A Bible! A Bible! How Would Js Hide A Bible?

[charity]

Don, you said, "Only two of the translation witnesses comment on the possible use of a source text of any kind. Emma Smith states that her husband used no manuscript while she acted as his scribe. And David Whitmer, in response to the Spalding theory, states that Joseph Smith did not use a pre-written manuscript. Neither of these testimonies denies that Joseph Smith used a Bible."

This whole topic is speculative. But if we are speculating, here is mine: It really isn't logical to concluide that since they were actually discussing a possibility of some other source text being used when they solidly denying it, why wouldn't Emma or David have said something like, "he didn't use a manuscript, but he did refer to the Bible from time to time." Seems like that would have been the natural thing to do if it had occurred.

[MAsh]

I hate for this to be a drive-by posting, but it seems I always have too little time & too many things to do. Just a couple of comments.

In my article I include a link to another article here: http://www.mormonfortress.com/kjv1.html

In this 2nd article I note that that some LDS authors (including BH Roberts) believed that JS used a Bible when translating. If I'm not mistaken, David Bokovoy may argue this in his upcoming FAIR presentation. I don't rule this out, but so far it doesn't match witness description.

Don notes that 2 BoM translation witnesses make mention that JS didn't use a manuscript when translating. Don suggests that this may not rule out utilizing a Bible. He may be correct; that's one way to read it (and I acknowledge this in the first article). Going by the quotes in my article (I don't have time to look up the originals), Emma said that JS had "neither manuscript nor book to read from." This suggests that he was not using a Bible when Emma saw him translate.

According to the Chicago Times reporter, David Whitmer had "no manuscript notes or other means of knowledge save the seer stone and the characters as shown on the plates." The simplest reading of both statements is that JS had no manuscript or book-- including a Bible.

I completely agree that the dictated manuscript suggests that JS had a Bible during translation, but this runs contrary to what is implied (if not directly claimed) by witnesses. How do I reconcile this conundrum? I'm not sure that I have. In my 1st article I suggest some possibilities, some having to do with divinely enabled recall. This is certainly all speculation, but I give some possible reasons why enhanced memory may be an option (some of the reasons are laid out in the 2nd article [linked above]).

I look forward to David's FAIR presentation & I'm very open to other possibilities, and I certainly wouldn't claim that we know JS didn't use the Bible during translation. What may be apparent from my 2 articles is that I'm not altogether satisfied with any of the options that I currently see.

Mike Ash

[juliann]

So, again, I think there must have been a Bible actually present at the biblical portions of the dictation.

I have no problem with that. There was certainly an "OT" present when some of the NT was written. Is there enough written about the "translation" process for it to be too meaningful if something was mentioned or not? If there was a Bible, perhaps the participants saw it as a translation of that, too...therefore just part of the whole. And perhaps that is what propelled JS to continue with the JST. And for the purposes of full disclosure, let me state that I have no idea what I am talking about when it comes to this topic.

[Olavarria]

look emma, no eyes!!

[DonBradley]

Thanks for this addition and clarification, Mike. I'm glad to see that you're open on this issue. I hope it's as clear to most interested LDS as it is to you that multiple possibilities are consistent with faith.

I'll comment on a few of your points below.

First, Emma's comment pertains specifically to her own scribal tenure, which occurred at the beginning of the Book of Lehi.

The comment comes from the "Last Testimony of Sister Emma":

"Q.-What of the truth of Mormonism?

"A.-I know Mormonism to be the truth; and believe the church to have been established by divine direction. I have complete faith in it. In writing for your father I frequently wrote day after day, often sitting at the table close by him, he sitting with his face buried in his hat, with the stone in it, and dictating hour after hour with nothing between us.

"Q.-Had he not a book or manuscript from which he read or dictated to you?

"A.-He had neither manuscript nor book to read from.

"Q.-Could he not have had, and you not know it?

"A.-If he had had anything of the kind he could not have concealed it from me.

(Emphasis added)

As shown in the emphasized portions, Emma's testimony referred to her own scribal tenure, and did not purport to exclude the possibility of Joseph Smith having ever dictated from a Bible.

We know when her scribal tenure occurred because multiple sources place her as scribe prior to Martin Harris, and because she herself states that while dictating to her Joseph first encountered the name "Sariah" and mention of "the walls of Jerusalem," elements that would have first appeared in the now-lost Book of Lehi.

