MORMON CENTRAL - JOSEPH SMITH - LDS TEMPLES - BOOK OF MORMON

Isaiah in the Book of Mormon...and Joseph Smith in Isaiah
David P. Wright
Introduction
Part 1: King James Version Language
Part 2: KJV Italics and the BM Isaiah
Part 3: KJV Translation Errors in the BM Isaiah
Part 4: Disparities with Hebrew Language, Text, and Style
Part 5: The Secondary Nature of Variants in the BM Isaiah
Part 6: Supposed Proofs for the Antiquity of the BM Isaiah
Conclusions
Appendix

Appendix:
Supposed Evidence from Ancient Manuscripts
and Hebrew Language and Style

These are the other cases of supposed correlation between the BM Isaiah and Hebrew manuscripts and ancient translations or Hebrew language and style, proposed by John Tvedtnes. See Part 6, above, for an introduction to and conclusions based on these examples.

(1) Isaiah 2:5//2 Nephi 12:5: The KJV has "O house of Jacob, come ye, and let us walk in the light of the Lord." The BM has a plus following this: "Yea, come, for ye have all gone astray every one to his wicked ways." Tvedtnes says a two-part textual error led to the loss of the BM's long plus here:¹²⁷ (1) the omission of b'w (which he says lies behind "Yea, come") because of its similarity to the b'wr in v. 4 (a type of haplography) and (2) the omission of "for ye have all gone astray every one to his wicked ways" because it would begin with the same conjunction as the beginning of v. 6 (parablepsis).¹²⁸ An argument for the antiquity of the BM text based on supposed textual error is speculative and cannot be calculated as proof, because it essentially invents a text to provide a parallel for the BM reading. That a plausible development can be imagined does not prove that the supposed original text ever existed and that the textual development has in fact taken place. An argument that textual error has occurred is all the more speculative when it involves multiple stages of supposed textual error and development, such as this particular example. In any case, it is unlikely the error noted by Tvedtnes occurred. The BM's plus "Yea, come..." is resumptive; it picks up and reiterates the "come ye" earlier in the verse. Therefore one would expect an underlying Hebrew verb to be the same as the earlier verb, i.e., lkw, not b'w. Tvedtnes' further argument that the plus is original because it its language is similar to Isaiah 53:6 is no proof. Smith could have added this phrase, which occurs in the most famous chapter of Isaiah for Christian readers. In Part 5, above, reason is given to suspect this plus as being secondary.

(2) Isaiah 2:6//2 Nephi 12:6: The KJV has "Therefore, thou has forsaken thy people the house of Jacob"; the BM, "Therefore, O Lord, thou hast forsaken thy people the house of Jacob." Tvedtnes argues that the word ky "Therefore" may be an abbreviation k"y standing for kî Yhwh "Therefore, O Lord" or that a text reading ky y" standing for kî Yhwh by haplography became simply ky.¹²⁹It is true that there is contextual evidence for abbreviations in ancient biblical texts.¹³⁰ But the argument in this case is only a surmise (see caution raised in example 1). Moreover, the versional evidence Tvedtnes refers to for supporting an abbreviation here is in error.¹³¹ Contra Tvedtnes, the phrase "O Lord" can be explained as a gloss from Joseph Smith to clarify the subject of the verb "thou has forsaken," as noted in Part 5, above.

(3) Isaiah 2:11//2 Nephi 12:11: The BM has at the beginning of the verse the phrase "And it shall come to pass that" after which follows the equivalent of the KJV verse. Tvedtnes notes that 1QIsa^a and the LXX are in "partial agreement" with the BM since they have a conjunction at the beginning of the verse (lacking in the MT and KJV).¹³² Partial agreement is not strong evidence, especially when it involves only a conjunction (see the examples at 27, below). On the secondariness of the BM plus, see Part 5, above.

(4) Isaiah 2:12-14//2 Nephi 12:12-14: Tvedtnes argues that the variants in these BM lines manifest Hebraic parallelistic structures and hence point to the antiquity of the BM text.¹³³ This has already been disproven in Part 4, above.

(5) Isaiah 2:16//2 Nephi 12:16: See the main text of Part 6, above, for this case.

