Difference between revisions of "KJV italicized text in the Book of Mormon"

m (BOT: change ((Navigation BoM}} to {{Navigation:Book of Mormon}}, replaced: {{Navigation Book of Mormon}} → {{Navigation:Book of Mormon}})
m
 
(29 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
 
{{Main Page}}
 
{{Main Page}}
−
{{Navigation:Book of Mormon}}
+
{{Navigation:Bible}}{{blankline}}
 +
{{Navigation:Book of Mormon}}{{blankline}}
  
−
<onlyinclude>
+
= Why are there italics in the KJV bible? =
−
{{Header}}
 
−
</onlyinclude>
 
  
−
The Book of Mormon contains quotations of, echoes of, and allusions to the King James Bible. The quotations contain words from the King James Bible that are placed in italics. Italics in the King James Bible indicate that a word not present in the original Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic text has been added to the text to make the translation readable and comprehensible as well as sometimes clarify the meaning of the underlying text.  
+
Italics in the King James Bible indicate that a word not present in the original Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic text has been added to the text to make the translation readable and comprehensible in English. They are also sometimes added to clarify the meaning of the original.
  
−
The Book of Mormon sometimes retains the italics as rendered in the King James Bible. In other cases it merely deletes the italics in places where the KJV deletes italics. In still other cases the Book of Mormon modifies words that are italicized in the KJV.
+
= What does this have to do with the Book of Mormon? =
  
−
Some critics believe that the presence of the italics is an indication that Joseph Smith didn’t translate an ancient text and instead just plagiarized a copy of the King James Bible. Critic Jeremy T. Runnells, author of the ''CES Letter'', explains that “[w]hen King James translators were translating the KJV Bible between 1604 and 1611, they would occasionally put in their own words into the text to make the English more readable. We know exactly what these words are because they’re italicized in the KJV Bible.” He then asks “[w]hat are these 17th century italicized words doing in the Book of Mormon? Word for word? What does this say about the Book of Mormon being an ancient record?”<ref>Jeremy T. Runnells, ''CES Letter: My Search for Answers to My Mormon Doubts'' (n.p.: CES Letter Foundation, 2017), 14.</ref> The assumption seems to be that the Book of Mormon, if truly a translation of an ancient text, should either not include these words or include different words that reflect the ancient, original text of the biblical passage in question. Since the italicized words from the KJV are included (which, as correctly indicated by Runnells, were inserted in the KJV beginning in the 1600s when the first edition of the KJV was created), this is evidence that the Book of Mormon is not ancient and that it was plagiarized, at least in part, from the King James Bible. Important to emphasize as a mild correction to Runnells that the italics did not merely make the English more readable but also inserted words not present in the original translation that clarified the underlying meaning of the Greek and Hebrew being translated.
+
The Book of Mormon contains quotations from and allusions to the King James Bible. The quotations contain words that are italicized in the King James Bible.
  
−
Other critics look at how the Book of Mormon modifies the italics of the King James Bible that seem to suggest that Joseph was using a 1769 edition of the KJV to compose the text of the Book of Mormon. For example, critic Stan Larson argued the following in a 1993 book chapter relating to this subject:
+
The Book of Mormon sometimes retains the italicized words (without the italics!) from the King James Bible. In other cases it deletes the italicized word(s). In still other cases the Book of Mormon modifies the italicized words.
  
−
<blockquote>The Book of Mormon text often revises biblical quotations at the very point where the original 1611 edition of the KJV prints the word or words in a different typeface in order to indicate that the words are not found in the Greek. This printing device was both inconsistently and sparsely applied in the 1611 KJV and improved in the 1769 printing. When Smith came to the KJV italics in the Sermon on the Mount, which he knew indicated that whatever was printed in italics was not in the original Greek, he would often either drop the word or revise it. The Book of Mormon sometimes revises the KJV italics that are only found in the 1769 and later printings. For example, the Book of Mormon drops the italics of the 1769 printing at Matthew 6:5, 7; 7:18 (3 Ne. 13:5, 7; 14:18), and the Book of Mormon changes the tense of the italics at Matthew 5:12 (3 Ne. 12:12). On the other hand, the Book of Mormon fails to revise places where the KJV text ought to have been printed in italics but is not. In two places the Book of Mormon copies the noun "men" from the KJV, where it is not in the original Greek and has been improperly added in the KJV.<ref>Stan Larson, "The Historicity of the Matthean Sermon on the Mount in 3 Nephi," in ''New Approaches to the Book of Mormon: Explorations in Critical Methodology'', ed. Brent Lee Metcalfe (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1993), 115–63.</ref>{{Rp|pp. 130&ndash;31}}</blockquote>
+
= Evidence for plagiarism? =
 +
Some critics believe that the presence of the italics is an indication that Joseph Smith didn’t translate an ancient text and instead just plagiarized a copy of the King James Bible. The 'CES Letter', explains that "[w]hen King James translators were translating the KJV Bible between 1604 and 1611, they would occasionally put in their own words into the text to make the English more readable. We know exactly what these words are because they’re italicized in the KJV Bible." It asks "[w]hat are these 17th century italicized words doing in the Book of Mormon? Word for word? What does this say about the Book of Mormon being an ancient record?"<ref>Jeremy T. Runnells, ''CES Letter: My Search for Answers to My Mormon Doubts'' (n.p.: CES Letter Foundation, 2017), 14.</ref>  
  
−
Thus, Larson is arguing essentially the same conclusion: that the Book of Mormon text cannot be a genuine translation of an ancient text. Though he’s arguing from a different angle. He doesn’t reason to his conclusion based on the mere ''presence'' of KJV italics in the Book of Mormon like Runnells. He argues this based on the Book of Mormon’s ''interaction'' with the KJV italics. In some cases, the italics are simply dropped. In some cases, the italics are revised. In some cases, there is a passage that should have an italicized word but doesn’t. These interactions occur in places only where the 1769 edition of the KJV and later printings place italics. According to Larson, these considerations date the Book of Mormon’s composition (and, more particularly, the Savior's Sermon at the Temple recorded in 3 Nephi) to the 1800s.
+
The assumption seems to be that the Book of Mormon, if truly a translation of an ancient text, should either not include these words or use different words. (We emphasize that the italics did not&mdash;as the 'CES Letter' assumes, merely make the English more readable. They were also inserted to clarify the underlying meaning of the Greek and Hebrew being translated.)
  
−
Critic David P. Wright did the same kind of analysis for the Book of Mormon's alleged interaction with the italics of KJV Isaiah.<ref name="wrightjosephisaiah">David P. Wright, "Isaiah in the Book of Mormon: Or Joseph Smith in Isaiah," in American Apocrypha: Essays on the Book of Mormon, ed. Dan Vogel and Brent Lee Metcalfe (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2002), 157&ndash;234.</ref>{{Rp|pp. 159&ndash;69.}} He concluded that the perceived interaction "demontrates in large measure the the BoM Isaiah derives from the KJV."<ref name="wrightjosephisaiah" />{{Rp|p.159.}} More broadly, he uses this "evidence" to argue that "the Isaiah of the BoM is a revision of the KJV and not a translation of an ancient document."<ref name="wrightjosephisaiah" />{{Rp|p.157.}}
+
Critic Stan Larson argued in a 1993 book chapter that the words used make it clear that a 1769 KJV is being used:
  
−
Faithful Latter-day Saint author Stan Spencer (not Larson), following Wright,<ref name="wrightjosephisaiah" />{{Rp|pp. 164–66.}} adds one more problem to account for. Spencer informs us that "[t]hese variants are usually minor but sometimes result in readings that conflict with the larger context of Isaiah’s message or create ungrammatical or even nonsensical sentences, particularly in the earliest text of the Book of Mormon."<ref name="spencer">Stan Spencer, "[https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/missing-words-king-james-bible-italics-the-translation-of-the-book-of-mormon-and-joseph-smith-as-an-unlearned-reader/ Missing Words: King James Bible Italics, the Translation of the Book of Mormon, and Joseph Smith as an Unlearned Reader]," ''Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship'' 38 (2020): 45&ndash;106.</ref>{{Rp|p. 46}} Spencer was not using modern editions of the Book of Mormon when making his comparisons and contrasts with the King James Bible but rather Latter-day Saint linguist Royal Skousen's first edition of [https://bookofmormoncentral.org/content/book-mormon-earliest-text ''The Book of Mormon: The Earliest Text''] (2009) which is the best reconstruction of the text of the Book of Mormon so as to attempt to capture it as it was originally dictated by Joseph Smith ([https://bookofmormoncentral.org/blog/book-notice-second-edition-of-the-book-of-mormon-the-earliest-text a second edition was published in 2022]). Some thoughtful readers might ask if these omissions and revisions that are harmful to the grammar and sense of the KJV knock the Book of Mormon from its status as the "most correct book."
+
<blockquote>
 +
The Book of Mormon text often revises biblical quotations at the very point where the original 1611 edition of the KJV prints the word or words in a different typeface in order to indicate that the words are not found in the Greek. This printing device was both inconsistently and sparsely applied in the 1611 KJV and improved in the 1769 printing. When Smith came to the KJV italics in the Sermon on the Mount, which he knew indicated that whatever was printed in italics was not in the original Greek, he would often either drop the word or revise it. The Book of Mormon sometimes revises the KJV italics that are only found in the 1769 and later printings. For example, the Book of Mormon drops the italics of the 1769 printing at {{s||Matthew|6|5}}, 7; 7:18 ({{s|3|Ne.|13|5,7}}; {{s_short|3|Nephi|14|18}}), and the Book of Mormon changes the tense of the italics at {{s||Matthew|5|12}} ({{s|3|Ne.|12|12}}). On the other hand, the Book of Mormon fails to revise places where the KJV text ought to have been printed in italics but is not. In two places the Book of Mormon copies the noun "men" from the KJV, where it is not in the original Greek and has been improperly added in the KJV.<ref>Stan Larson, "The Historicity of the Matthean Sermon on the Mount in 3 Nephi," in {{CriticalWork:Metcalfe:New Approaches}}.</ref>{{Rp|130-31}}
 +
</blockquote>
  
−
Thus this article will respond to four critical questions:
+
Thus, Larson argues from a different angle&mdash;he doesn’t use the mere ''presence'' of KJV italics in the Book of Mormon like the 'CES Letter'. He argues instead based on the Book of Mormon’s ''interaction'' with the KJV italics. In some cases, the italics are simply dropped. In some cases, the italics are revised. In some cases, there is a passage that should have an italicized word but isn’t. These interactions occur in places which were only italicized in the 1769 edition and later editions of the KJV. According to Larson, these considerations date the Book of Mormon’s composition (and, more particularly, the Savior's Sermon at the Temple recorded in 3 Nephi) to the 1800s.
  
−
#First, does the presence of the KJV italicized words in the Book of Mormon indicate that Joseph Smith was consciously aware of the italics, including their meaning, and that he used a King James Bible in order to produce the text of the Book of Mormon?
+
Critic David P. Wright uses a similar analysis of the Book of Mormon's alleged interaction with the italics of KJV Isaiah.<ref name="wrightjosephisaiah">David P. Wright, "Isaiah in the Book of Mormon: Or Joseph Smith in Isaiah," in {{CriticalWork:Vogel Metcalfe:American Apocrypha}}</ref>{{Rp|159&ndash;69.}} He concluded that the perceived interaction "demontrates in large measure that the BoM Isaiah derives from the KJV."<ref name="wrightjosephisaiah"></ref>{{Rp|159.}} More broadly, he uses this "evidence" to argue that "the Isaiah of the BoM is a revision of the KJV and not a translation of an ancient document."<ref name="wrightjosephisaiah"></ref>{{Rp|157.}}
−
#Second, do the Book of Mormon's interactions with the KJV italics show that Joseph Smith was working from the 1769 edition of the King James Bible?
 
−
#Third, do the original Book of Mormon text's omissions and revisions of italics refute the teaching of Joseph Smith that the Book of Mormon is "the most correct book of any on earth"?
 
  
−
The fourth question is one that may arise from critics who respond to this article in the future or it may simply arise in the mind of the casual reader as they progress through this article: do the observations made by this author and the notions of translation subscribed to create a version of Mormonism that doesn't and/or cannot exist?
+
Believing author Stan Spencer (not Stan Larson), following Wright,<ref name="wrightjosephisaiah"></ref>{{Rp|164-66.}} discerns one more problem to account for. Spencer informs us that "[t]hese variants are usually minor but sometimes result in readings that conflict with the larger context of Isaiah’s message or create ungrammatical or even nonsensical sentences, particularly in the earliest text of the Book of Mormon."<ref name="spencer">{{Interpreter:Spencer:Missing Words King James Bible Italics The Translation:2020}}</ref>{{Rp|46}} Spencer used Royal Skousen's first edition of ''The Book of Mormon: The Earliest Text] (2009) which is the best reconstruction of the text as it was originally dictated by Joseph Smith.<ref>The second edition is available for consultation online at {{Book:Skousen:The Earliest Text}}</ref>
  
−
==Response==
+
We must thus address four questions:
−
===There’s Worthy Debate Over Whether Joseph Smith knew the meaning of the italics===
 
−
Before all else, we should note that there is worthy debate among scholars of the Book of Mormon as to whether Joseph Smith knew the meaning of the italics.
 
