FAIR is a non-profit organization dedicated to providing well-documented answers to criticisms of the doctrine, practice, and history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Book of Mormon/Authorship theories
Revision as of 13:42, 11 April 2022 by DavidSmith (talk | contribs) (updated page content to better organize by topic)
Authorship of the Book of Mormon
Summary: Many critics assert that Joseph Smith created the Book of Mormon instead of translating it from ancient records. This article addresses various authorship critiques.
Plagiarism theories
Book of Mormon plagiarism theories usually assert that Joseph Smith or one of his associates wrote the Book of Mormon by plagiarizing works that were available at the time. Examples of this are the Spalding manuscript theory, the View of the Hebrews theory, and The Golden Pot theory.
What is the Spalding Theory of Book of Mormon authorship?
One of the earliest theories of Book of Mormon authorship was that Joseph plagiarized the unpublished manuscript of a novel written by the Reverend Solomon Spalding (or Spaulding)
Since the Book of Mormon was first published, many have been unwilling to accept Joseph Smith's account of how it was produced. It's easy to dismiss Joseph's story of angels, gold plates, and a miraculous interpretation process; it's much harder to come up with an alternative explanation that accounts for the complexity and consistency of the Book of Mormon, as well as the historical details of its production.
Many critics, unwilling to credit the uneducated, backwater farm boy Joseph Smith as the Book of Mormon's author, have looked to possible sources from which he could have plagiarized. One of the earliest theories was that Joseph plagiarized the unpublished manuscript of a novel written by the Reverend Solomon Spalding (1761–1816).
Spalding was a lapsed Calvinist clergyman and author of an epic tale of the ancient Native American "Mound Builders." The theory postulates that Spalding wrote his manuscript in biblical phraseology and read it to many of his friends. He subsequently took the manuscript to Pittsburgh, where it fell into the hands of a Mr. Patterson, in whose office Sidney Rigdon worked, and that through Sidney Rigdon it came into the possession of Joseph Smith and was made the basis of the Book of Mormon.
The earliest uses of the Spaulding theory from the editor of The Wayne Sentinel in 1833 and by Eber D. Howe in his book Mormonism Unvailed [sic]. The vast majority of critics from the early 1830s to the early 1900s argued for this theory of Book of Mormon origins. This changed dramatically with the rediscovery of the actual Spaulding manuscript in 1885. Since the early 1900s, the most common explanation has been that Joseph plagiarized from Ethan Smith's View of the Hebrews. Today there are few, if any, who adopt the Spaulding theory beyond a couple of writers.[1] Spaulding theorists hold that the production of the Book of Mormon was a conspiracy involving Sidney Rigdon, Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery and others. It is claimed by these theorists that Joseph Smith either plagiarized or relied upon a manuscript by Solomon Spaulding to write the Book of Mormon. These individuals search for links between Spalding and Rigdon in order to make the theory more plausible. Joseph Smith is assumed to have been Rigdon's pawn.
Initial critics of the Book of Mormon tended to take one of two stances—either:
- The Book of Mormon was a clumsy, obvious forgery upon which no intelligent person would waste time; and/or
- Joseph Smith was the Book of Mormon's obvious author.
Ironically, with the appearance of the Spalding theory, critics quickly began to claim that Joseph Smith could not have written the Book of Mormon, and attributed the Book of Mormon's writing to Spalding and (usually) Sidney Rigdon.
It is interesting to note the after-the-fact admission from critics that prior to the Spalding theory, the Book of Mormon was difficult to account for. Unfortunately for the modern critic, the collapse of the Spalding theory means that they are likewise ill-placed to attribute the Book of Mormon's text to Joseph Smith.
There are three major problems with this theory
- The historical record indicates that Sidney Rigdon first learned of the Book of Mormon from Parley P. Pratt and his missionary companions in November 1830, and that Rigdon did not meet Joseph Smith until December of that same year. All of this was long after the Book of Mormon was translated and published. Critics can only marshal circumstantial evidence of a conspiracy in which Rigdon met Joseph much earlier, then later pretended to be converted to Mormonism.
- The purported Spalding manuscript was not brought forward for analysis because no one knew where it was, or if it even existed. In 1884 an authentic Solomon Spalding manuscript titled "Manuscript Story—Conneaut Creek" was recovered by Lewis L. Rice in Honolulu, Hawaii and taken to the Oberlin College Library in Ohio. The unfinished story bore hardly any resemblance to the Book of Mormon.[2]:10 The text was published by the RLDS Church in 1885 under the title "Manuscript Found." The LDS Church also published the text. (See "Further Reading," link, for links to online texts).
- Claims that Spalding wrote a second manuscript are easily discredited by the fact that the published Spalding manuscript clearly shows that it was not finished, even after Spalding moved away from many of the people who claimed to have heard him read from the later story.[3]
Is the Spalding theory of Book of Mormon authorship credible?
Book of Mormon Central, KnoWhy #502: Is the Book of Mormon Like Any Other Nineteenth Century Book? (Video)
The theory requires a second manuscript that doesn't exist, with invented contents, and the invention of a means of getting the alleged manuscript to Joseph Smith via Sidney Rigdon
Modern supporters of the Spalding authorship theory simply ignore the inconvenient fact that the extant Spalding manuscript recovered in the late 19th century bears no resemblance to the Book of Mormon, that it was an unfinished draft, and that no postulated second manuscript has been discovered.
They also ignore the complete lack of any persuasive evidence for contact between Sidney Rigdon and Joseph Smith prior to the Book of Mormon's publication.
Until the purported second manuscript appears, all these critics have is a nonexistent document which they can claim says anything they want. This is doubtlessly the attraction of the "theory" and shows the lengths to which critics will go to disprove the Book of Mormon.
It is interesting to consider that the best explanation such critics can propose requires that they invent a document, then invent its contents, and then invent a means of getting the document to Joseph via Rigdon.
An alleged missing, second Spalding manuscript
The existing Spalding manuscript is obviously unrelated to the Book of Mormon. It is therefore postulated by some that there must exist a second manuscript, despite the fact that the existing manuscript was never completed.
The discovery and publishing of the manuscript put to rest the Spaulding theory for several decades. But in the early 20th century the theory surfaced again, only this time its advocates claimed there was a second Spaulding manuscript that was the real source for the Book of Mormon. However, supporters of the revised Spaulding theory have not produced this second purported manuscript. They do, however, rely upon early works such as a 1908 book written by William Heth Whitsitt called Sidney Rigdon, The Real Founder of Mormonism. The entire book is based upon Whitsitt's initial assumption that Rigdon and Spalding wrote the Book of Mormon. Whitsitt then proceeds to fit the known facts to match that assumption. One of the most amusing parts of the book is the attempt to explain the experience of the Three Witnesses. In Whitsitt's book, Sidney plays the Angel Moroni and the Spalding manuscript itself (the second, undiscovered one) actually plays the part of the gold plates! According to Whitsitt:
It is suspected that Mr. Rigdon was somewhere present in the undergrowth of the forest where the little company were assembled, and being in plain hearing of their devotions he could easily step forward at a signal from Joseph, and exhibit several of the most faded leaves of the manuscript, which from having been kept a series of years since the death of Spaulding would assume the yellow appearance that is well known in such circumstances. At a distance from the station which they occupied the writing on these yellow sheets of paper would also appear to their excited imagination in the light of engravings; Sidney was likewise very well equal to the task of uttering the assurances which Smith affirms the angel was kind enough to supply concerning the genuineness of the "plates" and the correctness of the translation.
See: Solomon Spaulding, Manuscript Found: The Complete Original "Spaulding Manuscript", edited by Kent P. Jackson, (Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 1996). off-site
What do most critics think of the Spalding theory of Book of Mormon origin?
Many critics of the Book of Mormon reject the Spalding theory as unworkable
- Davis H. Bays, The Doctrines and Dogmas of Mormonism Examined and Refuted, (St. Louis: Christian Publishing, 1897), 22, 25
- [This theory is] "erroneous, and it will lead to almost certain defeat.... The facts are all opposed to this view, and the defenders of the Mormon dogma have the facts well in hand.... The Spaulding story is a failure. Do not attempt to rely upon it — it will let you down."
- Fawn Brodie, No Man Knows My History (New York, A. A. Knopf, 1945), 453
- "The tenuous chain of evidence accumulated to support the Spaulding-Rigdon theory breaks altogether when it tries to prove that Rigdon met Joseph Smith before 1830."
- Jerald and Sandra Tanner, Did Spaulding Write the Book of Mormon? (Salt Lake City: Utah Lighthouse Ministry, 1977).
One might ask why if Mormonism's most prominent critics find the Spalding theory unworkable, then what motivates those who tenuously hold to this theory and continue to pursue it? Those that continue to promote this theory have not effectively dealt with the major objections highlighted by other anti-Mormon critics. [4]
Edward E. Plowman, Christianity Today: "Mormon archivists have assembled a large amount of evidence—some of it impressive—to rebut the Spalding theory"
Edward E. Plowman:
...Mormon archivists have assembled a large amount of evidence—some of it impressive—to rebut the Spalding theory. They scored a coup of sorts when they discovered that a manuscript page from another Mormon book, Doctrine and Covenants, is apparently in the same handwriting as that of the Unidentified Scribe in the Book of Mormon manuscript. It is dated June, 1831—fifteen years after Spalding's death.... The average layman can readily note the striking dissimilarities between Spalding's specimens and the others....[5]
Gospel Topics: "Similarities between his manuscript and the Book of Mormon are general and superficial"
Gospel Topics on LDS.org:
Spaulding was born in 1761. He studied at Dartmouth College in New Hampshire and was ordained a minister. Later, he left the ministry and lived in New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania until his death in 1816. In his later years, he wrote a novel, which he never published. Spaulding's manuscript is considerably shorter than the Book of Mormon.
