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

[Daniel Peterson]

I was so caught up with Rob Bowman's stuff (and MM's sneers) that I failed to notice this somewhat more interesting post:

Anyone making a source critical evaluation of the BOM Isaiah quotes would easily conclude they are specifically from the KJV. Nearly all apologists I've seen tackle the issue concede this point.

That's correct.

However I've yet to see anyone answer the HOW or WHY. The HOW it happened is important because putting a KJV bible on the table as part of the composition of the BOM completely contaminates the sanctity of the translation process and contradicts the testimony of those involved. It has become necessary to concede that the KJV was used but not in the easy manner of just opening a bible but rather by some magical revelation, memorization, or remote viewing.

I see no good reason to preface the word revelation with the word magical. What legitimate purpose does that serve?

With this more difficult process now in place the next necessary question is WHY. Why go to all the trouble of a magical mechanism

There it is again.

for delivering the KJV text to Joseph and his scribes. If you are going to use a magical method

And yet again.

Dang. I hadn't noticed this phenomenon when I began to reply. Perhaps this is closer to the BowmanMM level than I had realized.

then why all the effort just to end up with a inferior & error ridden text when you had a very early, approaching autograph form of Isaiah available.

I think that "inferior and error ridden" is a bit overdone. Inferior? Technically yes, perhaps. But not very significantly so. "Error-ridden"? Much too strong.

Is the text good enough for the Lord's purposes? I expect so. Is he a textual critic? He doesn't seem to have shown a very powerful interest in the subject to this point.

In my opinion this is probably our best clue to the actual process of the BOM composition. We have direct evidence that the witness statements concerning the translation process aren't factual.

No. That is precisely what we don't have.

We have textual evidence -- i.e., indirect evidence -- allowing the inference that they may be wrong. But far from enough to compel that conclusion.

I've long liked Richard Bushman's comment that, curiously, with regard to early Mormon documents it's the critics, not the believers, who tend to need to quarrel with the primary sources. And so it is here.

Assuming that the witness statements are not only consistent (which they are) but accurate, we have to find some other way to account for the apparent KJV quotations in the Book of Mormon test. What you derisively dismiss as a "magical" scenario seems to me a responsible suggestion, consistent with the overall faithful paradigm. In fact, if Joseph Smith's dictation involved whole chapters from Isaiah without a Bible in the room, that seems to me further evidence of a miraculous element to the process.

Now that it's clear that a bible is in the room as textual source

Something that isn't clear at all.

it's easy to bring anyone or anything into the room to compose the BOM narrative.

Which, of course, from the perspective of somebody wishing to reject the Book of Mormon and the claims of the Restoration, would be a very, very desirable thing to be able to do.

[consiglieri]

Somewhat off topic:

If anyone is up for posting New Testament quotations of the LXX that disagree with the Hebrew, feel free to indulge my lack of time and slight laziness to do the research myself (not that I'm unaware of those that are mistranslations, but it would be nice to have them all in one sitting).

In the interests of just paying interest on the many favors you have done me with apropos links, I hope this will be a good start.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/transcripts/?id=2

[zerinus]

Your argument here overlooks the obvious: The BOM is not supposed to be a translation of the Bible.

Of course that is not correct. Isaiah is in the Bible. The fact that it is quoted in the Book of Mormon does not alter that fact. When translating biblical passages in the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith (or rather the Holy Ghost who was the real translator) had legitimate grounds for wanting to make use of the long tradition of Bible translation in English to render those passages if in His divine wisdom that was justifiable thing to do, and so He did.

It is supposed to be a translation of the BOM, written in Reformed Egyptian, quoting a Nephite who was quoting Isaiah 53. The KJV and other English translations of the Bible should not have any direct relationship with the text of the BOM.

That is nonsense. See above.

[Rob Bowman]

Bill,

You wrote:

Do you find it problematic when an apostle, writing inspired/inerrant scripture, purportedly quotes a Hebrew prophecy to prove that Jesus is the Messiah, but quotes a Greek version that uses a different key word than the original Hebrew? If not, why not?

