-1

It is commonly held in religion that the authenticity and authority of Scripture is highest in its original text, since human translators can introduce errors and misunderstandings not present originally.

However, in the case of the Book of Mormon, the translation is a bit unique given that:

  1. We don't have a copy of the original Reformed Egyptian
  2. Joseph Smith made his translation not by his own linguistic knowledge, but with divine aid and under direct instruction from an angel (who presumably is not subject to the ordinary flaws of human translators)

Given this, does the English text Book of Mormon have just as much authority as, say, the Greek text of Matthew's Gospel or the Hebrew text of Genesis? Or does Joseph Smith's translation have the same ordinary flaws we would expect from any translation of original Scripture?

Nigel J
  • 25,017
  • 2
  • 26
  • 63
curiouslds
  • 23
  • 1
  • 4
    The original gold plates were supposed to have been inscribed in "Reformed Egyptian" - a language that does not appear to be known by any linguist. Since Joseph Smith claims to have had divine help to translate this unknown language into English, then there can be no way to prove the authenticity of what Joseph Smith wrote down since the gold plates "disappeared" . Can you please provide us with more information and links to official LDS sources to back up your question? Please take our Tour to see what we look for in good questions: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/tour – Lesley May 27 '21 at 16:35
  • 1
    Does this question/answer help? https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/67153/why-were-the-golden-plates-necessary-if-joseph-smith-received-his-translation-of – Lesley May 27 '21 at 16:41
  • @NigelJ Father of creation, not Father of spirits. To say that 2 individuals bear the title of Father is not to say that they are the same individual. Latter-day Saints do indeed believe that Jesus is Eternal (D&C 19:10-11) and that it was He who created the heavens and the earth (D&C 76:22-24) – Hold To The Rod May 27 '21 at 18:13
  • @GratefulDisciple good thoughts, and thanks for the charitable approach to the subject. By original manuscript are you referring to the plates of gold (not available for inspection), the O manuscript (partially extant) or the P manuscript (fully extant)? It's possible I misread the question--I took it to ask whether a translation by Joseph Smith should be considered (by believers) as just as inspired as the Reformed Egyptian record. A comparison of the O vs. P manuscripts isn't what I got out of the question, but is an interesting subject on its own. – Hold To The Rod May 28 '21 at 00:10
  • PS a helpful discussion of the O & P manuscripts can be found here – Hold To The Rod May 28 '21 at 00:11
  • 1
    @HoldToTheRod I plead ignorance to text criticism issues related to the Book of Mormon. It's great you brought it up. I'll be interested to read their take on them vis a vis the current edition that they distribute among members. Being a mainstream Nicene believer of course I don't place any value on the Book of Mormon, but I appreciate LDS members I personally know who try to live out their faith by genuinely loving their neighbors (LDS and non-LDS alike). – GratefulDisciple May 28 '21 at 00:17
  • @GratefulDisciple thanks for the kind words. Although I don't believe the Nicene Creed, I know many wonderful people that do. – Hold To The Rod May 28 '21 at 00:47
  • 1
    @HoldToTheRod I moved my original comment to Nigel's answer, since you in fact answered from LDS perspective (I misread it). +1 for this question, and +1 for your answer. – GratefulDisciple May 28 '21 at 03:29
  • 1
    @curiouslds your question needs to explicitly state whose authority it is talking about otherwise its confusing the people attempting to answer from their own perspectives. – Peter Turner May 29 '21 at 14:14

4 Answers4

7

Does the English text Book of Mormon have just as much authority as, say, the Greek text of Matthew's Gospel ?

The New Testament part of the Holy Bible, that is to say the collection of volumes contained in, for example, the Authorised Version, from Matthew to Revelation, is compiled from thousands of manuscripts, either partial, fragmented or (rarely) complete ; also from many tens of thousands of Patristic Citations (Dean John Burgon collated over 96,000) ; also from Lectionary references, similar to the more modern 'Book of Common Prayer' ; and from the 'Versions' that is to say the translations of the apostles' words into Syriac, Coptic, Latin and other languages.

On the other hand, the Book of Mormon is from a single anecdotal source. I say 'anecdotal' as there is only verbal testimony of its existence and that restricted to less than a handful of witnesses.

Also, its method of translation is obscure, to say the least, and cannot be verified by any means.

I cannot see how there could be any comparison of 'authority' (as the OP puts it) between these two sources of information, that is to say the Greek Text of the books of the New Testament as attributed to eight authors (nine if one does not attribute Hebrews) in comparison to the English presentation of the Book of Mormon.

Purely on the consideration of the matter regarded solely on the basis of the science of textual criticism, the comparison of the Book of Mormon to the Holy Bible is, in my view, impossible, as there is insufficient evidence of the existence of the original of the former to form any substantial view of the validity of its English presentation.

