Royal Skousen’S Lecture

[Jude2]

I went to Royal Skousen’s lecture on the Book of Mormon last night and I have a question.

He said we are missing the first two chapters of Mosiah???

What’s that about?

[Freedom]

Along with the Book of Lehi, Royal Skousen, Editor of The Book of Mormon Critical Text Project, says that in the printers manuscript of the Book of Mosiah, the first chapter is listed as Chapter 3. Skousen proposes that all or part of the first two chapters were lost with the 116 pages. Skousen notes that every other book in the Book of Mormon is named for its primary author; but the Book of Mosiah begins with King Benjamin and is not named for him. Also, Mosiah does not begin with an introduction of the author or an explanatory introduction as is typical with other Book of Mormon books but "begins in the middle of things." Skousen speculates that the original first chapter related Mosiah's flight from the land of Nephi toZarahemla and that the second chapter discussed King Benjamin's early reign and wars.DeGroote.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_116_pages

[Jude2]

Oh, that's interesting. Thanks

I bought his "The Book of Mormon, The earliest Text". It's easy reading, I like the way he has separated the passages.

[Freedom]

I like his material but it is filled with a lot of conjecture. But that what academics is all about. Reaching out with a far out idea and seeing if anything falls in your grasp. I think that putting the scriptures into chapter and verse makes it more difficult to understand what it is trying to say. It creates artificial divisions which may not properly reflect the original idea.

[canard78]

Along with the Book of Lehi, Royal Skousen, Editor of The Book of Mormon Critical Text Project, says that in the printers manuscript of the Book of Mosiah, the first chapter is listed as Chapter 3. Skousen proposes that all or part of the first two chapters were lost with the 116 pages. Skousen notes that every other book in the Book of Mormon is named for its primary author; but the Book of Mosiah begins with King Benjamin and is not named for him. Also, Mosiah does not begin with an introduction of the author or an explanatory introduction as is typical with other Book of Mormon books but "begins in the middle of things." Skousen speculates that the original first chapter related Mosiah's flight from the land of Nephi toZarahemla and that the second chapter discussed King Benjamin's early reign and wars.DeGroote.

http://en.wikipedia..../Lost_116_pages

Which makes where the 'small plates' end incredibly 'convenient' given it gives a back-story right up to the very point that the 116 pages leave off.

[Glenn101]

Along with the Book of Lehi, Royal Skousen, Editor of The Book of Mormon Critical Text Project, says that in the printers manuscript of the Book of Mosiah, the first chapter is listed as Chapter 3. Skousen proposes that all or part of the first two chapters were lost with the 116 pages. Skousen notes that every other book in the Book of Mormon is named for its primary author; but the Book of Mosiah begins with King Benjamin and is not named for him. Also, Mosiah does not begin with an introduction of the author or an explanatory introduction as is typical with other Book of Mormon books but "begins in the middle of things." Skousen speculates that the original first chapter related Mosiah's flight from the land of Nephi toZarahemla and that the second chapter discussed King Benjamin's early reign and wars.DeGroote.

http://en.wikipedia..../Lost_116_pages

Which makes where the 'small plates' end incredibly 'convenient' given it gives a back-story right up to the very point that the 116 pages leave off.

You need to read the article more carefully. The starting point seemingly does not start at "the very point that the 116 pages leave off", but rather it seems that there are a couple of chapters missing from the beginning of the Book of Mosiah.

Glenn

[Alan]

I have a copy of the Restored Covenant Edition of the Book of Mormon. It is very good to read. I understand Skousen was consulted during it's production and has praised it following publication.

The only drawback for me is that it follows the RLDS chapter and verse divisions, which makes direct comparison awkward.

Has anyone else read this version?

[David T]

Which makes where the 'small plates' end incredibly 'convenient' given it gives a back-story right up to the very point that the 116 pages leave off.

BYU Studies recently posted an article suggesting that the last few verses in the 'Words of Mormon' are actually from the very end of the lost Mosiah Chapter 2. I like it a lot, actually. It's a good argument, and the evidence is worth considering.

Here's the listing for the article: When Pages Collide: Dissecting the Words of Mormon

And the abstract:

Careful readers of the Book of Mormon have probably found verses 12–18 of the Words of Mormon to be a bit of a puzzle. For stylistic and other reasons, they do not really fit with verses 1–11, so commentators have tried to explain their presence as a sort of "bridge" or "transition" that Mormon wrote to connect the record of the small plates with his abridgment from the large plates. This paper proposes a different explanation: Rather than being a bridge into the book of Mosiah, these verses were originally part of the book of Mosiah and should be included with it.