If you can present me an example of an apostle claiming to quote specifically from the Hebrew text but actually quoting from the Greek text, you can declare a kind of "gotcha." Otherwise, this question gets you nowhere as far as I can see.

You wrote:

Can someone be divinely inspired to quote the KJV to an English-speaking culture for which the KJV is the definitive translation, and which has no access to the Hebrew original, and which would not have recognized the text as a passage from Isaiah if it had not been quoted in the KJV.

This question assumes facts not in evidence. It assumes that Joseph's nineteenth-century contemporaries would not have recognized a fresh translation of Isaiah when presented to them. I believe that if the BOM were to say something like, "as the prophet Isaiah wrote," followed by a fresh translation of Isaiah 53, most of Joseph's contemporaries would have understood that it was Isaiah 53.

In any case, your line of questioning amounts to saying "Is this particular loophole I am proposing possible?" rather than "What is the best explanation for the evidence?"

You wrote:

Can God inspire a prophet to make a scriptural quotation that is theologically-based rather than linguistically-based?

Maybe I'm just tired, but I don't understand this question. Maybe you could present an argument, rather than simply asking a series of "Can God do X?" questions.

[Rob Bowman]

zerinus,

You wrote:

If you look at all the direct quotes form Isaiah in the Book of Mormon, you will find that the texts are not always identical. Significant variations do exist between them, though the wording for the most part is the same. You are falling into error here because you are focusing on Isaiah 53, and ignoring the rest.

Naw, I'm not ignoring them. We can't discuss everything all at once. I have been reviewing all of the relevant passages, and the cumulative evidence is stronger for my conclusion when they are all considered. But I'm trying to focus on one significant part of the evidence at a time before drawing all of the evidence together.

[zerinus]

Naw, I'm not ignoring them. We can't discuss everything all at once. I have been reviewing all of the relevant passages, and the cumulative evidence is stronger for my conclusion when they are all considered. But I'm trying to focus on one significant part of the evidence at a time before drawing all of the evidence together.

If you want to do that no one can stop you, but it is not a logical, systematic, or intelligent way of examining the available evidence. Isaiah 53 is part of a larger collection of direct quotes from Isaiah in the Book of Mormon; and the way in which all of them are quoted have a bearing on how we can understand the way parts of them that are quoted.

[DispensatorMysteriorum]

Dispensator,

The idea that Moroni or some other supernatural being "used the KJV at times where it was helpful" in revealing the words of the BOM to Joseph Smith is a hopelessly ad hoc way of getting around the problem. I hope you understand what I'm trying to say.

Thanks for your thoughtful and civil replies.

Yes, it is rather ad hoc. The problem is there are two issues that seem irreconcilable 1) the evidence that Joseph Smith had no Bible handy during the translation process and 2) the evidence that strongly suggests a KJV source for the Isaiah chapters. As a believer, I think my solution makes sense. As a non believer, what would you suggest? That number issue 1 is not true?

[Vance]

If you can present me an example of an apostle claiming to quote specifically from the Hebrew text but actually quoting from the Greek text, you can declare a kind of "gotcha." Otherwise, this question gets you nowhere as far as I can see.

WOW!!!!

Another dodge!

This question assumes facts not in evidence. It assumes that Joseph's nineteenth-century contemporaries would not have recognized a fresh translation of Isaiah when presented to them. I believe that if the BOM were to say something like, "as the prophet Isaiah wrote," followed by a fresh translation of Isaiah 53, most of Joseph's contemporaries would have understood that it was Isaiah 53.

In any case, your line of questioning amounts to saying "Is this particular loophole I am proposing possible?" rather than "What is the best explanation for the evidence?"

AND,

Another dodge!

Maybe I'm just tired, but I don't understand this question. Maybe you could present an argument, rather than simply asking a series of "Can God do X?" questions.

AND,

Another dodge!

0 for 3!

Bowman is "WINNING"!

