Which KJB was used to produce the Book of Mormon?

[JarMan]

KJB's have been very consistent over the years. However, there are a handful of words or phrases that have changed slightly. I've Identified 10 words or phrases that have changed in the KJB and which also occur in the Book of Mormon. I examined about 100 KJB's online (between 1611 and 1828) and for each one determined which of the ten words or phrases match with the corresponding word or phrase in the Book of Mormon. The following chart shows my results. The red X means the KJB does not match the Book of Mormon. The black circle means that it does match.

The year is shown on the horizontal axis and the number on the vertical axis corresponds to the following:

1) Isaiah 49:13: "heaven" or "heavens"; 2 Nephi 21:13: "heavens"

2) Isaiah 49:13: "God" or "the Lord" or "the LORD"; 1 Nephi 21:13: "the Lord"; I count both "the Lord" and "the LORD" as hits.

3) Isaiah 51:16: "and have covered" or "and have defended" or "and I have covered"; 2 Nephi 8:16: "and hath covered"; none of the bible versions use "hath" like the Book of Mormon. However, I count "and have covered" as a hit while "and have defended" and "and I have covered" I count as misses.

4) Isaiah 6:8: "I saide" or "I said" or "said I"; 2 Nephi 16:8: "I said"; "I saide" and "I said" I count as hits.

5) Isaiah 8:6: "Forsomuch" or "For so much" or "Because" or "Forasmuch" or "For as much"; 2 Nephi 18:6: "forasmuch"; I count both "Forasmuch" and "For as much" as hits.

6) Isaiah 10:26: "rocke Oreb" or "rock Oreb" or "rocke of Oreb" or "rock of Oreb"; 2 Nephi 20:26: "rock of Oreb"; "rocke of Oreb" and "rock of Oreb" I count as hits.

7) Isaiah 10:34: "forrest" or "forest" or "forrests" or "forests"; 2 Nephi 20:34: "forests": I count "forrests" and "forests" as hits.

8 ) Matthew 6:3: "right doeth" or "right doth" or "right hand doth" or "right hand doeth"; 3 Nephi 13:3: "right hand doeth"

9) Malachi 3:4: "offrings" or "offerings" or "offering"; 3 Nephi 24:4: "offering"

10) Malachi 4:2: "shall" or "yee shall" or "ye shall"; 3 Nephi 25:2: "ye shall"; I count "yee shall" and "ye shall" as hits.

I understand that the latest critical text volume will do an analysis on the KJB in the Book of Mormon. So this information may be outdated in a matter of a month or so when it gets published. I will be interested see what Dr. Skousen comes up with.

Now for a quick analysis of the data. I didn't find a single bible that had all ten corresponding Book of Mormon words/phrases. There were some with 9 and several with 8. This probably means that more than one Bible was used in the process. (The least number of hits was the original 1611 version with 3. So this version was definitely not the one used.) Alternatively, it's possible that a conscious or accidental change was made that just happened to correspond to a different version. Skousen, in fact, suggests that is what has occurred at number 4 (though I have my doubts). The very earliest bibles that could have been used would have been the 1639 and 1640 Cambridge editions which both have 8 hits. The 1622 or 1657 edition would need to be the other bible used to provide the other 2 hits or there are various combinations with two other bibles.

Keep your eye on number 4 on the graph. After 1657 it goes dormant until a single instance: an 1816 Cambridge edition. If the process was modern it would most likely have to include this 1816 version plus another version such as the Phinney Bible which contains the other 9 hits. So, based on the data, there are really two different windows in which the process could have occurred: about 1639-1657 and about 1816-1828.

Although I've used around 100 Bibles I know there are many more editions out there. Additional data could change this analysis. Also, there may be other words or phrases besides the ten I have identified.  There are also a few proper nouns that have different spellings in different Bible versions which I did not include those in my analysis.

