----- Original Message -----
Sent: April 22, 2005 21:27
Subject: Book of Mormon and the KJV Bible
The Book of Mormon and the King James Version (1999)
Curt van den Heuvel
Introduction
The King James Version of the Bible is, in all likelihood, the most
successful of all the English translations. Volumes have been written on its
distinctive and rhythmic style, and it is still regarded as a triumph of
modern English literature.
So great was the influence of the King James Version that it coloured and
directed the development of the English language for decades. English
speakers still uses such phrases as `a fly in the ointment', `go the extra
mile', and `stick to the straight and narrow', often without realising that
they are quoting the King James Version.
For many people, the King James Version was the Bible, to the
point that God is still often represented as speaking Jacobean English. The
English of the King James Version, even when it had become archaic, was
still identified with the language of scripture in the minds of many of its
readers. It comes as no surprise, therefore, that when Joseph Smith produced
his sequel to the Bible, he cast it in Jacobean English. The dependence of
the Book of Mormon on the King James Version, however, goes deeper than a
mere affectation of style. Smith copied vast quantities of the Bible into
the Book of Mormon, and the Bible that he used was the King James Version.
We find, therefore, that the King James Version left an indelible mark on
the Book of Mormon.
Affected Style
The most readily observed characteristic of the Book of Mormon is its
affected Jacobean style. Being raised, as he was, in a Protestant household,
Smith was very familiar with the cadences and flow of Jacobean English. He
was, however, quite ignorant as to the actual grammar of the language. As a
result, the prose is couched in a sort of fractured amalgam of New England
tongue and Jacobean English. For readers who are very familiar with the King
James Version, the differences in style between the native Book of Mormon
text and the protracted interpolated Biblical passages are so striking as to
be almost physically perceived.
Most English people are unaware that King James English is more than a
few simple `thee's' and `thou's in the right places. The archaic words are
actually part of the grammar, and indicate verb tenses and noun cases and
number. For example, `thou' is the second person, singular, personal
pronoun, while `ye' is the corresponding plural form. In addition, the
second person personal pronoun is declined differently to its modern
counterpart. Thus, `ye' or `thou' is used as the subject of a sentence,
while `you' is used as the object of a sentence. Modern English has lost
this distinction, using `you' for both the singular and plural forms of the
word, as well as both noun cases. This distinction is subtle, and is not
generally apprehended by the casual modern reader.
One can find numerous examples of inconsistent application of the
Jacobean personal noun case in the Book of Mormon. For example, in Mosiah
4:22, the personal noun case switches from plural to singular in the
same sentence `...and yet ye put up no petition, nor repent of the thing
which thou hast done.' Technically, the last part of the sentence should
read `...which ye have done'.
Note one more example, that of First Nephi
11:7 `...after thou hast beheld the tree which bore the fruit which
thy father tasted, thou shalt also behold a man descending out of heaven,
and him shall ye witness; and after ye have witnessed him ye shall bear
record that it is the Son of God.'
The King James verb tenses also seem to have given Smith some trouble.
Like the languages that it evolved from, in particular Latin and Saxon,
Jacobean English used inflected word modifiers to conjugate verbs. Again,
this distinction has largely been lost in modern English. Traces of this
confusion are evident in the first edition of the Book of Mormon. For
example, in First Nephi
12:9 the third person form of a verb is used with a second person
subject `...Thou remembereth the twelve apostles of the Lamb?...'.
Compare this with John 16:21 of the King James Version, where the third
person form of `remember' is used correctly `...but as soon as she is
delivered of the child, she remembereth no more the anguish...'. This
verse was corrected to read `rememberest' in the later
revisions of the Book of Mormon.
The implication of this is clear - Joseph Smith was familiar with the
form, but not the substance, of King James English. Consequently, his prose
displays a fundamental lack of understanding of the syntax and grammar of
the tongue.
Although a work of great literature, the King James Version does suffer
somewhat in accuracy. There are basically three forms of translation errors
that need to be considered:
Variant Readings: While not strictly a translation problem, it can be
shown that where the King James Version differs from the Minority Text of
the Greek New Testament, the Book of Mormon usually follows. This will be
considered later.
Technical Terms: This is one of the greatest problems of the King James
Version, although not really the fault of the translators. Generally, the
use of incorrect words for some terms can be blamed on a less than perfect
understanding of Hebrew vocabulary during the Elizabethan era. This, too,
will be considered later.
Translation Errors: Although few in number, the King James Version does
contain a number of undeniable incorrect translations. Again, this can
sometimes be blamed on an imperfect understanding of Hebrew, but is also
possibly due to the fact that the Authorised Version was basically
translated by committee, with the various members having different strengths
and weaknesses in the original languages. Generally, we find that when the
King James Version commits a translation error, the Book of Mormon usually
follows. Three examples will suffice.
