FAIR is a non-profit organization dedicated to providing well-documented answers to criticisms of the doctrine, practice, and history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
KJV italicized text in the Book of Mormon
Latter-day Saints and the Bible |
|
Reliability of the Bible |
|
Creation |
|
Genesis |
|
Understanding the Bible |
|
Cultural issues |
|
The Bible and the Book of Mormon |
|
Why are there italics in the KJV bible?
Italics in the King James Bible indicate that a word not present in the original Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic text has been added to the text to make the translation readable and comprehensible in English. They are also sometimes added to clarify the meaning of the original.
What does this have to do with the Book of Mormon?
The Book of Mormon contains quotations from and allusions to the King James Bible. The quotations contain words that are italicized in the King James Bible.
The Book of Mormon sometimes retains the italicized words (without the italics!) from the King James Bible. In other cases it deletes the italicized word(s). In still other cases the Book of Mormon modifies the italicized words.
Evidence for plagiarism?
Some critics believe that the presence of the italics is an indication that Joseph Smith didn’t translate an ancient text and instead just plagiarized a copy of the King James Bible. The 'CES Letter', explains that "[w]hen King James translators were translating the KJV Bible between 1604 and 1611, they would occasionally put in their own words into the text to make the English more readable. We know exactly what these words are because they’re italicized in the KJV Bible." It asks "[w]hat are these 17th century italicized words doing in the Book of Mormon? Word for word? What does this say about the Book of Mormon being an ancient record?"[1]
The assumption seems to be that the Book of Mormon, if truly a translation of an ancient text, should either not include these words or use different words. (We emphasize that the italics did not—as the 'CES Letter' assumes, merely make the English more readable. They were also inserted to clarify the underlying meaning of the Greek and Hebrew being translated.)
Critic Stan Larson argued in a 1993 book chapter that the words used make it clear that a 1769 KJV is being used:
The Book of Mormon text often revises biblical quotations at the very point where the original 1611 edition of the KJV prints the word or words in a different typeface in order to indicate that the words are not found in the Greek. This printing device was both inconsistently and sparsely applied in the 1611 KJV and improved in the 1769 printing. When Smith came to the KJV italics in the Sermon on the Mount, which he knew indicated that whatever was printed in italics was not in the original Greek, he would often either drop the word or revise it. The Book of Mormon sometimes revises the KJV italics that are only found in the 1769 and later printings. For example, the Book of Mormon drops the italics of the 1769 printing at Matthew 6꞉5, 7; 7:18 (3 Ne. 13꞉5,7; 14꞉18), and the Book of Mormon changes the tense of the italics at Matthew 5꞉12 (3 Ne. 12꞉12). On the other hand, the Book of Mormon fails to revise places where the KJV text ought to have been printed in italics but is not. In two places the Book of Mormon copies the noun "men" from the KJV, where it is not in the original Greek and has been improperly added in the KJV.[2]:130-31
Thus, Larson argues from a different angle—he doesn’t use the mere presence of KJV italics in the Book of Mormon like the 'CES Letter'. He argues instead based on the Book of Mormon’s interaction with the KJV italics. In some cases, the italics are simply dropped. In some cases, the italics are revised. In some cases, there is a passage that should have an italicized word but isn’t. These interactions occur in places which were only italicized in the 1769 edition and later editions of the KJV. According to Larson, these considerations date the Book of Mormon’s composition (and, more particularly, the Savior's Sermon at the Temple recorded in 3 Nephi) to the 1800s.
Critic David P. Wright uses a similar analysis of the Book of Mormon's alleged interaction with the italics of KJV Isaiah.[3]:159–69. He concluded that the perceived interaction "demontrates in large measure that the BoM Isaiah derives from the KJV."[3]:159. More broadly, he uses this "evidence" to argue that "the Isaiah of the BoM is a revision of the KJV and not a translation of an ancient document."[3]:157.
