Which KJB was used to produce the Book of Mormon?

[phaedrus ut]

On 10/22/2019 at 5:22 PM, champatsch said:

There are big holes in this position, which I doubt is based on systematic, thorough analysis of all King James quoting in the Book of Mormon. More than 3/4 of the changes aren't related to italics.

You doubt it's based on a systematic thorough analysis? That's a awful confident declaration there champatsch.  I'll give you two very easy examples from a friendly sources at FARMS/BYU Religious Studies Center that prove my point.  John A. Tvedtnes, “Isaiah Variants in the Book of Mormon,”  and Textual Variants in the Isaiah Quotations in the Book of Mormon By Royal Skousen. Both provide an analysis of just the the Isaiah chapters of the BOM compared to the KJV but the point holds for the broader analysis.  Skousen and Tvedtnes differ somewhat in their percentages that italics explain Isaiah variants but we are dealing with a low number of 29% and a high number of 38%.  Those are the statistics from apologetic sources. Critical sources put the number much higher. 

 

On 10/22/2019 at 5:22 PM, champatsch said:

You don't know that Joseph knew what italics indicated in 1829. He probably knew a few years later.

Italicized words make up 3.6% of the KJV Isaiah but in reproducing the Isaiah chapters in the BOM Joseph clustered approximately half of the variants around these italics. He removed 40% of the italicized words, then he replaced some words, added others, and made changes in and around the italics to create even more dependent variants.  Denying Joseph's knowledge of the italics can't be defended by the textual evidence.  It's demonstrability the most common of the BOM/KJV.  It's like claiming Joseph Smith drove a car 1000 miles and along the way there were 36 stop signs and he stopped at half of them and changed course to drive around 4 of them.  Yet you claim he doesn't know what a stop sign is. The evidence is pretty damning. 

Now let us leave the data provided by the text and see what other evidence there is.  Well we have a contemporary source demonstrating his knowledge of what the italics mean.  

Quote

"Finally, after frequent and fervent prayer, Jo's spectacles were restored to sight, and he again permitted to open the book. -- Jo had, during his spiritual blindness, by the assistance of some one, commited several chapters of the New Testament to memory; and, the better to carry on his deception with the deluded Harris, had inquired, and found out the words inserted by the translators; (which are distinguished by Italics, both in the New Testament and the Old.) So, in order to convince Harris that he could read from the plates, Jo deposits them in his hat, applies spectacles, and refers Harris to a chapter in the Bible which he had learned by rote; and which he read from the plates, with surprising accuracy; and what astonished Harris most, was, that Jo should omit all the words in the Bible that were printed in Italic. And, if Harris attempted to correct Jo, he persisted that the plates were right, and the Bible was wrong." "Mormonites" in The Sun, Philadelphia, Thursday, August 18, 1831

and again from a friendly source. Robert J. Matthews discusses the bible Joseph used in creating his "New Translation" of the bible. 

Quote

Throughout the Bible many italics are crossed out, even when it does violence to the sense. There seems to be little consistency in the cross-outs of italics. Many are not touched; others are crossed out and replaced by words in the manuscripts, and many are not replaced. ... It is possible that the cross-out of italics was a preliminary step done before the other markings in the Bible, perhaps by a different person, and/or at a different time than the other markings, even when more than one kind now appear in the same verse "
- Robert J. Matthews, A Plainer Translation": Joseph Smith's Translation of the Bible: A History and Commentary (Provo, UT: Brigham Young University Press, 1975)

And to show that this was common knowledge among the people of the time we have this from W. W. Phelps writing in The Evening and Morning Star

Quote

 

"The book of Mormon, as a revelation from God, possesses some advantage over the old scripture: it has not been tinctured by the wisdom of man, with here and there an Italic word to supply deficiencies.—It was translated by the gift and power of God." (The Evening and Morning Star Jan. 1833)

"As to the errors in the bible, any man possessed of common understanding, knows, that both the old and new testaments are filled with errors, obscurities, italics and contradictions, which must be the work of men. ... the church of Christ will soon have the scriptures, in their original purity." (The Evening and Morning Star July. 1833)

 

You'll see in the quote above Phelps considers knowledge about italics in the bible a "common understanding" of men at that time. 

