BofM Smithisms and 1 Nephi 10:8-10's reliance on the NT Gospels

[cinepro]

Is the likely scenario for this Smithism that the Prophet was familiar with the different passages and, in his inspired rendering of the text, used a medley of familiar sources to describe a familiar event that may or may not accurately reflect the details written 2,600 years ago by Nephi? Or did he have a Bible in-hand that he flipped back-and-forth from the Gospel of John and the Gospel of Mark, taking phrases and sentence fragments from both and weaving them together?

When I was on my mission, we missionaries spoke in a mishmash of scriptural phrasings and quotes from the "Together Forever" video. Once, I was on the phone with the Bishop before a hurricane swept into town, and he asked if we had enough supplies. I responded, without even thinking, "We have sufficient for our needs...". He chuckled and said "Where have I heard that before...?" and I wondered what the heck he was talking about.

It was 10 or 15 minutes later that it suddenly occurred to me where he had heard it before, and an intense wave of guilt swept over me (I had recently read this talk by President Hinckley, where he sad "We are under obligation, binding and serious, to not use temple language or speak of temple matters outside.")

My point being, that if Joseph was reading and studying the Bible his whole life, I would think it possible for the phrases and language to become a part of his spiritual vocabulary without him needing to constantly reference a book.

[Joseph Antley]

When I was on my mission, we missionaries spoke in a mishmash of scriptural phrasings and quotes from the "Together Forever" video. Once, I was on the phone with the Bishop before a hurricane swept into town, and he asked if we had enough supplies. I responded, without even thinking, "We have sufficient for our needs...". He chuckled and said "Where have I heard that before...?" and I wondered what the heck he was talking about.

It was 10 or 15 minutes later that it suddenly occurred to me where he had heard it before, and an intense wave of guilt swept over me (I had recently read this talk by President Hinckley, where he sad "We are under obligation, binding and serious, to not use temple language or speak of temple matters outside.")

My point being, that if Joseph was reading and studying the Bible his whole life, I would think it possible for the phrases and language to become a part of his spiritual vocabulary without him needing to constantly reference a book.

Perhaps a significant difference between your experience and what we see in the Book of Mormon is context. It's one thing for Joseph to use a medley of phrases from the Bible; it's another for him to repeat separate passages from the Gospels all describing the same event (being John's rhetoric about Christ).

Had you stated, "We have sufficient for our needs," in the same context as you were familiar with it, you likely wouldn't have been oblivious to where it came from. Similarly, Joseph's verbatim use of the Bible's phrases to describe the exact same event means that he probably wasn't unaware of it either.

[J Green]

None of which actually saw what Joseph saw. We don't know whether their assertion is based on interpreting what they saw, or what Joseph explicitly told them. They don't tell us.

Agreed, Nack. On the other hand, I don't think we should casually dismiss these statements either just because they may get in the way of where we would like to go. I think they should factor in the discussion and be discussed on their own merits. When it comes down to it, I suppose I find it hard to believe that everyone who mentioned that JS did not have a text was completely mistaken. We're talking about an open room where JS only had the plates under a loose cloth on the table and was mostly using the seer stone in a hat. People came and went during the dictation, and Emma cleaned frequently in the room during the dictation. To dismiss the testimony of the Whitmers and Emma as simply a faulty memory seems a little contrived for me.

And even if there was a direct contradiction with eye witness testimony in the hierarchy of evidences empirical quantitative evidence trumps eye witness testimony.

Sounds like you've already come to a conclusion while I'm still curious about what each paradigm would mean in terms of how it interacts with KJV terminology. It could be that JS did indeed use an actual text during dictation; however, I'm still reluctant to discard witnesses statements to the contrary without careful consideration, looking at all the statements and working through all the paradigms. I'll be interested to see Brant's holistic methodology.

Regards

[zerinus]

I think that most serious students of the Book of Mormon have come to the conclusion that, while an ancient text, the Nephite record is overlaid in our English translation with numerous "Smithisms," meaning Joseph Smith's inspired nineteenth-century elaborations, interpretations, and interpolations of the text. As I mentioned in a recent blog post, this is most clearly seen in the use of the "in other words" clauses that frequent the text (as in 1 Nephi 8:2; 10:4; and Alma 40:19).

