Did Joseph Smith plagiarize the KJV in the Book of Mormon?

[_why me]

This is the oddest bit of nonsense I've read for a while. Are you really admitting that Joseph Smith used a hat to translate? Or that critics can't say he did because the Bible wouldn't have fit? Either way, this argument is hardly as clever as you think.

Yes, I am admitting that Joseph Smith used a hat to translate only because many critics say so and Emma did too.

For example if you have the Bushman book, turn to chapter 3 and read the quotation from Emma at the top of the chapter.

She states: I frequently wrote day after day, often sitting at the table close by him, he sitting wiht his face buried in his hat, with the stone in it and dictating hour after hour, with nothing between us. he had neither mss nor book to read from. If he had anything of the Kind he could not have concealed it from me. The plates often lay on the table without any attempt at concealment, wrapped in small linen table cloth, which I had given him to fold them in....Joseph Smith could neither write nor dictate a coherent and well worded letter, let alone a book like the book of M.

Emma Smith Bidiemon, Notes of Interview with Joseph Smith III, 1879

Now the problem for critics is that they can not have a dill pickle and eat it too. If it was done from a hat, that would mean Joseph Smith memorized large sections of Isiah and the New Testament. And that would be impossible according to the testimony of Emma who saw no book or mss of any kind.

You see, critics often contradict themselves and that is what is truly amazing. They flount the hat trick and yet, swear that he plagarized the Bible. What to do??

I like the hat story. I think that it is great and could be faith promoting. Let me put it this way: Lets say the the critics are correct, just for the heck of it. He plagarized the Bible. Why did David Whitmer and Emma make up a hat trick then? The curtain idea would certainly be better and they just ignore the hat trick. The hat trick actually makes it all seem geniune and true. Amazing isn't it? :=)

Now the critics need to get their notes straight...was it a hat trick or wasn't it???

[_why me]

Charity,

Wesley P. Walters has identified some 200 anachronistic Book of Mormon quotations from the New Testament. If you absolutely require the full list, I suppose I can scan it and email it to you. But since you don't appear to have read the David P. Wright essay yet, maybe I shouldn't bother? The following are a few from the Tanners:

Yes, but he translated the book from a hat. Difficult to memorize from a hat, right off the top of his head. How do you explain the translation process if Emma and David are correct??

[_why me]

The Bible could not have been in the hat because I would think that the pages would be difficult to turn from inside a hat.

I don't really have anything to say to this; I just wanted to repost it.

Well, you see, here is the problem. A few months ago, many critics were singing praises to the south park episode where they showed Joseph Smith translating from a hat. They lavished praise on that episode because of it. They got a real hoot out of it and hoped that members would see and begin to question the truthfulness of the church. The critics have usually bought into the hat trick.

And so, I want to know just how he did it all from a hat. How to memorize passages from the Bible while looking in a hat??

The dill pickle is hard to eat at times.

[_why me]

For myself in critically examining the issue it's very clear that we need to put a Bible in the room for the creation of the Book of Mormon.

Phaedrus

Quite right. That was my point too. But no Bible was in the room with Joseph Smith as he dictated the Book of Mormon. The Bible could not have been in the hat because I would think that the pages would be difficult to turn from inside a hat. The critics can not have their pickle and eat it too. To rattle off Isiah at the top of head, would have been quite a feat for any human. Such a gift would have made Joseph Smith rich it he took the show on the road.

And you KNOW there was no Bible in the room how?

See my previous post with the Emma Smith Bidemon quotation. She said there was no book in the room nor mss.

[_why me]

The Bible could not have been in the hat because I would think that the pages would be difficult to turn from inside a hat.

I don't really have anything to say to this; I just wanted to repost it.

I hope you don't mind I snaked it for my new sig line. I just couldn't pass it up.

No problem, a genius is often in a sig line!! :=)

[_DonBradley]

Sigh.

This same ground has been plowed and replowed so many times. I, personally, among others, have provided more than sufficient answers to them several times over the last few years--on ZLMB, FAIR/MAD, and, I believe, here.

Since those complete answers are accessible, I'll provide only summary versions below.

The claim has been made that the inclusion of 478 verses from Isaiah in the Book of Mormon demonstrates conclusively that Joseph Smith “plagiarized” the Book of Mormon.

1. This illustrates the lack of precise thinking on the part of the claimants. The passages in 2 Nephi quite clearly attribute the work to Isaiah. Plagiarism only occurs when the author copies, but does not give credit.