This article presents both documentary and textual evidence to show that (1) Joseph Smith had translated some text that he did not give to Martin Harris (the lost 116 pages), (2) Oliver Cowdery, Joseph's scribe, copied from the original manuscript onto the printer's manuscript at the beginning of the book of Mosiah the chapter designation "Chapter III," (3) verses 12–18 of Words of Mormon do not use the first-person pronoun "I" and do not speak of the small plates, as verses 1–11 do, and (4) the book of Mosiah begins abruptly, without an introductory heading and without any mention of the person for whom the book was likely named (Benjamin's father, Mosiah). These and other pieces of evidence support the idea that the last seven verse in Words of Mormon were actually the last verses of what should have been Mosiah chapter 2, but chapter 1 and most of chapter 2 must have been part of the 116 pages lost by Martin Harris.

Edited February 28, 2013 by David T

[David T]

BYU Studies recently posted an article suggesting that the last few verses in the 'Words of Mormon' are actually from the very end of the lost Mosiah Chapter 2. I like it a lot, actually. It's a good argument, and the evidence is worth considering.

Here's the listing for the article: When Pages Collide: Dissecting the Words of Mormon

And the abstract:

There's actually a nifty way the Church could show this, without seriously messing up the popular chapter/verse numbering - take v. 12-18 out of Words of Mormon, and add a 'Chapter A' to the beginning of Mosiah with those verses. (sort of like the with the Additions to Esther in some Catholic editions. Other versions add chapters to the end of the book, integrated editions use Letters as Chapters, and place them in their proper position.

I'd love to see a new edition of the Book of Mormon that has Mosiah begin with Chapter A with those 7 verses of Words of Mormon moved over, with the headnote explaining the lost beginning to the book.

Edited February 28, 2013 by David T

[cinepro]

I'd love to see a new edition of the Book of Mormon that has Mosiah begin with Chapter A with those 7 verses of Words of Mormon moved over, with the headnote explaining the lost beginning to the book.

I was planning on posting to show why that wouldn't work, but it actually does!

WoM v.12 isn't any worse of a starting place than Mosiah 1 is.

Words of Mormon 10-11

10 Wherefore, it came to pass that after Amaleki had deliveredup these plates into the hands of king Benjamin, he took them and put them with the other plates, which contained records which had been handed down by the kings, from generation to generation until the days of king Benjamin.

11 And they were handed down from king Benjamin, from generation to generation until they have fallen into my hands. And I, Mormon, pray to God that they may be preserved from this time henceforth. And I know that they will be preserved; for there are great things written upon them, out of which my people and their brethren shall be judged at the great and last day, according to the word of God which is written.

Words of Mormon 12-18

12 And now, concerning this king Benjamin—he had somewhat of contentions among his own people.

13 And it came to pass also that the armies of the Lamanites came down out of the land of Nephi, to battle against his people. But behold, king Benjamin gathered together his armies, and he did stand against them; and he did fight with the strength of his own arm, with the sword of Laban.

14 And in the strength of the Lord they did contend against their enemies, until they had slain many thousands of the Lamanites. And it came to pass that they did contend against the Lamanites until they had driven them out of all the lands of theirinheritance.

15 And it came to pass that after there had been false Christs, and their mouths had been shut, and they punished according to their crimes;

16 And after there had been false prophets, and false preachers and teachers among the people, and all these having been punished according to their crimes; and after there having been much contention and many dissensions away unto the Lamanites, behold, it came to pass that king Benjamin, with the assistance of the holy prophets who were among his people—

17 For behold, king Benjamin was a holy man, and he did reign over his people in righteousness; and there were many holy men in the land, and they did speak the word of God with power and with authority; and they did use much sharpness because of the stiffneckedness of the people—

18 Wherefore, with the help of these, king Benjamin, by laboring with all the might of his body and the faculty of his whole soul, and also the prophets, did once more establish peace in the land.

Mosiah:

1 And now there was no more contention in all the land of Zarahemla, among all the people who belonged to king Benjamin, so that king Benjamin had continual peace all the remainder of his days.

