The evidence of the Isaiah variants
The location where we have the best textual control over the translation method is in the variations found in the Isaiah passages in the Book of Mormon. In these texts we have not only an English potential source in the KJV, but we also have a section where the ultimate original is known to have been Hebrew (though the script of the brass plates required a knowledge of the language of the Egyptians to read - Mosiah 1:4). Additionally, there is a documentary trail of textual variants against which we might make comparisons. The Isaiah variants therefore present an excellent opportunity to examine the nature of the translation method.
The important beginning point is: "the base text for the Isaiah quotations in the Book of Mormon is indeed the King James Version of the Bible." (Skousen, Royal. "Textual Variants in the Isaiah Quotations." In: Isaiah in the Book of Mormon. FARMS, 1998, p. 373.) Basing some of his conclusions on the work of his student, Andrew Stewart, Skousen notes: "he then compared those readings with the Book of Mormon text. Not surprisingly, in every case except one Stewart found that the Book of Mormon agreed with the unique readings in the King James Version."(Skousen, 1998, p. 376.)
Above and beyond this noted correspondence, he also finds that "the original Book of Mormon text is closer to the King James Version." (Skousen, 1998, p. 378.) To what extent was the King James Version (KJV) the basis for the changes rather than an artifact of convenience in translating?
The answer to this question comes on several different grounds. The first evidence for the source of the Book of Mormon text is subtle, because it deals not in the variants in the KJV, but rather in those places were there is no variation but perhaps should be. The KJV provides not only an archaic form of English, but at times a less than accurate representation of the intent of the manuscripts:
"Another manifestation of the BM Isaiah's roots in the KJV is its preservation of numerous errors and defects of that translation. The following is a list of readings, found in the BM, where the KJV is clearly or very likely wrong…The description of the following cases is abbreviated, with just enough information to point out the difficulties in the KJV. Readers may refer to the modern versions, commentaries, and dictionaries for sample translations, discussion, and documentation.
Isaiah 2:6//2 Nephi 12:6: "And they please themselves in the children of strangers." Modern renditions: "they strike hands with foreigners," "make bargain/covenant with foreigners," or "are crowded with foreigners."
Isaiah 2:16//2 Nephi 12:16: "Upon all pleasant pictures." Modern renditions: "upon all grand boats/precious things."
Isaiah 3:2//2 Nephi 13:2: "Prudent." Modern renditions: "diviner."
Isaiah 3:3//2 Nephi 13:3: "Eloquent orator." Modern renditions: "expert enchanter."
Isaiah 3:8//2 Nephi 13:8: "To provoke the eyes of his glory." Modern renditions: "rebel against/defy/insult his glorious presence/glance/gaze."
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."
Isaiah 5:2//2 Nephi 15:2: "He fenced it." Modern renditions: "he dug it," "made a trench," "broke the ground."
Isaiah 5:17//2 Nephi 15:17: "Then shall the lambs feed after their manner." Modern renditions: "then lambs shall feed as at their pasture/meadow" or "in their old pastures."
Isaiah 5:25//2 Nephi 15:25: "Their carcases were torn in the midst of the streets." Modern renditions: "their corpses were as refuse in the midst of the streets."
Isaiah 5:30//2 Nephi 15:30: "And the light is darkened in the heavens thereof." Modern renditions: "the light is darkened by/in its clouds."
Isaiah 6:2//2 Nephi 16:2: "Above it." Most likely to be rendered "above him."
Isaiah 6:13//2 Nephi 16:13: "Whose substance is in them, when they cast _their _leaves, _so the holy seed _shall _be the substance thereof." Modern renditions: "whose stock/stump remains when they are felled (or: their leaves fall): its stock/stump is the holy seed."
Isaiah 7:15//2 Nephi 17:15: "Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil and choose the good." The logical relation of the second clause to the first is not clear. It is as if eating butter and honey leads to moral knowledge. Clarification is needed. Compare the NJB: "On curds and honey will he feed until he knows how to refuse the bad and choose the good."
Isaiah 8:1//2 Nephi 18:1: "A man's pen." Modern renditions: "common/ ordinary letters" or "common/ordinary stylus."
Isaiah 8:6//2 Nephi 18:6: "The waters of Shiloah that go softly and rejoice in Rezin and Remaliah's son." The KJV translation of meçôç (root çwç) which KJV translates "rejoice" may be wrong since it does not fit the context. Several read the term as a biform of the root mss and translate "but melt (with fear) before Rezin and Remaliah's son." (Wright, David P. "Isaiah in the Book of Mormon ...and Joseph Smith in Isaiah." completed January 1996; initially published August 1998 on the web, part 3 [note that the examples continue in the original.)
In each of these cases, there is a weakness in the KJV translation that was not altered in the Book of Mormon. Had the Isaiah text been taken from the plates directly and simply placed into KJV language, one would expect some of these errors to have been corrected. The replication of the KJV language suggests that it was the KJV text in English that formed the basis for the Book of Mormon text, just as Skousen concluded.
