high even under the most favorable conditions, and since even the slightest reduction in crop yields made it impossible for many peasant families to produce enough for both taxes and family survival, an increasing number of farmers were forced to borrow against future harvests in order to be able to retain enough of their crops and animals to carry then over to the next year. Indeed, the evidence drawn from rabbinic literature and from legal documents of the period suggests that rural indebtedness dramatically increased throughout the Herodian administration and the priestly aristocracy. Yet the stop-gap measure soon had catastrophic consequences: once a peasant farmer pledged away and even greater proportion of the next harvest, it was unlikely that he could avoid sinking even deeper into debt in the following years. And since the only collateral that peasants could use to obtain loans was the land that had been farmed by their families for generations, their inability to repay mounting debts eventually resulted in foreclosure. In many cases, that legal action would have changed once-free villagers working the lands of their ancestors into permanently impoverished sharecroppers eking out a living on vast (and rapidly growing) aristocratic estates.” (Richard A. Horsely and Neil Asher Silberman. The Message and the Kingdom. Grosset/Putnam, New York, 1997, p. 28). The poor in the New Testament times of the Sermon on the Mount were in desperate need, and were so far from a “kingdom” that many of them no longer owned the land they farmed. It is this massive difference between their current economic state and their promised heavenly economic state that creates the nature of the blessing. They endure a terrible oppression in this earth, but are redeemed in heaven. When Luke references this same basic beatitude, he does so without the Matthean phrase “in spirit: Luke 6:20 20 ¶ And he lifted up his eyes on his disciples, and said, Blessed be ye poor: for yours is the kingdom of God. Most commentators on Matthew agree that the phrase “in spirit” is secondary modification to the statement. (Robert Guelich. A Foundation for Understanding the Sermon on the Mount. Word Publishing, Dallas, 1982, pp. 74). Nevertheless, it is an appropriate one, because it is not the economic poverty that will qualify the people for the kingdom of God. The literary contrast is between the poor and the kingdom, but the reason that the poor will achieve the kingdom is not because of their lack of access to the world’s goods, but rather the fact that their poverty will require them to rely upon God rather than the strength of their own hand. Book of Mormon Context: In the Mesoamerican world, there were certainly poor, but the Book of Mormon descriptions of the poor tend to equate them with the farmers who are in the fields as opposed to the city-dwellers. There is no land ownership noted in the Book of Mormon, and there was none in ancient Mesoamerica. Therefore the entire economic structure that created the type of poverty that formed the massive contrast between “poor” and “kingdom” did not exist in Mesoamerica. In spite of the fact that the nature of the economic problem was not as great, there was still a social hierarchy that was evidenced in much of the Mesoamerican area, and was one of the very things against which the Nephite prophets fought. That social distinction and separation provided a different definition of poverty, but still allowed for the understanding that there was a difference between the access to economic goods in this world, and what might have come later. The ability of the people in the new world to become humble through their poverty, particularly when accentuated by a distinct social hierarchy is demonstrated by the poor among the Zoramites, to whom Alma said: Alma 32:12-16 12 I say unto you, it is well that ye are cast out of your synagogues, that ye may be humble, and that ye may learn wisdom; for it is necessary that ye should learn wisdom; for it is because that ye are cast out, that ye are despised of your brethren because of your exceeding poverty, that ye are brought to a lowliness of heart; for ye are necessarily brought to be humble. 13 And now, because ye are compelled to be humble blessed are ye; for a man sometimes, if he is compelled to be humble, seeketh repentance; and now surely, whosoever repenteth shall find mercy; and he that findeth mercy and endureth to the end the same shall be saved. 14 And now, as I said unto you, that because ye were compelled to be humble ye were blessed, do ye not suppose that they are more blessed who truly humble themselves because of the word? 15 Yea, he that truly humbleth himself, and repenteth of his sins, and endureth to the end, the same shall be blessed—yea, much more blessed than they who are compelled to be humble because of their exceeding poverty. 16 Therefore, blessed are they who humble themselves without being compelled to be humble; or rather, in other words, blessed is he that believeth in the word of God, and is baptized without stubbornness of heart, yea, without being brought to know the word, or even compelled to know, before they will believe. The position of the poor among the Zoramites was more marked than in other sections of Nephite society precisely because the Zoramites had adopted a marked social hierarchy based upon wealth. Thus the idea of being “poor in spirit” was entirely appropriate for the Mesoamerican audience, and a repetition of a message they had heard before.