I'm inclined to more or less agree with your conclusion, while rejecting the argument you use for it.

I don't like the use of "plagiarism" for the use of the KJV in the Book of Mormon. I don't use the term, and wish others wouldn't either. Plagiarism is a legal and moral wrong of stealing someone else's work. I fail to see how the Book of Mormon's use of the KJV infringes either the legal or moral rights of the KJV translators.

However, your argument for the same or a similar conclusion is flawed. The Book of Mormon does use the King James--including many of its errors and idiosyncracies--and "does not give credit" to the King James translators for these readings. So, under the definition of plagiarism you employ in this argument, you should regard the Book of Mormon biblical quotations as instances of "plagiarism."

2. Imprecise language does not change the basic nature of the claim, however. What about 478 verses from the KJV in the Book of Mormon?
Of the 478 verses, 201 are exactly as they appear in the KJV, or slightly over 42%. The rest are different in some way. For a full treatment of this concept you can go to
http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/display ... ripts&id=2

But let me give you a major point. A comparison was made of the 478 verses not only as they appear in the KJV and the Book of Mormon, but also the Hebrew Massoretic text (MT), the Hebrew scrolls found at Qumran (notably IQIsa, which contains all sixty-six chapters), the Aramaic Targumim (T), the Peshitta (P), the Septuagint (LXX) or Greek translation, the Old Latin (OL) and Vulgate (V),

In a significant number of instances, where there are differences, the differences in the Book of Mormon agree with these ancient texts. Was Joseph just guessing right?

The article is a fascinating read, but not for the faint hearted. If you still want to maintain that Joseph “plagiarized” the Book of Mormon, DON’T READ THIS!

A few points are in order here:

First, the KJV text, often with its errors of translation and transmission, is contained in the Book of Mormon. Given that the KJV was completed in 1611, and that the arrow of time runs in only one direction, this means the Book of Mormon source for Isaiah (identified in the text as "the brass plates") dates to after that time. The reliance of the Book of Mormon on the KJV is an anachronism, and an anachronism just is presumptive evidence that a reputedly ancient text is not what it claims to be.

Second, many of the changes in Book of Mormon Isaiah can be shown by the methods of textual criticism to be reactions to the KJV text, including the italicization of certain words, indicating that they were added by the translators. This is thoroughly documented by David P. Wright in his work on Isaiah in the Book of Mormon, work that is available in published form and, last I knew, online.

Third, while only about 2% of the words in KJV are italicized, these italicized portions are the locations of about 40% of the variations in Book of Mormon Isaiah. In other words, a word marked in the KJV text as translator-added is about 20 times more likely to be changed in the Book of Mormon than a word not so marked. This, again, shows the derivative nature of the Book of Mormon Isaiah text.

Fourth, many of the changes in Book of Mormon Isaiah solve problems occurring in the KJV text, and appear to have been intended to do so (pace Wright). Given that many of the variants in ancient manuscripts also reflect apparent attempts to solve the same problems in the text, it is unsurprising that there would be overlap in the variations produced by Smith and by ancient scribes.

Fifth, the parallel texts to Book of Mormon Isaiah in ancient manuscripts are nowhere near as systematic nor as detailed and idiosyncratic as those between Book of Mormon Isaiah and the KJV text.

Sixth, culling through any body of data--in this case several ancient manuscript sources of Isaiah--will produce parallels and correspondences. Notably, however, only the "hits" are enumerated by those making this comparison. Places where Book of Mormon Isaiah clashes with all these ancient texts--and matches the erroneous KJV text--are simply ignored.

Seventh, if it is to be argued that the Book of Mormon Isaiah text derives from an independent, ancient source, then it is puzzling that this ancient source contains the errors of the King James translators. Parallels to ancient texts of the sort adduced by Tvedtnes and others is of vanishingly little significance compared to anachronisms and evidence of dependence on a modern text.

3. For those who persist in the face of undeniable evidence, there is still the question of how Joseph could have accomplished it. If you still claim he copied pages from the KJV, just how did he do it in front of witnesses without them knowing? As anti’s love to point out, Joseph had his face in a hat. That also means there was no room for pages to read from, and no light to read them if there had been.

So did he memorize all 478 verses with the corrections of the ancients texts? Did he then dictate from memory? You have to account for the fact that when he returned from a break to chop wood, or go to the outhouse, or eat lunch, he started right where he had left off without prompts.