Similarities between his manuscript and the Book of Mormon are general and superficial. Spaulding's fiction is about a group of Romans blown off course on a journey to Britain who arrive instead in America. One of the Romans narrates the adventures of the group and the history and culture of the people they find in America. A major portion of the manuscript describes two nations near the Ohio River. After a long era of peace between the two nations, a prince of one nation elopes with a princess of the other nation. Because of political intrigue, the elopement results in a great war between the two nations and the loss of much life but the ultimate vindication of the prince and his princess.[6]
Sidney Rigdon: "in all of my intimacy with Joseph Smith he never told me but one story"
Sidney Rigdon to his son John, just prior to Sidney's death, asserted that the Book of Mormon was true:
My father, after I had finished saying what I have repeated above, looked at me a moment, raised his hand above his head and slowly said, with tears glistening in his eyes: "My son, I can swear before high heaven that what I have told you about the origin of [the Book of Mormon] is true. Your mother and sister, Mrs. Athalia Robinson, were present when that book was handed to me in Mentor, Ohio, and all I ever knew about the origin of [the Book of Mormon] was what Parley P. Pratt, Oliver Cowdery, Joseph Smith and the witnesses who claimed they saw the plates have told me, and in all of my intimacy with Joseph Smith he never told me but one story. [7]
Did Solomon Spaulding's doctor state that Spaulding talked to him about the Nephites in his manuscript?
This claim is based upon a forgery
This claim comes from an affidavit allegedly inscribed in the flyleaf of a copy of the Book of Mormon:
This work, I am convinced by facts related to me by my deceased patient, Solomon Spaulding, has been made from writings of Spaulding, probably by Sidney Rigdon, who was suspicioned by Spaulding with purloining his manuscript from the publishing-house to which he had taken it; and I am prepared to testify that Spaulding told me that his work was entitled, "The Manuscript Found in the Wilds of Mormon; or Unearthed Records of the Nephites." From his description of its contents, I fully believe that this Book of Mormon is mainly and wickedly copied from it. CEPHAS DODD.[8]
It is considered a forgery (even by most Spalding theorists), and was given to C.E. Shook by R.B. Neal.
Shook published it in a book at the beginning of the 20th century. The original (if it ever existed) doesn't exist any more.
On the other hand, there is an authentic letter by Dodd in which he says that he knows almost nothing of the writings of Spalding. As one Spaulding theorist wrote:
Rev. Snowden reciting the "further testimony that Solomon Spaulding had written a manuscript entitled 'The Manuscript Found in the Wilds of Mormon, or Unearthed Records of the Nephites,'" is problematic. This assertion was originally published in 1914 by Charles A. Shook[9]—who, in turn, evidently received the unsubstantiated claim from Rev. R. B. Neal. The original source—a purported Cephas Dodd statement of June 5, 1831—has been documented as a forgery, and there is no reliable evidence for Solomon Spalding ever having made use of this strange title.[10]
Eber D. Howe: "I could better believe that Spaulding wrote it than that Joe Smith saw an angel"
Eber D. Howe, publisher of the "Spalding theory" of Book of Mormon authorship in Mormonism Unvailed, during an interview in 1884.:
Because I could better believe that Spaulding wrote it than that Joe Smith saw an angel.[11]
We can admire his frankness, if not the solution he came to.
William Smith (1884): "It was not written from the Spaulding Romance. That story is false"
William dismissed the Spalding theory as absurd:
Where is the Spaulding Story? I am a little too old a man to be telling stories. There is no money in telling this story. I expect to stand before angels and archangels and be judged for how I have told it. When Joseph received the plates he a[l]so received the Urim and Thummim, which he would place in a hat to exclude all light, and with the plates by his side he translated the characters, which were cut into the plates with some sharp instrument, into English. And thus, letter by letter, word by word, sentence by sentence, the whole book was translated. It was not written from the Spaulding Romance. That story is false. Some say this romance was stolen by Sidney Rigdon while at Pittsburgh. This is false. Sidney Rigdon knew nothing about it. He never saw or heard tell of the Book of Mormon until it was presented to him by P. P. Pratt and others. He was never at my father's house to see my brother until after the book was published. If he had wanted to see Joseph at that time and remained very long, he would have had to be in the field rolling logs or carrying brush. [12]
Roper: "Subsequent variants of this hypothesis have been published from time to time"
Matthew Roper:
In 1834, relying on testimony gathered by one Doctor Philastus Hurlbut (a former Mormon who had been excommunicated from the church for immoral behavior), E. D. Howe suggested that the Book of Mormon was based on an unpublished novel called "Manuscript Found," written by a former minister named Solomon Spalding. In statements collected by Hurlbut, eight former neighbors of Spalding said they remembered elements of his story that resembled the historical portions of the Book of Mormon. Some said they recalled names shared by Spalding's earlier tale and the Book of Mormon. Others claimed that the historical narrative of both stories was the same with the exception of the religious material in the Book of Mormon. Howe suggested that, by some means, Sidney Rigdon, a former Campbellite preacher in Ohio and Pennsylvania who had joined the church in November 1830, had obtained a copy of "Manuscript Found" years before and had used it as the basis for the Book of Mormon, to which he also added religious material. Rigdon, Howe argued, must have conspired with Joseph Smith to pass the Book of Mormon off as a divinely revealed book of ancient American scripture as part of a moneymaking scheme. Subsequent variants of this hypothesis have been published from time to time.[13]
Did Joseph Smith know Sidney Rigdon prior to 1830?
John Stafford: "Sidney Rigdon was never there, that Hurlbut, or Howe, or Tucker could find out"
John Stafford was the eldest son of William Stafford, one of those who provided the Hurlbut affidavits. He was later asked about the Rigdon connection:
- Q — If young Joseph — Smith , Jr. — was as illiterate as you say, Doctor, how do you account for the Book of Mormon?
- A — "Well, I can't; except that Sidney Rigdon was connected with them."
- Q — Was Rigdon ever around there before the Book of Mormon was published?
- A — "No; not as we could ever find out. Sidney Rigdon was never there, that Hurlbut, or Howe, or Tucker could find out."
- Q — Well; you have been looking out for the facts a long time, have you not, Doctor?
- A — "Yes; I have been thinking and hearing about it for the last fifty years, and lived right among all their old neighbors there more of the time."
- Q — And no one has ever been able to trace the acquaintance of Rigdon and Smith, until after the Book of Mormon was published, and Rigdon proselyted by Parley P. — Pratt, in Ohio?
- A — "Not that I know of.""
- — John Stafford, cited in William H. Kelly, "The Hill Cumorah, and the Book of Mormon," Saints' Herald 28 (1 June 1881): 167.[14]
Why do some critics think that Sidney Rigdon was the author of the Book of Mormon?
The theory that Sidney Rigdon was the author of the Book of Mormon was only advanced when it became apparent that Joseph Smith was incapable of having written it
Initial reaction to the Book of Mormon attributed the authorship to Joseph Smith himself, and reviewers were quick to criticize the book's problems of style, and simply declared it an obvious, amateurish forgery.
It seems to have soon become clear, however, that Joseph truly was incapable of writing such a book. As a result, Sidney Rigdon, an experienced minister, was soon blamed for the book, with Joseph as a willing fellow-con:
[1 September 1831] ...the money diggers of Ontario county, by the suggestions of the Ex-Preacher from Ohio [i.e., Rigdon], thought of turning their digging concern into a religious plot, and thereby have a better chance of working upon the credulity and ignorance of their associates and the neighborhood. Money and a good living might be got in this way....
There is no doubt but the ex-parson from Ohio is the author of the book which was recently printed and published in Palmyra, and passes for the new Bible. It is full of strange narratives—in the style of the scriptures, and bearing on its face the marks of some ingenuity, and familiar acquaintance with the Bible. It is probable that Joe Smith is well acquainted with the trick, but Harris the farmer and the recent coverts, are true believers....
They were called translations, but in fact and in truth they are believed to be the work of the Ex-Preacher from Ohio, who stood in the back ground and put forward Joe to father the new bible and the new faith.[15]
But as we have seen, the Spalding theory (with or without Rigdon) fails. Few critics now resort to it.
Critical sources |
|
Early reactions to the Book of Mormon
Summary: The Book of Mormon was met by a storm of criticism from early critics. This page archives examples of these early responses.The Hurlbut Spalding affidavits
Summary: Joseph's neighbors claimed that Joseph had copied the Spalding manuscriptVernal Holley map—Book of Mormon place names from North America?
Summary: Common place names in the region around New York used as Book of Mormon names?Critical sources |
Sources which accept the Spalding manuscript theory:
Claimed the existence of a second Spalding manuscript when the first theory failed:
|
Past responses |
|
Notes
- ↑ For a helpful longitudinal history of naturalistic theories for Book of Mormon origins, see Brian C. Hales, "Naturalistic Explanations of the Origin of the Book of Mormon: A Longitudinal Study," BYU Studies 58:3 (2019).
