Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Maxwell Insititute Study Edition Book of Mormon


Recommended Posts

Last week, I got a copy of the Maxwell Institute Study Edition (MISE) of the Book of Mormon, edited by Grant Hardy. It was released less than a year ago, but I haven't seen much discussion of the book on this Forum, so I thought I'd share a few of my thoughts.

First of all, I bought Grant Hardy's Reader's Edition of the Book of Mormon (published in 2005) back in 2011. When I was reading the Book of Mormon all the way through for the first time, I found Hardy's Reader's Edition to be a valuable tool: the more reader-friendly layout was a very helpful tool, especially for a non-LDS reader like myself. The MISE is possibly even better, especially considering that he was able to use the 2013 text of the BoM, instead of the public domain 1920 text that he used in the Reader's Edition. One thing I particularly like in the MISE is that the page headings have both the LDS chapters and verses, as well as the chapter numbers for the 1830 edition, so it's very simple to see where the original chapter divisions were, while still being able to look up references with the modern LDS numbering system.

Hardy's system of using bold print to indicate intertextuality within the BoM, as well as differences between biblical allusions/quotes and their KJV versions, is illuminating. Combining that convention with the textual footnotes really helps the reader see textual connections that may not be immediately apparent. He also refers to Royal Skousen's critical text work in many footnotes, which enables the reader to place the current text in the context of the BoM's publishing history.

I think the only downside for me is that the MISE is currently only available in a paperback format. It's a very sturdy paperback, but seeing as how my copy of the Reader's Edition is already falling apart, I'm hoping that maybe someday the MISE would become available in a hardcover edition.

Some of the following reviews cover the MISE far more completely than I can at this point, so I'll share the links, rather than repeating all the info in them...

"By Common Consent" review

"Interpreter" review

"Book of Mormon Central" review

Also, I found this interview on LDSPerspectives with Hardy to be quite informative and interesting.

Would love to hear others' thoughts on this edition.

 

Link to comment

 

13 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Cory, you are so perceptive that, even though you are not LDS, you should be a member of the LDS Scripture Publications Committee.

Thanks, Robert! That means a lot to me.

Link to comment

This makes me think of the process of running a program that will compare a document with its later versions (a difference algorithm).  I have tried using Microsoft Word and other utilities but I have never been satisfied with the results.

Basically the app should be able to compare doc-A with doc-B and produce a third file that will look just like doc-B but with annotations inserted into it.  If a word is found in B but not in A, the word should be highlighted in red or surrounded with angle brackets.  If a word is in A but deleted from B, the word should be restored to B with it being changed to a strikethrough.

This issue came up for me in the last several years when I tried to do a comparison between OT Isaiah with the BoM.

Link to comment
1 minute ago, longview said:

This makes me think of the process of running a program that will compare a document with its later versions (a difference algorithm).  I have tried using Microsoft Word and other utilities but I have never been satisfied with the results.

Basically the app should be able to compare doc-A with doc-B and produce a third file that will look just like doc-B but with annotations inserted into it.  If a word is found in B but not in A, the word should be highlighted in red or surrounded with angle brackets.  If a word is in A but deleted from B, the word should be restored to B with it being changed to a strikethrough.

This issue came up for me in the last several years when I tried to do a comparison between OT Isaiah with the BoM.

Bluebeam will compare large .pdf files against each other. The third file it produces will show all agreements in black, original version in red and newer version in green. It makes it very easy to spot changes in large documents.

Link to comment

I just noticed that the title page reformatting isn't great. A comma after upon plates, before taken, would help clarify that the account was taken from Nephi's plates. The Wherefore subparagraph could begin a new paragraph. The new paragraph line "The interpretation thereof . . ." probably belongs with the preceding subparagraph, and the Ether subparagraph would then be its own paragraph. The "Which is to show" subparagraph should probably be its own paragraph, instead of using parentheses around the preceding Ether subparagraph and discussing the issue in a note. The "Which is to show" paragraph could naturally include the "And also" subparagraph. "Which is to show", as indicated in the note, applies to the entire account.

The original archaism of the edited, modernized phrase "if there are faults they are the mistakes of men" wasn't noted. The original syntax matches language Lancelot Andrewes used in the early 1600s. Also, the meaning of scattered is archaic, since it means 'separated (out)', not 'dispersed', but there's no note about this archaic meaning. (At times archaism is noted.) There's a biblical archaism "how great things" that was unnecessarily edited to "what great things"; this wasn't noted. There's another original, nonbiblical archaism that wasn't noted either: "by the way of Gentile".