[David Bokovoy]

Mortal Man,

You wrote:

Pretty funny comment. To state the matter more seriously, God's only supposed contribution to the "inspired" quotation of 387 words of Isaiah 53 was to add an "s" on the end of one noun.

What about the other one you identified, that Christ

[Rob Bowman]

Dispensator,

The easiest solution is that Joseph memorized the material. This is quite plausible, as young men in the 1820s did not have their minds cluttered up with electronic games, TV shows, baseball cards, or even a lot of other books besides the Bible, which tended to be the book that American children first learned to read. Other less dynamic individuals in the period had memorized large portions of the Bible (at least a few Mormons explicitly claimed to have done so). It sounds incredible to many people today, but historically and culturally it was a very different time; even people who were not good readers could memorize large portions of the Bible after hearing them read aloud. Very young children even today, notably homeschoolers, can duplicate such feats. I saw a cute YouTube video a year or two back of a couple of very young children quoting all of Matthew 7 in the KJV from memory.

This isn't the only solution, but I think it's probably got the most going for it.

Yes, it is rather ad hoc. The problem is there are two issues that seem irreconcilable 1) the evidence that Joseph Smith had no Bible handy during the translation process and 2) the evidence that strongly suggests a KJV source for the Isaiah chapters. As a believer, I think my solution makes sense. As a non believer, what would you suggest? That number issue 1 is not true?

[Rob Bowman]

David,

You may have missed the post in which I corrected myself: Joseph Smith was not responsible for the use of "bore" instead of "bare" in Mosiah 14:12. That was a change to the BOM text made in the early twentieth century. And the fact is that "bare" in the 1820s meant the same thing as "bore." The 1828 Webster's defines bare as "the old preterit of bear, now bore." So this really isn't a change in the expressed meaning at all, but merely an updating of what had become an antiquated form of the verb.

What about the other one you identified, that Christ

[Daniel Peterson]

The easiest solution is that Joseph memorized the material. This is quite plausible

Chapter after chapter, sufficient, apparently, to dictate roughly 8.5 pages of it per day (as measured against today's printed edition).

I couldn't do that.

This isn't the only solution, but I think it's probably got the most going for it.

So long as you presume that the Book of Mormon is false and that Joseph Smith was lying.

[USU78]

Joseph Smith was not responsible for the use of "bore" instead of "bare" in Mosiah 14:12. That was a change to the BOM text made in the early twentieth century. And the fact is that "bare" in the 1820s meant the same thing as "bore." The 1828 Webster's defines bare as "the old preterit of bear, now bore." So this really isn't a change in the expressed meaning at all, but merely an updating of what had become an antiquated form of the verb.

"Bore" vs. "Hath Borne" is the issue, I believe. Bare/Bore was not the issue.

USU "Grammatically challenged but marginally literate" 78

[kolipoki09]

Chapter after chapter, sufficient, apparently, to dictate roughly 8.5 pages of it per day (as measured against today's printed edition).

Which is apparently a simple task if you're barely literate....

Or perhaps, it was Sidney Rigdon who did the memorizing.

[DispensatorMysteriorum]

Dispensator,

The easiest solution is that Joseph memorized the material. [...]

This isn't the only solution, but I think it's probably got the most going for it.

It certainly is within the realm of possibility. Is there any evidence of Joseph Smith being such a proficient memorizer?

[Daniel Peterson]

It certainly is within the realm of possibility.

I challenge Mr. Bowman to do it.

Is there any evidence of Joseph Smith being such a proficient memorizer?

None of which I'm aware.

[DispensatorMysteriorum]

It certainly is within the realm of possibility. Is there any evidence of Joseph Smith being such a proficient memorizer?

I obviously don't think he did/could memorize that much, but I certainly can recognize that it is a possibility. The question is whether there is any evidence of Joseph being so gifted in that regard.

I also might add that someone mentioned once that Joseph Smith could read a passage from the Bible with his seer stone...? I have no idea, but that might be an alternative to the "Moroni" translation idea. IOW, Joseph Smith may have in fact used the KJV Bible, though it may not have been anywhere handy.