- ↑ Matthew Roper, "The Mythical "Manuscript Found" (Review of: Who Really Wrote the Book of Mormon? The Spalding Enigma)," FARMS Review 17/2 (2005): 7–140. off-site,
- ↑ The Spalding Theory Debunked off-site
- ↑ Matthew Roper, "The Mythical "Manuscript Found" (Review of: Who Really Wrote the Book of Mormon? The Spalding Enigma)," FARMS Review 17/2 (2005): 7–140. off-site, p. 21, note 62.
- ↑ Edward E. Plowman, Christianity Today (21 October 1977): 38-39).
- ↑ "Spaulding Manuscript," Gospel Topics on LDS.org.
- ↑ Rex C. Reeve, Jr. "What is 'Manuscript Found'?" in Manuscript Found: The Complete Original "Spaulding" Manuscript, edited by Kent B. Jackson, Vol. 11 in the Specialized Monographs Series (Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 1996), footnote 47.
- ↑ Cited in Appendix 5, "The Cephas Dodd Hoax and Other Fabrications," in Wayne L. Cowdrey, Howard A. Davis, and Arthur Vanick, Who Really Wrote the Book of Mormon? The Spalding Enigma. (St. Louis: Concordia, 2005), 402. Analysis
- ↑ Charles A. Shook, The True Origin of Mormon Polygamy (Cincinnati: The Standard Publishing Company, 1910). It was also cited by Dr. W. L. Dodd, Early History of Amity, Pa. 1770-1870 (Private publication, 1940).
- ↑ Dale Broadhurst, "Wayne Cowdrey, et al. Who Really Wrote The Book of Mormon? The Spalding Enigma," Note 2, accessed 2 May 2015. http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/PA/penn1900.htm
- ↑ Interview with E.D. Howe, in E.L. Kelley, Public Discussion of the Issues between the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and the Church of Christ (Disciples), Held in Kirtland, Ohio, Beginning February 12, and Closing March 8, 1884, between E. L. Kelley, of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, and Clark Braden, of the Church of Christ (St. Louis: Christian Publishing and Smart, 1884), 83.
- ↑ Dan Vogel (editor), Early Mormon Documents (Salt Lake City, Signature Books, 1996–2003), 5 vols, 1:505-506.
- ↑ Matthew Roper, "The Mythical "Manuscript Found" (Review of: Who Really Wrote the Book of Mormon? The Spalding Enigma)," FARMS Review 17/2 (2005): 7–140. off-site
- ↑ Dan Vogel (editor), Early Mormon Documents (Salt Lake City, Signature Books, 1996–2003), 5 vols, 2:123–124.)
- ↑ “Mormon Religion—Clerical Ambition—Western New York—The Mormonites Gone to Ohio,” Morning Courier and New-York Enquirer (New York City, New York) 7, no. 1331 (1 September 1831). off-site
Book of Mormon/Authorship theories
Book of Mormon/Authorship theories
Latter-day Saints and the Bible |
|
Reliability of the Bible |
|
Creation |
|
Genesis |
|
Understanding the Bible |
|
Cultural issues |
|
The Bible and the Book of Mormon |
Why does the Book of Mormon's translation of Isaiah material match the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible so closely?
Some have presumed that Joseph simply opened a Bible and copied those chapters when he came to material on the gold plates that he recognized as being from the Bible
Some passages from the Bible (parts of Isaiah, for example) were included in the Book of Mormon text. Some people have long adopted the position that Joseph Smith simply copied the King James Version (KJV) Bible text for the relevant portions of, for example, Isaiah. Even some Church members have presumed that the close match between the texts indicates that Joseph simply opened a Bible and copied those chapters when he came to material on the gold plates that he recognized as being from the Bible.
The Saints do not believe in one fixed, inviolate, "perfect" rendering of a scripture or doctrinal concept. The Book of Mormon likely reflects differences between the Nephite textual tradition and the commonly known Biblical manuscripts.
Joseph did not believe that there was "one and only one" true translation of a given passage or text. The Book of Mormon is "the most correct book" in the sense that it those who read and obey its precepts will draw nearer to God than in reading any other book. This is not a claim about textual perfection. The book itself even insists that some errors will still be present—title page, Mormon 9꞉31). In fact, Brigham Young taught that the Book of Mormon text would have been different if it were redone later:
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. [1]
Why are many of the quotes from Isaiah in the Book of Mormon identical to those in the King James Bible?
Witnesses to the translation process are unanimous that Joseph did not have any books, manuscripts, or notes to which he referred while translating
There are several problems with the idea that Joseph simply copied passages from the Holy Bible.
1) Witnesses to the translation process are unanimous that Joseph did not have any books, manuscripts, or notes to which he referred while translating. Recalled Emma, in a later interview:
- I know Mormonism to be the truth; and believe the church to have been established by divine direction. I have complete faith in it. In writing for [Joseph] I frequently wrote day after day, often sitting at the table close by him, he sitting with his face buried in his hat , with the stone in it, and dictating hour after hour with nothing between us.
- Q. Had he not a book or manuscript from which he read, or dictated to you?
- A. He had neither manuscript or book to read from.
- Q. Could he not have had, and you not know it?
- A. If he had anything of the kind he could not have concealed it from me.[2]
Martin Harris also noted that Joseph would translate with his face buried in his hat in order to use the seer stone/urim and thummim. This would make referring to a Bible or notes virtually impossible:
- Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine...[3]
2) It is not clear that Joseph even owned a Bible during the Book of Mormon translation. He and Oliver Cowdery later purchased a Bible, which suggests (given Joseph's straitened financial situation) that he did not already own one.[4]
3) It is not clear that Joseph's Biblical knowledge was at all broad during the Book of Mormon translation. It seems unlikely that he would have recognized, say, Isaiah, had he encountered it on the plates. Recalled Emma Smith:
- When my husband was translating the Book of Mormon, I wrote a part of it, as he dictated each sentence, word for word, and when he came to proper names he could not pronounce, or long words, he spelled them out, and while I was writing them, if I made a mistake in spelling, he would stop me and correct my spelling, although it was impossible for him to see how I was writing them down at the time. .?. . When he stopped for any purpose at any time he would, when he commenced again, begin where he left off without any hesitation, and one time while he was translating he stopped suddenly, pale as a sheet, and said, "Emma, did Jerusalem have walls around it?" When I answered, "Yes," he replied, "Oh! I was afraid I had been deceived." He had such a limited knowledge of history at the time that he did not even know that Jerusalem was surrounded by walls.[5]
Emma also noted that
- Joseph Smith could neither write nor dictate a coherent and wellworded letter; let alone dictating a book like the Book of Mormon. And, though I was an active participant in the scenes that transpired, . . . it is marvelous to me, "a marvel and a wonder," as much so as to any one else.[6]
And, if Joseph was merely inventing the Book of Mormon story, he picked some of the more obscure and difficult Bible passages to include.
4) If Joseph was forging the Book of Mormon, why include Biblical passages at all? Clearly, Joseph was able to rapidly produce a vast and complex text that no biblical content at all. If Joseph was trying to perpetrate a fraud, why did he include near-verbatim quotations from the one book (the KJV Bible) with which his target audience was sure to be familiar?
The differences in wording between the KJV and the Book of Mormon highlight the areas in which there were theologically significant differences between the Nephite versions and the Masoretic text
Even academic translators sometimes copy a previous translation if it serves the purpose of their translation. For example, the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) provided previously unknown texts of many Biblical writings. However, in some translations of the DSS, approximately 90% is simply copied from the KJV.
Surely we are not expected to believe that the DSS translators dropped back into King James idiom and just happened to come up with a nearly identical text! They, in fact, unabashedly copied the KJV, except where the DSS texts were substantially different from already known Hebrew manuscripts.
Why was this done? Because, the purpose of the DSS translation is to highlight the differences between the newly discovered manuscripts and those to which scholars already had access. Thus, in areas where the DSS manuscripts agree with the Biblical texts that were already known, the KJV translation is used to so indicate.
This does not mean that there may not be a better way to render the text than the KJV—but, it would be counterproductive for the DSS committee to spend a lot of time improving on the KJV translation. A reader without access to the original manuscripts could then never be sure if a difference between the DSS translation and the King James (or any other) translation represented a true difference in the DSS text, or simply the choice of the DSS translators to improve existing translations.
The situation with the Book of Mormon is likely analogous. For example, it is possible that most of the text to which the Nephites had access would not have differed significantly from the Hebrew texts used in later Bible translations. The differences in wording between the KJV and the Book of Mormon may highlight the areas in which there were theologically significant differences between the Nephite versions and the Masoretic text, from which the Bible was translated. Other areas can be assumed to be essentially the same. If one wants an improved or clearer translation of a passage that is identical in the Book of Mormon and the KJV, one has only to go to the original manuscripts available to all scholars. Basing the text on the KJV focuses the reader on the important clarifications, as opposed to doing a new translation from scratch, and distracting the reader with many differences that might be due simply to translator preference.
Since there is no such thing as a "perfect" translation, this allows the reader to easily identify genuine differences between the Isaiah texts of the Old World and the Nephites.
Adaptation of Isaiah
There are also areas in which Nephi seems to adapt Isaiah as he "likens it unto himself." Ancient scribes and authors did not have the same preoccupation with literal, precise citation that we do. They would adapt texts to make their point, which Nephi explicitly tells us he is doing.
