Book Of Mormon: Dependence Upon The Bible

[David Bokovoy]

In recent weeks, the FAIR board has witnessed a number of threads dealing with the issue of the Book of Mormonâ??s dependence upon the Bible as a literary source.

I felt a bit uncomfortable, however, regarding several of the claims concerning the evidence for textual allusion and citation.

Rather than working against the Book of Mormonâ??s antiquity, textual connections between the Book of Mormon and the Bible provide evidence in favor of the Book of Mormonâ??s reliance upon ancient Israelite literary techniques.

Throughout their efforts, biblical authors regularly incorporated textual allusions to earlier religious sources. In recent years, this phenomenon in Israelite tradition, known as intertextuality, has been the focus of considerable scholarly attention.

Studies have shown that â??examples of inner-biblical exegesis cover the entire range of the Hebrew Bibleâ? Michael Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988): 13.

For biblical authors, drawing upon earlier religious texts through allusion, echo, or citation served several important purposes. As Benjamin Sommer observed in his summary of intertextuality in the latter half of Isaiah:

â??[in the Bible] allusion may serve as a way of acknowledging, even asserting influenceâ?¦ By acknowledging a predecessor, an author may seek to gain entry into a canon; through allusion the poet avows, â??This work is worth reading, just as its predecessors were.â?? In such a case, allusion represents an attempt to bolster the authority of the work. Conversely, allusion and its acknowledgment of influence may bolster the authority of a processorâ??s work or of the tradition which the new work claims a place. By alluding, a new work keeps the older works alive and maintains their relevance.â? Benjamin D. Sommer, A Prophet Reads Scripture: Allusion in Isaiah 40-66 (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1998): 18.

In discussing the issue of biblical intertextuality, Sommer suggests that three categories emerge: explicit citation, implicit reference, and inclusion.

Since the Book of Mormon claims to be a translated work that functions together with the Bible to establish religious truth, we should not, therefore, view intertextuality as evidence against the Book of Mormonâ??s assertion. Like the Bible, the Book of Mormon features many examples of explicit citation, implicit reference, and inclusion of earlier religious sources.

Many of the New Testament allusions witnessed in the Book of Mormon can certainly be attributed to Joseph Smithâ??s subconscious or even conscious reflection of the King James Version of the Bible. Clearly, we would expect this sort of reflection to occur in a translated source intended to stand together with the King James Bible.

For Latter-day Saints who accept the Bible as the word of God, textual connections between the Bible and the Book of Mormon bolster the authority of latter-day scripture, just as inner biblical exegetical analysis reinforced the claims of contemporary religious texts for an ancient Israelite audience.

Like their biblical counterparts, Book of Mormon authors effectively acknowledge their scriptural predecessors, gain entry into a canon, and ultimately bolster the relevance of the Bible itself.

[urroner]

Paul and Isaiah "plagarized" pagan stories and poems in their writings, so are their writings still inspired from God?

BTW, recently, IIRC, somebody on this board took some of Isaiah's writings and compared it to some story, I believe, from Babylon, I can't remember. Who was that and where can I find it?

I also find it interesting when people condemn the Book of Mormon because it is too similar to the Bible, and then they turn around and condemn it for being to different from the Bible.

[Dale]

The Tanners & others have long lists of New Testament citations in the Book of Mormon. Blake Ostler believes KJV snippets were used in the Book of Mormon, abut that'its still a translation of an ancient text. Book of Mormon believers tend not to admit these are plagiarisms.

If the Book of Mormon is real scripture then citations from it can end up in the Bible via inspiration. So some of the words of Paul & Jesus may not have been original to them.

A translations wording can be modeled after the wording in the Bible and still be close enough to the origina wordingl.

Alma 19 story of King Lamoni & the story of Lazarus in John 11 have wording similarities.

The Book of Mormon is sophisticated as the New Testament at times. It could be because of dependence. But some literary dependence does not mean it's because it's not a translation. It could be because as Blake Ostler thinks a part of translation is explanation & interpretetation. So the Book of Mormon to me is a 19th century re-telling of ancient events rather than a word for word translation.

[Uncle Dale]

Many of the New Testament allusions witnessed in the Book of Mormon can certainly be attributed to Joseph Smithâ??s subconscious or even conscious reflection of the King James Version of the Bible. Clearly, we would expect this sort of reflection to occur in a translated source intended to stand together with the King James Bible....