A second evidence that the variations that are produced are based on the English KJV rather than the plates comes from some of the particular changes that were made. The most obvious is the clear misunderstanding of the archaic meaning of "wherefore" in the KJV. By Joseph's time, the interrogative meaning (perhaps best translated as "why?" or "how come?") and been mostly lost, and the other alternative meaning as a conjunction was retained. Note that in the following two examples, the use of "wherefore" to introduce a question has been transformed into a declarative sentence in the Book of Mormon:
Isa. 5:4 What could have been done more to my vineyard, that I have not done in it? wherefore, when I looked that it should bring forth grapes, brought it forth wild grapes?
2 Ne. 15:4 What could have been done more to my vineyard that I have not done in it? Wherefore, when I looked that it should bring forth grapes it brought forth wild grapes.
Isa. 50:2 Wherefore, 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.
2 Ne. 7:2 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 their rivers a wilderness and their fish to stink because the waters are dried up, and they die because of thirst.
Each of these cases takes a question and turns it into a declarative, and the resulting shift from question to declaration requires an alteration of the word order to complete the removal of the question. This surface text must be related to the English ability of "wherefore" to mark both declaration and question, and specifically the preference for the declarative in Joseph Smith's work. With these alterations in the Book of Mormon, the Book of Mormon text is consistent in using only "wherefore" as a conjunction.
Because this change is dependent upon a vagary of English vocabulary, not represented by an underlying Hebrew, the change could only have occurred by altering the English text, not an original language. Because the same change occurs twice, the possible argument that this is an inconclusive error is also diminished.
One of the known locations of change in the Book of Mormon revolves around the italicized words in the KJV. Of this phenomenon, Skousen notes: "The majority of differences between the Book of Mormon text and the Isaiah text are not associated with italicized words in the King James Version." (Skousen, 1998, p. 381). Skousen notes that the statistical representation was 29% (Skousen, 1998, p. 382 - errata. The printed version is 2%, an error.) Certainly this supports the statement that a "majority of differences" are not associated with italicized words.
Compare Skousen's conclusion to that of David Wright:
"The figures show that from 22% to 38% of all differences between the BM and KJV Isaiah text are associable with words italicized in the KJV. This suggests forcibly by itself that the BM text is responding to italics. A count from another, and more objective, perspective substantiates this impression. The second register in the table (headed by "Total italicized words in KJV") shows that 40% percent of the words italicized in the KJV are altogether lacking in the BM Isaiah. The significance of the concentration of variants at italicized words becomes visible when it is realized that only 3.6% of the words in the KJV are italicized (see the bottom register of the table). Approximately one-fourth to one-third of the variants are associated with words that constitute only about one-twenty-fifth of the text."
Note that both statistical counts come close to the same numbers, yet the conclusions drawn are dramatically different. Skousen uses the statistics as an indication that more changes are made elsewhere, and Wright uses the same number to stress the italicized words as a focal point for change. What information should be extracted from these positions?
Even at 29%, there are a significant number of changes that focus on the italicized words, using Skousen's numbers. While saying that they do not constitute a majority is a correct statement, it avoids dealing with the fact that nearly a third of the changes do occur in relation to the italicized words.
Most interesting in the analysis of the changes related to italicized words are those locations where the removal of an italicized word does violence to the readability of the text:
Isa. 54:9 For this is as the waters of Noah unto me: for as I have sworn that the waters of Noah should no more go over the earth; so have I sworn that I would not be wroth with thee, nor rebuke thee.
3 Ne. 22:9 For this, the waters of Noah unto me, for as I have sworn that the waters of Noah should no more go over the earth, so have I sworn that I would not be wroth with thee.
In this case, the italicized words in the first phrase are replaced with a single comma in the Book of Mormon version of the text. The Book of Mormon reading is awkward, and clearly misses the smoother reading of the KJV. While it is true that the italicized words represent an addition to the text, it is an addition of meaning allowed by grammatical structures, and is a reasonable translation, better than the comma of the Book of Mormon.
Another example comes from:
Isa. 6:5 Then said I, Woe is me! for I am undone; because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips: for mine eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts.
2 Ne. 16:5 Then said I: Wo me! for I am undone; because I am a man of unclean lips; and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips; for mine eyes have seen the King, the Lord of Hosts. (reading according to original manuscript, see Book of Mormon Critical Text, FARMS 1987, p. 217.)
The original manuscript follows a fairly regular practice of elimination of the italicized word, and in this case does such violence to the English text that modern editions have added "is unto" in between "Wo" and "me." Nevertheless, such was not in the original. One might consider this to be a scribal error where it was simply dropped, but this is certainly one that would have been caught in the re-read of the dictated sentence. This is best seen as an example of the elimination of the italicized words.
All of this indicates that Joseph based his analysis of Isaiah on the KJV Isaiah text rather than exclusively on the plates text. The nature of the changes clearly points to the use of the KJV as the basis, a point that Skousen accedes, at least in part.