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.
Detailed response to CES Letter, Book of Mormon
Response to "Book of Mormon Concerns & Questions"
A FAIR Analysis of:
[[../|Letter to a CES Director]] |
[[../Book of Mormon Translation Concerns & Questions|Book of Mormon Translation Concerns & Questions]] |
The absence of evidence is not proof. Here’s one small example:
Matthew Roper in a FairMormon Blog on June 17, 2013, writes about a criticism repeated many times over the years about the mention of steel in the Book of Mormon. In 1884, one critic wrote, “Laban’s sword was steel, when it is a notorious fact that the Israelites knew nothing of steel for hundreds of years afterwards. Who but as ignorant a person as Rigdon would have perpetuated all these blunders.”8 More recently, Thomas O’Dea in 1957 stated, “Every commentator on the Book of Mormon has pointed out the many cultural and historical anachronisms, such as the steel sword of Laban in 600 B.C.” [9]
We had no answer to these critics at the time, but as often happens in these matters, new discoveries in later years shed new light. Roper reports, “It is increasingly apparent that the practice of hardening iron through deliberate carburization, quenching and tempering was well known to the ancient world from which Nephi came. ‘It seems evident,’ notes one recent authority, ‘that by the beginning of the tenth century B.C. blacksmiths were intentionally steeling iron.’” [10] In 1987, the Ensign reported that archeologists had unearthed a long steel sword near Jericho dating back to the late seventh century B.C., probably to the reign of King Josiah who died shortly before Lehi began to prophesy. [11] This sword is now on display at Jerusalem’s Israel Museum. The museum’s explanatory sign reads in part, “The sword is made of iron hardened into steel, attesting to substantial metallurgical know-how.” [12]
—Elder D. Todd Christofferson, "The Prophet Joseph Smith", Brigham Young University-Idaho Devotional, September 24, 2013.
- Response to section: "What are 1769 King James Version edition errors doing in the Book of Mormon?"
- Response to section: "What are these 17th century italicized words doing in the Book of Mormon?"
- Response to section: "The Book of Mormon includes mistranslated biblical passages that were later changed in Joseph Smith’s translation of the bible"
- Response to section: "DNA analysis has concluded that Native American Indians do not originate from the Middle East"
- Response to section: Anachronisms
- Response to section: Archaeology
- Response to section: Book of Mormon Geography
- Response to section: Hill Cumorah
- Response to section: "'View of the Hebrews' compared to the Book of Mormon"
- Response to section: "The Book of Mormon taught and still teaches a Trinitarian view of the Godhead"
"What are 1769 King James Version edition errors doing in the Book of Mormon?"
"What are these 17th century italicized words doing in the Book of Mormon?"
Latter-day Saints and the Bible |
|
Reliability of the Bible |
|
Creation |
|
Genesis |
|
Understanding the Bible |
|
Cultural issues |
|
The Bible and the Book of Mormon |
|
KJV Italicized Text in the Book of Mormon
Summary: 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 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.
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, "What 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]
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] He concluded that the perceived interaction "demontrates in large measure that the BoM Isaiah derives from the KJV."[3]: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."[3]:p. 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:
- Did Joseph know what the italics represented?
- Did Joseph use a King James Bible in order to produce the Book of Mormon, including reference to the italics?
- Do the Book of Mormon's interactions with the KJV italics show that Joseph Smith was working from the 1769 edition of the KJV?
- 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:
- 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.
- 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
- 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.
Question #4: Do issues with italics mean the Book of Mormon cannot be the world's "most correct book"?
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.
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.
| 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. |
| Supposed Harmful Change | Commentary |
|---|---|
| 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
- ↑ Jeremy T. Runnells, CES Letter: My Search for Answers to My Mormon Doubts (CES Letter Foundation, 2017), 14.
- ↑ 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), 130–31.
- ↑ 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), 159–69.
- ↑ 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
- ↑ 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
- ↑ Preston Nibley, editor, History of Joseph Smith by His Mother, Lucy Mack Smith (Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book Company, 1954), 82-83.
- ↑ 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. (BYU Press; Deseret Book Company, 2017), 126–227.
