Isaiah 53 and the dependence of the Book of Mormon on the KJV

[zerinus]

But if Joseph Smith (or someone else) did not consult the Bible during the translation of the Book of Mormon, are we left with the only answer that the Lord revealed the virtually verbatim text of the King James Version, for not only Isaiah, but also Malachi, Hosea, Paul and the author of Hebrews?

I am convinced that the answer to that question is in the affirmative.

I would seriously like to know how you have resolved this issue if you don't mind sharing.

I would seriously like to know why you regard that an "issue?" Why is that a problem for you? It is not for me.

[zerinus]

I think sometimes, we may inadvertently prevent the conversation from getting past production issues by getting bogged down in what I think to be unconvincing counter-arguments.

I don't know about your arguments, but I think my arguments are convincing. Just because the critics don't accept them, that does not mean that they are not.

From the other person's perspective, they don't understand why Mormons can't see the strength of their argument, but instead insist on defending the LDS view by hook or by crook.

You obviously see strength in their arguments; but what if I don't? Do I really have to agree with you in order to be right?

My experience has been that if I concede the strength of this argument (while not agreeing with the critic's conclusion), . . .

Was that your "experience" or your opinion? My experience has been closer to USU78's.

I don't know what you see as the "strength of their arguments," because I don't see that they have any. I really wish you would stop taking for granted that your position must be the default one from a Mormon perspective. I for one have a different perspective on the issue from you.

. . . this issue can then be set aside and clear the way for a discussion of the actual text.

That "issue" is an important one. I don't need to "concede" that issue in order to disagree with their "conclusions". I reserve the right to disagree with both!

[Rob Bowman]

One of David

[Vance]

This fact raises a fatal objection to the suggestion that the wording in Mosiah 14 differs because it is closer to the original wording or meaning of Isaiah.

Not fatal at all. Not even injurious. But hey, it is a nice exaggeration.

[zerinus]

Oddly, the Joseph Smith Translation (JST) has none of the changes to the text of Isaiah 53 found in Mosiah 14. In fact, the JST of Isaiah is absolutely identical in wording to the KJV. This fact raises a fatal objection to the suggestion that the wording in Mosiah 14 differs because it is closer to the original wording or meaning of Isaiah. If that were the case, we would expect the JST to retain these corrections, but it does not.

Not at all. The most likely explanation is that Joseph Smith did not attempt in the JST to revise Isaiah 53 at all. A casual observation of the JST shows that most of the OT were left untouched. It is in the NT that the most extensive and detailed changes were made. In the OT, only the most significant changes were made, such as the extensive additions in the first part of Genesis; but much of the rest of the OT were left untouched. It seems, apart form those large additions, the Lord did not want at that time to make extensive or detailed changes in the OT.

[Mike Richards]

Not at all. The most likely explanation is that Joseph Smith did not attempt in the JST to revise Isaiah 53 at all. A casual observation of the JST shows that most of the OT were left untouched. It is in the NT that the most extensive and detailed changes were made. In the OT, only the most significant changes were made, such as the extensive additions in the first part of Genesis; but much of the rest of the OT were left untouched. It seems, apart form those large additions, the Lord did not want at that time to make extensive or detailed changes in the OT.

From what I've read, Zerinus, here, is right. There are plenty of indications that Joseph Smith never finished the JST, and it was for that reason, at least in part, that it was not published during his lifetime.

[Mortal Man]

Very nice work Rob.

In a subsequent thread, I hope to discuss other aspects of the quotations from Isaiah in the Book of Mormon that will bear on the question of the significance of its dependence on the KJV for an assessment of its claim to be an inspired translation of the gold plates.

JST-Isaiah 29/2 Nephi 27 is where the real fun begins.

[consiglieri]

I would seriously like to know why you regard that an "issue?" Why is that a problem for you? It is not for me.

See what I mean, USU78?

These are precisely the types of responses that tend to add fuel to the fire rather than acknowledging it as a legitimate issue for which we haven't yet an adequate response.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[zerinus]

See what I mean, USU78?

These are precisely the types of responses that tend to add fuel to the fire rather than acknowledging it as a legitimate issue for which we haven't yet an adequate response.

I still haven't figured what that "issue" is, never mind worrying about the "response". LOL!

[consiglieri]

I still haven't figured what that "issue" is, never mind worrying about the "response". LOL!

So why is it you have so much to post about, then?

[zerinus]

So why is it you have so much to post about, then?

Whatever I have posted, it is not about that "issue," because I frankly don't know what that is.