OK and we will wrap this up with a little comment on textual criticism when it comes to biblical scholarship. When a text is of a secondary nature it is dependent on a source text.  When we look at the variants in the BOM to quoted KJV texts you see that there are many more addition variants(pluses) than there are removal variants(minuses).  The fuller text shows dependence on the original source text.  

Phaedrus 

 

 

Edited October 24, 2019 by phaedrus ut
spelling

[champatsch]

I've worked with Skousen on his thorough analysis of biblical quoting in the Book of Mormon, which has already gone to press and will be out next month. After finally carrying out a complete analysis, he has reached firm figures on word/constituent changes in the quotes, including that less than 1/4 of the changes have to do with italics. Focusing solely on italics changes is convenient for your favored conclusion, but there are more than 500 other word/constituent differences. Because of that you must believe that Joseph Smith read from a heavily edited Bible to his scribes, something there is no external evidence for — neither advance preparation of a Bible nor reading from one. Nor is there evidence for him knowing what italics meant in 1829. The early 1830s quotes you put out there, one of which I'd seen before, are irrelevant. Ultimately, it's extremely unlikely that hundreds of the changes, some of them complex, would have been made by Joseph for the quotes. And the clustering point about italics leaves the wrong impression about the influence that the italics had on Book of Mormon changes. For example, at 1n1903, where italics them was left unchanged, the two very close changes are independent of the italicized pronoun; it doesn't motivate the changes. Indeed, there's no motivation for most of the non-italicized changes, whether near or far from an italicized word or phrase.

Your position ultimately comes down to this. Joseph deceived people to think he didn't know much about biblical details in 1828 and 1829; he knew much more than he led people to believe, including about italics. He hid from many people his careful and extensive biblical preparations (editing) before the dictation. He fooled dictation witnesses, including Morse, into thinking that he didn't use any aids in dictating the text; he actually dictated from a heavily edited Bible at least 40 times during the dictation.

[phaedrus ut]

1 hour ago, champatsch said:

 less than 1/4 of the changes have to do with italics.

And that's just spin.  Even with the apologetic spin putting the italics being responsible for something just short of 25% of the changes it's still the most common textual variant and considering that italicized words account for 3-4% of the KJV we are looking at clear textual dependence.  When Skousen last published on the subject I believe were looking at ~400 BOM passages with italics in the KJV and 150 alterations so 38%.  Whether it's 1/4 or 3/8ths of the text the relationship between the two is ovious.

 

1 hour ago, champatsch said:

Your position ultimately comes down to this. Joseph deceived people

That's really the only evidence we have.  It's clear that the BOM is dependent on the KJV.  The italics are only 1 of a dozen glaring points showing the BOM is the secondary text and not a translation of older versions of the biblical books.  You can construct an amazing Rube Goldberg machine of apologetic speculations that explain the problems or choose the simple answer.  Clearly there are some holdouts on final hills of Mormon apologetics such as the explanation for the KJV in the BOM and the BOA translation being somehow accurate.  

Here is my simple explanation. There are no magic rocks, golden plates, angelic messengers, or lost civilizations.  Now we have thrown out the magical thinking it's easy to put a KJV bible in the room and declare the witnesses as unreliable.  On this basis the BOM, the BOA, the D&C are the product of the same process and that's why they are generally unremarkable, riddled with errors, and a great example of 19th century religious speculation.  

