Mosiah priority
Mosiah priority is a theory about the creation of the Book of Mormon arguing that the original manuscript began not with 1 Nephi (found at the beginning of the Book of Mormon), but midway through, starting with Mosiah. According to Mosiah priority, after the text of Mosiah through the end of the Book of Mormon was transcribed, the author returned to the beginning and transcribed 1 Nephi through Words of Mormon. Mosiah priority is the most widely held solution.
Priority in the Book of Mormon
The original transcription of the Book of Mormon by scribe Martin Harris was interrupted by the loss of the original manuscript. The question about the subsequent workflow is known as the problem of priority in the Book of Mormon.
Lost 116 pages
The "Lost 116 pages" were the original manuscript pages of the Book of Mormon which were entrusted to scribe Martin Harris[1] and subsequently lost. Smith subsequently announced a revelation:
Behold I say unto you, that you shall not translate again those words which have gone forth out of your hands; for behold, they shall not lie any more against those words; for behold, if you should bring forth the same words, they would say that you have lied; that you have pretended to translate, but that you have contradicted your words; and behold they would publish this, and satan would harden the hearts of the people, to stir them up to anger against you, that they might not believe my words[2]
In a preface to the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon, Smith writes of the Lost 116 pages:
I translated, by the gift and power of God, and caused to be written, one hundred and sixteen pages, the which I took from the Book of Lehi, which was an account abridged from the plates of Lehi, by the hand of Mormon; which said account, some person or persons have stolen and kept from me, notwithstanding my utmost exertions to recover it again -- and being commanded of the Lord that I should not translate the same over again, for Satan had put it into their hearts to tempt the Lord their God, by altering the words that they did read contrary from that which I translated and caused to be written; and if I should bring forth the same words again, or, in other words, if I should translate the same over again, they would publish that which they had stolen, and Satan would stir up the hearts of this generation, that they might not receive this work: but behold the Lord said unto me, I will not suffer that Satan shall accomplish his evil design in this thing: therefore thou shalt translate from the plates of Nephi, until ye come to that which ye have translated, which ye have retained; and behold ye shall publish it as a record of Nephi; and thus I will confound those who have altered my words. I will not suffer that they shall destroy my work;
1 Nephi priority
Faced with the loss of the 116 page manuscript, transcription of a second manuscript began.
The theory of 1 Nephi Priority argues that after the loss of the original 116-page manuscript, the transcription process returned to the beginning of the Golden Plates narrative, starting over at the beginning with 1 Nephi.[3] Proponents of 1 Nephi Priority included multiple 20th century authors.[4]
| 1 Nephi Priority | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The lost 116 pages were transcribed first; After their loss, transcription began anew, starting at 1 Nephi. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mosiah priority
The theory of Mosiah Priority argues that after the loss of the original 116-page manuscript, transcription continued in narrative order, beginning with Mosiah and continuing to Moroni.[5] Afterwards, the transcription process turned to replacing the beginning of the Book of Mormon (1 Nephi to Words), roughly corresponding to the material in the Lost 116 pages.[6]
| Mosiah Priority | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The lost 116 pages were transcribed first; After their loss, transcription resumed Mosiah through Moroni. Finally, transcription concluded with 1 Nephi to Words. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Historical evidence
The title page for the Book of Mormon dated 11 Jun 1829 discusses Mormon’s abridgment and Ether, but fails to mention the Book of Moroni or the alternate beginning.[5]
While the first page of the original manuscript is lost, the second page (starting with 1 Ne. 2:2) exists and is written in Cowdery's handwriting.[5] Since the first scribes for the Original Manuscript (O) are said to be Joseph's wife Emma and his younger brother Samuel, this suggests the original manuscript was not begun at 1 Nephi.[5][7]
Textual evidence
Textual evidence for Mosiah Priority includes the shift in word choices over the transcription process. Scholars examine pairs of words that are roughly synonymous, such as:
- “therefore” and “wherefore.”