 

KJB comparisons.pdf

[Metis_LDS]

Well for what it is worth I do not believe that Joseph stopped translating and said hand me that Bible so that I can show you which section to copy.  If I had been Joseph it would have troubled me greatly to have gotten an ancient record only to be told well copy this and that from the Bible.  No hard feelings I hope!

Edited October 22, 2019 by Metis_LDS
formatting

[Kenngo1969]

To each, his own.  Obviously, your mileage varies, but for all of the similarities between the Book of Mormon and the King James Bible, I'm most intrigued by the differerences that, nonetheless, have crept in despite the prospect that Joseph simply copied, whole cloth, from the latter ro produce the former.

This doesn't really count as an example, because there is no analogue in the KJV from which Joseph could have copied, and I don't have the Book of Mormon reference handy, but the Book of Mormon has a several-verse passage which purports to quote, directly, the words of Joseph who was sold into Egypt.

Edited October 23, 2019 by Kenngo1969

[CA Steve]

7 hours ago, JarMan said:

Although I've used around 100 Bibles I know there are many more editions out there

Interesting stuff JarMan.

Dr. Thomas Wayment of BYU recently did an analysis in which he did a word for word comparison between the NT and the Book of Mormon and found 6000 instances where they matched when comparing phrases of 3 words or more. That was just the NT. As Dr Waymant said: "The KJB is in the Book of Mormon."

I think there are quite a bit of other  sources out there that might of had some impact on the production process, sources like Josephus, bible commentaries (Clarke's Commentary first published in 1817 identifies the Catholic Church with the anti-Christ) or Hone's "Apocryphal New Testament".Have you considered those sources also or perhaps how Joseph's contemporaries used the KJB?

DISCLAIMER NOTE!  I am not claiming Joseph Smith had read all or even any of these books but I am raising them as possibilities just the same way JarMan is raising the possibilities of many different KJB translations.

Edited October 22, 2019 by CA Steve

[The Nehor]

 

I am Grotius.
 

[JarMan]

3 hours ago, CA Steve said:

Interesting stuff JarMan.

Dr. Thomas Wayment of BYU recently did an analysis in which he did a word for word comparison between the NT and the Book of Mormon and found 6000 instances where they matched when comparing phrases of 3 words or more. That was just the NT. As Dr Waymant said: "The KJB is in the Book of Mormon."

I think there are quite a bit of other  sources out there that might of had some impact on the production process, sources like Josephus, bible commentaries (Clarke's Commentary first published in 1817 identifies the Catholic Church with the anti-Christ) or Hone's "Apocryphal New Testament".Have you considered those sources also or perhaps how Joseph's contemporaries used the KJB?

DISCLAIMER NOTE!  I am not claiming Joseph Smith had read all or even any of these books but I am raising them as possibilities just the same way JarMan is raising the possibilities of many different KJB translations.

I haven't looked at sources contemporary to Joseph as I believe the Early Modern English warrants a look at the 16th and 17th Centuries instead. I have looked at lots of texts from mostly the early to mid 1600's and there are lots of similarities with the Book of Mormon. The pope as anti-christ was a very common idea during this time, but it's not an idea that's in the Book of Mormon. This is remarkable if, in fact, the Book of Mormon does have early modern roots since it was so widely believed in the Protestant world. Instead we have the Great and Abominable Church, which I think does refer largely to the Catholic Church. The two churches paradigm in 1 Nephi 14:10 where we have the church of the Lamb vs the church of the devil, is an idea explicitly found in the writings of this time.

[phaedrus ut]

Various scribes worked with Joseph Smith in the preparation of the Book of Mormon over a period of 21 months in various locations. Multiple locations and multiple scribes doesn't make using different versions of the KJV seem like too great a leap. Even though witnesses say no bible was used in the process the textual evidence is too believe convincing otherwise. 

