Some of the More Problematic Isaiah Variants in the Book of Mormon Suggesting Joseph Smith was Influenced by KJV Isaiah, not the Brass Plates

I think one area of research Book of Mormon scholars need to engage more in is that of certain Isaiah variants in the Book of Mormon (as well as other biblical-related topics; I hope to one day do a full study of Proto-Deuteronomy in the text . . . ) There are some variants in the Book of Mormon's quotations of Isaiah that are problematic (whether those that follow the KJV and retain KJV errors or departs from the KJV but such variants seem to betray ignorance of biblical Hebrew) and need good answers from scholars, so I hope this blog post detailing what I think are the most difficult Isaiah variants in the Book of Mormon to explain will hopefully get some discussion going (perhaps some can be explained by Egyptian grammar and the like? After all, the brass plates were in Egyptian?) For a useful article, see Stan Spencer, Missing Words: King James Bible Italics, the Translation of the Book of Mormon, and Joseph Smith as an Unlearned Reader, Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 38 (2020): 45-106.

I will be quoting from David P. Wright's online essay, Isaiah in the Book of Mormon...and Joseph Smith in Isaiah, Brant Gardner's seminal Second Witness: Analytical and Contextual Commentary on the Book of Mormon and John A. Tvedtnes' 1981 "The Isaiah Variants in the Book of Mormon." Another useful resource is that of Webster's 1828 Dictionary (some variants Wright pointed out as problematic in his essay are answered by appealing to the English of Joseph Smith's era). All quotations from the Book of Mormon are taken from Royal Skousen, ed., The Book of Mormon: The Earliest Text (Yale, 2009).

If you think you have a good response to any of these, let me know at ScripturalMormonismATgmailDOTcom. If it holds up, I will happily host your response(s) (and give you credit).

[1] Isaiah 10:15//2 Nephi 20:15

 

KJV: Shall the axe boast itself against him that heweth therewith? or shall the saw magnify itself against him that shaketh it? as if the rod should shake itself against them that lift it up, or as if the staff should lift up itself, as if it were no wood.

 

BOM: Shall the ax boast itself against him that heweth therewith? Shall the saw magnify itself against him that shaketh it? As if the rod should shake itself against them that lift it up? Or as if the staff should lift up itself as if it were no wood?

 

David P. Wright

 

Isaiah 10:15//2 Nephi 20:15: "As if the rod should shake _itself against them that lift it up, _or as if the staff should lift up _itself, _as _if _it _were no wood." The KJV is in error. The Hebrew should be translated "as if a rod raised the one⁴⁹ who lifted it, as if a staff lifted the one who is not wood."

49. Delete the w- on w't (cf. Wildberger, Isaiah, 413). Note that the KJV does not translate this conjunction.

KJV/BOM: as if the rod should shake itself against them that lift it up, or as if the staff should lift itself, as if it were no wood.

 

Wright: as if a rod raised the one who lifted it, as if a staff lifted the one who is not wood!

 

NASB: that would be like a club wielding those who lift it, or like a rod lifting him who is not wood.

 

NRSV: as if a rod should raise the one who lifts it up, or as if a staff should lift the one who is not wood!

 

1985 JPS TNK: as though the rod raised him who lifts it, as though the staff lifted the man!

[2] Isaiah 29:16//2 Nephi 27:27

 

KJV: Surely your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the potter's clay ‎‎(הַ֙פְכְּכֶ֔ם אִם־כְּחֹ֥מֶר הַיֹּצֵ֖ר יֵֽחָשֵׁ֑ב): for shall the work say of him that made it, He made me not? or shall the thing framed say of him that framed it, He had no understanding?

 

BOM: And woe unto them that seek deep to hide their counsel from the Lord, and their works are in the dark. And they say: Who seeth us and who knoweth us? And they also say: Surely your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the potter's clay! But behold, I will shew unto them, saith the Lord of Hosts, that I know all their works. For shall the work say of him that made it: He made me not! Or shall the thing framed say of him that framed it: He had no understanding!