[consiglieri]

Whatever I have posted, it is not about that "issue," because I frankly don't know what that is.

Do you even check the title of a thread before you post?

[zerinus]

Do you even check the title of a thread before you post?

That is not the same as the "issue" that I couldn't fathom as expressed in my post #251.

[Rob Bowman]

zerinus,

Your explanation is unlikely for one simple reason: Joseph did manage to make some revisions to Isaiah 52 and 54, but none to Isaiah 53, in the JST. Yet making the same changes to Isaiah 53 that were already made in Mosiah 14 should have been a snap. Thus, the problem was not that Joseph had left this part of Isaiah untouched. Furthermore, Joseph's revisions to Isaiah 52 and 54 were relatively minor, so it is not the case that he made no changes to Isaiah 53 because he (or the Lord) was concerned only with making major changes.

Not at all. The most likely explanation is that Joseph Smith did not attempt in the JST to revise Isaiah 53 at all. A casual observation of the JST shows that most of the OT were left untouched. It is in the NT that the most extensive and detailed changes were made. In the OT, only the most significant changes were made, such as the extensive additions in the first part of Genesis; but much of the rest of the OT were left untouched. It seems, apart form those large additions, the Lord did not want at that time to make extensive or detailed changes in the OT.

[zerinus]

zerinus,

Your explanation is unlikely for one simple reason: Joseph did manage to make some revisions to Isaiah 52 and 54, but none to Isaiah 53, in the JST. Yet making the same changes to Isaiah 53 that were already made in Mosiah 14 should have been a snap. Thus, the problem was not that Joseph had left this part of Isaiah untouched. Furthermore, Joseph's revisions to Isaiah 52 and 54 were relatively minor, so it is not the case that he made no changes to Isaiah 53 because he (or the Lord) was concerned only with making major changes.

The fact remains that the changes made in the OT are very sparse compared to the the detailed and extensive changes made in the NT. And as mjr522 pointed out, there are signs that the changes were partial, not complete. For example, the Book of Mormon mentions several OT books that are now lost, which Joseph Smith could have restored by revelation, but he did not. Similarly, there are signs that the translation of the NT is not complete either. For example, D&C 7 and D&C 45:60 suggest lost NT material that are not covered in the JST, proving that the JST is not as complete as it could have been.

[Mike Richards]

zerinus,

Your explanation is unlikely for one simple reason: Joseph did manage to make some revisions to Isaiah 52 and 54, but none to Isaiah 53, in the JST. Yet making the same changes to Isaiah 53 that were already made in Mosiah 14 should have been a snap. Thus, the problem was not that Joseph had left this part of Isaiah untouched. Furthermore, Joseph's revisions to Isaiah 52 and 54 were relatively minor, so it is not the case that he made no changes to Isaiah 53 because he (or the Lord) was concerned only with making major changes.

While it is reasonable to suppose that Joseph had no changes to make to Isaiah 53, we should keep in mind that just because he translated a certain portion of the text, doesn't mean that he was done with that section. He continued to make changes to his translation manuscripts (even to things he had already translated) long after the work was declared finished.

I'm also not aware of any statement made by Joseph or anyone in authority that claims the JST is the restoration to the original text--though, Rob, I'm not certain if you were suggesting that we believe that is the case...I couldn't quite tell if that's what you were getting at when you said:

Oddly, the Joseph Smith Translation (JST) has none of the changes to the text of Isaiah 53 found in Mosiah 14. In fact, the JST of Isaiah is absolutely identical in wording to the KJV. This fact raises a fatal objection to the suggestion that the wording in Mosiah 14 differs because it is closer to the original wording or meaning of Isaiah. If that were the case, we would expect the JST to retain these corrections, but it does not.

I'd be interested in any quotes people know of that do make that claim.

[Mortal Man]

I'm also not aware of any statement made by Joseph or anyone in authority that claims the JST is the restoration to the original text--though, Rob, I'm not certain if you were suggesting that we believe that is the case...I couldn't quite tell if that's what you were getting at when you said:

I'd be interested in any quotes people know of that do make that claim.

Until very recently, lds.org stated that the JST was necessary

[Rob Bowman]

mjr522,

You wrote:

While it is reasonable to suppose that Joseph had no changes to make to Isaiah 53, we should keep in mind that just because he translated a certain portion of the text, doesn't mean that he was done with that section. He continued to make changes to his translation manuscripts (even to things he had already translated) long after the work was declared finished.