Phaedrus 

[OGHoosier]

4 hours ago, phaedrus ut said:

And that's just spin.  Even with the apologetic spin putting the italics being responsible for something just short of 25% of the changes it's still the most common textual variant and considering that italicized words account for 3-4% of the KJV we are looking at clear textual dependence.  When Skousen last published on the subject I believe were looking at ~400 BOM passages with italics in the KJV and 150 alterations so 38%.  Whether it's 1/4 or 3/8ths of the text the relationship between the two is ovious.

Call me a rube, but I fail to see how this makes your argument stronger. Italics are the most common change...but even in your best case scenario that still leaves 62% to other causes. This does not give me confidence that Joseph Smith was targeting italics for his revision. Furthermore, since we've clearly established that Joseph Smith had no problem altering non-disputed biblical text, what special appeal would italicized portions have? 

 

4 hours ago, phaedrus ut said:

 

Here is my simple explanation. There are no magic rocks, golden plates, angelic messengers, or lost civilizations.  Now we have thrown out the magical thinking it's easy to put a KJV bible in the room and declare the witnesses as unreliable.  On this basis the BOM, the BOA, the D&C are the product of the same process and that's why they are generally unremarkable, riddled with errors, and a great example of 19th century religious speculation.  

 

I'd be remiss if I didn't note that you are here dismissing all the firsthand witnesses in favor of revisionist theory. You've thrown out the magical thinking, and also the historical thinking as well. 

Regarding your statement ex cathedra on the relative merits of Restoration scripture...in the eye of the beholder. 

[JarMan]

I've been able to find about another 20 bible editions and the results continue to be intriguing. The "I said" in Isaiah 6:8 has been one of the stronger points against a 19th Century Book of Mormon being used. But the one I had previously found is a stereotype edition so it's not surprising to find another, two years later, by the same publisher. I have to conclude that the "I said" in Isaiah 6:8 was in several consecutive Cambridge editions around 1816-1818. I also found another from a different publisher in 1818. It's strange that this phrase disappeared for 160 years only to make a come back in Joseph's day. But these new findings show that a modern bible is more likely than I had initially thought.

At the same time, though, I've found additional evidence to bolster a 1640's-or-so production. This will take me a minute to unpack so bear with me. Out of the ten words or phrases found in the Book of Mormon, they don't all appear until the 1639 and 1640 Cambridge editions. So, unless there are earlier editions I haven't found yet, 1639 is the very earliest the Book of Mormon could have been produced. This works with my theory since I have been saying for some time now that the Book of Mormon was written between 1635 and 1645 and then possibly translated into English soon after. However, you need multiple bibles because I still have not found (after looking at about 120 bibles) a single bible that agrees with the Book of Mormon on all ten readings. The 1639 and 1640 editions have 8/10 with the 2 missing being in Isaiah 6:8 and Isaiah 8:6. The easiest explanation is that the 1639 or 1640 edition was used throughout. Except that some time between 2 Nephi 8:16 and 2 Nephi 16:8 another bible was used for a short time, and then the original bible was brought back some time between 2 Nephi 18:6 and 2 Nephi 20:26. So there needs to be a single edition that agrees with the Book of Mormon at 2 Nephi 16:8 "I said" instead of "said I" and at 2 Nephi 18:6 "Forasmuch" instead of "Forsomuch." We find this with a 1622 edition and then again in 1657. I've found another one now from 1637, published in Edinburgh. This is significant for two reasons. The first is that the date matches better with 1639 or 1640. The second significant thing is that it was published in Scotland. Carmack has pointed out a few times that some of the Book of Mormon language seems to come from Scotland. So the working theory now is that the 1637 Edinburgh and either the 1639 or 1640 Cambridge editions were both used. I will be interested to find out if any of these editions were the ones that were carefully scrutinized in Skousen's study.

[champatsch]

7 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

11 hours ago, phaedrus ut said:

And that's just spin.  Even with the apologetic spin putting the italics being responsible for something just short of 25% of the changes it's still the most common textual variant and considering that italicized words account for 3-4% of the KJV we are looking at clear textual dependence.  When Skousen last published on the subject I believe were looking at ~400 BOM passages with italics in the KJV and 150 alterations so 38%.  Whether it's 1/4 or 3/8ths of the text the relationship between the two is ovious.