  
−
For those that would argue that Joseph ''didn't'' know what the italics in the Bible meant, they might cite six lines of evidence:
+
#Did Joseph know what the italics represented?
−
#[[Question: Did Joseph know what the italics in the Bible meant?|Emma Smith reported that, during the Book of Mormon translation, Joseph didn't know that Jerusalem was surrounded by walls]], a more basic fact that someone should know about the Bible. If Joseph didn't know this basic fact about Jerusalem, can we expect him to know other basic facts about the Bible?  
+
#Did Joseph use a King James Bible in order to produce the Book of Mormon, including reference to the italics?
−
#Our critics rely heavily on an assumption that Joseph Smith was deeply familiar with the Bible at the time of the translation of the Book of Mormon. Those closest to Joseph Smith in his early life state otherwise. Lucy Mack Smith, Joseph's mother, stated that "I presume our family presented an aspect as singular as any that ever lived upon the face of the earth-all seated in a circle, father, mother, sons and daughters, and giving the most profound attention to a boy, eighteen years of age, who had never read the Bible through in his life; he seemed much less inclined to the perusal of books than any of the rest of our children, but far more given to meditation and deep study."
+
#Do the Book of Mormon's interactions with the KJV italics show that Joseph Smith was working from the 1769 edition of the KJV?
−
#The witnesses to the translation are unanimous that a Bible was not consulted during the translation of the Book of Mormon (click [https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Book_of_Mormon/Translation/Method#A_compilation_of_published_statements_on_the_Book_of_Mormon_translation_method_in_both_Church_and_non-Church_publications here] or [https://byustudies.byu.edu/online-chapters/documents-of-the-translation-of-the-book-of-mormon/ here] to read their statements).<ref>John W. Welch, "[https://byustudies.byu.edu/online-chapters/documents-of-the-translation-of-the-book-of-mormon/ Documents of the Translation of the Book of Mormon]," in ''Opening the Heavens: Accounts of Divine Manifestations'', ed. John W. Welch, 2nd ed. (Provo, UT: BYU Press; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 2017), 126&ndash;227.</ref> Stan Spencer helpfully observed that "[I]f Joseph Smith used a physical bible, he would have had to do so frequently, since biblical interactions are scattered throughout the Book of Mormon. Continuously removing his face from the hat to make use of a physical Bible would not have gone unnoticed by those who watched him translate."<ref name="spencer" />{{Rp|p. 59}} Indeed, given the all the different quotations of whole chapters, phrasal interactions between the Old Testament and the Book of Mormon, as well as [[Question: How can text from the New Testament appear in the Book of Mormon?|the phrasal interactions/similarities between the New Testament and the Book of Mormon]], to conceive of Joseph Smith either memorizing these passages and phrases (for which, like the theory that Joseph consulted a Bible ''during'' the translation, there is no evidence) or consulting a Bible during the translation is ludicrous. Someone would have had to have noticed that. Yet no one reports a Bible.
+
#Do the original Book of Mormon text's omissions and revisions of italics refute the teaching of Joseph Smith that the Book of Mormon is "the most correct book of any on earth"?
−
#There is no evidence that Joseph even owned a bible at the time of the translation of the Book of Mormon. It is known that Oliver Cowdery purchased a Bible on 8 October 1829. However, the Book of Mormon was already at press by this time, with the copyright being registered on 11 June 1829.<ref name="tandr">John A. Tvedtnes and Matthew Roper, "[https://archive.bookofmormoncentral.org/content/“joseph-smiths-use-apocrypha”-shadow-or-reality Joseph Smith's Use of the Apocrypha: Shadow or Reality? (Review of Joseph Smith's Use of the Apocrypha by Jerald and Sandra Tanner)]," ''FARMS Review of Books'' 8, no. 2 (1996): 326–72.</ref> Prior to that time, the only Bible Joseph is known to have had access to was the Smith family Bible, which was not in his possession after he married and moved out of the Smith home. Joseph was poor and even poorer after moving away from home.<ref>Richard L. Bushman, ''Joseph Smith and the Beginnings of Mormonism'' (Urbana and Chicago, IL: University of Illinois Press, 1987), 95–100.</ref> Yet Oliver purchased the Bible for Joseph in October 1829 from the same guy that did the type-setting for the Book of Mormon and Joseph later used that Bible for the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible.<ref>Robert J. Matthews, ''"A Plainer Translation": Joseph Smith's Translation of the Bible, A History and Commentary'' (Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University Press, 1985), 26. Cited in John Gee, "[https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/msr/vol6/iss1/5/ La Trahison des Clercs: On the Language and Translation of the Book of Mormon (Review of New Approaches to the Book of Mormon: Explorations in Critical Methodology by Brent Lee Metcalfe)]," ''FARMS Review of Books'' 6, no. 1 (1994): 101n165.</ref> Why would Joseph, poor as he was, get a Bible if he supposedly already owned one that he consulted/plagiarized from?
 
−
#The general lack of explanation of italics in Bibles of Joseph Smith's day. The original 1611 KJV does not explain the use of italics; in fact, it silently borrowed the idea from the Geneva Bible, which does explain the use of italics.<ref>Kent P. Jackson, Frank F. Judd Jr., and David R. Seely, “[https://rsc.byu.edu/king-james-bible-restoration/chapters-verses-punctuation-spelling-italics Chapters, Verses, Punctuation, Spelling, and Italics],” in ''The King James Bible and the Restoration'', ed. Kent P. Jackson (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 2011), 108&ndash;12.</ref> The Geneva Bible explained its use of italics, the King James Bible did not.
 
−
#Royal Skousen claimed the following in a 1994 paper on the subject: "Calhoun and Robbins [two students of Skousen's also compared the italicized words in the King James Bible with the original text of the Book of Mormon (as found in the two manuscripts [the original manuscript and printer's manuscript]). And both discovered many examples where Joseph Smith deleted, added, or altered words that are not in italics in any of the King James printings they examined. Each concluded that there was no direct connection between the italics and the original Book of Mormon text. Simply giving examples where changes correspond with italics means nothing; one must look at all the changes including the ones that occur independently of italics."<ref name="skousen">Royal Skousen, "[https://archive.bookofmormoncentral.org/content/critical-methodology-and-text-book-mormon Critical Methodology and the Text of the Book of Mormon]," ''Review of Books on the Book of Mormon'' 6, no. 1 (1994): 121&ndash;44.</ref>{{Rp|p. 127}}
 
  
−
For those that believe Joseph ''did'' know the meaning of the italics, they argue this conclusion citing typically 4&ndash;5 lines of evidence:<ref>Kevin Barney, "KJV Italics," ''By Common Consent'', October 13, 2007, http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2007/10/kjv-italics/.</ref>
+
= Question #1&mdash;What did Joseph know about the italics? =
−
#The distribution of KJV italics being revised as they come to the Book of Mormon and especially the Isaiah chapters of the Book of Mormon. Royal Skousen has determined that of all the differences in the biblical quotations in the Book of Mormon, 23% involve italics. Of all the italics contained in the KJV, 38% are changed in some way in the Book of Mormon.<ref>Royal Skousen, "The History of the Text of the Book of Mormon: Presentation on Parts 5 and 6 of Volume 3 of the Critical Text Project of the Book of Mormon," Book of Mormon Central, accessed December 24, 2022, https://www.bookofmormoncentral.org/sites/default/files/documents/Blog%20entry/2020/Presentation%20parts%205%20and%206%20Hinckley%20Center.pdf.</ref> Skousen sees these facts as evidence that Joseph did ''not'' know the meaning of the italics since a much larger amount of changes do not involve italics. Though other scholars read those same percentages as significant; as evidence that Joseph ''did'' know the meaning of the italics.
 
−
#Critic David P. Wright cited a KJV Bible published in New York City in 1818&mdash;George D'Oyly and Richard Mant's ''The Holy Bible According to the Authorized Version with Notes, Explanatory and Practical''&mdash;that explained the meaning of the italics.<ref name="wrightjosephisaiah" />{{Rp|p. 159, p. 213n5}} Wright speculates that "[l]ay readers could have read such statements and circulated the information further by word of mouth. Ministers, too, would have learned the reason for italics either from these sources or through their education and no doubt would have shared it with their congregants."<ref name="wrightjosephisaiah" />{{Rp|p. 159.}}
 
−
#Stan Spencer analyzed many of the Book of Mormon's interactions with the KJV Isaiah italics and argued that the Book of Mormon's interaction with Isaiah italics cannot be due to chance.<ref name="spencer" />{{Rp|pp. 49&ndash;55}}
 
−
#The practice of crossing out italicized words in the Joseph Smith Translation. [https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/the-papers/revelations-and-translations/jsppr5 The manuscripts are available] for people today and one can see that there appears (at least to some) to be a strong focus of the revisions on the italicized words given how frequently Joseph Smith and/or his scribes crossed them out. The production of the JST began in June 1830 (after the publication of the Book of Mormon and the organization of the Church) and continued intermittently until 1833. Minor revisions were made here and there until Joseph Smith's martyrdom in 1844.
 
−
#The presence of statements from Joseph Smith's contemporary environment suggesting that there was a broader familiarity with the meaning of the italics. An editorial for the ''Evening and Morning Star'' (January 1833) stated the following: "The book of Mormon, as a revelation from God, possesses some advantage over the old scripture: it has not been tinctured by the wisdom of man, with here and there an Italic word to supply deficiencies.—It was translated by the gift and power of God."<ref>W.W. Phelps, “[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/The_Evening_and_The_Morning_Star/1/8#THE_BOOK_OF_MORMON. The Book of Mormon],” ''The Evening and the Morning Star'' 1, no. 8 (January 1833): 58.</ref> A few months later (July 1833), the same paper had an editorial that states "[a]s to the errors in the bible, any man possessed of common understanding, knows, that both the old and new testaments are filled with errors, obscurities, italics and contradictions, which must be the work of men."<ref>“[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/The_Evening_and_The_Morning_Star/2/14#ERRORS_OF_THE_BIBLE. Errors of the Bible],” ''The Evening and the Morning Star'' 2, no. 14 (July 1833): 106.</ref> Roughly ten years later (September 1843) in the Latter-day Saint news paper ''Times and Seasons'', another Latter-day Saint writer stated that "[m]uch has been said about the bad translations of the Bible. . . . Every school boy seems to know that when either of the sectarian translators failed in making the two ends of a sentence meet, he filled up the vacuity with ''italic'', by which means God has been greatly helped towards expressing himself so as to be understood by the learned world."<ref>"[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/The_Evening_and_The_Morning_Star/2/14#ERRORS_OF_THE_BIBLE. Minutes of A Conference]," ''Times and Seasons'' 4, no. 20 (September 1, 1843): 318; emphasis in original. Quoted in Kent P. Jackson, “[https://rsc.byu.edu/king-james-bible-restoration/king-james-bible-joseph-smith-translation The King James Bible and the Joseph Smith Translation],” in ''The King James Bible and the Restoration'', ed. Kent P. Jackson (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 2011), 203.</ref> An 1831 article (critical of the Church and its claims) in ''The Sun'', a newspaper in Philadelphia, states the following: "Finally, after frequent and fervent prayer, Jo's spectacles were restored to sight, and he again permitted to open the book. -- Jo had, during his spiritual blindness, by the assistance of some one, commited several chapters of the New Testament to memory; and, the better to carry on his deception with the deluded Harris, had inquired, and found out the words inserted by the translators; (which are distinguished by Italics, both in the New Testament and the Old.) So, in order to convince Harris that he could read from the plates, Jo deposits them in his hat, applies spectacles, and refers Harris to a chapter in the Bible which he had learned by rote; and which he read from the plates, with surprising accuracy; and what astonished Harris most, was, that Jo should omit all the words in the Bible that were printed in Italic. And, if Harris attempted to correct Jo, he persisted that the plates were right, and the Bible was wrong."<ref>“Mormonites,” ''The Sun'', August 18, 1831, http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/PA/Phil1830.htm.</ref> The source of this article's assertions is unknown to the author of this article (couldn't locate any reference in the source to Martin as a source), though Stan Spencer says that it was "based apparently on an interview with Martin Harris".<ref name="spencer" />{{Rp|p. 62.}}
 
  
−
Both perspectives are viable and, as of yet, still in the debate among scholars of the Book of Mormon today.
+
There is considerable debate among scholars of the Book of Mormon as to whether Joseph Smith knew the meaning of the italics.
  
−
===Three Hypotheses For How and Why the Italicized Words in Book of Mormon Were Modified===
+
== Evidence Joseph did not know what the italics meant ==
−
Stan Spencer laid out three hypotheses for the italicized words of the KJV in the Book of Mormon including how and why they were revised or omitted as they were revised and omitted.
+
Those that argue that Joseph ''didn't'' know what the italics mean cite six lines of evidence:
  
−
#The first of these was created by Elder B.H. Roberts. Roberts hypothesized that the italics interaction represents what was on the actual Book of Mormon plates. In Spencer's words: "Roberts attributes the differences in the Book of Mormon to ancient variants in the Nephite plates, presumably reflecting the record on the brass plates, at least in the chapters Nephi and Jacob say they are reading, According to Roberts, the version of Isaiah in the Book of Mormon is consistently “superior [in] sense and clearness.”<ref name="spencer" />{{Rp|p. 56}} Spencer calls this the '''Ancient Variants Hypothesis'''.
+
'''1.''' [[Question: Did Joseph know what the italics in the Bible meant?|Emma Smith reported that, during the Book of Mormon translation, Joseph didn't know that Jerusalem was surrounded by walls]] If Joseph didn't know this basic fact about Jerusalem, can we expect him to have a fairly sophisticated understanding of the purpose of the italics?
−
#The second hypothesis Spencer calls the '''Italics Revision Hypothesis'''. This is the theory held by people like Stan Larson, David P. Wright, and faithful Latter-day Saint Book of Mormon scholar Brant Gardner. This theory holds that Joseph Smith was intentionally targeting italics in the King James Bible, knowing what they meant, and intentionally revising them or dropping them.<ref name="spencer" />{{Rp|pp. 56&ndash;58}}
 
−
#The third hypothesis, Spencer's own theory, he calls the '''Missing Words Hypothesis'''. This theory holds that Joseph was given a vision of a biblical passage in his mind with missing KJV italics and that part of the work of translation for Joseph Smith was to decide whether to supply words to the passage and, if so, what words to supply.<ref name="spencer" />
 
  
−
Now we deal with the questions raised above.
+
'''2.''' Our critics rely heavily on an assumption that Joseph Smith was deeply familiar with the Bible at the time of the translation of the Book of Mormon. Those closest to Joseph Smith in his early life state otherwise. Lucy Mack Smith, Joseph's mother, stated that "I presume our family presented an aspect as singular as any that ever lived upon the face of the earth-all seated in a circle, father, mother, sons and daughters, and giving the most profound attention to a boy, eighteen years of age, who had never read the Bible through in his life; he seemed much less inclined to the perusal of books than any of the rest of our children, but far more given to meditation and deep study."<ref>{{Book:Smith:History of Joseph Smith by His Mother:1954|pages=82-83}}</ref>
  
−
===1. Is the presence of italics from the KJV Bible evidence of plagiarism on the part of Joseph Smith to create the Book of Mormon?===
+
'''3.''' The witnesses to the translation are unanimous that a Bible was not consulted during the translation of the Book of Mormon.<ref>John W. Welch, "[https://byustudies.byu.edu/online-chapters/documents-of-the-translation-of-the-book-of-mormon/ Documents of the Translation of the Book of Mormon]," in ''Opening the Heavens: Accounts of Divine Manifestations'', ed. John W. Welch, 2nd ed. (Provo, UT: BYU Press; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 2017), 126&ndash;227.</ref>
−
The italics make the English text of the Bible more readable, clear, and comprehensible. If Joseph Smith and God were trying to keep a good translation of the text and especially one that is readable, clear, and comprehensible, why wouldn’t God and Joseph Smith just keep those same italics in the Book of Mormon? It’s nonsensical to claim that the mere presence of the italicized words is in and of itself damning.
 