But another obvious Smithism seems to be the common use of KJV-Bible language in the text, most evident in the Isaiah/Matthew/Malachi chapters but more subtly in others. One of the more subtle (but probably the least subtle of the more subtle) is 1 Nephi 10:8-10, which relies heavily on the first chapter of the Gospel of John. Below are both texts with common phrases italicized:

"Yea, even he should go forth and cry in the wilderness: Prepare ye the way of the Lord, and make his paths straight; for there standeth one among you whom ye know not; and he is mightier than I, whose shoe's latchet I am not worthy to unloose. And much spake my father concerning this thing. And my father said he should baptize in Bethabara, beyond Jordan; and he also said he should baptize with water; even that he should baptize the Messiah with water. And after he had baptized the Messiah with water, he should behold and bear record that he had baptized the Lamb of God, who should take away the sins of the world." (1 Nephi 10:8-10)

"He said, I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Esaias. ... John answered them, saying, I baptize with water: but there standeth one among you, whom ye know not; He it is, who coming after me is preferred before me, whose shoe's latchet I am not worthy to unloose. These things were done in Bethabara beyond Jordan, where John was baptizing. The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold he Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world." (John 1:23, 26-29)

Clearly the Nephi passage relies on the Gospel of John; not only do they use identical wordage in describing the same event, but they also describe it in the same sequence. It seems safe to dub the KJV wordage here a "Smithism." The next question is, then, how much of this passage is Nephi, and how much if Joseph Smith? I don't think that we can know; the Prophet's inspired interpolations are so deeply interwoven into the text that I doubt it's possible to confidently separate them in instances like this.

So, sweeping that aside for the time being, the next question seems to be, were these KJV passages consciously copied from a copy of the Bible in the Prophet's possession? It seems almost certain that the Isaiah/Malachi/Matthew passages were dictated using a Bible in hand due to their length and the conspicuous editing of italicized words in the KJV, but I'm not so certain in these smaller passages.

For one, it's heavily edited. It doesn't quote the verses verbatim; instead it borrows phrases and sentences and weaves them into Nephi's narrative. Second, and most importantly, the first verse in 1 Nephi 10:8 quotes Isaiah, but although it appears in the sequence of John 1, it doesn't quote John 1:23. Nor does it quote Isaiah 40:3, the original source of the passage. Instead it quotes the verse as it appears in the Synoptic Gospels. It also borrows the phrase "one mightier than I" from the Synoptics (Mark or Luke). 1 Nephi 10:8-10 weaves together the different accounts of Jesus' baptism in the four gospels into a single narrative. This seems so uncharacteristic of the KJV passages in the Book of Mormon that I find it hard to believe that it was done consciously. Then again, the lack of any variance between the phrases as they appear in the Book of Mormon and the NT may support a verbatim dictation from the text, not a reliance on memory.

Is the likely scenario for this Smithism that the Prophet was familiar with the different passages and, in his inspired rendering of the text, used a medley of familiar sources to describe a familiar event that may or may not accurately reflect the details written 2,600 years ago by Nephi? Or did he have a Bible in-hand that he flipped back-and-forth from the Gospel of John and the Gospel of Mark, taking phrases and sentence fragments from both and weaving them together?

But how does that explain the significant number of differences that exist between the Isaiah passages in the Bible and the Book of Mormon? According to this study (PDF):

In these quoted Isaiah passages, about

one-third

of the verses have

major differences

when compared to the King James Version of the Bible

[Joseph Antley]

But how does that explain the significant number of differences that exist between the Isaiah passages in the Bible and the Book of Mormon? According to this study (PDF):

It actually complements it quite well. As mentioned in the OP, most of the changes in the KJV-Isaiah passages in the BoM were of the italicized words, which the Prophet understood to be the work of the translators', not of the original text, and so he was naturally suspect. This is reflected in the JST as well.