- “whoso” and “whosoever.”
- “inasmuch” and “insomuch.”[8]
- Frequency Therefore vs Wherefore in the Book of Mormon (occurrences per 1000 words)
Red is "Therefore", Blue is "Wherefore"
Computational studies
A 2008 computational study claimed to note patterns which support Mosiah priority, although its methodology is not without criticism.[9][10]
Reception
Mosiah priority is the most widely held solution.[11][12]
References
- ↑ circa April–June 1828
- ↑ "Book of Commandments, 1833". Josephsmithpapers.org. 1904-02-20. Retrieved 2014-01-04.
- ↑ In order: 1 Nephi, 2 Nephi, Jacob, Enos, Jarom, Omni, Words of Mormon, Mosiah, Alma, Helaman, 3 Nephi, 4 Nephi, Mormon, Ether, Moroni, and finally the Title Page.
- ↑ Ivan J. Barrett (1973, 86-88), Fawn M. Brodie (1971, 55, 57), Paul R. Cheesman (1973, 51-55), Richard O. Cowan (1984, 31), Francis W. Kirkham (1942, 222-25), and John J. Stewart (1966, 26-27).
- 1 2 3 4 Metcalfe, Brent Lee (1993), "The Priority of Mosiah: A Prelude to Book of Mormon Exegesis", New Approaches to the Book of Mormon, Salt Lake City: Signature Books, pp. 395–444.
- ↑ Mosiah followed by Alma, Helaman, 3 Nephi, 4 Nephi, Mormon, Ether, Moroni, Title Page, 1 Nephi, 2 Nephi, Jacob, Enos, Jarom, Omni, and finally Words of Mormon
- ↑ 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.
- ↑ Smith, Christopher C. (2012-11-15), "Worlds Without End: A Mormon Studies Roundtable", Withoutend.org (group blog), retrieved 2014-01-09
|contribution=ignored (help) - ↑ Jockers, Matthew L.; Witten, Daniela M.; Criddle, Craig S. (2008), "Reassessing authorship of the Book of Mormon using delta and nearest shrunken centroid classification", Literary and Linguistic Computing, Oxford University Press, 23 (4): 465-491, doi:10.1093/llc/fqn040. Unauthorized reprint at solomonspalding.com
- ↑ Jockers, Matthew L. (2013), "Testing Authorship in the Personal Writings of Joseph Smith Using NSC Classification", Literary and Linguistic Computing, Oxford University Press, 28 (3): 371-381, doi:10.1093/llc/fqs041. Author's reprint at stanford.edu
- ↑ Proponents include: Hyrum L. Andrus (1966, 124; 1968, 89-90), Edward H. Ashment, Richard L. Bushman (1984, 99, 223n67), Church Educational System curriculum writers (CES 1989, 59), Edwin J. Firmage (1992), Arthur Glen Foster, Jr. (1983, i, 48-53, 83, 205, 244-45, 252-55), the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (FARMS 1987, 1:xi), Kenneth W. Godfrey (1988, 11-12), Dean C. Jessee (1970, 277-78), Stan Larson (1974, 16-20; 1977, 87-88), Dale L. Morgan (Walker 1986, 309-10), Max J. Parkin (1979, 69-70, 76, 84), Jerald and Sandra [p.399] Tanner (1989; 1990, 32-37), John A. Tvedtnes (1991, 202; 1992, 223),7 Dan Vogel (1988, 124n37), Wesley P. Walters (1990, 90, 93-94), John W. Welch and Tim Rathbone (1986, 1, 17, 21-22, 26-28, 33-39; 1992a, 212; 1992b, 2-4, 8; see also Welch 1988, 46-47; 1990, 130-31, 134), and Robert John Woodford (1974, 203-204).
- ↑ Roper, Matthew (1994), "A More Perfect Priority?", Review of Books on the Book of Mormon, Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship, BYU, 6 (1): 362–78, retrieved 2014-01-09