Some differences, then, may not reflect a textual difference at all, but instead represent Nephi's novel adaptation of the text.[7]
Bible text itself quotes extensively from past scripture
When considering the presence of Isaiah in the Book of Mormon, we note that one Bible scholar has found that the four gospels attest to the fact that Jesus Christ and the apostles consistently quoted scripture. He calculated that over "ten percent of the daily conversation of Jesus consisted of Old Testament words quoted literally" and nearly 50% of the Lord's words as quoted by John were quotations from the Old Testament.[8]
When we learn that Isaiah is the most quoted of all prophets, being more frequently quoted by Jesus, Paul, Peter, and John (in his Revelation) than any other Old Testament prophet, it should not surprise us that both the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants also quote Isaiah more than any other prophet.[9] The Lord told the Nephites that "great are the words of Isaiah," and the prophet Nephi confessed, "my soul delighteth in his words... for he verily saw my Redeemer, even as I have seen him" (2 Nephi 11꞉2).
New Testament writers quoted hundreds of Old Testament scriptures including 76 verses from Isaiah
It is clear that the writings of Isaiah held special significance for Jesus Christ and Nephi (see 2 Nephi 11꞉8, 25꞉5; 3 Nephi 20꞉11; 23꞉1-3). Isaiah's prophecies might also have been quoted frequently because they were largely concerned with latter-day events. The Saints understand Isaiah to have foretold the restoration of the gospel through Joseph Smith (see 49), the gathering of Israel in the last days (18), the coming forth of the Book of Mormon (29), wickedness in the last days (33), and the Savior's second coming, and the millennium (13, 26, 27). While he also wrote about the Savior's first coming (32꞉1-4) and events in his own time (20,23), most of what he wrote about is yet to be fulfilled.[10]
When one considers that New Testament writers quoted hundreds of Old Testament scriptures including 76 verses from Isaiah[11] it should not surprise us that Book of Mormon writers did likewise. After all, these writings were part of the old world scriptures brought with them to the new world 1 Nephi 19꞉22-23). If the prophets of the Book of Mormon had not quoted Isaiah we might have cause to question the text's authenticity.
Paul has been called the most original of all New Testament writers but investigations of his epistles show that Paul often quoted from classical writers, orators, dramas, law courts, sports commentaries, and ancient religious rites. Even the well-known Pauline formula of "faith, hope, and charity," which appears also in the Book of Mormon, has been traced to Babylonian writings.[12]
Analysis of Specific Passages
2 Nephi 14:5
Walter Martin claims that Isaiah 4꞉5 is followed (mistakenly) by (2 Nephi 14꞉5). The phrase "For upon all the glory shall be a defense" should actually be "For over all the glory there will be a canopy."
Martin ignores that as translation literature, the Book of Mormon may well follow the KJV when the documents upon which the KJV is based match those of the Nephite text. Book of Mormon variants likely reflect only theologically significant changes not available in the Old World textual tradition.
| To learn more: | Table of alleged KJV translations errors persisting in the Book of Mormon Summary: This article provides further, more detailed analysis of this alleged translation error. |
2 Nephi 19:1
Isaiah 9꞉1 in the King James Bible reads as follows (italics from KJV included for convenience):
- Nevertheless the dimness shall not be such as was in her vexation, when at the first he lightly afflicted the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, and afterward did more grievously afflict her by the way of the sea, beyond Jordan, in Galilee of the nations.
2 Nephi 19꞉1, a quotation of Isaiah by the prophet Nephi, reads:
- Nevertheless, the dimness shall not be such as was in her vexation, when at first he lightly afflicted the land of Zebulun, and the land of Naphtali, and afterwards did more grievously afflict by the way of the Red Sea beyond Jordan in Galilee of the nations.
The Book of Mormon deletes the word "her" from 9꞉1 and then inserts "Red" before "sea" making the verse read "afflict by way of the Red Sea". "The problem with this", describes one critic "is that (a) Christ quoted Isaiah in Matt. 4꞉14-15 and did not mention the Red Sea [true], (b) 'Red' sea is not found in any source manuscripts [from which one could translate Isaiah. [Also true.], and (c) the Red Sea [he likely is referring more specifically to the Gulf of Aqaba] 25 miles away [from the sea of Galilee, which the Isaiah prophecy refers to in context. Also True]."[13]
Despite having all these facts correct, the critic's conclusion is still in error, as we will now see.
=The 'Red' Sea?
In context, Isaiah is prophetically anticipating "a period of gloom and darkness until a new Davidic monarch arises to replace Ahaz."[14] Several interpreters take this chapter to be speaking about the coming Messiah.
Hypothesis #1: Scribal Overcorrection
John Tvedtnes explains:
9:1 (MT 8:23) = 2 Ne. 19꞉1
KJV: "afflict her by the way of the sea"
BM: "afflict by the way of the Red Sea"
The deletion of italicized "her" is understandable, since it is not in [the Masoretic Text: the source for most current translations of Isaiah]. (I) However, [Book of Mormon] must be wrong in speaking of the "RED Sea", which is certainly not "beyond Jordan, in Galilee", nor near the tribes of Zebulun and Naphtali. This appears to be a case of scribal overcorrection, due to prior mention of the Red Sea in the BM text.[15]
In other words, Tvedtnes suggests that the addition of the word "red" is an example of Oliver Cowdery "over-hearing" (hearing "sea" and adding "red" in error).
Hypothesis #2: An error while copying the original manuscript to the printer's manuscript
D. Charles Pyle suggested that the error may be the result of Oliver miscopying the original manuscript to the Printer's manuscript, presumably following similar logic to that of John Tvedtnes.[16]
Hypothesis #3: Egyptian translator's error
Pyle also suggested that it's possible to understand this as an error of an Egyptian translator into Hebrew and that Joseph Smith translated this passage, error and all, into English.[16]
Hypothesis #4: Joseph inserting a word where it was missing
Author Stan Spencer wrote a long article for Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship in which he discussed the italics in the King James Bible as used in the Book of Mormon. When translating passages in the Book of Mormon that are quotations of the King James Bible, scholars of the Book of Mormon note that a large amount of differences between the King James Bible and the Book of Mormon's quotations of it center around the italics. The italics are sometimes omitted and sometimes revised in the Book of Mormon. Spencer outlined three possibilities to account for the differences between the King James Bible text and the Book of Mormon quotations of it:
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."[17]: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.[17]: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.[17]
Thus, in Spencer's thinking, Joseph Smith could have seen the passage from Isaiah 9꞉1 in the Book of Mormon and inserted "red" before sea—perhaps thinking that the text in Isaiah was somehow in error.[18]
| To learn more: | KJV italicized text in the Book of Mormon |
Hypothesis #5: The way of the Red Sea
The following response is provided by Jeff Lindsay,
The Book of Mormon deletes "her" from the KJV and changes "sea" to "Red Sea." Based on verse 1 in light of verse 2 from Isaiah, many people conclude that the sea is the Sea of Galilee, not the Red Sea. The KJV for Isaiah 9꞉2 is:
The people that walked in darkness have seen a great light: they that dwell in the land of the shadow of death, upon them hath the light shined.
So yes, these verses do appear to be a prophecy of the ministry of Christ, and the Sea of Galilee would make sense. So why does the Book of Mormon have the puzzling reference to the Red Sea? Here is a possible explanation offered by D. Charles Pyle in e-mail received June 2004:
There are those who say that this is an error. It is possible that it is a scribal error on the part of Oliver Cowdery in copying the printer's manuscript from the original manuscript. The problem is that this cannot be proven or disproven because this portion of the original manuscript no longer is extant. It also is possible that the Egyptian textual translation of the Hebrew is in error and that Joseph Smith translated it, error and all. On the other hand, it also is possible that it is not an error at all.
The King's Highway also was part of what was known in ancient times as the Way of the Red Sea, which led out of Egypt along the shores of the Red Sea, passed through Edom and changed direction after meeting with the Way of the Sea, in Galilee, to go into Mesopotamia. It is possible that Joseph journeyed this way, or at least part of this way, to avoid going through Judaea when he took Jesus into Nazareth as a young child. If so, it would be quite correct in that the light would pass into the region of Naphtali via the Way of the Red Sea. Joseph sought to avoid contact with Archelaus and a back route would be one of the best ways to avoid contact.
We also know that Jesus went into the wilderness for his temptation after being baptized in a region on the other side of the Jordan. The English Book of Mormon has Bethabara as do several versions of the Bible while [several other translations have] Bethany beyond Jordan. He would then have come down from Galilee to be baptized on the other side of the Jordan (east of the river; 'beyond Jordan' meant to the east of the Jordan River), and come down around the Way of the Red Sea and around the Dead Sea to the Wilderness of Judaea. Remember, Jesus' wandered the wilderness for forty days, plenty of time to travel around the Dead Sea in that manner, that region being one the most inhospitable in the main. There are possible hints that Jesus came through Edom or Idumea. One way that he could have done so is to travel the Way of the Red Sea, which passes through Edom. The records of Jesus' life and travels are scanty at best and it is impossible to know for certainty at this time. In any case, I am not willing to state without good evidence that this passage is in error with any degree of certainty, for in my opinion there is no certainty either way. I have sifted through much contradictory 'evidence' and have formed no solid conclusion on this textual matter.