4 And again, blessed are all they that mourn, for they shall be comforted.
The contrast here is between the mourning and the comforting. There are two aspects of this contrast that important. The first is that there is a contrast between the feelings of those who mourn, and the feelings of those whose mourning will become comforted. The direct parallel would be to the feeling, some future amelioration of the pain that is felt after a death. Certainly this particular beatitude was particularly appropriate in the Mesoamerican context at this particular time. Even with a year having passed, there would still be the pain of the lost loved ones, and the promise of comfort would be real. However, there is a more important part of this promise. It is too simplistic to read this beatitude as the simple contrast of feelings. The very concept of the contrast is that there is a tremendous difference between the before and after conditions. In the case of the poor, those who had little were to inherit everything. That would appear to make the promise “you will feel better” an insignificant blessing in comparison. This is not an insignificant blessing, however, for it relies upon a condition of heaven that is not present, and that is integral to the message of the Atoning Messiah. The connection between the comforting and the Messiah was so strong in Israel that rabbinic tradition used the title of “Comforter,” as one of the descriptors of the Messiah. (Robert Guelich. A Foundation for Understanding the Sermon on the Mount. Word Publishing, Dallas. 1982, p. 81) Part of what the Book of Mormon prophets have preached concerning this event was the resurrection from the dead, and it is that reality that provides the true nature of the blessing to those who mourn. They mourn because a loved one is dead. They will be truly comforted, not just made happy, because that loved one will yet live. The very cause for temporal mourning will be removed. Textual: The 3 Nephi text follows the Matthean set of the Beatitudes. This particular Beatitude has a parallel in Luke that has a similar concept, but slightly different connotations. In Luke we have: Luke 6:21 21 … Blessed are ye that weep now: for ye shall laugh. The weeping parallels the forms of mourning. The laughing is a direct emotional antithesis of the weeping, strengthening the assumption that the comfort is also in some way an antithesis to the mourning in Matthew.
5 And blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.
The Mesoamerican context of this particular verse is not as easy to understand since the economics of power were very different, particularly in the classic Nephite society. However, there was more of this removal from power that was seen around them, and they would be familiar with the concept. They would not have been as directly affected by the conditions of the Beatitude as were those of the Old World who heard this saying.