In these quoted Isaiah passages, about

one-third

of the verses have

major differences

when compared to the King James Version of the Bible

[T-Shirt]

Please bear with me as I tell of an incident in my life as a preface to my thoughts on this topic.

When I was a young, newly called, bishop, a family in our ward had their house burn down. The father was in prison and the mother was at work, trying to support her young family. In this fire, a nine year-old girl lost her life after pushing her little brother out of the window and then returning in an attempt to save the family dog.

The subsequent funeral was the first for me. It was a very big thing in the community and required a lot of preparation. Many non-members attended and the chapel and overflow were completely filled. In addition, much work and planning was needed to provide the necessities of life for the family and help them get back on their feet. I was physically and emotionally drained. The family asked me to be the speaker at the service. However, I was so distracted and occupied with the whole scene and taking care of my own family and business, that I just could not find the time to prepare my talk.

Now, when I prepare a talk, I never write the talk word for word. I spend a lot of time pondering, studying and gathering my thoughts and then scribbling a few scattered notes on a note pad and later trying to make some sense and order to it all. In fact, I find it difficult, if not impossible, to write a talk, word for word.

About one hour before the service was to begin, I still had no talk prepared. Everything seemed to be in chaos, family members, who were coming from a long distance had not yet arrived, the father arrived from prison, in his orange jump suit and shackles, accompanied by two, armed, prison guards and I had to coordinate with them to find a place for him, away from all other people.

I then took a few minute and slipped into my office and knelt in prayer. I asked for help in preparing my remarks. I had only a few minutes to do what normally takes me several days. I sat at my desk with pen in hand and began to write. I wrote for about fifteen minutes, without pause and without much thought. When I finished, I thought that I would surely need to edit the talk for delivery. I read through it and found that it was perfect the way it was. I slipped it in my pocket and tended to business. I delivered the talk, as written, for the first time in my life.

There is no question, in my mind, that I was able to write this talk, the way I did, because the Lord had answered my prayer and assisted me in a way that I had never experienced before. I believe the talk was what the Lord wanted me to say at that time. Even so, the talk was written in my hand and included spelling errors, bad grammar and all the hallmarks of my own speech. It was as if I could see the words scrolling through my mind and I simply wrote them down. The final product, in my opinion, was the Lord's message, filtered through my mind and weakness and written in the manner in which was unique to me.

I view the translation of the Book of Mormon in the same way, the only difference is that Joseph Smith had the Urim & Thummim and was able to physically see the words rather than see them only in his mind, as I did. The translation was accurate, yet filtered through Joseph's mind, weakness and vocabulary. The end product reads the way it would if Joseph Smith was really able to translate the plates using whatever non-spiritual tools were available to him and written in a way that is consistent with his lack of sophistication and learning. The result is the words of Lehi, Nephi and others, filtered through Joseph Smith's mind, weakness and cultural frame of reference. Just as I don't really understand how I was able to do what I did, in a way I don't understand, Joseph Smith was able to read the translation as it would appear if he had written it himself.

I hope that makes sense. Sorry for the length.

Best,

T-Shirt

[zerinus]

It actually complements it quite well. As mentioned in the OP, most of the changes in the KJV-Isaiah passages in the BoM were of the italicized words, . . .

As far as I know that is not true. Most of the changes were not of that kind. Here a list of some of the changes I have found online:

Isaiah 2:11 compared with 2 Nephi 12:11

:

BM adds to the beginning,

[Joseph Antley]

As far as I know that is not true. Most of the changes were not of that kind.

From what I understand, they were. But it's possible I'm mistaken; this isn't something I've spent a lot of time on. I'm sure someone who knows can come along and educate both of us.

You have not addressed the point I had made.

I thought I had, but you made a number of points. Which one did you feel like I didn't address?

[zerinus]

From what I understand, they were. But it's possible I'm mistaken; this isn't something I've spent a lot of time on. I'm sure someone who knows can come along and educate both of us.

I thought I had, but you made a number of points. Which one did you feel like I didn't address?