(6) Isaiah 2:20//2 Nephi 12:20: The KJV reads "In that day a man shall cast his idols of silver and his idols of gold which they made _each _one for himself to worship to the moles...." The BM reads the relative clause with a singular verb: "which he hath made for himself to worship." The Codex Alexandrinus of the LXX has a singular verb, ha epoiesen proskunein "which he made to worship"; so also the Vulgate: quae fecerat sibi ut adoraret "which he had made for himself so that he may worship."¹³⁴Nevertheless, the BM's variant probably derives from modification of the KJV. The text is numerically inconsistent: "a man...they..._each _one for himself." Smith could have simply been smoothing out the English. There are several other cases where an attempt to establish consistency can be discerned in the BM Isaiah: "Say ye to the righteous, that _it _shall _be well _with _him: for they shall eat the fruit of their doings" > "Say unto the righteous that it is well with them..." (Isa 3:10//2 N3 13:10); "Woe unto the wicked! _it _shall _be ill _with _him" > "Wo unto the wicked for they shall perish" (Isa 3:11//2 Ne 13:11; compare the previous verse; and cf. also in v. 11 "reward of his hands" > "their hands"); "...for them that are escaped of Israel. And it shall come to pass, _that _he _that _is left in Zion, and _he _that remaineth in Jerusalem" > "...And it shall come to pass them (later editions: they) that are left in Zion and remaineth in Jerusalem" (Isa 4:2-3//2 Ne 14:3); "And in that day they shall roar...and if _one look unto the land" > "...and if they look unto the land" (Isa 5:30//2 Ne 15:30); "and _it shall return" > "and they shall return" (Isa 6:13//2 Ne 16:13; here the context is the return of the people, conceptually plural). All these cases of numerical smoothing are associable with KJV italicized words. The variant at 2 Nephi 12:20 is likewise associable with italics.

(7) Isaiah 3:1//2 Nephi 13:1: The KJV reads: "For behold, the Lord, the LORD of Hosts doth take away from Jerusalem and from Judah the stay (ma$^cën) and the staff (ma$^cënâ), the whole stay (mi$^can) of bread and the whole stay (mi$^can) of water." For the last phrase the BM reads: "the whole staff of bread and the whole stay of water." It is argued that the BM is more "poetic" here and hence, so the implication is, more original and ancient; it is also argued that the MT originally had ma$^cënâ "staff" (in construct state) in its present phrase "stay of bread," which by scribal error became mi$^can "stay."¹³⁵ The first argument does not hold. The "stay of bread" and "stay of water" line may be secondary in the Hebrew because it does not fit the context.¹³⁶ Verses 2-4 speak of leaders; "stay" and "staff" may metaphorically refer to leaders. The "stay of bread and...stay of water" line gives the line before it a new interpretation, perhaps based on v. 7. As a gloss its goal may not be poetic beauty, but prosaic explanation.¹³⁷ The second argument does not furnish a mechanism or rationale for haplography and is conjectural (see example 1). The BM's variant could have as easily resulted from Smith's attempting to provide the text with balance and sense.

(8) Isaiah 3:10//2 Nephi 13:10: The KJV has "Say ye to the righteous, that _it _shall _be well _with _him"; the BM: "Say unto the righteous, that it is well with them." Tvedtnes argues that the appearance of the preposition "unto" in the BM is a way of "stressing the preposition" which may have been in the text underlying the BM reading and which the MT lacks ('imrû &addîq).¹³⁸ Support for the BM is thought to lie in 1QIsa^a, the Peshitta, and the Targum¹³⁹ (which have a preposition, all l-), and in the next parallel MT line where "wicked" has a preposition before it. This argument appears to presumes that the BM Isaiah is offering a comparative translation that stresses differences with the KJV/MT. This does not make sense as a model of translation. The variant is altogether insignificant. It is found in BM passages where prepositions do appear in the MT: 2 Nephi 8:1 (//Isa 51:1, preposition 'el) and the Decalogue of Mosiah 13:13 (//Exod 20:5, preposition l-).

Tvedtnes also claims that the Targum's¹⁴⁰ readings of &addîqayyä' "righteous ones," plural, supports the BM plural pronoun "them" (in contrast to KJV "him"). The Targum may be construing the text according to sense and thus not reflect an underlying plural term in its Hebrew text tradition. The BM's reading likely arises from a desire to establish consistency and is probably generated in part by the five italicized words in the environment (see example 6, above).