 

David P. Wright

 

Isaiah 29:16//2 Nephi 27:27: "Surely, your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the potter's clay."  This cannot be correct.  A better translation (with the rest of the saying included to show the context) would be: "How perverse of you (or: You turn things upside down)! Can the potter be considered as the clay? Can a work say of its maker, 'He did not make me,' and can what is formed say to the one who formed it, 'He has no (creative) intelligence?'"

 

Brant A. Gardner

 

“The phrase ‘turning of things upside down’ is an error in intent. In KJV Isaiah, Yahweh speaks this phrase to Israel. It is a continuation of his same idea as ‘Shall the work say of him that made it, He made me not?’ In Isaiah, the sequence that communicates the insolent questioning of the creator by the creation. In translation, Judah speaks to Yahweh, thus disconnecting the question from phrases that follow. This type of ‘error’ is typical of changes caused by Joseph’s participation in the translation, but not of Nephi’s care in constructing his pesher on Isaiah’s text.” (Second Witness 2:395)

 

[3] Isaiah 48:16//1 Nephi 20:16

 

KJV: Come ye near unto me, hear ye this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, there am I: and now the Lord GOD, and his Spirit, hath sent me.

 

BOM: Come year near unto me. I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was declared have I spoken. And the Lord God and his Spirit hath sent me.

 

David P. Wright

 

Isaiah 48:16//1 Nephi 20:16: The KJV reads: "from the time that it was, there _am I"; the BM: "from the time that it was declared have I spoken." In the BM the passive participle "declared" is appended after the existing verb "was." This is not possible in Hebrew. The Hebrew has the infinitive plus pronoun h^eyôtäh "it was." The BM reading requires replacement of this word with an entirely different Hebrew verb (e.g., huggad or hugg^edâ). The italicized word "_am" is likely part of the motivation for the change. The stimulus for the idea of "declaration" comes from earlier in the chapter in vv. 3, 5, 6, 14.⁶¹

61. Tvedtnes' argument (The Isaiah Variants, 71, 114-115) that "declared" is a scribal (dictation) mistake for "there" because they sound similar makes cannot be maintained since the two words are really dissimilar and there is another variant in the line ("have I spoken") with which "declared" is conceptually consistent and coordinated. Too, a reading like "from the time that it was there have I spoken" does not make much sense (expecially against the Hebrew).

 

Brant A. Gardner

 

Variant/Translation: The King James Version reads: “Come ye near unto me, hear ye this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, there am I: and now the Lord God, and his Spirit, hath sent me. Replacing “there am I” with “declared I have spoken,” suggests that Joseph Smith was clarifying the King James Version here rather than translating form the plates. Tvedtnes notes that there are no versions of Isaiah with this change, so there is nothing in the extant textual history of Isaiah that we can rely upon as an explanation. (Tvedtnes, “Isaiah Textual Variants in the Book of Mormon,” 71) rather than look to Isaiah textual variants, our clues lie in the nature of changes in the Book of Mormon Isaiah texts. This change follows an important pattern in the Book of Mormon Isaiah variants. The locus of the change is an awkward phrase containing a word that it italicized in the King James Version. (See commentary accompanying 2 Nephi 8:18-19.) The added text not only removes the italicized word but attempts to make better sense of the passage. The result is a text that reads more smoothly in English and maintains the general intent of the passage.

 

However, from a literary standpoint, it removes an important scriptura allusion. The declaration “there am I” is not just an indication that Yahweh has spoken, as it becomes in the Book of Mormon rendition, but a declaration of the person, power, and reality of the Lord, related thematically to the appellation “I AM,” since the Lord and the Spirit appear as separate entities (Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 40-55, 295). This type of change sees Joseph Smith interacting with the English Isaiah text and making his changes upon the King James Version, not upon the plate text. (Second Witness 1:394-95)

  

[4] Isaiah 50:2//2 Nephi 7:2

 

KJV: Wherefore (מַדּ֙וּעַ [HALOT: "on what account?, why?"), when I came, was there no man? when I called, was there none to answer? Is my hand shortened at all, that it cannot redeem? or have I no power to deliver? behold, at my rebuke I dry up the sea, I make the rivers a wilderness: their fish stinketh, because there is no water, and dieth for thirst.

