   |
| Understanding Scriptural Reality |
|
|
I remember trying to give a talk in Spanish. I prepared in English, then translated. I developed a talk about Mormons as a "peculiar" people. I stressed how unique we were, and what a compliment it was. Imagine my shock when I went to my Spanish Bible to quote the relevant text. In Spanish, God did not call Israel his "peculiar" people, but his "very own" people. That didn't fit my talk at all! I had to check an English dictionary to find that the concept of possession was one of the archaic meanings of peculiar (as in "this pen is peculiar to me"). I had pondered the scriptures, and come up with a good talk based totally on a misunderstanding of what those scriptures were really trying to tell us. What do we need to know to begin to understand the scriptures better? Of course reading with the help of the Spirit is the ultimate way in which the scriptures are written in our hearts. However, there are some things we can learn about the scriptures which will help make them more comprehensible. The very word "scripture" describes written texts. What sets apart written texts called "scriptures" from written texts called "novels" is the acceptance of that text as sacred. For the Christian world, the scriptures contain the record the dealings of God with man. For the vast majority of the scriptures we read, they are the dealings of God with a people, or with particular prophets. In all cases, the scriptures come to us through at least one other human being, and in the majority of cases, many more than one man or woman has played a role in the text of the scriptures we read. The eighth Article of Faith proclaims that "We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly..." Such a qualification on what we will and will not believe in the Bible deserves an explanation. That explanation has everything to do with the human beings through whom we have received the text. To fully understand the human trail behind the scriptures, we need to examine some salient facts about the way we have received all of the scriptures we deem to be sacred. In some ways, one of the keys to a better understanding of the sacred scriptures is through a secular examination. For speakers of English, the Doctrine and Covenants provides a unique opportunity in the study of the word of God. It is the only Christian scripture available to man which contains the first hand revelation of God to man, without any other intermediary than the Prophet Joseph Smith, in the original language in which the revelation was recorded. Even that statement requires slight modification, because many of the revelations were written by a scribe as he heard them from Joseph. I know of no studies which indicate that there were any changes in the revelations due to the error of the scribe. We can assume that they were written correctly. What can we learn from this unique study opportunity? The first point is very simplistic, and should be obvious, but is so obvious that the implications are completely overlooked. The revelations are recorded in English. Why is that even worth mentioning? It is important to remember that the bulk of the scriptures held sacred by the LDS church were not originally written in English. In fact they were originally recorded in various languages. It is clear that God is capable of communicating His mind and will to his children regardless of the language they speak. It is important, then, to learn that God's communication with man comes in language of the prophet to whom He communicates. The second point is that the even though the Doctrine and Covenants was written in English, the English in which the revelations were recorded was in some ways unnatural and contrived. Joseph made a conscious attempt in many of his scriptural writings to make his language patterns similar to those in the King James version of the Bible. He uses "thee, thou, wilt, etc." all archaic forms of English not found in his sermons. He attempted to construct sentences which follow the pattern of those in the King James Version. This language is in the scriptures in spite of the fact that Joseph did not speak that way on a daily basis. He did not use thee and thou with Emma. Joseph's conscious attempt to fit his scriptural language into the mold of the King James version of the Bible is directly related to his desire that those revelations be seen as scripture. As the Bible in common use, the King James Version was most familiar to his contemporary audience. They were familiar with it in a way that most modern Americans are not. For many, it was the only book they had read. The stories and the language were the substance of all their religious upbringing and thought. For them, as well as Joseph, the thees and thous, the rhythms and cadences of the King James version defined what they thought to be scripture. While it is obvious that Joseph Smith consciously molded his scriptural writings in the semblance of King James English, it is less obvious to many that he was not adept at the rules this archaic form of English. As a result, he frequently makes grammatical mistakes with those constructions. I have a good friend whose native language is German. Like most people who learn a second language well, he is acutely aware of the structure of the language. He often remarks that many of these clearly deliberate attempts to use King James English have got it wrong. They are not grammatically correct. Modern English speakers reading the same passage typically skip right over such grammatical errors because the language is also unfamiliar to us, and we don't know the rules either. We are much like Joseph, where we simply feel that saying thee or thou in scripture, or in prayer, is somehow the right thing to do. Unfortunately, much of the time we also "do it wrong". Such errors in the scriptures are of human, not divine, origin. Because we do not know the language God speaks (though we know that He speaks so all can understand, regardless of language) the clear lesson to be learned is that the language in which the scripture is couched is directly related to the person and time in which the revelation is received. The revelation of God contained in scripture is true, regardless of the erudition of the prophet. In the Old Testament, the elegant Isaiah is equally as true as the itinerant Jeremiah. The passage of time changes language and changes meanings of words and phrases. All scripture is subject to this common human trait. Scripture is revealed to a real human being in a real point in time, and the scripture we receive comes in the language of that human being from that point in time, including whatever stylistic devices the Prophet used to record it. The third point illuminates the relationship of the revelation from God and the scripture we read concerning that revelation. Years ago, I was working in the Manuscript Division of the Harold B. Lee Library at BYU when the library received some manuscript copies of the text of the Doctrine and Covenants. Scholars examined these originals against the printed texts of the same Section in the Doctrine and Covenants. To my knowledge, this is the first time when an original text of a scripture was able to be compared to the common (printed) text of the same scripture. The comparison is illuminating for understanding more of the nature of revelation and scripture.