Bottom line: we're not really sure, but there are a couple of reasonable possibilities consistent with the concept of the Book of Mormon being an authentic ancient text translated by divine aid (but still going through fallible human hands in the process). There is a plausible basis from the ancient world for referring to the sea as the Red Sea. On the other hand, if Joseph were relying on his knowledge of the Bible and fabricating the text, changing "sea" to "Red Sea" would make no sense. What would motivate a Bible literate fabricator to make such a change?[16]
Solution #6: Nephi's "likening" of Isaiah to his contemporary historical and theological context
In another article, we've discussed how this verse in the Book of Mormon actually perpetuates a translation error of Isaiah made by the King James translators of the Bible. Instead of saying "and afterwards did more grievously afflict by the way of the sea", the text should say "but in the future he will honor Galilee of the Gentiles, by the way of the sea, along the Jordan".[19] A question now arises: could the translation of "grievously afflicting" actually be some sort of modification by Nephi that provides commentary on Nephi? We know that there were modifications done by Nephi to affect the meaning and intent of Isaiah's scripture as a sort of commentary on Nephi's present situation that Nephi calls "likening" (1 Nephi 19꞉23). Could there be something similar going on here? As a guess, this may have something to do with the difficult journey that Lehi, Nephi, and their family faced by the borders of the Red Sea as they traveled down the Arabian Peninsula. Latter-day Saint linguist and scholar of the textual history of the Book of Mormon Skousen actually tells us that he believes that "Red Sea" was not an accident by scribes of the Book of Mormon translation. He believes that "Red Sea" was actually on the plates that Joseph Smith translated from. He deduces this from the fact that there is no manuscript evidence that scribes of the Book of Mormon translation text inserted "Red" next to "sea" even in the original manuscript of the translation of the Book of Mormon. Also, there are four uses in the Bible of the phrase "by the way of the Red Sea" (Numbers 14꞉25; Numbers 21꞉4; Deuteronomy 1꞉40; Deuteronomy 2꞉1). Familiarity with the phrase, Skousen argues, perhaps led Nephi to add the word "Red" to sea in his copying of Isaiah. Either that or "Red" was actually a part of the text and Nephi didn't add anything to it. Furthermore, out of 82 occurrences of the word "sea" in the Book of Mormon, there is no manuscript evidence that scribes added "Red" to the word "sea", even as a mistake that was then corrected.[20] Skousen retained "Red Sea" in his reconstruction of the earliest text of the Book of Mormon: the text as it came from the mouth of Joseph Smith (or at least the best reconstruction of it).[21] Again, Nephi was "likening" Isaiah to his current situation and understanding all throughout the Book of Mormon quotations of Isaiah by changing text (1 Nephi 19꞉23). It's likely that something similar is going on here. Thus, it's not an error, but (on this theory at least) an intentional emendation by Nephi to creatively "liken" the scriptures Isaiah wrote to his present situation that was then correctly translated by Joseph Smith from the plates to the English language. Thus, the intent of the verse is changed and does actually lead us into an incorrect understanding of what Isaiah meant to communicate about God’s nature. But it isn’t an error of what Nephi meant to communicate about God with his likening of Isaiah. If Nephi is likening this passage to himself and his then-current situation and understanding, then there is no error. It would again just be Joseph Smith’s translation of Nephi’s "likening" of Isaiah. Thus Isaiah meant to say honor, but Nephi changed it to being about affliction of his family by God while they were traveling near the Red Sea.
To strengthen this theory, it's interesting that in 1 Nephi 6, 1 Nephi 7, 1 Nephi 8, 2 Nephi 1, 2 Nephi 2, 2 Nephi 3, 2 Nephi 4, and 2 Nephi 5 Nephi mentions that he and his family experienced afflictions and that they began to murmur against God—perhaps presupposing that God was the source of those afflictions given their wickedness. Nephi says that the afflictions that he and his family faced in 1 Nephi 6 when he lost his bow came at a time when they were traveling in "the most fertile parts of the wilderness, which were in the borders near the Red Sea" (1 Nephi 16꞉14. Emphasis added).
Solution #7: Joseph Smith "restoring" Isaiah intent JST-Style
A seventh solution was offered by Book of Mormon scholar Brant Gardner:
Joseph Smith appears to have understood that the italicized words were added by the KJV translators to make sense of the Hebrew. Combined with the addition of the "Red Sea," these changes appear to suggest a modern interaction with the KJV text that intends to both "restore" by removing the italicized words that were not originally present, and by attempting to clarify which sea. Such changes warn us that we should be very cautious about suggesting a literal translation of the plates. The evidence suggests that Joseph's intellect participated in the project (also suggested by D&C 9꞉7–10).[22]
2 Nephi 22꞉2
Some have criticized the use of the name JEHOVAH in 2 Nephi 22꞉2 because it is a later term. Use of the proper name "Jehovah"—which is an anglicized form of the Hebrew Yahweh—was common in the KJV Bible.[23] and was also in common use in Joseph Smith's day.[24] Although the name Jehovah is of more recent origin than the original Book of Mormon plates, it does not mean this name could not properly be used in translating a more ancient Hebrew title denoting the eternal I AM. Why should Joseph Smith be criticized for using the same name that King James scholars used?
This criticism is the equivalent of complaining that Joseph used the word "God" in his translation. The English word "God" certainly did not exist when Isaiah was written! But this is a translation—and so of course terms that did not exist when the original was written will sometimes be used.
Do academic translators copy translations of other documents to use as a "base text"?
In some translations of the Dead Sea Scrolls, approximately 90% is simply copied from the King James Bible
Even academic translators sometimes copy a previous translation if it serves the purpose of their translation. For example, the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) provided previously unknown texts for many Biblical writings. However, in some translations of the DSS, approximately 90% is simply copied from the KJV.
Surely we are not expected to believe that the DSS translators dropped back into King James idiom and just happened to come up with a nearly identical text! They, in fact, unabashedly copied the KJV, except where the DSS texts were substantially different from already known Hebrew manuscripts.[25]
The purpose of the DSS translation is to highlight the differences between the newly discovered manuscripts and those to which scholars already had access
Why was this done? Because, the purpose of the DSS translation is to highlight the differences between the newly discovered manuscripts and those to which scholars already had access. Thus, in areas where the DSS manuscripts agree with the Biblical texts that were already known, the KJV translation is used to indicate this. Here, for example, is how the first verses of Genesis are treated:
Dead Sea Scrolls Translation: 1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. [2 And] the earth [was] formless and void; and darkness was upon the fac[e of the dee]p: and the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. 3 And God said, "Let there be light," [and there was light. 4 And] God saw that the light was good, and God separated the light [from the darkness.] 5 And God called the light daytime, and the darkness he cal[led ni]ght. And there was evening [and there was morning,] one day.
KJV: 1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. 3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. 5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
We can see that it generally follows that same King James language. In places, it has variant readings, and it footnotes what ancient texts caused these different readings. You can also see from the various punctuation marks that there is a system in place to help us understand what part of the text comes from which source. Why would a translation made in 1999 (170 years after the Book of Mormon gets published) generally follow the King James Version? It isn't because the King James Version is the best, or the easiest to understand. In 1830, it was the only mass produced translation (the next major translation wouldn't be published for another half century). And it remains today one of the most common translations of the Bible. You don't have to be a specialist to compare the two texts and see what the differences are. In this way, we can (as non-specialists) get a better feel for the various ancient versions of the biblical texts. The same is true for the Book of Mormon except perhaps in reverse. By using the KJV language, we are probably being clued in to the fact that the potential differences aren't the important parts of the Book of Mormon. Rather than focusing on how this or that word was changed, we can focus on what the passages are trying to teach us.
This is not to argue that there may not be a better way to render the text than the KJV—but, it would be counterproductive for the DSS committee spent a lot of time improving on the KJV translation. A reader without access to the original manuscripts could then never be sure if a difference between the DSS translation and the KJV translation represented a true difference in the DSS, or simply the choice of the DSS translators to improve the KJV.
The situation with the Book of Mormon is likely analogous
The situation with the Book of Mormon is likely analogous. For example, most of the text to which the Nephites had access would not have differed significantly from the Hebrew texts used in Bible translations. The differences in wording between the KJV and the Book of Mormon highlight the areas in which there were theologically significant differences between the Nephite versions and the Masoretic text, from which the Bible was translated. Other areas can be assumed to be essentially the same. If one wants an improved or clearer translation of a passage that is identical in the Book of Mormon and the KJV, one has only to go to the original manuscripts available to all scholars. Basing the text on the KJV focuses the reader on the important clarifications, as opposed to doing a new translation from scratch, and distracting the reader with many differences that might be due simply to translator preference.
Furthermore, using a KJV "base text" also helps us to identify the source of some scriptural citations that might be otherwise unclear. Consider this bit from Jacob 1꞉7:
Wherefore we labored diligently among our people, that we might persuade them to come unto Christ, and partake of the goodness of God, that they might enter into his rest, lest by any means he should swear in his wrath they should not enter in, as in the provocation in the days of temptation while the children of Israel were in the wilderness.
This sounds nice, but its real impact on our reading Jacob occurs when we recognize that Jacob is alluding to Psalm 95꞉8-11:
8 Harden not your heart, as in the provocation, and as in the day of temptation in the wilderness: 9 When your fathers tempted me, proved me, and saw my work. 10 Forty years long was I grieved with this generation, and said, It is a people that do err in their heart, and they have not known my ways: 11 Unto whom I sware in my wrath that they should not enter into my rest.