 

BOM: Wherefore when I came, there was no man; when I called, yea there was none to answer. O house of Israel, is my hand shortened at all that it cannot redeem? Or have I no power to deliver? Behold, at my rebuke I dry up the sea. I make the rivers a wilderness and their fish to stink because the waters are dried up and they dieth because of thirst.

 

David P. Wright

 

The KJV reads: "Wherefore, when I came, _was _there no man? when I called, _was _there none to answer?" The BM inverts the italicized words and reads as a statement rather than a question: "Wherefore, when I came there was no man; when I called, yea, there was none to answer." The BM reading depends on the ambiguity or polysemy of the English "wherefore." In English this word can be an interrogative ("why?") or a conjunction ("therefore"). It is an interrogative in the KJV verse here, translating the Hebrew word maddûa^c "why?" The BM reading uses "wherefore" as a conjunction, which is not possible for Hebrew maddûa^c. This reveals the BM's dependence on the English text.³⁹

 

39. Tvedtnes (The Isaiah Variants, 35, 80, 116-117) thinks that this variant is due to a misundestanding by Smith or the scribe (apparently the English copiest). The variant must be intentional and from Smith: not only does it involve italicized words, a trigger for change as outlined in this section, the adverb "yea" also appears in the BM reading. This well fits a change from interrogation to declaration. The variant also appears twice in the passage.

 

[5] Isaiah 51:17//2 Nephi 8:17

 

KJV: Awake, awake, stand up, O Jerusalem, which hast drunk at the hand of the LORD the cup of his fury; thou hast drunken the dregs of the cup of trembling, and wrung them out (אֶת־כּ֣וֹס חֲמָת֑וֹ אֶת־קֻבַּ֜עַת כּ֧וֹס הַתַּרְעֵלָ֛ה שָׁתִ֖ית מָצִֽית).

 

BOM: Awake, awake, stand up, O Jerusalem, which hast drunk at the hand of the Lord the cup of his fury; thou hast drunken the dregs of the cup of trembling wrung out—

 

David P. Wright

 

Besides cases where the text is incomprehensible, some variants where words italicized in the KJV are lacking in the BM present readings that are significantly different from and incompatible with the Hebrew text. In Isaiah 51:17, for example, the KJV reads "thou hast drunken the dregs of the cup of trembling, _and wrung _them out"; the BM has "thou hast drunken the dregs of the cup of trembling rung (sic) out" (2 Ne 8:17; "rung" here is just a phonetic spelling for "wrung"; there is no difference in meaning). In the BM the term "rung out" becomes an adjective modifying "dregs" (or perhaps "cup"). The Hebrew, which reads 'et qubba^cat kôs hattar^cëlâ $ätît mä&ît, can be construed literally as "the goblet of the cup of reeling you have drunk, you have drained out." It is impossible to get the BM translation from the Hebrew and it is unlikely that the BM is due to a variant in an ancient text. The BM has merely eliminated the italics, producing a reading that is erroneous.

 

[6] Isaiah 51:19//2 Nephi 8:19

 

KJV: These (הֵ֙נָּה [feminine plural]) two ‎(שְׁתַּ֤יִם [feminine]) things are come unto thee; who shall be sorry for thee? desolation, and destruction, and the famine, and the sword: by whom shall I comfort thee?

 

BOM: These two sons are come unto thee. Who shall be sorry for thee, thy desolation and destruction and the famine and the sword? And by whom shall I comfort thee.

