Commenting on 2 Nephi 8:19 (which is a quote of Isa 51:19, but instead of reading “things,” has “sons”), Brant Gardner wrote the following:
Translation: This verse is perhaps one of the most important in illuminating
Joseph Smith’s relationship to the English text as he translated. Because I
accept that Joseph translated by the gift and power of God, I assume that his translation
is based on an original l text that was on the plates. However, the evidence
suggests that what was produced as the English translation was not precisely a
linguistically faithful representation of the language on the plates. A
contrasting position is represented by H. Clay Gorton, a former mission president,
who voices a very common assumption about the Book of Mormon: “it is possible
that the Brass plates were indeed an early document even in Lehis time and were
a prime source of the Old Testament as we know it today. Therefore it is assumed
in this work that any differences between the Book of Mormon Isaiah and other
Isaiah versions represent changes made to the Hebrew scriptures after the Brass
Plates had been removed from their midst.”
The problem
with this position is that it assumes the very issue that needs to be proved.
Are the Isaiah quotations in the Book of Mormon an authentic early version, or
are they modifications of the KJV Isaiah text? That is an important question,
and it should not be answered by a simple faith-declaration that the Book of Mormon
must be a better or more authentic translation. The Book of Mormon is a wonderful
work, but it does not require us to create myths to explain it. What we need to
do is understand it.
David P.
Wright has written extensively about the issue of Joseph Smith’s use of the KJV
Isaiah texts. While he concludes that the Book of Mormon is not an ancient text—a
conclusion I do not share—I find his data sound and draw from them significant information
about the nature of Joseph Smith’s translation.
Wright’s
analysis of the variations between the Book of Mormon Isaiah and KJV Isaiah
notes that while only 3.6 percent of the words in the KJV Isaiah passages
corresponding to those in the Book of Mormon are italicized, they represent
between either 22 or 38 percent of changes made in the Book of Mormon version
of the Isaiah passages. The lower percentage includes the removal of the italicized
word, and the higher percentage includes variants that retain the italicized
word, but that word may have influenced the variant.
The King James
Version translators italicized words implied in the source text, but not
explicitly stated. Joseph appears to have understood that these “added” words
were not in the Hebrew. Many of the Book of Mormon variations in the Isaiah
passages either simply remove those words of rewrite the text in a way that
continues to make sense without that particular word. Wright also notes other
cases where the evidence suggests that Joseph Smith was using only the King
James Version of Isaiah, rather than Isaiah in any other language.
These date
constitute evidence, but evidence for what? Wright interprets them as evidence
against the authenticity of the Book of Mormon because they indicate that
Isaiah was “translated” from English, not from whatever language was on the
plates. Unfortunately, that requires just as strong an initial faith-declaration
as does Gorton’s. The evidence can only suggest that the Book of Mormon isn’t a
translation if one begins with the assumption that it is a literal translation.
In
contrast, I see these data as explaining something crucial about the Book of
Mormon language that clearly depends on the King James Version. Joseph Smith’s translation
method allowed for the insertion of King James language. This is hardly
surprising. When someone translating from another language comes upon a passage
that he or she recognizes, the recognized version forms the basis for the translation.
What is
more important for our current text, however, is the fact that Joseph interacted
with his text. We do not have the opportunity of seeing this interaction except
in cases of close correlation with the KJV. Such cases illuminate the Lord’s explanation
about the translation process to Oliver Cowdery: “You must study it out in your
mind” (D&C 9:8). The translation process was not automatic; it was
participatory.
I conclude
that David Wright’s analysis of the italicized passages shows Joseph Smith
interacting with his text. He thought it out and produced his translation.
While the resulting “translation” does not fit our current definition of the
word, it does fit what Joseph understood himself to be doing. When modern translations
approach the task of translating documents such as the Bible, one of the
methods used is variously called dynamic or function equivalence. The intent of
such a translation is not to retain precision in the representation of the ancient
words, but rather to retain ancient meanings. As Mark L. Strauss (associate
professor of New Testament, Bethel Seminary, San Diego) suggests, a freer translation
has the potential of capturing more of the meaning, since it has the freedom to
add explanatory words or phrases. This looser connection between translation and
source appears to the model Joseph Smith used. We know that Joseph Smith edited
both the Book of Mormon text (For the 1837 edition) as well as the revelations he
gave (compiled into the Book of Commandments and later the Doctrine and
Covenants). Very clearly he understood the words he dictated to represent the
meaning; and if the meaning were not sufficiently clear, he could improve the language
so that the meaning was communicated more effectively.
In the
examples of the variants under consideration here, the larger sense of the
passages suggests that Joseph Smith’s substitution of “sons” for “things”
wrenches the sense of the text. It is perhaps understandable by reference to
the “sons” in verse 18, but that simply tells us that Joseph made his “translation”
as a result of focusing on a narrow part of the text rather than seeing the
passage in a fuller context. This error is more likely to be committed by a
modern translator than an ancient copyist. This narrow focus, rather than the
larger conceptual focus that made sense of the two “things,” coupled with the fact
that “things” is in italics—which Joseph apparently paid particular attention
to—tells me that “sons” is Joseph’s attempt to make sense of the text, not a reflection
of the underlying text. This evidence directly contradicts Gorton’s hypothesis.
However,
does this conclusion mean that Joseph did not actually translate the plates? Only
by the narrowest definition of “translation” and then only in cases where KJV
texts are clearly inserted. Perhaps this conclusion might be an indictment of the
whole text if there were no evidences of antiquity in any other aspect. Such evidence
exists, however. I therefore understand that Joseph is passing on information from
antiquity, but “studying it out” as he does. Does this mean that there might be
mistakes in the text? Of course. As Moroni2 declares in the title
page: “And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore,
condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat
of Christ.” This same caution applies to our understanding of Joseph Smith. (Brant
A. Gardner, Second Witness: Analytical and Contextual Commentary on the Book
of Mormon, 6 vols. [Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford, 2007], 2:152-55)