Jacob wants us to understand what follows in the context of Israel being led in the wilderness by Moses. Drawing that connection is hard enough for people who don't have a lot of familiarity with the Old Testament. But had it followed language not found in the Bible they had (the KJV)—even if conceptually it was the same—it would have been far more difficult for readers to connect the two to understand the point Jacob was trying to make.
In this way, it makes a lot of sense for a translation—even a divinely inspired translation produced via revelation—to follow a conventional text where it duplicates the same original source material. It isn't just about trying to duplicate the source material, it is also about getting the reader who then reads the text to understand it.
How do we explain multiple "Isaiahs" and the Book of Mormon?
The challenge to the Book of Mormon is that Nephi quotes several chapters from Second Isaiah, who allegedly had not yet written his material in time for Nephi to quote from it
As part of the record Nephi creates for his people, he quotes heavily from the prophet Isaiah. The source for Nephi's text are the brass plates that he and his brothers obtained from Laban before leaving Jerusalem. Traditionally, the Book of Isaiah has been understood to be the composition of a single author living before Nephi, and before the Babylonian exile. However, modern scholars have found evidence in the Book of Isaiah that it was written by multiple authors spanning periods of time before and during the Babylonian exile, including before and after Nephi and his brothers obtained the brass plates. Nephi quotes from some of the passages of Isaiah that scholars believe were written after Nephi and his family left Jerusalem, creating a conundrum for students of the Book of Mormon.
The general division of Isaiah chapters according to this view looks like this:
- Ch. 2-39, First Isaiah (Proto-Isaiah), written about 100 years before Lehi left Jerusalem, and so available to Nephi on Laban's brass plates.
- Ch. 40-55, Second Isaiah (Deutero-Isaiah), written, at the earliest, 0꞉30 years after Lehi left Jerusalem, and so allegedly not available to Nephi on Laban's brass plates.
- Ch. 56-66, Third Isaiah (Trito-Isaiah), written at least 60-70 years after Lehi left Jerusalem, and so not available to Nephi on Laban's brass plates.
The challenge to the Book of Mormon is that Nephi quotes several chapters from Second Isaiah, who allegedly had not yet written his material in time for Nephi to quote from it. The key question is, "Were those passages available to Nephi on the plates of brass?". If some parts of Isaiah were not written until after Nephi obtained the brass plates then they obviously would not be available for Nephi to quote from. This criticism/question is not new to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. For instance, the semi-official encyclopedic work Encyclopedia of Mormonism (1992, 2007) broached it in their entry on Isaiah in the Book of Mormon.[26] Among the Latter-day Saints who are familiar with this issue there is more than one approach taken. Some argue for single authorship of Isaiah, while others agree that the Book of Isaiah was authored by more than one person and look for ways to resolve that with the Book of Mormon. See both approaches in the next section.
Many Latter-day Saint scholars and students have come to agree with mainstream biblical scholars who suggest that parts of the Book of Isaiah were written by multiple authors and at different times
Many Latter-day Saint scholars and students have come to agree with mainstream biblical scholars who suggest that parts of the Book of Isaiah were written by multiple authors and at different times. There is no official position from the Church that requires Latter-day Saints to see Isaiah as having been written by one author. Therefore, Latter-day Saints are free to form their own opinions of this issue. Hugh Nibley summarizes the main reasons why many believe Isaiah was written by multiple authors:
"The dating of Deutero-Isaiah rests on three things: (1) the mention of Cyrus (Isa. 44꞉28), who lived 200 years after Isaiah and long after Lehi; (2) the threats against Babylon (Isa. 47꞉1, 48:14), which became the oppressor of Judah after the days of Isaiah and (3) the general language and setting of the text, which suggests a historical background commonly associated with a later period than that of Isaiah."[27]
Latter-day Saints who agree with this view do not do so because they don't believe that Isaiah could not prophecy of future events. Certainly it is within God's power to have Isaiah predict the name of Cyrus, or for Isaiah to write as if he were experiencing the Israelite exile to Babylon which would not happen for a couple hundred years. However, it would be very unusual for these things to happen. Those who accept the multiple authorship of Isaiah ask questions like, "Why would God have Isaiah predict the name of Cyrus, which would have been meaningless to his audience, and not predict the name of the Jesus?" In other words, if God is going to reveal the future name of an important person, it would seem that Jesus' name would have priority over Cyrus' name. The same question could be asked about why God would have Isaiah write as if he were experiencing the Babylonian exile. It would make little sense to his contemporary audience, and would not be very helpful to them. They would be long dead before any of those prophecies made sense. Could it be written like that to be a sign to future audiences that God has predictive power? Perhaps, but to some that seems like an unusual and trivial thing for God to do.
The important question to ask for the purposes of this study is not "Who wrote the text of Isaiah", but rather "When and how was the text of Isaiah written?".
Were the Isaiah passages in the Book of Mormon simply plagiarized from the King James Bible?
Nephi and Jacob generally make it clear when they are quoting from Isaiah
If a Christian is making an accusation of plagiarism, then they are, by the same logic, indicting the Bible which they share with us. Close examination of the Old Testament reveals many passages which are copied nearly word for word including grammatical errors. Micah, who lived hundreds of years after Isaiah, copies word for word in Micah 4:1-3 from Isaiah's prophecy in Isaiah 2:2-4 without once giving him credit.[28] We also find the genealogy from Genesis 5:10-11,36 repeated in 1 Chronicles, much of the history in Samuel and Kings is repeated in Chronicles, and Isaiah 36:2 through Isaiah 38:5 is the same as 2 Kings 18:17 through 2 Kings 20:6.
Although Old Testament scripture was often quoted by Old and New Testament writers without giving credit, Nephi and Jacob generally make it clear when they are quoting from Isaiah. Indeed, much of 2 Nephi may be seen as an Isaiah commentary. Of course, Nephi and Jacob do not specify chapter and verse, because these are modern additions to the text (as Joseph Smith somehow knew). It is ironic that critics of the Book of Mormon find fault with its "plagiarism," even though its authors typically mention their sources, while they do not condemn the Bible's authors when they do not.
Additionally, the Church has made clear in the 1981 and the 2013 editions of the Book of Mormon [29] in footnote "a" for 2 Nephi 12꞉2 that: "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"[30] Thus it doesn't appear that the Church is afraid of having its members understand the similarities and differences between the King James Version of the Bible and the Book of Mormon.
Finally, it may be that the use of King James language for passages shared by the Bible and the Book of Mormon allows the Book of Mormon to highlight those areas in which the Book of Mormon's original texts were genuinely different from the textual tradition of the Old World's which gave us the Holy Bible of today.
A closer look at these duplicate Isaiah texts actually provides us an additional witness of the Book of Mormon's authenticity
A closer look at these duplicate texts actually provides us an additional witness of the Book of Mormon's authenticity.[31]
The 21 chapters of Isaiah which are quoted (Chapters 2-14, 29, and 48-54) either partially or completely, represent about one-third of the book of Isaiah, but less than two and one-half percent of the total Book of Mormon. We also find that more than half of all verses quoted from Isaiah (234 of 433) differ from the King James version available to Joseph Smith.[32] Perhaps it may be said that the Book of Mormon follows the King James (Masoretic) text when the original meaning is closer to how the King James renders the passages in question.
Additionally, we often find differences in Book of Mormon Isaiah texts where modern renderings of the text disagree.[33] One verse (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. [34] Such a translation was "rare for its time."[35] The textual variants in the two texts have theological import and ancient support. John Tvedtnes has documented many in this study of the Isaiah variants in the Book of Mormon. A critic, David Wright, responded to Tvedtnes and Tvedtnes’ review of that critic’s response can be found here.
Accounting for the Rest of the Book of Mormon
If Joseph or anyone else actually tried to plagiarize the Book of Mormon, critics have failed to show the source of the remaining 93% (when all similar texts are removed). A 100% non-biblical book of scripture wouldn't have been much more difficult to produce.
Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship, "Was Joseph Smith Smarter Than the Average Fourth Year Hebrew Student? Finding a Restoration-Significant Hebraism in Book of Mormon Isaiah"
Paul Y. Hoskisson, Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship, (2016)The 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.
Click here to view the complete article
Do the changes in the Book of Mormon Isaiah passages reflect a better translation of the underlying Hebrew?
Introduction to Question
A couple of critics of the Book of Mormon have claimed that the changes to the Book of Mormon Isaiah passages do not reflect a better translation of the underlying Hebrew. The lack of a better translation is taken as evidence that Joseph Smith was just randomly making changes to the Isaiah text and hoping that noone found out that the translation he produced doesn’t reflect a better translation than other Bibles.
This article seeks to outline what we know about what changes were made to the passages and how we can view them in light of the evidence.
Response to Question
The Changes Themselves
Here are the changes to the Isaiah text in the Book of Mormon that we know about that try to make a substantial change to the meaning of the text. These changes are taken from Book of Mormon Reference Companion (2003) edited by Dennis L. Largey.[36]
The rest of the changes can be found by trowling through Royal Skousen’s Analysis of Textual Variants in the Book of Mormon online.
The vast majority of Book of Mormon changes to Isaiah are on places where italicized text was placed in the King James Bible.[37] Some of these changes do not reflect a better translation of the earliest extant Isaiah source we have today.
