FAIR

Faithful Study Resources for Come, Follow Me

“The Earliest Text” Versus the 1981 Edition

by

I have received several questions from friends and associates in relation to the recent release of Royal Skousen’s The Book of Mormon : The Earliest Text (New Haven, CT: Yale, 2009). This volume is the culmination of the Critical Text Project, an effort to reproduce through textual criticism, inasmuch as it is possible, the original text of the Book of Mormon as dictated. Most of the questions tend to revolve around what relationship this text might eventually have to the official edition (1981) presently in use. Will such a text usurp the present official edition? Will the selections made by Skousen ever find there way into a future official edition? Etc.

Since the “Introduction,” authored by Grant Hardy answers at least one of these questions quite admirably I thought it would be of use to those interested in this question, as well as those attempting to assess the value of this volume for purposes other than scholarly inquiry, to reproduce an excerpt therefrom:

It will be apparent that the original text is both more repetitive and less grammatical than the standard version. These qualities have always posed a problem for readers, and even for Joseph Smith himself. In his editing for the 1837 and 1840 editions, he made several thousand changes, virtually all grammatical or stylistic in nature, in an attempt to modernize the language. (He even removed forty-seven instances of the ubiquitous phrase “and it came to pass.”) Critics have often seized on these corrections to ask why a text claiming divine origins was not more eloquent, or to wonder why God would not have gotten things right the first time. These are theological rather than historical questions, and to his credit Skousen has edited both conservatively and unapologetically, by which I mean that he had been willing to follow the data wherever it leads, but only when there is a preponderance of evidence. The Earliest Text reverses most of Joseph Smith’s secondary editing.

One result of this choice is that it is very unlikely that the LDS church will ever adopt The Earliest Text as its official, canonical version. To do so would be to turn back on a path towards grammatical regularization begun by Mormonism’s first prophet. Moreover, the LDS church has concerns and priorities that take precedence over exact scholarly reconstructions. Skousen’s project has been done independently, without ecclesiastical approval or endorsement, but the church has nevertheless been supportive of his efforts, granting him complete access to the original manuscript and providing support from university resources. To once again cite the example of New Testament scholarship, it could be argued that the Greek text, as established in the Nestle-Aland twenty-seventh edition, has the best claim be being accepted as the canonized word of God, but most people will benefit from translations. So also, the current LDS edition of the Book of Mormon can be considered a translation of sorts into more standard English. (Grant Hardy, “Introduction” in The Book of Mormon: The Earliest Text, Ed. Royal Skousen [New Haven, CT: Yale, 2009], pp. xix-xx. Hereafter “Introduction.”)

This statement sheds some light on several questions related to the relationship between The Earliest Text and the 1981 edition. First amongst these is revealed in the 1981 edition itself where an introductory piece entitled “A Brief Explanation About The Book of Mormon” notes:

About this edition: Some minor errors in the text have been perpetuated in past editions of the Book of Mormon. This edition contains corrections that seem appropriate to bring the material into conformity with prepublication manuscripts and early editions edited by the Prophet Joseph Smith.

The “concerns and priorities” of the “LDS church” are thus in part revealed, consistency with “prepublication manuscripts and early editions edited by the Prophet Joseph Smith” being among them. Therefore, since “The Earliest Text reverses most of Joseph Smith’s secondary editing” it is clear that it is not merely “very unlikely that the LDS church will ever adopt The Earliest Text as its official, canonical version” but virtually assured that The Earliest Text will never usurp an “edition contain[ing] corrections that seem appropriate to bring the material into conformity with prepublication manuscripts and early editions edited by the Prophet Joseph Smith.”

However, it should also be noted that many of the revisions are “quibbles over prepositions, articles, plurals, variant word forms, and so forth” and “do not seem to make much of a difference in meaning.” (Introduction, p. xix.) I would be a bit more cautious in my assessment and state only that the revisions do not alter meaning significantly but may in some cases alter the meaning subtly.

Yet is not as if one reading The Earliest Text will come to conclusions in relation to meaning which will stand diametrically opposed to the 1981 edition, rather, interesting insights might be gained by reading both. Take for instance a few examples provided by Hardy such as Alma 39:13:
1981 Edition:
That ye turn to the Lord with all your mind, might, and strength; that ye lead away the hearts of no more to do wickedly; but rather return unto them, and acknowledge your faults and that wrong which ye have done.
 
The Earlist Text:
that ye turn to the Lord with all you mind, might, and strength,
that ye lead away the hearts of no more to do wickedly,
but rather return unto them and acknowledge your faults
and repair that wrong which ye have done.
 
One will quickly notice the inclusion of the word “repair” in The Earliest Text which is conspicuously absent from the 1981 edition. Interesting how this supports the LDS concept that repentance involves reparation and not merely recognition of wrong-doing. This is indeed an alteration in meaning, but not a significant one.
 
