Abstract (well…kind
of): The following is a summary of Dana M. Pike and David R. Seely, “‘Upon All the Ships of the Sea, and Upon All the Ships of Tarshish’: Revisiting 2 Nephi 12:16 and Isaiah 2:16,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 14/2 (2005), pg. 12-25. The reader is encouraged to
read this whole article, and also consult it for source citations regarding
that various points made in this brief review.
Introduction
One of the
most important things for apologetics to keep in perspective is that a good
defense requires sound scholarship. Anytime we make an argument on the basis of
bad, or faulty information, it is like building our house upon a sandy foundation
(see Matt. 7:26-27). Furthermore, as Latter-day Saints, we simply should not
fear the truth. For those reasons, I proceed to disabuse the few who may follow
or find this blog of a popular “evidence” given for the Book of Mormon, which
is likely not based on a firm foundation.
The Situation
Footnote a to 2 Nephi 12:16 aptly summarizes what
most members believe about this verse:
The Greek (Septuagint) has “ships of the sea.” The Hebrew
has “ships of Tarshish.” The Book of Mormon has both, showing that the brass
plates had lost neither phrase.
This is likely based on the observations of Sidney B.
Sperry, who first wrote about this topic in 1939. It has, since then, been
repeated over and over by various commentators. The problem is that it’s a lot
more complicated than that. Scholars today, for one reason or another, tend to
think that the two phrases (“ships of the sea” and “ships of Tarshish”) are one
and the same. I will go a bit into the Hebrew and Greek texts to try and
explain just what the problem is.
“Upon all the Ships
of Tarshish”: The Hebrew Text
The Hebrew text for this verse reads:
(a)
wĕ al kol-
ŏnîyôt taršîš
(b)
wĕ al kol-
śĕkîyôt ha emdâ
Some have argued that the Hebrew
word taršîš, usually translated into
English as “Tarshish,” actually means “sea.” This argument is based on the fact
that taršîš is rendered as “sea” in
other passages of the Greek text (besides Isaiah 2:16), and that Jerome, who
translated the Bible into Latin, indicated that there was some tradition that interpreted
the Hebrew taršîš as “sea.”
I would also like to draw attention
to the second line (b), where śĕkîyôt has
been translated as “pleasant pictures” in the KJV and the Book of Mormon. The
discovery of the Ugaritic tablets, and also Egyptian cognates, has helped
scholars gain a better understanding of this word. Today, modern translators
tend to translate śĕkîyôt as either
“ship” or “craft,” (the NRSV has “the beautiful craft”) thus creating a
parallel couplet between lines (a) and (b). This seems to be consistent with
the Greek (see below). Thus it is likely that “pleasant pictures” is not a
correct translation.
“Upon Every Ship of the Sea”: The Greek
Text
The Greek of this verse reads:
(a)
Kai epi
pan ploion thalassēs
(b)
Kai epi
pasan thean ploiōn callous
Most
scholars have argued that thalassēs,
“sea” was mistranscribed, and should have been tharsēs, “Tarshish.” The two words are similar enough that this is
a reasonable explanation. The other possibility is, as noted above, that the
Greek translators understood the Hebrew taršîš
to mean “sea,” and thus intentionally translated it as thalassēs. Line (b) usually is translated “and upon every display of fine ships,” and thus accords
with the view of modern scholars regarding the most likely interpretation of
the Hebrew.
Implications for 2 Nephi 2:16
So, what, then, are the implications this has for the
Book of Mormon? Well, the first thing is that the Greek text is not a vindication of the Book of Mormon
text. Since “ships of the sea” in the Greek is most likely the same line as
“ships of Tarshish” in the Hebrew, the Greek text simply doesn’t offer support
for the Book of Mormon’s variant reading. This of course doesn’t mean that
there never was ancient version of this passage which has the extra line, it
just means that we don’t have evidence for it.
Second, since lines (a) and (b) form a parallel pair, it
seems unlikely that a third line of text was present in the original form of
this verse. Isaiah 2:13-16 creates a symmetric unit, with repeating parallel
pairs. Thus, a third line in verse 16 would seem to be out of place.
Third, in having the line that says “pleasant pictures,”
it would seem the Book of Mormon perpetuates a mistranslation.
Dealing With These Implications
How do we, as believers in the Book of Mormon, deal with
these implications? Well, I’ll first offer my thoughts on the mistranslation
issue. While it may discomfort some to admit a mistranslation in
the KJV that is perpetuated in the Book of Mormon, it must be remembered that although
the Book of Mormon has been translated by inspiration, that does not make it
inerrant. “Pleasant pictures” was an acceptable (or “correct”) translation of śĕkîyôt in 1830, and given that the
difference has absolutely no theological import, it (“pleasant pictures”) may
have been deemed (either by Joseph, or the Lord) as “sufficiently plain to suit
my purposes” (see D&C 128:18).
What about
the other two issues? How can we explain/accommodate the extra line? Well, there
are a few different possibilities. Some (though not all) of these are brought
up and examined by Pike and Seely, who determine whether or not they are very
likely. Here, I’ll just state the various possibilities.
1. Although
it seems unlikely, it is possible that all three lines were a part of the
original verse, with “ships of the sea” and “ships of Tarshish” forming the
parallelism and “pleasant pictures” (or, more correctly, “display of fine
ships”) being an all encompassing summary statement of the two parallels. Verse
13 has three lines, so this may have actually enhanced the symmetry (by
creating a parallel structure between the opening and closing verses of the symmetric
unit), not diminished it.
2. It
could have been introduced as a variant, either by error or deliberate editing,
very early on, resulting in a textual tradition that persisted for a short
time, and thus got it copied onto the brass plates that way. If that is the
case, then that particular textual tradition would have probably died out shortly
after exile (probably before the Dead Sea Scrolls era), and did not survive
until the present day. This could perhaps have happened if someone influential
noticed that it had been an error that was perpetuated.
3. It
could have been an error or intentional edit that originated with the brass
plates. Those plates were subsequently taken from Jerusalem by Nephi and his
brothers, and thus kept that error from being continued among the Jews (hence,
there would be no evidence of it in any of the ancient manuscripts).
4. It
could have been an error or intentional edit made by Nephi as he was copying
down the verses on to his plates from the brass plates. Again, this would mean
we would not discover any of evidence of the variant in any of the available
manuscripts.
5. It
could have been an error made by Joseph Smith or Oliver Cowdrey in the
translation/transcription process. The Original Manuscript is not extant for
this portion of the Book of Mormon, so we can’t examine it for whatever
evidence this may hold.
Conclusion
The only
real conclusion we can reach is that the Greek does not offer ancient evidence for this variant in the Book of Mormon. While
this has been a popular argument among Latter-day Saints, it needs to be
abandoned. If options 1 or 2 are what happened, then we may someday see some
evidence of this emerge if/when older (much older) manuscripts of Isaiah are
discovered. If the variant was introduced through one of options 3-5, then we
will likely never have this variant reading vindicated, but that is okay. It
should be clear from the above that there were plenty of opportunities for this
variant to creep in (or disappear from other textual traditions, as the case
may be), and thus there is no reason its presence should be taken as evidence against the divine and ancient origins
of the book. As we disabuse ourselves of ill-founded arguments, we can better
shore up the foundations of our faith, thus ensuring that we are built upon the
rock, where the arguments of the adversary will have no power over us (see Matt. 7:24-25; Hel. 5:12).
Good on ya, Neal.
ReplyDelete