- ↑ 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.
- ↑ 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
- ↑ Richard L. Bushman, Joseph Smith and the Beginnings of Mormonism (University of Illinois Press; Reprint edition, 1987), 95–100.
- ↑ Robert J. Matthews, "A Plainer Translation": Joseph Smith's Translation of the Bible: A History and Commentary (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
- ↑ 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 (Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 2011), 108–12.
- ↑ 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
- ↑ Kevin Barney, "KJV Italics," By Common Consent, October 13, 2007, http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2007/10/kjv-italics/.
- ↑ 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.
- ↑ "Sidney Rigdon," JSPP.
- ↑ W.W. Phelps, "The Book of Mormon," The Evening and the Morning Star 1, no. 8 (January 1833): 58.
- ↑ "Errors of the Bible," The Evening and the Morning Star 2, no. 14 (July 1833): 106.
- ↑ "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 (Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 2011), 203.
- ↑ "Mormonites," The Sun, August 18, 1831, http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/PA/Phil1830.htm.
- ↑ Royal Skousen, The History of the Text of the Book of Mormon: Part 5, The King James Quotations in the Book of Mormon (FARMS, 2019), 182–210.
- ↑ Marvin A. Sweeney, "Isaiah," in The New Oxford Annotated Bible, ed. Michael D. Coogan, 5th ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2018), 990n18–19.
"The Book of Mormon includes mistranslated biblical passages that were later changed in Joseph Smith’s translation of the bible."
Template:CESLetterItem Home > The Bible > The Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible
Detailed response to CES Letter, Book of Mormon
Summary: Joseph Smith created an inspired "translation" of parts of the King James version of the Bible, mostly from 1830-1833, then continued until his death in 1844. It was complied into a book in 1867 by The Reorganized Church (now Community of Christ). In 1979 it was included in as footnotes in the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints 1979 King James Version of the Bible.
The JST as compiled/published in 1867 is not considered scripture, but some of it has been canonized in the Pearl of Great Price, the Book of Moses, and the Book of Matthew. We believe some of it was restoring the original intent of some Biblical verses. Some of it was restoring missing scripture or missing events. Some was for clarifying or harmonizing similar verses. Some of the same verses have different interpretations for some temporary purpose. Some call it inspired commentary. See the JST on the church website.
[1]
Is the JST a restoration of lost Bible text?
The JST is not intended primarily or solely as a restoration of lost Bible text.
As expressed in the Bible Dictionary on churchofjesuschrist.org "The JST to some extent assists in restoring the plain and precious things that have been lost from the Bible."
Two main points should be kept in mind with regards to the Joseph Smith "translation" of the Bible:
- The JST is not intended primarily or solely as restoration of text. Many mainline LDS scholars who have focused on the JST (such as Robert J. Matthews and Kent Jackson) are unanimous in this regard. The assumption that it is intended primarily or solely as a restoration of text is what leads to expectations that the JST and Book of Mormon should match up in every case. At times the JST does not even match up with itself, such as when Joseph Smith translated the same passage multiple times in different ways. This does not undermine notions of revelation, but certainly challenges common assumptions about the nature and function of Joseph's understanding of "translation".
- One of the main tendencies of the JST is harmonization. Readers are well aware of differences in Jesus' sayings between different Gospels. For example, Jesus' statements about whether divorce is permitted and under what conditions differ significantly. Matthew offers an exception clause that Mark and Luke do not, and this has severely complicated the historical interpretation of Jesus' view of divorce.
- The JST often makes changes that harmonize one gospel with another. While one gospel says "judge not" (though this may not be as absolute as some make it out to be), John 7:24 has Jesus commanding to "judge righteous judgment." The JST change harmonizes the two gospels by making Matthew agree with John. If there is a real difference between being commanded to "Judge righteously" and being commanded to "Judge not", then it is a problem inherently present in the differing accounts of the Gospels, which the JST resolves.
FAIR Resources on the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible
- How was the JST translated?
- Was the JST ever completed?
- Why are there discrepancies between translations in the Book of Mormon, KJV, and the JST?