Believing author Stan Spencer (not Stan Larson), following Wright,[3]:164-66. discerns one more problem to account for. Spencer informs us that "[t]hese variants are usually minor but sometimes result in readings that conflict with the larger context of Isaiah’s message or create ungrammatical or even nonsensical sentences, particularly in the earliest text of the Book of Mormon."[4]:46 Spencer used Royal Skousen's first edition of The Book of Mormon: The Earliest Text] (2009) which is the best reconstruction of the text as it was originally dictated by Joseph Smith.[5]
We must thus address four questions:
- Did Joseph know what the italics represented?
- Did Joseph use a King James Bible in order to produce the Book of Mormon, including reference to the italics?
- Do the Book of Mormon's interactions with the KJV italics show that Joseph Smith was working from the 1769 edition of the KJV?
- Do the original Book of Mormon text's omissions and revisions of italics refute the teaching of Joseph Smith that the Book of Mormon is "the most correct book of any on earth"?
Question #1—What did Joseph know about the italics?
There is considerable debate among scholars of the Book of Mormon as to whether Joseph Smith knew the meaning of the italics.
Evidence Joseph did not know what the italics meant
Those that argue that Joseph didn't know what the italics mean cite six lines of evidence:
1. Emma Smith reported that, during the Book of Mormon translation, Joseph didn't know that Jerusalem was surrounded by walls If Joseph didn't know this basic fact about Jerusalem, can we expect him to have a fairly sophisticated understanding of the purpose of the italics?
2. Our critics rely heavily on an assumption that Joseph Smith was deeply familiar with the Bible at the time of the translation of the Book of Mormon. Those closest to Joseph Smith in his early life state otherwise. Lucy Mack Smith, Joseph's mother, stated that "I presume our family presented an aspect as singular as any that ever lived upon the face of the earth-all seated in a circle, father, mother, sons and daughters, and giving the most profound attention to a boy, eighteen years of age, who had never read the Bible through in his life; he seemed much less inclined to the perusal of books than any of the rest of our children, but far more given to meditation and deep study."[6]
3. The witnesses to the translation are unanimous that a Bible was not consulted during the translation of the Book of Mormon.[7]
| Related article: | All descriptions of Book of Mormon translation process Summary: This link presents all known descriptions (first person and second hand) of the translation setting, tools used, and process. |
Stan Spencer observed,
[I]f Joseph Smith used a physical bible, he would have had to do so frequently, since biblical interactions are scattered throughout the Book of Mormon. Continuously removing his face from the hat to make use of a physical Bible would not have gone unnoticed by those who watched him translate.[4]:59
Indeed, given the all the different quotations of whole chapters, phrasal interactions between the Old Testament and the Book of Mormon, as well as the phrasal interactions/similarities between the New Testament and the Book of Mormon, to conceive of Joseph either memorizing these passages and phrases (a process for which there is no evidence) or consulting a Bible during the translation (likewise) is ludicrous. Someone would have noticed that. Yet no one reports a Bible, and some are specifically clear that he did not have any book or manuscript to which he referred.[8]
4. There is no evidence that Joseph even owned a bible at the time of the translation of the Book of Mormon. We know that Oliver Cowdery purchased a Bible on 8 October 1829. However, the Book of Mormon was already at press by this time, with the copyright being registered on 11 June 1829.[9]
Prior to that time, the only Bible Joseph is known to have had access to was the Smith family Bible, which was not in his possession after he married and moved out of the Smith home. Joseph was poor and even poorer after moving away from home.[10] Yet Oliver purchased the Bible for Joseph in October 1829 from the print shop that did the type-setting for the Book of Mormon. This bible was later to be used to produce the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible (JST).[11] Given the family's poverty, why purchase a bible if they already had access to one for the Book of Mormon?
5. The general lack of explanation of italics in Bibles of Joseph Smith's day. The original 1611 KJV does not explain the use of italics; in fact, it silently borrowed the idea from the Geneva Bible, which does explain them.[12]
6. In a 1994 paper, Royal Skousen wrote: "Calhoun and Robbins [two students of Skousen's also compared the italicized words in the King James Bible with the original text of the Book of Mormon (as found in the two manuscripts [the original manuscript and printer's manuscript]). And both discovered many examples where Joseph Smith deleted, added, or altered words that are not in italics in any of the King James printings they examined. Each concluded that there was no direct connection between the italics and the original Book of Mormon text. Simply giving examples where changes correspond with italics means nothing; one must look at all the changes including the ones that occur independently of italics."[13]:127
Skousen is quite right that paying attention only to the italics will bias the data. The critics' method is a version of the hasty generalization fallacy, in which too few examples are studied before drawing conclusions about the whole.