6 And blessed are all they who do hunger and thirst after righteousness, for they shall be filled with the Holy Ghost.
Matthew 5:6 6 Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled. This addition is interesting because it completes an implicit parallel to the “after righteousness” in the Matthean phrase. On structural grounds alone, the Matthean phrase would be suspect because it is unique in creating a metaphorical meaning to the current difficulties of the people. In the rest of the Beatitudes, the first clause is hardly metaphorical. It is a real condition that plagues the people. They are poor, not simply poor in spirit (though that qualifier acts similarly to the “after righteousness” in this passage. The meek are truly unempowered, not simply unempowered as to religion. The Matthean redaction has added qualifiers to move the meaning away from physical conditions and into the spiritual condition. While that possibility was always present, Matthew manifestly alters that context. The 3 Nephi passage follows that redactional tendency, and “improves” the text by a paralleled shift to the manifestly religious meaning. It is probable that the original phrase would have been “blessed are they who do hunger and thrist, for they shall be filled.” That would be a much tighter literary parallel to the similar “blessed are they that mourn, for they shall be comforted.” In the context of the original audience, hunger and thirst would have been real and temporally present conditions. That they would be filled was a future promise. However, just as with the “mourn/comforted’ pairing, this was not a simply satiation of hunger, but a filling with something more permanent and important. Matthew elects to point the reader in that direction with the addition of the phrase “after righteousness.” The 3 Nephi text further extends that same thought by explaining with what the people will be filled. However, the paralleling of this addition with Matthews addition creates a complementary parallel, and that violates the antithetical parallel that is the heart of these Beatitudes. Textually, it is easy to see “after righteousness” as a Matthean redactional addition. Similarly, the 3 Nephi “for they shall be filled with the Holy Ghost” is a redactional addition. Our question is where it came from. There are two possibilities. The Book of Mormon could be accurately portraying the Savior’s words to the people in Bountiful. In this case, the addition is the Savior’s clarification that is reproduced. There is a tremendous emotional strength behind this position, and a large body of LDS interpretive commentary would support it. There are, however, problems with the analysis. The first is that the second addition is dependent upon the first. If it was Matthew who added the first phrase, then the phrase that was added to parallel it would also be later than the spoken words of Jesus. Secondly, we have the very fact that this Beatitude appears to have less relevance to the New World. The only times we have hunger mentioned in the Book of Mormon is in times of famine. For most of the text there is no indication that there is any problem with food at all. In the cultural context of Mesoamerica the conditions that caused the hunger of the peasants of Jesus’ time did not exist. When we add up the multiple conditions pertaining to this text, it appears most probable that Joseph Smith is interacting with the Matthean text, and using that text as a representation of Jesus’ words, whether or not they were completely accurate. That is not to say that Jesus could not have given this Sermon as written. He could have. However, if he were sufficiently literate to use the Beatitude structures, he would likely have continued those structures rather than violate them in his presentation. For the same reason that we can see a redactional addition in Matthew, we see it in the 3 Nephi text. The nature of that addition suggests that it was an expansion of the first clause, and therefore a reaction to Matthew’s text rather than to the specific conditions of the New World. Comment: In spite of the evidence of textual addition, this is not a foreign concept to the Nephites. The idea that the Atoning Messiah will bring them a “more filling food” was part of the message of other prophets. Alma uses this imagery to describe the effect of the gospel on one’s life: Alma 32:42 42 And because of your diligence and your faith and your patience with the word in nourishing it, that it may take root in you, behold, by and by ye shall pluck the fruit thereof, which is most precious, which is sweet above all that is sweet, and which is white above all that is white, yea, and pure above all that is pure; and ye shall feast upon this fruit even until ye are filled, that ye hunger not, neither shall ye thirst. (Italics added).
The imagery is repeated by the Savior himself later in his experience with the Nephites: 3 Nephi 20:8 8 And he said unto them: He that eateth this bread eateth of my body to his soul; and he that drinketh of this wine drinketh of my blood to his soul; and his soul shall never hunger nor thirst, but shall be filled. While both of these passages contain metaphors and analogies to eating specific items, neither feels required to explicitly delineate the spiritual context of the saying as does the Matthean and the 3 Nephi Beatitutde. The rest of the discourse could provide the spiritual context, and the explicit designation has the feel of an addition, even though it is a logical one, and one that had precedent in the Book of Mormon text. Of course, the close parallel in phrasing also suggests that while the conception was known, the particular language is once again dictated by Joseph’s experience with the New Testament.