[David Bokovoy]

David,

You may have missed the post in which I corrected myself: Joseph Smith was not responsible for the use of "bore" instead of "bare" in Mosiah 14:12. That was a change to the BOM text made in the early twentieth century. And the fact is that "bare" in the 1820s meant the same thing as "bore." The 1828 Webster's defines bare as "the old preterit of bear, now bore." So this really isn't a change in the expressed meaning at all, but merely an updating of what had become an antiquated form of the verb.

It's true, the original form of the the verb was written on the manuscript as bear, so that does weaken your Insight. However, I'm not claiming that the KJ version got it wrong, for clearly they used the old preterit form "bare" as a completed action. But it is ambiguous by contemporary standards to say the least. My point is that the Book of Mormon "bore" leaves no doubt that the event is a completed action which is precisely how the Hebrew presents it.

So I still believe you could make it work if you wish to submit it.

[Rob Bowman]

Dan,

You wrote:

Chapter after chapter, sufficient, apparently, to dictate roughly 8.5 pages of it per day (as measured against today's printed edition).

I couldn't do that.

There are a number of assumptions here that I don't have the time at this moment to sort out and discuss. I'm not dismissing the objection; I'm aware of it and have some thoughts on it, but I can't go into all of it right now.

You wrote:

So long as you presume that the Book of Mormon is false and that Joseph Smith was lying.

To be fair, I don't think I am "presuming" that the Book of Mormon is false; I think I have a lot of good evidence that leads me to that conclusion.

[David Bokovoy]

Besides, I wouldn't be so dismissive about the change from "sin" to "sins" in the plural. I don't believe it's trivial. Note that both citations of the Isaiah passage, i.e. Mosiah 14:12 and 15:12 refer to sin in the plural, a fact supported by the Greek Septuagint translation of Isaiah 53:12. Given the references to "sins" throughout Mosiah, the change seems intentional. Moreover, did you catch the fact that Mosiah 14:8 changes the KJ "transgression" to "transgressions" and "iniquity" to "iniquities" in Mosiah 14:6? Note that the Septuagint also renders these words in the plural.

I think you should add these observations to your Maxwell Insight piece.

[Vance]

To be fair, I don't think I am "presuming" that the Book of Mormon is false; I think I have a lot of good evidence that leads me to that conclusion.

Really?

It looks more like you started with the conclusion (presumed) and then looked for evidence "supporting" your conclusion.

[Rob Bowman]

USU78,

You wrote:

"Bore" vs. "Hath Borne" is the issue, I believe. Bare/Bore was not the issue.

USU "Grammatically challenged but marginally literate" 78

Right, bare/bore is not an issue because it isn't a change in verb tense but only an updated form. So if David's right, and if Joseph had received an inspired revision of the word, he should have dictated "hath borne." But he didn't.

[Questing Beast]

My problem is somewhat different. If I take my former TBM stance, it means that "God" is dogmatic, eschewing all other religions but Mormonism: they are qualified at best, their "creeds an abomination", etc. This does not fit the evidence, imho. Only a TBM sees difference significant enough between Mormonism and the rest of the religions surrounding it. In actuality, there is essentially no difference either in the creeds (doctrines) or the spirituality (goodness) of their people compared to the mass of humankind either now or at any other time.

So if I take the OP's premise correctly: the evidence is that Joseph Smith resorted to the KJV for the biblical contents of the BoM. This is obvious. What is implied by the TBM exegesis is that God "dictated" the KJV to Joseph Smith, rather than a strict translation of the Hebrew as recorded in the "reformed Egyptian" on the plates. If this is correct (and the witnesses attest that there was no Bible employed in the translation process), then it implies that Joseph Smith in actuality received inspiration from "God": the only other alternative (if no Bible was physically deployed) is for Joseph Smith to have had some prodigious form of total recall, and we have no evidence for that.

