As an example of a purported KJV error in the Book of Mormon, David P. Wright offered Isa 14:4 and “golden city” as one (of many):
Isaiah 14:4//2 Nephi 24:4: "The
golden city." The word mdhbh is problematic since the root dhb is
not attested in Hebrew. The KJV is apparently connecting it to Aramaic dhb "gold."
This translation is therefore doubtful (it also does not fit the context). The
text is probably defective, and mrhbh "boisterous behavior, frenzy,
arrogance" is to be read.
David P. Wright, “Part
3: KJV Translation Errors in the BM Isaiah," in "Isaiah in the
Book of Mormon, or, Joseph Smith in Isaiah"
The evidence supports the KJV
(and the Book of Mormon) on this score. As Seth Erlandsson noted about מדהבה in Isa
14:4:
מדהבה
is a much discussed word. The question is partly whether מדהבה is a scribal
error for מרהבה and partly what both these words mean. Most scholars emend ד in
מדהבה to ר. The reason given for such a view is that as נגש and רהב are used as
parallels in Is. 3:5, it is probable that a similar parallelism may occur here.
Furthermore, it is usually held that the LXX and Pesh. depend upon a Vorlage
which contains the reading מהרבה.
The
argument is not quite correct. The LXX translation ὁ ἐπισπουδαστής does not
indicate that its Vorlage read מרהבה. רהב ב, which occurs in 3:5 means “storm
again’. ἐπισπουδαστής means ‘goader’ and corresponds to the parallel word נגש,
which means both ‘goader’ and ‘extractor of tribute’. The verb επισπουδαζω ‘urge
on’ is never used in the LXX for any form of רהב. One cannot, therefore,
contend that the LXX translator had מרהבה in his Vorlage. He has quite
simply guessed what מדהבה means in the light of the context just as is the case
even today. The same can be said of the Pesh. which is presumably influenced by
the LXX. . . . The word מדהבה occurs in 1 QH 3:25 and 12:18 and the form מדהוב
in CD 13:9, but unfortunately it does not cast any light on its meaning in
these instances. It is obvious that the Hodayot obtained the word from Is.
14:4, but the reading מרהבה also occurs in Qumran i.e. 1QIsa. It is,
however, easier to explain how the more difficult reading מדהבה has been
changed to מרהבה, possibly influenced by 3:5, than the original מרהבה was read
in error as מדהבה.
Various
attempts to derive the root meaning of מדהבה have been made. Kimchi and Aben
Esra understood it to be a derivation of רהב = זהב ‘gold’. Aben Esra associated
it with זהב מס ‘gold tribute’, whilst Kimchi understood it to be an epithet for
Babylon who compelled other nations to pay tribute in the form of gold. Others
have taken the word to indicate the place where gold was accumulated or as hiph. part., meaning ‘gold extortionist’, or ‘gold extortion’. An argument against מדהבה
being an epithet for Babylon is the fact that the verb שבת is never used of a
locality which has found rest and that there is no allusion to the city of
Babylon in the song. Orlinsky thinks that מדהבה is connected with the root רבא
and that “the ancients recognized in ראב, רבא and רהב the common רב element,
with the meaning ‘strong’”. He, therefore contends that מדהבה means ‘might,
power, oppression’ or something similar.
If
נגש in the parallelism has the meaning ‘exactor of tribute’, then it is quite possible
that מדהבה is the word for the taxation which the tribute-collector inflicted
on the people. The translation of the Vulg. (tributum) and Symm. and
Theod. (φορολογια) appear therefore, to be nearer the original
meaning. That מדהבה has the meaning can be explained if the word is an Aramaic
ma-nomen stemming form רהב ‘gold’. The literal meaning would then be ‘gold
tribute’.
It
is quite conceivable that the occupying powers, Assyria and Babylonia, could
have used this term. We know that Akkadian was the official language in Assyria
proper but it proved difficult to use in the occupied areas. Mazar contends
that, “with the spread and consolidation of Assyrian rule over Trans-Euphrates,
and in particular over the provinces of Aram, the Assyrian administration inherited
official Aramaic as one of the official languages of the empire”. Aramaic proved
itself to be much more handy and “officials in the chancelleries, aware that
Aramaic was far better known than Akkadian in the distant parts of the Empire,
commenced using a single, standard form of Aramaic for correspondence with such
areas”. “We shall merely point to the fact that already in the eighty century
Aramaic had spread well beyond the boundaries of Aramaic-speaking countries.
Assyrian documents from the eight-seventh century mention Aramean scribes in
the service of the Assyrian government.” 2 Ki. 18:26-28 )= Is. 36:11-13) shows
that the leaders in Jerusalem take it for granted that Sennacherib’s
commander-in-chief can speak Aramaic. “That this was a reasonable expectation
and that the incident is not an isolated one” is shown by “the impressive array
of Aramaic bits written on durable materials”. This is further illustrated by “the
military report sent back to Assyrian from Babylonian by Bel-etir, a captain of
the Assyrian cavalry, written ink, in distinctive cursive Aramaic letters, on a
large potsherd”. Also, an Aramaic seal impression, found in Khorsabad, shows “that
the use of Aramaic had reached to the very palace officials themselves”.
The
official status of Aramaic is shown by the sculptured relief portraying the
taking of spoil from Nabu-mukinzer’s Aramean city Sapea (729 B.C.). On this relief
an Aramean scribe is shown with a pen and parchment in his hands standing
beside the usual Assyrian scribe who has a clay tablet and stylus. Here, too,
we have the explanation as to why the Akkadian annals have survived to this
day, whereas Aramaic discoveries are limited to a number of small inscriptions,
treaties and letters on potsherds. The Aramaic inscriptions did not demand soft
clay tablets and a stylus, but rather pen and ink are some form of material
which could be rolled up, (see relief). This material has not survived until
the present day though that which was written on more durable material such as
potsherds and clay tablets has.
We
have thus established that Aramaic “to a lesser degree was the official language
of diplomacy, administration and business under the Assyrians and that the word
מדהבה was used from the time of Tiglath-pileser III to indicate the heavy tribute
inflicted on that portion of the population which was not deported. (Seth
Erlandsson, The Burden of Babylon: A Study of Isaiah 13:2-14:23 [Coniectanea
Biblica Old Testament Series 4; Lund, Sweden: Berlingska Boktryckeriet, 1970], 29-32)