7 And blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy.
“…Merciful refers to the act of judging rather than to the acts of kindness.” (Robert Guelich. A Foundation for Understanding the Sermon on the Mount. Word Publishing, Dallas. 1982, p. 89) The act of judging is our response to circumstances in the world. In the case of mercy, one must be merciful only when the human situation would typically demand a different response. When we are wronged, we have the option to respond, and the most typical human response follows the Biblical injunction to require an “eye for an eye.” (Exodus 21:24). This is not the gospel of Jesus Christ, however. Jesus is moving the requirement away from vengeance and into mercy. He does not judge with punishment, but with forgiveness and lenience. Those who are merciful in this life are those who have been wronged. Since they have been wronged, that is the condition that is transformed through the gospel. The effect will be that those “wrongs” are taken from them. However, this particular contrast does have a parallel theme in the nature of being merciful. The idea that the mercy we show becomes the mercy we receive has other parallels in the New Testament. The most obvious passages are those that link your judgment to the way that we judge: Matthew 7:1-2 1 Judge not, that ye be not judged. 2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. In this saying we have a direct connection between the way that we judge and the way that we are judged. This is then transferred to another concept, that of measuring (a different type of “judging.”) The rule by which we measure will the that which measures us. This is easily understood as a reference to anyone who would sell something that is measured. Those who measure precisely on, or a little short, in what they provide to their customer are setting up a rigid standard. Those who are generous and provide more than the “measure” are setting up a more generous standard. We are being told that it is by those standards that we use to judge, or “measure” others that we will be judged and “measured.” Luke 6:37 37 Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven: The Lukan passage repeats the proscription against judging, and adds one about condemning. In both Matthew and Luke we have the specific statement about judging, and then a secondary statement that restates the meaning of the “judging” statement with another term that is seen to be a parallel concept. In Luke we get two of these, condemnation and forgiveness. In all of these cases the prohibition is not really against judging, but rather in judging too harshly. Indeeed, it is not so much a prohibition as a caution. Perhaps the meaning might have been more easily understood had it said “Be careful how you judge, for you will be judged by the same standard you use on others.” It is in this context that we see the more easily understood “forgive, and ye shall be forgiven.” In all of these passages there is a connection between our actions to others and God’s actions to us. Jesus sets us up as a microcosm of the heavenly world, and places us in the position of earthly “gods” who are constantly passing judgment on our fellow beings, a literary parallel to God the Father who judges us from heaven. We experience the attributes of Godhood and learn to live them as we learn to be merciful and to be forgiving. As we learn these principles, God may be more merciful and forgiving toward us, not because we earn “points” toward salvation, but because we become more closely attuned with the spiritual nature we are to be.
8 And blessed are all the pure in heart, for they shall see God.
In the context of second temple Judaism, it is likely that there is a very different meaning in that particular context. Once again the pairings tell us about the meaning. Seeing God is obviously nothing to which most humans aspire on this earth, but it was a possibility on at least an annual occasion for one person. The High Priest of the temple would enter into the Holy of Holies in the Temple once a year to offer sacrifice for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. In that very sacred occasions he entered into the presence of God, he would be in the place where he might “see” God. Of course he must be pure to enter that room. This now requires that we understand how the world pure might have been construed. The Beatitude has two parts, the noun and the descriptive phrase: pure in heart. The key to this Beatitude is understanding that the culturally understood reference of the phrase “pure in heart” would call to mind Psalm 24: Psalms 24:3-4 3 Who shall ascend into the hill of the LORD? or who shall stand in his holy place? 4 He that hath clean hands, and a pure heart; who hath not lifted up his soul unto vanity, nor sworn deceitfully. The obvious connection is the phrase “pure in heart.” What is not as obvious is that the reference would have recalled the context of that phrase in the Psalm. The Psalm uses the pure in heart as the answer to a question, and that question is “who shall ascend into the hill of the Lord? Or who shall stand in his holy place?” This question serves as the model for the Beatitude’s following phrase, the blessing that the pure in heart shall “see God.” Where else might God be “seen” than in the temple, in the holy place of the Lord? This Beatitude is a recasting of the Psalm, reversing the order of the Psalm to fit into the Beatitude format. Textual: There is only one change in the Book of Mormon text. The Book of Mormon has “all the pure in heart,” where the KJV has “the pure in heart.” The word “all” is the only change. This is a minor change, and simply adds in a word that fulfils the implicit meaning already present in the text. This type of change could as easily have been a slip of the tongue as a purposeful addition.
