Did Joseph Use the Bible to Translate the Book of Mormon?
by Jeff Lindsay
In discussing
Book of Mormon translation, many people assume that Joseph must have
turned to the KJV when quoting relevant passages. However, multiple
witnesses of the translation process report that his dictation was
done with his face in a hat to help him see whatever he saw on the
seer stone. This technique makes it impossible to read from a book or
manuscript while dictating the text. None of the many witnesses
reported the use of a Bible or other books or manuscripts. These
witnesses weren't all LDS conspirators, either. One was non-LDS,
Michael Morse, Emma Smith's brother-in-law, who stated:
When
Joseph was translating the Book of Mormon [I] had occasion more than
once to go into his immediate presence, and saw him engaged at his
work of translation. The mode of procedure consisted in Joseph's
placing the Seer Stone in the crown of a hat, then putting his face
into the hat, so as to entirely cover his face, resting his elbows
upon his knees, and then dictating word after word, while the scribes
Emma, John Whitmer, O. Cowdery, or some other wrote it down."
(W.W. Blair interview with Michael Morse, Saints
Herald, vol. 26, no. 12 (June 15, 1879), pp. 190-91.)
This needs
to be considered in discussions on Book of Mormon origins.
Many
people have proposed theories for how Joseph did the translation of
the Book of Mormon, or more specifically, the dictation of the text.
Given the similarities between the KJV text and the Book of Mormon,
it has been natural for people, myself included, to assume that there
must have been direct usage of the Bible at least for the longer
quoted passages. But upon further reflection, my previous assumptions
don't really fit what we now know about the translation. Here are
some key points:
1. The translation took place with a high
degree of transparency. Participants and visitors were able to
observe the work taking place. Dr. Royal Skousen emphasizes this
point in his review of the witnesses to the translation in his
recently
recorded presentation at a Mormon Interpreter forum.
2. Not
a single observer indicates anything other than direct dictation from
Joseph. They raise no hint of any possibility of a manuscript that he
was reading from, hidden, say, in the dark recesses at the bottom of
his hat as he gazed at the seer stone. Even a cheat sheet hidden in
the hat would be of little use.
3. Nobody reported that he was
using a Bible in any way for the frequent passages based on the KJV.
It was just straight dictation, as far as we know.
4. While
there would be no shame in using a Bible to reduce the work burden
and the possibility of copying errors for those passages that are
explicitly quoted from the Old Testament, such as entire chapters of
Isaiah, the possibility of using a Bible or any other book is
contrary to witness observations, and was explicitly denied by Emma,
as she described some of her early work as a scribe:
Q — [Joseph Smith III]. What is the truth of Mormonism? A — [Emma]. I know Mormonism to be the truth; and believe the
church to have been established by divine direction. I have complete
faith in it. In writing for your father I frequently wrote day after
day, often sitting at the table close by him, he sitting with his
face buried in his hat, with the stone in it, and dictating hour
after hour with nothing between us. Q —. Had he not a book or manuscript from which he read, or dictated to you? A —. He had neither manuscript or book to read from. Q —. Could he not have had, and you not know it? A. — If he had anything of the kind he could not have concealed it from me. Q. — Could not father have dictated the Book of Mormon to you, Oliver Cowdery and the
others who wrote for him, after having first written it, or having first read it out of some book? A. — Joseph Smith could neither write nor dictate a coherent and
wellworded letter; let alone dictating a book like the Book of
Mormon. And, though I was an active participant in the scenes that
transpired, . . . it is marvelous to me, “a marvel and a
wonder,” as much so as to any one else. (Edmund C. Briggs, “A
Visit to Nauvoo in 1856,” Journal of History (Jan. 1916): 454;
cited in Russell M. Nelson, "A Treasured
Testament," Ensign 23 no. 7 (July 1993), 62.)
