Understanding Abinadi’s Questions

In my previous blogs I have shown that Joseph Smith translated the Stick of Joseph through the gift of the interpretation of languages, and that this involved Smith knowing the range of meanings of the words and phrases of the original Hebrew, but not necessarily knowing what was in the minds of the original authors.  Thus it was very possible for Smith to choose a word or phrase that was within the range of meaning of the original words and phrases but which did not express the intended meaning of the original author.

For this reason John Tvetness writes:

Some passages of the Book of Mormon can be better understood in Hebrew than in English because the Hebrew reflects word-play or a range of meaning which gives more sense to the passage.
(The Ensign; Oct. 1986 p.64)

One type of example is where questions are misunderstood as statements.  In Hebrew it is not necessary to use an interrogative clause as we know it in English. In Hebrew questions often appear as statements made in a questioning manner. As Yale Proffessor of Semitic Languages Charles Cutler Torrey wrote:

It sometimes happens in the O.T. Heb. that an interrogative sentence is not provided with any interrogative word or particle. In such cases the context is supposed to leave no room for doubt, but there are some instances of resulting misunderstanding and mistranslation, more or less disturbing. The Grk. translator ordinarily reproduces his original exactly, word for word, without undertaking to interpret; but in such passages as Is. 1:18 and (more significant) 43:23a and 24a the decision between the two varieties of sentence carries much with it.
(Our Translated Gospels; Charles Cutlet Torrey; 1936; p. 55)

For example the King James Version of Exodus 6:3 has:

And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them.
(Ex. 6:3 KJV)

“The Scriptures” version from the Institute for Scripture Research has translated this declaration as a question as follows:

And I appeared to Abraham, to Yitshaq, and to Ya’aqob, as El Shaddai.  And by My Name, YHWH, was I not known to them?
(Ex. 6:3 ISR)

And Joseph Smith himself made use of this fact in his rendering of the same passage:

And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, I am the Lord God Almighty,
the Lord JEHOVAH. And was not my name known unto them?
(Ex. 6:3 JST)

Now lets look at a passage in the BoM:

…but I say to you, that the time shall come when it shall no more be expedient to keep the law of Moses.
(Mosiah 13:27 (8:3-4 RLDS) 8:1 Stick of Joseph)

This would have been a technically accurate translation from the range of meaning of the words and phrase, but it does not capture Abinadi’s intended meaning. From the Hebrew this could also have been translated as a rhetorical question:

…but I say to you, shall a time come when it shall no more be expedient to keep the law of Moses?”

Abinadi’s point is actually to emphasize that the Torah is for all generations forever.

That Abinadi is asking a rhetorical question here is supported by the fact that Abinadi asks several other rhetorical questions in this sermon:

Have ye taught this people that they should observe to do all these things for to keep these commandments?
I say unto you, Nay
(Mosiah 13:25b-26a (8:1-2 RLDS) 8:1 Stick of Joseph)

And now, did they understand the law?
I say to you, Nay
(Mosiah 13:32 (8:9-10 RLDS) 8:2 Stick of Joseph)

For behold, did not Moses prophecy
unto them concerning the coming of
the Messiah, and that God should redeem
his people? Yea
(Mosiah 13:33a (8:11 RLDS) 8:2 Stick of Joseph)

have they not spoken more or less concerning these things?
(Mosi ah 13:33b (8:12 RLDS) 8:2 Stick of Joseph)

Have they not said?
(Mosiah 13:34 (8:13 RLDS) 8:2 Stick of Joseph)

and have they not said also?
(Mosiah 13:35 (8:14 RLDS) 8:2 Stick of Joseph)

In this context of so many other rhetorical questions it is totally appropriate to understand Abinadi’s meaning in Moshai 13:27 to be:

…but I say to you, shall a time come when it shall no more be expedient to keep the law of Moses?”
(Mosiah 13:27 (8:3-4 RLDS) 8:1 Stick of Joseph
)

This research and this page are made possible by donations from our readers. Please consider supporting this work with a donation

Donate to support this Page and Research

2 responses to “Understanding Abinadi’s Questions”

  1. JS and BoM teach that Torah and Law of Moses are two different things. In this recording I go over most verses from the BoM on this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zu7_0J2kQlE&list=PLq6UHU56ks7vGm8xQXv2ZF7dQMcKC-HPn&index=26 . I do believe Torah is still valid, and BoM shows that also with tons of scriptures after Yeshua’s death and resurrection as I show in this recording https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgUl1lclZAc&list=PLq6UHU56ks7vGm8xQXv2ZF7dQMcKC-HPn&index=35 .

    Like

    • I think you misunderstand both Joseph Smith and the scriptures to come up with the idea that the Law of Moses is distinct from the Torah, and that one is done away while the other is not. It makes for a belief in a partial and changeable God. Yehovah is not changeable, and his words will stand forever. The law will not be partially done away and partially kept. Not one yod nor tittle will be removed from the Law till heaven and earth pass away. As Joseph clearly said, ALL the ordinances ever done under the authority of the preisthood will be had in the last days. All, means every last one – the daily ordinances, the weekly, the yearly, the sabbatical, and the yovel.

      The misunderstanding is not that the Torah and the Law of Moses are two different things; rather, the Law of Moses is two different things. The proper Law that Moses gave is the Written Torah (a.k.a. the five books of Moses). The Jews also claim that there is an Oral Torah which adds many needless difficulties and complexities. These are the things that Jesus was constantly chiding the Pharisees about. These are the philosophies of men mingled with scripture. The Oral Torah, which the Jews call the “Law of Moses” (and which most Christians also believe is the Law of Moses), with all of its ordinances (which are doctrines of men) is the thing which will not continue when the restoration is complete. This is the thing which the scriptures have never testified would be restored.

      Like

Leave a comment