Not a great start to the study edition, but there is a lot of useful information to be found in the footnotes.

Link to comment

Here are some of my thoughts related to Hardy’s comments on Book of Mormon translation, to be found on page 623 of this new edition. My own comments are based on thorough, systematic study of the Book of Mormon text as a linguist, only possible because of the foundational work Skousen has carried out over the past three decades, which, as indicated, informs this new edition.
 

Quote

Translation: Despite Joseph Smith’s assertion that he had translated the Nephite record “through the gift and power of God” (title page), there is still no consensus among Latter-day Saints as to how exactly he produced the Book of Mormon. Some scholars believe that the seer stone provided mental impressions,

According to Matthew Davis, Joseph told a group assembled in Washington DC in February 1840 that he had penned it [had it written down], as dictated by God. That fits quite well with 2n2724 — that is, God controlled the wording.

Instead of saying that the seer stone provided mental impressions, this would be better and more clearly stated as the Lord gave Joseph ideas — cf. Gardner 2011:276.

 

Quote

. . . which Joseph then put into his own words (perhaps something like his reception of most of the revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants).

Here Hardy inserts a parenthetical as a given, even though it isn't. This comment about Doctrine and Covenants revelations is quite speculative and probably inaccurate for the vast majority of them. There is a published paper on this topic, ignored here.

 

Quote

This mode of translation might account for some of the irregular grammar, the anachronisms, and the phrases borrowed from the King James Bible, as well as Joseph’s willingness to modify wording and grammar in later editions.

This is a highly problematic sentence. A revealed-words view actually accounts for the irregular grammar nearly comprehensively, while a revealed-ideas view fails to account for a lot of the irregular grammar. This is because there is plenty of bad grammar that doesn’t match Joseph’s own bad grammar. A revealed-words view also better accounts for the large amount of intricate biblical blending in the text as well as the original dictation language of extended biblical passages, not to mention all the unfamiliar names. Also, if one considers Joseph’s later editing systematically, which Skousen has done, it becomes clear that it wasn’t the result of further revelation. Thus Joseph’s willingness to make mostly formal, meaning-neutral edits is extremely weak evidence for revealed ideas.

 

Quote

Others [sic] scholars, however, think that Joseph probably saw the text in the seer stone and read it aloud to his scribes—

Seeing text in or on the seer stone doesn’t unambiguously indicate a revealed-words view—specifically, Gardner thinks that Joseph saw text on the seer stone which derived from ideas (2011:274); I made this same mistake in a published article.

 

Quote

—which better explains the consistency of language [yes], the intricacies of the narrative [maybe], the internal allusions [yes], the testimony of eyewitnesses to the translation process [dictation process], and the immediate corrections that appear regularly in the original manuscript when scribes got a word wrong or misspelled a name at its first appearance.

 

Quote

In this case, Joseph would have been using the seer stone to gain access to a previously existing translation, perhaps one done by God himself or by appointed angels.

The lexis, grammar, and syntax of the text, along with the specific character of King James language quotation and blending, indicate to an extremely high confidence level that Joseph Smith didn't compose the English-language translation.

Link to comment

Here's an alternative presentation of the title page, with critical text readings. I've highlighted some of the things I mentioned above.

Quote

An account written by the hand of Mormon upon plates,
taken
from the plates of Nephi.

Wherefore it is an abridgment of the record
of the people of Nephi, and also of the Lamanites,
written to the Lamanites,
which are a remnant of the house of Israel,
and also to Jew and Gentile,
written by way of commandment,
and also by the spirit of prophecy and of revelation,
written and sealed and hid up unto the Lord
that they might not be destroyed,
to come forth by the gift and power of God
unto the interpretation thereof,
sealed up by the hand of Moroni,
and hid up unto the Lord,
to come forth in due time by the way of Gentile,
the interpretation thereof by the gift of God.

An abridgment taken from the book of Ether also,
which is a record of the people of Jared,
which were scattered at the time
the Lord confounded the language of the people
when they were building a tower to get to heaven.

Which is to shew unto the remnant of the house of Israel
how great things the Lord hath done for their fathers,
and that they may know the covenants of the Lord,
that they are not cast off forever,
and also to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile
that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God,
manifesting himself unto all nations.

And now if there be fault, it be the mistake of men.
Wherefore condemn not the things of God,
that ye may be found spotless at the judgment seat of Christ.

