Editorial Change in the BoM Viewed through a Hebrew lense.

[Olavarria]

1 Nephi 12:18

and Jesus Christ which is the Lamb of God(O,P*,1830)

and Mosiah which is the Lamb of God(Pjs)

and the Messiah which is the lamb of God(1837)

In the original manuscript penned by Oliver Cowdery,the printer's manuscript and the 1830 edition, the name used in this verse is "Jesus Christ". When Joseph was making editorial changes on the printer's manuscript for the 1837 edition,he crossed out Jesus Christ and inserted supralinearly "Mosiah". However, when the type set was made for the 1837 edition, "the Messiah" was used.

Royal Skousen attributes the Mosiah insertion to a mistake on Joseph's part, he believes Joseph intended "Messiah"(See Analysis of textual Variants of the Book of Mormon,part 1, pg 259). He way be right. After all, "the Messiah" is what actually got printed. Mosiah is the name of two Nephite kings, not the Son of God, or is it?

Another possibility is, whether purposeful or not,that all three terms are synonymous with each other and correct. Messiah comes from the Hebrew, mashiyah(????????), "anointed one". The name Mosiah may be hebrew, moshia(?????).

Isaiah 43:11

I, even I, am the Lord; and beside me there is no saviour.

??????? ???????, ??????; ?????? ????????????, ?????????.

Judges 3:15

15)But when the children of Israel cried unto the Lord, the Lord raised them up a deliverer

???????????? ?????-??????????, ???-??????, ???????? ?????? ????? ?????????

1 Nephi 10:4

Yea, even six hundred years from the time that my father left Jerusalem, a bprophet would the Lord God raise up among the Jews

[LinuxGal]

I just thought this was interesting. Was the insertion of "Mosiah" a mistake caused by too many late hours editing under a candle stick, a poor education or was it a blip of inspiration which wasn't followed through? I don't know. However, all three readings work in Hebrew.

Perhaps JS was having second thoughts about the idea that Nephi would know that the messiah would be called Jesus Christ, when not even Jeremiah knew that and Isaiah thought he would be called Emmanuel.

[David T]

Perhaps JS was having second thoughts about the idea that Nephi would know that the messiah would be called Jesus Christ, when not even Jeremiah knew that and Isaiah thought he would be called Emmanuel.

Yes. Which is why all other references to the name Jesus Christ were removed in the Book of Mormon, right?

[volgadon]

Pedro, moshia is with an ayin, not heh. That it has a heh leads me to believe that Moshiah is the shortened form of Moshiyahu- the Saviour is YHWH.

[maklelan]

Perhaps JS was having second thoughts about the idea that Nephi would know that the messiah would be called Jesus Christ,

If that were ever a thought that crossed his mind this is well down the list of verses he would have changed. He would have had to deal then with the problem of Mosiah being called the Lamb of God, and the name Mosiah being revealed to Nephi centuries before anyone by that name enters the Nephite record.

when not even Jeremiah knew that and Isaiah thought he would be called Emmanuel.

Is a revelation only legitimate if Jeremiah and Isaiah both make reference to it? Also, what evidence do you have that Christ was not called Emanuel by Hebrew speakers?

[volgadon]

Or why Isaiah saw fit to call him by a whole slew of other names? This was millennia before the 1958 world cup.

[Olavarria]

He would have had to deal then with the problem of Mosiah being called the Lamb of God, and the name Mosiah being revealed to Nephi centuries before anyone by that name enters the Nephite record.

That is the summum bonum of the whole matter. Who ever made the typeset saw "Mosiah the Lamb of God" and thought: "that cant be write" and set the Messiah instead. But in Hebrew, it is right, they are all right.

[Olavarria]

Pedro, moshia is with an ayin, not heh. That it has a heh leads me to believe that Moshiah is the shortened form of Moshiyahu- the Saviour is YHWH.

I like it. If we only had the plates

[LinuxGal]

Is a revelation only legitimate if Jeremiah and Isaiah both make reference to it? Also, what evidence do you have that Christ was not called Emanuel by Hebrew speakers?

Prophesies in the Bible are unfocused precisely because of the nature of time. The future does not exist, only the present, and the past exists only in living memory and records. If you had a time machine, there would be nowhere to go. There is no future for God (and by extension, his prophets) to know. This does not limit God's omniscience because God can only know things that can or do exist. He cannot know of a triangle with four sides or a billiard ball that is all black and all white at the same time.

And if you think about it, human (and divine) free will cannot be if time is already laid out like a tapestry. Jesus and Paul both thought the end of human history would be very soon, certainly within the lifetime of those who were living at the time, and this was not the case. Ezekiel thought that Tyre would never be built up again, but it thrives today in Lebanon.

