FAIR is a non-profit organization dedicated to providing well-documented answers to criticisms of the doctrine, practice, and history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Difference between revisions of "Book of Mormon/Anachronisms/The Red Sea"
m (→Endnotes) |
m (→Endnotes) |
||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
==Endnotes== | ==Endnotes== | ||
| − | #{{note|BAR1}}Bernard F. Batto, "Red Sea or Reed Sea?: How the Mistake Was Made and What ''Yam Sûp'' Really Means," ''Biblical Archaeology Review'' 10:4 (July/August 1984) | + | #{{note|BAR1}}Bernard F. Batto, "Red Sea or Reed Sea?: How the Mistake Was Made and What ''Yam Sûp'' Really Means," ''Biblical Archaeology Review'' 10:4 (July/August 1984):56–63. |
Revision as of 22:30, 30 May 2006
Contents
Criticism
KJV bible. Critics cast doubt on the miracle of Moses parting the Red Sea by asserting that it is a mistranslation of the Hebrew phrase yam sûp. They say it should read "the Reed Sea," and that the Israelites actually just crossed a marshy inlet while the Egyptians' chariots got stuck in the mud.
Book of Mormon. They further conclude that the Book of Mormon's use of "Red Sea" is evidence that Joseph was not producing an inspired translation but rather was copying from the the (mistaken) King James text.
Response
Book of Mormon. Even if the King James translation of "Red Sea" were in error, it would have no implications on the correctness of the Book of Mormon translation. Just as Paul the apostle used the language of the Septuagint, regardless of whether we may have earlier, more accurate manuscripts to quote from today, Joseph Smith used the language of the King James bible. In both cases, the living prophet used the language of the version of scripture that was most widely accepted as authoritative at the time.
KJV bible. That said, there is no reason to think the King James translation is wrong in the Exodus 15 account. According to an article in Biblical Archaeology Review, the popular idea that the Hebrew phrase yam sûp actually means "Sea of Reeds" is erroneous and unsupported by linguistic evidence. Other passages use the term to clearly mean the body of water we call today the Red Sea, such as 1 Kgs. 9:26:
- And king Solomon made a navy of ships in Ezion-geber, which is beside Eloth, on the shore of the Red sea, in the land of Edom.
The author, Bernard F. Batto, does agree that yam sûp does not literally mean "Red Sea" (that would be yam adam). Rather, he believes that it is related to the Hebrew root sûp, meaning "to cease to exist," or the word sôp, meaning simply "end." Thus, the literal translation would be "the Sea at the End of the World." This is understandable in light of the fact that the ancients saw that body of water as being the frontier of known geography. This usage is confirmed in extra-biblical Jewish literature, where the phrase yam sûp is used to refer to the Red Sea, the Persian Gulf, and the Indian Ocean; i.e., "all those connecting oceans to the south."[1] Thus, the title "Sea at the End of the World" is fitting, since it was on the edge of the known world.
Since that body of water is known today as the Red Sea, it is appropriate to translate yam sûp as such. Therefore, the Book of Mormon's use of "Red Sea" is in accordance with modern usage and ancient intent.
Conclusion
There is no reason to rewrite the text of Exodus. The parting of the Red Sea was a literal, miraculous event as traditionally understood and as confirmed by the Book of Mormon and the statements of modern prophets.
Endnotes
- [note] Bernard F. Batto, "Red Sea or Reed Sea?: How the Mistake Was Made and What Yam Sûp Really Means," Biblical Archaeology Review 10:4 (July/August 1984):56–63.