Call me a rube, but I fail to see how this makes your argument stronger. Italics are the most common change...but even in your best case scenario that still leaves 62% to other causes. This does not give me confidence that Joseph Smith was targeting italics for his revision.

So it's apologetic spin to count textual differences, make a note of whether italics were involved, and perform some simple arithmetic. Huh.

Edited October 25, 2019 by champatsch

[champatsch]

5 hours ago, JarMan said:

I've been able to find about another 20 bible editions and the results continue to be intriguing. The "I said" in Isaiah 6:8 has been one of the stronger points against a 19th Century Book of Mormon being used. But the one I had previously found is a stereotype edition so it's not surprising to find another, two years later, by the same publisher. I have to conclude that the "I said" in Isaiah 6:8 was in several consecutive Cambridge editions around 1816-1818. I also found another from a different publisher in 1818. It's strange that this phrase disappeared for 160 years only to make a come back in Joseph's day. But these new findings show that a modern bible is more likely than I had initially thought.

At the same time, though, I've found additional evidence to bolster a 1640's-or-so production. This will take me a minute to unpack so bear with me. Out of the ten words or phrases found in the Book of Mormon, they don't all appear until the 1639 and 1640 Cambridge editions. So, unless there are earlier editions I haven't found yet, 1639 is the very earliest the Book of Mormon could have been produced. This works with my theory since I have been saying for some time now that the Book of Mormon was written between 1635 and 1645 and then possibly translated into English soon after. However, you need multiple bibles because I still have not found (after looking at about 120 bibles) a single bible that agrees with the Book of Mormon on all ten readings. The 1639 and 1640 editions have 8/10 with the 2 missing being in Isaiah 6:8 and Isaiah 8:6. The easiest explanation is that the 1639 or 1640 edition was used throughout. Except that some time between 2 Nephi 8:16 and 2 Nephi 16:8 another bible was used for a short time, and then the original bible was brought back some time between 2 Nephi 18:6 and 2 Nephi 20:26. So there needs to be a single edition that agrees with the Book of Mormon at 2 Nephi 16:8 "I said" instead of "said I" and at 2 Nephi 18:6 "Forasmuch" instead of "Forsomuch." We find this with a 1622 edition and then again in 1657. I've found another one now from 1637, published in Edinburgh. This is significant for two reasons. The first is that the date matches better with 1639 or 1640. The second significant thing is that it was published in Scotland. Carmack has pointed out a few times that some of the Book of Mormon language seems to come from Scotland. So the working theory now is that the 1637 Edinburgh and either the 1639 or 1640 Cambridge editions were both used. I will be interested to find out if any of these editions were the ones that were carefully scrutinized in Skousen's study.

You'll be able to refine this with the grid Skousen is publishing soon, similar to but different from your grid.

Edited October 25, 2019 by champatsch

[CA Steve]

3 hours ago, champatsch said:

So it's apologetic spin to count textual differences, make a note of whether italics were involved, and perform some simple arithmetic. Huh.

Is there a percentage at which you would find changes that involved italics significant?

Also I have read elsewhere that Skousan is relying on the OED as a baseline for when EMOD was used, is that correct? If not how were time frames for when it was used and when it went out of usage established?

[CA Steve]

9 hours ago, JarMan said:

But the one I had previously found is a stereotype edition so it's not surprising to find another, two years later, by the same publisher. I have to conclude that the "I said" in Isaiah 6:8 was in several consecutive Cambridge editions around 1816-1818.

Jarman,

I find what you are doing very interesting. Can I ask what program or method you are using to  compare these editions of the Bible with these Book of Mormon phrases?