So when Joseph Smith retrojected the name "Jesus" back to 2 Nephi 25 (between 559 and 545 BC according to the liner notes in my printed BoM) that tells me that Joseph Smith believed that God's view of time was of a complete panoply. This cannot be, for the simple reason that God, looking at time in that way, cannot know where on that panoply the present is. Even if he saw the present moment as a kind of cursor that steadily moved along the panoply of history, that cursor would move steadily at a certain rate and would therefore exist in a meta-time that had it's own panoply, and so on. And even then, only God would know when the present moment was, while in the panoply itself, where we live and move and have our being, nothing is changing to give us the sensation that it is the present moment 'now', precisely because the panoply is complete.

[YJacket]

Prophesies in the Bible are unfocused precisely because of the nature of time. The future does not exist, only the present, and the past exists only in living memory and records. If you had a time machine, there would be nowhere to go. There is no future for God (and by extension, his prophets) to know. This does not limit God's omniscience because God can only know things that can or do exist. He cannot know of a triangle with four sides or a billiard ball that is all black and all white at the same time.

And if you think about it, human (and divine) free will cannot be if time is already laid out like a tapestry. Jesus and Paul both thought the end of human history would be very soon, certainly within the lifetime of those who were living at the time, and this was not the case. Ezekiel thought that Tyre would never be built up again, but it thrives today in Lebanon.

So when Joseph Smith retrojected the name "Jesus" back to 2 Nephi 25 (between 559 and 545 BC according to the liner notes in my printed BoM) that tells me that Joseph Smith believed that God's view of time was of a complete panoply. This cannot be, for the simple reason that God, looking at time in that way, cannot know where on that panoply the present is. Even if he saw the present moment as a kind of cursor that steadily moved along the panoply of history, that cursor would move steadily at a certain rate and would therefore exist in a meta-time that had it's own panoply, and so on. And even then, only God would know when the present moment was, while in the panoply itself, where we live and move and have our being, nothing is changing to give us the sensation that it is the present moment 'now', precisely because the panoply is complete.

I'm reminded of Isaiah 55:8. I believe it is a little presumptuous to limit God to our current understanding and knowledge that while it is expanding rapidly is a tiny fraction of the knowledge out there.

I fully believe that knowledge of the future does not inhibit free agency. Anyone who has ever been a parent should be able to attest to this. I like to think of time as things that are set in motion . . . I can prophesy (foretell) that tomorrow the sun will rise. You might say "well that's not a prophesy", why not, b/c you have the same knowledge? But it is the future, tomorrow hasn't come and the sun hasn't set to be able to rise. Someone who has all knowledge of the present and past has the ability to prophesy the future, b/c the future is dependent upon the threads of the past.

In addition, we do not have full knowledge of time and we are limited to the current capabilities of our mind. To say that time can't be bent, or that there is only the here and now is presumptuous. Time can be bent, I don't have the exact number but based on our current knowledge if one travels on a round trip to space and earth close to the speed of light for x period of earth time only x-y period of earth time will have past for the traveler. Is that the extent of bending time? Maybe, maybe not, our current understanding is so limited.

[David T]

I still say the name Jesus Christ as found in the Book of Mormon is as much an English/Cultural translation as anything else in the book. I very, very, very much doubt that Nephi heard the name pronounced Jeezus Criced.

[LinuxGal]

In addition, we do not have full knowledge of time and we are limited to the current capabilities of our mind. To say that time can't be bent, or that there is only the here and now is presumptuous. Time can be bent, I don't have the exact number but based on our current knowledge if one travels on a round trip to space and earth close to the speed of light for x period of earth time only x-y period of earth time will have past for the traveler. Is that the extent of bending time? Maybe, maybe not, our current understanding is so limited.

I know what you're saying. Extremes in relative velocities and extremes in gravity can cause clocks (and heartbeats) to slow down in that inertial frame relative to an non-accelerated frame, but this has nothing to do with what we call "time".

Taryn and Karyn are twins. In 2002 Karyn stays home, but Taryn flies to Alpha Centauri and back at very nearly the speed of light, a voyage that takes eight years of Karyn's time, but only a few days of Taryn's time. So Karyn thinks its 2010, she's physically eight years older, but Taryn thinks it's still 2002 and her ship's clock agrees. She is physically only a few days older.

When Taryn steps off her spaceship and meets her twin, what year is it, 2002 or 2010? It doesn't matter! There is no time, there is only a universal eternal NOW, but clocks and heartbeats can beat slower or faster depending on their relative motion or position within a gravity well. I do hope you see what I'm saying.