It's also important to note that most KJV variants in the BOM are near italicized words.  In the KJV words which appear in italics were added to make the English translation more readable. Joseph clearly knew what the italics meant and used it as an opportunity for textual changes. 

 

Phaedrus 

[Bob Crockett]

The one and only King James Version of the Bible is called the "Authorized Version."  Today, the Authorized Version is the one edited at Oxford.  So there aren't variants of the Authorized Version, because if they are variants they are not the KJV.

As a matter of further interest, the LDS Church does not use or publish the KJV.  When the Church started publishing what it said was the KJV, it omitted marginal notations, which are part and parcel of the text. What the Church publishes is not the KJV although Oxford likely approved its publication and called it the KJV. 

[JarMan]

1 hour ago, Bob Crockett said:

The one and only King James Version of the Bible is called the "Authorized Version."  Today, the Authorized Version is the one edited at Oxford.  So there aren't variants of the Authorized Version, because if they are variants they are not the KJV.

I don't know what you mean by "one and only" version. There were many editions published throughout the years beginning in 1611. These editions had slight variants. What is the proper collective term for all of these different editions?

[Bob Crockett]

18 minutes ago, JarMan said:

I don't know what you mean by "one and only" version. There were many editions published throughout the years beginning in 1611. These editions had slight variants. What is the proper collective term for all of these different editions?

The one approved by Oxford University is the KJV.  All others may call themselves the KJV but they aren't. 

[JarMan]

7 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

The one approved by Oxford University is the KJV.  All others may call themselves the KJV but they aren't. 

I'm not following you. Are you talking about the 1769 Benjamin Blaney version or one of the many earlier or later Oxford editions? What makes the one approved by Oxford different? Why wouldn't the original 1611 version be considered the KJB? Or any of the other editions?

[champatsch]

This is just a technical designation which for your purposes is irrelevant.

[champatsch]

The best matches Skousen has found, using most of your points as well as quite a few others, and looking at 29 different editions, are three editions from the early 1800s: 1815, 1816, 1823.

[champatsch]

4 hours ago, phaedrus ut said:

Various scribes worked with Joseph Smith in the preparation of the Book of Mormon over a period of 21 months in various locations. Multiple locations and multiple scribes doesn't make using different versions of the KJV seem like too great a leap. Even though witnesses say no bible was used in the process the textual evidence is too believe convincing otherwise. 

It's also important to note that most KJV variants in the BOM are near italicized words.  In the KJV words which appear in italics were added to make the English translation more readable. Joseph clearly knew what the italics meant and used it as an opportunity for textual changes. 

There are big holes in this position, which I doubt is based on systematic, thorough analysis of all King James quoting in the Book of Mormon. More than 3/4 of the changes aren't related to italics. You don't know that Joseph knew what italics indicated in 1829. He probably knew a few years later.

[Robert F. Smith]

13 hours ago, Metis_LDS said:

Well for what it is worth I do not believe that Joseph stopped translating and said hand me that Bible so that I can show you which section to copy.  If I had been Joseph it would have troubled me greatly to have gotten an ancient record only to be told well copy this and that from the Bible.  No hard feelings I hope!

The reason for this research is to see whether your or someone else's theory is correct.  Research is not a reason for hard feelings.

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, phaedrus ut said:

.............................................

It's also important to note that most KJV variants in the BOM are near italicized words.  In the KJV words which appear in italics were added to make the English translation more readable. Joseph clearly knew what the italics meant and used it as an opportunity for textual changes. .......................

 

57 minutes ago, champatsch said:

There are big holes in this position, which I doubt is based on systematic, thorough analysis of all King James quoting in the Book of Mormon. More than 3/4 of the changes aren't related to italics. You don't know that Joseph knew what italics indicated in 1829. He probably knew a few years later.

Yes, this would be applicable to the Inspired Revision of the Bible, for which a Phinney Bible was used.

[Robert F. Smith]

17 hours ago, JarMan said:

............................................