The Book of Mormon can only be assessed on another basis than that of Textual Criticism. But that is the fundamental basis of the Greek Text from which we get the English Bible.

If the two documents are produced on totally incompatible methods of compilation I do not understand how their 'authority' can be 'compared'.

Nigel J
  • 25,017
  • 2
  • 26
  • 63
  • 3
    This is not answering the question. The OP is asking LDS church's stance on whether the lost Book of Mormon's original manuscript is more authoritative than the Joseph Smith's English translation of it just like how most denominations assign greater authority to the best surviving Greek manuscript more than the English translation. Non-LDS should not judge using non-LDS denomination own's doctrine of inerrancy, inspiration, authority, and even textual criticism practice. LDS has their own doctrines for that. – GratefulDisciple May 28 '21 at 03:27
  • 2
    When this question was originally posted it did not have the LDS tag. That has been added. On the basis of the original question I don't see that the OP is asking for the official LDS position. Or have I missed something here? – Lesley May 28 '21 at 06:36
  • 3
    @Lesley To me, the only way to make this question makes sense and useful is to answer it within LDS doctrines. Non LDS doesn't even consider the Book of Mormon Scripture, how then would "authority" makes sense? Hence my earlier comment. I think we should let LDS members to intervene in this Q. (BTW I didn't vote down Nigel's answer.) – GratefulDisciple May 28 '21 at 11:54
  • 1
    I'm of the LDS faith and parts of this answer hold true but I'd have a slightly different interpretation of some of the points. I provided an LDS perspective answer below – depperm May 28 '21 at 12:43
  • 1
    @Lesley, Grateful simply tagging LDS does not an LDS doctrine question make. The title, body of the question etc.. have to match. This should be closed as a Truth Question until the catch-22'ed ness of the question can be resolved. – Peter Turner May 29 '21 at 14:10
2

Does the English text Book of Mormon have just as much authority as, say, the Greek text of Matthew's Gospel or the Hebrew text of Genesis?

There is always some meaning lost in any translation from one language to another. Given this fact, I'd say it has the same amount of authority as English translation of Matthew (JST version). It is also the closest translation from the source and so also does have as much authority/authenticity possible for a translation, in that Joseph Smith did [the] interpretation thereof by the gift of God.1

1 The Book of Mormon: Title Page

depperm
  • 9,271
  • 1
  • 29
  • 43
2

First, the original text of what became known as “The Book of Mormon” was Reformed Egyptian hieroglyphics, plus Chaldaic, Assyriac and Arabic, inscribed on gold plates, Smith said, which had to be translated by him into English. Smith apparently kept them in a box about 8 inches by 8 inches, and 5 inches thick; a mass of gold that size would weigh about 250 pounds. However, the original text on those gold plates is not available to check, so nobody can say Smith’s translation is perfect or imperfect, even if anybody knew what “Reformed Egyptian” hieroglyphics were.

Second, the Latter Day Saints Article of Faith 1:8 states that, “We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.” This means that the LDSs do not consider the Bible to be as accurately translated as is their Book of Mormon, for they attach no such proviso to it as they do to the Bible. Joseph Smith’s own annotated version of the King James Bible shows how often he considered the Bible to have been badly (i.e. inauthentically) translated. His marginal notes show how he considered the Bible “should” have read. There are no such annotations alongside their Book of Mormon. Clearly, they consider it to be an authentic translation whereas they view the Bible to have suffered many mistranslations over the centuries.

So, when the question is asked, “Does the English text Book of Mormon have just as much authority as, say, the Greek text of Matthew's Gospel or the Hebrew text of Genesis?” I would respectfully suggest that the real question here is, “Given that the LDS view of the Bible is that it has not remained authentically translated from the original koine Greek or from the ancient Hebrew, do they view the Book of Mormon in English to be authentically translated and, therefore, superior in reliability to the scriptures of the Bible?” If, when push comes to shove, LDSs go by Joseph Smith’s annotated King James Version rather than it, then they view Smith’s Book of Mormon to be authentic, while they view the King James Version to be imperfect.

This is not meant to cause offense but to flag up the simple fact that the LDS does not view the Bible to have remained authentic scripture over the centuries (otherwise Joseph Smith would not have written his annotated version), whereas they view their Book of Mormon to be authentic scripture requiring no annotated corrections.