5. While many
KJV verses are present verbatim, there are also frequent
modifications, some subtle but profound. For example, the change of a
"that" to a "when" in Isaiah 2:2 as quoted in 2
Nephi 12:2 introduces an apparent unnecessary error in English, but
upon further inspection, it may be a beautiful example of a Hebraism
(of a sort found in a variety of other places in the Book of Mormon)
that actually enhances the significance of Isaiah 2:2 as applied to
the context of the Restoration. It's the deep and subtle "mistake"
that might suggest advanced Hebrew skills from its author, or yet
another brilliantly lucky blunder from Joseph. See "Was
Joseph Smith Smarter Than the Average Fourth Year Hebrew Student? Finding a Restoration-Significant Hebraism in Book of Mormon Isaiah"
by Paul Y. Hoskisson in Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture
(MormonInterpreter.com). There are many "errors" of this
sort which can be readily dismissed as an error by those with eyes
tuned to faults, but which can be sources of enhanced understanding
and respect for those who are willing to look and see further.
6.
Some of the alleged mistakes from the KJV that have entered into the
Book of Mormon text are not necessarily errors, or if errors, may
have been introduced by scribes rather than from revelation. This may
be the case for the Red Sea questions, both with the introduction
of "Red" in the quotation of Isaiah 9:1
(see also FairMormon
on this issue), and in the Red
Sea versus Reed Sea debate).
I'll discuss this more fully in an upcoming post, "Feeling Blue
Over the Red Sea?"
7. The Bible-related passages are not
due to simple lifting of KJV text. Again, there are many subtle
differences, and not just in the passages rendered in italics in many
KJV printings. So what was the process in applying KJV language to
the Book of Mormon?
8. In addition to the evidence from
witnesses, including at least one non-LDS witness, of a translation
process that precluded the use of any text or book for the dictated
text that was given at a prodigious rate, the allegation of Joseph's
direct use of a KJV Bible faces a further impediment: What Bible?
There is no evidence that Joseph owned one as he was doing the
translation, and an important piece of evidence suggesting he did
not. After the translation of the Book of Mormon was finished and the
typesetting was well underway, he began his work of rendering an
"inspired translation" of the Bible by taking an important
first step: buying a Bible. Here I quote from a
page at FAIRMormon.org:
There is no evidence that Joseph owned a Bible during the Book of Mormon translation
The
difficult financial circumstances of Joseph's family during the Book
of Mormon translation are well known. There is no evidence that Joseph owned a Bible during the Book of
Mormon translation. In fact, Oliver would later purchase
a Bible for Joseph, who used it in producing his revision of the
Bible (which became known as the Joseph Smith Translation). This
purchase occurred on 8 October 1829, from the same printer that was
then setting the type for the already-translated Book of Mormon.
Why would Joseph, poor as he was, get a Bible if he already owned
one?
Of
course, it's possible that he still had access to a Bible, as he must
have had when he was in his 15th year, searching for truth as he read
passages in the Bible such as James 1:5. But whatever family Bible he
had used, he might not have had the same access when he was away in
Harmony translating the Book of Mormon, and he clearly felt a need to
invest in one for his inspired translation of the Bible, but after
he had completed the Book of Mormon translation.
How Could God Allow Mortal Error in His Work?
Royal
Skousen and others have concluded that Joseph dictated the text,
including the KJV excerpts, through revelation. If that were the
case, how could there be mistakes that were conveyed in that process?
How could the Lord overlook the opportunity to correct the KJV and
render a perfect translation ready for peer review that could easily
impress our harshest critics?
The theory that I prefer is
that the KJV text is relied on as a general rule, for it is the
language of scripture, and passages from the Bible are used verbatim
or nearly so when the KJV is good enough.
Good enough
for what? Good enough for the Lord's work, which is focused on saving
souls, and not so much on impressing those who are looking for
faults. So the language we are familiar with is used, even when it is
not the most scholarly way of handling the ancient Hebrew text, as
long as it is "good enough." So if a poetic passage from
Isaiah refers to prancing satyrs in the KJV but some modern scholars
think he might have meant goats, since this is a relatively
inconsequential issue, the translation sticks with the KJV satyrs.
Sorry, goat lovers. Likewise, when 3 Nephi 12:22 keeps the KJV's
untranslated Aramaic word "Raca" instead of rendering an
unavoidably debatable translation of this word, for which a correct
translation is presently unknown apart from its obvious meaning,
based on the context, of conveying contempt, Raca is clearly "good
enough" for conveying doctrine, but those looking to find fault
will cry fowl, or rather, Raca.