[Olavarria]

I still say the name Jesus Christ as found in the Book of Mormon is as much an English/Cultural translation as anything else in the book. I very, very, very much doubt that Nephi heard the name pronounced Jeezus Criced.

Ya, it would probably be Yoshua Mashiyah.

Another possibility is that in this particular verse, moshia(savior) was translated as JC. But who really knows?

[volgadon]

I still say the name Jesus Christ as found in the Book of Mormon is as much an English/Cultural translation as anything else in the book. I very, very, very much doubt that Nephi heard the name pronounced Jeezus Criced.

Exactly. Where are all the critics criticising the name forms Jerusalem, Jacob, Joseph, Isaiah and Jeremiah?

[volgadon]

Ya, it would probably be Yoshua Mashiyah.

Another possibility is that in this particular verse, moshia(savior) was translated as JC. But who really knows?

yeshua ha-Mashiyah. Don't forget the definitive article, as messiah is a title not a surname.

Anyway, good topic, Pedro.

[LinuxGal]

I still say the name Jesus Christ as found in the Book of Mormon is as much an English/Cultural translation as anything else in the book. I very, very, very much doubt that Nephi heard the name pronounced Jeezus Criced.

There's no way to get any critical traction on that problem, because the plates were (supposedly) translated with divine power using the translucent stones, so apparently it could spit out whatever God wanted it to say. If it said "Jesus Christ" that's what JS wrote, and there's no way to say any different because we don't have the plates anymore, and even people who ask questions like this are accursed:

Ether 4:7 And in that day that they shall exercise faith in me, saith the Lord, even as the brother of Jared did, that they may become sanctified in me, then will I manifest unto them the things which the brother of Jared saw, even to the unfolding unto them all my revelations, saith Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Father of the heavens and of the earth, and all things that in them are.

Ether 4:8 And he that will contend against the word of the Lord, let him be accursed; and he that shall deny these things, let him be accursed; for unto them will I show no greater things, saith Jesus Christ; for I am he who speaketh.

[volgadon]

LG, what about Jacob, Joseph, Jerusalem, Jews, Isaiah, Jeremiah, etc.?

[volgadon]

and even people who ask questions like this are accursed:

Ether 4:7 And in that day that they shall exercise faith in me, saith the Lord, even as the brother of Jared did, that they may become sanctified in me, then will I manifest unto them the things which the brother of Jared saw, even to the unfolding unto them all my revelations, saith Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Father of the heavens and of the earth, and all things that in them are.

Ether 4:8 And he that will contend against the word of the Lord, let him be accursed; and he that shall deny these things, let him be accursed; for unto them will I show no greater things, saith Jesus Christ; for I am he who speaketh.

Asking about something and contending against it ARE NOT THE SAME THING.

[Olavarria]

yeshua ha-Mashiyah. Don't forget the definitive article, as messiah is a title not a surname.

Anyway, good topic, Pedro.

Thank you Volgo. Btw, I think this article is particlularly pertinant to the OP.

[LinuxGal]

Asking about something and contending against it ARE NOT THE SAME THING.

We'll see. I'll keep asking questions until I complete my study of the Book of Mormon (probably about three months from now), but I predict that I will be anathematized from here for contentiousness well before that happens.

[maklelan]

Prophesies in the Bible are unfocused precisely because of the nature of time.

There are plenty of prophecies in the Bible that include specific dates and stretches of time.

The future does not exist, only the present, and the past exists only in living memory and records. If you had a time machine, there would be nowhere to go. There is no future for God (and by extension, his prophets) to know. This does not limit God's omniscience because God can only know things that can or do exist. He cannot know of a triangle with four sides or a billiard ball that is all black and all white at the same time.

You're trying to support an assumption about the nature of time by insisting it's like simple logical paradoxes? That hardly supports anything, and keep in mind that time is relative.

And if you think about it, human (and divine) free will cannot be if time is already laid out like a tapestry.

Unless you don't accept that kind of determinism.

Jesus and Paul both thought the end of human history would be very soon, certainly within the lifetime of those who were living at the time, and this was not the case. Ezekiel thought that Tyre would never be built up again, but it thrives today in Lebanon.

Well, the prophecy about Tyre was first that it would be destroyed, and it wasn't.

So when Joseph Smith retrojected the name "Jesus" back to 2 Nephi 25 (between 559 and 545 BC according to the liner notes in my printed BoM) that tells me that Joseph Smith believed that God's view of time was of a complete panoply. This cannot be, for the simple reason that God, looking at time in that way, cannot know where on that panoply the present is. Even if he saw the present moment as a kind of cursor that steadily moved along the panoply of history, that cursor would move steadily at a certain rate and would therefore exist in a meta-time that had it's own panoply, and so on. And even then, only God would know when the present moment was, while in the panoply itself, where we live and move and have our being, nothing is changing to give us the sensation that it is the present moment 'now', precisely because the panoply is complete.