−
<!--There are many more reasons to reject a charge of plagiarism on the part of Joseph Smith:
 
  
−
#Nephi and the Savior generally make it clear when they are quoting from Isaiah. Assuming that a modern person (or group of people) is the author of the text (which they aren’t), they are citing their sources directly which is definitionally not plagiarism. ''At worst'', Joseph Smith (and/or his supposed co-conspirators) can ''only'' be said to be haphazardly using Isaiah to create the Book of Mormon, not ''plagiarizing'' Isaiah. As far as Micah is concerned, the Savior just launches into a word-for-word quotation/reproduction of what God the Father uttered to the prophet Micah in Micah 4:12&ndash;13 and 5:8&ndash;14 (3 Nephi 16:14&ndash;15; 20:16&ndash;20; 21:12&ndash;18, 21). Why can't he just reproduce what his Father uttered? Give the same prophecy to the Nephites? That's not really plagiarism on Joseph's part. That's the Savior citing his source, God the Father, and transmitting the same prophecy given to Micah to the Nephites.<ref>For the most thorough coverage of the Micah material in the Book of Mormon, see Dana M. Pike, "Passages from the Book of Micah in the Book of Mormon," in ''They Shall Grow Together: The Bible in the Book of Mormon'', ed. Charles Swift and Nicholas J. Frederick (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 2022), 393&ndash;443.</ref> Mormon does similarly with Micah 5:8 in Mormon 5:24. As far as the Sermon on the Mount is concerned, it's obvious that the Savior would teach the same message to all people if he has a singular, unified message to teach them. The Savior repeating himself is not plagiarism on the part of Joseph Smith. John W. Welch has documented important differences between the Sermon on the Mount recorded in the New Testament and what he calls the Sermon at the Temple (basically the Sermon on the Mount given at the Nephite temple in Bountiful) that show that Joseph Smith did not just mindlessly copy the Sermon on the Mount into the Book of Mormon.<ref>John W. Welch, [https://archive.bookofmormoncentral.org/content/sermon-temple-and-sermon-mount-differences ''Illuminating the Sermon at the Temple & the Sermon on the Mount''] (Provo, UT: FARMS, 1999), 125&ndash;50.</ref> Why would Joseph or his conspirators plagiarize the one source most familiar to their 19th century, Northeastern, frontier audience? Why would he copy whole chapters haphazardly when that audience was so familiar with his source material?
+
{{Related articles
−
#A closer look at these duplicate texts actually provides us an additional witness of the Book of Mormon's authenticity.<ref>See Michael Hickenbotham, ''Answering Challenging Mormon Questions: Replies to 130 Queries by Friends and Critics of the LDS Church''  (Springville, UT: Cedar Fort Publisher, 2004),193–196.{{NB}}</ref> One verse ({{s|2|Nephi|12|16}}) is not only different but adds a completely new phrase: "And upon all the ships of the sea." This non-King James addition agrees with the Greek (Septuagint) version of the Bible, which was first translated into English in 1808 by Charles Thomson. It is also contained in the Coverdale 1535 translation of the Bible.<ref>The implications of this change represent a more complicated textual history than previously thought. See discussion in Dana M. Pike and David R. Seely, "[https://archive.bookofmormoncentral.org/content/“upon-all-ships-sea-and-upon-all-ships-tarshish”-revisiting-2-nephi-1216-and-isaiah-216 ‘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, no. 2 (2005): 12–25. For earlier discussions, see {{TruthGodmakers1 | start=172}}; see also {{AncientAmericaBoM|start=100|end=102}}; {{Nibley7|start=129|end=143}}. See also Royal Skousen, “[https://archive.bookofmormoncentral.org/content/textual-variants-isaiah-quotations-book-mormon Textual Variants in the Isaiah Quotations of the Book of Mormon],” in ''Isaiah in the Book of Mormon'', ed. Donald W. Parry and John W. Welch (Provo, UT: FARMS, 1998), 376.</ref> Such a translation was "rare for its time."<ref>"Thomson's Translation," ''Wikipedia'', accessed August 15, 2022, http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomson%27s_Translation.</ref> John Tvedtnes has also shown that many of the Book of Mormon's translation variants of Isaiah have ancient support.<ref>John A. Tvedtnes, “[https://rsc.byu.edu/isaiah-prophets/isaiah-variants-book-mormon Isaiah Variants in the Book of Mormon],” in ''Isaiah and the Prophets: Inspired Voices from the Old Testament'', ed. Monte S. Nyman and Charles D. Tate Jr. (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 1984), 165–78. David Wright responded to John Tvedtnes' chapter there. Tvedtnes responds to Wright in John A. Tvedtnes, "[https://archive.bookofmormoncentral.org/content/isaiah-bible-and-book-mormon Isaiah in the Bible and the Book of Mormon]," ''The FARMS Review'' 16, no. 2 (2004): 161&ndash;72.</ref> BYU Professor Paul Y. Hoskisson has shown that "[t]he brass plates version of Isaiah 2:2, as contained in 2 Nephi 12:2, contains a small difference, not attested in any other pre-1830 Isaiah witness, that not only helps clarify the meaning but also ties the verse to events of the Restoration. The change does so by introducing a Hebraism that would have been impossible for Joseph Smith, the Prophet, to have produced on his own."<ref>Paul Y. Hoskisson, "[https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/was-joseph-smith-smarter-than-the-average-fourth-year-hebrew-student-finding-a-restoration-significant-hebraism-in-book-of-mormon-isaiah/ Was Joseph Smith Smarter Than the Average Fourth Year Hebrew Student? Finding a Restoration-Significant Hebraism in Book of Mormon Isaiah]," ''Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship'' 17 (2016): 151&ndash;58.</ref>  This throws a huge wrench into any critic's theories that Joseph Smith merely cribbed off of the King James Isaiah. Why would Joseph Smith crib the KJV including all of its translation errors but then go to the trouble of finding the ''one phrase'', "upon all the ships of the sea", from the Greek Septuagint and 1535 Coverdale Bible, make sure that his translation of Isaiah had support from ancient renderings of Isaiah, and make sure that his version of Isaiah in the Book of Mormon had authentic Hebraisms made to be part of the text as well? It's obviously ''possible'' that he did, but ''highly unlikely''.
+
|link1=Joseph_Smith_and_the_translation_process#A compilation of published statements on the Book of Mormon translation method in both Church and non-Church publications
−
#The witnesses to the translation are unanimous that a Bible was not consulted during the translation of the Book of Mormon (click [https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Book_of_Mormon/Translation/Method#A_compilation_of_published_statements_on_the_Book_of_Mormon_translation_method_in_both_Church_and_non-Church_publications here] or [https://byustudies.byu.edu/online-chapters/documents-of-the-translation-of-the-book-of-mormon/ here] to read their statements).<ref>John W. Welch, "[https://byustudies.byu.edu/online-chapters/documents-of-the-translation-of-the-book-of-mormon/ Documents of the Translation of the Book of Mormon]," in ''Opening the Heavens: Accounts of Divine Manifestations'', ed. John W. Welch, 2nd ed. (Provo, UT: BYU Press; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 2017), 126&ndash;227.</ref> Stan Spencer helpfully observed that "[I]f Joseph Smith used a physical bible, he would have had to do so frequently, since biblical interactions are scattered throughout the Book of Mormon. Continuously removing his face from the hat to make use of a physical Bible would not have gone unnoticed by those who watched him translate."<ref name="spencer"></ref>{{Rp|p. 59}} Indeed, given the all the different quotations of whole chapters, phrasal interactions between the Old Testament and the Book of Mormon, as well as [[Question: How can text from the New Testament appear in the Book of Mormon?|the phrasal interactions/similarities between the New Testament and the Book of Mormon]], to conceive of Joseph Smith either memorizing these passages and phrases (for which, like the theory that Joseph consulted a Bible during the translation, there is no evidence) or consulting a Bible during the translation is ludicrous. Someone would have had to have noticed that. Yet no one reports a Bible.
+
|subject1=All descriptions of Book of Mormon translation process
−
#Latter-day Saint scholar Royal Skousen, using the [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/history/topics/printing-and-publishing-the-book-of-mormon?lang=eng Original and Printer's Manuscripts] of the Book of Mormon, has provided a persuasive argument that none of the King James language contained in the Book of Mormon could have been copied directly from the Bible. He deduces this from the fact that when The Book of Mormon quotes, echoes, or alludes to passages in the King James Bible, Oliver (Joseph's amanuensis for the dictation of the Book of Mormon) consistently misspells certain words from the text that he wouldn't have misspelled if he was looking at the then-current edition of the KJB.<ref>"The History of the Text of the Book of Mormon," Interpreter Foundation, accessed August 15, 2022, https://interpreterfoundation.org/the-history-of-the-text-of-the-book-of-mormon/.</ref> Joseph performed most of the translation in the open using the stone and the hat. Thus how do we get the language from the King James version of the Bible? Given this evidence, we could assume that the Biblical passages were revealed to Joseph during the translation process in a format almost identical with similar passages in the King James Bible and then amended them by revelation as he and the Lord felt was necessary. Of course, it's possible that Joseph Smith dictated every portion of the Book of Mormon that quotes Isaiah to Oliver so that Joseph is always looking at the Bible and Oliver isn't; but that's less likely given the consistency with which Oliver misspells the words (wouldn't there be at least one time, throughout all the time that Joseph and Oliver were translating, where Joseph Smith hands Oliver the Bible to more efficiently copy the passages and where Oliver then spells the words correctly?) and the fact that no witnesses to the translation report a Bible in use. When considering the data, Skousen proposes that, instead of Joseph or Oliver looking at a Bible, that God was simply able to provide the page of text from the King James Bible to Joseph's mind and then Joseph was free to alter the text as he pleased. In those cases where the Book of Mormon simply alludes to or echoes KJV language, perhaps the Lord allowed these portions of the text to be revealed in such a way that they would be more comprehensible/comfortable to his 19th century, Northeastern, frontier audience. Even if Joseph Smith were using the King James Bible as a base text, [[Question: Do academic translators copy translations of other documents to use as a "base text"?|that would hardly be out of line with best practices for translators and hardly considered plagiarism]]. Some scholars do believe that Joseph Smith used a Bible during the Book of Mormon translation process. Always important to consider opposing views. Those scholars' arguments can be read in part [[Ensign (Sept. 1977): "If his translation was essentially the same as that of the King James version, he apparently quoted the verse from the Bible"|here]].
+
|summary1=This link presents all known descriptions (first person and second hand) of the translation setting, tools used, and process.}}
−
#{{EvidenceCentral|title=Book of Mormon Evidence: Archaic Vocabulary|url=https://evidencecentral.org/recency/evidence/archaic-vocabulary|number=361}} Skousen and Latter-day Saint linguist Stanford Carmack are ''adamant'' that Joseph Smith merely read the words off the seer stone/Urim and Thummim and did not consult a bible during translation of the Book of Mormon. A reason they believe this is that the Book of Mormon contains [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Modern_English Early Modern English] in its translation. They provide many examples that they believe predate Joseph’s English, the English of the 1769 edition of the King James Bible, and even the 1600s edition of the King James Bible. Skousen and Carmack have produced a ''plethora'' of publications arguing this. Readers are encouraged to read that work and decide for themselves.<ref>Stanford Carmack, “[https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/a-look-at-some-nonstandard-book-of-mormon-grammar/ A Look at Some ‘Non-Standard’ Book of Mormon Grammar],” ''Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship'' 11 (2014): 209&ndash;62; “[https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/what-command-syntax-tells-us-about-book-of-mormon-authorship/ What Command Syntax Tells Us About Book of Mormon Authorship],” ''Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship'' 13 (2015): 175&ndash;217; “[https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/the-implications-of-past-tense-syntax-in-the-book-of-mormon/ The Implications of Past-Tense Syntax in the Book of Mormon],” ''Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship'' 14 (2015): 119&ndash;86; “[https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/why-the-oxford-english-dictionary-and-not-websters-1828/ Why the Oxford English Dictionary (and not Webster’s 1828)],” ''Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship'' 15 (2015): 65&ndash;77; “[https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/the-more-part-of-the-book-of-mormon-is-early-modern-english/ The More Part of the Book of Mormon Is Early Modern English],” ''Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship'' 18 (2016): 33&ndash;40; “[https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/joseph-smith-read-the-words/ Joseph Smith Read the Words],” ''Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship'' 18 (2016): 41&ndash;64. “[https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/the-case-of-the-th-plural-in-the-earliest-text/ The Case of the {-th} Plural in the Earliest Text],” ''Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship'' 18 (2016): 79&ndash;108; “[https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/the-case-of-plural-was-in-the-earliest-text/ The Case of Plural Was in the Earliest Text],” ''Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship'' 18 (2016): 109&ndash;37; “[https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/how-joseph-smiths-grammar-differed-from-book-of-mormon-grammar-evidence-from-the-1832-history/ How Joseph Smith’s Grammar Differed from Book of Mormon Grammar: Evidence from the 1832 History],” ''Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship'' 25 (2017): 239&ndash;59; “[https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/barlow-on-book-of-mormon-language-an-examination-of-some-strained-grammar/ Barlow on Book of Mormon Language: An Examination of Some Strained Grammar],” ''Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship'' 27 (2017): 185&ndash;96; “[https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/is-the-book-of-mormon-a-pseudo-archaic-text/ Is the Book of Mormon a Pseudo-Archaic Text?]” ''Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship'' 28 (2018): 177&ndash;232; “[https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/bad-grammar-in-the-book-of-mormon-found-in-early-english-bibles/ Bad Grammar in the Book of Mormon Found in Early English Bibles],” ''Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship'' 36 (2020): 1&ndash;28; “[https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/pitfalls-of-the-ngram-viewer/ Pitfalls of the Ngram Viewer],” ''Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship'' 36 (2020): 187&ndash;210; “Personal Relative Pronoun Usage in the Book of Mormon: An Important Authorship Diagnostic,” ''Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship'' 49 (2021): 5&ndash;36; “[https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/the-book-of-mormons-complex-finite-cause-syntax/ The Book of Mormon’s Complex Finite Cause Syntax],” ''Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship'' 49 (2021): 113&ndash;36; “[https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/a-comparison-of-the-book-of-mormons-subordinate-that-usage/ A Comparison of the Book of Mormon’s Subordinate That Usage],” ''Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship'' 50 (2022): 1&ndash;32; Royal Skousen, “[https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/the-original-text-of-the-book-of-mormon-and-its-publication-by-yale-university-press/ The Original Text of the Book of Mormon and its Publication by Yale University Press],” ''Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship'' 7 (2013): 57&ndash;96; “[https://archive.bookofmormoncentral.org/content/language-original-text-book-mormon The Language of the Original Text of the Book of Mormon],” ''BYU Studies Quarterly'' 57, no. 3 (2018): 81–110; Royal Skousen with the collaboration of Stanford Carmack, ''The Nature of the Original Language'', Parts 3–4 of ''The History of the Text of the Book of Mormon'', Volume 3 of ''The Critical Text of the Book of Mormon'' (Provo, UT: FARMS and BYU Studies, 2018).</ref> Or they can check out the helpful, easy-to-read essay summary by Evidence Central to the right.
 