This is just silly. Show me any account where the scribe for Book of Mormon Isaiah--Oliver Cowdery--says that Joseph Smith did not employ a King James Bible for these portions of the text, or that Smith always and only used the seerstone? Since Cowdery is the only one known to have been present for this portion of the dictation, only his testimony would specifically relate to whether a Bible was used at this time. You have no testimony that Smith didn't employ a Bible for the biblical portions of the Book of Mormon. So quit pretending you do.

The evidence that Smith did employ a King James Bible here is overwhelming, and requires no testimony whatsoever. That evidence is the text itself. The facts that Book of Mormon Isaiah perpetuates many erroneous and idiosyncratic translations from the KJV, and errors of transmission based, not on "the brass plates," but on the manuscripts from which the KJV was based, and that it reacts to features of the KJV not present in the Hebrew (e.g., the italics) shows it to be derivative from the KJV.

The case of Book of Mormon use of the KJV is like that of a man whose fingerprints are found all over a crime scene. It really doesn't matter whether his friends testify that he didn't go to that location. He has left traces that tell a much more reliable story.

The linguistic fingerprints of the KJV are all over the Book of Mormon text of Isaiah. If all the witnesses to the translation process had said Joseph Smith didn't use a Bible for this portion of the dictation (as none of them in fact did[/i], it would make no difference. The text itself is the best evidence of its origin.

That’s enough for you all to chew on for now.

Or at least it's enough for you and many other apologists, who've been chewing the same cud for years, blissfully, if willfully, ignorant that it was shown to be rotten years ago.

Don

[_DonBradley]

I like the hat story. I think that it is great and could be faith promoting. Let me put it this way: Lets say the the critics are correct, just for the heck of it. He plagarized the Bible. Why did David Whitmer and Emma make up a hat trick then?

Since you're so clever, WhyMe, let's see how intelligently and accurately you can answer these:

1) The Emma Smith testimony describes her own tenure as her husband's scribe for the Book of Mormon text. For what portion of the book was Emma scribe? What does the historical evidence, offered by Emma in her own testimony, say about this? How much of the biblical material of the Book of Mormon would have been dictated during this period?

2) For what portions of the Book of Mormon, if any, was David Whitmer a scribe? For what portions did he observe the translation? Do we know which parts he observed, and therefore whether they would have included biblical material?

3) What is the context of David Whitmer's statement? And, indeed, what is its specific content? What is it that Whitmer says Joseph Smith didn't copy from? And why was the question of copying posed (i.e., what allegation was he trying to refute)?

4) What proportion of the Book of Mormon text consists of blocks of biblical quotation? And, using that proportion, what is the probability that someone walking in on the translation would have observed the translation of these blocks, and what is the probability that they would have, instead, observed the translation of the non-biblical portions of the text?

5) If a putatively ancient text quotes long blocks of "Romeo and Juliet," how many witnesses--if there were any--would it take to show that the alleged translator didn't rely on Shakespeare?

Don

[_DonBradley]

Charity and WhyMe,

for what it's worth, in John Tvedtnes's full-length study of Isaiah in the Book of Mormon (at one time distributed as a FARMS Working Paper), even he acknowledges several instances where Joseph Smith tinkered with the King James italics when dictating the Book of Mormon text. Tvedtnes notes that the italicized, translator-added words of the KJV are sometimes dropped from the Book of Mormon Isaiah text even when these words are grammatically required in English and their ommission does violence to the sense of the text.

But to react to the KJV italics even some of the time, Joseph Smith would have needed to consult an actual King James Bible, unless you're going to argue that Joseph Smith had a memory so miraculous that he had memorized not only the text of King James Isaiah, but even its layout on the page.

Don

[_Sethbag]

Don, I can't disagree with just about anything you've said here, and I know the Book of Mormon is hokum like you do, but I do have to add one remark in disagreement. A TBM could remark simply that the italics specifically were removed because God didn't like them there (since they'd been added by the translators) and so the version that God revealed to Joseph Smith while he was translating omitted them. I don't buy into this logic, but it's something they could in fact claim, and it wouldn't be entirely illogical, given their particular, faith-clouded logic.

[_Sethbag]

It's kind of funny reading Why Me asking why Emma and David Whitmer would have made up the hat trick.

I think a far, far better question is this.

Why would GOD have made up the hat trick?