Key Variances In Isaiah In Book Of Mormon From The Bible

[MDalby]

If I remember correctly there are close to 500 Isaiah verses in the Book of Mormon.  I know there are a lot of minor differences that may not have any impact on the meaning.

 

Can anyone share any verses where the difference in the Book of Mormon is supported by other documents of Isaiah that were found after Joseph Smith's time?  Any documents that verify a key difference in the Book of Mormon variance?

 

TIA

 

MD

[Duncan]

I think of 1 Nephi 20:1 and Isaiah 48, talking about baptism

[Bob Crockett]

I would recommend highly Brant Gardner's two volume work on the Book of Mormon and Hebrew influences.  It is very informative but a little tedious and long (sorry).  I got it from Kindle and it breezed through it and learned more from it than 90 percent of books I have ever read about the Book of Mormon.  (I disagree with his statements about chiasmus, but I'm not the expert.)

 

It is a fascinating work, particularly more so since I heard that old FARMS was going to do a "hit" piece on it (but never did).

[Nevo]

Can anyone share any verses where the difference in the Book of Mormon is supported by other documents of Isaiah that were found after Joseph Smith's time?  Any documents that verify a key difference in the Book of Mormon variance?

 

The only Isaiah variant that I am aware of that seemed promising along these lines was 2 Nephi 12:16, but David P. Wright shot that down a few years ago in his article in American Apocrypha. He also makes the argument here: http://mormonscripturestudies.com/bomor/dpw/2ne1216.asp

[JAHS]

One thing to keep in mind is that there are several different versions of some ancient manuscripts, no two of which agree completely with one another. In such cases it would be hard to know which one to use to compare to the Book of Mormon.

Edited July 16, 2015 by JAHS

[Nevo]

I would recommend highly Brant Gardner's two volume work on the Book of Mormon and Hebrew influences.

 

Do you have a link? I've never heard of this.

[Kevin Christensen]

See John Tvedtnes on Isaiah in the Bible and the Book of Mormon.

http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1459&index=10

His earlier study here (you have to click on pdf to see the Preliminary Reports.

http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=2839&index=22

http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=926

Also in general, the useful Volume on Isaiah in the Book of Mormon.

http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/book/isaiah-in-the-book-of-mormon/

Incidentally, Wright's approach hangs a great deal of weight on the premise that "It's not what I have done if I were God."

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[Bob Crockett]

Do you have a link? I've never heard of this.

 

Here's the link to Vol 1.  It just "blew my mind" about the way I had been thinking previously about the translation process.  I am now convinced that the Book of Mormon is a convergence of revelation and Joseph Smith's 19th century education and knowledge, and that Hebrew influences came more from the nineteenth century.  I was more convinced than ever of the verity of the Book and the irrelevance of many of the criticisms, including the head in the hat stuff, and of the futility of much of what passes for apologia.  

 

http://www.amazon.com/Gift-Power-Translating-Book-Mormon-ebook/dp/B005FYP5XI/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1437075871&sr=8-2&keywords=brant+gardner+book+of+mormon

 

Here is second vol:

 

http://www.amazon.com/The-Gift-Power-Translating-Mormon-ebook/dp/B005FYP7XG/ref=pd_sim_351_1?ie=UTF8&refRID=1DEN1FDFQ90SQFFV43WD

 

I highly recommend the Kindle version.  Much of Brant's book is an attempt to find secular analogues for what Joseph Smith was doing, which I didn't find all that compelling or helpful and quickly passed over.  [but, finding secular analogues is sort of a way of life for apologists, so I can see what that is there and perhaps others would go for it.]

Edited July 16, 2015 by Bob Crockett

[sethpayne]

Here's the link to Vol 1.  It just "blew my mind" about the way I had been thinking previously about the translation process.  I am now convinced that the Book of Mormon is a convergence of revelation and Joseph Smith's 19th century education and knowledge, and that Hebrew influences came more from the nineteenth century.  I was more convinced than ever of the verity of the Book and the irrelevance of many of the criticisms, including the head in the hat stuff, and of the futility of much of what passes for apologia.  