II
Nephi 12:16, a quotation from Isaiah 2:16 reads as follows `And upon
all the ships of the sea, and upon all the ships of Tarshish, and upon all
pleasant pictures.' The problem here is that the word `pictures' should
be translated as `ships', which makes more sense. The New International
version reads `..and every stately vessel...'.
As an aside, this verse adds the phrase `upon all the ships of the sea'
to the King James wording. Mormon scholars have often pointed out that this
follows the Septuagint, and should thus be considered a more ancient reading
of the Biblical text. In fact, this is not entirely true. Neither the
Septuagint nor the Masoretic text have both phrases; they include either one
or the other. A close examination of the text will reveal the reason for
this. Isaiah 2:16 is part of a poetic section which employs a device known
as a rhyming couplet. Each stanza of the poem consists of two complimentary
phrases. The Book of Mormon, however, has three phrases at this section, and
thus could never have been an original part of the text. The obvious
conclusion is that Smith had access to a Septuagint translation, or, more
likely, to a commentary on Isaiah that included the Septuagint reading.
A more serious translation error affects Isaiah 9:1, copied into the Book
of Mormon as II Nephi
19:1 `...and afterwards did more grievously afflict by the way of the
Red Sea beyond Jordan in Galilee of the nations.' A translation error in
this verse of Isaiah has given the text almost the opposite meaning to the
original. The phrase `did more grievously afflict' should be rendered as
`honour' in English. Thus the New International Version reads `...In the
past he humbled the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, but in the
future he will honor Galilee of the Gentiles...'.
Again, as an aside, the Book of Mormon adds the qualifier `Red' to the
King James Version. A glance at a map of Palestine will show why this
rendering is impossible. The Red Sea is located on the Southern border of
Palestine, over 250 miles from the Sea of Galilee.
A third example is found in II Nephi
21:3, a quotation from Isaiah 11:3. The phrase `And shall make him of
quick understanding in the fear of the Lord...' should read `...and
he will delight in the fear of the LORD...' as in the New International
Version. Here, the Hebrew word `rawah', in this context, is correctly
translated `delight in' as opposed to `quick'.
Mention should be made of II Nephi
16:2, where the 1830 version follows the King James' incorrect usage of
the word `seraphims' as a plural for `seraphim'. This was corrected in later
versions of the Book of Mormon text, although it has never been corrected in
the King James Version.
Whenever the King James translators added a clarifying word or phrase to
the text, they placed the phrase in italics to distinguish it from the
original. Joseph Smith was obviously aware of this fact, and the majority of
his changes to the Biblical text occur as modified or dropped King James
italicized phrases. However, this process is inconsistently applied in the
Book of Mormon text. Often, we find that a King James clarifying phrase has
been left intact in the copied text, even though the phrase was never a part
of the original Biblical text.
As an example, III Nephi
24:5, quoting Malachi 3:5 reads `...and that turn aside the stranger,
and fear not me...'. The King James Text reads `...and that turn
aside the stranger from his right, and fear not
me...'. The Book of Mormon omits the phrase `from his right', which was
added to the Isaiah text in italics by the King James translators. However,
in III
Nephi 24:10, the phrase `...that there shall not be room enough to
receive it...' follows the King James Version, even though seven of
these words are not original to the text. The King James Version of Malachi
3:10 reads `...that there shall not be
room enough to receive it...'.
Archaisms
Just as Smith's divine inspiration was unable to inform him when he was
copying a translation error, it seemed equally unable to update some of the
archaic language of the King James Version. As previously noted, the
Authorised Version had some trouble with Hebrew technical terms. This is
very apparent with animal names. The King James Version often refers to
`dragons', `unicorns' and `satyrs', all mythological beasts. This had led
more than a few would-be Bible interpreters into interesting, but
nonetheless entirely incorrect directions.
The fact is that these names were interpolated whenever the actual animal
referred to was unclear or unknown. Later research has uncovered the truth
behind the Hebrew names, and most modern English Bibles no longer refer to
such interesting creatures. II Nephi
23:22 contains a reference to dragons. `And the wild beasts of the
islands shall cry in their desolate houses, and dragons in their pleasant
palaces...'. This is a quotation from Isaiah 13:22. Most modern
translations have `jackals' for `dragons', and `hyenas' for `wild beasts'.
Verse 21 of
the same chapter has a reference to satyrs. `But wild beasts of the
desert shall lie there; and their houses shall be full of doleful creatures;
and owls shall dwell there, and satyrs shall dance there.' This word
`satyrs' is translated `wild goats' in most modern translations.