So if "God" dictated the BoM (including the Isaiah and other biblical parts a la KJV), we are left to ponder what manner of "God" we are talking about. If Joseph Smith's "God" is in fact a lesser being than the Necessary Cause of Existence in the First Place, then perhaps we are being victimized by a being who has taken airs upon himself, and we are later to be disabused of our worship. If on the other hand "God" dictating to Joseph Smith is actually the God of the universe and all of Existence, then I have a problem. But rather than believe that the evidence of history as I understand it is mistaken, I can resort to known human failure: delusional, well-meaning, or conniving people resort to religion-making all the time. There is no reason to assume complete integrity in the early characters that formed Mormonism. The usual assortment of personality types was involved, including those we would today diagnose as schizophrenic. Delusion is very common in hyper spiritual people, who believe that they are special and that "God" has called them, even speaks to them, or more yet, appears repeatedly to them, etc. Most people disbelieve their claims. But sometimes, as in the case of Joseph Smith, enough people believe them to form a religion. When the delusion is supported by outside believers, the visions are verily believed by the receiver. Joseph Smith was not lying, he was no fraud. But was what he received meant for the whole world, or else? The evidence does not support this: or any other dogmatic, exclusive claim to "God's" favor, as for instance all the other "Abrahamic religions" that claim to be his "chosen people".

So I resort to my paradigm, and repeat it again: Mormonism for the Mormons, RCC for the Catholics, Islam for the Muslims, etc. This paradigm of "God's purpose" allows people of all persuasions to be right according to their own lights: and let's be honest here: most of the time this works out okay with a minimum of fuss over differences of opinion. People are free to believe or not, to follow or refuse, any religious dogma at all. Only when we start asserting that "God" is peeved with "non believers" and that such will eventually wind up in a less than nifty place, do we give into self-imposed trouble. I like my paradigm, because I can be right and you don't have to agree with me. But the paradigm of the TBM cannot be right if any non Mormon exegesis is just as "right"; that's the inbuilt trouble of the dogmatic creed: it alone is right and the rest of the world is variously mistaken. And that is why I can't accept the dogmatic, TBM view. If Joseph Smith didn't use a KJV, and "God" dictated the BoM metaphysically, then everybody but the Mormons is in trouble. That is inconceivable so it isn't true (for anyone but Mormons anyway)....

[Rob Bowman]

David,

Oh, bother. I definitely goofed in overlooking the pluralization of those two nouns in Mosiah 14,6, 8. That alters my percentage from 99.7% down to 99.2%.

I hate making mistakes, and I really appreciate you pointing out these variations that I had overlooked. I'll have to take a look at these more carefully and let you know what I think about your text-critical observation.

Besides, I wouldn't be so dismissive about the change from "sin" to "sins" in the plural. I don't believe it's trivial. Note that both citations of the Isaiah passage, i.e. Mosiah 14:12 and 15:12 refer to sin in the plural, a fact supported by the Greek Septuagint translation of Isaiah 53:12. Given the references to "sins" throughout Mosiah, the change seems intentional. Moreover, did you catch the fact that Mosiah 14:8 changes the KJ "transgression" to "transgressions" and "iniquity" to "iniquities" in Mosiah 14:6? Note that the Septuagint also renders these words in the plural.

I think you should add these observations to your Maxwell Insight piece.

[USU78]

Right, bare/bore is not an issue because it isn't a change in verb tense but only an updated form. So if David's right, and if Joseph had received an inspired revision of the word, he should have dictated "hath borne." But he didn't.

When it comes to matters Hebrew, volga and David are the resident experts -- there are a couple of others. If he tells us that "bore" fits the Hebrew verb construction better than "hath borne," that tends to be in the area code of bankable.

Perhaps you have better Hebrew sources?

Which Hebrew verbal construction fits the past perfect "hath borne" best?

Which Hebrew verbal construction fits the imperfect "bore" best?

I myself don't know. I can sound things out and recognize a fair bit of vocabulary, but the niceties of Hebrew's functional equivalent of tense and such escape me entirely.