This rather misses the point, which is that Joseph Smith had made changes to chapters 52 and 54, which would seem to indicate that he passed over chapter 53 without having any changes "revealed" to him. Furthermore, if one thinks that any of the differences in Mosiah 14 reflect a more accurate text of Isaiah 53 -- as David Bokovoy had suggested -- one would think such changes would also be included in the JST. The fact that they were not is indicative that Joseph did not, at least when he worked on the JST of Isaiah 52-54, consider those changes to be restorations of a more accurate text of Isaiah.

You wrote:

I'm also not aware of any statement made by Joseph or anyone in authority that claims the JST is the restoration to the original text--though, Rob, I'm not certain if you were suggesting that we believe that is the case.

Different Mormons have different opinions on the matter. The traditional view, and the view that I think we can document was Joseph Smith's view, was that the JST was a restoration of the original text. But it doesn't matter to the point at hand, which has to do with the evidence that Mosiah 14 is directly dependent on the KJV. One possible rebuttal to my argument on that point is that Mosiah 14 differs from the KJV of Isaiah 53 in a few places because what Joseph was receiving by revelation was the original text of Mosiah 14. But as I explained, the evidence (including but not limited to the JST) shows these differences are not restorations of the original text. This means that the fact that the text of Mosiah 14 is 99% verbally identical to Isaiah 53 KJV proves that Mosiah 14 is directly dependent on the KJV.

[Mike Richards]

Until very recently, lds.org stated that the JST was necessary

[zerinus]

Different Mormons have different opinions on the matter. The traditional view, and the view that I think we can document was Joseph Smith's view, was that the JST was a restoration of the original text. But it doesn't matter to the point at hand, which has to do with the evidence that Mosiah 14 is directly dependent on the KJV. One possible rebuttal to my argument on that point is that Mosiah 14 differs from the KJV of Isaiah 53 in a few places because what Joseph was receiving by revelation was the original text of Mosiah 14. But as I explained, the evidence (including but not limited to the JST) shows these differences are not restorations of the original text. This means that the fact that the text of Mosiah 14 is 99% verbally identical to Isaiah 53 KJV proves that Mosiah 14 is directly dependent on the KJV.

Not sure what you mean by "directly". If you mean that Joseph Smith or somebody copied them from the KJV, I don't agree. But if you mean that it was revealed to him that way, then I agree.

[Mortal Man]

That's close to what I was wondering about--feel free to let me know if you think I'm mistaken--but, those statements indicate to me that the JST restores the truths, not explicitly the text. I'm wondering if there are statements that more explicitly say the text was brought back to the original. Something like, "I am restoring the exact words that Paul penned," or "The JST brings Isaiah back to how he received it from God," or, my favorite would be, "The JST restores the bible to the exact same text that it started with, back when the bible was first written..."

It has always been the official church position that JS restored the original text, although he may not have finished his restorations.

[Rob Bowman]

zerinus,

Yes, the text of the Isaiah quotations in the BOM is demonstrably dependent directly on the KJV, which means that someone copied or quoted the KJV. I think your choices are limited to Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, some other human whose work they were copying, or God (or whatever supernatural being God might have authorized to reveal the words of the BOM through the stone in Joseph Smith's hat).

Not sure what you mean by "directly". If you mean that Joseph Smith or somebody copied them from the KJV, I don't agree. But if you mean that it was revealed to him that way, then I agree.

[Rob Bowman]

mjr522:

You wrote:

That's close to what I was wondering about--feel free to let me know if you think I'm mistaken--but, those statements indicate to me that the JST restores the truths, not explicitly the text. I'm wondering if there are statements that more explicitly say the text was brought back to the original. Something like, "I am restoring the exact words that Paul penned," or "The JST brings Isaiah back to how he received it from God," or, my favorite would be, "The JST restores the bible to the exact same text that it started with, back when the bible was first written..."

Here's an example:

I believe the Bible as it read when it came from the pen of the original writers. Ignorant translators, careless transcribers, or designing and corrupt priests have committed many errors.... Look at Heb. vi.1 for contradictions. "Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on to perfection." If a man leaves the principles of the doctrine of Christ, how can he be saved in the principles? This is a contradiction. I don't believe it. I will render it as it should be: "Therefore not leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on to perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works" (HC 6:57, 58).

As you can see, in this passage Joseph Smith clearly explained his addition of the word "not" to Hebrews 6:1 as supposedly correcting a faulty text or translation of Hebrews 6:1. He was mistaken, by the way.