King James archaisms are not limited to animal names. It seems that
articles of apparel also caused their share of problems for the translators.
A protracted quotation from Isaiah perfectly illustrates this problem. II Nephi
13:18-23 reads
In that day the Lord will take away the bravery of their
tinkling ornaments, and cauls, and round tires like the moon; The chains
and the bracelets, and the mufflers; The bonnets, and the ornaments of the
legs, and the headbands, and the tablets, and the ear-rings; The rings,
and nose jewels; The changeable suits of apparel, and the mantles, and the
wimples, and the crisping-pins; The glasses, and the fine linen, and
hoods, and the veils.'
This is a quotation from Isaiah 3:18-23. Although these terms are, for
the most part, correctly translated in the King James Version, it is almost
certain that neither Joseph Smith nor his intended audience had any idea
what they meant. The King James Version committee translated this passage
using words from their own era, which reflected the fashion of the day. Two
hundred years later, in the early nineteenth century, on a different
continent, these words were mostly obsolete. The New International Version
throws some light on the issue
In that day the Lord will snatch away their finery: the
bangles and headbands and crescent necklaces, the earrings and bracelets
and veils, the headdresses and ankle chains and sashes, the perfume
bottles and charms, the signet rings and nose rings, the fine robes and
the capes and cloaks, the purses and mirrors, and the linen garments and
tiaras and shawls.'
In at least two other places, Smith's divine muse was unable to supply
him with the answers to some textual questions that had vexed Biblical
scholars for centuries. The first is found in II Nephi
28:30. `...I will give unto the children of men line upon line,
precept upon precept, here a little and there a little...' This is a
reference to Isaiah 28:13. `But the word of the Lord was unto them
precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line;
here a little, and there a little...' Although most English Bibles
follow the King James version to some degree, the exact meaning of the
Hebrew text is uncertain. Most scholars are of the opinion that they are
nonsense words, similar to an English person using the words `blah, blah,
blah'.
A similar problem afflicts III
Nephi 12:22, a quotation from Matthew 5:22. `...And whosoever shall
say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council...' The
exact meaning of the Aramaic word `Raca' is unknown, although it is
generally thought to denote a term of contempt. The King James translators
left the word untranslated, as do most English Bibles. It is indeed
unfortunate that Smith's divine pipeline was unable to provide him with the
true meaning of the word.
A final example will suffice. There is at least one archaic spelling that
confused Smith, and that was the word `strait'. This word is used in Matthew
7:14 in the familiar phrase `...strait is the gate, and narrow is the
way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.' Joseph
Smith evidently thought, as do most English readers, that `strait' is simply
a variant spelling of `straight'. In fact, it is not. The word `strait', in
this context, means `restricted' or `difficult'. Nevertheless, the first
edition of the Book of Mormon uses the word `straight' when it quotes
Matthew in III Nephi
14:14. In fact, the 1830 version of the Book of Mormon uses the word
`straight' every time that `strait' is meant. (See, for example, I Nephi
21:20, where the King James Version of Isaiah 49:20 has `strait'. The
word `straight' makes no sense in this context.) Most of these were
corrected in subsequent versions.
This is telling indeed, for it is evident that only an English person
would confuse the two words. A Nephite, who had no knowledge of English,
would certainly not make that mistake. In spite of this, we find that at
least one of the Book of Mormon characters displayed similar confusion about
the word. In II Nephi
9:41, the prophet Nephi speaks these words `...Behold, the way for
man is narrow, but it lieth in a straight course before him...'. It is
quite certain that Smith was alluding to the King James version here. Not
only does the word `gate' appear in the same sentence, but we also find the
phrase `And then are ye in this strait and narrow path which leads to
eternal life...' in II Nephi
31:18. When Smith revised the Book of Mormon, he corrected the spelling
of II Nephi 31:18 to `strait', but was obviously unable to change II Nephi
9:41, since the context makes it clear that the word `straight' is meant.
To summarise the foregoing: the Book of Mormon is evidently unable to
update the archaic language of the King James Version, even when such
language is technically incorrect. The fact that these shortcomings seem to
mirror the gaps in Smith's knowledge is strong evidence that Smith, not a
collection of ancient American prophets, was the sole author of the Book of
Mormon.
Anachronistic Terms
There are a number of terms that the King James Version introduced to the
English world, which subsequently became part of the Spiritual vocabulary.