Evidence Joseph did understand the italics' purpose
Those that believe Joseph did know the meaning of the italics typically cite 4–5 lines of evidence:[14]
1. The distribution of KJV italics being revised as they come to the Book of Mormon and especially the Isaiah chapters of the Book of Mormon. Royal Skousen has determined that of all the differences in the biblical quotations in the Book of Mormon, 23% involve italics. Of all the italics contained in the KJV, 38% are changed in some way in the Book of Mormon.[15] Skousen sees these facts as evidence that Joseph did not know the meaning of the italics since a much larger amount of changes do not involve italics. Though other scholars read those same percentages as significant; as evidence that Joseph did know the meaning of the italics.
2. Critic David P. Wright cited a KJV Bible published in New York City in 1818—George D'Oyly and Richard Mant's The Holy Bible According to the Authorized Version with Notes, Explanatory and Practical—that explained the meaning of the italics.[3]:159, p. 213n5 Wright speculates that "[l]ay readers could have read such statements and circulated the information further by word of mouth. Ministers, too, would have learned the reason for italics either from these sources or through their education and no doubt would have shared it with their congregants."[3]:159. This presumes much that is not in evidence.
3. Stan Spencer analyzed many of the Book of Mormon's interactions with the KJV Isaiah italics and argued that the Book of Mormon's interaction with Isaiah italics cannot be due to chance.[4]:49-55
4. The practice of crossing out italicized words in the Joseph Smith Translation. The manuscripts are available and one can see that there appears (at least to some) to be a strong focus on revision of the italicized words. The production of the JST began in June 1830 (after the publication of the Book of Mormon and the organization of the Church) and continued intermittently until 1833. Yet this evidence cannot tell us what Joseph knew in 1829, and by 1830 he had Sidney Rigdon's input—Rigdon was an accomplished minister and preacher, and would have been far more likely to know the meaning of the italics. He did not, however, join the Church until November 1830.[16]
5. The presence of statements from Joseph Smith's contemporary environment suggesting that there was a broader familiarity with the meaning of the italics. An editorial for the Evening and Morning Star (January 1833) stated the following: "The book of Mormon, as a revelation from God, possesses some advantage over the old scripture: it has not been tinctured by the wisdom of man, with here and there an Italic word to supply deficiencies.—It was translated by the gift and power of God."[17]
A few months later (July 1833), the same paper had an editorial that states "[a]s to the errors in the bible, any man possessed of common understanding, knows, that both the old and new testaments are filled with errors, obscurities, italics and contradictions, which must be the work of men."[18]
Roughly ten years later (September 1843) in the Latter-day Saint news paper Times and Seasons, another Latter-day Saint writer stated that "[m]uch has been said about the bad translations of the Bible. . . . Every school boy seems to know that when either of the sectarian translators failed in making the two ends of a sentence meet, he filled up the vacuity with italic, by which means God has been greatly helped towards expressing himself so as to be understood by the learned world."[19]
An 1831 article (critical of the Church and its claims) in The Sun, a newspaper in Philadelphia, states the following: "Finally, after frequent and fervent prayer, Jo's spectacles were restored to sight, and he again permitted to open the book.—Jo had, during his spiritual blindness, by the assistance of some one, commited several chapters of the New Testament to memory; and, the better to carry on his deception with the deluded Harris, had inquired, and found out the words inserted by the translators; (which are distinguished by Italics, both in the New Testament and the Old.) So, in order to convince Harris that he could read from the plates, Jo deposits them in his hat, applies spectacles, and refers Harris to a chapter in the Bible which he had learned by rote; and which he read from the plates, with surprising accuracy; and what astonished Harris most, was, that Jo should omit all the words in the Bible that were printed in Italic. And, if Harris attempted to correct Jo, he persisted that the plates were right, and the Bible was wrong."[20] The source of this article's assertions is unknown to the author of this article (couldn't locate any reference in the source to Martin as a source), though Stan Spencer says that it was "based apparently on an interview with Martin Harris".[4]:62.