I am glad to see that you added "or even conscious reflection," here. It is an admission that many of

the faithful posters on this message board simply cannot bring themselves to voice aloud.

Perhaps if some of the topmost leaders would first of all make such a point, in their Conference talks

or elsewhere, then the lower level LDS members would feel more comfortable in discussing the matter.

If we go back to the pre-B. H. Roberts period in Latter Day Saint apologetics, we see LDS and RLDS

writers passing along David Whitmer's opinions and suggestions regarding the "translation process" as

sterling facts -- creating the lasting impression that each and every word in the 1830 BoM was an exact

and perfect rendering into English from its Hebrew equivalent, from an evolved Egyptian script. We have

only very s-l-o-w-l-y progressed beyond those simplistic views.

Once we can bring ourselves to admit the "conscious reflection" aspect of BoM/KJV textual relationships,

many items begin to fall into place for the student of this arcane subject. These considerations also

help us to better comprehend the language structure of the JST and some of the early D&C sections.

But why should we stop at postulating Joseph Smith's mental input into the BoM language? Did he not

converse with Martin Harris, Emma Hale Smith, Oliver Cowdery and others during the time that the

text was being written down in English by his scribes? Can we positively rule out the possibility that a

word or two, here and there, might not have come from them as well?

This is heady stuff -- and the typical Mormon will immediately pull back and go into defensive mode, at

the mere notion of conceding a small point or two, to the "opposition."

Happily, not all of the thinkers here are so "typical."

Uncle Dale

[Hammer]

There is nothing wrong with being a typical thinker. Nor is there any reason for us to second guess or think we are much more prepared to decide what happend hundreds of years ago more than what we have been given.

In all actuality if anyone here would first seek the Kingdom of God and His righteousness and seek their own problems out with as much vigor and anxiousness to find weaknesses as they are in searching the weaknesses or behaviors of those historical figures, this would be a much more uplifting place to be.

I am not pulling back from anything I have read or heard here. But those who write such things and search out such things pull back whenever someone here mentions seeking their own spirituality with vigor and unrelenting boldness as they do the happenings of others lives long ago.

[David Bokovoy]

Thanks Uncle Dale for a nice post.

I find myself much more in harmony with a BH Roberts sort of approach to translation issues. In my mind, Joseph most certainly used the King James version of the Bible as a guide.

**P.S. I would also add that in using the KJV in his translation, Joseph was simply doing the same thing that biblical/and Book of Mormon authors did. Through Joseph's work with the KJV, the Book of Mormon gained entry into a canon, and ultimately bolstered the relevance of the Bible itself.

[cksalmon]

On conscious reflection:

Following is a comparison of 1830 BoM's Mosiah VIII (Chapter 14 in modern versions) and KJV's Isaiah 53. What is striking is that 1830 BoM Mosiah VIII follows KJV Isaiah 53 virtually word-for-word, including nearly all punctuation. I've bolded where the texts disagree. At the very least, this comparison demonstrates that JS did not merely allude to Isaiah 53 wholly without reference to KJV. The BoM text is taken virtually in whole from KJV.

Best.

CKS

I see that my image is a bit small. I'll try to fix that.

[cksalmon]

See below.

[The Dude]

The repeated use of the word "translation," especially in conjunction with the term "ancient record" is not, in my view, helpful to these discussions or an accurate description of what is known to have happened. It is said that an ancient record existed, but it was not actually used to produce the BoM, much less translated. The words came out of Joseph Smith's mouth -- that's really all we know, isn't it? Hence, it is much better to use the more generic word "produced", or else the more specific word "dictated", in conjunction with the term "divine inspiration" (if you are a believer) or with the term "human imagination" (if you are not a believer).

[Uncle Dale]

I am not pulling back from anything I have read or heard here. But those who write such things and search out such things pull back whenever someone here mentions seeking their own spirituality with vigor and unrelenting boldness as they do the happenings of others lives long ago....

I have the feeling that attending sacrament service or priesthood meeting with Bro. David would be an

uplifting experience. I also have the feeling that he knows all of the words to "Redeemer of Israel" and

"Oh Ye Mountains High" by heart.

Do you?