(1) There were several occasions where the printed text was different from the original manuscript. In each of those occasions, the difference was that the printed text was expanded, and contained information not in the original manuscript. Looking carefully at the changes in text from manuscript to print, all of the changes clarify something that was in the original manuscript. Because we know that Joseph Smith was still alive when the changes were made, it is safe to assume that they were made with his knowledge. In fact, it is reasonably safe to assume that Joseph made the changes himself! The implications for the nature of scripture are important. First, Joseph clearly did not think that the text of the revelation as it came from his mouth was the inalterable word of God. He clearly understood God's will, and attempted to communicate that will to us. In the original instance of the revelation, we have the first attempt to make the mind and will of God known. Upon some review, Joseph apparently felt that the words originally recorded did not fully clarify that mind and will. Text was added which helped clarify a phrase or an idea. For Joseph, the revelation of the mind and will of God is the real substance of the scriptures, not the original text. The relationship between the ability of scripture to communicate the mind and will of God and the specific words used to communicate is obvious in the case of translations. While English speakers may have a certain comfort in reading the original language of the modern day revelations, we are still tied to translations of all other scriptures, including the Book of Mormon. We must believe that all languages are capable of communicating the same mind and will of God, else no one could understand the Book of Mormon because we don't even know the language in which the Book was written!(2) For all who receive the scriptures, in whatever language, the scriptures have the power to communicate to our souls. They can do this in any number of languages, from the "original" to the most exotic. We need not feel superior for having the Doctrine and Covenants in its original revealed language, any more than we should feel denied because we must read the Bible in translation. It is the import of the words, more than the words themselves which matter. This is not to say that translations need not be precise, only that meaning is not tied to specific words or sentences in specific languages. Of course, the better the translation, the better we will understand that underlying meaning. These principles of understanding the text of scripture hold for all our modern scriptures, as well as the ancient. In the Book of Mormon, the text follows the same lines as Joseph's other scriptural writings and revelations. It is couched in language which consciously imitates the King James' Bible language, with the same grammatical errors as noted above. There are even passages which are virtually identical to the King James Version. This does not indicate that this is the way in which God thinks about those passages, necessarily, but that Joseph understood that their meaning was parallel. He used the precise language from the King James version rather than create a brand new translation of the same thing. This is a process that many novice "translators" have experienced. I remember distinctly sitting in a class in ancient Greek, and being given a passage from the New Testament to translate. To a person, we identified this familiar passage and reproduced it virtually identically to that in the King James Version. Our professor then pointed out the many nuances and words we had missed. Our "translation", while made from the original, was couched in a pattern that was familiar to all of us. In fact, the pattern was so strong, it was difficult to even imagine another way to translate it. For Joseph, the word "translate" clearly had a different meaning that the technical use we tend to expect. "[Joseph Smith] was a translator in the grand manner, whose calling was to convey the thoughts of the ancients to his own generation by any and all means which the Spirit put at his disposal. . . He understands "translating," in its broad and proper sense, as the handing on of any part of the heritage of the past from one generation or culture or language to another, in which the rendering of written texts is only part of the process" (Hugh Nibley. The Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri. Deseret Book Company, Salt Lake City, 1975, page 49). The resulting implication for the Book of Mormon is that the gross structure of the original text will be clearly present, but finer stylistic analysis is questionable. It is equally a mistake to dismiss the "translation" because of errors or changes as it is to rely upon the translation concept too heavily and try to determine the underlying language from the surface structures. The Bible differs in one major way from any of the other scripture in the Mormon canon. It has arrived to us only after a long history of multiple manuscripts, collections, and translations. The ties of the Bible to its history are intricate, and it is overly simplistic to suppose that they have no impact on the text we read. In fact, if we do not account for the many human hands which have had an effect on the Bible, we will never be able to reconcile some of the glaring contradictions and problems it contains(3) . This is clearly the reason why Mormons believe "the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly". It is important to remember, however, that "translate" was for Joseph (who penned the Articles of Faith) a different concept than that of the scholars. When Joseph's "translation" of the Bible is examined, it is