2 And it came to pass that he had three sons; and he called their names Mosiah, and Helorum, and Helaman. And he caused that they should be taught in all the language of his fathers, that thereby they might become men of understanding; and that they might know concerning the prophecies which had been spoken by the mouths of their fathers, which were delivered them by the hand of the Lord.

3 And he also taught them concerning the records which were engraven on the plates of brass, saying: My sons, I would that ye should remember that were it not for these plates, which contain these records and these commandments, we must have suffered in ignorance, even at this present time, not knowing the mysteries of God.

Edited March 1, 2013 by cinepro

[David T]

Did you intend to leave out Mosiah 1:1 in your quote?

Edited February 28, 2013 by David T

[Brant Gardner]

BYU Studies recently posted an article suggesting that the last few verses in the 'Words of Mormon' are actually from the very end of the lost Mosiah Chapter 2. I like it a lot, actually. It's a good argument, and the evidence is worth considering.

Here's the listing for the article: When Pages Collide: Dissecting the Words of Mormon

I hadn't seen the article until you mentioned it. I found it very interested, and the authors politely noted my different reading of the source of those verses. Of course, that is one of the reasons that I am so interested in this. It could prove my hypothesis incorrect (and if evidence does that, that is what evidence is for).

After going through it, I think we disagree on how to read the evidence from the text. It turns out that this is in an area where Skousen (as quoted in the article) has not yet paid a lot of attention. Given how detailed his attention has been, it is mildly surprising that he missed something--but that only highlights how thorough he has been otherwise.

I am putting together a blog post to look at the textual evidence for the argument about chapter numbering. It appears more complex than their solution, and I believe the source of Mosiah III may have been Oliver's copy, not the original. That changes the reading that Skousen gave (and which I had accepted). It may take a day or two to get it done. I attempted it this morning and realized that I still hadn't fully digested the relative data.

One of the problems for the kind of analysis proposed in this paper is that our evidence comes from Oliver's copy, not the original manuscript (not extant at this point). If we had the original, we could speak with greater surety. For now, we will have different people seeing the same thing differently.

[Questing Beast]

One thing's for certain, "Benjamin" is not Mosiah, in the 1830 edition, but suddenly becomes Mosiah in the 1837.

I got to ask Royal on the phone about that soon after his critical text (Second Edition, second printing 1987) came into my hands. I wanted to know why the change, and he said that it appeared to have been made by Joseph Smith, "without authorization". In other words, a mistaken "correction"? I got that impression. Interesting, because it shows that JS could make changes on his own without recourse to any revelation. One or the other is mistaken.

I take the 1830 as correct, because it makes more sense out of the "tribes" as distinct socio-political groups that the Nephites break up into later: Benjamin was still the "old king" when Ammon and his fellow explorers/rescuers left Zarahemla, but while they were gone to the Land of Nephi Benjamin died. So when Limhi's people arrive at Zarahemla, they become AMMON's subjects directly, as the 1830 edition grammatically asserts.

But this is all confusing to a casual reader, who will detect an "error" in the BoM, a big one actually, not getting the characters' names right. So JS simply eliminated the confusion, and instituted an inaccuracy of a less detectable sort.

Nephite culture was always a composite of Mulekite culture, and tribes among both divisions of the people, with genealogical connections to both royal houses, such that (it is implied) Zeniff is given a hypothetical motive to go off to found his own kingdom to replace the one that his ancestors headed before the first Mosiah appeared and assumed the kingship of. And Ammon is given an equally hypothetical motive for wanting to go and find out what happened to HIS relatives, Zeniff and Company. And since Limhi becomes Ammon's subject and joins his people upon arriving at Zarahemla, it is implied that Ammon's connection to the former Mulekite royal family was even closer than Limhi's/Noah's/Zeniff's.

The reality is more confusing than a simple appeal to the 1830 text readily provides: Benjamin lives for three years after Mosiah II assumes his father's throne, and evidently Benjamin is still "the king", just not governing actively, yet he retains the records and his gifts as a "seer" and is famously known for such, such that Ammon tells Limhi that "the king" has the gift wherewith he will be able to translate the Jaredite record. When Ammon returns leading Limhi and his people, it is to Ammon's people that they are joined and become his subjects, and "Mosiah received them with joy". This is all very interesting in shedding light on the tribal distinctions among the Mulekites, and later Nephite/Mulekite wars where some people thought that they ought to be kings. But JS erased the evidence of continuing tribal distinctions by changing Benjamin into Mosiah, and the text to grammatically point to Mosiah instead of Ammon when Limhi's people become Mosiah's subjects instead of Ammon's.