UD

[cksalmon]

On conscious reflection:

Following is a comparison of 1830 BoM's Mosiah VIII (Chapter 14 in modern versions) and KJV's Isaiah 53. What is striking is that 1830 BoM Mosiah VIII follows KJV Isaiah 53 virtually word-for-word, including nearly all punctuation. I've bolded where the texts disagree. At the very least, this comparison demonstrates that JS did not merely allude to Isaiah 53 wholly without reference to KJV. The BoM text is taken virtually in whole from KJV.

Best.

CKS

And now, I've managed to cut off the last few verses. ArrgGGHH!

Maybe you'll get the idea.

[David Bokovoy]

Hello the Dude,

Hope all is well.

It is said that an ancient record existed, but it was not actually used to produce the BoM, much less translated.

What evidence do you have that Joseph did not use an ancient record in his translating process? Are you going to pull somthing out of your hat?

BTW, If you have not yet heard the new Who album, you should download it.

[Uncle Dale]

Maybe you'll get the idea....

When time permits, I hope to go through the entire 1830 Book of Mosiah, page by page, color-coding

and underlining its vocabulary and phraseology overlap with the KJV.

Right now I'm in the middle of a web project, doing something similar with the 1830 Book of Alma

and the Oberlin Spalding manuscript textual overlap.

This work-in-progress is only in the preliminary stages right now, but I can there show you a sample

(the brown text is identical in Spalding and Alma -- the underlined word-strings are identical or similar):

http://solomonspalding.com/SRP/Alma20c.htm

The little formula you'll see alongside of the page numbers, is meant to show the degree of vocabulary

overlap, once the unique proper nouns are eliminated -- this part of Alma is running at about 95%.

I'd guess Mosiah VIII would run at about 99.5%, in a similar comparison with the KJV.

Uncle Dale

[cksalmon]

Maybe you'll get the idea....

When time permits, I hope to go through the entire 1830 Book of Mosiah, page by page, color-coding

and underlining its vocabulary and phraseology overlap with the KJV.

Right now I'm in the middle of a web project, doing something similar with the 1830 Book of Alma

and the Oberlin Spalding manuscript textual overlap.

This work-in-progress is only in the preliminary stages right now, but I can there show you a sample

(the brown text is identical in Spalding and Alma -- the underlined word-strings are identical or similar):

http://solomonspalding.com/SRP/Alma20c.htm

The little formula you'll see alongside of the page numbers, is meant to show the degree of vocabulary

overlap, once the unique proper nouns are eliminated -- this part of Alma is running at about 95%.

I'd guess Mosiah VIII would run at about 99.5%, in a similar comparison with the KJV.

Uncle Dale

Very interesting stuff, here, UD.

I look forward to seeing the completed project.

Best.

CKS

[The Dude]

Hello the Dude,

Hope all is well.

It is said that an ancient record existed, but it was not actually used to produce the BoM, much less translated.

What evidence do you have that Joseph did not use an ancient record in his translating process? Are you going to pull somthing out of your hat?

So you are playing dumb or something? We both know none of the participants in the translation production ever saw the plates. Certainly they were not used for most of it, and for all we know, they were never used.

Edit: Doh! Even I can't help saying "translation." I guess it's a hard habit to break.

[saosin]

Maybe you'll get the idea....

Right now I'm in the middle of a web project, doing something similar with the 1830 Book of Alma

and the Oberlin Spalding manuscript textual overlap.

This work-in-progress is only in the preliminary stages right now, but I can there show you a sample

(the brown text is identical in Spalding and Alma -- the underlined word-strings are identical or similar):

http://solomonspalding.com/SRP/Alma20c.htm

Hi Uncle Dale,

Just in case you missed it, Page 341 in your textual overlap analysis has the equation

[448 - U38 = 410 - N15 = 390/410 = .951], which I believe should be [448 - U38 = 410 - N15 = 395/410 = .963].

Great study. I enjoy your knowledgeable comments and insight. keep up the great work!

[Smith]

Since the Book of Mormon claims to be a translated work that functions together with the Bible to establish religious truth, we should not, therefore, view intertextuality as evidence against the Book of Mormonâ??s assertion. Like the Bible, the Book of Mormon features many examples of explicit citation, implicit reference, and inclusion of earlier religious sources.

I think you bring up an interesting point. If intertextuality was evidence of the Book of Mormon being a fraud then surely the same would apply to books within the Bible, them then being merely plagiarisms or some sort of pseudo extension of original scripture. Surely?