We find that at least two of these terms appear in the Book of Mormon as
well. In John's gospel, Jesus leaves his disciples with a promise of a
coming indwelling of the Holy Spirit just before his Passion. John 14:26
begins `But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost...'. The Book of
Mormon, in at least one place, uses the same word for the Holy Spirit. Moroni
8:26 reads `...and because of meekness and lowliness of heart cometh
the visitation of the Holy Ghost, which Comforter filleth with hope and
perfect love...'.
The word that the King James committee translated as `Comforter' is the
Greek word `parakletos'. Again, the exact meaning of this word is uncertain.
Jerome left it untranslated in the Vulgate - `paracletus autem Spiritus
Sanctus...', and it is variously translated in modern English Bibles
(the New International Version and the Revised Version both use
`counselor'). The word itself is constructed from two Greek words, the
preposition `para' meaning `with' and the verb `kaleo' meaning `to call'.
Thus, the meaning is clear enough, although there is no direct English
equivalent. It is quite telling that the Book of Mormon uses a late English
term for a Biblical concept.
A second archaic word that seems to have crept into the Book of Mormon is
the word `charity'. This word appears in Paul's famous treatise on Faith,
Hope and Charity in I Corinthians 13. In fact, the Greek word that is
translated `charity' in the King James Version is the word `agape'. This
word is consistently translated `love' elsewhere in the King James Version.
The Book of Mormon, too, contains much on Faith, Hope and Charity, including
a protracted quotation from I Corinthians 13. Moroni
7:45 reads `And charity suffereth long, and is kind, and envieth not,
and is not puffed up, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh
no evil, and rejoiceth not in iniquity but rejoiceth in the truth, beareth
all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all
things.'
It is interesting that the Book of Mormon not only uses the same archaic
King James word for `love', but also that Smith felt that he had to explain
this fact. II Nephi
26:30 declares that `...all men should have charity, which charity is
love.' Ether
12:34 reads `And now I know that this love which thou hast had for
the children of men is charity....' In the same chapter as the
Corinthians quotation, we find in Moroni
7:47 `But charity is the pure love of Christ...'. Also in Moroni
8:17 we find `And I am filled with charity, which is everlasting
love...' Logically, this statement makes no sense, since `charity' and
`love' are actually the same word.
Variant Readings of the Textus Receptus
The King James Version was basically a revision of the earlier works of
Wycliffe and Tyndale. However, the translators did use a specific Greek text
for their revision, that of Erasmus, usually called the Textus
Receptus (Latin for `Received Text'). This is basically a late text of
the Majority family. Modern Biblical criticism has produced a more accurate
text, based mostly on textual finds that postdate the King James Version. It
can be shown that where the King James Version differs from the Alexandrian
text, the Book of Mormon usually follows. This is most evident in the text
of Matthew that appears in III
Nephi. However, it can also be shown that the Book of Mormon quotes at
least two texts which are now considered to be spurious.
I John 5:7 reads `For there are three that bear record in heaven, the
Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.' This
verse has almost no Greek manuscript support, and is generally considered to
be a late interpolation. Legend has it that Erasmus included it in his Greek
text under duress. Nevertheless, this text seems to have inspired one or two
quotations in the Book of Mormon. II Nephi
31:21 reads `...and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of
the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God...'. Mormon
7:7 reads `...to sing ceaseless praises with the choirs above, unto
the Father, and unto the Son, and unto the Holy Ghost, which are one
God...'.
A similar problem affects Mormon
chapter 9. Verses 22 through 24 read
For behold, thus said Jesus Christ, the Son of God, unto his
disciples who should tarry, yea, and also to all his disciples, in the
hearing of the multitude: Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel
to every creature; And he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved,
but he that believeth not shall be damned; And these signs shall follow
them that believe--in my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak
with new tongues; they shall take up serpents; and if they drink any
deadly thing it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick and
they shall recover...
Similarly, Ether
4:18 reads
Therefore, repent all ye ends of the earth, and come unto me,
and believe in my gospel, and be baptized in my name; for he that
believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall
be damned; and signs shall follow them that believe in my name.
Both these passages are quotations from Mark 16, verses 15 through
18:
And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach
the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be
saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. And these signs shall
follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they
shall speak with new tongues; They shall take up serpents; and if they
drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on
the sick, and they shall recover.
The problem here is that these verses are part of the so-called long
ending of Mark, generally thought to be a late addition to the Marcan text.
Neither the Siniaticus nor the Vaticanus, the two oldest Greek texts, have
this ending. (The New International Version has a note which reads `The most
reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark
16:9-20'). If this is true, it is quite impossible for Jesus to have spoken
these words.
Conclusion
It is very evident that the Book of Mormon owes much to the King James
Version. Since this particular version of the Bible was not translated until
1611, it means that the Book of Mormon cannot be an ancient work as Joseph
Smith claimed.