(9) Isaiah 3:26//2 Nephi 13:26: The KJV reads "and she _being desolate shall sit upon the ground"; the BM reads "and she shall be desolate and shall sit upon the ground." It is true that the MT construed literally is like the BM in having a finite verb in the first clause: w^eniqqätâ lä'äre& të$ëb "And she shall be emptied, shall sit on the ground" (NJPS).¹⁴¹ And it is true that the LXX has a conjunction before the second clause like the BM: kai kataleiphthese mone kai eis ten gen edaphisthese "and you will be left alone, and you will be made even with the ground."¹⁴² But the MT and Greek do not each exactly agree with the BM. The Greek text looks interpretive in many respects, and its conjunction may also be part of this interpretation. The BM reading can be explained as a modification of the KJV. The word "_being" in the KJV is italicized. This spawned a change to the future finite verb form "shall be." The change of a participle to a future form with "shall" is found in two other cases (2 Ne 13:6//Isa 3:6; 2 Ne 24:16//Isa 14:16; see note 30, above). With the change to a finite verb, the last phrase "shall sit upon the ground" was left awkwardly uncoordinated and without a subject. Hence the conjunction was added. In any case, variations in the conjunction "and" are not significant (see example 27; and on this case, 27c, below.)

(10) Isaiah 5:30//2 Nephi 15:30: The KJV reads "and if _one look unto the land" while the BM reads "and if they look unto the land." The LXX is doubtful support of the antiquity of the BM text.¹⁴³ Though it has a plural verb ("they shall look [emblepsontai] to the land"), it may be rendering as a plural a singular form found in the Hebrew text that it was translating (see example 13, below). The Hebrew of vv. 26-30 has reference to a nation or nations and its forces in the singular. The LXX renders many of these as plurals. Even the KJV generally renders these as plurals. The variant in the BM can be explained more simply as a modification of the KJV text. The context of plurals set up by the KJV in vv. 26-30 makes the singular "if one look" seem out of place. This and the italicized pronoun "_one" provided a trigger for the change in the BM (see example 6, above).

(11) Isaiah 6:12//2 Nephi 16:12: The KJV reads "and _there _be a great forsaking in the midst of the land." The BM has "for there shall be a great forsaking in the midst of the land." Tvedtnes argues that the BM has a better rendition of the verb rabbâ "be great."¹⁴⁴ This is not true. First, the KJV is in certain respects a legitimate rendition. It does use a finite form (contrary to what Tvedtnes says), though a subjunctive. All the verbs from the conjunction "until" in v. 11 through v. 12 are subjunctive. Secondly, the KJV preserves the poetic bicolon in v. 12, whereas the BM breaks this up with its rationale clause in the second half ("for there shall be..."). Thirdly, neither the KJV or BM represent the verb rabbâ precisely. The KJV construes it as if an attributive adjective with hä^cazûbâ: "great forsaking." The term is really a verb and, if rendered literally, should be read something like "the forsaking in the midst of the land be/shall be great" (cf. NJPS, NRSV).¹⁴⁵That the BM preserves this infelicity is a sign of its dependence on the KJV. Finally, dependence upon the KJV is further marked by the italicized words in proximity to the BM variant. These likely provided some motivation for the change.

(12) Isaiah 9:3(Heb. 2)//2 Nephi 19:3: The KJV reads "Thou has multiplied the nation _and not increased the joy"; the BM lacks the negative: "Thou has multiplied the nation and increased the joy." The traditional reading of the Hebrew is to take the negative particle lö' (l') as the preposition and pronoun lô (usually written lw) "to him/it." This yields a positive reading similar to the BM's: "You have magnified that nation, have given it (literally, 'to it,' as if lô) great joy" (so the NJPS). The Peshitta and Targum have prepositions with pronouns that agree exactly or in essence with this traditional reading (lh "to him/it" and lhwn "to them," respectively). Tvedtnes says that this traditional rereading shows that in antiquity the negative was perceived to be wrong.¹⁴⁶Instead of providing support for the BM reading, this simply shows that the negative is problematic such that Smith himself could have deleted it from the English text. Observe that BM does not manifest the solution of the traditional Hebrew reading: it lacks the preposition and pronoun "for him/it." Part of the impetus for BM variant may have been the italicized word "and" that comes just before the negative particle. But there is another difficulty in the text which has not been solved by the versions or the BM. The word haggôy "the nation" also seems out of place because it does not form a good parallel with haççimxâ "the joy" in the next line. It is likely that instead of haggôy lö' (hgwy l') "the nation, not," the text read haggîlâ (hgylh) "the joy." This yields the nice poetically parallel text: "You have multiplied rejoicing (haggîlâ), you have increased joy (haççimxâ)."¹⁴⁷ Thus the BM retains a corrupt text.