Both the number of changes made, as well as the kinds of changes, makes the simplistic "copied from the KJV" theory an untenable one. Either Joseph Smith did have the power to translate, and did in fact translate something, or he didn't. If he didn't, how do you explain the great majority of the Book of Mormon text which are original and unique, and could have only come from such a translation. If he did have the power to translate, and did in fact translate the great proportion of the Book of Mormon, why would he want to just copy the KJV passages of Isaiah, while at the same time making such extensive changes to it? He was making things a lot harder for himself by doing that. It was easier for him to do a straightforward translation than plagiarize and make changes, considering the great speed with which he translated the whole book. Those who make the plagiarism accusation have simply not studied the subject carefully enough. The differences are so numerous and of such a kind as to make such an accusation an untenable one. Given the speed with which he was able to and did in fact translate the whole of the Book or Mormon, it would have been counterproductive and slowed him down to copy from the KJV and then make those kinds of changes to it, than to do a straight translation.

[Joseph Antley]

Both the number of changes made, as well as the kinds of changes, makes the simplistic "copied from the KJV" theory an untenable one. Either Joseph Smith did have the power to translate, and did in fact translate something, or he didn't.

I disagree. The very fact that we recognize that they are changes to the KJV reveals that we understand the KJV to be the ultimate source. And the dichotomy you posit has little relevance; I am not questioning Joseph's ability to translate, only whether he utilized it in these instances.

If he didn't, how do you explain the great majority of the Book of Mormon text which are original and unique, and could have only come from such a translation.

Of course I've never contended that Joseph Smith lacked the power to translate. Quite the opposite, I'm convinced that the Book of Mormon has, at its core, an ancient text, which Joseph Smith brought to light.

If he did have the power to translate, and did in fact translate the great proportion of the Book of Mormon, why would he want to just copy the KJV passages of Isaiah, while at the same time making such extensive changes to it?

The conclusion I've come to is that Joseph did utilize a KJV of the Bible while dictating at least the Isaiah, Malachi, and Matthew chapters. I do not believe that God downloaded a slight-altered KJV text of those books into Joseph Smith's seer-stone for him to read to a scribe.

He utilized the KJV text because he was inspired to; the same Spirit that confirmed to him that Nephi was born of goodly parents also told him that Nephi was quoting Isaiah 2-13. Rather than having to "study it out in [his] mind," resulting in either God causing his bosom to burn or a stupor of thought, utilizing the KJV text and making small emendations when so inspired no doubt lightened the process.

He was making things a lot harder for himself by doing that. It was easier for him to do a straightforward translation than plagiarize and make changes, considering the great speed with which he translated the whole book.

I have my doubts that you can say with full confidence what was easier on him, since you haven't had your head inside a dark hat for hours at a time (I hope!).

Those who make the plagiarism accusation have simply not studied the subject carefully enough.

Using a KJV as the source for the Isaiah chapters is not plagiarism, no more than Nephi plagiarized when he wrote the words of Isaiah on the small plates.

The differences are so numerous and of such a kind as to make such an accusation an untenable one.

On the contrary, the differences, in light of the whole text, are minute compared to the similarities.

Given the speed with which he was able to and did in fact translate the whole of the Book or Mormon, it would have been counterproductive and slowed him down to copy from the KJV and then make those kinds of changes to it, than to do a straight translation.

Despite the argument of the "speed" it would take, we can't get around the fact that the KJV Isaiah, Matthew, and Malachi chapters appear in the Book of Mormon. There are differences, as you point out, but clearly these chapters are based on the KJV text. Which leaves three possibilities:

1) God revealed to Joseph, word-for-word, an altered KJV text.

2) Joseph "plagiarized" from the KJV and subtle changes throughout.

3) Joseph, under inspiration, dictated the Isaiah chapters using a KJV Bible as his source, making small changes or emendations as he was inspired.

The first one seems out of the question since God did not reveal word-for-word the Book of Mormon. The translation process is described quite clearly in D&C 9, where God chastises Oliver Cowdery for supposing that he could translate in that manner. I reject the second one because I'm convinced of the book's divine and ancient origins. That leaves the third.