- Why is the JST Genesis creation account not more like the Book of Abraham?
- Why does the church use the KJV instead of the JST as its official Bible?
- Was the JST influenced by outside sources?
- Did Adam Clarke's Bible commentary influence the JST?
- Why does the Book of Mormon and Book of Moses use "God" while the Book of Abraham use "Gods"?
- Why does the Book of Moses contain New Testament language?
- What is the relationship between the JST and biblical manuscripts?
- Was Joseph Smith a "self certifying prophet" with JST Genesis 50:33?
- Is the church embarrassed by the JST?
Key sources |
|
FAIR links |
|
Online |
|
Video |
Video published by BYU Religious Education.
|
Print |
|
Navigators |
Life and Character |
|
Youth |
|
Revelations and the Church |
|
Prophetic Statements |
|
Society |
|
Plural marriage (polygamy) |
|
Death |
Latter-day Saints and the Bible |
|
Reliability of the Bible |
|
Creation |
|
Genesis |
|
Understanding the Bible |
|
Cultural issues |
|
The Bible and the Book of Mormon |
|
Notes
- ↑ Video published by BYU Religious Education
"DNA analysis has concluded that Native American Indians do not originate from the Middle East"
Detailed response to CES Letter, Book of Mormon
Anachronisms
Archaeology
Book of Mormon Geography
Theory of Book of Mormon place names from area around Joseph Smith's home
Jump to Subtopic:
- Question: Could Joseph Smith have utilized place names and locations from the region in which he lived to create the Book of Mormon?
- Question: What is the Vernal Holley map?
- Question: Does Vernal Holley rely on modern maps to create his comparison of actual place names with Book of Mormon names?
- Question: How valid are the names used in the Holley Map?
- Question: Are the names on the Holley Map in the correct locations relative to one another?
Template:CESLetterItem Book of Mormon/Plagiarism accusations/Place names from North America/Holley map
Hill Cumorah
"'View of the Hebrews' compared to the Book of Mormon"
View of the Hebrews and the Book of Mormon
Summary: One of the longest-running naturalistic theories of Book of Mormon authorship proposes that Joseph Smith drew heavily from the 1823 book View of the Hebrews, written by Ethan Smith. The theory gained prominence because both books discuss Israelites in the Americas and contain certain broad thematic similarities. However, the evidence for direct borrowing is weak, and the differences between the two books outweigh the similarities.
Could Joseph Smith have used Ethan Smith's View of the Hebrews as a guideline for creating the Book of Mormon?
Book of Mormon Central, KnoWhy #502: Is the Book of Mormon Like Any Other Nineteenth Century Book? (Video)
- It is claimed that a 19th century work by Ethan Smith, View of the Hebrews, provided source material for Joseph Smith's construction of the Book of Mormon.
- Some also postulate a link between Ethan Smith and Oliver Cowdery, since both men lived in Poultney, Vermont while Smith served as the pastor of the church that Oliver Cowdery's family attended at the time that View of the Hebrews was being written.
Many of the criticisms proposed are based upon B. H. Roberts' list of parallels, which only had validity if one applied a hemispheric geography model to the Book of Mormon
The View of the Hebrews theory is yet another attempt to fit a secular origin to the Book of Mormon. Many of the criticisms proposed are based upon B. H. Roberts' list of parallels, which only had validity if one applied a hemispheric geography model to the Book of Mormon. There are a significant number of differences between the two books, which are easily discovered upon reading Ethan Smith's work. Many points that Ethan Smith thought were important are not mentioned at all in the Book of Mormon, and many of the "parallels" are no longer valid based upon current scholarship.[1]
Advocates of the Ethan Smith theory must also explain why Joseph, the ostensible forger, had the chutzpah to point out the source of his forgery. They must also explain why, if Joseph found this evidence so compelling, he did not exploit it for use in the Book of Mormon text itself, since the Book of Mormon contains no reference to the many "unparallels" that Ethan assured his readers virtually guaranteed a Hebrew connection to the Amerindians.
Was the View of the Hebrews theory of Book of Mormon origin advanced during the lifetime of Joseph Smith?