(edited to fix what appear to have been html coding errors)

[Mike Richards]

Rob,

You replied to my comment about Joseph Smith continuing "... to make changes to his translation manuscripts (even to things he had already translated) long after the work was declared finished," with:

This rather misses the point, which is that Joseph Smith had made changes to chapters 52 and 54, which would seem to indicate that he passed over chapter 53 without having any changes "revealed" to him. Furthermore, if one thinks that any of the differences in Mosiah 14 reflect a more accurate text of Isaiah 53 -- as David Bokovoy had suggested -- one would think such changes would also be included in the JST. The fact that they were not is indicative that Joseph did not, at least when he worked on the JST of Isaiah 52-54, consider those changes to be restorations of a more accurate text of Isaiah.

I'll gladly admit that I might still be missing the point, because I don't see why my comment misses the point. I agree with you that his changing 52 and 54 indicate that he passed over 53 without any changes. What I am trying to point out is that just because he did this once, doesn't mean he wouldn't come back at a later time and make further changes to 53. This idea is supported by the fact that he did return to passages in which he had made changes and continued to change them. As a hypothetical example: Joseph reviews Isaiah 50-58 in April 1833, and makes some changes. Then, in July, he returns and makes some more to Isaiah 54. The point is, since the JST did not seem to be complete (despite declarations that it was, since changes continued to be made after these declarations), there's no way of knowing from what we currently have whether or not Joseph would have returned to Isaiah 53 and made changes. If it appears that I still am missing the point, try dialing down your "explain" knob to 6th grader--that's about where I typically feel comfortable.

Different Mormons have different opinions on the matter. The traditional view, and the view that I think we can document was Joseph Smith's view, was that the JST was a restoration of the original text. But it doesn't matter to the point at hand, which has to do with the evidence that Mosiah 14 is directly dependent on the KJV. One possible rebuttal to my argument on that point is that Mosiah 14 differs from the KJV of Isaiah 53 in a few places because what Joseph was receiving by revelation was the original text of Mosiah 14. But as I explained, the evidence (including but not limited to the JST) shows these differences are not restorations of the original text. This means that the fact that the text of Mosiah 14 is 99% verbally identical to Isaiah 53 KJV proves that Mosiah 14 is directly dependent on the KJV.

Like I said, I would be happy to see something that indicates that it was in fact Joseph's understanding that he was restoring the original text. Again, I'll cheerfully agree that this is only tangential to the point at hand. And, I'll once again agree that Mosiah 14 is directly dependent on the KJV (or, if we want to have fun with it, that both the KJV translators and Abinadi/Mormon/Joseph Smith were working from the same source: divine inspiration--but, before you say it, I'll gladly concede that this is ad hoc as you helped me to understand earlier ). One more quick question--do you, personally, believe that we really have the "original" text of Isaiah. You've mentioned it a couple times, and I wasn't aware that people thought we did.

[zerinus]

Yes, the text of the Isaiah quotations in the BOM is demonstrably dependent directly on the KJV, which means that someone copied or quoted the KJV. I think your choices are limited to Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, some other human whose work they were copying, or God (or whatever supernatural being God might have authorized to reveal the words of the BOM through the stone in Joseph Smith's hat).

I find you repeat mantra about the "stone in a hat" rather disingenuous, and suggestive of lack of seriousness in the discussion. If you have studied the history of the subject well enough, you will know that Joseph Smith himself said that he translated the Book of Mormon by means of the Urim and Thummim. The anecdote about the stone in a hat relates to a brief period of observation by someone. It does not mean that that was the principle way the work was done. On the contrary, evidence suggests that as Joseph Smith gained experience acting under the influence of the Holy Spirit, he eventually reached a level of spiritual endowment that he had no need of a physical device at all, and performed the translation without them. Indeed, we know from direct observation that that is how the JST was done.

As regards the dependence of the Isaiah passages on the KJV, I readily acknowledge that to be the case, but without undermining the revelatory nature of the translation process. As I mentioned before, if you compare the KJV with its earlier iterations as far back as Tyndale, you will find that there are very close affinity between them. That suggests that in those days translation attempts consisted primarily of working with, and continually improving the works of predecessors, until it reaches the pinnacle of perfection in the KJV. The KJV is such a good translation already that little or hardly any changes are needed to improve on it. The Lord, in translating those biblical passages, acknowledges the noble labors of those early translators by following in that tradition, that is to say, by improving the work of the earlier ones, which in the KJV is already so good that requires little change to improve on it. Where changes are needed, they are made; where they are not, they are left unchanged. The text of Isaiah 53 is one in which none or hardly any change is needed, therefore none or hardly any are made. On the other hand, there are other passages in which more significant changes were needed, and therefore were made. I have expressed this view before, and you simply ignore them, indicating that you simply have no answer to it.