 

John A. Tvedtnes:

 

KJV's "two things" read "two sons" in BM. MT has simply štym, the feminine numeral "two". It is hence not possible to admit that the original read "sons". Moreover, the two "things" are then listed in the same verse as "desolation and destruction", then reworded as the parallels "the famine and the sword". On the surface, the substitution of another word for the one italicized in KJV looks like normal procedure for Joseph Smith, but it could also be a scribal error. The BM change was probably prompted by the fact that vs. 18 ends by speaking "of all the sons she hath brought up", while vs. 20 begins by speaking of "thy sons". (John A. Tvedtnes, The Isaiah Variants in the Book of Mormon, 87; note: there is no evidence that this is a scribal mistake. Skousen retains “sons”)

 

David P. Wright:

 

In one case where the BM has another word for an italicized word, the meaning is significantly changed, but not in accordance with the Hebrew original. The phrase "These two _things are come unto thee" becomes "These two sons are come unto thee" (Isa 51:19//2 Ne 8:19). This is an extremely unlikely reading for any ancient text since the phrase in Hebrew is formulated in the feminine ($^etayim hënnâ qör'ötayik) whereas "sons" (bänîm) is masculine. The variant in the BM is oblivious to the requirements of Hebrew, and it is doubtful that the Hebrew developed from a masculine to feminine formulation. Smith apparently replaced the italicized word, picking up "sons" from the context of vv. 18 and 20 which speak of "sons."

 

Interestingly, Joseph Smith, in Old Testament Manuscript 2, replaced 'things' with 'sons':

This change was noted by Orson Hyde in a letter dated July 7, 1840:

Jews are gathering; and have issued orders, or a circular, and universal proclamation for their brethren, in all the world, to return to Palestine, for the land is ready for their reception. "But there is none to guide her among all the sons whom she hath brought up, but these two things are come unto thee." -- See Isaiah 51:18,19. Things, you know, in English means any kind of fish, beast, or birds. But the book of Mormon says, "These two sons are come unto thee" this is better sense, and more to the point. As Jerusalem has no sons to take her by the hand and lead her among all thy number whom she hath brought forth, Bro. Page and myself feel that we ought to hurry along and take her by the hand; for are her sons but the Gentiles have brought us up. (Times and Seasons, 1, no. 10 [August 1840]: 156-57)

[7] Isaiah 3:18-23 (= 2 Nephi 13:18-23)

David P. Wright

 

Isaiah 3:18-23//2 Nephi 13:18-22: The meaning of several of the terms in this passage is unclear and the KJV cannot be considered accurate. Compare the NJPS: "(18) In that day, my Lord will strip off the finery of the anklets, the fillets, and the crescents; (19) of the eardrops, the bracelets, and the veils; (20) the turbans, the armlets, and the sashes; of the talismans and the amulets; (21) the signet rings and the nose rings; (22) of the festive robes, the mantles, and the shawls; the purses, (23) the lace gowns, and the linen vests; and the kerchiefs and the capes."

 

For further information, here is a table comparing the items listed in Isa 3:18-23 in the KJV with modern translations. Those highlighted are some of the more problematic ones, and notes discussing the underlying Hebrew are discussed below:

 

 

KJV (and BOM)	NRSV	NASB	1985 JPS Tanakh
[18] tinkling ornaments about their feet cauls round tires like the moon	[18] finery of the anklets headbands crescents	[18] anklets headbands crescent ornaments	[18] anklets fillets crescents
[19] chains bracelets mufflers	[19] pendants bracelets scarfs	[19] dangling earrings bracelets veils	[19] eardrops bracelets veils
[20] bonnets ornaments of the leg headbands tablets earrings	[20] headdresses armlets sashes perfume boxes amulets	[20] headdresses ankle chains sashes perfume boxes amulets	[20] turbans armlets sashes talismans amulets
[21] rings nose jewels	[21] signet rings nose rings	[21] finger rings nose rings	[21] signet rings nose rings
[22] changeable suits of apparel mantles wimples [Webster’s 1828 dictionary: hood/vail] crisping pins [Webster’s 1828 dictionary: “curling iron]	[22] festal robes mantles cloaks handbags	[22] festal robes outer tunics cloaks money pursues	[22] festive robes mantles shawls pursues
[23] glasses fine linen hoods vails	[23] garments of gauze linen garments turbans veils	[23] hand mirrors undergarments turbans veils	[23] lace gowns linen vests kerchiefs capes