A problem with this is the fact that the English Book of Mormon has required several editions since it was first produced in 1830, indicating that the latest edition is deemed to be more accurate (i.e. authentic) than the first edition. The first translation of the Book of Mormon was published under the title "The Book of Mormon: Joseph Smith describes himself as the AUTHOR & PROPRIETOR of the book." However, in later translations this was quickly changed to read "Joseph Smith Jnr. TRANSLATOR". And the original golden plates were whisked away by an angel after Smith had finished with them. So, what is the textual manuscript evidence for the Book of Mormon? I quote:

“The Mormon church has the original handwritten copy of the Book of Mormon as made by the scribes as reportedly dictated by Joseph Smith. This handwritten copy is in the archives of the church and not available for us to study. All that is available to the critic is a photo reprint of the original printed edition of the Book of Mormon, 1830 edition. This is called, ‘Joseph Smith Begins His Works, Volume 1” printed by Wilford C. Wood of Bountiful, Utah.” [Available from Modern Microfilm, 1350 S. West Temple, Salt Lake City, UT 81501. These volumes are available today.]

“There have been several revisions of the original Book of Mormon. A number of revisions have been made down through the years of time resulting in our present Book of Mormon. An examination of the photo reprint of the original edition of the Book of Mormon as compared with our present edition shows that there have been over 4,000 changes made. This is between just two copies. The New Testament has about twenty significant textual problems. Between the early Book of Mormon and the present Book of Mormon, there have been over 4,000 textual problems. These problems are a part of the very fabric, the warp and the woof, of the text. These problems consist of poor grammar, poor English, mispronounced words, and historical and geographical errors that run throughout the text.” [A Comparison of the Bible and Book of Mormon From a Text Critical View, p8 of typed manuscript, by Dr. Charles Arthur Crane, Caldwell, Idaho 1982)

I submit these points as providing evidence that the LDS view their translated Book of Mormon as superior (in terms of authenticity) to that of the English translation of the King James Bible. I am not a member of the LDS religion but offer this evidence as worthy of consideration equally by LDS members as by those who prefer the English King James Version of the Bible (minus Joseph Smith’s annotations).

Anne
  • 29,661
  • 1
  • 34
  • 116
  • 1
    Thank you for your thoughtful assessment of this question from multiple viewpoints. May I offer 2 points of clarification? 1) The plates of gold would structurally have to have been an alloy, rather than pure gold. Those who held them estimated the weight at 50-60 lbs, suggesting a gold-copper alloy. – Hold To The Rod May 28 '21 at 18:15
  • 1
  • Most of the original BoM manuscript (O) was destroyed by water in the 19th century -- the first copy that was made (P) is essentially fully extant, and it contains known copyist errors. Subsequent editions of the BoM have sought to correct the errors perpetuated by P. which was the source used for BoM printings in both the US & England in the 1830s. Like most of the 400,000 known New Testament variants, most of the variants from P (and its descendants) are not theologically material. There's a handy O vs. P summary here
    • – Hold To The Rod May 28 '21 at 18:16
  • @HoldToTheRod Those three points are noted. – Anne May 28 '21 at 18:27
  • 1
    I'll also add that when Joseph Smith listed himself as the author and proprietor that was for copyright reasons not because he was the author, and it was changed later to reflect that. The printers manuscript is available for study. – depperm May 29 '21 at 17:10
  • 1
    @depperm Noted as well, but I'm resisting temptation to detail the far more serious problems re. various editions of the BofM as mentioned by Dr. Crane, the "historical and geographical errors that run throughout the text.” It may be worth raising a specific question about that, to get to the nub of the problem, as a printer's manuscript proves nothing regarding the original text which is unavailable. – Anne May 29 '21 at 18:01
  • 1
    can you add a source to that document as I cannot find it (my google fu seems to be lacking). This might be Dr Charles Crane who seems to be an anti-mormon. Considering the LDS stance on geography is [to] not take a position on the specific geographic locations of Book of Mormon events in the ancient Americas. Speculation on the geography of the Book of Mormon may mislead instead of enlighten; such a study can be a distraction from its divine purpose. source, citing a known critic of the LDS mentioning errors in geography seems to misrepresent LDS beliefs – depperm May 29 '21 at 18:09
  • 1
    @depperm I have an old-fashioned typed manuscript which I worked from to photo-typset the text for a British publisher. I do not know of any on-line work of the author. I have a variety of sources for information about LDS beliefs, including the BofM and LDS literature. Yet just because a person might be a known critic of some LDS doctrine is no reason to say their points must be dismissed! But I will not comment further as my answer says what I felt needed to be said to answer that particular question. New questions need to be asked for the points you raise. Why not do that yourself? – Anne May 29 '21 at 18:51
  • IMO the OP is asking for an LDS perspective, which you did initially answer but then you also presented criticism to the answer, which seems like bad faith. Answering a denomination perspective question and then citing multiple criticisms against seems like an attempt to put it in bad light. Anyone can find criticism to specific denominations beliefs, one reason there are so many denominations. The 3 paragraphs from A problem... don't provide any evidence of an LDS view as you put it. Yes there were changes, and you can a plethora of LDS sources on what they were/why they happened. – depperm May 29 '21 at 19:32