I'm puzzled how anyone could think this contradicts Joseph Smith's use of a Bible over a year later in dictating the Isaiah chapters, principally in 2 Nephi. (Notably, btw, the dictation of 1 Nephi and 2 Nephi appears to have occurred in Fayette, New York, to which Joseph traveled with Oliver Cowdery and David Whitmer--but without Emma. So, the dictation of these biblical materials may well have occurred in her absence.)

It should also be noted that the question of whether Joseph Smith used a book or manuscript was almost certainly prompted by the ubiquitous Spalding theory. Both question and answer were likely framed to deal principally with this specific theory of the origin of the entire book, rather than with the precise mechanism by which the translation of Book of Mormon Isaiah was produced.

The alleged "contradiction" of Emma's testimony to Joseph Smith's use of a Bible in the translation is not real, but manufactured.

Second, the quotation you offer from David Whitmer is not a quotation at all, but a newspaper writer's summation of what he understood from Whitmer. Such restatements have often placed in the mouth of early LDS witnesses false claims that the Three Witnesses handled the plates, that they had credentials signed by Jesus himself, and the like. While such reports are useful, they are often insufficiently exact to make fine distinctions. Did David Whitmer actually tell the Times reporter that Joseph Smith never used a source outside the seerstone, or did he--as he had on other occasions--merely respond to the widespread claim that Smith had used the Spalding manuscript?

On other occasions when Whitmer denied the use of another source in the Book of Mormon, his specific object was to refute the Spalding claims, e.g.:

"Father [David] Whitmer, who was present very frequently during the writing of [the Book of Mormon] manuscript, affirms that Joseph Smith had no book or manuscript before him from which he could have read as is asserted by some that he did, he (Whitmer) having every opportunity to know whether Smith had Solomon Spa[l]ding's or any other person's romance to read from.... [T]he supposition that the Rev. Solomon Spa[l]ding wrote the Book of Mormon is absurd and 'a weak invention of the enemy'" (St. Louis Republican, 16 July 1884).

Whether or not Joseph Smith relied on a King James Bible for any reason during the dictation was simply not a pressing issue, and therefore not an issue Whitmer felt obliged to address. His comments aimed at refuting the claim that Smith employed the Spalding manuscript don't preclude Whitmer's knowledge that Smith employed a King James Bible. The two are separate and distinct issues.

I completely agree that the dictated manuscript suggests that JS had a Bible during translation, but this runs contrary to what is implied (if not directly claimed) by witnesses.

If the evidence truly contradicted in this way, there would be more of a conundrum. But neither Emma's denial that Joseph used an external source during her scribal tenure nor David Whitmer's refutations of the Spalding claim respond to the specific question of whether Joseph Smith employed a Bible to assist in the translation of the biblical sections of the Book of Mormon text. And in the absence of contradiction by the witnesses, the evidence of the manuscript stands all the more firmly.

Don

[DonBradley]

This whole topic is speculative.

While this is a frequent retreat, it just isn't true. Where we have evidence on a topic, we needn't merely speculate; and the Book of Mormon text itself provides an absolute gold mine of evidence on the origin of its Bible quotations. Our challenge is to figure out how to use that evidence to infer what happened. Either that or we can throw up our hands and let others figure it out. While you may speak for yourself in throwing up your hands and guessing, you don't speak for me or others who are actually trying to use the evidence to figure things out.

But if we are speculating, here is mine: It really isn't logical to concluide that since they were actually discussing a possibility of some other source text being used when they solidly denying it, why wouldn't Emma or David have said something like, "he didn't use a manuscript, but he did refer to the Bible from time to time." Seems like that would have been the natural thing to do if it had occurred.

Why would this be the natural thing to do?

That Emma was discussing her own scribal tenure is crystal clear, and we can't be sure she would have observed the use of a Bible even during the scribal tenures of others, especially given that biblical material constitutes only the tiniest fraction of Mormon's abridgment, and that Emma did not journey to Fayette with Joseph when he went there to translate the "Small Plates." Why would it be natural to respond to questions about her scribal tenure with answers about another's? And why would it be natural for her to report a process she likely would not have observed?