[cksalmon]

Since the Book of Mormon claims to be a translated work that functions together with the Bible to establish religious truth, we should not, therefore, view intertextuality as evidence against the Book of Mormonâ??s assertion. Like the Bible, the Book of Mormon features many examples of explicit citation, implicit reference, and inclusion of earlier religious sources.

I think you bring up an interesting point. If intertextuality was evidence of the Book of Mormon being a fraud then surely the same would apply to books within the Bible, them then being merely plagiarisms or some sort of pseudo extension of original scripture. Surely?

The question is not allusion, but word-for-word dependence, including KJV punctuation, over a longish linear span--approximately 400 words or so, in the example I've cited. What we find here is clear textual dependence, rather than allusion, and certainly not an extension of original scripture--but the original scripture itself.

Best.

CKS

[Smith]

So you are playing dumb or something? We both know none of the participants in the translation production ever saw the plates.

Are you bearing testimony here Dude? And just how do you know this? Did the spirit bear witness to you or something? Cos you certainly werent there and what you say directly opposes the testimony of the 3 and 8 witnesses. So I'd just like to know what your grounds are.

[Smith]

What we find here is clear textual dependence, rather than allusion, and certainly not an extension of original scripture

How would you define clear textual dependance? A certain percentage? Has someone measured how much was "lifted" from the Bible percentage wise? Personaly I find this idea a bit of a stretch as there is plenty in the Book of Mormon clearly not in the Bible. I also feel that if God is unchanging, if he regards all people the same, if his gospel is the same, if humans all have the same problems, then why cant he give them the same words or something very similar? Afterall, if two witnesses were to sing two competely different tunes then there is clearly a problem.

[The Dude]

Are you bearing testimony here Dude? And just how do you know this? Did the spirit bear witness to you or something? Cos you certainly werent there and what you say directly opposes the testimony of the 3 and 8 witnesses. So I'd just like to know what your grounds are.

The experience of the 3 and 8 witnesses was separate from the experience of those who took down JS's dictation when his face was stuck in his hat. Therefore, there is no contradiction.

[Uncle Dale]

Maybe you'll get the idea....

Right now I'm in the middle of a web project, doing something similar with the 1830 Book of Alma

and the Oberlin Spalding manuscript textual overlap.

This work-in-progress is only in the preliminary stages right now, but I can there show you a sample

(the brown text is identical in Spalding and Alma -- the underlined word-strings are identical or similar):

http://solomonspalding.com/SRP/Alma20c.htm

Hi Uncle Dale,

Just in case you missed it, Page 341 in your textual overlap analysis has the equation

[448 - U38 = 410 - N15 = 390/410 = .951], which i believe should be [448 - U38 = 410 - N15 = 395/410 = .963].

Great study. I enjoy your knowledgeable comments and insight. keep up the great work!

Wow! My first 96% Spalding page in the BoM!!!!!

I'll make the change.

Uncle "Mamas, don't let yer babies grow up to be Mathematicians" Dale

.

[cksalmon]

How would you define clear textual dependance? A certain percentage?

Smith,

I'm referring only to the Mosiah/Isaiah example I've provided, not the Book of Mormon in its entirety. I think the example speaks for itself. Of the ~780 sequential words in Mosiah VIII/14, ~99.87% are found sequentially in KJV Isaiah 53. Of the ~57 sequential marks of punctuation in Mosiah VIII/14 (less those found in the introductory phrase,"Yes, even doth not Isaiah say,"), ~94.7% appear sequentially in KJV Isaiah 53. Periods are, more or less, a given, but Mosiah VIII/14 also follows KJV placement exactly in its liberal use of colons [":"] and semicolons [";"].

It seems obvious that Mosiah VIII/14 was taken, with only one significant word change made ("violence" to "evil"), from KJV Isaiah 53. In that sense, the former is literarily dependent upon the latter.

Best.

CKS

[The Dude]

CK-

JS didn't dictate puncuation. We know that was added later, probably, it seems, with reference to a King James Bible. Maybe other things were tweaked too?

[cksalmon]

CK-

JS didn't dictate puncuation. We know that was added later, probably, it seems, with reference to a King James Bible. Maybe other things were tweaked too?

Good point. I don't suppose punctuation had its origin in the hat. But, I think, the closely-followed punctuation demonstrates that it is more than merely probable that 1830 Mosiah VIII/14 was secondarily correlated with KJV Isaiah 53 prior to publication. What that means, I don't fully know. But, clearly, there is textual dependence here.

Best.

CKS