The theory the Joseph Smith plagiarized View of the Hebrews was never advanced during Joseph Smith's lifetime
The theory the Joseph Smith plagiarized View of the Hebrews was never advanced during his lifetime. The prevailing theory of the day was the Spalding Theory, which quickly lost credibility upon the discovery of an actual Spalding manuscript in 1884 which bore no resemblance to the Book of Mormon. There are no records which indicate that Joseph Smith came into contact with the View of the Hebrews during the period of time that he was translating the Book of Mormon. The View of the Hebrews theory was in fact first proposed by I. Woodbridge Riley in 1902, 58 years after the death of the prophet.[2]
Joseph Smith quoted View of the Hebrews as supporting the Book of Mormon
There was, however, a reference to View of the Hebrews within Joseph Smith's lifetime, but it came from the prophet himself. In an article published in the Times and Seasons on June 1, 1842, Joseph quoted View of the Hebrews in support of the Book of Mormon:
- If such may have been the fact, that a part of the Ten Tribes came over to America, in the way we have supposed, leaving the cold regions of Assareth behind them in quest of a milder climate, it would be natural to look for tokens of the presence of Jews of some sort, along countries adjacent to the Atlantic. In order to this, we shall here make an extract from an able work: written exclusively on the subject of the Ten Tribes having come from Asia by the way of Bherings Strait, by the Rev. Ethan Smith, Pultney, Vt., who relates as follows: "Joseph Merrick, Esq., a highly respectable character in the church at Pittsfield, gave the following account: That in 1815, he was leveling some ground under and near an old wood shed, standing on a place of his, situated on (Indian Hill)... [Joseph then discusses the supposed phylacteries found among Amerindians, citing View of the Hebrews p. 220, 223.][3]
It strains credulity to claim that Joseph drew attention to the work from which he derived most of his ideas. Why would he call attention to the source of his forgery?
What did B.H. Roberts say about View of the Hebrews and the Book of Mormon?
B.H. Roberts was playing "devil's advocate" when he examined View of the Hebrews, and showing what a critic might do
| Main article: | B.H. Roberts and Studies of the Book of Mormon |
The View of the Hebrews theory was examined in detail by B. H. Roberts in 1921 and 1922. Roberts took the position of examining the Book of Mormon from a critical perspective in order to alert the General Authorities to possible future avenues of attack by critics. The resulting manuscripts were titled Book of Mormon Difficulties and A Parallel. Roberts, who believed in a hemispheric geography for the Book of Mormon, highlighted a number of parallels between View of the Hebrews and The Book of Mormon. Roberts stated,
- [C]ould the people of Mulek and of Lehi...part of the time numbering and occupying the land at least from Yucatan to Cumorah...live and move and have their being in the land of America and not come in contact with other races and tribes of men, if such existed in the New World within Book of Mormon times? To make this seem possible the area occupied by the Nephites and Lamanites would have to be extremely limited, much more limited, I fear, than the Book of Mormon would admit our assuming.[4]
Roberts concluded that, if one assumed that Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon himself, that View of the Hebrews could have provided him with a foundation for creating the book. In fact, many of the issues highlighted by Roberts vanish when a limited geography theory is considered. The acceptance of the View of the Hebrews theory is therefore contingent upon the acceptance of a hemispheric geography model for the Book of Mormon. In order to promote View of the Hebrews as a source, critics necessarily reject any limited geography theory proposal for the Book of Mormon.
Roberts rejected the idea that the Book of Mormon was not divine
In 1985, Roberts' manuscripts were published under the title Studies of the Book of Mormon. This book is used by critics to support their claim that B. H. Roberts lost his testimony after performing the study. Roberts, however, clearly continued to publicly support the Book of Mormon until his death, and reaffirmed his testimony both publicly and in print.
What are the similarities and differences between View of the Hebrews and the Book of Mormon?
Examples of parallels and differences
Some parallels do exist between the two books. For example, View of the Hebrews postulates the existence of a civilized and a barbarous nation who were constantly at war with one another, with the civilized society eventually being destroyed by their uncivilized brethren. This has obvious similarities to the story of the Nephites and the Lamanites in the Book of Mormon.