 

Link to comment
13 minutes ago, champatsch said:

I just noticed that the title page reformatting isn't great. A comma after upon plates, before taken, would help clarify that the account was taken from Nephi's plates. The Wherefore subparagraph could begin a new paragraph. The new paragraph line "The interpretation thereof . . ." probably belongs with the preceding subparagraph, and the Ether subparagraph would then be its own paragraph. The "Which is to show" subparagraph should probably be its own paragraph, instead of using parentheses around the preceding Ether subparagraph and discussing the issue in a note. The "Which is to show" paragraph could naturally include the "And also" subparagraph. "Which is to show", as indicated in the note, applies to the entire account.

The original archaism of the edited, modernized phrase "if there are faults they are the mistakes of men" wasn't noted. The original syntax matches language Lancelot Andrewes used in the early 1600s. Also, the meaning of scattered is archaic, since it means 'separated (out)', not 'dispersed', but there's no note about this archaic meaning. (At times archaism is noted.) There's a biblical archaism "how great things" that was unnecessarily edited to "what great things"; this wasn't noted. There's another original, nonbiblical archaism that wasn't noted either: "by the way of Gentile".

Not a great start to the study edition, but there is a lot of useful information to be found in the footnotes.

Whereas I agree that a comma after "upon plates" may clarify a bit, I hardly think it's necessary. Has there been any published version of the Book of Mormon that included a comma in that spot? If so, I'm unaware of it.

I also agree that some more footnotes indicating archaisms would be useful. I think both yours and Hardy's suggestions for the formatting of the paragraph before "Which is to show" seem equally plausible. Regarding the phrase "by the way of Gentile," as Hardy made it clear that he is using the 2013 text, that phrase has been amended to the more correct sounding "by way of the Gentile." I agree that a footnote there may have been useful, but perhaps he felt that it would have to be too long to explain the evolution from the original phrase to the current version.

My understanding is that the Original and Printer's Manuscripts had little or no punctuation, so I suspect that differences in opinion on formatting and punctuation among different editors are purely academic. Still, for what it's worth, I like your version of the Title Page, too!

Link to comment
Just now, caspianrex said:

Whereas I agree that a comma after "upon plates" may clarify a bit, I hardly think it's necessary. Has there been any published version of the Book of Mormon that included a comma in that spot? If so, I'm unaware of it.

I also agree that some more footnotes indicating archaisms would be useful. I think both yours and Hardy's suggestions for the formatting of the paragraph before "Which is to show" seem equally plausible. Regarding the phrase "by the way of Gentile," as Hardy made it clear that he is using the 2013 text, that phrase has been amended to the more correct sounding "by way of the Gentile." I agree that a footnote there may have been useful, but perhaps he felt that it would have to be too long to explain the evolution from the original phrase to the current version.

My understanding is that the Original and Printer's Manuscripts had little or no punctuation, so I suspect that differences in opinion on formatting and punctuation among different editors are purely academic. Still, for what it's worth, I like your version of the Title Page, too!

P.S. I think the main thing Grant Hardy was going for was a format that is pleasing to the eye and comfortable to read, a goal which, to my way of thinking, he successfully accomplished. Although I love Royal Skousen's Yale edition, I think his Title Page is considerably more difficult to read, due to the unnecessary italics on the whole page. The Restored Covenant Edition, despite some of its faults, renders the Title Page pleasantly, although adding verse numbers, as they did, was an odd choice. All of them are better than the 1830 edition, I think!

Link to comment

That phrase " by the way of Gentile" intrigued me, after @champatsch brought it to my attention in the discussion above. The phrase in the modern Church edition of the Book of Mormon is, of course, "by way of the Gentile." 

Digging through various facsimiles of the Book of Mormon available online (thanks to KC Kern's excellent bookofmormon.online website for the ease with which I was able to do that!) it looks like the earliest printing that changed to the phrase to its current version ("by way of the Gentile") was the 1920 Salt Lake City edition. Every printing before that seems to have used the earlier version of the phrase.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, caspianrex said:

My understanding is that the Original and Printer's Manuscripts had little or no punctuation, so I suspect that differences in opinion on formatting and punctuation among different editors are purely academic. Still, for what it's worth, I like your version of the Title Page, too!

The title page version I put up there is the fifth printing of the Yale edition (except for the general lack of italics).

I wouldn't have critiqued Hardy's title page accidentals, except that he departed significantly from the accidentals of the 2013 edition.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, caspianrex said:

Whereas I agree that a comma after "upon plates" may clarify a bit, I hardly think it's necessary. Has there been any published version of the Book of Mormon that included a comma in that spot? If so, I'm unaware of it.