I disagree that the text leads to this picture of time.

[jmordecai]

Perhaps JS was having second thoughts about the idea that Nephi would know that the messiah would be called Jesus Christ, when not even Jeremiah knew that and Isaiah thought he would be called Emmanuel.

Yes. Which is why all other references to the name Jesus Christ were removed in the Book of Mormon, right?

In the Book of Mormon itself, the narrative introduces "Jesus Christ" as the name of the forthcoming Messiah in 2 Nephi 25:19. Thus it is likely Smith reworked 1 Nephi 12:18 so as not to use the name before it was supposed to have been revealed.

This rework makes 2 Nephi 25:19 the first chronological instance of "Jesus Christ", and explains why the other references to "Jesus Christ" (all after 2 Nephi 25) were not modified.

The bigger issue for me is that "Christ" (Greek origin) and "Messiah" (Hebrew origin), both meaning "anointed one", are both littered throughout the text. 600BC Lehi and company would not have brought Greek to the new world, and Greek was not on the source plates (a fact confirmed by Joseph Smith). Therefore an English translation of reformed Egyptian would not have yielded a Greek (and Hebrew) derived word.

[LinuxGal]

The bigger issue for me is that "Christ" (Greek origin) and "Messiah" (Hebrew origin), both meaning "anointed one", are both littered throughout the text. 600BC Lehi and company would not have brought Greek to the new world, and Greek was not on the source plates (a fact confirmed by Joseph Smith). Therefore an English translation of reformed Egyptian would not have yielded a Greek (and Hebrew) derived word.

And his real name as Yeshua ben Yosef, and only became "Jesus" after the Greeks rendered it Iosous ("ee-ay-SUS"). Greeks rendered the Y in the Aramaic as I. When it was translated to Latin, the I was pronounced J because in Latin I has a J sound when it is placed before other vowels. In fact, in early English the letter "J" was pronounced the way we pronounce "Y" today, but it gradually shifted to be exclusively a consonant. "Ye-ru-sha-LA-yim" became Jerusalem, and so on.

A similar comedy of errors happened with all the other letters in his name. First the E in Yeshua was morphed, such that the first syllable of the Lord's name became "Jee" instead of "Yeh". The "sh" in Yeshua became just S because there's no "sh" sound in Greek. The U shifted from being pronounced like we say "you" to the way we pronounce it in "dumb". And so on. All these artifacts were introduced from the interaction of Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, Latin, and an evolving English. There is no way the exact same Telephone Game was played between the written Reformed Egyptian and the spoken Hebrew of the Nephites. No. Way.

[maklelan]

And his real name as Yeshua ben Yosef, and only became "Jesus" after the Greeks rendered it Iosous ("ee-ay-SUS").

Actually the first two vowels are one syllable (yay-sus). The iota was pronounced like the modern /y/, and thus can act like a consonant, opening a syllable.

Greeks rendered the Y in the Aramaic as I. When it was translated to Latin, the I was pronounced J because in Latin I has a J sound when it is placed before other vowels.

Actually in Latin it was spelled iesus and pronounced yay-sus. The /j/ pronunciation comes from the influence of Norman French on the Germanic language of the Anglo-Saxons. The latter transliterated the word as jesus, pronouncing the /j/ as /y/. William the Conqueror brought French over, and the conflation of the two languages would ultimately develop into Modern English. In the French, the Anglo-Saxon jesus was pronounced with /j/. The Latin pronunciation shifted to /j/ between the 14th and 17th centuries as the result of a series of complications with typesetting and orthography.

In fact, in early English the letter "J" was pronounced the way we pronounce "Y" today, but it gradually shifted to be exclusively a consonant. "Ye-ru-sha-LA-yim" became Jerusalem, and so on.

A similar comedy of errors happened with all the other letters in his name.

It's not a comedy of errors, it's the normal processes of lexical borrowing and evolution.

First the E in Yeshua was morphed, such that the first syllable of the Lord's name became "Jee" instead of "Yeh". The "sh" in Yeshua became just S because there's no "sh" sound in Greek. The U shifted from being pronounced like we say "you" to the way we pronounce it in "dumb". And so on. All these artifacts were introduced from the interaction of Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, Latin, and an evolving English. There is no way the exact same Telephone Game was played between the written Reformed Egyptian and the spoken Hebrew of the Nephites. No. Way.

I don't think anyone is advocating the theory that Jesus' name was transliterated in the modern form on the plates.

[volgadon]

All other biblical names are reproduced according to the KJV's convention, so why should Jesus Christ be any different?