This change that I first picked up in Skousen's critical text began the change in my view of the BoM as a reliable history book. Years later I had adopted the position that it was JS's book all along, and that he took the easy way out, instead of defending the implied tribal complexities of the original wording. This showed me that either JS was uninspired in editing the 1837 edition or else he simply corrected an error that he could have justified if he had had the leisure of Skousen or myself, to come up with an explanation, and let the original 1830 text stand....

[Brant Gardner]

One thing's for certain, "Benjamin" is not Mosiah, in the 1830 edition, but suddenly becomes Mosiah in the 1837.

You are highlighting and accurate issue, but unclearly. Benjamin wasn't ever Mosiah, but a reference to Benjamin ws changed to Mosiah, as you indicate, as a probable response to seeing a contradiction in timing.

I take the 1830 as correct, because it makes more sense out of the "tribes" as distinct socio-political groups that the Nephites break up into later: Benjamin was still the "old king" when Ammon and his fellow explorers/rescuers left Zarahemla, but while they were gone to the Land of Nephi Benjamin died.

I agree with this assessment and I think that it makes both a lot of sense--and suggests that there is more going on in the original than we might credit it with.

As Skousen has suggested, the earlier reading is usually preferred. Although it might cause us some consternation, I have seen where "improvements" have washed over some significant information about antiquity in favor of easier modern readings.

This showed me that either JS was uninspired in editing the 1837 edition or else he simply corrected an error that he could have justified if he had had the leisure of Skousen or myself, to come up with an explanation, and let the original 1830 text stand....

I think it shows that Joseph wasn't the author and didn't have a memorized backstory that he was attempting to get straight. This is evidence that he dictated his translation, and then went back over it to make sense of it. Past that, we get into issues of the nature of translation, which is a complex issue in and of itself.

[cinepro]

Did you intend to leave out Mosiah 1:1 in your quote?

No, just sloppy cut-and-paste.

[Questing Beast]

...

I think it shows that Joseph wasn't the author and didn't have a memorized backstory that he was attempting to get straight. This is evidence that he dictated his translation, and then went back over it to make sense of it. Past that, we get into issues of the nature of translation, which is a complex issue in and of itself.

Or, that he went "crud, how did I muff that?" I have no trouble at all accepting that JS had a "back story" going inside his head all the time that the BoM was being written out. He was under-educated, not intellectually weak. It seems very plausible to me that JS was brilliant, and had a prodigious memory for details. But he was not infallible. His story, once committed to print, largely went where "finished projects" all go, to the "filed" part of the brain. When it came time to do another print run (1837) he oversaw the editing and however this set of "contradictory" details came to his attention he decided to alter it to make more immediate sense. Too bad. I like the 1830 version, it has more depth....

[Brant Gardner]

Or, that he went "crud, how did I muff that?" I have no trouble at all accepting that JS had a "back story" going inside his head all the time that the BoM was being written out. He was under-educated, not intellectually weak. It seems very plausible to me that JS was brilliant, and had a prodigious memory for details. But he was not infallible. His story, once committed to print, largely went where "finished projects" all go, to the "filed" part of the brain. When it came time to do another print run (1837) he oversaw the editing and however this set of "contradictory" details came to his attention he decided to alter it to make more immediate sense. Too bad. I like the 1830 version, it has more depth....

Except that your explanation requires that he had it right, then forgot why he had it right--and changed it to be wrong because he now saw as a contradiction something he had more carefully worked out before.

If I knew the backstory, I would have explained why it wasn't a mistake in the first place. Joseph doesn't appear to have known it.