clear that he is not making a technical re-translation from an "original" text. He is clarifying issues than are thorny. Joseph is uncomfortable with the Old Testament phrasing that seems to have God repenting. Clearly God could do nothing which would cause Him to repent, how could He do wrong? Joseph didn't know how to explain the Bible in a historical context and language style, but he did know that certain concepts contained in the Bible did not fit with the gospel as it had been revealed to him. Mormons are not required to believe the Bible to be inerrant, that is, to believe that it is perfect as it is. We know it requires some outside help. Where we sometimes fall short, however, is in the amount of understanding we bring to the Bible text. While we are willing to admit to small changes, we (as a people) are uncomfortable with much of the modern scholarship which sees multiple layers of texts, with various editors. Frequently, the putative writer of a book will not be the one for whom the book is named. For instance, the scholarly world would proclaim that while the first five books of the Bible deal with Moses, they were likely written by someone else. Biblical scholars have devised multiple ways to study the text of the Bible. Each has a methodology, a set of results, and its own adherents. Among different methods are the Historical-Critical Method, Structuralism, Form Criticism, and Redaction/Composition Criticism(4). Each has the ability to shed new light on the meaning of the scriptures. Each, of course, also holds the danger of over-interpreting on an intellectual level, to the exclusion of the spiritual response. How should we understand the scholarly approach? With caution. Any scholar in any field will admit that there is some scholarship which is of questionable value. We should not accept all that they tell us any more readily than we should reject all that they tell us. We are best served to follow Joseph's Smith's advice about the Apocrypha: "Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you concerning the Apocrypha--There are many things contained therein that are true, and it is mostly translated correctly; There are many things contained therein that are not true, which are interpolations by the hands of men" (DC 91:1-2). Comprehending the human trail which has lead to our sacred texts gives us a better perspective to understanding the texts themselves. It highlights the reasons why we believe the Bible "as far as it is translated correctly". In all cases of scripture, it is our privilege to read and understand. It is our right to know that revelation stands higher than all of the written texts. Early in the Christian church, the conflict between text and living testament became an issue. At that early point, there were many copies of texts being passed around which were taken to be scripture. Some of those texts we have in the Bible, some of the them were rejected in the councils selecting the sacred texts. Much more so than today, early Christians had multiple choices for their "scripture". During that time, it was equally important that the saints understand that they were to believe "as far as translated correctly", at least in Joseph's meaning of the term. The early church Father Ignatius wrote a letter to the Philadelphians, and told them: 20. Because I have heard of some who say; unless I find it written in the originals, I will not believe it to be written in the Gospel. And when I said, It is written; they answered what lay before them in their corrupted copies. 21. But to me Jesus Christ is instead of all the uncorrupted monuments in the world; together with those undefiled monuments, his cross, and death, and resurrection, and the faith which is by him; by which I desire, through your prayers, to justified. (Ignatius to Philadelphians, 2:20-21. Cited in The Lost Books of the Bible and the Forgotten Books of Eden. p. 184) We are in a similar situation to Ignatius. While we are not dealing with corrupted copies in the malicious sense, we are yet dealing with copies which bear the marks of their handling by mortal men. In these scriptures we will find eternal life, but must be prepared to do so in spite of the human elements we find in them. The Book of Mormon is no less true for its passages which clearly reflect the King James Version than is the King James Version itself. We need not be concerned when scholars in the church or out point out some of the human elements in our scriptures. It is all right. It is the way God has always worked. They still contain the revelation of Eternal Reality for us to discern. 1. I should note, in fairness, that this is information I gleaned from conversations with those studying the documents. I do not know of any published study presenting these findings. 2. We know it was "Reformed Egyptian",but we don't know to what modern or known ancient language "Reformed Egyptian" refers. Although the book itself states that it could have been written in Hebrew, it also clearly states that it was not: Mormon 9:32 And now, behold, we have written this record according to our knowledge, in the characters which are called among us the reformed Egyptian, being handed down and altered by us, according to our manner of speech. 33 And if our plates had been sufficiently large we should have written in Hebrew; but the Hebrew hath been altered by us also; and if we could have written in Hebrew, behold, ye would have had no imperfection in our record. 34 But the Lord knoweth the things which we have written, and also that none other people knoweth our language; and because that none other people knoweth our language, therefore he hath prepared means for the interpretation thereof. 3. 3The most obvious case is the two separate stories of creation in Genesis. They will be discussed later. 4. 4An excellent introduction to Biblical criticism is Keegan, Terrence, J. O.P. Interpreting the Bible. Paulist Press, New York. 1985. |
||
| by Brant Gardner. Copyright 1998 |
The majority of
our knowledge of the revelation of God to man is contained in the scriptures. Because they contain so much important
information, it is critical that we understand how to use them to extract that information. For many the language
style and vocabulary is unfamiliar. Even for those who are not daunted by the language, the cultural context is
unfamiliar. In short, it is altogether too easy to read without comprehension. The scriptures themselves encourage
us to "ponder", not "read" (Moroni 10:3). Sometimes, even our pondering seems to be in vain.|
|
 |