Question: Why does “and it came to pass” appear so often in the Book of Mormon?
This much-maligned phrase is actually evidence of the Book of Mormon’s authentic antiquity
Some have mocked the frequent repetition of “and it came to pass” in the Book of Mormon.[1] Mark Twain famously joked that if the phrase were omitted, Joseph would have published a pamphlet instead of a book.[2] As it turns out, however, this much-maligned phrase is actually evidence of the Book of Mormon’s authentic antiquity.
The phrase and it came to pass, appears 727 times in the King James Version of the Old Testament
Donald W. Parry, an instructor in biblical Hebrew at BYU, wrote in the Ensign:
The English translation of the Hebrew word wayehi (often used to connect two ideas or events), and it came to pass, appears some 727 times in the King James Version of the Old Testament. The expression is rarely found in Hebrew poetic, literary, or prophetic writings. Most often, it appears in the Old Testament narratives, such as the books by Moses recounting the history of the children of Israel.
As in the Old Testament, the expression in the Book of Mormon (where it appears some 1,404 times) occurs in the narrative selections and is clearly missing in the more literary parts, such as the psalm of Nephi (see 2 Ne. 4:2025); the direct speeches of King Benjamin, Abinadi, Alma, and Jesus Christ; and the several epistles.
But why does the phrase and it came to pass appear in the Book of Mormon so much more often, page for page, than it does in the Old Testament? The answer is twofold. First, the Book of Mormon contains much more narrative, chapter for chapter, than the Bible. Second, but equally important, the translators of the King James Version did not always render wayehi as and it came to pass. Instead, they were at liberty to draw from a multitude of similar expressions like and it happened, and became, or and was.
Wayehi is found about 1,204 times in the Hebrew Bible, but it was translated only 727 times as and it came to pass in the King James Version. Joseph Smith did not introduce such variety into the translation of the Book of Mormon. He retained the precision of and it came to pass, which better performs the transitional function of the Hebrew word.
Another question: Why does so much of the KJ version of the bible appear so often in the Book of Mormon?
We KNOW in came into being LONG after the Golden Plates® were supposedly inscribed.
I see.
Variety must have been saved for earlier stuff.
Version Number When Published Brief Description |
Age/Year | Evil Power | Pillar of Light or Fire |
Number of Personages |
Father | Son | Question: Join What Sect |
Remarks |
Official Version,
Mormon scripture,
Pearl of Great Price
p. 47, 48, 1974 Ed. |
Age 14 1820 |
Yes | Yes Light |
2 | Yes | Yes | Join None | Lucy, Hyrum, Samuel, Sopronia Join Presbyterian Church 1820 |
Paper by Joseph Smith, Times and Seasons March, April 1842 |
Same as item 1 above | |||||||
Letter from Joseph Smith
to John Wentworth, editor Chicago Democrat
1841 account Published March 1,1842 |
None given | No | No | 2 | ? | ? | No question, told all incorrect |
Joseph Smith's First Vision by Milton V. Backman Jr. Bookcraft, Appendix D. Ensign, Jan.1985, p. 16 |
Both looked the Same They spoke |
||||||||
Dictated by Joseph Smith,
in hand of James Mulholland, 1838
|
Same as item 1 above, first known account of the official version. |
Ensign,
Jan. 1985 p. 14
|
||||||
Joseph Smith's diary of 1835, Recorded by
Warren Cowdery
Nov. 9, 1835, conversation of Joseph Smith with Joshua
|
Joseph, about 14 | No Tongue seemed swollen; heard someone; at first couldn't pray |
Yes Fire |
One, and then another like unto the first | ? | ? | No question, told sins are forgiven, Jesus Christ is the Son of God |
Joseph Smith's First Vision
by Milton V. Backman Jr. Bookcraft, Appendix B
|
Second spoke. | ||||||||
Saw many angels | ||||||||
Messenger & Advocate
by Oliver Cowdery supervised by
Joseph Smith
Feb. 1835
p. 77-79;
Also see Dec. 1834 p. 43
|
Joseph 17 1823 |
No | Yes | 1 |
No | No | No question told sin are forgiven | Note on pg. 78 that the revival was in 1823 (NOT 1820) so this must be the First Vision. |
Messenger from God | ||||||||
Dictated by Joseph Smith
to F. G. Williams Summer to Nov. 1832
|
Joseph 14 or 16 | No | Yes | 1 | No | Yes | No question, told "None doeth good", sins forgiven |
Joseph Smith's First Vision
by Milton V. Backman Jr. Bookcraft, Appendix A
|
Saw Lord (Jesus) he "spoke" | ||||||||
Written by Joseph Smith, 1832 diary | Joseph 15 | No | Yes | 1 | No | Yes | No question, told sins forgiven all do no good |
Ensign,
Dec. 1984 pgs. 24-26
Jan. 1985 pg. 11
|
Saw the Lord Jesus Christ (said He was crucified) | ||||||||
Early Church leaders
B. Young,
G. A. Smith,
J. Taylor
|
Joseph 15 | No | No | 1 | No | No | Join None | Journal of Discourses, 2:171; 18:239; 13:77,78; 20:167; 12:333,334 |
Saw an angel, and asked the angel |
I'm sure that SHIZ would like a little bit of 'actual evidence' to back up HIS story; too.
When is SLC gonna dig into the hill called Cumorah?
Oh; wait.
That's NOT where the World's Largest Battle was fought; was it.
I've just gotten back from a week in Branson and still coming down from billboard overload.)
Replies #14 and 15 await your fine toothed comb.
For example, from an essay in BYU Studies he cites the Charles C. Rich version of a pregnant Eliza heavy with child being shoved down the stairs by a furious Emma. Nowhere does he tell the reader that these authors concluded that the story given the present evidence was untenable:
But where are we?But where are we? Faced with a folk legend, with genuine documents that tell no tales, and dubious ones that contradict themselves and the contemporary accounts, perhaps it is best for us to respond as we must to many paradoxes of our history: consider thoughtfully and then place all the evidence carefully on the shelf, awaiting further documentation, or the Millennium, whichever should come first.[1]
A 'book' on gold plates; none of which are in evidence, tales thereon that cannot be documented, perhaps a person needs to collect whatever 'evidence' is available and weigh ALL of it; not just selected apologetic spin.