And both Emma and David Whitmer, the latter explicitly, denied the presence of an external source in the context of responding to the Spalding claim, a false claim about the origin of the book as a whole. Neither was addressing the translation process used for the biblical portions of the Book of Mormon.

The witness testimonies are thus consistent with the use of the Bible. But even if they were not, the best evidence for the processes by which our Book of Mormon text was produced are not external testimonies, but the data of the book itself--and this could not be more clear. By the standard, systematic, and eminently reasonable methods of textual criticism, Book of Mormon biblical quotations can be demonstrated to rely on the King James Version--errors, italics, and all.

Don

[SolarPowered]

Don,

Why do you feel that it is a problem that the italics are changed which greater frequency than the non-italic words? It makes complete sense that if the BoM is what it says it is, the italics would show more variation.

[The Dude]

Joseph Smith used a Bible to produce the Book of Mormon. The testimony of the witnesses does not preclude it, and the evidence cited by Don in the OP is a powerful indicator that he did use a Bible. The answer to this scenario that JS used a KJV Bible should be "well Duh!" not some form of intellectual resistance.

Even though I don't think it's necessary, here's another option where JS didn't use an open Bible during the dictation: JS dictated Bible passages that he had memorized, italicized words and all, and then he went back and altered the manuscript before printing. During this "editing" he used an open Bible and changed many italicized words. Would this work?

[DonBradley]

Don,

Why do you feel that it is a problem that the italics are changed which greater frequency than the non-italic words? It makes complete sense that if the BoM is what it says it is, the italics would show more variation.

It makes sense only if you misunderstand why the italicized words were added and fail to look at the specific instances where they are varied.

As you probably know, and as Joseph Smith probably knew as well, the italics mark words added by the translators and not present in the original Hebrew (or, in the New Testament, Greek). What neither you nor Joseph Smith seem to have understood, however, is why most of these words were added. In the great majority of instances, they are words that would be implied or understood in the original tongue but need to be literally spelled out in English.

In translating, it is frequently the case that certain ideas will be communicated structurally or gramatically in one language but must be communicated verbally in the other. To take an example that will be familiar to you if you ever had high school Spanish, a Spanish speaker can communicate the idea "I go" without actually using the pronoun "I." The idea of "I go" can be communicated in Spanish through the verb "voy" alone, without the pronoun, while in English we require the pronoun: One cannot simply say "Go" and be understood to mean "I go."

Similarly, in biblical Hebrew, the grammar of a sentence often conveys meanings an English speaker must have spelled out explicitly in words. Thus, you'll notice if you actually review the KJV italics, the King James translators frequently needed to add the same words over and over in the same grammatical contexts.

To someone who knows only English and is unaware of such translation issues the need to add words to the translated text would imply that something is missing from the original, when, in fact, the original makes perfect sense without the words to a speaker of the relevant language.

The Book of Mormon's pattern of disproportionally varying on the KJV italics--even where these italics mark meanings required by the grammar of the original text--gives away the fact that these variants are secondary, or responsive, to the KJV text, rather than to some Hebrew original.

As mentioned above, all this has been documented at length by David Wright and acknowledged in several instances by John Tvedtnes in their comprehensive studies of Book of Mormon Isaiah variants. If you'd like to engage the specifics of the italic variants, you should begin with their studies.

Don

[The Dude]

To someone who knows only English and is unaware of such translation issues the need to add words to the translated text would imply that something is missing from the original, when, in fact, the original makes perfect sense without the words to a speaker of the relevant language.

Oh come on! You're saying JS didn't know the first thing about translation?

[DonBradley]

Joseph Smith used a Bible to produce the Book of Mormon. The testimony of the witnesses does not preclude it, and the evidence cited by Don in the OP is a powerful indicator that he did use a Bible. The answer to this scenario that JS used a KJV Bible should be "well Duh!" not some form of intellectual resistance.

Even though I don't think it's necessary, here's another option where JS didn't use an open Bible during the dictation: JS dictated Bible passages that he had memorized, italicized words and all, and then he went back and altered the manuscript before printing. During this "editing" he used an open Bible and changed many italicized words. Would this work?

Hi Dude,

I'm similarly surprised that some don't "get" that the text-critical evidence would trump witness evidence, even if the latter opposed the former; but for whatever reason this would seem to be par for the course on this issue.