−
#It is known that Oliver Cowdery purchased a Bible on 8 October 1829. However, the Book of Mormon was already at press by this time, with the copyright being registered on 11 June 1829.<ref name=“tandr”>John A. Tvedtnes and Matthew Roper, "[https://archive.bookofmormoncentral.org/content/“joseph-smiths-use-apocrypha”-shadow-or-reality Joseph Smith's Use of the Apocrypha: Shadow or Reality? (Review of Joseph Smith's Use of the Apocrypha by Jerald and Sandra Tanner)]," ''FARMS Review of Books'' 8, no. 2 (1996): 326–72.</ref> Prior to that time, the only Bible Joseph is known to have had access to was the Smith family Bible, which was not in his possession after he married and moved out of the Smith home. Joseph was poor and even poorer after moving away from home.<ref>{{BeginningsofMormonism |start=95 | end=100}}</ref> Yet Oliver purchased the Bible for Joseph in October 1829 from the same guy that did the type-setting for the Book of Mormon and Joseph later used that Bible for the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible.<ref>Robert J. Matthews, ''A Plainer Translation": Joseph Smith's Translation of the Bible: A History and Commentary'' (Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University Press, 1985), 26; cited in footnote 165 of {{FR-6-1-4}}</ref> Why would Joseph, poor as he was, get a Bible if he supposedly already owned one that he consulted/plagiarized from?
 
−
#As the Church has made clear in the 1981 and the 2013 editions of the Book of Mormon<ref>These were the only editions consulted for this point. More editions may render the same however the author did not have access to them at this time.</ref> in footnote "a" for 2 Nephi 12:2: "Comparison with the King James Bible in English shows that there are differences in more than half of the 433 verses of Isaiah quoted in the Book of Mormon, while about 200 verses have the same wording as the KJV".<ref>See page 81 of either edition of the Book of Mormon</ref> This provides excellent evidence that Joseph Smith is not mindlessly cribbing off of the KJV version of Isaiah. A lot of these changes ''are indeed'' (around 30% of the Isaiah variants) merely changes to the italicized words of the King James passages.<ref name="spencer"></ref>{{Rp|p. 50n11}} But many others aren't. [[Question: Do the changes in the Book of Mormon Isaiah passages reflect a better translation of the underlying Hebrew?|We can actually prove that Nephi is engaging with the text and making changes to Isaiah that “liken” Isaiah’s messages to Nephi’s then-current situation and theological understanding]] ([https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bofm/1-ne/19?lang=eng&id=23#p23 1 Nephi 19:23]). We can also prove that Nephi is selecting passages of Isaiah with an overriding, coherent theological agenda. That is demonstrated by Book of Mormon Central in the link above and to the right. Thus there is meaningful engagement with the text of Isaiah in the Book of Mormon rather than mindless copy and pasting.
 
−
#Royal Skousen, with extensive analysis of the Original and Printer's Manuscript of the Book of Mormon,<ref>Royal Skousen, “[https://archive.bookofmormoncentral.org/content/how-joseph-smith-translated-book-mormon-evidence-original-manuscript How Joseph Smith Translated the Book of Mormon: Evidence from the Original Manuscript],” ''Journal of Book of Mormon Studies'' 7, no. 1 (1998): 25–31, h; “[https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/insights/vol25/iss5/3/ The Archaic Vocabulary of the Book of Mormon],” ''Insights'' 25, no. 5 (2005): 2–6.</ref> has concluded that the original manuscript, including the quoted Bible chapters, was written from dictation rather than copying of another document. One of the reasons he believes this is that Joseph Smith’s dictation consistently includes precise and sometimes unusual spellings of words not contained in the King James Bible nor any document in his immediate environment, suggesting that exact words were revealed to him and that he wasn't taking inspiration from other sources. An example of this is the name ''Coriantumr'' spelled with ''mr'' and not an ''mer'' as might be expected if Joseph were just getting ideas in his head of what to say and dictating them to Oliver or another one of his scribes. This suggests that Joseph could ''see words'' and that he could ''spell them out exactly'' to his scribes.
 
−
#Another reason Skousen believes the Original Manuscript was dictated only is that "[t]he manuscripts include consistent phraseology that suggests Joseph Smith was reading from a carefully prepared text rather than composing the English translation based on thoughts or impressions as he dictated."<ref name="spencer"></ref>{{Rp|p. 88}}
 
−
#[[Question: Did Joseph know what the italics in the Bible meant?|Emma Smith reported that, during the Book of Mormon translation, Joseph didn't know that Jerusalem was surrounded by walls]], a more basic fact that someone should know about the Bible. If Joseph didn't know this basic fact about Jerusalem, can we expect him to be plagiarizing from the King James Bible during the translation of the Book of Mormon? Lucy Mack Smith, Joseph's mother, stated that "I presume our family presented an aspect as singular as any that ever lived upon the face of the earth-all seated in a circle, father, mother, sons and daughters, and giving the most profound attention to a boy, eighteen years of age, who had never read the Bible through in his life; he seemed much less inclined to the perusal of books than any of the rest of our children, but far more given to meditation and deep study." It seems that there is much evidence to suggest that Joseph Smith didn't become as familiar with the Bible as he would need to be in order for our critics' theories to be supported. They all require that Joseph be deeply familiar with the Bible: either memorizing long passages from it or consulting it frequently during the translation of the Book of Mormon.
 
−
#There is no evidence that Joseph Smith had an [https://www.dictionary.com/browse/eidetic eidetic] memory.
 
−
#{{EvidenceCentral|title=Book of Mormon Evidence: Joseph Smith’s Limited Education|url=https://evidencecentral.org/recency/evidence/joseph-smiths-education|number=1}} There is no evidence that Joseph Smith was ever seen trying to memorize long passages from the King James Bible at, near, or leading up to the time of translation. Joseph's level of education may suggest that he was not even capable of memorizing such lengthy passages (or even shorter passages) required for the Book of Mormon.
 
−
-->
 
  
−
===2. Does the Book of Mormon's interaction with the King James italics prove that it came from the 1800s?===
+
Stan Spencer observed,  
−
Given that we don't know and likely can't know whether or not that Joseph Smith had knowledge of the meaning of the italics in the Bible, this question is likely unanswerable. If we don't know and likely can't know, though, it then follows that we likely have no rational reason to be concerned about this.
 
  
−
===3. Do the Changes in Italics Knock the Book of Mormon from Its Status as the "Most Correct Book"?===
+
<blockquote>
−
Another question that will certainly arise as anyone studies the issue is if the changes in italics knock the Book of Mormon from its pedestal as the "most correct book"?
+
[I]f Joseph Smith used a physical bible, he would have had to do so frequently, since biblical interactions are scattered throughout the Book of Mormon. Continuously removing his face from the hat to make use of a physical Bible would not have gone unnoticed by those who watched him translate.<ref name="spencer"></ref>{{Rp|59}}
 +
</blockquote>
  
−
First, it's important that we keep in mind what it means for the Book of Mormon to be the "most correct book". We have responded to that question [[Question: Why did Joseph Smith say that the Book of Mormon was the "most correct book"?|elsewhere on the wiki]]. It may be important to keep in mind that Joseph called the Book of Mormon the most correct book in 1841 when the second edition of the Book of Mormon, with revisions done by Joseph Smith, was completed.
+
Indeed, given the all the different quotations of whole chapters, phrasal interactions between the Old Testament and the Book of Mormon, as well as [[The_New_Testament_and_the_Book_of_Mormon#The_Book_of_Mormon_claims_to_be_a_.22translation.2C.22_and_the_language_used_is_that_of_Joseph_Smith|the phrasal interactions/similarities between the New Testament and the Book of Mormon]], to conceive of Joseph either memorizing these passages and phrases (a process for which there is no evidence) or consulting a Bible during the translation (likewise) is ludicrous. Someone would have noticed that. Yet no one reports a Bible, and [[Book_of_Mormon/Translation/Method/1846-1900#Emma Smith Bidamon (eyewitness)|some are specifically clear]] that he did ''not'' have any book or manuscript to which he referred.<ref>Joseph Smith III, "Last Testimony of Sister Emma;' ''Saints' Herald'' 26 (October 1, 1879): 289-90; and Joseph Smith III, "Last Testimony of Sister Emma;' ''Saints' Advocate'' 2 (October 1879): 50-52.</ref>
 +
 
 +
'''4.''' There is no evidence that Joseph even owned a bible at the time of the translation of the Book of Mormon. We know that Oliver Cowdery purchased a Bible on 8 October 1829. However, the Book of Mormon was already at press by this time, with the copyright being registered on 11 June 1829.<ref name="tandr">{{Roper:Joseph Smiths Use Of The Apocrypha Shadow Or:FARMS Review:1996}}</ref>
 +
 
 +
Prior to that time, the only Bible Joseph is known to have had access to was the Smith family Bible, which was not in his possession after he married and moved out of the Smith home. Joseph was poor and even poorer after moving away from home.<ref>{{BeginningsofMormonism |start=95 | end=100}}</ref> Yet Oliver purchased the Bible for Joseph in October 1829 from the print shop that did the type-setting for the Book of Mormon. This bible was later to be used to produce the [[The Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible|Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible]] (JST).<ref>Robert J. Matthews, ''"A Plainer Translation": Joseph Smith's Translation of the Bible: A History and Commentary'' (Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University Press, 1985), 26; cited in footnote 165 of {{FR-6-1-4}}</ref> Given the family's poverty, why purchase a bible if they already had access to one for the Book of Mormon?
 +
 
 +
'''5.''' The general lack of explanation of italics in Bibles of Joseph Smith's day. The original 1611 KJV does not explain the use of italics; in fact, it silently borrowed the idea from the Geneva Bible, which ''does'' explain them.<ref>Kent P. Jackson, Frank F. Judd Jr., and David R. Seely, "[https://rsc.byu.edu/king-james-bible-restoration/chapters-verses-punctuation-spelling-italics Chapters, Verses, Punctuation, Spelling, and Italics]," in ''The King James Bible and the Restoration'', ed. Kent P. Jackson (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 2011), 108&ndash;12.</ref>
 +
 
 +
'''6.''' In a 1994 paper, Royal Skousen wrote: "Calhoun and Robbins [two students of Skousen's also compared the italicized words in the King James Bible with the original text of the Book of Mormon (as found in the two manuscripts [the original manuscript and printer's manuscript]). And both discovered many examples where Joseph Smith deleted, added, or altered words that are not in italics in any of the King James printings they examined. Each concluded that there was no direct connection between the italics and the original Book of Mormon text. Simply giving examples where changes correspond with italics means nothing; one must look at all the changes including the ones that occur independently of italics."<ref name="skousen">{{Skousen:Critical Methodology And The Text Of The Book:FARMS Review:1994}}</ref>{{Rp|127}}
 +
 
 +
Skousen is quite right that paying attention ''only'' to the italics will bias the data. The critics' method is a version of the [[Logical_fallacies/Page_2#Hasty_generalization|hasty generalization fallacy]], in which too few examples are studied before drawing conclusions about the whole.
 +
 
 +
== Evidence Joseph ''did'' understand the italics' purpose ==
 +
Those that believe Joseph ''did'' know the meaning of the italics typically cite 4&ndash;5 lines of evidence:<ref>Kevin Barney, "KJV Italics," ''By Common Consent'', October 13, 2007, http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2007/10/kjv-italics/.</ref>
 +
 
 +
'''1.''' The distribution of KJV italics being revised as they come to the Book of Mormon and especially the Isaiah chapters of the Book of Mormon. Royal Skousen has determined that of all the differences in the biblical quotations in the Book of Mormon, 23% involve italics. Of all the italics contained in the KJV, 38% are changed in some way in the Book of Mormon.<ref>Royal Skousen, "The History of the Text of the Book of Mormon: Presentation on Parts 5 and 6 of Volume 3 of the Critical Text Project of the Book of Mormon," Book of Mormon Central, accessed December 24, 2022, https://www.bookofmormoncentral.org/sites/default/files/documents/Blog%20entry/2020/Presentation%20parts%205%20and%206%20Hinckley%20Center.pdf.</ref> Skousen sees these facts as evidence that Joseph did ''not'' know the meaning of the italics since a much larger amount of changes do not involve italics. Though other scholars read those same percentages as significant; as evidence that Joseph ''did'' know the meaning of the italics.
 +
 
 +
'''2.''' Critic David P. Wright cited a KJV Bible published in New York City in 1818&mdash;George D'Oyly and Richard Mant's ''The Holy Bible According to the Authorized Version with Notes, Explanatory and Practical''&mdash;that explained the meaning of the italics.<ref name="wrightjosephisaiah"></ref>{{Rp|159, p. 213n5}} Wright speculates that "[l]ay readers could have read such statements and circulated the information further by word of mouth. Ministers, too, would have learned the reason for italics either from these sources or through their education and no doubt would have shared it with their congregants."<ref name="wrightjosephisaiah"></ref>{{Rp|159.}} This presumes much that is not in evidence.
 +
 
 +
'''3.''' Stan Spencer analyzed many of the Book of Mormon's interactions with the KJV Isaiah italics and argued that the Book of Mormon's interaction with Isaiah italics cannot be due to chance.<ref name="spencer"></ref>{{Rp|49-55}}
 +
 
 +
'''4.''' The practice of crossing out italicized words in the Joseph Smith Translation. [https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/the-papers/revelations-and-translations/jsppr5 The manuscripts are available] and one can see that there appears (at least to some) to be a strong focus on revision of the italicized words. The production of the JST began in June 1830 (after the publication of the Book of Mormon and the organization of the Church) and continued intermittently until 1833. Yet this evidence cannot tell us what Joseph knew in 1829, and by 1830 he had Sidney Rigdon's input&mdash;Rigdon was an accomplished minister and preacher, and would have been far more likely to know the meaning of the italics. He did not, however, join the Church until November 1830.<ref>"[https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/person/sidney-rigdon#11419615282025507758 Sidney Rigdon]," ''JSPP''.</ref>
 +
 
 +
'''5.''' The presence of statements from Joseph Smith's contemporary environment suggesting that there was a broader familiarity with the meaning of the italics. An editorial for the ''Evening and Morning Star'' (January 1833) stated the following: "The book of Mormon, as a revelation from God, possesses some advantage over the old scripture: it has not been tinctured by the wisdom of man, with here and there an Italic word to supply deficiencies.—It was translated by the gift and power of God."<ref>W.W. Phelps, "[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/The_Evening_and_The_Morning_Star/1/8#THE_BOOK_OF_MORMON. The Book of Mormon]," ''The Evening and the Morning Star'' 1, no. 8 (January 1833): 58.</ref>
 +
 
 +
A few months later (July 1833), the same paper had an editorial that states "[a]s to the errors in the bible, any man possessed of common understanding, knows, that both the old and new testaments are filled with errors, obscurities, italics and contradictions, which must be the work of men."<ref>"[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/The_Evening_and_The_Morning_Star/2/14#ERRORS_OF_THE_BIBLE. Errors of the Bible]," ''The Evening and the Morning Star'' 2, no. 14 (July 1833): 106.</ref>
 +
 