 

http://www.amazon.com/Gift-Power-Translating-Book-Mormon-ebook/dp/B005FYP5XI/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1437075871&sr=8-2&keywords=brant+gardner+book+of+mormon

 

Here is second vol:

 

http://www.amazon.com/The-Gift-Power-Translating-Mormon-ebook/dp/B005FYP7XG/ref=pd_sim_351_1?ie=UTF8&refRID=1DEN1FDFQ90SQFFV43WD

 

I highly recommend the Kindle version.  Much of Brant's book is an attempt to find secular analogues for what Joseph Smith was doing, which I didn't find all that compelling or helpful and quickly passed over.  [but, finding secular analogues is sort of a way of life for apologists, so I can see what that is there and perhaps others would go for it.]

 

Bob -- what are your thoughts on Ostler's "expansion" theory?

 

And I agree.  Brant's work is incredibly interesting.

[Joshua Valentine]

One thing to keep in mind is that there are several different versions of some ancient manuscripts, no two of which agree completely with one another. In such cases it would be hard to know which one to use to compare to the Book of Mormon.

 

I feel like this point is misplaced and inaccurate. I don't wish to cause offense, perhaps I'm not understanding your point. But it seems like your statement is as meaningful as saying, "One thing to keep in mind is that there are several different versions of the Book of Mormon, no two of which agree completely with one another. In such cases it would be hard to know which one to use to compare to an ancient Isaiah." Technically your statement and this one are both true, but do they warrant writing off the possibility, as your comment seemed to imply?

[JAHS]

I feel like this point is misplaced and inaccurate. I don't wish to cause offense, perhaps I'm not understanding your point. But it seems like your statement is as meaningful as saying, "One thing to keep in mind is that there are several different versions of the Book of Mormon, no two of which agree completely with one another. In such cases it would be hard to know which one to use to compare to an ancient Isaiah." Technically your statement and this one are both true, but do they warrant writing off the possibility, as your comment seemed to imply?

But there aren't different versions of the Book of Mormon  I am not writing off the possibility, all I said was to keep it in mind.  How do we know which of the Old Testaments manuscripts is the most correct rendering of the original words of Isaiah? 

[Calm]

I think you are forgetting changes such as a restoration of "pure" that had been changed to "white" as well as additions such as the "son of".

 

Also iirc originally they would print off a sheet and then look through it for mistakes, correct it and print off another sheet, etc. so the first printing of the BoM the pages are different from each other.  Then there have been corrections and a few additions.  Very few of the changes are significant, but there are a few imo.

 

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1983/12/understanding-textual-changes-in-the-book-of-mormon?lang=eng

Edited July 17, 2015 by calmoriah

[tagriffy]

If I remember correctly there are close to 500 Isaiah verses in the Book of Mormon.  I know there are a lot of minor differences that may not have any impact on the meaning.

 

Can anyone share any verses where the difference in the Book of Mormon is supported by other documents of Isaiah that were found after Joseph Smith's time?  Any documents that verify a key difference in the Book of Mormon variance?

 

TIA

 

MD

 

I am in general agreement with JAHS. With so many different manuscripts and versions of Isaiah (and the Book of Mormon, for that matter), your questions are very difficult to address. What is a "key" difference? "Verify" it in terms of what?

 

I think a better question would be to ask how the variant readings do affect the meaning.