(13) Isaiah 9:9(Heb. 8)//2 Nephi 19:9: The BM has "inhabitants of Samaria" whereas the KJV has "inhabitant of Samaria." The KJV literally translates the MT's singular, yô$ëb. Tvedtnes notes that the LXX, like the BM, has a plural: hoi enkathemenoi en Samareia "those that dwell in Samaria." BMCT notes further that the Peshitta and Targum have plurals.¹⁴⁸ This is not necessarily proof that the underlying Hebrew of these versions had a plural. Elsewhere the LXX has a plural where the MT has singular yô$ëb (e.g., Isa 5:3 [though 1QIsa^a has the plural yô$^ebê here]; 8:14 [BHS notes some manuscripts have a plural]; 10:24; 20:6; 22:21; 24:17; 26:21). The Peshitta matches the MT more closely, having plurals at only a few places where the MT has a singular (Isa 5:3; 8:14; 22:21). But it has plurals where the MT has singulars in other places (such as Judg 1:17, 21; 3:3; Zech 12:7, 8, 10). The Targum has a plural noun in the passages just listed for the Peshitta except for Judg 1:17. While it cannot be denied that the Hebrew texts underlying these versions may have had a plural noun in some cases, this evidence makes it reasonable to suppose that in several places the versions construed a singular as a plural. Thus the versions do not provide certain proof of the BM reading.

The BM variant could have as easily arisen by revision of the KJV. The context already presupposes a plurality of persons with the initial phrase "all the people shall know." To say "the inhabitants of Samaria" rather than "the inhabitant of Samaria" is more idiomatically suitable in English. Other cases of smoothing the English text are observable (see example 6, above). Furthermore the BM often has a plural where the KJV/MT has a singular. This appears to come about in most cases to facilitate English expression: "soul" > "souls" (Isa 3:9//2 Ne 13:9); "blossom" > "blossoms" (Isa 5:24//2 Ne 15:24); "depth/height" > "depths/heights" (Isa 7:11//2 Ne 17:11); "forest" > "forests" (Isa 9:18//2 Ne 19:18 and Isa 10:34//2 Ne 20:34); "nation" > "nations" (Isa 14:32//2 Ne 24:32); "iniquity" > "iniquities" (Isa 53:6//Mosiah 14:6); "transgression" > "transgressions" (Isa 53:8//Mosiah 14:8); "sin" > "sins" (Isa 53:12//Mosiah 14:12); "tempest" > "tempests" (Isa 54:11//3 Ne 22:11); cf. "iniquity" > "iniquities" (Exod 20:5//Mosiah 13:13). Note that "face" of Isa 49:23 is once singular "face" in 1 Ne 21:23 and plural "faces" in 2 Nephi 6:7. This last case shows objectively that the rendering of plural or singular is not necessarily a sign of translation (for variants between Isaiah 49 cited at 1 Nephi 21 and 2 Nephi 6, see Part 5, above). One should also not discount the possibility that in some of these cases BM variants are English dictation or copying mistakes.¹⁴⁹

(14) Isaiah 10:29//2 Nephi 20:29: The KJV has "Ramah" while the BM has "Ramath." BMCT observes that the Peshitta has räm^etä' and the Targum rämätä', forms that show a -t (= th) ending for the place name.¹⁵⁰ This support fails because these versions generally have a form ending in -t where the MT has Ramah (e.g., Josh 18:25; 1 Sam 22:6; 25:1; 28:3; 1 Kgs 15:17, 21, 22; Jer 40:1; etc.). This therefore is a way these versions render the underlying Hebrew rmh. Tvedtnes' argument is of a different sort.¹⁵¹ He notes that, in the development of Hebrew, feminine nouns originally ended in -at which later disappeared in unbound forms, yielding and ending -â (= -ah). The appearance of "Ramath" (a -t form) appears thus to display this linguistic fact. Yet it is not impossible that other occurrences of "Ramath" in the KJV influenced the BM (Josh 13:26; 19:8; Judg 15:17).¹⁵² It is also possible that this is a dictation or copying error.¹⁵³ The evidence is not conclusive.