[Questing Beast]

Exactly, not perfect recall. He was inspired that what he was receiving was a revealed story that had taken place in the Western Hemisphere. So the original creation was under the belief he had in that inspiration. Once down on paper and published the "muse" of immediacy departed and he turned to genuine religion-making. The BoM was set aside and everything else connected to the creation of the "Church of the Latter-day Saints" took center stage. By 1837 the finer details of the BoM narrative had departed. Upon a rereading it was noted by somebody that the whole chronology of Ammon to the land of Nephi and back again didn't seem to fit the details, asserting that the king was Benjamin instead of Mosiah, and then having the return to Zarahemla further that confusion. Either way, one of the "inspired" versions is not inspired. Either he got it right the first time and screwed it up, or else he got it wrong the first time and corrected it. I already stated why I prefer the 1830 version of the story, and why I prefer the 1830 edition is similar: the original is supposed to be "the most correct book on earth", not the subsequent editions with all of their "fixes". If we take the subsequent editions as "more correct" than the 1830, then we have to accept that JS didn't get it right in the first place, so what else did he not get right? Yet this passage where Benjamin is the king referred to by Ammon, and the added detail of tribal allegiances upon Ammon's return with "his subjects", reads as the correct one, not the later "corrected" one that we now have....

[Tacenda]

Listening to this right now, it is called Royal Skousen "The Original and Printer's Manuscript" (Book of Mormon)

Just thought someone might be interested in it. It's 1 of a 3 part series.

[canard78]

Listening to this right now, it is called Royal Skousen "The Original and Printer's Manuscript" (Book of Mormon)

Just thought someone might be interested in it. It's 1 of a 3 part series.

Thanks for the link. Is this the one where he says he has almost proven the Book of Mormon to be true?

[Tacenda]

Now listening to part 2 with Royal Skousen. It's called "The Printed Editions of the Book of Mormon". It is so interesting how many changes were made to the original BoM. Sometimes I believe we should change the AoF #8, "We believe the bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly, we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God." And change the portion with the BoM, to read "we believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God as far as it is printed correctly"! I guess the original is sometimes changed right before printing, and they don't know if it was JS, Oliver Cowdery or even the printer himself. And the original manuscript/page was thrown away because it was inked up.

[Ahab]

You need to read the article more carefully. The starting point seemingly does not start at "the very point that the 116 pages leave off", but rather it seems that there are a couple of chapters missing from the beginning of the Book of Mosiah.

Glenn

I think he meant the 116 covered the span of time in Nephi's other plates.

You don't think the first 2 chapters of Mosiah took up 116 pages, do you?

[Tacenda]

The third youtube, featuring Professor Royal Skousen and his presentation of "The Nature of the Original Text of the Book of Mormon". Plus very nice introduction given by our very own Dr. Daniel Peterson! Dan mentions this as being probably the most important of the three.

ETA: I'm nearing the end of this one, having to pause frequently. Pro. Skousen just mentioned how he thought JS should have said in the AoF #8, that we believe the bible is the word of God as far as it is "transmitted" correctly. Then he goes onto say that the Book of Mormon was transmitted also. And in my mind I believe he is thinking that both are the word of God as far as both are transmitted correctly.

Edited August 14, 2013 by Tacenda

[prismsplay]

I have a copy of the Restored Covenant Edition of the Book of Mormon. It is very good to read. I understand Skousen was consulted during it's production and has praised it following publication.

The only drawback for me is that it follows the RLDS chapter and verse divisions, which makes direct comparison awkward.

Has anyone else read this version?

I have both Restored Covenant Edition (1999) and The Earliest Text (2009). There is a way to compare the way they handle

various passages of interest. The same Zarahemla Research Foundation that published Restored Covenant Edition also published The Book of Mormon Chapter & Verse: RLDS - LDS Conversion Table (2000). This is a 48 page booklet that is easy to use.

The editors of the Restored Covenant Edition felt inspired to undertake their work of comparing the Original and Printer's manuscripts, even though they were amateurs at textual criticism (e.g. they did not correct the Amlicites/Amalekites confusion). They were aware that Royal Skousen was better equipped for the task and looked forward to the publication of his investigations. The general acceptance of Restored Covenant Edition by those of the RLDS tradition who still studied and treasured the Book of Mormon in spite of RLDS leadership's rejection of it, meant that for a decade prior to The Earliest Text they had a text similar to what Skousen would produce.

Although I study both the Restored Covenant Edition and The Earliest Text, I really like the way Grant Hardy's A Reader's Edition (2003) is laid out, even though the 1920 text it employs is deficient.

One really nice feature of the Restored Covenant Edition is its "Geography Concordance".

[canard78]

I think the biggest hole in this is what Skousen considers to be among his best evidence.

Why would a tight translation of a 2000 year old mesoamerican/Hebrew text be translated into 16th/17th century English for a 19th century audience?