Here again, however, we are relying on later sources to tell us what Joseph knew in 1829. And, they include resources such as WW Phelps, who was far more educated and sophisticated than Joseph, especially the Joseph of 1829.
Both perspectives are viable and still in debate among scholars of the Book of Mormon.
Three Hypotheses For How and Why the Italicized Words in Book of Mormon Were Modified
Stan Spencer laid out three hypotheses for the italicized words of the KJV in the Book of Mormon including how and why they were revised or omitted:
- Elder B.H. Roberts hypothesized that the italics interaction represents what was on the actual Book of Mormon plates. In Spencer's words: "Roberts attributes the differences in the Book of Mormon to ancient variants in the Nephite plates, presumably reflecting the record on the brass plates, at least in the chapters Nephi and Jacob say they are reading." According to Roberts, the version of Isaiah in the Book of Mormon is consistently "superior [in] sense and clearness."[4]:56 Spencer calls this the Ancient Variants Hypothesis.
- Spencer calls the second the Italics Revision Hypothesis. Advocates include Stan Larson, David P. Wright, and believing Book of Mormon scholar Brant Gardner. It holds that Joseph Smith was intentionally targeting italics in the King James Bible, knew what they meant, and intentionally revised them.[4]:56-58
- Spencer's own theory he names the Missing Words Hypothesis. This theory holds that Joseph was given a vision of a biblical passage in his mind with missing KJV italics and that part of the work of translation for Joseph Smith was to decide whether to supply words to the passage and, if so, what words to supply.[4]
Question #2—Is the presence of italics from the KJV Bible evidence of plagiarism?
The italics make the English text of the Bible more readable, clear, and comprehensible. If Joseph Smith was to produce a text that was readable and clear, the presence of something like the italics words would be necessary. Given that the KJV was a largely functional translation, following it points would be sensible. It’s nonsensical to claim that the mere presence of the italicized words is in and of itself damning.
| Related article: | Academic use of base texts for new translation Summary: See here for discussion of translators using earlier translations as a base text to showcase only the important differences between their text and well-known versions. |
Question #3—Does the Book of Mormon's interaction with the King James italics prove that it came from the 1800s?
Given that we don't know and likely can't know whether or not that Joseph Smith had knowledge of the meaning of the italics in the Bible, this question is in one sense unanswerable.
On the other hand, even if Joseph were aware of the italics' meaning, that does not prevent him from genuinely translating. If he knew the italics were an artifact or tool of the translator, then as a translator he would have paid particular attention to those words, since they have no exact match in the original. We would expect a translator to do that.
In that case, at most we could argue that the translation came from the 1800's—but that is completely non-controversial. There's no doubt the English translation was produced in 1829. This doesn't answer the question of whether Joseph was composing it in 1829, or translating based on an ancient text.
3. Do issues with italics mean the Book of Mormon cannot be the world "most correct book"?
Second, it's perhaps important to pick among the hypotheses Spencer outlines above in relation to the changes in italics in the Book of Mormon. The author favors Spencer's theory but acknowledges that there may be some cases in which there really are ancient variants that correspond to the changes in italics made in the Book of Mormon. Thus a sort of hybrid of Spencer's and Roberts' theories.
Today's edition of the Book of Mormon is very readable and comprehensible, but the original manuscript of the Book of Mormon was less so. Stan Spencer lines up passages from the KJV Isaiah and Royal Skousen's reconstruction of the earliest text of the Book of Mormon show how the changes sometimes have "negative effects on the sense, clarity, or grammar of the text" versus the KJV.[4]:49
To fully assess this question, we would need to consider each case of omission or revision of italics and determine whether the resulting message is an erroneous theological or ethical message about God.