Keep your eye on number 4 on the graph. After 1657 it goes dormant until a single instance: an 1816 Cambridge edition. If the process was modern it would most likely have to include this 1816 version plus another version such as the Phinney Bible which contains the other 9 hits. So, based on the data, there are really two different windows in which the process could have occurred: about 1639-1657 and about 1816-1828...........................

Very interesting.

[Robert F. Smith]

10 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

.....................................

This doesn't really count as an example, because there is no analogue in the KJV from which Joseph could have copied, and I don't have the Biok of Mormon reference handy, but the Book of Mormon has a several-verse passage which purports to quote, directly, the words of Joseph who was sold into Egypt.

From the Brass Plates.

[JarMan]

59 minutes ago, champatsch said:

The best matches Skousen has found, using most of your points as well as quite a few others, and looking at 29 different editions, are three editions from the early 1800s: 1815, 1816, 1823.

I look forward to seeing the criteria he used. I'd like to expand my analysis by both expanding the criteria considered and the number of editions analyzed. I can't help but think that with 29 editions analyzed there's a chance of missing an edition or two somewhere along the line that might be critical.

[Robert F. Smith]

9 hours ago, CA Steve said:

................

Dr. Thomas Wayment of BYU recently did an analysis in which he did a word for word comparison between the NT and the Book of Mormon and found 6000 instances where they matched when comparing phrases of 3 words or more. That was just the NT. As Dr Waymant said: "The KJB is in the Book of Mormon."  ......................

The same sort of computer comparison of all phrase sizes was done at UC Berkeley in the 1970s by the late John Hilton.  I had the benefit of that computer printout as I edited the first edition of the FARMS Book of Mormon Critical Text.  However, most parallels at the 3-word level were mundane, quotidian, and useless.  Only significant parallels were useful/useable to me as editor -- all of which I inserted into the Critical Text..

[Robert F. Smith]

8 hours ago, The Nehor said:

 

I am Grotius.
 

We'll put you up for next year's Hugo Science Fiction Award.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Bob Crockett said:

The one approved by Oxford University is the KJV.  All others may call themselves the KJV but they aren't. 

 

1 hour ago, champatsch said:

This is just a technical designation which for your purposes is irrelevant.

There are even different printings of the 1611 KJV in 1611, and they can be distinguished by different readings.

[Kenngo1969]

39 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

From the Brass Plates.

Well, you know that, and I know that, but ...

  

[caspianrex]

19 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

The one approved by Oxford University is the KJV.  All others may call themselves the KJV but they aren't. 

Oxford and Cambridge Universities have both been printing KJVs since 1629. I'm not sure where you're getting this idea of the Oxford being the only "real" KJV. Indeed, there are some devout KJV-Only fans (I would probably actually call them "fanatics") who believe the "Pure Cambridge Edition" of the KJV is the only legitimate one. Meanwhile, it is a well known fact that there are many printing differences between the Oxford and Cambridge editions, and when one factors in spelling changes in English after 1611, there are a huge number of changes between the 1611 and the later Oxford AND Cambridge editions. As some have mentioned above, even among 1611 printings, there are differences (such as the difference between "He" and "She" variant in Ruth 3:15).

[Bob Crockett]

4 hours ago, caspianrex said:

Oxford and Cambridge Universities have both been printing KJVs since 1629. I'm not sure where you're getting this idea of the Oxford being the only "real" KJV. Indeed, there are some devout KJV-Only fans (I would probably actually call them "fanatics") who believe the "Pure Cambridge Edition" of the KJV is the only legitimate one. Meanwhile, it is a well known fact that there are many printing differences between the Oxford and Cambridge editions, and when one factors in spelling changes in English after 1611, there are a huge number of changes between the 1611 and the later Oxford AND Cambridge editions. As some have mentioned above, even among 1611 printings, there are differences (such as the difference between "He" and "She" variant in Ruth 3:15).

OK.  I give up.