"Parallels" that actually aren't parallels
Many of the "parallels" that are discussed are not actually parallels at all once they are fully examined:
| Both speak of... | View of the Hebrews | Book of Mormon |
|---|---|---|
| ...the destruction of Jerusalem... | ...by the Romans in A.D. 70. | ...by the Babylonians in 586 B.C. |
| ...Israelites coming to the American continent... | ...via dry land across the Bering Strait. | ...via the ocean on board a ship. |
| ...colonists spread out to fill the entire land... | ...from the North to the South. | ...from the South to the North. |
| ...a great lawgiver (whom some assume to be associated with the legend of Quetzalcoatl)... | ...who is identified as Moses. | ...who is identified as Jesus Christ. |
| ...an ancient book that was preserved for a long time and then buried... | ...because they had lost the knowledge of reading it and it would be of no further use to them. [5] | ...in order to preserve the writings of prophets for future generations. |
| ...a buried book taken from the earth... | ...in the form of four, dark yellow, folded leaves of old parchment.[6] | ...in the form of a set of gold metal plates. |
| ...the Egyptian language, since | ...an Egyptian influence is present in hieroglyphic paintings made by native Americans.[7] | ...a reformed Egyptian was used to record a sacred history. |
Parallels that are everywhere
Some "parallels" between the Book of Mormon and View of the Hebrews are actually parallels with the Bible as well:
| The Book of Mormon | View of the Hebrews | The King James Bible |
|---|---|---|
| The Book of Mormon tells the story of inspired seers and prophets. | View of the Hebrews talks of Indian traditions that state that their fathers were able to foretell the future and control nature. | The Bible tells the story of inspired seers and prophets. |
| The Book of Mormon was translated by means of the Nephite interpreters, which consisted of two stones fastened to a breastplate, and later by means of a seer stone, both of which were later referred to by the name "Urim and Thummim" three years after the translation was completed. | View of the Hebrews describes a breastplate with two white buttons fastened to it as resembling the Urim and Thummim. | The Bible describes the Urim and Thummim as being fastened to a breastplate (Exodus 28:30). |
This highlights the fact that general parallels are likely to be found between works that treat the same types of subjects, such as ancient history. In what ancient conflict did one side not see themselves as representing light and civilization against the dark barbarism of their enemies?
"Unparallels"
Critics generally ignore the presence of many "unparallels"—these are elements of Ethan Smith's book which would have provided a rich source of material for Joseph to use in order to persuade his contemporaries that the Book of Mormon was an ancient history of the American Indians, and that they were descended from Israel. Yet, the Book of Mormon consistently ignores such supposed "bulls-eyes," which is good news for proponents of the Book of Mormon's authenticity, since virtually all of Ethan's "evidences" have been judged to be false or misleading.
The lack of such "unparallels" is bad news, however, for anyone wanting to claim that Joseph got his inspiration or information from Ethan Smith.
Scripture use in View of the Hebrews and the Book of Mormon
If the View of the Hebrews served as the basis for the Book of Mormon, one would think that the Bible scriptures used by Ethan Smith would be mined by Joseph Smith for the Book of Mormon. Yet, this is not the case.
Why was this only discovered later?
No contemporary critic of Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon pointed out the supposedly "obvious" connection to the View of the Hebrews and the Book of Mormon. It is only with the failure of the Spaulding theory that critics began seeking a new naturalistic explanation for Joseph's production of a 500+ book of scripture. As Stephen Ricks notes:
- Beyond these "unparallels," there is a further question that must be answered by proponents of the View of the Hebrews hypothesis: why do none of the early critics of the Book of Mormon mention Ethan Smith in their attacks on it? If the parallels are so evident, why weren't they noticed by individuals who were not only acquainted with Ethan Smith's book, but were also existentially interested in its claims? Why wasn't it prominently mentioned as a source for the Book of Mormon until the beginning of the twentieth century, when the book itself had only an antiquarian interest and its contents were no longer so widely a part of popular discussion? My suspicion is that what appear today to be "distinctives" of View of the Hebrews, eschatological and otherwise, seemed less so in the early part of the nineteenth century, when these ideas flowed freely in published and unpublished forums.[8]
Has the book View of the Hebrews been readily available?