9 And blessed are all the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God.
In the Old World, Jesus was speaking in a political climate that was tremendously volatile. In such a case, there were likely many who were looking for the Triumphant Messiah, the military leader who would vanquish all of God’s (and Israel’s) enemies. The message of the Atoning Messiah was quite different, and it is in those complex and volatile political climes that we should see the blessing on the peacemakers. This was not an admonition to talk nicely to one’s next-door neighbor, but a firm declaration of the way the people ought to act in the face of the Roman domination. Rather than foment rebellion, Jesus blessed the peacemakers. “We should take the adjective in its more literal, active sense of one who makes peace, who brings reconciliation between opposing parties rather than one who patiently endures in a passive posture of nonresistance for the sake of peace.” (Robert Guelich. A Foundation for Understanding the Sermon on the Mount. Word Publishing, Dallas. 1982, p. 91). The reversal again comes not in the statements, but against expectations. There were those in the political climate who expected that they would be members of God’s kingdom by creating it through violence and calling upon or creating the Triumphant Messiah whom they expected would lead this earthly political uprising. They intended to be “children of God” through the violent overthrow of the Romans, and the restoration of the political glory of Israel. In contrast, Jesus tells these people that it would rather be the peacemakers who become “the children of God.” Their kingdom was not yet, but it was to come, and the access to that kingdom and position would come as peacemakers, not as revolutionaries. Book of Mormon Context: The political situation was quite different in the New World. However, in spite of the specific differences, there was yet a context in which the idea of being peacemakers rather than espousing violence would be entirely appropriate. Mesoamerica at this period was developing the cult of war, and the Nephites had had some experience with this. The experience with the Gadianton robbers is punctuated with the concept of “robbings and plunderings” which may be a direct reference to the types of wars that were typical among city-states in Mesoamerica. When the Gadianton robbers were the governing body of the Nephites not that many years previously, the Nephites themselves engaged in such “robbings and plunderings.” Certainly there had been many times in the past when the Nephite polity had been involved in warfare. In that context the reference of this Beatitude would be to eschew that type of cultural warfare.
10 And blessed are all they who are persecuted for my name's sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Book of Mormon Context: In contrast to the future persecutions of the believers, the Mesoamerican context was one of past persecutions. They were not being forewarned, but comforted after the fact. In the New World context the believers had also been persecuted by those who should have been their brethren, and it was likely that there were many who were in this audience in Bountiful who had either been persecuted, or who had a member of their family who had been. Nephi himself had a brother who had been stoned to death, although Nephi had performed the miracle of bringing him back to life. Textual: The Book of Mormon text alters the Matthean text. In the following verse, brackets indicate text added to the KJV translation of Matthew. Parenteses indicate text deleted/replaced in the Book of Mormon. Matthew 5:10 10 [And] Blessed are they [who] (which) are persecuted for [my name’s] (righteousness') sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. The addition of “who” in place of “which” regularized the text with more modern English usage. Since “they” are people, the more pronoun indicating people is used (who). The more interesting change is where “my name’s sake” replaces “righteousness’ sake.” The shift is from the more general concept in the Old World to the very specific belief in the Atoning Messiah in the New World. At least for the New World, this was a much more present and real concept when the risen Lord was standing before them.
11 And blessed are ye when men shall revile you and persecute, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake; 3 Nephi 12:12 12 For ye shall have great joy and be exceedingly glad, for great shall be your reward in heaven; for so persecuted they the prophets who were before you.