[Calm]

A closer look at these duplicate Isaiah texts actually provides us an additional witness of the Book of Mormon's authenticity

Some critics question the presence of verses from Isaiah in the Book of Mormon. They often assert that many Book of Mormon verses were copied from the King James Bible, which in their view, makes it a fraud. While this might appear to be true to the casual Book of Mormon reader, a closer look at these duplicate texts actually provides us an additional witness of the Book of Mormon's authenticity.[6]

The 21 chapters of Isaiah which are quoted (Chapters 2-14, 29, and 48-54) either partially or completely, represent about one-third of the book of Isaiah, but less than two and one-half percent of the total Book of Mormon. We also find that more than half of all verses quoted from Isaiah (234 of 433) differ from the King James version available to Joseph Smith.[7] The Book of Mormon apparently follows the King James (Masoretic) text when it conveys the original meaning.

We often find differences in Book of Mormon Isaiah texts where modern texts disagree.[8] One verse (2 Nephi 12:16), is not only different but adds a completely new phrase: "And upon all the ships of the sea." This non-King James addition agrees with the Greek (Septuagint) version of the Bible, which was first translated into English in 1808 by Charles Thomson. [9] Such a translation was "rare for its time."[10]

It is also significant that the chapters of Isaiah actually quoted in the Book of Mormon (chapters 2-14 and 48-54) are those which modern scholars widely agree correspond closely to the original Isaiah collection and therefore would have been the most likely to have existed in Lehi's day.[11] Could Joseph Smith have known this? If Joseph or anyone else actually tried to plagiarize the Book of Mormon, critics have failed to show the source of the remaining 93% (when all similar texts are removed). A 100% non-biblical book of scripture wouldn't have been much more difficult to produce.

 

 

Also relevant:

 

The differences in wording between the KJV and the Book of Mormon highlight the areas in which there were theologically significant differences between the Nephite versions and the Masoretic text

See also: Joseph Smith Translation and the Book of Mormon

Even academic translators sometimes copy a previous translation if it serves the purpose of their translation. For example, the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) provided previously unknown texts for many Biblical writings. However, in some translations of the DSS, approximately 90% is simply copied from the KJV.

Surely we are not expected to believe that the DSS translators dropped back into King James idiom and just happened to come up with a nearly identical text! They, in fact, unabashedly copied the KJV, except where the DSS texts were substantially different from already known Hebrew manuscripts.[17]

Why was this done? Because, the purpose of the DSS translation is to highlight the differences between the newly discovered manuscripts and those to which scholars already had access. Thus, in areas where the DSS manuscripts agree with the Biblical texts that were already known, the KJV translation is used to indicate this.

This is not to argue that there may not be a better way to render the text than the KJV—but, it would be counterproductive for the DSS committee spent a lot of time improving on the KJV translation. A reader without access to the original manuscripts could then never be sure if a difference between the DSS translation and the King James (or any other) translation represented a true difference in the DSS text, or simply the choice of the DSS translators to improve existing translations.

The situation with the Book of Mormon is likely analogous. For example, it is possible that most of the text to which the Nephites had access would not have differed significantly from the Hebrew texts used in later Bible translations. The differences in wording between the KJV and the Book of Mormon highlight the areas in which there were theologically significant differences between the Nephite versions and the Masoretic text, from which the Bible was translated. Other areas can be assumed to be essentially the same. If one wants an improved or clearer translation of a passage that is identical in the Book of Mormon and the KJV, one has only to go to the original manuscripts available to all scholars. Basing the text on the KJV focuses the reader on the important clarifications, as opposed to doing a new translation from scratch, and distracting the reader with many differences that might be due simply to translator preference.

Since there is no such thing as a "perfect" translation, this allows the reader to easily identify genuine differences between the Isaiah texts of the Old World and the Nephites.

http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Anachronisms/Translation_Errors_from_the_KJV

[Calm]

This might interest you as well:

 

https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/isaiah-and-prophets-inspired-voices-old-testament/isaiah-variants-book-mormon

 

Followed by this many years later:

 

http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/16/2/S00010-5176acd58d92110Tvedtnes.pdf

 

Can't tell without direct comparison which I may do later if this is a repeat of a few examples from above or an expansion on a few examples:

 

http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/jbms/20/2/S00007-509017a9d345eJBMRS20-1-6IsaiahScroll.pdf

 

add-on:  man, I hate my memory these days.  I had read Kevin's post above, but completely spaced that I had.