Thanks for your proposed solution. It's creative, and could possibly account for JS's ability to work from a Bible down to the level of the italics. Theoretically, Joseph Smith might have later made variations to the italicized words on the dictated manuscript. Most of the original manuscript for the biblical quotations is not extant. The small amount that is extant may or may not be consistent with your suggestion. I'd have to check the italic variations in that text. I know that one of them was added above the line, which could indicate a later redaction. But, offhand and working from memory, I believe there are other italic variations that appear to have been part of the original dictation. I'll check to confirm this. I'll also take into consideration the possibilities of--and possible reasons for--a later redaction.

Thanks!

Don

[randyc]

Don, you said, "Only two of the translation witnesses comment on the possible use of a source text of any kind. Emma Smith states that her husband used no manuscript while she acted as his scribe. And David Whitmer, in response to the Spalding theory, states that Joseph Smith did not use a pre-written manuscript. Neither of these testimonies denies that Joseph Smith used a Bible."

This whole topic is speculative. But if we are speculating, here is mine: It really isn't logical to concluide that since they were actually discussing a possibility of some other source text being used when they solidly denying it, why wouldn't Emma or David have said something like, "he didn't use a manuscript, but he did refer to the Bible from time to time." Seems like that would have been the natural thing to do if it had occurred.

Hey, Charity,

I disagree. As long as we are using first names, David really was addressing an issue entirely separate from whether or not Smith referred to a Bible. I don't see any reason for him to even think about the Bible in this context. However, there is still the point that Smith may not have used a Bible during this portion or the BoM recording.

[Jerubaal]

So, the only remaining naturalistic explanation I can see is that Joseph Smith did present his scribes and observers with a compelling reason why he should draw biblical material from a King James Bible instead of the seerstone. What reasons might have been compelling in the translation context? Anyone willing to hazard a hypothesis or guess?

It was always my thought that the seerstone revealed the Biblical quotations in language Joseph Smith would be used to (i.e. KJV English) and only differed when the text from the plates differed significantly. A good example of this are certain translations of the DSS Isaiah where they follow the KJV exactly until the Hebrew text of the DSS has a significant departure from the KJV rendering.

Note: Sorry if my typing/spelling is sub-par. I'll be limited to using a Mac until tomorrow night.

[DonBradley]

Are there any diary entries from around the time of the translation of the Isiah portions?

Sadly, no! No we have no contemporaneous LDS diaries for the dictation period.

CK:

If I'm not mistaken, he only sat behind a curtain at the beginning of the process, when Martin Harris was his scribe.

Yep. And perhaps not even much of the time then.

I have often promoted an automatic writing hypothesis, in which case JS recalled large quantities of the KJV text that he had never consciously memorized. The trouble with this, of course, is that modifications of the KJV appear to be italics-associated, which suggests a very deliberate modification process. Perhaps he possessed a photographic memory. Can anyone think of any other evidence for JS having a photographic memory?

The thousands of biblical allusions in his sermons, many of which are documented by Richard C. Galbraith in The Scriptural Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, are certainly evidence of a vast memory. A "photographic" memory? I'm not sure. I believe the very concept of a true "photographic" or eidetic memory is in doubt among psychologists who research memory. I think it's doubtful that Smith could have visually memorized both the text and the placement of the italics. On the other hand, it's possible to memorize large amounts of text and to use mental "tags" to indicate where the italics are.

Still, if Joseph Smith had a "photographic" memory, we have no record of him demonstrating it in any other context besides the dictation of the Book of Mormon. To invoke such a memory may therefore be an appeal to an ad hoc hypothesis.

I wouldn't reject extensive memorization as out of the question, but it does seem improbable to me.

Don

[DonBradley]

It was always my thought that the seerstone revealed the Biblical quotations in language Joseph Smith would be used to (i.e. KJV English) and only differed when the text from the plates differed significantly. A good example of this are certain translations of the DSS Isaiah where they follow the KJV exactly until the Hebrew text of the DSS has a significant departure from the KJV rendering.

Hey Elder Jeru,

This is different from, but reminiscent of, B. H. Roberts' suggestion that Joseph Smith compared what was on the plates to what was in the KJV, and followed the KJV except in those places where there was a significant variant on the plates. Roberts proposed that Smith did this to ease the work of translation. Ironically, Roberts' suggestion would have had Joseph Smith significantly increasing his workload, since he would still have to translate the text from the plates in order to make a comparison with the KJV, then he'd have needed to locate and read the corresponding KJV text, compare the two, and determine what to dictate to his scribe.