Because availability was limited, BYU's Religious Studies Center re-published the 1825 edition of View of the Hebrews in 1996
The View of the Hebrews theory became more popular as the availability of the book itself diminished. The best evidence that argues against View of the Hebrews as the primary source for the Book of Mormon is a reading of the text itself, yet the ability to access that text had become more difficult over the years. In order to provide the interested reader with the ability to decide for themselves, BYU's Religious Studies Center re-published the 1825 edition of View of the Hebrews in 1996.[9] It is also available at wikisource.
Is there a link between Ethan Smith, author of View of the Hebrews, and Oliver Cowdery?
Both Ethan Smith and Oliver Cowdery lived in Poultney, Vermont while Smith served as the pastor of the church that Oliver Cowdery's family attended
Critics postulate a link between Ethan Smith and Oliver Cowdery, since both men lived in Poultney, Vermont while Smith served as the pastor of the church that Oliver Cowdery's family attended at the time that View of the Hebrews was being written. Beyond speculation based upon this circumstantial evidence, there is no indication of a connection between View of the Hebrews, Oliver Cowdery, and the Book of Mormon.
This article from BYU Studies shows that the type of connection that critics align with Oliver and Ethan almost certainly did not exist.
Testimony from Lorenzo Saunders
At least one critic has attempted to place Oliver Cowdery on the Joseph Smith farm beginning in 1826 based on the testimony of one Lorenzo Saunders to strengthen the supposed connection between Ethan Smith, Oliver Cowdery, and the origins of the Book of Mormon.[10] Dan Vogel writes:
On 19 Janaury 1885, Thomas Gregg of Hamilton, Hancock County, Illinois, wrote to Lorenzo Saunders living near Reading, Michigan, requesting information about Mormon origins. Gregg's letter, as reproduced by Charles A. Shook reads as follows:
Charles A. Shook wrote an expose of Mormonism in 1914 called The True Origin Of The Book of Mormon. He quoted this letter from Lorenzo (brother-in-law to Sally and Willard Chase —the same Chases who had trouble with Joseph) as a means of placing Oliver close to Joseph Smith in years before the publication of the Book of Mormon. However, as Vogel himself writes as commentary in a footnote to this letter:
4. Saunders' claim that Cowdery first came to Palmyra and Manchester in the summer of 1826 is not corroborated in any other source. However, it is known that Cowdery's brother Lyman was in the area as early as 1825 and possibly taught school in Manchester prior to Oliver's arrival for the 1828-1829 winter term. This is another example of Saunders' tendency to remember things in conformity with the demands of his interviewers, which should be considered when assessing his statements regarding Rigdon's appearances in the Palmyra/Manchester area (see note 10 below).[11]
Thus we have:
- A late source as the letter comes a little more than 5 decades after Saunders was supposed to have seen Saunders on the farm.
- A biased source as Thomas Gregg was an avid Spaulding theorist and Saunders was certainly no friend to Joseph.
- A more than plausible alternative for this supposed presence of Oliver on the Smith farm in 1826 which Saunders can easily misremember or remember in conformity with the demands of the situation which, as Vogel notes, is something he was wont to do.
This source is nearly worthless in establishing anything of value in the historical record. Any claims of the evidence being "inconclusive" for Oliver's presence on the Smith farm or meeting Joseph before 1829 based upon this source are of the the same value.
What "non-parallels" are apparent in a comparison of View of the Hebrews and the Book of Mormon?