 

I think my links are all repeats of what he gave already.  Sorry.

Edited July 17, 2015 by calmoriah

[Joshua Valentine]

But there aren't different versions of the Book of Mormon  I am not writing off the possibility, all I said was to keep it in mind.  How do we know which of the Old Testaments manuscripts is the most correct rendering of the original words of Isaiah? 

 

I'm sorry, JAHS, I really don't mean to appear to be picking on you.  I appreciate that you want to keep the complication of which text is used in his mind.  Sure.  But this last question you end with - again, it doesn't seem quite relevant and almost, again, seems to push for futility.  Continue below, please.

 

I am in general agreement with JAHS. With so many different manuscripts and versions of Isaiah (and the Book of Mormon, for that matter), your questions are very difficult to address. What is a "key" difference? "Verify" it in terms of what?

 

I think a better question would be to ask how the variant readings do affect the meaning.

 

I don't think that MDalby's question is so difficult as you two are making it.  At least it is not too difficult to understand; to answer may be a whole other thing!

 

MDalby seems to be simply seeking any manuscripts of Isaiah discovered after Joseph could have used them that show that the BoM's inclusion of Isaiah adds to the authenticity of the BoM.  He could be seeking simply this, without concern for which manuscripts are actually most accurate.  Simply if there are any manuscripts discovered after Joseph that confirm BoM Isaiah then that benefits BoM from accusations of plagiarism.  This does not require that these manuscripts actually be accurate.  It would, obviously, help if they were more accurate as well, as that would not only defend against plagiarism claims but add to authenticity.

 

I suppose variant effects on meaning could be useful, but like actual accuracy, these are secondary and tertiary concerns to just finding Isaiah manuscripts that might indicate that Joseph was not simply plagiarizing. MDalby needs to find possibly accurate and meaningful manuscripts that actually match the BoM before he can consider if they are accurate or meaningful.

[JAHS]

I'm sorry, JAHS, I really don't mean to appear to be picking on you.  I appreciate that you want to keep the complication of which text is used in his mind.  Sure.  But this last question you end with - again, it doesn't seem quite relevant and almost, again, seems to push for futility.  Continue below, please.

 

 

I don't think that MDalby's question is so difficult as you two are making it.  At least it is not too difficult to understand; to answer may be a whole other thing!

 

MDalby seems to be simply seeking any manuscripts of Isaiah discovered after Joseph could have used them that show that the BoM's inclusion of Isaiah adds to the authenticity of the BoM.  He could be seeking simply this, without concern for which manuscripts are actually most accurate.  Simply if there are any manuscripts discovered after Joseph that confirm BoM Isaiah then that benefits BoM from accusations of plagiarism.  This does not require that these manuscripts actually be accurate.  It would, obviously, help if they were more accurate as well, as that would not only defend against plagiarism claims but add to authenticity.

 

I suppose variant effects on meaning could be useful, but like actual accuracy, these are secondary and tertiary concerns to just finding Isaiah manuscripts that might indicate that Joseph was not simply plagiarizing. MDalby needs to find possibly accurate and meaningful manuscripts that actually match the BoM before he can consider if they are accurate or meaningful.

I get what you are saying and the reading suggestions that have been given are good places to look for comparisons that have been made.

[MDalby]

I don't think that MDalby's question is so difficult as you two are making it.  At least it is not too difficult to understand; to answer may be a whole other thing!

 

MDalby seems to be simply seeking any manuscripts of Isaiah discovered after Joseph could have used them that show that the BoM's inclusion of Isaiah adds to the authenticity of the BoM.  He could be seeking simply this...

 

Exactly what I am looking for.

 

Thanks Joshua

[Calm]

Apparently (from someone who is a great source imo) Skousen's work has demonstrated that many of the variants are not original to the text but errors of printing, transcription, etc.