Also, while I am sure you and many others here are well aware of what "stereotype" means, allow me to explain to those who do not. Stereotyping printing involved creating a hard plate, called a cliché,  cast from a papier-mache or plaster mold, which then could be used to print the same sheet or sheets of a popular book and eliminated the need to set type again for future printings of books. This process was developed in the early 1700's perhaps even earlier but was not popularized until 1800ish with the first stereotype printing plates for a Bible in America produced in 1814. It was a more expensive process than typesetting but for books that would be printed over and over again like a Bible or Josephus, it was much more economical in the long run. A book that was printed of the same plates in different editions would be the exact same book (barring changes) as previous editions. So, for example, the 1828 edition of the Bible Joseph Smith used in the JST was a stereotype edition produced by a publisher named Phinney who used those same plates for over 138 editions of that Bible from 1822 to 1845. For those who wish to read more here are some additional links.

Stereotype information from Wikipedia.

Actual Phinney Bible used by Joseph Smith in the JST - JSPP link.

Joseph Smith's Cooperstown Bible: The Historical Context of the Bible Used in the Joseph Smith Translation by Kent Jackson

[phaedrus ut]

10 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

Call me a rube, but I fail to see how this makes your argument stronger. Italics are the most common change...but even in your best case scenario that still leaves 62% to other causes. This does not give me confidence that Joseph Smith was targeting italics for his revision. Furthermore, since we've clearly established that Joseph Smith had no problem altering non-disputed biblical text, what special appeal would italicized portions have? 

I think we are in agreement here.  The BOM most often reproduces the KJV text exact word for word when quoting the Old and New Testament  When the italicized words were added to the KJV text more often than not the BOM includes this, when the KJV translators made an error those errors are reproduced in the BOM.  However a certain period Joseph chose not to reproduce the KJV text exactly.  We can't read his mind to understand all the reasons why he made these changes but they most commonly happen where the KJV translators added their italicized text. This shows the BOM is heavily dependent on the KJV bible common in 19th century America and not translating a more ancient source. 

10 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

I'd be remiss if I didn't note that you are here dismissing all the firsthand witnesses in favor of revisionist theory. You've thrown out the magical thinking, and also the historical thinking as well. 

Regarding your statement ex cathedra on the relative merits of Restoration scripture...in the eye of the beholder. 

Dismissing the witnesses is a matter of trusting their statements.  If you conclude that the KJV was used in the production of the BOM they you know the witness statements are intentionally or unintentionally inaccurate.  

A similar comparison could be made about glass looking.  Joseph sold his services to find hidden treasure with his peep stone.  If you hold the view that it's scientifically impossible for someone to use a rock to discover buried treasure Joseph's statements on the matter are irrelevant.  Did he sell his services because he was conning people out of their money or was he deluded to believe he had the magic ability? We can't know.  The same would be true of the statements of his customers about why he couldn't find the treasure. Did they believe him or were they in on the con? We also can't know. 

In either case we can deal with provable facts that the KJV is in the BOM and magic rocks don't find treasure.  There are non-supernatural explanations for these facts. The bible was used to produce the BOM and rocks are just rocks. If you want to come up with a supernatural explanation for either the possibilities are endless.  Unfortunately since supernatural explanations are untestable they are indistinguishable from someone just making things up. Or as you say the explanation is in "the eye of the beholder".

 

Phaedrus 

[champatsch]

6 hours ago, CA Steve said:

Is there a percentage at which you would find changes that involved italics significant?

Also I have read elsewhere that Skousan is relying on the OED as a baseline for when EMOD was used, is that correct? If not how were time frames for when it was used and when it went out of usage established?