Your idea doesn't have Joseph Smith doing double duty. But it shares with Roberts' hypothesis the weaknesses of failing to explain the lack of correction of many KJV errors in the BoM text and of failing to explain the evident response to the KJV italics. If the KJV text were given through the stone, then the BoM's tinkering with the English italics and perpetuation of KJV errors would be products of the supernatural translator who provided the text to Joseph Smith. While ineptitude on the part of divine or angelic translators might be possible, it doesn't seem preferrable, either logically or theologically, to error on the part of the mortal Joseph Smith.

How would you deal with the mistranslations and italic variants?

Don

[DonBradley]

Hi RandyC,

Interesting input. My comments below.

...Smith would necessarily have done some of the translation while there was no one else present. I am not familiar enough with the details of the translation to know whether or not it is said that someone was there with Smith at every moment of the process, but whether or not this is claimed, it could still have occurred. Anyone care to comment on this possibility?

So far as we know, Joseph Smith dictated the text to scribes. The extant portions of the original manuscript contain only one instance of Joseph Smith's handwriting, and that in midsentence and comprising some 28 words. It appears that Oliver Cowdery was interrupted while taking dictation, so Smith recorded the next set of words; and the former then returned to taking dictation.

Numerous sources describe the dictation process. None describe Joseph Smith recording the text himself. Indeed, his claimed method of translation would have made this cumbersome, since he would have had to look into the hat, write, check what he wrote in the hat, correct, etc.

Finally, we have a portion, albeit a relatively small one (a couple chapters) of the original manuscript for the biblical portions of the Book of Mormon. This portion, like virtually the entire extant text, was recorded by a scribe (in this case, Oliver Cowdery).

That Smith recorded more of the Book of Mormon than 28 words is quite possible. But the existing evidence doesn't support the idea that he recorded the biblical materials himself, without the aid or presence of a scribe.

I know I may differ from many of the others on this board, but I have for a while considered those who assisted Smith most closely to be "co-conspirators or gullible bumpkins" (from the opening post of this thread). This is not simply because they went along with Smith, but because of what I have seen regarding how they lived their lives in general (leaving Smith, because they thought he had "gone astray" and another man was now the chosen prophet, etc.). I can not see any of their behaviors as intelligent.

Here you've got me puzzled. Dissenting from Joseph Smith's later revelations shows a lack of intelligence and a tendency toward gullibility?? Or did you mean it suggests they were co-conspirators who knew Smith didn't really speak for God?

Careful study of Oliver Cowdery shows him to be fiercely independent, ever ready to guard his personal rights, but also deeply devout in the gospel as revealed in the Book of Mormon. Opinions certainly differ regarding Cowdery, and if anyone was an accomplice, he was. But the man was neither a fool nor an obvious candidate for fraud. Ultimately, if Smith was an opportunist, Cowdery must have been deceived. But I doubt Oliver could have been deceived in any simple or obvious way. I'd recommend that you read some of his extant writings. They reveal a man who was intelligent, reasonably well educated, libertarian in political orientation, and deeply and inwardly spiritual, perhaps more so than any other early LDS leader.

I think that the best way to address this is to look at the possibilities as a tree. Either Joseph Smith read the passages from a Bible while he was making the BoM manuscript or he did not. Each of those options, in turn can be broken down further into branches of a similar structure. In this way we can see all of the possible explanations and rule them out one by one. I have just proposed two branches that deserve extensive scrutiny. If anyone would like to propose others (although we would probably all get bored with this before any one of us actually finished researching every branch), they should do so. In the mean time, I would appreciate thoughts on behind-the-scenes translating and disciples' idiocy as discussed above.

The branching tree of possibilities and probabilities is a fantastic suggestion.

BTW, would you care to lay out the case for the "disciples' idiocy"? The relevant disciples in this case would be the scribes and translation witnesses. The most relevant would be Cowdery, who was the scribe for part, if not all, of the biblical material in the Book of Mormon. David Whitmer and other members of the Whitmer family would also be relevant.

Don

[Jerubaal]

How would you deal with the mistranslations and italic variants?