How could God allow errors or
imperfections to creep into His holy word? In case you haven't
noticed, nearly every aspect of every volume of scripture we have has
involved human hands and minds. This includes understanding what was
said or what happened in the first place, writing it or speaking it,
transmitting it in various ways, translating it, editing it, copying
it again and again, and printing it. And then comes the reading and
interpretation. Each step adds the possibility of human error. There
is complexity on every page, as there is in each life. Error is a
reality, one that greatly worried the original authors of the Book of
Mormon text, but those errors seem to be in minor matters, while the
divine power of the text provides a clear and persistent signal about
the divinity of Christ and the reality of the Restoration, in spite
of its human errors and "good enough" elements.
In
fact, nearly everything God does in His church, both ancient and
modern, has involved human agents who are prone to error. He gives us
the chance to grow by being involved in His work and having
responsibility, but that comes at the price of imperfection. Quite
unreliable. A real mess! In terms of the standards of modern
scholars, it's all completely unacceptable.
If only He'd just
come down and do all the speaking, writing, translating, and
typesetting Himself (which should be trivially easy--I mean, He
claims to be omnipotent, right?). Then we could have a reliable
record at last, one that could be properly reviewed in light of the
latest scholarship. Why not, unless He has something to hide?
But hiding seems to be the modus operandi here--everything from
His physical presence right down to the alleged golden plates.
Of
course, it's not just a definitive written record that we will need
for review. We must also require that He regularly subject Himself to
scientific inquisition and peer review by leading scholars and highly
credentialed skeptics to assess His works, His belief systems and
social policies, and His suitability as Lord and God. When
appropriate, these review panels would also hold Him accountable for
past errors. If only He would meet these reasonable demands, then
maybe we'd be willing to seriously consider His claims, right? And
with the proper certifications and consensus from peer review, He may
even have shot at being worshiped. Conceivable, anyway.
Hmm,
when it comes to gaining the admiration of critics, the Book of
Mormon will always be between a Raca and a hard place.
Coming
back to reality, God's marvelous work and wonder in the Book of
Mormon is not about winning over critics with no need for faith and
contemplation on their part. For those who want faults, they are
there. Satyrs instead of goats. Raca untranslated. Red Sea, not Reed.
Archaic words in Isaiah maintained instead of being updated. There's
a boatload of fun for those whose goal is to mock, with remarkable
evidences of Semitic origins and divine influence for those willing
to consider the possibility and exercise faith, or at least an open
mind.
So how did Joseph do the translation? With a manuscript
from Solomon Spaulding in one hand and a Bible in the other? Behind a
screen with a host of documents he could rifle through to find one
phrase or concept at a time? With a team of scholars, a vast frontier
library, and the latest maps of Arabia from European presses? Or was
it by rapid fire dictation to scribes (completely unnecessary if an
original text was available), creating text far faster than most
modern translators and authors do, with his head in a hat striving to
see whatever a seer sees when gazing into a seer stone, relying on
scribes to correctly hear and record his words by hand, giving us an
imperfect text that continues to surprise and bless those willing to
give it a chance nearly 200 years later? As for me, I continue to be
surprised and blessed, and encourage you to give it a chance.
Jeff Lindsay has been defending the Church on the Internet since 1994, when he launched his
LDSFAQ website under JeffLindsay.com. He has also long been blogging about LDS matters on
the blog Mormanity (mormanity.blogspot.com). Jeff is a longtime resident of Appleton,
Wisconsin, who recently moved to Shanghai, China, with his wife, Kendra.
He works for an Asian corporation as head of intellectual property. Jeff and Kendra are the parents of 4 boys, 3 married and the the youngest on a mission.
He is a former innovation and IP consultant, a former professor, and former Corporate Patent
Strategist and Senior Research Fellow for a multinational corporation.
Jeff Lindsay, Cheryl Perkins and Mukund Karanjikar are authors of the book Conquering
Innovation Fatigue (John Wiley & Sons, 2009).
Jeff has a Ph.D. in Chemical Engineering from Brigham Young University and is a registered US
patent agent. He has more than 100 granted US patents and is author of numerous publications.
Jeff's hobbies include photography, amateur magic, writing, and Mandarin Chinese.