 

3:18: “round tires like the moon”: Hebrew is הַשְּׁבִיסִ֖ים וְהַשַּׂהֲרֹנִֽים׃

HALOT:

9328  שָׁבִיס

 

*שָׁבִיס: hapax legomenon, pl. שְׁבִיסִים, primary noun )cf. Bauer-Leander Heb. 470n(; MHeb. שְׁ/שָׁבִיס a woman’s headdress )Dalman Wb. 413b; cf. Levy Wb. 4: 498b(; the same in JArm. שְׁבִיסָא; the Vrss. vary: Sept. (acc.) τοὺς κοσύμβους the hairnets (Liddell-Scott Lex. 985b); Vulg. ornatum calciamentorum jewellery worn by shoemakers; Pesh. sÌebtheÒn their jewellery, Tg. the same as MT: sëbiÒsayyaÒ: traditionally jewellery worn by a woman on the head (Zorell Lexicon 816b), and specifically a headband e*.g. Gesenius-Buhl Handw.; KBL). But these interpretations have now become outdated in the light of Ug. sëpsë corresponding to sëapsëu (Ugaritica 5 (1968) 352b) “sun”, on which see especially Wildberger Jes. 141, but see also earlier König Wb. 479a, who refers to the parallel שַׂהֲרֹנִים, and also to Σαβις “an Arabic designation of the sun in Theophrastus etc.” )2: 144(; on Ug. sëpsë ï שֶׁמֶשׁ: small sun disc, used as jewellery or alternatively as an amulet Is 3₁₈, cf. Gray Legacy² 261; Stähli Solare Elemente im Jahweglauben des Alten Testaments (OBO 66 (1985) 11f); and Schroer In Israel gab es Bilder (OBO 74 (1987) 261); Gressmann Bilder² 218, especially 221, 224 (for 221 see also p. 69); Galling Bibl. Reallex.² 10b, 11a. †

 

9067  שַׂהֲרֹנִים

 

שַׂהֲרֹנִים: etymology uncertain, ? root שׂהר see Bauer OLZ 38 )1935( 477, cf. ? MHeb. שַׂהַר roundness, basket; *שַׂהַר + diminutive ending -oÒn )Bauer-L. Heb. 500u; Fschr. Stamm 5-8(; MHeb. סַהֲרוֹן moon-shaped ornament )?(; זיהרא, Sam. זהרא, det. zeÒrraâ )Ben-H. Lit. Oral Trad. 3/2:240(; JArm. סַהֲרָא, סֵיהֲרָא moon; OArm., EmpArm. שהר Sèhr, the moon-god )Donner-R. Inschriften 3: p. 58b; Gese-H. Religionen 167f, 217¹⁷, 289; Haussig Wb. Myth. 1:525, 549); OSArb. sëhr new-moon, the first day of the month (Conti Chrest. 247b; Beeston JSS 22 (1977) 56; Beeston Sabaic Dictionary 132), divine name rbÁ sëhr (RubÁ Sèahar) the quarter moon (Conti Chrest. 247; Gese-H. Religionen 283, 284) the epithet of the god sëhrn (SèahraÒn) the moon, cf. Höfner Gramm. §98 and 105 (Conti Chrest. 247f; Gese-H. Religionen 289); Syr. sahraÒ; CPArm. shrÀ; Mnd. sira I moon (Drower-M. Dictionary 329b); Eth. sëaÒhr (Dillmann Lex. 230b); Arb. sëahr: little moons, which served as amulets or jewelry Ju 8₂₁.₂₆ Is 3₁₈, see BRL² 10f. p. 10b fig. 8; further bibliography in Wildberger BK 10:142. †