Stan Spencer discusses 10 of these changes that worsen the original biblical passages' sense and clarity.[4] Royal Skousen discusses similar issues in volume 3, part 5 of his Book of Mormon Critical Text Project entitled The King James Quotations in the Book of Mormon.[21]
We have collected every change that could potentially deemed misleading regarding the intent of the biblical passages being quoted. In the table below, the left column describes the changes and the right column assesses their impact (if any) on meaning. These revisions are organized in the order they appear in the Book of Mormon.
| Related article: | Why did Joseph Smith say that the Book of Mormon was the "most correct book"? Summary: Joseph Smith's reference to the Book of Mormon as the "most correct book" refers to its doctrine, theology, and witness of Christ. This does not mean it does not contain errors of grammar, translation, or even minor matters of fact. |
| Supposed Harmful Change | Commentary |
|---|---|
| 1 Nephi 20꞉5 ~ Isaiah 48꞉5. 1 Nephi 20꞉5 deletes the italicized it in Isaiah 48꞉5's "I have even from the beginning declared it to thee" creating the awkward "And I have even from the beginning declared to thee". | The text is indeed awkward but doesn't lead away from understanding the intent of the passage. |
| 2 Nephi 8꞉17-18 ~ Isaiah 51꞉17-18. There are six omissions in italics and one addition that create awkward readings. The following is from the KJV Isaiah with omissions bolded and additions in carets (<>): "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. There is <—And> none to guide her among all the sons whom she hath brought forth; neither is there any that taketh her by the hand<,> of all the sons that she hath brought up." Thus the verse now reads: "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—And none to guide her among all the sons she hath brought forth; neither that taketh her by the hand, of all the sons she hath brought up." | The passage is very awkward but doesn't lead ineluctably away from intent. At worst it just makes the passage awkward or incoherent, and the intent of the original passage is already taught elsewhere in the Book of Mormon. |
| 2 Nephi 15꞉25. In the earliest text of the Book of Mormon, the last sentence fragment states that "For all this his anger is not turned away, but his hand stretched out still." This instead of "his hand is stretched out still." This pattern is repeated in 2 Nephi 19꞉21, 20:4, and 24:27. | The omission seems to make the sentence awkward but not incomprehensible and not leading into inaccurate understandings of God. If anything, it inclines toward a more literal translation. |
| In 2 Nephi 16꞉5, the omission of "is" and "am" from the KJV’s "Woe is me for I am undone because I am a man of unclean lips and I dwell" makes this sentence ungrammatical and potentially confusing. | Indeed, ungrammatical and a bit confusing, but not misleading. The most recent edition of the Book of Mormon has "unto" after "Woe is". |
| In 2 Nephi 16꞉7, the omission of "it" from the KJV’s "he laid it [a live coal] upon my mouth" produces the illogical, "he laid upon my mouth." | In context, Isaiah is having God's holiness and purity transferred to him and he is becoming transformed by it. Thus this passage, implying that the seraph lays on Isaiah's mouth, is not necessarily out of alignment with the intent of the passage. The passage just means to communicate that God can forgive our sins and make us pure with his holiness, which is testified of throughout scripture. No one is compelled to believing anything false by reading the scripture as it read originally. The modern edition of the Book of Mormon retains it. |
| In verse 8, the omission of "am" from "Here am I send me" makes the English text awkward, at least. | Indeed, awkward but not incorrect though, and allowing a correct understanding of the passage's intent |
| In 2 Nephi 16꞉9, the KJV’s "Hear ye indeed but understand not and see ye indeed but perceive not" becomes "Hear ye indeed but they understand not and see ye indeed but they perceive not." This change results in an awkward switching back and forth between second person and third person and between the imperative and indicative moods. It also alters the meaning contrary to the statement in the next verse, which has God again dictating impediments to understanding and perception. | Spencer overplays the awkwardness and incorrectly perceives a change in meaning in the subsequent verse. The modern edition of the Book of Mormon changes some of the verbs to the past tense: "Hear ye indeed, but they understood not; and see ye indeed, but they perceived not." |