 +
Roughly ten years later (September 1843) in the Latter-day Saint news paper ''Times and Seasons'', another Latter-day Saint writer stated that "[m]uch has been said about the bad translations of the Bible. . . . Every school boy seems to know that when either of the sectarian translators failed in making the two ends of a sentence meet, he filled up the vacuity with ''italic'', by which means God has been greatly helped towards expressing himself so as to be understood by the learned world."<ref>"[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/The_Evening_and_The_Morning_Star/2/14#ERRORS_OF_THE_BIBLE. Minutes of A Conference]," ''Times and Seasons'' 4, no. 20 (September 1, 1843): 318; emphasis in original. Quoted in Kent P. Jackson, "[https://rsc.byu.edu/king-james-bible-restoration/king-james-bible-joseph-smith-translation The King James Bible and the Joseph Smith Translation]," in ''The King James Bible and the Restoration'', ed. Kent P. Jackson (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 2011), 203. </ref>
 +
 
 +
An 1831 article (critical of the Church and its claims) in ''The Sun'', a newspaper in Philadelphia, states the following: "Finally, after frequent and fervent prayer, Jo's spectacles were restored to sight, and he again permitted to open the book.&mdash;Jo had, during his spiritual blindness, by the assistance of some one, commited several chapters of the New Testament to memory; and, the better to carry on his deception with the deluded Harris, had inquired, and found out the words inserted by the translators; (which are distinguished by Italics, both in the New Testament and the Old.) So, in order to convince Harris that he could read from the plates, Jo deposits them in his hat, applies spectacles, and refers Harris to a chapter in the Bible which he had learned by rote; and which he read from the plates, with surprising accuracy; and what astonished Harris most, was, that Jo should omit all the words in the Bible that were printed in Italic. And, if Harris attempted to correct Jo, he persisted that the plates were right, and the Bible was wrong."<ref>"Mormonites," ''The Sun'', August 18, 1831, http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/PA/Phil1830.htm.</ref> The source of this article's assertions is unknown to the author of this article (couldn't locate any reference in the source to Martin as a source), though Stan Spencer says that it was "based apparently on an interview with Martin Harris".<ref name="spencer"></ref>{{Rp|62.}}
 +
 
 +
Here again, however, we are relying on later sources to tell us what Joseph knew in 1829. And, they include resources such as WW Phelps, who was far more educated and sophisticated than Joseph, especially the Joseph of 1829.
 +
 
 +
Both perspectives are viable and still in debate among scholars of the Book of Mormon.
 +
 
 +
= Three Hypotheses For How and Why the Italicized Words in Book of Mormon Were Modified =
 +
Stan Spencer laid out three hypotheses for the italicized words of the KJV in the Book of Mormon including how and why they were revised or omitted:
 +
 
 +
# Elder B.H. Roberts hypothesized that the italics interaction represents what was on the actual Book of Mormon plates. In Spencer's words: "Roberts attributes the differences in the Book of Mormon to ancient variants in the Nephite plates, presumably reflecting the record on the brass plates, at least in the chapters Nephi and Jacob say they are reading." According to Roberts, the version of Isaiah in the Book of Mormon is consistently "superior [in] sense and clearness."<ref name="spencer"></ref>{{Rp|56}} Spencer calls this the '''Ancient Variants Hypothesis'''.
 +
# Spencer calls the second the '''Italics Revision Hypothesis'''. Advocates include Stan Larson, David P. Wright, and believing Book of Mormon scholar Brant Gardner. It holds that Joseph Smith was intentionally targeting italics in the King James Bible, knew what they meant, and intentionally revised them.<ref name="spencer"></ref>{{Rp|56-58}}
 +
#Spencer's own theory he names the '''Missing Words Hypothesis'''. This theory holds that Joseph was given a vision of a biblical passage in his mind with missing KJV italics and that part of the work of translation for Joseph Smith was to decide whether to supply words to the passage and, if so, what words to supply.<ref name="spencer"></ref>
 +
 
 +
= Question #2&mdash;Is the presence of italics from the KJV Bible evidence of plagiarism? =
 +
 
 +
The italics make the English text of the Bible more readable, clear, and comprehensible. If Joseph Smith was to produce a text that was readable and clear, the presence of something like the italics words would be necessary. Given that the KJV was a largely functional translation, following it points would be sensible. It’s nonsensical to claim that the mere presence of the italicized words is in and of itself damning.
 +
 
 +
{{Related articles
 +
|link=Question: Do academic translators copy translations of other documents to use as a "base text"?
 +
|subject=Academic use of base texts for new translation
 +
|summary=See here for discussion of translators using earlier translations as a base text to showcase only the ''important'' differences between their text and well-known versions.
 +
}}
 +
 
 +
= Question #3&mdash;Does the Book of Mormon's interaction with the King James italics prove that it came from the 1800s? =
 +
 
 +
Given that we don't know and likely can't know whether or not that Joseph Smith had knowledge of the meaning of the italics in the Bible, this question is in one sense unanswerable.
 +
 
 +
On the other hand, even if Joseph were aware of the italics' meaning, that does not prevent him from genuinely translating. If he knew the italics were an artifact or tool of the translator, then as a translator he would have paid particular attention to those words, since they have no exact match in the original. We would ''expect'' a translator to do that.
 +
 
 +
In that case, at most we could argue that the ''translation'' came from the 1800's&mdash;but that is completely non-controversial. There's no doubt the English translation was produced in 1829. This doesn't answer the question of whether Joseph was ''composing'' it in 1829, or ''translating'' based on an ancient text.
 +
 
 +
= 3. Do issues with italics mean the Book of Mormon cannot be the world "most correct book"? =
 +
 
 +
{{Related articles
 +
|link=Why did Joseph Smith say that the Book of Mormon was the "most correct book"?
 +
|subject=Why did Joseph Smith say that the Book of Mormon was the "most correct book"?
 +
|summary=Joseph Smith's reference to the Book of Mormon as the "most correct book" refers to its doctrine, theology, and witness of Christ. This does not mean it does not contain errors of grammar, translation, or even minor matters of fact.
 +
}}
  
 
Second, it's perhaps important to pick among the hypotheses Spencer outlines above in relation to the changes in italics in the Book of Mormon. The author favors Spencer's theory but acknowledges that there may be some cases in which there really are ancient variants that correspond to the changes in italics made in the Book of Mormon. Thus a sort of hybrid of Spencer's and Roberts' theories.
 
Second, it's perhaps important to pick among the hypotheses Spencer outlines above in relation to the changes in italics in the Book of Mormon. The author favors Spencer's theory but acknowledges that there may be some cases in which there really are ancient variants that correspond to the changes in italics made in the Book of Mormon. Thus a sort of hybrid of Spencer's and Roberts' theories.
  
−
Today's edition of the Book of Mormon is very readable and comprehensible, but the original manuscript of the Book of Mormon was less so. Stan Spencer in his article lines up passages from the King James version of Isaiah and [https://bookofmormoncentral.org/content/book-mormon-earliest-text Royal Skousen's reconstruction of the earliest text of the Book of Mormon] (the text as it would presumably have fell from the lips of Joseph Smith) and shows how the changes sometimes have "negative effects on the sense, clarity, or grammar of the text" of the KJV Isaiah.<ref name="spencer" />{{Rp|p. 49}} In some cases, the omissions and revisions are drastic enough to lead people into potentially incorrect understandings of various facts. This seems to be part of the reason why Spencer lines up the theories described above and proposes his Missing Words Hypothesis.
+
Today's edition of the Book of Mormon is very readable and comprehensible, but the original manuscript of the Book of Mormon was less so. Stan Spencer lines up passages from the KJV Isaiah and [https://bookofmormoncentral.org/content/book-mormon-earliest-text Royal Skousen's reconstruction of the earliest text of the Book of Mormon] show how the changes sometimes have "negative effects on the sense, clarity, or grammar of the text" versus the KJV.<ref name="spencer"></ref>{{Rp|49}}
 +
 
 +
To fully assess this question, we would need to consider each case of omission or revision of italics and determine whether the resulting message is an erroneous theological or ethical message about God.
  
−
In order to give the fullest answer to this criticism, one would have to go through each of the omissions and revisions of italics and determine what sort of message is communicated by the drop or revision: how a person would interpret each passage given the omissions and revisions. They would then have to see if that message is an erroneous theological or ethical message about God.  
+
Stan Spencer discusses 10 of these changes that worsen the original biblical passages' sense and clarity.<ref name="spencer"></ref> Royal Skousen discusses similar issues in volume 3, part 5 of his [https://criticaltext.byustudies.byu.edu/ Book of Mormon Critical Text Project] entitled [https://byustudies.byu.edu/about-the-book-of-mormon-critical-text-project/#Vol3 ''The King James Quotations in the Book of Mormon''].<ref>Royal Skousen, ''The History of the Text of the Book of Mormon: Part 5, The King James Quotations in the Book of Mormon'' (Provo, UT: FARMS, 2019), 182&ndash;210.</ref>
  
−
Stan Spencer's paper, linked to/cited below, discusses 10 of these changes that are hurtful to the original biblical passages' sense and clarity.<ref name="spencer" /> Royal Skousen, a Latter-day Saint linguist and scholar of the textual history of the Book of Mormon has studied the italicized words and discussed them in volume 3, part 5 of his [https://criticaltext.byustudies.byu.edu/ Book of Mormon Critical Text Project] entitled [https://byustudies.byu.edu/about-the-book-of-mormon-critical-text-project/#Vol3 ''The King James Quotations in the Book of Mormon''].<ref>Royal Skousen, ''The History of the Text of the Book of Mormon: Part 5, The King James Quotations in the Book of Mormon'' (Provo, UT: FARMS, 2019), 182&ndash;210.</ref> We've listed here every change that could potentially deemed misleading regarding the intent of the biblical passages being quoted and edited and listed them here for commentary. In the left column will be the potentially misleading changes and in the right column will be commentary from the author of this article about why they don't need to appear threatening. Those that are dealing with this question might consider studying Skousen's volume and Spencer's article and, if they feel that there is a change in italics that they feel deserves commentary in the following table in this article, making that known with documentation to FAIR editors at [https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/contact this link]. We will indicate in the table below whether the change in question is retained in the most recent edition of the Book of Mormon. These revisions are organized in the order they appear in the Book of Mormon
+
We have collected every change that could potentially deemed misleading regarding the intent of the biblical passages being quoted. In the table below, the left column describes the changes and the right column assesses their impact (if any) on meaning. These revisions are organized in the order they appear in the Book of Mormon
  
 
{|class="wikitable mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" vertical-align:top border="3" style="width:100%; font-size:85%"
 
{|class="wikitable mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" vertical-align:top border="3" style="width:100%; font-size:85%"
−
!width="50%"|<span style="color:lightgreen">'''Supposed Harmful Change'''</span>
+
!width="50%"|<span style="color:black">'''Supposed Harmful Change'''</span>
−
!width="50%"|<span style="color:lightgreen">'''Commentary'''</span>
+
!width="50%"|<span style="color:black">'''Commentary'''</span>
−
|+<span style="color:lightblue">'''Changes of KJV Italics in the Book of Mormon and Their Implications'''</span>
+
|+<span style="color:black"><h1>'''Changes of KJV Italics in the Book of Mormon and Their Implications'''</h1></span>
 
|-
 
|-
−
|1 Nephi 20:5 ~ Isaiah 48:5. 1 Nephi 20:5 deletes the italicized it in Isaiah 48:5's "I have even from the beginning declared ''it'' to thee" creating the awkward "And I have even from the beginning declared to thee".
+
|{{s|1|Nephi|20|5}} ~ {{s||Isaiah|48|5}}. {{s|1|Nephi|20|5}} deletes the italicized ''it'' in {{s||Isaiah|48|5}}'s "I have even from the beginning declared ''it'' to thee" creating the awkward "And I have even from the beginning declared to thee".
−
||The text is indeed awkward but doesn't lead ineluctably away from understanding the intent of the passage.
+
||The text is indeed awkward but doesn't lead away from understanding the intent of the passage.
 
|-
 
|-
−
|2 Nephi 8:17-18 ~ Isaiah 51:17-18. There are six omissions in italics and one addition that create awkward readings. The following is from the KJV Isaiah with omissions bolded and additions in carrots: "Awake, awake, stand up, O Jerusalem, which hast drunk at the hand of the Lord the cup of his fury; thou hast drunken the dregs of the cup of trembling, '''and''' wrung '''them''' out. '''There is''' <&mdash;And> none to guide her among all the sons '''whom''' she hath brought forth; neither '''is there any''' that taketh her by the hand<,> of all the sons that she hath brought up." Thus the verse now reads: "Awake, awake, stand up, O Jerusalem, which hast drunk at the hand of the Lord the cup of his fury—thou hast drunken the dregs of the cup of trembling wrung out—And none to guide her among all the sons she hath brought forth; neither that taketh her by the hand, of all the sons she hath brought up."
+
|{{s|2|Nephi|8|17-18}} ~ {{s||Isaiah|51|17-18}}. There are six omissions in italics and one addition that create awkward readings. The following is from the KJV Isaiah with omissions bolded and additions in carets (<>): "Awake, awake, stand up, O Jerusalem, which hast drunk at the hand of the Lord the cup of his fury; thou hast drunken the dregs of the cup of trembling, '''and''' wrung '''them''' out. '''There is''' <&mdash;And> none to guide her among all the sons '''whom''' she hath brought forth; neither '''is there any''' that taketh her by the hand<,> of all the sons that she hath brought up." Thus the verse now reads: "Awake, awake, stand up, O Jerusalem, which hast drunk at the hand of the Lord the cup of his fury—thou hast drunken the dregs of the cup of trembling wrung out—And none to guide her among all the sons she hath brought forth; neither that taketh her by the hand, of all the sons she hath brought up."
 
||The passage is very awkward but doesn't lead ineluctably away from intent. At worst it just makes the passage awkward or incoherent, and the intent of the original passage is already taught elsewhere in the Book of Mormon.
 
||The passage is very awkward but doesn't lead ineluctably away from intent. At worst it just makes the passage awkward or incoherent, and the intent of the original passage is already taught elsewhere in the Book of Mormon.
 
|-
 
|-
−
|2 Nephi 15:25. In the earliest text of the Book of Mormon, the last sentence fragment states that "For all this his anger is not turned away, but his hand stretched out still. This instead of "his hand ''is'' stretched out still." This pattern is repeated in 2 Nephi 19:21, 20:4, and 24:27.
+
|{{s|2|Nephi|15|25}}. In the earliest text of the Book of Mormon, the last sentence fragment states that "For all this his anger is not turned away, but his hand stretched out still." This instead of "his hand ''is'' stretched out still." This pattern is repeated in {{s|2|Nephi|19|21}}, 20:4, and 24:27.
−
||The omission seems to make the sentence awkward but not incomprehensible and not leading into inaccurate understandings of God.
+
||The omission seems to make the sentence awkward but not incomprehensible and not leading into inaccurate understandings of God. If anything, it inclines toward a more literal translation.
 