 

So if you are interested, you need to compare Skousen's Book of Mormon stuff to Isaiah first.

 

I am thinking this might be helpful but haven't found the text yet:

 

Royal Skousen, “Textual Variants in the Isaiah Quotations in the Book of Mormon,” in Isaiah in the Book of Mormon, ed. Donald W. Parry and John W. Welch (Provo, Utah: FARMS, 1998), 369–71. 

 

[cinepro]

Exactly what I am looking for.

 

Thanks Joshua

I'm pretty sure the answer is "no". There are some interesting theories about why the Isaiah passages are different between the KJV and the BoM, but there are no "Aha!" finds where the BoM reveals a subsequently confirmed reading of ancient Isaiah.

Conversely, David Wright (an LDS scholar with a pHd in Hebrew) looked into it and came to a negative conclusion:

https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V31N04_197.pdf

[Calm]

Which was responded to in one of the links I give above....or rather Kevin.

 

And Kevin summed it up btw as:

 

Incidentally, Wright's approach hangs a great deal of weight on the premise that "It's not what I have done if I were God."

 

Edited July 17, 2015 by calmoriah

[tagriffy]

 

 

We often find differences in Book of Mormon Isaiah texts where modern texts disagree.[8] One verse (2 Nephi 12:16), is not only different but adds a completely new phrase: "And upon all the ships of the sea." This non-King James addition agrees with the Greek (Septuagint) version of the Bible, which was first translated into English in 1808 by Charles Thomson. [9] Such a translation was "rare for its time."[10]

 

 

Thomson's translation may have been rare, but information was not. Joseph could have gleaned the information from his environment. See Wright's articles cited by Nevo. If "authenticity" is to equated with "translation of an ancient work," the addition signifies nothing.

 

 

It is also significant that the chapters of Isaiah actually quoted in the Book of Mormon (chapters 2-14 and 48-54) are those which modern scholars widely agree correspond closely to the original Isaiah collection and therefore would have been the most likely to have existed in Lehi's day.[11] Could Joseph Smith have known this?

 

This is incorrect. Modern scholars place Isaiah 48-54 as part of deutero-Isaiah, dated around the time the Exile ended (circa 538 BCE). At the very least, these chapters would not have been available to Lehi. Jesus would have been able to quote from those chapters as depicted, but not Abinadi. Additionally, chapters 13-14 may or may not also date to the end of the Exile, though as far as I know the issue isn't settled. If those chapters do date to the end of the Exile, then Nephi wouldn't have been able to copy them into his record, and note this will have implications for Lehi's speech in 2 Nephi 2.

 

 

The situation with the Book of Mormon is likely analogous. For example, it is possible that most of the text to which the Nephites had access would not have differed significantly from the Hebrew texts used in later Bible translations. The differences in wording between the KJV and the Book of Mormon highlight the areas in which there were theologically significant differences between the Nephite versions and the Masoretic text, from which the Bible was translated. Other areas can be assumed to be essentially the same. If one wants an improved or clearer translation of a passage that is identical in the Book of Mormon and the KJV, one has only to go to the original manuscripts available to all scholars. Basing the text on the KJV focuses the reader on the important clarifications, as opposed to doing a new translation from scratch, and distracting the reader with many differences that might be due simply to translator preference.

 

This I basically agree with. Basing BoM Isaiah on the KJV version says nothing about whether the Book of Mormon is a genuine translation. And the differences in wording do highlight important clarifications. I don't know if they are theologically significant individually; the theological significance may actually rest in the overall effect.

[tagriffy]

I don't think that MDalby's question is so difficult as you two are making it.  At least it is not too difficult to understand; to answer may be a whole other thing!