Textual: The changes between the Matthean redaction and that of the Book of Mormon are interesting and telling. In the following verses from Matthew, bracked words indicate words and/phrases added in the Book of Mormon. Parentheses will surround text that was deleted in the Book of Mormon. Matthew 5:11-12 11 [And] Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute (you,) and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. 12 [For ye shall have great joy] (Rejoice,) and be exceeding glad: for great [shall be] (is) your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets [who] (which) were before you. Of first interest is the subtraction of the “you” of “persecute you.” The “you” is italicized in the KJV text, and the removal of that word in this context creates another case of an alteration at the point of an italicized word. In this case, the sentence can be understood without it, and so it is removed. This indicates that the subtraction was created by an interaction with the KJV text rather than the underlying language in which the “you” might have been explicit, or was at least implied as was the “you” that was supplied by the KJV translators for the implied “you” of the Hebrew. The second set of changes comes from shifting tenses. The addition of “For ye shall have great joy…. Shall be” replaces “Rejoice…. Is.” The verb tense is moved from the present to the future. Of course the intent of the phrase was for a future blessing, and the alteration appears to have been made in contrast to the apparent present tense and therefore “current” promise of the KJV Matthean text. What Joseph did not understand was the use of the present as a future, a feature in many languages, including English, though it is not used as often. The Book of Mormon “corrects” a text that was technically correct as it stood, but represented a more archaic usage of English present tense.
13 Verily, verily, I say unto you, I give unto you to be the salt of the earth; but if the salt shall lose its savor wherewith shall the earth be salted? The salt shall be thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out and to be trodden under foot of men.
In the Beatitudes the blessed nature of the believer in the Atoning Messiah was emphasized. The blessing, however, emphasized a future blessing rather than a current one. In the Beatitudes we have a current people in a current time looking forward to a reversal and a blessing in the world to come. The implicit contrast between now and future is now refocused into the present. These blessed by marginalized believers are looking to a future blessing for themselves, but they are the blessing of the present world. The ironic contrast is that this marginalized group will be the blessing for the rest of the world that reviles them. The emphasis of the sermon is shifting away from the blessings of the believers to the responsibilities of the believers. Salt is small, and a little seasons a large pot. It is even an essential element for life, in spite of the smallness of the grains, and the fact that a relatively small amount is used to flavor then entire pot. The responsibility of the few believers is to flavor the “whole pot” of the world. That is their responsibility. The second clause emphasizes their personal responsibility in that task. They are salt, but if they are not salty they are worthless. Their responsibility is to bring the gospel to the whole world, but if they do not live it, then they are not truly “salt,” or the righteous who are worthy of the promised blessings. Textual: There are some interesting differences between the 3 Nephi text and that of the KJV Matthew. The bracketed text is added to the KJC in 3 Nephi, and the text in parentheses is deleted in the 3 Nephi text. Matthew 5:13 13 [Verily, verily, I say unto you, I give unto you to be] (Ye are) the salt of the earth: but if the salt [lose its] (have lost his) savour, wherewith shall [the earth] (it) be salted? [The salt] (it) [shall be] (is) thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men. Each of the alterations follows the same pattern. There is a replacement in 3 Nephi of something in Matthew. Each of the replacements serves to clarify the English meaning to a more modern audience. It does by expanding the reference (“I give unto you to be” as opposed to “Ye are,”) or to shift the tense to a more modern future tense rather than the more convoluted tense that reflected the underlying verb structure in the KJV (“lose its” replaces “have lost his”). Other awkward remnants of Hebrew are also removed to make the English flow better, such as the insertion of “its” instead of “his” since the reference is “salt,” which would require the impersonal in English. All of these changes improve the flow of the English reading of the KJV text. They do not alter the meaning at all. The only function of the changes is to make the meaning more accessible to an audience accustomed to a different style of English. The
“I give unto you” does add the idea that the requirement to be the salt of the
earth is a commandment of the Lord. This might be implicit in the declaration
of the imperative “ye are…” but nevertheless it does highlight the relationship
of the Savior to this statement. This is very clearly “given” as the mission of
this people. They are not the salt of the earth because they are naturally
salty, and implied by the interesting statement that the salt might lose its
flavor. In spite of the fact that they might not be what the world expects as its salt, it is nevertheless their
responsibility to be that salt. |