|-
 
|-
−
|In 2 Nephi 16:5, the omission of “is” and “am” from the KJV’s “Woe ''is'' me for I ''am'' undone because I am a man of unclean lips and I dwell” makes this sentence ungrammatical and potentially confusing.
+
|In {{s|2|Nephi|16|5}}, the omission of "is" and "am" from the KJV’s "Woe ''is'' me for I ''am'' undone because I am a man of unclean lips and I dwell" makes this sentence ungrammatical and potentially confusing.
−
||Indeed, ungrammatical and a bit confusing. Not incorrect though, and still leading into correct understanding of the passage's intent; and that's what matters most for this question. [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bofm/2-ne/16.5?lang=eng The most recent edition of the Book of Mormon] has "unto" after "Woe is".
+
||Indeed, ungrammatical and a bit confusing, but not misleading. The most recent edition of the Book of Mormon has "unto" after "Woe is".
 
|-
 
|-
−
|In 2 Nephi 16:7, the omission of “it” from the KJV’s “he laid it [a live coal] upon my mouth” produces the illogical, “he laid upon my mouth.”
+
|In {{s|2|Nephi|16|7}}, the omission of "it" from the KJV’s "he laid it [a live coal] upon my mouth" produces the illogical, "he laid upon my mouth."
−
||In context, [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9vn5UvsHvM Isaiah is having God's holiness and purity transferred to him and he is becoming transformed by it]. Thus this passage, implying that the seraph lays on Isaiah's mouth, is not necessarily out of alignment with the intent of the passage. The passage just means to communicate that God can forgive our sins and make us pure with his holiness, which is testified of throughout scripture. Noone is compelled to believing anything false by reading the scripture as it read originally. The modern edition of the Book of Mormon [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bofm/2-ne/16.7?lang=eng retains ''it''].
+
||In context, [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9vn5UvsHvM Isaiah is having God's holiness and purity transferred to him and he is becoming transformed by it]. Thus this passage, implying that the seraph lays on Isaiah's mouth, is not necessarily out of alignment with the intent of the passage. The passage just means to communicate that God can forgive our sins and make us pure with his holiness, which is testified of throughout scripture. No one is compelled to believing anything false by reading the scripture as it read originally. The modern edition of the Book of Mormon retains ''it''.
 
|-
 
|-
−
|In verse 8, the omission of “am” from “Here am I send me” makes the English text awkward, at least.
+
|In verse 8, the omission of "am" from "Here am I send me" makes the English text awkward, at least.
−
||Indeed, awkward. Not incorrect though, and still leading into correct understanding of the passage's intent; and that's what matters most for this question.
+
||Indeed, awkward but not incorrect though, and allowing a correct understanding of the passage's intent
 
|-
 
|-
−
|In 2 Nephi 16:9, the KJV’s “Hear ye indeed but understand not and see ye indeed but perceive not” becomes “Hear ye indeed but they understand not and see ye indeed but they perceive not.” This change results in an awkward switching back and forth between second person and third person and between the imperative and indicative moods. It also alters the meaning contrary to the statement in the next verse, which has God again dictating impediments to understanding and perception.  
+
|In {{s|2|Nephi|16|9}}, the KJV’s "Hear ye indeed but understand not and see ye indeed but perceive not" becomes "Hear ye indeed but they understand not and see ye indeed but they perceive not." This change results in an awkward switching back and forth between second person and third person and between the imperative and indicative moods. It also alters the meaning contrary to the statement in the next verse, which has God again dictating impediments to understanding and perception.
−
||Spencer overplays the awkwardness and incorrectly perceives a change in meaning in the subsequent verse. [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bofm/2-ne/16.9?lang=eng The modern edition of the Book of Mormon] changes some of the verbs to the past tense: "Hear ye indeed, but they understood not; and see ye indeed, but they perceived not."
+
||Spencer overplays the awkwardness and incorrectly perceives a change in meaning in the subsequent verse. The modern edition of the Book of Mormon changes some of the verbs to the past tense: "Hear ye indeed, but they understood not; and see ye indeed, but they perceived not."
 
|-
 
|-
−
|The omission of “it” from “ask it either in the” in 2 Nephi 17:11 implies, illogically, that the asking (not the sign) is to be done in the depths or heights.
+
|The omission of "it" from "ask it either in the" in {{s|2|Nephi|17|11}} may imply for some that the asking (not the sign) is to be done in the depths or heights.
−
||It's uncertain why Spencer finds this so illogical. The message is virtually the same. The Lord is telling Ahaz to ask for the sign in either the heights or depths. Further, it's confirmed in places like the Book of Mormon that we can and should pray everywhere. The prophet Zenos in the book of Alma taught as much.<ref>[https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bofm/alma/33.3-7?lang=eng Alma 33:3&ndash;7]</ref>
+
||It's not clear why Spencer finds this so illogical. Again, at most this errs on the side of literalness, where the ''it'' is implied.
 
|-
 
|-
−
|In 2 Nephi 17:17, the omission of “even” could lead the reader to wrongly believe that Judah was king of Assyria. The italicized “even” in that verse in the KJV is important because it discourages such a misinterpretation.
+
|In {{s|2|Nephi|17|17}}, the omission of "even" could lead the reader to wrongly believe that Judah was king of Assyria. The italicized "even" in that verse in the KJV is important because it discourages such a misinterpretation.
−
||The ''even'' actually doesn't do hardly anything to discourage the reading of Judah as the king of Assyria. This problem has to be fixed with punctuation, which the original Book of Mormon text did not have and was added later by Joseph Smith and revised in subsequent editions of the Book of Mormon. Future editions of the Book of Mormon with better punctuators may be necessary. [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bofm/2-ne/17.17?lang=eng The modern edition omits "even"]. it may also need to alter the sentence structure much differently than the original Hebrew text to make sense of the passage.
+
||The ''even'' actually doesn't do much to discourage the reading of Judah as the king of Assyria. This problem has to be fixed with punctuation, which the dictated Book of Mormon text did not have. Future editions of the Book of Mormon with better punctuators may be necessary. The modern edition omits "even". it may also need to alter the sentence structure much differently than the original Hebrew text to make sense of the passage.
 
|-
 
|-
−
|Similarly, the italicized “namely” that is omitted in the Book of Mormon from 2 Nephi 17:20 is important in clarifying that the king of Assyria is not the one hiring a razor; he is the razor.
+
|Similarly, the italicized "namely" that is omitted in the Book of Mormon from {{s|2|Nephi|17|20}} is important in clarifying that the king of Assyria is not the one hiring a razor; he is the razor.
−
||This also doesn't provide much utility in clarifying the meaning of the text. Punctuation, scholarly commentary, and maybe other modification of the text may be necessary for future editions of the Book of Mormon. This isn't a fault in translation. [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bofm/2-ne/17.20?lang=eng The modern edition of the Book of Mormon] also omits "namely".
+
||This also doesn't provide much utility in clarifying the meaning of the text. Punctuation, scholarly commentary, and maybe other modification of the text may be necessary for future editions of the Book of Mormon. This isn't a fault in translation. The modern edition of the Book of Mormon also omits "namely".
 +
 
 
|-
 
|-
−
|The replacement of “it” with “which” in 2 Nephi 17:23 muddles the meaning of Isaiah’s message. The text as it stands in the KJV makes sense — the deserted land, once fruitful, will be overrun with briars and thorns. With “which” in place of “it,” the Book of Mormon appears to instead say, in an incomplete sentence, that briars and thorns will be purchased with a thousand silverlings (i.e., a thousand silver coins).
+
|The replacement of "it" with "which" in {{s|2|Nephi|17|23}} muddles the meaning of Isaiah’s message. The text as it stands in the KJV makes sense — the deserted land, once fruitful, will be overrun with briars and thorns. With "which" in place of "it," the Book of Mormon appears to instead say, in an incomplete sentence, that briars and thorns will be purchased with a thousand silverlings (i.e., a thousand silver coins)
−
||The text doesn't necessarily ''force'' you to read it that way but Spencer's reading makes sense. Even with ''it'' it doesn't really encourage a correct reading of the text. Really there should be a ''they'' instead of ''it'' and the sentence structure should be rearranged as to emphasize that the deserted land will become overrun with briars and thorns. Readers are probably not likely to spend too much time on this verse when it's just muddled as it is in the KJV and BoM. But the essential intent of the passage seems unharmed and, if the reader is reading the preceding and succeeding verses, they're most likely going to just interpret it as Isaiah speaking about a prior state of serenity and a subsequent state of disaster. This passage is merely "a negative oracle describing the dire consequences, particularly the subjectaion of Judah by the Assyrian Empire, that will befall Jerusalem and Judah as a result of Ahaz's refusal to accept Isaiah's promises."<ref>Marvin A. Sweeney, "Isaiah," in ''The New Oxford Annotated Bible'', ed. Michael D. Coogan, 5th ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2018), 990n18&ndash;19.</ref> [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bofm/2-ne/17.23?lang=eng The modern edition of the Book of Mormon] retains "which" instead of it".
+
 
 +
||The text doesn't necessarily ''force'' that reading, but Spencer's reading makes sense. Even with ''it'' the best reading remains unclear. Ideally a ''they'' should replace ''it'' and the sentence structure should be rearranged to emphasize that the deserted land will become overrun with briars and thorns. Readers are probably not likely to spend too much time on this verse when it's equally muddled in both the KJV and BoM. The essential intent of the passage seems unharmed and, in context the reader will most likely interpret it as Isaiah speaking about a prior state of serenity and a subsequent state of disaster. This passage is merely "a negative oracle describing the dire consequences, particularly the subjectaion of Judah by the Assyrian Empire, that will befall Jerusalem and Judah as a result of Ahaz's refusal to accept Isaiah's promises."<ref>Marvin A. Sweeney, "Isaiah," in ''The New Oxford Annotated Bible'', ed. Michael D. Coogan, 5th ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2018), 990n18&ndash;19.</ref> The modern edition of the Book of Mormon retains "which" instead of it".
 
|-
 
|-
−
|The original version of 2 Nephi 19:5 in the earliest editions of the Book of Mormon deletes the italicized ''is'' from the KJV Isaiah 9:5 such that the KJV Isaiah 9:5 reads "For every battle of the warrior ''is'' with confused noise, and garments rolled in blood; but this shall be with burning and fuel of fire" and 2 Nephi 9:5 reads "For every battle of the warrior with confused noise, and garments rolled in blood; but this shall be with burning and fuel of fire."
+
|The original version of {{s|2|Nephi|19|5}} in the earliest editions of the Book of Mormon deletes the italicized ''is'' from the KJV {{s||Isaiah|9|5}} such that the KJV {{s||Isaiah|9|5}} reads "For every battle of the warrior ''is'' with confused noise, and garments rolled in blood; but this shall be with burning and fuel of fire" and {{s|2|Nephi|9|5}} reads "For every battle of the warrior with confused noise, and garments rolled in blood; but this shall be with burning and fuel of fire."
 
||The most likely way of interpreting this passage for reads is to see the first clause as the beginning of an [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accumulatio accumulatio] and still retaining the correct intent.
 
||The most likely way of interpreting this passage for reads is to see the first clause as the beginning of an [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accumulatio accumulatio] and still retaining the correct intent.
 
|-
 
|-
−
|3 Nephi 22:9 is part of a longer quotation of Isaiah 54. The King James version of Isaiah 54:9 reads "For this ''is as'' the waters of Noah unto me: for as I have sworn that the waters of Noah should no more go over the earth; so have I sworn that I would not be wroth with thee, nor rebuke thee." 3 Nephi 22:9 deletes the first ''is as'' such that the verse now reads "For this, the waters of Noah unto me, for as I have sworn that the waters of Noah should no more go over the earth, so have I sworn that I would not be wroth with thee."
+
|{{s|3|Nephi|22|9}} is part of a longer quotation of {{s||Isaiah|4|}}. The King James version of {{s||Isaiah|54|9}} reads "For this ''is as'' the waters of Noah unto me: for as I have sworn that the waters of Noah should no more go over the earth; so have I sworn that I would not be wroth with thee, nor rebuke thee." {{s|3|Nephi|22|9}} deletes the first ''is as'' such that the verse now reads "For this, the waters of Noah unto me, for as I have sworn that the waters of Noah should no more go over the earth, so have I sworn that I would not be wroth with thee."
−
||Read in one way, the verse is awkward, but read in another, the Lord could be read to say that he is rhetorically commanding the waters to come unto him, which is still in line with the correct intent in mind. Either way the correct intent is discernible.
+
||The initial clause may be mildly confusing, but the intent becomes clear in the second&mdash;"as I have sworn ...  so have I sworn." There's no lack of clarity when the whole sentence is read. The effect is somewhat poetic as the initial meaning becomes clearer as the reader "circles back."
 
|}
 
|}
  
−
None of the changes surveyed seem to knock the Book of Mormon from its status as the most correct book.
+
None of the changes are of much consequence; while reading less fluidly in some cases, their meaning is not difficult to discern. None of these verses if deleted completely would deprive us of any doctrine or teaching of significance. Their main importance is as evidence of how the translation proceeded, and what its priorities may have been.
−
 
 
−
===4. Do the observations and positions here place readers out of step with Church leadership or authoritative sources regarding the translation of the Book of Mormon?===
 
−
The last question we deal with is one of orthodoxy. We are warned in scripture to not create a God after our own image ([https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/1.16?lang=eng Doctrine & Covenants 1:16]). Some former-members-of-the-Church-turned-critics have mockingly made a distinction between "chapel Mormonism" and "internet Mormonism"&mdash;a distinction we've responded to [[Question: Can Latter-day Saints be divided into two distinct groups called "Internet Mormons" and "Chapel Mormons"?|elsewhere on the FAIR Wiki]]. The essential claim that our critics will make is that the Book of Mormon is thought to be pristine and without any kind of potential error by leaders and "regular members" of the Church and that this article and its observations put the author and his readers out of step with the authoritative pronouncements of leaders of the Church and the more authoritative, first-hand accounts of witnesses that say that the Book of Mormon translation was given word-for-word.
 
−
 
 
−
Though our critics would be mistaken about what is and isn't orthodoxy on this matter. First, they will have misunderstood Joseph Smith's statement about the Book of Mormon being the "most correct book" on earth. We've provided a link to an article that shows how Joseph Smith meant that the ''principles'' that the Book of Mormon teaches would get a man closer to God than any other book. Second, Joseph Smith himself would be open to using all fields of inquiry in order to understand something pertaining to the Kingdom of God. That is demonstrated in places like [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/88.77-80?lang=eng Doctrine & Covenants 88:77&ndash;80] and the instructions given to the School of the Prophets. Third, we haven't ''denied'' nor ''supplanted'' any core claim of the Church. The core claim of the Church would be that "Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon, an ancient record". We've only ''nuanced'' a core claim. We've said that "Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon, an ancient record, and during the translation process he revised or dropped italics in the KJV which may have been missing and he supplied while translating the Book of Mormon" and we've used rigorous reasoning and study to substantiate this claim and deal with any potential negative ramifications of that data. Fourth, it's probable that the statements from the witnesses that say that the Book of Mormon translation came word for word do not cover ''every single aspect'' of how the translation may have worked. Those statements cover those portions of the translation ''with which those witnesses were most intimately familiar and actually experienced''. Do those experiences cover the Book of Mormon's interaction with KJV italics?
 
