The use of KJV English in the Book of Mormon

Deseret News via FairLDS ^ | 1961 | Hugh Nibley

[Grig]

Criticism

Critics of the Book of Mormon claim that major portions of it are copied, without attribution, from the Bible. They present this as evidence that Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon by plagiarizing the Authorized ("King James") Version of the Bible.

Source(s) of the criticism

• Grant H. Palmer, An Insider's View of Mormon Origins (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2002) Chapter 3. (Index)
• Jerald and Sandra Tanner, The Changing World of Mormonism (Moody Press, 1979), 116-122. (Index)
• Wesley P. Walters, "Mormonism," Christianity Today 5/6 (19 December 1960): 8–10.

Response

LDS scholar Hugh Nibley wrote the following in response to a letter sent to the editor of the Church News section of the Deseret News. His response was printed in the Church News in 1961:^[1]

[One of the] most devastating argument[s] against the Book of Mormon was that it actually quoted the Bible. The early critics were simply staggered by the incredible stupidity of including large sections of the Bible in a book which they insisted was specifically designed to fool the Bible-reading public. They screamed blasphemy and plagiarism at the top of their lungs, but today any biblical scholar knows that it would be extremely suspicious if a book purporting to be the product of a society of pious emigrants from Jerusalem in ancient times did not quote the Bible. No lengthy religious writing of the Hebrews could conceivably be genuine if it was not full of scriptural quotations.

...to quote another writer of Christianity Today [magazine],^[2] "passages lifted bodily from the King James Version," and that it quotes, not only from the Old Testament, but also the New Testament as well.

As to the "passages lifted bodily from the King James Version," we first ask, "How else does one quote scripture if not bodily?" And why should anyone quoting the Bible to American readers of 1830 not follow the only version of the Bible known to them?

Actually the Bible passages quoted in the Book of Mormon often differ from the King James Version, but where the latter is correct there is every reason why it should be followed. When Jesus and the Apostles and, for that matter, the Angel Gabriel quote the scriptures in the New Testament, do they recite from some mysterious Urtext? Do they quote the prophets of old in the ultimate original? Do they give their own inspired translations? No, they do not. They quote the Septuagint, a Greek version of the Old Testament prepared in the third century B.C. Why so? Because that happened to be the received standard version of the Bible accepted by the readers of the Greek New Testament. When "holy men of God" quote the scriptures it is always in the received standard version of the people they are addressing.

We do not claim the King James Version of the Septuagint to be the original scriptures—in fact, nobody on earth today knows where the original scriptures are or what they say. Inspired men have in every age have been content to accept the received version of the people among whom they labored, with the Spirit giving correction where correction was necessary.

Since the Book of Mormon is a translation, "with all its faults," into English for English-speaking people whose fathers for generations had known no other scriptures but the standard English Bible, it would be both pointless and confusing to present the scriptures to them in any other form, so far as their teachings were correct.

What is thought to be a very serious charge against the Book of Mormon today is that it, a book written down long before New Testament times and on the other side of the world, actually quotes the New Testament! True, it is the same Savior speaking in both, and the same Holy Ghost, and so we can expect the same doctrines in the same language.

But what about the "Faith, Hope and Charity" passage in Moroni 7:45? Its resemblance to 1 Corinthians 13 is undeniable. This particular passage, recently singled out for attack in Christianity Today, is actually one of those things that turn out to be a striking vindication of the Book of Mormon. For the whole passage, which scholars have labeled "the Hymn to Charity," was shown early in this century by a number of first-rate investigators working independently (A. Harnack, J. Weiss, R. Reizenstein) to have originated not with Paul at all, but to go back to some older but unknown source: Paul is merely quoting from the record.

Now it so happens that other Book of Mormon writers were also peculiarly fond of quoting from the record. Captain Moroni, for example, reminds his people of an old tradition about the two garments of Joseph, telling them a detailed story which I have found only in [th' Alabi of Persia,] a thousand-year-old commentary on the Old Testament, a work still untranslated and quite unknown to the world of Joseph Smith. So I find it not a refutation but a confirmation of the authenticity of the Book of Mormon when Paul and Moroni both quote from a once well-known but now lost Hebrew writing.