| The omission of "it" from "ask it either in the" in 2 Nephi 17꞉11 may imply for some that the asking (not the sign) is to be done in the depths or heights. | It's not clear why Spencer finds this so illogical. Again, at most this errs on the side of literalness, where the it is implied. |
| In 2 Nephi 17꞉17, the omission of "even" could lead the reader to wrongly believe that Judah was king of Assyria. The italicized "even" in that verse in the KJV is important because it discourages such a misinterpretation. | The even actually doesn't do much to discourage the reading of Judah as the king of Assyria. This problem has to be fixed with punctuation, which the dictated Book of Mormon text did not have. Future editions of the Book of Mormon with better punctuators may be necessary. The modern edition omits "even". it may also need to alter the sentence structure much differently than the original Hebrew text to make sense of the passage. |
| Similarly, the italicized "namely" that is omitted in the Book of Mormon from 2 Nephi 17꞉20 is important in clarifying that the king of Assyria is not the one hiring a razor; he is the razor. | This also doesn't provide much utility in clarifying the meaning of the text. Punctuation, scholarly commentary, and maybe other modification of the text may be necessary for future editions of the Book of Mormon. This isn't a fault in translation. The modern edition of the Book of Mormon also omits "namely". |
| The replacement of "it" with "which" in 2 Nephi 17꞉23 muddles the meaning of Isaiah’s message. The text as it stands in the KJV makes sense — the deserted land, once fruitful, will be overrun with briars and thorns. With "which" in place of "it," the Book of Mormon appears to instead say, in an incomplete sentence, that briars and thorns will be purchased with a thousand silverlings (i.e., a thousand silver coins) | The text doesn't necessarily force that reading, but Spencer's reading makes sense. Even with it the best reading remains unclear. Ideally a they should replace it and the sentence structure should be rearranged to emphasize that the deserted land will become overrun with briars and thorns. Readers are probably not likely to spend too much time on this verse when it's equally muddled in both the KJV and BoM. The essential intent of the passage seems unharmed and, in context the reader will most likely interpret it as Isaiah speaking about a prior state of serenity and a subsequent state of disaster. This passage is merely "a negative oracle describing the dire consequences, particularly the subjectaion of Judah by the Assyrian Empire, that will befall Jerusalem and Judah as a result of Ahaz's refusal to accept Isaiah's promises."[22] The modern edition of the Book of Mormon retains "which" instead of it". |
| The original version of 2 Nephi 19꞉5 in the earliest editions of the Book of Mormon deletes the italicized is from the KJV Isaiah 9꞉5 such that the KJV Isaiah 9꞉5 reads "For every battle of the warrior is with confused noise, and garments rolled in blood; but this shall be with burning and fuel of fire" and 2 Nephi 9꞉5 reads "For every battle of the warrior with confused noise, and garments rolled in blood; but this shall be with burning and fuel of fire." | The most likely way of interpreting this passage for reads is to see the first clause as the beginning of an accumulatio and still retaining the correct intent. |
| 3 Nephi 22꞉9 is part of a longer quotation of Isaiah 4. The King James version of Isaiah 54꞉9 reads "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 Nephi 22꞉9 deletes the first is as such that the verse now reads "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." | The initial clause may be mildly confusing, but the intent becomes clear in the second—"as I have sworn ... so have I sworn." There's no lack of clarity when the whole sentence is read. The effect is somewhat poetic as the initial meaning becomes clearer as the reader "circles back." |
None of the changes are of much consequence; while reading less fluidly in some cases, their meaning is not difficult to discern. None of these verses if deleted completely would deprive us of any doctrine or teaching of significance. Their main importance is as evidence of how the translation proceeded, and what its priorities may have been.
Notes
- ↑ Jeremy T. Runnells, CES Letter: My Search for Answers to My Mormon Doubts (n.p.: CES Letter Foundation, 2017), 14.
- ↑ Stan Larson, "The Historicity of the Matthean Sermon on the Mount in 3 Nephi," in Brent Lee Metcalfe (editor), New Approaches to the Book of Mormon: Explorations in Critical Methodology (Salt Lake City, Utah: Signature Book, 1993)..