 

v. 20:

Tablets: Hebrew ‎בָתֵּ֥י הַנֶּ֖פֶשׁ

TDOT:

 

The expression bātê nep̱eš in Isa. 3:20 is obscure; the context does not help. The best translation appears to be that of the Vulg., “scent-bottles,”⁵⁰ lit. “little houses [containers] of vital energy [life],” made use of by breathing. (Horst Seebass, “נֶפֶשׁ,” ed. G. Johannes Botterweck, Helmer Ringgren, and Heinz-Josef Fabry, trans. David E. Green, Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1998), 9:505.)

 

HALOT:

—10. misc. aבָּתֵּי ( הַנֶּ׳ Is 3₂₀ ï בַּית I 2; b( tomb )not in OT(, N. Avigad Ancient Monuments in the Kidron Valley (1954): MHeb., 2Q 15 i 5 (DJD 3:247 no. 85) > Greek ψιχη (= ψυχή) Alt Inschr. d. Pal. Tertia (1921):25; Nab. Palm. (Jean-H. Dictionnaire 183f), parallel with μνημεῖον, στήλη, cf. A. Negev IEJ 21 )1971(:115: נפשא :: קברא meaning: commemorative grave :: real grave; cf. Dict. Bib. Supp. 7:951f(; cf. Arb. naÒwuÒs, Wellhausen Heid. 179; OSArb. )Conti 189b; Ryckmans Muséon 71 )1958(:132ff(, Yemen. נפש (BiOr. 12:193f), Syr. (Muséon 28:46ff).

 

 

Earrings: Heb: ‎הַלְּחָשִֽׁים

HALOT:

4631  לַחַשׁ

 

לַחַשׁ: לחשׁ; Ug. lhäsët Gordon Textbook §19:1372; Ph. ) לחשJean-H. Dictionnaire 137(; MHeb. בלחש whispering JArm.^tg לַ/לִחְשָׁא incantation, JArm.^b ) לחישא? < Heb.( Syr. luhÌsëtaÒ, Mnd. )Drower-M. Dictionary 236aליהשא (; Akk. lihäsëu whisper: pl. לְחָשִׁים:

 

—1. whisper, incantation (against snakes) Is 3₃ Jr 8₁₇ Qoh 10₁₁;

 

—2. amulet (? string of conch shells) as finery Is 3₂₀;

 

—Is 26₁₆ rd. ) חָלַשְׁנוּRudolph 20(. †

 

v. 22:

 

Wimples: Heb ‎מִטְפַּחַת

HALOT:

5089  מִטְפַּ֫חַת

 

מִטְפַּ֫חַת: I טפח, Bauer-L. Heb. 607d; MHeb.: מִטְפָּחוֹת: garment wrapped around the body, shawl )Hönig 59f; for the scrolls at Qumran DJD 1:24f) Is 3₂₂ Ru 3₁₅. †

 

Crisping pins: Heb ‎חָרִיט

HALOT:

3221  חָרִ(י)ט

 

חָרִ(י)ט. II חרט; Arb. hÌariÒtÌat sack: חָרִ(י)טִים: bag )orig. made of bark(, purse 2K 5₂₃ Is 3₂₂; cj. for חֶרֶט Ex 32₄ mould )ï VT 9:419ff; 10:74 :: Torczyner Bundeslade 35: shawl(. †

 

v. 23:

Glasses Heb: גִּלָּיוֹן

HALOT:

 

1569  גִּלָּיוֹן

גִּלָּיוֹן: — 1. Is 3₂₃: papyrus garments, but trad.: ‘mirrors’; — 2. Is 8₁ gill¹yôn g¹dôl tablet of metal, wood, or leather; oth.: papyrus. † (pg 61)