Now as to [the] question, "Why did Joseph Smith, a nineteenth century American farm boy, translate the Book of Mormon into seventeenth century King James English instead of into contemporary language?"

The first thing to note is that the "contemporary language" of the country-people of New England 130 years ago was not so far from King James English. Even the New England writers of later generations, like Webster, Melville, and Emerson, lapse into its stately periods and "thees and thous" in their loftier passages.

∗       ∗       ∗

Furthermore, the Book of Mormon is full of scripture, and for the world of Joseph Smith's day, the King James Version was the Scripture, as we have noted; large sections of the Book of Mormon, therefore, had to be in the language of the King James Version—and what of the rest of it? That is scripture, too.

One can think of lots of arguments for using King James English in the Book of Mormon, but the clearest comes out of very recent experience. In the past decade, as you know, certain ancient nonbiblical texts, discovered near the Dead Sea, have been translated by modern, up-to-date American readers. I open at random a contemporary Protestant scholar's modern translation of the Dead Sea Scrolls, and what do I read? "For thine is the battle, and by the strength of thy hand their corpses were scattered without burial. Goliath the Hittite, a mighty man of valor, thou didst deliver into the hand of thy servant David."^[3]

Obviously the man who wrote this knew the Bible, and we must not forget that ancient scribes were consciously archaic in their writing, so that most of the scriptures were probably in old-fashioned language the day they were written down. To efface that solemn antique style by the latest up-to-date usage is to translate falsely.

At any rate, Professor Burrows, in 1955 (not 1835!), falls naturally and without apology into the language of the King James Bible. Or take a modern Jewish scholar who purposely avoids archaisms in his translation of the Scrolls for modern American readers: "All things are inscribed before Thee in a recording script, for every moment of time, for the infinite cycles of years, in their several appointed times. No single thing is hidden, naught missing from Thy presence."^[4] Professor Gaster, too, falls under the spell of our religious idiom.

By frankly using that idiom, the Book of Mormon avoids the necessity of having to be redone into "modern English" every thirty or forty years. If the plates were being translated for the first time today, it would still be King James English!"

Conclusion

The Book of Mormon emulates the language and style of the King James Bible because that is the scriptural style Joseph Smith, translator of the Book of Mormon, was familiar with.

Quotations from the Bible in the Book of Mormon are sometimes uncited quotes from Old Testament prophets on the brass plates, similar to the many unattributed Old Testament quotes in the New Testament; others are simply similar phrasing emulated by Joseph Smith during his translation.

Critics also fail to mention that even if all the Biblical passages were removed from the Book of Mormon, there would be a great deal of text remaining. Joseph Smith was able to produce long, intricate religious texts without using the Bible; if he was trying to deceive people, why did he "plagiarize" from the one book—the Bible—which his readership was sure to recognize?

Endnotes

1. [back] Church News, 29 July 1961: 10, 15. Reprinted in Hugh W. Nibley, "Literary Style in the Book of Mormon Ensured Accurate Translation," in The Prophetic Book of Mormon, volume 8 of the Collected Works of Hugh Nibley (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1989), 214–18.
2. [back] Nibley is responding to Wesley P. Walters, "Mormonism," Christianity Today 5/6 (19 December 1960): 8–10.
3. [back] Nibley is quoting Millar Burrows, The Dead Sea Scrolls (Michigan: Baker, 1955; reprinted 1978), 1:397.
4. [back] Nibley is quoting Theodore H. Gaster, The Dead Sea Scriptures (New York: Doubleday, 1964), 136.

[freeplancer]

Gosh, I remember when this was a conservative political website. I miss the good old days.

[MHGinTN]

This may be the answer to your invitation ... bwahahahaha, such a thing!

[dayglored]

> Gosh, I remember when this was a conservative political website. I miss the good old days.

Well, at least this was posted in the Religion section...

It could be worse -- it could have shown up in Breaking News...

[MHGinTN]

Here's a related thread on the topic that some may wish to read along with this one.