−
 
 
−
Joseph Smith only said that the translation was done by the gift and power of God. Brigham Young taught the following:
 
−
 
 
−
<blockquote>Should the Lord Almighty send an angel to re-write the Bible, it would in many places be very different from what it now is. And I will even venture to say that if the Book of Mormon were now to be re-written, in many instances it would materially differ from the present translation. According as people are willing to receive the things of God, so the heavens send forth their blessings.<ref>Brigham Young, [[Journal of Discourses/9/64|''Journal of Discourses'' 9:311]].</ref></blockquote>
 
−
 
 
−
Even Brigham Young recognized that the Book of Mormon's translation could take different shapes.
 
−
 
 
−
Our critics, should they claim that we've created a new version of Mormonism, are simply wrong.
 
  
−
==Conclusion==
+
{{Endnotes sources}}
−
There is no reason to be concerned about the prophethood and integrity of Joseph Smith with his inclusion of and "interaction" with the KJV italics in his translation of the Book of Mormon.
 
−
</onlyinclude>
 
−
{{endnotes sources}}
 
  
−
==References==
+
<!-- PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE -->
−
{{Reflist}}
 

Latest revision as of 18:40, 31 May 2024
Articles about the Holy Bible
Latter-day Saints and the Bible
Reliability of the Bible
Creation
Genesis
Understanding the Bible
Cultural issues
The Bible and the Book of Mormon

Articles about the Book of Mormon
Authorship
Translation process
Gold plates
Witnesses
The Bible and the Book of Mormon
Language and the Book of Mormon
Geography
DNA
Anachronisms
Doctrine and teachings
Lamanites
Other

Why are there italics in the KJV bible?

Italics in the King James Bible indicate that a word not present in the original Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic text has been added to the text to make the translation readable and comprehensible in English. They are also sometimes added to clarify the meaning of the original.

What does this have to do with the Book of Mormon?

The Book of Mormon contains quotations from and allusions to the King James Bible. The quotations contain words that are italicized in the King James Bible.

The Book of Mormon sometimes retains the italicized words (without the italics!) from the King James Bible. In other cases it deletes the italicized word(s). In still other cases the Book of Mormon modifies the italicized words.

Evidence for plagiarism?

Some critics believe that the presence of the italics is an indication that Joseph Smith didn’t translate an ancient text and instead just plagiarized a copy of the King James Bible. The 'CES Letter', explains that "[w]hen King James translators were translating the KJV Bible between 1604 and 1611, they would occasionally put in their own words into the text to make the English more readable. We know exactly what these words are because they’re italicized in the KJV Bible." It asks "[w]hat are these 17th century italicized words doing in the Book of Mormon? Word for word? What does this say about the Book of Mormon being an ancient record?"[1]

The assumption seems to be that the Book of Mormon, if truly a translation of an ancient text, should either not include these words or use different words. (We emphasize that the italics did not—as the 'CES Letter' assumes, merely make the English more readable. They were also inserted to clarify the underlying meaning of the Greek and Hebrew being translated.)

Critic Stan Larson argued in a 1993 book chapter that the words used make it clear that a 1769 KJV is being used:

The Book of Mormon text often revises biblical quotations at the very point where the original 1611 edition of the KJV prints the word or words in a different typeface in order to indicate that the words are not found in the Greek. This printing device was both inconsistently and sparsely applied in the 1611 KJV and improved in the 1769 printing. When Smith came to the KJV italics in the Sermon on the Mount, which he knew indicated that whatever was printed in italics was not in the original Greek, he would often either drop the word or revise it. The Book of Mormon sometimes revises the KJV italics that are only found in the 1769 and later printings. For example, the Book of Mormon drops the italics of the 1769 printing at Matthew 6꞉5, 7; 7:18 (3 Ne. 13꞉5,7; 14꞉18), and the Book of Mormon changes the tense of the italics at Matthew 5꞉12 (3 Ne. 12꞉12). On the other hand, the Book of Mormon fails to revise places where the KJV text ought to have been printed in italics but is not. In two places the Book of Mormon copies the noun "men" from the KJV, where it is not in the original Greek and has been improperly added in the KJV.[2]:130-31

Thus, Larson argues from a different angle—he doesn’t use the mere presence of KJV italics in the Book of Mormon like the 'CES Letter'. He argues instead based on the Book of Mormon’s interaction with the KJV italics. In some cases, the italics are simply dropped. In some cases, the italics are revised. In some cases, there is a passage that should have an italicized word but isn’t. These interactions occur in places which were only italicized in the 1769 edition and later editions of the KJV. According to Larson, these considerations date the Book of Mormon’s composition (and, more particularly, the Savior's Sermon at the Temple recorded in 3 Nephi) to the 1800s.

Critic David P. Wright uses a similar analysis of the Book of Mormon's alleged interaction with the italics of KJV Isaiah.[3]:159–69. He concluded that the perceived interaction "demontrates in large measure that the BoM Isaiah derives from the KJV."[3]:159. More broadly, he uses this "evidence" to argue that "the Isaiah of the BoM is a revision of the KJV and not a translation of an ancient document."[3]:157.

Believing author Stan Spencer (not Stan Larson), following Wright,[3]:164-66. discerns one more problem to account for. Spencer informs us that "[t]hese variants are usually minor but sometimes result in readings that conflict with the larger context of Isaiah’s message or create ungrammatical or even nonsensical sentences, particularly in the earliest text of the Book of Mormon."[4]:46 Spencer used Royal Skousen's first edition of The Book of Mormon: The Earliest Text] (2009) which is the best reconstruction of the text as it was originally dictated by Joseph Smith.[5]

We must thus address four questions:

  1. Did Joseph know what the italics represented?
  2. Did Joseph use a King James Bible in order to produce the Book of Mormon, including reference to the italics?
  3. Do the Book of Mormon's interactions with the KJV italics show that Joseph Smith was working from the 1769 edition of the KJV?
  4. Do the original Book of Mormon text's omissions and revisions of italics refute the teaching of Joseph Smith that the Book of Mormon is "the most correct book of any on earth"?

Question #1—What did Joseph know about the italics?

There is considerable debate among scholars of the Book of Mormon as to whether Joseph Smith knew the meaning of the italics.

Evidence Joseph did not know what the italics meant

Those that argue that Joseph didn't know what the italics mean cite six lines of evidence:

1. Emma Smith reported that, during the Book of Mormon translation, Joseph didn't know that Jerusalem was surrounded by walls If Joseph didn't know this basic fact about Jerusalem, can we expect him to have a fairly sophisticated understanding of the purpose of the italics?

2. Our critics rely heavily on an assumption that Joseph Smith was deeply familiar with the Bible at the time of the translation of the Book of Mormon. Those closest to Joseph Smith in his early life state otherwise. Lucy Mack Smith, Joseph's mother, stated that "I presume our family presented an aspect as singular as any that ever lived upon the face of the earth-all seated in a circle, father, mother, sons and daughters, and giving the most profound attention to a boy, eighteen years of age, who had never read the Bible through in his life; he seemed much less inclined to the perusal of books than any of the rest of our children, but far more given to meditation and deep study."[6]

3. The witnesses to the translation are unanimous that a Bible was not consulted during the translation of the Book of Mormon.[7]

Related article:All descriptions of Book of Mormon translation process
Summary: This link presents all known descriptions (first person and second hand) of the translation setting, tools used, and process.

Stan Spencer observed,

[I]f Joseph Smith used a physical bible, he would have had to do so frequently, since biblical interactions are scattered throughout the Book of Mormon. Continuously removing his face from the hat to make use of a physical Bible would not have gone unnoticed by those who watched him translate.[4]:59

Indeed, given the all the different quotations of whole chapters, phrasal interactions between the Old Testament and the Book of Mormon, as well as the phrasal interactions/similarities between the New Testament and the Book of Mormon, to conceive of Joseph either memorizing these passages and phrases (a process for which there is no evidence) or consulting a Bible during the translation (likewise) is ludicrous. Someone would have noticed that. Yet no one reports a Bible, and some are specifically clear that he did not have any book or manuscript to which he referred.[8]

4. There is no evidence that Joseph even owned a bible at the time of the translation of the Book of Mormon. We know that Oliver Cowdery purchased a Bible on 8 October 1829. However, the Book of Mormon was already at press by this time, with the copyright being registered on 11 June 1829.[9]

Prior to that time, the only Bible Joseph is known to have had access to was the Smith family Bible, which was not in his possession after he married and moved out of the Smith home. Joseph was poor and even poorer after moving away from home.[10] Yet Oliver purchased the Bible for Joseph in October 1829 from the print shop that did the type-setting for the Book of Mormon. This bible was later to be used to produce the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible (JST).[11] Given the family's poverty, why purchase a bible if they already had access to one for the Book of Mormon?

5. The general lack of explanation of italics in Bibles of Joseph Smith's day. The original 1611 KJV does not explain the use of italics; in fact, it silently borrowed the idea from the Geneva Bible, which does explain them.[12]

6. In a 1994 paper, Royal Skousen wrote: "Calhoun and Robbins [two students of Skousen's also compared the italicized words in the King James Bible with the original text of the Book of Mormon (as found in the two manuscripts [the original manuscript and printer's manuscript]). And both discovered many examples where Joseph Smith deleted, added, or altered words that are not in italics in any of the King James printings they examined. Each concluded that there was no direct connection between the italics and the original Book of Mormon text. Simply giving examples where changes correspond with italics means nothing; one must look at all the changes including the ones that occur independently of italics."[13]:127

Skousen is quite right that paying attention only to the italics will bias the data. The critics' method is a version of the hasty generalization fallacy, in which too few examples are studied before drawing conclusions about the whole.

Evidence Joseph did understand the italics' purpose

Those that believe Joseph did know the meaning of the italics typically cite 4–5 lines of evidence:[14]

1. The distribution of KJV italics being revised as they come to the Book of Mormon and especially the Isaiah chapters of the Book of Mormon. Royal Skousen has determined that of all the differences in the biblical quotations in the Book of Mormon, 23% involve italics. Of all the italics contained in the KJV, 38% are changed in some way in the Book of Mormon.[15] Skousen sees these facts as evidence that Joseph did not know the meaning of the italics since a much larger amount of changes do not involve italics. Though other scholars read those same percentages as significant; as evidence that Joseph did know the meaning of the italics.

2. Critic David P. Wright cited a KJV Bible published in New York City in 1818—George D'Oyly and Richard Mant's The Holy Bible According to the Authorized Version with Notes, Explanatory and Practical—that explained the meaning of the italics.[3]:159, p. 213n5 Wright speculates that "[l]ay readers could have read such statements and circulated the information further by word of mouth. Ministers, too, would have learned the reason for italics either from these sources or through their education and no doubt would have shared it with their congregants."[3]:159. This presumes much that is not in evidence.

3. Stan Spencer analyzed many of the Book of Mormon's interactions with the KJV Isaiah italics and argued that the Book of Mormon's interaction with Isaiah italics cannot be due to chance.[4]:49-55

4. The practice of crossing out italicized words in the Joseph Smith Translation. The manuscripts are available and one can see that there appears (at least to some) to be a strong focus on revision of the italicized words. The production of the JST began in June 1830 (after the publication of the Book of Mormon and the organization of the Church) and continued intermittently until 1833. Yet this evidence cannot tell us what Joseph knew in 1829, and by 1830 he had Sidney Rigdon's input—Rigdon was an accomplished minister and preacher, and would have been far more likely to know the meaning of the italics. He did not, however, join the Church until November 1830.[16]

5. The presence of statements from Joseph Smith's contemporary environment suggesting that there was a broader familiarity with the meaning of the italics. An editorial for the Evening and Morning Star (January 1833) stated the following: "The book of Mormon, as a revelation from God, possesses some advantage over the old scripture: it has not been tinctured by the wisdom of man, with here and there an Italic word to supply deficiencies.—It was translated by the gift and power of God."[17]

A few months later (July 1833), the same paper had an editorial that states "[a]s to the errors in the bible, any man possessed of common understanding, knows, that both the old and new testaments are filled with errors, obscurities, italics and contradictions, which must be the work of men."[18]

Roughly ten years later (September 1843) in the Latter-day Saint news paper Times and Seasons, another Latter-day Saint writer stated that "[m]uch has been said about the bad translations of the Bible. . . . Every school boy seems to know that when either of the sectarian translators failed in making the two ends of a sentence meet, he filled up the vacuity with italic, by which means God has been greatly helped towards expressing himself so as to be understood by the learned world."[19]

An 1831 article (critical of the Church and its claims) in The Sun, a newspaper in Philadelphia, states the following: "Finally, after frequent and fervent prayer, Jo's spectacles were restored to sight, and he again permitted to open the book.—Jo had, during his spiritual blindness, by the assistance of some one, commited several chapters of the New Testament to memory; and, the better to carry on his deception with the deluded Harris, had inquired, and found out the words inserted by the translators; (which are distinguished by Italics, both in the New Testament and the Old.) So, in order to convince Harris that he could read from the plates, Jo deposits them in his hat, applies spectacles, and refers Harris to a chapter in the Bible which he had learned by rote; and which he read from the plates, with surprising accuracy; and what astonished Harris most, was, that Jo should omit all the words in the Bible that were printed in Italic. And, if Harris attempted to correct Jo, he persisted that the plates were right, and the Bible was wrong."[20] The source of this article's assertions is unknown to the author of this article (couldn't locate any reference in the source to Martin as a source), though Stan Spencer says that it was "based apparently on an interview with Martin Harris".[4]:62.

Here again, however, we are relying on later sources to tell us what Joseph knew in 1829. And, they include resources such as WW Phelps, who was far more educated and sophisticated than Joseph, especially the Joseph of 1829.

Both perspectives are viable and still in debate among scholars of the Book of Mormon.

Three Hypotheses For How and Why the Italicized Words in Book of Mormon Were Modified

Stan Spencer laid out three hypotheses for the italicized words of the KJV in the Book of Mormon including how and why they were revised or omitted:

  1. Elder B.H. Roberts hypothesized that the italics interaction represents what was on the actual Book of Mormon plates. In Spencer's words: "Roberts attributes the differences in the Book of Mormon to ancient variants in the Nephite plates, presumably reflecting the record on the brass plates, at least in the chapters Nephi and Jacob say they are reading." According to Roberts, the version of Isaiah in the Book of Mormon is consistently "superior [in] sense and clearness."[4]:56 Spencer calls this the Ancient Variants Hypothesis.
  2. Spencer calls the second the Italics Revision Hypothesis. Advocates include Stan Larson, David P. Wright, and believing Book of Mormon scholar Brant Gardner. It holds that Joseph Smith was intentionally targeting italics in the King James Bible, knew what they meant, and intentionally revised them.[4]:56-58
  3. Spencer's own theory he names the Missing Words Hypothesis. This theory holds that Joseph was given a vision of a biblical passage in his mind with missing KJV italics and that part of the work of translation for Joseph Smith was to decide whether to supply words to the passage and, if so, what words to supply.[4]

Question #2—Is the presence of italics from the KJV Bible evidence of plagiarism?