Well, until I give the issue a bit more thought, I'm gonna say: D&C 1:24-25

The BoM was given to Joseph in familiar language, and there is always the possibility of error.

[freakin a man]

My question is if Joseph Smith used a KJV in the translation process, then why did he not just say that. Does anyone seriously think they can quote large portions from one of the most read texts and not expect anyone to notice?

[DonBradley]

My question is if Joseph Smith used a KJV in the translation process, then why did he not just say that. Does anyone seriously think they can quote large portions from one of the most read texts and not expect anyone to notice?

What makes you think he didn't "just say that"? Joseph Smith left no detailed explanation of the translation process in general, much less of the particular process by which specific sections were produced.

And I doubt that he simply hid a Bible from the scribes. In fact, I've argued the implausibility of this. My point is actually that I think he would have needed to offer a compelling explanation for the scribes of his use of a King James Bible.

Finally, given the text-critical evidence (i.e., the evidence provided by analysis via textual criticism), the most reasonable question is not whether the KJV was used, but how. If you're trying to argue that Joseph Smith did not use a KJV, then it is the text-critical evidence, not the testimonies of the scribes, that you most need to engage.

Don

[randyc]

Well, I actually wasn't referring as much to Oliver Cowdery as to others. I woul not like to set out a case for idiocy, because I am leaving soon and will have classes all week, but I really do appreciate your thoughts on Smith recording some of the BoM himslef. That was useful.

[Tchild2]

My question is if Joseph Smith used a KJV in the translation process, then why did he not just say that. Does anyone seriously think they can quote large portions from one of the most read texts and not expect anyone to notice?

Ohhh...People have noticed the "large portions from on of the most read texts" included in the BoM. The difference is they see plagiarism, not supernaturalism.

[freakin a man]

Ohhh...People have noticed the "large portions from on of the most read texts" included in the BoM. The difference is they see plagiarism, not supernaturalism.

Sure they do but then if its a problem for the Book of Mormon then its a problem for the Bible since one writer in the Bible engages in plagerism when copy from what an earlier writer said or wrote.

Which raises the next issue. Do people who engage in plagiarism quote from popular texts that people generally would be familiar with? Dictionary.com says regarding the definition:

"the unauthorized use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one's own original work."

It seems to me that plagiarists quote from sources that would be more obscure so that they can pass it off as their own material. However how does one truely engage in plagiarism why they copy from widely read sources. It would be obvious to everyone including the writer that they could never truely represent the copied text as their own work. I just don't know how the BOM usage of KJV like translated passages truely can constitute plagiarism.

[DonBradley]

Hi "Freakin' A" Man,

I've never found the term "plagiarism" precise, useful, or necessary. And my point is not to argue what is or isn't a problem for Book of Mormon historicity. But I did want to make one comment on your statement that BoM quotation of the Bible is no more a problem than the biblical authors' quotation of one another. While the BoM quoting the Bible per se isn't a problem, it's quotation of the 1611 King James Bible, and perpetuating some its errors and playing on its italics is anachronistic for a reputedly ancient text, and thus is a problem. Quoting a text earlier than your book is not a problem. Quoting one that comes "after" your text is a problem. Whether it is a big and insoluble problem or a small and manageable one is a completely different question. But that it is more of a problem than biblical writers quoting earlier sources should be crystal clear!

Don

[DonBradley]

Oh, I should mention that another perspective on the use of the Bible in the Book of Mormon has been offered by Dan Vogel. He suggests that the copying of the KJV into the manuscript was largely done by Oliver Cowdery at Joseph Smith's behest, but while Smith was absent. This would have allowed the 'translation' to proceed even while Smith was unable to work on it. Presumably, the continuation of the translation under such circumstances would have provided the rationale for using the KJV.

Don

[DonBradley]

I recently read an interview online - given by Oliver Cowdery. I just tried to find it again, but it will take more searching. In summary, Cowdery was questioned about the "translation" process. The interesting addition in this interview was that he stated Joseph sometimes dictated to him from another room.

Uncle Dale would know more about this, and I will have to search his websites to see if I read it there. But if this is true ....

Parser,

If you recall anything else about the source or where you encountered it--or even what else it said, I'd be interested in tracking it down.

It wasn't the Confession of Oliver Overstreet, was it?

Don