I also agree that some more footnotes indicating archaisms would be useful. I think both yours and Hardy's suggestions for the formatting of the paragraph before "Which is to show" seem equally plausible. Regarding the phrase "by the way of Gentile," as Hardy made it clear that he is using the 2013 text, that phrase has been amended to the more correct sounding "by way of the Gentile." I agree that a footnote there may have been useful, but perhaps he felt that it would have to be too long to explain the evolution from the original phrase to the current version.

My understanding is that the Original and Printer's Manuscripts had little or no punctuation, so I suspect that differences in opinion on formatting and punctuation among different editors are purely academic. Still, for what it's worth, I like your version of the Title Page, too!

You surprise me caspianrex.  To see a nonmember interested in engaging in this type of discussion about the Book of Mormon of all books is unique indeed.  Kind of refreshing.

Link to comment
4 hours ago, champatsch said:

The title page version I put up there is the fifth printing of the Yale edition (except for the general lack of italics).

I wouldn't have critiqued Hardy's title page accidentals, except that he departed significantly from the accidentals of the 2013 edition.

Does the Yale Edition fifth printing have a comma after "upon plates"? Because I thought I had checked my copy of the Yale Edition (which may be an earlier printing), and I didn't remember seeing a comma.

(I could go check, but I'm downstairs and the book is upstairs, and I'm feeling lazy...)

Link to comment
15 minutes ago, caspianrex said:

Does the Yale Edition fifth printing have a comma after "upon plates"? Because I thought I had checked my copy of the Yale Edition (which may be an earlier printing), and I didn't remember seeing a comma.

(I could go check, but I'm downstairs and the book is upstairs, and I'm feeling lazy...)

Yes, but the earlier printings do not, and the sense line break is before upon plates in the earlier printings but after the PP in the fifth printing.

Link to comment
  • 4 months later...
On 7/15/2019 at 8:17 AM, caspianrex said:

Last week, I got a copy of the Maxwell Institute Study Edition (MISE) of the Book of Mormon, edited by Grant Hardy. It was released less than a year ago, but I haven't seen much discussion of the book on this Forum, so I thought I'd share a few of my thoughts.

First of all, I bought Grant Hardy's Reader's Edition of the Book of Mormon (published in 2005) back in 2011. When I was reading the Book of Mormon all the way through for the first time, I found Hardy's Reader's Edition to be a valuable tool: the more reader-friendly layout was a very helpful tool, especially for a non-LDS reader like myself. The MISE is possibly even better, especially considering that he was able to use the 2013 text of the BoM, instead of the public domain 1920 text that he used in the Reader's Edition. One thing I particularly like in the MISE is that the page headings have both the LDS chapters and verses, as well as the chapter numbers for the 1830 edition, so it's very simple to see where the original chapter divisions were, while still being able to look up references with the modern LDS numbering system.

Hardy's system of using bold print to indicate intertextuality within the BoM, as well as differences between biblical allusions/quotes and their KJV versions, is illuminating. Combining that convention with the textual footnotes really helps the reader see textual connections that may not be immediately apparent. He also refers to Royal Skousen's critical text work in many footnotes, which enables the reader to place the current text in the context of the BoM's publishing history.

I think the only downside for me is that the MISE is currently only available in a paperback format. It's a very sturdy paperback, but seeing as how my copy of the Reader's Edition is already falling apart, I'm hoping that maybe someday the MISE would become available in a hardcover edition.

Some of the following reviews cover the MISE far more completely than I can at this point, so I'll share the links, rather than repeating all the info in them...

"By Common Consent" review

"Interpreter" review

"Book of Mormon Central" review

Also, I found this interview on LDSPerspectives with Hardy to be quite informative and interesting.

Would love to hear others' thoughts on this edition.

 

Caspian,

Yesterday you and I talked about the MISE.  

Yesterday evening, my dad called me and asked if I had any particular books in mind that I hoped to get for Christmas.  Thanks to your post, I responded with "Now that you mention it..." and pointed him to the MISE.

Thanks!

-Spencer

Link to comment
47 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Caspian,

Yesterday you and I talked about the MISE.  

Yesterday evening, my dad called me and asked if I had any particular books in mind that I hoped to get for Christmas.  Thanks to your post, I responded with "Now that you mention it..." and pointed him to the MISE.

Thanks!

-Spencer

"God moves in a mysterious way
His wonders to perform..." (William Cowper)

😎

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...