Italics is significant in places, but it's just part of the story, and so many of the non-italics changes cast doubt on the hypothesis that it was Joseph Smith making the changes. As for archaic vocabulary, if you look at section 1 of NOL there are 39 candidates. Under a very critical inspection there are enough that hold up as genuinely archaic and nonbiblical to support the weaker candidates. That determination is based not only the Oxford English Dictionary, but on other dictionaries and databases like EEBO, ECCO, and Google Books. There were at least five OED entries that we found to be deficient. And there's further lexical usage to consider in another three sections of NOL that holds up as authentically archaic as well. I don't know how many of those will hold up on a critical inspection. Joseph didn't come up with this obsolete lexis, which supports ruling him out as the one who changed all the italicized words and who made the more than 500 other changes to the biblical quotes. Supporting all this is the syntax. There's a large amount of nonbiblical archaic syntax, in patterns and in individual instances, not found in pseudo-biblical texts or Joseph's early writings.

Edited October 25, 2019 by champatsch

[JarMan]

6 hours ago, CA Steve said:

I find what you are doing very interesting. Can I ask what program or method you are using to  compare these editions of the Bible with these Book of Mormon phrases?

I'm glad others find this interesting. I am using google books for the vast majority of the bibles I have looked at. I have found a few bibles at other online sources, but not many. Once I find a new edition I go through it at each of the ten places and enter the results in a spreadsheet. The google books search algorithm is very quirky, though. If I just search for [Holy Bible] within a certain date range I get a limited number of results. If I add a term like [Holy Bible Genesis] I sometimes get a different set of results. So I've played around with several biblical terms to get different sets of results. There's no good way, though, to know if my search has been exhaustive. I just have to change up my search terms until nothing new comes up for awhile within a certain date range. Google really needs to fix this. For all of their internet searching capabilities they've apparently not put a lot of resources towards their google books application.

[JarMan]

Here's an update of my original chart. There are approximately 180 KJB editions used, but several of these only had partial information. I've shown the two time periods on the chart that are the best matches for the data I've collected.

Edited November 4, 2019 by JarMan

[CA Steve]

JarMan,

 

This upcoming publication might be of interest to you.

The Bible to Book of Mormon Comparative, vol. 1 (1 Nephi–Mosiah). Dan Wees

From the description in the link.

Quote

From a review by H. Michael Marquardt: “Students of the Bible typically feel the influence of the 1769 King James Edition while reading the Book of Mormon. This influence has been identified in different ways through the years. Emphasis has usually been placed on the similarities to the New Testament, since this seems to point out the anachronistic nature of the Before the Christian Era (BCE) pages of the book. Though New Testament similarities are overwhelming, so are the comparisons to the Old Testament and the obscure books of the Apocrypha. In The Bible to Book of Mormon Comparative Dan Wees has chosen to compare the text of the Book of Mormon with the Bible. The comparison evidences the complete saturation of likeness, with most comparisons being word-for-word patterns. This three-volume set begins with a verse-by-verse analysis of First Nephi through Mosiah. Projected for release in 2020, volume two will focus on Alma, and the trilogy will conclude in 2021 with Helaman through Moroni. This analysis is worthy of study. Though many individuals search for the elusive smoking gun source for the Book of Mormon, the answer may well lie within the book itself.” *books will be available mid-month—pre-order now!*

 

[CA Steve]

On 10/21/2019 at 11:54 PM, JarMan said:

Although I've used around 100 Bibles I know there are many more editions out there. Additional data could change this analysis. Also, there may be other words or phrases besides the ten I have identified.  There are also a few proper nouns that have different spellings in different Bible versions which I did not include those in my analysis.

 

On 10/22/2019 at 5:26 PM, JarMan said:

I can't help but think that with 29 editions analyzed there's a chance of missing an edition or two somewhere along the line that might be critical.

Recently I came across a reference to The English Bible in America: A Bibliography of Editions of the Bible & the New Testament Published in America 1777-1957 which reminded me of this thread. The reference claimed that this book by Margaret Hills listed over 1400 hundred different editions of English Bibles printed in America between 1777 and 1850, almost all of them KJB.  Hopefully that helps in your search for Bibles in that time frame.