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 David P. Wright, "Isaiah in the Book of Mormon: Or Joseph Smith in Isaiah," in American Apocrypha, ed. Dan Vogel and Brent Lee Metcalfe (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2002), {{{pages}}}.
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 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 38/5 (10 July 2020). [45–106] link
- ↑ The second edition is available for consultation online at Royal Skousen, ed., The Book of Mormon: The Earliest Text, 2nd edition (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2022). off-site
- ↑ Preston Nibley, editor, History of Joseph Smith by His Mother, Lucy Mack Smith (Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book Company, 1954), 82-83.
- ↑ John W. Welch, "Documents of the Translation of the Book of Mormon," in Opening the Heavens: Accounts of Divine Manifestations, ed. John W. Welch, 2nd ed. (Provo, UT: BYU Press; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 2017), 126–227.
- ↑ Joseph Smith III, "Last Testimony of Sister Emma;' Saints' Herald 26 (October 1, 1879): 289-90; and Joseph Smith III, "Last Testimony of Sister Emma;' Saints' Advocate 2 (October 1879): 50-52.
- ↑ John A. Tvedtnes and Matthew Roper, "Joseph Smith's Use of the Apocrypha: Shadow or Reality? (Review of Joseph Smith's Use of the Apocrypha by Jerald and Sandra Tanner)," FARMS Review 8/2 (1996). [326–372] link
- ↑ Richard L. Bushman, Joseph Smith and the Beginnings of Mormonism (Urbana and Chicago, Illinois: University of Illinois Press; Reprint edition, 1987), 95–100. ISBN 0252060121.
- ↑ Robert J. Matthews, "A Plainer Translation": Joseph Smith's Translation of the Bible: A History and Commentary (Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University Press, 1985), 26; cited in footnote 165 of John Gee, "La Trahison des Clercs: On the Language and Translation of the Book of Mormon (Review of New Approaches to the Book of Mormon: Explorations in Critical Methodology by Brent Lee Metcalfe)," FARMS Review of Books 6/1 (1994): 51–120. off-site
- ↑ Kent P. Jackson, Frank F. Judd Jr., and David R. Seely, "Chapters, Verses, Punctuation, Spelling, and Italics," in The King James Bible and the Restoration, ed. Kent P. Jackson (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 2011), 108–12.
- ↑ Royal Skousen, "Critical Methodology and the Text of the Book of Mormon (Review of New Approaches to the Book of Mormon: Explorations in Critical Methodology by Brent Lee Metcalfe)," Review of Books on the Book of Mormon 6/1 (1994). [121–144] link
- ↑ Kevin Barney, "KJV Italics," By Common Consent, October 13, 2007, http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2007/10/kjv-italics/.
- ↑ Royal Skousen, "The History of the Text of the Book of Mormon: Presentation on Parts 5 and 6 of Volume 3 of the Critical Text Project of the Book of Mormon," Book of Mormon Central, accessed December 24, 2022, https://www.bookofmormoncentral.org/sites/default/files/documents/Blog%20entry/2020/Presentation%20parts%205%20and%206%20Hinckley%20Center.pdf.
- ↑ "Sidney Rigdon," JSPP.
- ↑ W.W. Phelps, "The Book of Mormon," The Evening and the Morning Star 1, no. 8 (January 1833): 58.
- ↑ "Errors of the Bible," The Evening and the Morning Star 2, no. 14 (July 1833): 106.
- ↑ "Minutes of A Conference," Times and Seasons 4, no. 20 (September 1, 1843): 318; emphasis in original. Quoted in Kent P. Jackson, "The King James Bible and the Joseph Smith Translation," in The King James Bible and the Restoration, ed. Kent P. Jackson (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 2011), 203.
- ↑ "Mormonites," The Sun, August 18, 1831, http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/PA/Phil1830.htm.
- ↑ Royal Skousen, The History of the Text of the Book of Mormon: Part 5, The King James Quotations in the Book of Mormon (Provo, UT: FARMS, 2019), 182–210.
- ↑ Marvin A. Sweeney, "Isaiah," in The New Oxford Annotated Bible, ed. Michael D. Coogan, 5th ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2018), 990n18–19.
Footer