The Book of Mormon’s Rendering of Isaiah does not Purport to be the Original Text of Isaiah
It should first be mentioned that the Book of Mormon does not purport to be the original text of Isaiah as composed by Isaiah himself. That is an assumption that readers of the Book of Mormon have brought to the text.
We Do Not Know What the Original Text of Isaiah Was Like
It should next be noted that we do not know what the original text of Isaiah as composed by Isaiah was like. We have early textual witnesses such as the Great Isaiah Scroll (1Qlsa[a]) recovered from the Dead Sea Scrolls, but this is not the original text as composed by Isaiah. We don’t know what the original was like and will likely never know. Thus anyone claiming to know how to judge the Book of Mormon’s rendering of Isaiah based on its fidelity to "the original Hebrew" is acting foolishly and likely tendentiously.
Nephi Likely Changed Wording to Comment on Isaiah
The changes in Isaiah can be thought of to be commentary by Book of Mormon authors. Joseph Spencer at BYU has most persuasively argued that Nephi’s selection and edits of Isaiah are deliberate and that they reflect a coherent theological vision of the scattering and gathering of Israel.[38]
Nephi may have been adding these changes in order to clarify Isaiah’s words, clarify the Lord’s words if Isaiah didn’t communicate them clearly enough, or as Nephi’s independent revelatory (or even non-revelatory) adding to Isaiah based in his then-current theological understanding.
Some of the Changes Do Reflect a Better Translation of the Hebrew
John Tvedtnes has shown that many of the Book of Mormon's translation variants of Isaiah have ancient support.[39]
This throws a huge wrench into any critic's theories that Joseph Smith merely cribbed off of the King James Isaiah.
Some "Problematic" Variants Explained
Critics of the Book of Mormon have pointed to various passages in which the Book of Mormon derives much of its text from KJV Isaiah. These derivations also include some changes from the KJV that vary in their degree of significance. In some cases of these changes, critics allege that the Book of Mormon also changes the wording of the text from the KJV to such an extent that the changes cannot be considered an accurate reflection of the underlying Hebrew. These changes, in turn, become evidence against the notion that the Book of Mormon is a translation of an ancient text. Discussion of these supposed problematic changes has been limited to the Book of Mormon's variants with the KJV Isaiah.
Given the evidence of Nephi's "likening above", much of these variants can actually be considered Nephi's changes and Joseph Smith's accurate translation of Nephi's and not Isaiah's Hebrew. Thus the critics have evidently not considered a theory that could change their assessment of the Book of Mormon's Isaiah and ancient authenticity.
We can explore some of these "problematic variants" pointed to by critics in order to demonstrate that the Book of Mormon variants may fit in with a larger theological project undertaken by Nephi in the Book of Mormon.
| Location in Canon | Erroneous Translation | Passage | Commentary |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Isaiah 50꞉2 ~ 2 Nephi 7꞉2 | Wherefore as a declarative | "Wherefore when I came, there was no man; when I called, yea there was none to answer. O house of Israel, is my hand shortened at all that it cannot redeem? Or have I no power to deliver? Behold, at my rebuke I dry up the sea. I make the rivers a wilderness and their fish to stink because the waters are dried up and they dieth because of thirst." (Book of Mormon) | David P. Wright states: "The BM inverts the italicized words and reads as a statement rather than a "Wherefore, when I came there was no man; when I called, yea, there was none to answer." The BM reading depends on the ambiguity or polysemy of the English "wherefore." In English this word can be an interrogative ("why?") or a conjunction ("therefore"). It is an interrogative in the KJV verse here, translating the Hebrew word maddûac "why?" The BM reading uses "wherefore" as a conjunction, which is not possible for Hebrew maddûac. This reveals the BM's dependence on the English text." He cites Tvedtnes (The Isaiah Variants, 35, 80, 116-117). Wright states that Tvedtnes "thinks that this variant is due to a misunderstanding by Smith or the scribe (apparently the English copiest). The variant must be intentional and from Smith: not only does it involve italicized words, a trigger for change as outlined in this section, the adverb 'yea' also appears in the BM reading. This well fits a change from interrogation to declaration. The variant also appears twice in the passage." |
| 2. Isaiah 51꞉19 ~ 2 Nephi 8꞉19 | Sons | "These two sons are come unto thee. Who shall be sorry for thee, thy desolation and destruction and the famine and the sword? And by whom shall I comfort thee." (Book of Mormon) | John A. Tvedtnes writes: "KJV's 'two things' read 'two sons' in BM. MT has simply štym, the feminine numeral 'two'. It is hence not possible to admit that the original read 'sons'. Moreover, the two 'things' are then listed in the same verse as 'desolation and destruction', then reworded as the parallels 'the famine and the sword'. On the surface, the substitution of another word for the one italicized in KJV looks like normal procedure for Joseph Smith, but it could also be a scribal error. The BM change was probably prompted by the fact that vs. 18 ends by speaking 'of all the sons she hath brought up', while vs. 20 begins by speaking of 'thy sons'." (John A. Tvedtnes, The Isaiah Variants in the Book of Mormon, 87; note: there is no evidence that this is a scribal mistake. Skousen retains "sons") David P. Wright states: "In one case where the BM has another word for an italicized word, the meaning is significantly changed, but not in accordance with the Hebrew original. The phrase 'These two things are come unto thee' becomes 'These two sons are come unto thee' (Isa 51꞉19//2 Ne 8꞉19). This is an extremely unlikely reading for any ancient text since the phrase in Hebrew is formulated in the feminine ($etayim hënnâ qör'ötayik) whereas 'sons' (bänîm) is masculine. The variant in the BM is oblivious to the requirements of Hebrew, and it is doubtful that the Hebrew developed from a masculine to feminine formulation. Smith apparently replaced the italicized word, picking up 'sons' from the context of vv. 18 and 20 which speak of 'sons.'
Interestingly, Joseph Smith, in Old Testament Manuscript 2 (of the Joseph Smith Translation), replaced 'things' with 'sons'. This change was noted by Orson Hyde in a letter dated July 7, 1840:
|
| Isaiah 48꞉16 ~ 1 Nephi 20꞉16 | Am | 1 Nephi 20꞉16 deletes the italicized am in Isaiah 48꞉16's "from the time that it was, there am I". 1 Nephi 20꞉16 adds the word "declared" after "from the time that it was", deletes the italicized "am" from "there am I", and changes the phrase "there am I" to the phrase "have I spoken". | Critics charge that the addition of "declared" requires another underlying Hebrew term that would give us that translation in English rather than merely the current term that is rendered as "that it was". Though here, just as with the addition of "have I spoken", the addition clarifies the underlying message of Isaiah and makes smoother the English translation of it. Scholar Brant Gardner proposed that the addition of "have I spoken" was done by Joseph Smith himself.[40] Though one could see the "declared" and "have I spoken" changes as Nephi's edits of Isaiah to clarify Isaiah. We know that Nephi was consciously making edits to Isaiah to clarify Isaiah as well as "liken" ([https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bofm/1-ne/19?lang=eng&id=p23#p23 1 Nephi 19꞉23]) Isaiah to his current historical and theological setting. One could also presume that perhaps there is a lost version of Isaiah that was on the brass plates that Joseph Smith eventually translated. Gardner cautions that "from a literary standpoint, ['have I spoken'] removes an important scriptural allusion. The declaration 'there am I' is not just an indication that Yahweh has spoken, as it becomes in the Book of Mormon rendition, but a declaration of the person, power, and reality of the Lord, related thematically to the appellation 'I AM,' since the Lord and the Spirit appear as separate entities (Blenkinsopp, 'Isaiah 40–55, 295)."[40] Though that allusion is made elsewhere in scripture, and the inclusion of such an illusion in 1 Nephi 20꞉16 is not necessary. Either way, there doesn't seem to be a huge problem here. |
Conclusion
The Isaiah changes should be no problem for orthodox Latter-day Saints.
Why does Isaiah in the Book of Mormon not match the Dead Sea Scrolls?
The English Book of Mormon text of Isaiah does not purport to be the original Isaiah text
Mistranslations of the King James version of Isaiah have been corrected using the Isaiah version found with the Dead Sea scrolls. Why is it that the quotes from Isaiah contained in the Book of Mormon have the same translation errors contained in the King James version instead of matching the original ancient text?
The question makes some inaccurate assumptions:
- It is not the case that the Great Isaiah Scroll (1QIsa[a]) is the original text of Isaiah. It is an earlier witness to the text than we previously had before the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS), but it itself is centuries removed from the original(s).
- The English Book of Mormon text of Isaiah does not purport to be the original text either; that is an assumption that many LDS have brought to the text, but is not necessarily true.
These are basic issues of what is called "textual criticism," which is the science/art of trying to recover to the extent possible the text in its original form. Critical text scholars do not believe that the Great Isaiah Scroll matches exactly the original text of Isaiah. It is true that the masoretic scribal tradition has tried valiantly to copy texts as perfectly as possible. Various approaches have been used, such as counting the letters in a chapter and testing a copy against that, in order to ensure a high degree of accuracy in their work. However, the masoretic scribes did their work in the second half of the first millennium A.D. Prior to that time, many errors had already crept in the text.
The term "redaction" refers to a form of editing in which multiple source texts are combined together in order to make it appear that they comprise a single text. The standard scholarly theory of the development of Isaiah is that it was redacted from two or three different texts. Yet none of this is reflected in the Great Isaiah Scroll, which is close to the canonical form of the text we have today. So if the scholars are correct there was substantial redaction of the text long before the scribes ever had a chance to practice their efforts at copying on the text.