[Notwithstanding]

I agree with the criticism, and this article does not debunk it in the least.

The use of KJV langauge will forever dog LDS apologists forever because it is hard evidence that the books were made up by Joseph Smith.

Just as objective archeological and historical analysis of the book of Mormon and a comparitive religion analysis of the Mormon rituals disproves the authenticity of Joseph Smith’s claims, so too the book of Mormon itself.

I admire many Mormon friends for the virtue they display, however I despise and pity them for their cowardly fear of any rational discussion of their dubious beliefs.

[MHGinTN]

BTW, Grig went to your thread and posted a link to this wooden nickle ... I’d say the mormonism cabal has been busy following up on your invitation to DU.

[Saundra Duffy]

“The use of KJV langauge will forever dog LDS apologists forever because it is hard evidence that the books were made up by Joseph Smith.”

I have a testimony deep in my heart of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. In its pages I have grown to love my Savior even more. In its pages I have grown to love my Heavenly Father even more. And in its pages I hear and feel the still small voice of the Holy Ghost.

I am sorry you feel that I am a “coward” - that was not a very Christian thing to call me. You know me and you know that one thing I am NOT is a coward. I have spit right in the devil’s face - more than once.

I love my Church. I love my Savior.

My eyes filled with tears of gratefulness when I saw the actual scrolls at the Dead Sea Scrolls exhibit in San Diego. The presence of the Holy Ghost was very strong. There is a scroll that was found alongside the others referred to as the “Alma Scroll” - “Alma, Son of Judah” - the first time the name “Alma” appears as a man’s name outside the Book of Mormon.

You can’t have read the Book of Mormon. If you had, you would at least have to admit it has literary significance.

I was raised to fear and loathe Mormons and Catholics and Jews - and I used to make fun of them, so I sort of know where you are coming from, and it’s not very pretty.

It scares me a little when intelligent people are so vicious in their holier-than-thou attacks against The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. It hurts, too.

A Baptist woman told me right to my face, “You are not a Christian.” I told her that Jesus Christ is my personal Savior; He suffered and died for me to save me from my sins; and I love Him with all my heart. Heavenly Father is my real Dad who loves me and sent His only begotten Son to die for me. Me! And the Holy Ghost tells me this is true.

I am sorry you have such a low opinion of me, especially after I put myself out there for you.

[SkyDancer]

Interesting also is the name Sam which is the Americanized name of Samuel plus the word Adieu which is modern French in the BOM ... I once read that the reason for using KJV English was to make the BOM sound more “Biblical” ....

[MHGinTN]

Oh, I forgot the decoder ring signal P>

Flying Inmans Ping!

Don't hose me, bro!

[Saundra Duffy]

CTR

[Spunky]

Not only did they use quotes from the KJV (without identifing the source except for LOTS from Isiah, they took the below idea from the Westminster Confession of faith.

Westminster Confession of faith
Chapter 32
Of the State of Men after Death,
and of the Resurrection of the Dead
1. The bodies of men, after death, return to dust, and see corruption:a but their souls, which neither die nor sleep, having an immortal subsistence, immediately return to God who gave them:b the souls of the righteous, being then made perfect in holiness, are received into the highest heavens, where they behold the face of God, in light and glory, waiting for the full redemption of their bodies.c And the souls of the wicked are cast into hell, where they remain in torments and utter darkness, reserved to the judgment of the great day.d Beside these two places, for souls separated from their bodies, the Scripture acknowledgeth none.
2. At the last day, such as are found alive shall not die, but be changed:e and all the dead shall be raised up, with the selfsame bodies, and none other (although with different qualities), which shall be united again to their souls forever.f
3. The bodies of the unjust shall, by the power of Christ, be raised to dishonor: the bodies of the just, by his Spirit, unto honor; and be made conformable to his own glorious body.g