There are many elements of Ethan Smith's book which would have provided a rich source of material for Joseph Smith, but he didn't use them
Critics generally ignore the presence of many "unparallels"—these are elements of Ethan Smith's book which would have provided a rich source of material for Joseph to use in order to persuade his contemporaries that the Book of Mormon was an ancient history of the American Indians, and that they were descended from Israel. Yet, the Book of Mormon consistently ignores such supposed "bulls-eyes," which is good news for proponents of the Book of Mormon's authenticity, since virtually all of Ethan's "evidences" have been judged to be false or misleading. The lack of such parallels is bad news, however, for anyone wanting to claim that Joseph got his inspiration or information from Ethan Smith. Some examples follow:
| Hebrew Evidence | View of the Hebrews claim (not present in Book of Mormon) |
|---|---|
No revelation? |
|
Ark of the covenant |
|
Circumcision |
|
Fire god conflated with Israel's god |
|
Indians used Hebrew terms |
|
Language affinities |
|
Tribal totems |
|
Cities of refuge |
|
Passover |
|
High Priest and garments |
|
Indian Ritual = Hebrew |
|
War preparations |
|
Burial rites |
|
Widowhood laws |
|
Medicine bag |
|
Kosher |
|
Architecture |
|
Phylacteries |
|
Quetzalcoatl |
|
</onlyinclude>
How does the use of scripture compare between the Book of Mormon and View of the Hebrews?
| KJV scripture | VoH Page | BoM Use? | Comments and/or text (as it appears in View of the Hebrews) |
|---|---|---|---|
Isaiah 6:11 |
|
| |
Isaiah 11:1 |
|
| |
Isaiah 11:11 |
|
| |
Isaiah 11:15 |
|
| |
Isaiah 14:1 |
|
| |
Isaiah 49:18-23 |
|
| |
Isaiah 49:18-22 |
|
| |
Isaiah 11:12 |
|
| |
Isaiah 11:12 |
|
| |
Isaiah 11:13 |
|
| |
Isaiah 49:21 |
|
| |
Isaiah 3:18-21 |
|
| |
Isaiah 3:24-25 |
|
| |
Isaiah 9:6 |
|
| |
Isaiah 11: |
|
| |
Isaiah 5:26 |
|
| |
Isaiah 7:18 |
|
| |
Isaiah 5:13 |
|
| |
Isaiah 7:8 |
|
| |
Isaiah 10:20-22 |
|
| |
Isaiah 49:1,11-13 |
|
| |
Isaiah 51:11 |
|
| |
|
Isaiah 11:12 |
|
| |
Isaiah 11:13 |
|
|
Analysis
The Book of Mormon and View of the Hebrews have only 30 verses from Isaiah in common, some of which are in Isaiah 11, which entire chapter Ethan Smith references but does not quote. Only ten chapters of Isaiah are mentioned by both works.
Critical sources |
|
Notes
- ↑ John W. Welch, "View of the Hebrews: 'An Unparallel'," in Reexploring the Book of Mormon, edited by John W. Welch (Provo, Utah: FARMS, 1992), 83–87.
- ↑ I. Woodbridge Riley, The Founder of Mormonism (New York, 1902), 124–126.
- ↑ Joseph Smith, Jr., "From Priest's American Antiquities," (1 June 1842) Times and Seasons 3:813-815.
- ↑ Brigham H. Roberts, Studies of the Book of Mormon, ed. Brigham D. Madsen (Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, 1985).
- ↑ View of the Hebrews: 1825 2nd Edition Complete Text by Ethan Smith, edited by Charles D. Tate Jr., (Provo: BYU Religious Studies Center, 1996), 223. ISBN 1570082472. off-site wikisource
- ↑ Ethan Smith, 220.
- ↑ Ethan Smith, 184-185.
- ↑ Stephen D. Ricks, "Review of The Use of the Old Testament in the Book of Mormon by Wesley P. Walters," FARMS Review of Books 4/1 (1992): 235–250. off-site
- ↑ Andrew H. Hedges, "Review of: View of the Hebrews," FARMS Review of Books 9/1 (1997): 63–68. off-site
- ↑ Jeremy Runnells, "Debunking FairMormon" under Witnesses. Last updated 4 June 2014
- ↑ Dan Vogel, ed., Early Mormon Documents 5 vols. (Salt Lake City, UT: Signature Books, 1996-2003) 3:176-7
"The Book of Mormon taught and still teaches a Trinitarian view of the Godhead"
Notes