The Book of Mormon text would have been far removed from Isaiah: The brass plates version would have been at least a century after the fact
Even the Book of Mormon text would have been far removed from Isaiah. The brass plates version would have been at least a century after the fact (with many copies intervening), and that was copied and recopied into Book of Mormon records, which was translated not in a scholarly fashion but instead by the gift and power of God through Joseph Smith. Therefore, it is a fallacy to assume that the Book of Mormon text ought to be the exact equivalent to the original text.
Creative fiction theories
Book of Mormon creative fiction theories usually assert that Joseph Smith created the Book of Mormon without secular assistance, such as through hallicinogneics, epilepsy, automatic writing, or oratory composition.
Book of Mormon/Authorship theories
Laying Down Heads and Book of Mormon Authorship
Summary: Author William Davis argues that Joseph Smith created the text of the Book of Mormon by using a Methodist homiletic composition technique known as "laying down heads."
Jump to details:
Naturalistic Explanations of the Origin of the Book of Mormon: A Longitudinal Study
BYU Studies, "Naturalistic Explanations of the Origin of the Book of Mormon: A Longitudinal Study"
Brian C. Hales, BYU Studies 58/3 (2019)Joseph Smith and his followers declared the Book of Mormon’s supernatural origin—that it was a divinely inspired translation of an ancient-American record, acquired by Joseph through visions and the help of an angel. This explanation, however, was widely rejected by outsiders from the outset. Within weeks after the Book of Mormon’s first pages came off the press, critics promoted “naturalistic explanations”—so called because they are based on scientific observation or natural phenomena—that rejected the possibility of a divine, supernatural origin of the Book of Mormon. To varying degrees, these naturalistic theories continue to be perpetuated today. This article examines the most popular naturalistic explanations for the Book of Mormon longitudinally, which will enable readers to better understand them and why they have waxed and waned in popularity over time.
Click here to view the complete article
- ↑ Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 9:311.
- ↑ Joseph Smith III, "Last Testimony of Sister Emma," Saints’ Advocate 2 (Oct. 1879): 51
- ↑ David Whitmer, An Address to All Believers in Christ by a Witness to the Divine Authenticity of The Book of Mormon (David Whitmer: Richmond, Virginia, 1887), 12 ; cited frequently, including Neal A. Maxwell, Ensign (January 1997): 34–41. off-site
- ↑ 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
- ↑ Emma Smith to Edmund C. Briggs, "A Visit to Nauvoo in 1856," Journal of History 9 (January 1916): 454.
- ↑ Joseph Smith III, "Last Testimony of Sister Emma," Saints’ Advocate 2 (Oct. 1879): 51
- ↑ [citation needed]
- ↑ Jay P. Green Sr., The Interlinear Bible, Hebrew-Greek-English (Sovereign Grace Publishers, 1995), 975.
- ↑ LDS KJV, Bible Dictionary, 707. off-site.
- ↑ Bruce R. McConkie, "Ten Keys to Understanding Isaiah," Ensign/10 (October 1973): 78–83. off-site
- ↑ See LDS KJV, Bible Dictionary, "Quotations from the Old Testament found in the New Testament," 756-59. off-site
- ↑ Hugh W. Nibley, Since Cumorah, 2nd edition, (Vol. 7 of the Collected Works of Hugh Nibley), edited by John W. Welch, (Salt Lake City, Utah : Deseret Book Company ; Provo, Utah : Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1988), 128. ISBN 0875791395.
- ↑ Jeremy T. Runnells, CES Letter: My Search for Answers to My Mormon Doubts (n.p.: CES Letter Foundation, 2017), 9.
- ↑ Marvin A. Sweeney, "Isaiah," in The New Oxford Annotated Bible, ed. Michael D. Coogan, 5th ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2018), 992n8.18–9.7.
- ↑ John Tvedtnes, "The Isaiah Variants in the Book of Mormon," FARMS Preliminary Reports (1981): 45.
- ↑ 16.0 16.1 16.2 Jeff Lindsay, "Why does 2 Nephi 19:1 incorrectly change 'sea' in Isaiah 9 to 'Red Sea'?", LDS FAQ: Mormon Answers.
- ↑ 17.0 17.1 17.2 Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; no text was provided for refs namedspencer - ↑ 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 (2020): 45–106 (esp. 56–68).
- ↑ Royal Skousen, The History of the Text of the Book of Mormon, Part Five: King James Quotations in the Book of Mormon (Provo, UT: FARMS, 2019), 216.
- ↑ Royal Skousen, Analysis of Textual Variants of the Book of Mormon Part Two: [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bofm/2-ne/1?lang=eng 2 Nephi 1 – Mosiah 6] (Provo, UT: FARMS, 2014), 732–33.
- ↑ Royal Skousen, ed., The Book of Mormon: The Earliest Text (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2009), 119; Royal Skousen, ed., The Book of Mormon: The Earliest Text, 2nd ed. (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2022), 119.
- ↑ Brant A. Gardner, Second Witness: Analytical & Contextual Commentary on the Book of Mormon, Volume 2: Second Nephi through Jacob (Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2007), 267.
- ↑ See Exodus 6꞉3; Psalms 83꞉18; Isaiah 12꞉2; 26꞉4.
- ↑ See such scriptural examples as D&C 109꞉34,42,56,68; 110꞉1-3; 128꞉9. See also Joseph Smith, Jr., Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, selected by Joseph Fielding Smith, (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1976), 220, 221, 250–251. off-site
- ↑ See, for example, Martin G. Abegg, Jr., Peter Flint, Eugene Ulrich, The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible (New York: HarperCollins, 2012). Other examples of similar choices in translation include: Robert H. Charles, The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon, 1913), Theodor H. Gaster, The Dead Sea Scriptures, 3rd ed. (Garden City, NY: Anchor, 1976), and Robert Lisle Lindsey, A Hebrew Translation of the Gospel of Mark (Jerusalem: Baptist House, n.d.).
- ↑ Legrande Davies, "Isaiah: Texts in the Book of Mormon," in Encyclopedia of Mormonism, 4 vols., edited by Daniel H. Ludlow, (New York, Macmillan Publishing, 1992). Worthy of mention is that two then-current apostles, Elder Neal A. Maxwell and Elder Dallin H. Oaks, and one future apostle, Elder Jeffrey R. Holland, were advisors for the encyclopedia and its editorial board. They are recognized in the acknowledgements to the encyclopedia.
- ↑ Hugh W. Nibley, Since Cumorah, 2nd edition, (Vol. 7 of the Collected Works of Hugh Nibley), edited by John W. Welch, (Salt Lake City, Utah : Deseret Book Company ; Provo, Utah : Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1988), "Chapter 5: The Bible in the Book of Mormon", subsection "The Book of Mormon Explains Isaiah". ISBN 0875791395.
- ↑ See A. Melvin McDonald, Day of Defense (Sounds of Zion Inc., 1986; 2004), 49.
- ↑ 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.
- ↑ See page 81 of either edition of the Book of Mormon
- ↑ 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. (Key source)
- ↑ See Book of Mormon note to 2 Nephi 12꞉2
- ↑ See also See also Kirk Holland Vestal and Arthur Wallace, The Firm Foundation of Mormonism (Los Angeles, CA: The L. L. Company, 1981), 70–72.
- ↑ The implications of this change represent a more complicated textual history than previously thought. See discussion in Dana M. Pike and David R. Seely, "'Upon All the Ships of the Sea, and Upon All the Ships of Tarshish': Revisiting 2 Nephi 12:16 and Isaiah 2:16," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 14/2 (2005). [12–25] link For earlier discussions, see Gilbert W. Scharffs, The Truth about ‘The God Makers’ (Salt Lake City, Utah: Publishers Press, 1989; republished by Bookcraft, 1994), 172. Full text FAIR link ISBN 088494963X.; see also Milton R. Hunter and Thomas Stuart Ferguson, Ancient America and the Book of Mormon (Kolob Book Company, 1964),100–102.; Hugh W. Nibley, Since Cumorah, 2nd edition, (Vol. 7 of the Collected Works of Hugh Nibley), edited by John W. Welch, (Salt Lake City, Utah : Deseret Book Company ; Provo, Utah : Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1988),129–143. ISBN 0875791395.
- ↑ Wikipedia, "Thomson's Translation," <http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomson%27s_Translation> (11 February 2015).
- ↑ Please forgive blurriness from scanning/transmitting the images.
- ↑ 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 (2020): 45–106.
- ↑ See Joseph M. Spencer, The Vision of All: 25 Lectures on Isaiah in Nephi’s Record (Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2016). For a good summary, see BMC Team, "What Vision Guides Nephi’s Choice of Isaiah Chapters?" KnoWhy #38 (February 22, 2016).
- ↑ John A. Tvedtnes, "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. A critic, David Wright, responded to John Tvedtnes' chapter there. Tvedtnes responds to Wright in John A. Tvedtnes, "Isaiah in the Bible and the Book of Mormon," The FARMS Review 16, no. 2 (2004): 161–72.
- ↑ 40.0 40.1 Brant H. Gardner, Second Witness: Analytical and Contextual Commentary on the Book of Mormon, 6 vols. (Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2007), 1:394–95.
Footer