BOOK OF MORMON THIS PORTION
SUPPOSEDLY WRITTEN IN 73 B.C.
RLDS Alma 19:42-58
LDS Alma 40:11-18

Now concerning the soul between death and the resurrection, Behold, it has been made known to me by an angel that the spirits of all men, as soon as they are departed from this mortal body, whether they be good or evil, are taken home to that God who gave them life. Then shall it come to pass that the spirits of those who are righteous are received into a state of happiness which is called paradise, a state of rest, a state of peace, where they shall rest from all their troubles, and from all care, and sorrow. And then shall it come to pass that the spirits of the wicked, those who are evil-for, behold, they have no part nor portion of the Spirit of the Lord, for, behold, they choose evil works, rather than good, therefore the spirit of the devil enters into them and takes possession of their house - shall be cast out into outer darkness; there shall be weeping, and wailing, and gnashing of teeth; and this because of their own iniquity, being led captive by the will of the devil. Now this is the state of the souls of the wicked, in darkness, and a state of awful, fearful looking for the fiery indignation of the wrath of God upon them; thus they remain in this state, as well as the righteous in paradise,until the time of their resurrection. Now there are some who have understood that this state of happiness, and this state of misery of the soul, before the resurrection, was a first resurrection. I admit it may be termed a resurrection- the raising of the spirit or the soul, and its consignation to happiness or misery- according to the words which have been spoken. And behold, again it has been spoken that there is a first resurrection- a resurrection of all those who have been, or who are, or who shall be, down to the resurrection of Christ from the dead. Now we do not suppose that this first resurrection, which is spoken of in this manner, can be the resurrection of the soul, and their consignation to happiness or misery. You cannot suppose that this is what it means. Behold, I say to you, No; but it means the reuniting of the soul with the body

It is my personal belief that Sidney Rigdon who was well schooled in theology had a big influence in the Mormon theology.

[wintertime]

Professor Gaster, too, falls under the spell of our religious idiom.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

While modern English has abandoned the second person familiar ( thy thee, thou, thine) other languages retain it. If the original text used the second person familiar then an accurate translation should use thee, thy, thou, and thine in its English translation. To use the third person formal ( you) would not be an accurate rendition of the original meaning of the text.

[MHGinTN]

You might enjoy reading the thread at my link in post #5 ...

[Spunky]

Also in the Book of Mormon in Alma the people are called Christians long before Christ was born. In the Bible they were not called Christians untill they followed Christ. And I think it was Alma or Mosiah where he called the Son of God, Jesus, (because he was told that would be his name. I don’t think the prophets in the Old Testament knew his name was going to be Jesus.

[wintertime]

It scares me a little when intelligent people are so vicious in their holier-than-thou attacks against The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

When conservative Republicans attack other religions ( Mormon, Catholic, Jehovah Witnesses, Scientology, etc.) they should **NOT** be surprised that Jews vote Democratic. If I were a Jew I would be wondering when these so-called “Christian” Republican conservatives were going to turn on Judaism and Jews.

I am not a Mormon, by the way, but strive mightily to see the commonalities among other religions and my own.

Personally, I would be thrilled to have many more Mormons in my community. They are good people and wonderful neighbors.

[Republic_of_Secession.]

This is a slippery slope as there are accusations that parts of the Bible was plagiarized from Sumerian works.

[Spunky]

"Personally, I would be thrilled to have many more Mormons in my community. They are good people and wonderful neighbors."

I agree whole heartedly. I have a young family right next door. I do not talk religion with them as it is their business but if they were to ever approach me and try to convert me I would tell/show them the same things that are shown here.

We are not bashing whoever posts these threads personally but discussing why we don't believe the way they do.

[wintertime]

So far, the thread has been civil in tone.

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“You can’t have read the Book of Mormon. If you had, you would at least have to admit it has literary significance.”

Saundra, this is obviously a very emotional issue for you. I do not want to hurt your feelings. You seem very sincere. I just can’t see any “literary significance” in the BOM. It’s not well written. It’s clearly a forgery, a fraud invented by Smith. There are numerous mistakes. There are anachronisms galore: steel, horses, chariots, silk, scimitars, etc. I know of no one other than Mormons, and a few “scholars” of 19th century America who think it has literary significance. I’m not going to lie to you and say I’ve read the whole thing, but I’ve read enough to know that it sounds like someone is trying rather hard to mimic the KJV.