Unless there's another option out there I missed.

[zerinus]

I don't think that you are fully understanding what I am saying. Let me put it this way: Elder Nelson worked it out that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon at the phenomenal rate of approximately ten pages a day. (Skilled modern translators employed by the Church translate at the rate of about two pages a day. Some people would have a problem reading the Book of Mormon at that rate never mind translating it.) All of the Isaiah passages found in the Book of Mormon come to approximately twenty pages, which represents two days of work for Joseph Smith if he wanted to do a straight translation without any reference to or copying from the KJV. Now, considering the extensive number and kinds of changes that do appear between the two versions (2/3 verses changed in some way, and 1/3 of the verses changed significantly), if Joseph Smith wanted to go through the KJV and meticulously make those changes, it would have taken him five times as long to do it than doing it the way he translated the rest of the book. So the question here is, why would he want to choose an less efficient and more laborious way of doing the work instead of the more efficient way that he did the rest of the book?

On the contrary, the differences, in light of the whole text, are minute compared to the similarities.

They are still differences, and required thought and analysis to make them.

Despite the argument of the "speed" it would take, we can't get around the fact that the KJV Isaiah, Matthew, and Malachi chapters appear in the Book of Mormon. There are differences, as you point out, but clearly these chapters are based on the KJV text. Which leaves three possibilities:

1) God revealed to Joseph, word-for-word, an altered KJV text.

2) Joseph "plagiarized" from the KJV and subtle changes throughout.

3) Joseph, under inspiration, dictated the Isaiah chapters using a KJV Bible as his source, making small changes or emendations as he was inspired.

The first one seems out of the question since God did not reveal word-for-word the Book of Mormon. The translation process is described quite clearly in D&C 9, where God chastises Oliver Cowdery for supposing that he could translate in that manner.

That does not rule out a word for word

[David T]

Now, considering the extensive number and kinds of changes that do appear between the two versions (2/3 verses changed in some way, and 1/3 of the verses changed significantly), if Joseph Smith wanted to go through the KJV and meticulously make those changes, it would have taken him five times as long to do it than doing it the way he translated the rest of the book. So the question here is, why would he want to choose an less efficient and more laborious way of doing the work instead of the more efficient way that he did the rest of the book?

So you think reading aloud from the KJV, making inspired emendations when provided, would've taken 5 times longer than just reading aloud from a text in the seer-stone?

[Joseph Antley]

I don't think that you are understanding what I am saying. Let me put it this way: Elder Nelson worked it out that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon at the phenomenal rate of approximately ten pages a day. (Skilled modern translators employed by the Church translate at the rate of about two pages a day. Some people would have a problem reading the Book of Mormon at that rate never mind translating it.) All of the Isaiah passages found in the Book of Mormon come to approximately twenty pages, which represents two days of work for Joseph Smith if he wanted to do a straight translation without any reference to or copying from the KJV. Now, considering the extensive number and kinds of changes that do appear between the two versions (2/3 verses changed in some way, and 1/3 of the verses changed significantly), if Joseph Smith wanted to go through the KJV and meticulously make those changes, it would have taken him five times as long to do it than doing it the way he translated the rest of the book. So the question here is, why would he want to choose an less efficient and more laborious way of doing the work instead of the more efficient way that he did the rest of the book?

To echo nackhadlow above, why do you think it would have taken longer? I see no reason why it should have, and five times longer seems ridiculous. He should still have dictated at the same pace.

Perhaps one reason that he might have wanted to read from a text is that, according to one account, using the seer-stone was hard on his eyes. Another reason, as many have posited, is that Joseph decided using the KJV would create a bond between the literary styles of the Bible and the Book of Mormon in the minds of their readers. Perhaps another reason is that Joseph respected, and perhaps desired, a more conventional translation method, demonstrated by his later effort to learn Hebrew and understand Egyptian.