 

MDalby seems to be simply seeking any manuscripts of Isaiah discovered after Joseph could have used them that show that the BoM's inclusion of Isaiah adds to the authenticity of the BoM.  He could be seeking simply this, without concern for which manuscripts are actually most accurate.  Simply if there are any manuscripts discovered after Joseph that confirm BoM Isaiah then that benefits BoM from accusations of plagiarism.  This does not require that these manuscripts actually be accurate.  It would, obviously, help if they were more accurate as well, as that would not only defend against plagiarism claims but add to authenticity.

 

I suppose variant effects on meaning could be useful, but like actual accuracy, these are secondary and tertiary concerns to just finding Isaiah manuscripts that might indicate that Joseph was not simply plagiarizing. MDalby needs to find possibly accurate and meaningful manuscripts that actually match the BoM before he can consider if they are accurate or meaningful.

 

What's "authenticity?" Being ancient? Bah! If the Book of Mormon is True, it doesn't matter whether it is ancient. It might make it more interesting, but it wouldn't make it any more authentic.

 

But let's go ahead and work with this. Say we have a "settled" Book of Mormon text. How could we possibly determine whether a manuscript confirms BoM Isaiah? It's not going to be a simple matter of translating BoM Isaiah into classical Hebrew and comparing it to available manuscripts and versions. There are issues involved. A couple years ago, I started the thread The Value of the Book of Mormon as an Independent Textual Witness, which has considerable overlaps with the questions MDalby asked. I'd suggest reading through this thread, paying particular attention to the discussion Robert and I had about establishing the ur-text of BoM Isaiah. And that is just the beginning of the problems!

 

How "accurate" is accurate? Does using one synonym rather than another make the BoM Isaiah more or less "accurate"? A particular grammatical construction? Manuscripts--no two are exactly alike. So even if we did have a manuscript that matches BoM Isaiah, how do we determine whether the match was due to something other than chance? Monkey around with Isaiah enough, then there is bound to be a manuscript out there that matches it just through sheer coincidence. So what, exactly, would count as confirmation?

 

In light of the problems attendant to using manuscripts to establish "accuracy," studying the effects of the variant readings on memory is not only useful, it's about the only thing left that can be discussed.

 

Now, on to defending against charges of plagiarism. I once had a debate with an Evangelical on the topic of the block quotations of the Bible and whether it constituted plagiarism. If I might be so foolish as to pat myself on the back, I won that debate. Even if Joseph was our author (and don't forget, that is exactly what I argue), the charge of plagiarism is itself anachronistic. What the accusers fail to realize is that in the Prophet Joseph Smith's time, the King James Version was not simply one English translation among others. For all intents and purposes, the KJV was the Bible. As the article Calmoriah quoted and cited in post #14 posted points out, the Book of Mormon is generally clear when it is quoting from Isaiah or Malachi or whatever and attributing the quote to Isaiah or Malachi or whomever. You didn't have to cite the KJV as the KJV because that was what was understood when you were quoting the Bible.

[tagriffy]

Exactly what I am looking for.

 

Thanks Joshua

 

See post #23.

[tagriffy]

Which was responded to in one of the links I give above....or rather Kevin.

 

And Kevin summed it up btw as:

 

 

Incidentally, Wright's approach hangs a great deal of weight on the premise that "It's not what I have done if I were God."

 

 

 

Actually, Kevin's post was in response to a citation to the articles in American Apocrypha and the Mormon Scripture Studies website, not the Dialogue article cinepro cited. I upvoted that post not because I agreed with this statement but because of the resources he pointed to.

 

I have my own problems with the American Apocrypha article, as I've indicated elsewhere (I consider it a step backwards from the Dialogue article). In any case, while Kevin's summary statement is fair enough in some instances, as a general characterization I think it goes too far. If I have read Wright aright, he is not saying "It's not what I would have done if I were God" though in some cases I can see how Wright's writing could come off that way. In most of the examples, however, Wright is basically saying "This is not what someone writing in grammatically acceptable Hebrew would have wrote." Personally, I would consider Kevin Barney's "Isaiah Interwoven" a better response.