The italics make the English text of the Bible more readable, clear, and comprehensible. If Joseph Smith was to produce a text that was readable and clear, the presence of something like the italics words would be necessary. Given that the KJV was a largely functional translation, following it points would be sensible. It’s nonsensical to claim that the mere presence of the italicized words is in and of itself damning.

Related article:Academic use of base texts for new translation
Summary: See here for discussion of translators using earlier translations as a base text to showcase only the important differences between their text and well-known versions.

Question #3—Does the Book of Mormon's interaction with the King James italics prove that it came from the 1800s?

Given that we don't know and likely can't know whether or not that Joseph Smith had knowledge of the meaning of the italics in the Bible, this question is in one sense unanswerable.

On the other hand, even if Joseph were aware of the italics' meaning, that does not prevent him from genuinely translating. If he knew the italics were an artifact or tool of the translator, then as a translator he would have paid particular attention to those words, since they have no exact match in the original. We would expect a translator to do that.

In that case, at most we could argue that the translation came from the 1800's—but that is completely non-controversial. There's no doubt the English translation was produced in 1829. This doesn't answer the question of whether Joseph was composing it in 1829, or translating based on an ancient text.

3. Do issues with italics mean the Book of Mormon cannot be the world "most correct book"?

Related article:Why did Joseph Smith say that the Book of Mormon was the "most correct book"?
Summary: Joseph Smith's reference to the Book of Mormon as the "most correct book" refers to its doctrine, theology, and witness of Christ. This does not mean it does not contain errors of grammar, translation, or even minor matters of fact.

Second, it's perhaps important to pick among the hypotheses Spencer outlines above in relation to the changes in italics in the Book of Mormon. The author favors Spencer's theory but acknowledges that there may be some cases in which there really are ancient variants that correspond to the changes in italics made in the Book of Mormon. Thus a sort of hybrid of Spencer's and Roberts' theories.

Today's edition of the Book of Mormon is very readable and comprehensible, but the original manuscript of the Book of Mormon was less so. Stan Spencer lines up passages from the KJV Isaiah and Royal Skousen's reconstruction of the earliest text of the Book of Mormon show how the changes sometimes have "negative effects on the sense, clarity, or grammar of the text" versus the KJV.[4]:49

To fully assess this question, we would need to consider each case of omission or revision of italics and determine whether the resulting message is an erroneous theological or ethical message about God.

Stan Spencer discusses 10 of these changes that worsen the original biblical passages' sense and clarity.[4] Royal Skousen discusses similar issues in volume 3, part 5 of his Book of Mormon Critical Text Project entitled The King James Quotations in the Book of Mormon.[21]

We have collected every change that could potentially deemed misleading regarding the intent of the biblical passages being quoted. In the table below, the left column describes the changes and the right column assesses their impact (if any) on meaning. These revisions are organized in the order they appear in the Book of Mormon

Supposed Harmful Change Commentary

Changes of KJV Italics in the Book of Mormon and Their Implications
1 Nephi 20꞉5 ~ Isaiah 48꞉5. 1 Nephi 20꞉5 deletes the italicized it in Isaiah 48꞉5's "I have even from the beginning declared it to thee" creating the awkward "And I have even from the beginning declared to thee". The text is indeed awkward but doesn't lead away from understanding the intent of the passage.
2 Nephi 8꞉17-18 ~ Isaiah 51꞉17-18. There are six omissions in italics and one addition that create awkward readings. The following is from the KJV Isaiah with omissions bolded and additions in carets (<>): "Awake, awake, stand up, O Jerusalem, which hast drunk at the hand of the Lord the cup of his fury; thou hast drunken the dregs of the cup of trembling, and wrung them out. There is <—And> none to guide her among all the sons whom she hath brought forth; neither is there any that taketh her by the hand<,> of all the sons that she hath brought up." Thus the verse now reads: "Awake, awake, stand up, O Jerusalem, which hast drunk at the hand of the Lord the cup of his fury—thou hast drunken the dregs of the cup of trembling wrung out—And none to guide her among all the sons she hath brought forth; neither that taketh her by the hand, of all the sons she hath brought up." The passage is very awkward but doesn't lead ineluctably away from intent. At worst it just makes the passage awkward or incoherent, and the intent of the original passage is already taught elsewhere in the Book of Mormon.
2 Nephi 15꞉25. In the earliest text of the Book of Mormon, the last sentence fragment states that "For all this his anger is not turned away, but his hand stretched out still." This instead of "his hand is stretched out still." This pattern is repeated in 2 Nephi 19꞉21, 20:4, and 24:27. The omission seems to make the sentence awkward but not incomprehensible and not leading into inaccurate understandings of God. If anything, it inclines toward a more literal translation.
In 2 Nephi 16꞉5, the omission of "is" and "am" from the KJV’s "Woe is me for I am undone because I am a man of unclean lips and I dwell" makes this sentence ungrammatical and potentially confusing. Indeed, ungrammatical and a bit confusing, but not misleading. The most recent edition of the Book of Mormon has "unto" after "Woe is".
In 2 Nephi 16꞉7, the omission of "it" from the KJV’s "he laid it [a live coal] upon my mouth" produces the illogical, "he laid upon my mouth." In context, Isaiah is having God's holiness and purity transferred to him and he is becoming transformed by it. Thus this passage, implying that the seraph lays on Isaiah's mouth, is not necessarily out of alignment with the intent of the passage. The passage just means to communicate that God can forgive our sins and make us pure with his holiness, which is testified of throughout scripture. No one is compelled to believing anything false by reading the scripture as it read originally. The modern edition of the Book of Mormon retains it.
In verse 8, the omission of "am" from "Here am I send me" makes the English text awkward, at least. Indeed, awkward but not incorrect though, and allowing a correct understanding of the passage's intent
In 2 Nephi 16꞉9, the KJV’s "Hear ye indeed but understand not and see ye indeed but perceive not" becomes "Hear ye indeed but they understand not and see ye indeed but they perceive not." This change results in an awkward switching back and forth between second person and third person and between the imperative and indicative moods. It also alters the meaning contrary to the statement in the next verse, which has God again dictating impediments to understanding and perception. Spencer overplays the awkwardness and incorrectly perceives a change in meaning in the subsequent verse. The modern edition of the Book of Mormon changes some of the verbs to the past tense: "Hear ye indeed, but they understood not; and see ye indeed, but they perceived not."
The omission of "it" from "ask it either in the" in 2 Nephi 17꞉11 may imply for some that the asking (not the sign) is to be done in the depths or heights. It's not clear why Spencer finds this so illogical. Again, at most this errs on the side of literalness, where the it is implied.
In 2 Nephi 17꞉17, the omission of "even" could lead the reader to wrongly believe that Judah was king of Assyria. The italicized "even" in that verse in the KJV is important because it discourages such a misinterpretation. The even actually doesn't do much to discourage the reading of Judah as the king of Assyria. This problem has to be fixed with punctuation, which the dictated Book of Mormon text did not have. Future editions of the Book of Mormon with better punctuators may be necessary. The modern edition omits "even". it may also need to alter the sentence structure much differently than the original Hebrew text to make sense of the passage.
Similarly, the italicized "namely" that is omitted in the Book of Mormon from 2 Nephi 17꞉20 is important in clarifying that the king of Assyria is not the one hiring a razor; he is the razor. This also doesn't provide much utility in clarifying the meaning of the text. Punctuation, scholarly commentary, and maybe other modification of the text may be necessary for future editions of the Book of Mormon. This isn't a fault in translation. The modern edition of the Book of Mormon also omits "namely".
The replacement of "it" with "which" in 2 Nephi 17꞉23 muddles the meaning of Isaiah’s message. The text as it stands in the KJV makes sense — the deserted land, once fruitful, will be overrun with briars and thorns. With "which" in place of "it," the Book of Mormon appears to instead say, in an incomplete sentence, that briars and thorns will be purchased with a thousand silverlings (i.e., a thousand silver coins) The text doesn't necessarily force that reading, but Spencer's reading makes sense. Even with it the best reading remains unclear. Ideally a they should replace it and the sentence structure should be rearranged to emphasize that the deserted land will become overrun with briars and thorns. Readers are probably not likely to spend too much time on this verse when it's equally muddled in both the KJV and BoM. The essential intent of the passage seems unharmed and, in context the reader will most likely interpret it as Isaiah speaking about a prior state of serenity and a subsequent state of disaster. This passage is merely "a negative oracle describing the dire consequences, particularly the subjectaion of Judah by the Assyrian Empire, that will befall Jerusalem and Judah as a result of Ahaz's refusal to accept Isaiah's promises."[22] The modern edition of the Book of Mormon retains "which" instead of it".
The original version of 2 Nephi 19꞉5 in the earliest editions of the Book of Mormon deletes the italicized is from the KJV Isaiah 9꞉5 such that the KJV Isaiah 9꞉5 reads "For every battle of the warrior is with confused noise, and garments rolled in blood; but this shall be with burning and fuel of fire" and 2 Nephi 9꞉5 reads "For every battle of the warrior with confused noise, and garments rolled in blood; but this shall be with burning and fuel of fire." The most likely way of interpreting this passage for reads is to see the first clause as the beginning of an accumulatio and still retaining the correct intent.
3 Nephi 22꞉9 is part of a longer quotation of Isaiah 4. The King James version of Isaiah 54꞉9 reads "For this is as the waters of Noah unto me: for as I have sworn that the waters of Noah should no more go over the earth; so have I sworn that I would not be wroth with thee, nor rebuke thee." 3 Nephi 22꞉9 deletes the first is as such that the verse now reads "For this, the waters of Noah unto me, for as I have sworn that the waters of Noah should no more go over the earth, so have I sworn that I would not be wroth with thee." The initial clause may be mildly confusing, but the intent becomes clear in the second—"as I have sworn ... so have I sworn." There's no lack of clarity when the whole sentence is read. The effect is somewhat poetic as the initial meaning becomes clearer as the reader "circles back."

None of the changes are of much consequence; while reading less fluidly in some cases, their meaning is not difficult to discern. None of these verses if deleted completely would deprive us of any doctrine or teaching of significance. Their main importance is as evidence of how the translation proceeded, and what its priorities may have been.


Notes

  1. ↑ Jeremy T. Runnells, CES Letter: My Search for Answers to My Mormon Doubts (n.p.: CES Letter Foundation, 2017), 14.
  2. ↑ Stan Larson, "The Historicity of the Matthean Sermon on the Mount in 3 Nephi," in Brent Lee Metcalfe (editor), New Approaches to the Book of Mormon: Explorations in Critical Methodology (Salt Lake City, Utah: Signature Book, 1993)..
  3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 David P. Wright, "Isaiah in the Book of Mormon: Or Joseph Smith in Isaiah," in American Apocrypha, ed. Dan Vogel and Brent Lee Metcalfe (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2002), {{{pages}}}.
  4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 Stan Spencer, "Missing Words: King James Bible Italics, the Translation of the Book of Mormon, and Joseph Smith as an Unlearned Reader," Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 38/5 (10 July 2020). [45–106] link
  5. ↑ The second edition is available for consultation online at Royal Skousen, ed., The Book of Mormon: The Earliest Text, 2nd edition (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2022). off-site
  6. ↑ Preston Nibley, editor, History of Joseph Smith by His Mother, Lucy Mack Smith (Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book Company, 1954), 82-83.
  7. ↑ John W. Welch, "Documents of the Translation of the Book of Mormon," in Opening the Heavens: Accounts of Divine Manifestations, ed. John W. Welch, 2nd ed. (Provo, UT: BYU Press; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 2017), 126–227.
  8. ↑ Joseph Smith III, "Last Testimony of Sister Emma;' Saints' Herald 26 (October 1, 1879): 289-90; and Joseph Smith III, "Last Testimony of Sister Emma;' Saints' Advocate 2 (October 1879): 50-52.
  9. ↑ John A. Tvedtnes and Matthew Roper, "Joseph Smith's Use of the Apocrypha: Shadow or Reality? (Review of Joseph Smith's Use of the Apocrypha by Jerald and Sandra Tanner)," FARMS Review 8/2 (1996). [326–372] link
  10. ↑ Richard L. Bushman, Joseph Smith and the Beginnings of Mormonism (Urbana and Chicago, Illinois: University of Illinois Press; Reprint edition, 1987), 95–100. ISBN 0252060121.
  11. ↑ Robert J. Matthews, "A Plainer Translation": Joseph Smith's Translation of the Bible: A History and Commentary (Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University Press, 1985), 26; cited in footnote 165 of John Gee, "La Trahison des Clercs: On the Language and Translation of the Book of Mormon (Review of New Approaches to the Book of Mormon: Explorations in Critical Methodology by Brent Lee Metcalfe)," FARMS Review of Books 6/1 (1994): 51–120. off-site
  12. ↑ Kent P. Jackson, Frank F. Judd Jr., and David R. Seely, "Chapters, Verses, Punctuation, Spelling, and Italics," in The King James Bible and the Restoration, ed. Kent P. Jackson (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 2011), 108–12.
  13. ↑ Royal Skousen, "Critical Methodology and the Text of the Book of Mormon (Review of New Approaches to the Book of Mormon: Explorations in Critical Methodology by Brent Lee Metcalfe)," Review of Books on the Book of Mormon 6/1 (1994). [121–144] link
  14. ↑ Kevin Barney, "KJV Italics," By Common Consent, October 13, 2007, http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2007/10/kjv-italics/.
  15. ↑ Royal Skousen, "The History of the Text of the Book of Mormon: Presentation on Parts 5 and 6 of Volume 3 of the Critical Text Project of the Book of Mormon," Book of Mormon Central, accessed December 24, 2022, https://www.bookofmormoncentral.org/sites/default/files/documents/Blog%20entry/2020/Presentation%20parts%205%20and%206%20Hinckley%20Center.pdf.
  16. ↑ "Sidney Rigdon," JSPP.
  17. ↑ W.W. Phelps, "The Book of Mormon," The Evening and the Morning Star 1, no. 8 (January 1833): 58.
  18. ↑ "Errors of the Bible," The Evening and the Morning Star 2, no. 14 (July 1833): 106.
  19. ↑ "Minutes of A Conference," Times and Seasons 4, no. 20 (September 1, 1843): 318; emphasis in original. Quoted in Kent P. Jackson, "The King James Bible and the Joseph Smith Translation," in The King James Bible and the Restoration, ed. Kent P. Jackson (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 2011), 203.
  20. ↑ "Mormonites," The Sun, August 18, 1831, http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/PA/Phil1830.htm.
  21. ↑ Royal Skousen, The History of the Text of the Book of Mormon: Part 5, The King James Quotations in the Book of Mormon (Provo, UT: FARMS, 2019), 182–210.
  22. ↑ Marvin A. Sweeney, "Isaiah," in The New Oxford Annotated Bible, ed. Michael D. Coogan, 5th ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2018), 990n18–19.


Retrieved from "https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/index.php?title=KJV_italicized_text_in_the_Book_of_Mormon&oldid=262745"