The best reason, in my opinion and as I stated above, is that it was easier. In order for Joseph to translate, he had to "study it out in his mind," and then receive confirmation through his bosom burning. Reading from an already-existent text, making corrections where necessary, just seems so much simpler and easy-going than staring into a rock in a hat for hours and going through the process described in D&C 9.

And perhaps, God forbid, even faster.

[zerinus]

So you think reading aloud from the KJV, making inspired emendations when provided, would've taken 5 times longer than just reading aloud from a text in the seer-stone?

But there is no evidenced that that is what he did. By the way, I have just added more material to that post, if you wanted to read and reply to it again.

[Joseph Antley]

They are still differences, and required thought and analysis to make them.

Per D&C 9:8, the regular translation required thought and analysis as well. No difference.

That does not rule out a word for word

[zerinus]

To echo nackhadlow above, why do you think it would have taken longer? I see no reason why it should have, and five times longer seems ridiculous. He should still have dictated at the same pace.

That is the rate at which modern translators who have the skills that Joseph Smith never had, but rely entirely on their human resources are able to translate.

Perhaps one reason that he might have wanted to read from a text is that, according to one account, using the seer-stone was hard on his eyes.

I don

[zerinus]

If you can rationalize D&C 9:8 into God downloading a word-for-word translation into Joseph's seer-stone, that would be impressive.

See my previous post.

I'll accept that as a position that some might take. It seems absolutely ridiculous, and there's nothing at all to support it, but I understand that some might cling to a KJV-is-Holy stance.

It does not mean

[Alf O'Mega]

As mentioned in the OP, most of the changes in the KJV-Isaiah passages in the BoM were of the italicized words, which the Prophet understood to be the work of the translators', not of the original text, and so he was naturally suspect.

Most of the changes were not to italicized words, but italicized words were more likely to be changed than non-italicized words. You are correct that this indicates a reaction to those words, which means that the Book of Mormon text is dependent, in those instances, on the KJV text. This isn't a controversial point among trained textual critics.

[zerinus]

Most of the changes were not to italicized words, but italicized words were more likely to be changed than non-italicized words. You are correct that this indicates a reaction to those words, which means that the Book of Mormon text is dependent, in those instances, on the KJV text. This isn't a controversial point among trained textual critics.

That is not a logically valid deduction. The reason for the italicized words in the KJV is that it is a

[David T]

With each iteration it was improved until it reaches the pinnacle of perfection in the KJV that was humanly possible for it to be achieved.

The fact that the Isaiah passages in the Book of Mormon appear so close to the KJV is not an indication that the KJV was used or copied directly in the translation; but rather that it is such a good literal translation that very little change is needed to improve upon it

Sorry, but this part's frankly demonstrably false.

[zerinus]

Sorry, but this part's frankly demonstrably false.

Sorry, but Your comment is frankly demonstrably false.

[Joseph Antley]

That is the rate at which modern translators who have the skills that Joseph Smith never had, but rely entirely on their human resources are able to translate.

No one is claiming that Joseph translated the Isaiah passages through conventional means, so the rate at which modern translators translate is irrelevant.

The question of why he translated in the KJV style is not the issue here. The whole of the Book of Mormon and all the rest of his translations were also made in that style.

It's not merely "KJV style." It's the fact that long passages are identical to the KJV of the Bible.

That is how the Lord told Oliver Cowdery to do it; it does not follow that that is how Joseph Smith did it. If he had done it that way, I don

[Bernard Gui]

I have it on good authority that even as we write, Uncle Dale is scouring through his old documents

looking for a receipt for a Kindle purchased by Joseph at the Palmyra Borders Bookstore.

It's obvious he had the Kindle hidden in the hat in which he buried his face while

making the translation. The empirical facts demonstrate this is the only possible

explanation.

Bernrard

[volgadon]

Sorry, but this part's frankly demonstrably false.

Then by all means, please demonstrate it.

[volgadon]

If you believe that the KJV is the "pinnacle of perfection...that was humanly possible," then I see that we're not going to move forward in this discussion at all.

I find it the most majestic and moving of all translations of the Bible, but it certainly is not the most techincally accurate.