Another example noted by Hardy is Alma 51:15:
1981 Edition:
And it came to pass that he sent a petition, with the voice of the people, unto the governor of the land, desiring that he should read it, and give him (Moroni) power to compel those dissenters to defend their country or to put them to death.
 
The Earliest Text:
And it came to pass that he sent a petition
with the voice of the people unto the governor of the land,
desiring him that he should heed it
and give Moroni, power to compel those dissenters
to defend their country or to be put to death.
 
Again, the variation is not necessarily significant, but it does nevertheless alter meaning. Moroni desires not that “the governor of the land” simply “read” his “petition” but that he “heed” it. The relevant definition within Websters 1828 dictionary defines “read” as “To inspect and understand words or characters; to peruse silently; as, to read a paper or letter without uttering the words; to read to one’s self.” While to “heed” is defined as “To mind; to regard with care; to take notice of; to attend to; to observe.” The significance is that the latter implies action, not merely passive attention. This is certainly more consistent with Moroni’s character.
 
As to whether future editions of the Book of Mormon may incorporate such changes, it is difficult to be certain. The publications committee’s have most certainly been following Skousen’s work and I would assume that revisions which do not conflict with Joseph’s edits would find their way into the text. The two above revisions were indeed not the result of rolling back Joseph’s edits in deference to an unedited manuscript but rather, in the first instance, a correction of  an error resulting from an ink blot which obscured “repair,” leading to the improbable reading “retain that wrong,” and the resultant omission of “retain.” In the second, the typesetter misinterpreted the manuscript.
 
Thus there seem to be clear improvements to both comprehension and meaning which can result from the inclusion of some of the revisions. I foresee that future editions printed under the imprimatur (to steal a Catholic phrase) of the church authorities will indeed incorporate many of the revisions of this type although I am certainly in agreement with Grant Hardy that you will not be flipping through your copy of The Earliest Text while in Gospel Doctrine anytime soon.

Reader Interactions

Comments

  1. Ardis Parshall says

    Matt, that’s not a real comment but a “trackback” showing that someone has linked to your post. In this case, though, it’s a spam link endeavoring to get FAIR readers to visit a site to see advertisements (possibly fraudulent ones) and should probably be deleted.

  5. Keller says

    Nice first post. Welcome to FAIR blog Matt. I like how you provide some clarification about the types of changes that could be considered in future editions. Maybe you guys have other examples some changes that probably wouldn’tbe reverted back to the “earliest text?”

    BHodges pointed out an interesting variant in a passage that originally used the word directors instead of interpreters. Oliver’s wife left an account of the translation process that referred to one of Joseph’s seer stones as “directors.” This offers subtle confirmation that Oliver used “interpreters” to refer to the seer stone Joseph used when he was a scribe. The couple used Book of Mormon terminology to inclusively to describe Joseph’s revelatory aids. This in contrast to Joseph and Lucy Smith who came to prefer biblical terminology urim and thummim to refer to such aids (after Phelps made the connection in 1833.

  6. Matt Carlson says

    Yes, Keller, that would be Alma 37:21 and 24 where the Printers Manuscript and the 1830 edition both support “directors” as opposed to “interpreters” in verse 21, and in verse 24 the Original Manuscipt as well as the Printers and the 1830 also supports “directors” over “interpreters.” Both of the revisions occured in the 1920 edition and so may or may not be included in any future Church sanctioned edition as they do not appear to conflict with Joseph’s edits (he obviously did not participate in any editing after June 27, 1844).

    The present 1981 edition retains the 1920 alteration. This is one of the “719 important changes in the history of the Book of Mormon” which Skousen helpfully includes in an appendix of The Earliest Text, thus adding another benefit of the volume.

    The only way to obtain a complete listing of all of the variations is to purchase the six part (volume) Analysis of Textual Variants of the Book of Mormon (Provo, UT: FARMS, 2004-2009). Skousen desingates this “Volume 4” of the Critical Text project (but it is actually six volumes, perhaps arranged that way to make them easier to use).

    Or one can wait for “Volume 5,” A Complete Electronic Collation of the Book of Mormon which is presently “in preparation.”

    Unfortunately, I haven’t scared up the coin for the $300 Analysis of Textual Variants of the Book of Mormon (each volume being $49.95) and so must make do with Volume 1 (Original Manuscript), 2 (Printer’s Manuscript, 2 volumes) and of course my copy of The Earliest Text.

    As to value however, The Earliest Text at only $35 full retail (less through most retailers) is a bargain.

  8. David Bolden says

    I hope I’m not alone in noting the irony of the typo in the description of this volume which makes an effort to resolve errors in the BOM.
    “approval or endorsement, byt the church has nevertheless been supportive of his efforts,”

  9. antonius says

    We succeed only as we identify in life, or in war, or in anything else, a single overriding objective, and make all other considerations bend to that one objective.

Trackbacks