(15) Isaiah 13:3//2 Nephi 23:3: This is discussed in Part 2 with recapitulation in Part 4, above.¹⁵⁴

(16) Isaiah 13:22//2 Nephi 23:22: The BM Isaiah reads like the KJV but at the end adds "for I will destroy her speedily, yea, for I will be merciful unto my people, but the wicked shall perish." There is no "partial confirmation" for this BM reading as claimed.¹⁵⁵ The phrase tachu erchetai kai ou chroniei "it will swiftly come and will not delay" in the LXX at the end of the verse is not an added element as Tvedtnes states but an interpretive translation of the last of the MT verse, w^eqärôb läbô' ^cittäh w^eyämêhä lö' yimmä$ëku, rendered correctly in the KJV "and her time is near to come, and her days shall not be prolonged."¹⁵⁶ Some LXX manuscripts do appear to have an appended phrase: kai (hai) hemerai autes (or: auton) ou me ephelkusthosin "and may her (their) days not be drawn out."¹⁵⁷ This recapitulates the last Hebrew line and is not like the BM plus. The Qumran Isaiah text 1QIsa^a has only the adverb 'od "more" at the end but as part of last line yielding "her days shall no longer be prolonged." It does not correlate with the BM plus.¹⁵⁸

Tvedtnes and BMCT otherwise argue that parablepsis has occurred here, i.e., a scribe's eye skipped from the kî "for" that is found at the beginning of the BM's extra element to the kî "for" at the beginning of 14:1. This is plausible but still a conjecture. The BM phrase may well be a secondary gloss. It begins with the explanatory "for" and it ties together the foregoing theme of destruction and desolation and the following theme of mercy (see Part 5, above).

(17) Isaiah 14:2//2 Nephi 24:2: The first part of the KJV verse reads: "And the people shall take them and bring them to their place, and the house of Israel shall possess them." The BM has the following plus after "their place": "yea, from far unto the ends of the earth, and they shall return to their lands of promise." 1QIsa^a, which reads "bring them to their land ('el 'admätäm) and to their place," does not support to the BM as claimed.¹⁵⁹ The plus in the scroll is much too short compared to the long plus of the BM. Moreover, the plus in the scroll is in a different position than the BM's unique phrase. The reading of "to their land" rather than "to their place" in two Targum manuscripts and two early printed editions of the Targum also does not support the BM variant.¹⁶⁰This is simply a variant, perhaps interpretive, of the MT "to their place." Tvedtnes' arguments for how the BM plus was lost are also weak. The phrase "upon their own land" ('el 'admätäm) in v. 1 seems much too far away from the BM plus to have an effect upon it. In any case, Tvedtnes undermines his argument when he says that the phrase "lands of promise" in the BM phrase was perhaps '^arä&ôt habb^erît.¹⁶¹ If the two words for "land" are different ('^adämâ vs. '^arä&ôt), the mechanism for haplography--such as might be--evaporates. The additional speculation that the phrase "land of promise" in the BM, supposedly containing the Hebrew word b^erît "covenant, pact," was dropped (as his argument seems to imply) because of similarity to the distant word byt "house" in the last line of the MT v. 1 is implausible. The BM phrase appears to be a secondary gloss (cf. Part 5, above).

(18) Isaiah 14:3-4//2 Nephi 24:3-4: Verses 3-4 in the KJV form a syntactic whole: "(3) And it shall come to pass in the day that the Lord shall give thee rest... (4) that thou shalt take up this proverb...." In the BM the two verses are independent. Verse 3 has a demonstrative pronoun before "day": "And it shall come to pass in that day that the Lord shall give thee rest..." a complete sentence. It has a plus at the beginning of v. 4, "And it shall come to pass in that day...," which forms another complete sentence. It is claimed the BM variants have parallels in the LXX and to some extent in Hebrew manuscritps.¹⁶² In v. 3 the Greek has a demonstrative pronoun with "day": kai estai en te hemera ekeine anapausei se ho theos "And it will be in that day, (that) God will give you rest." Two Hebrew manuscripts have the demonstrative pronoun too.¹⁶³ Verse 4 in the LXX is independent of v. 3 and (except for the Vaticanus) displays the phrase "in that day": kai lempse ton threnon touton epi ton basilea Babulonos kai ereis en te hemera ekene "and you shall take up this lamentation against the king of Babylon and you shall say in that day."

Despite the similarities, the BM readings likely arose independently of the ancient texts. It is possible that the ancient texts on the one hand and the BM on the other separately added the demonstrative "that" under the influence of the forty-two occurrences of "that day" elsewhere in Isaiah.¹⁶⁴ What particularly makes one think the parallel is accidental is that the Greek reading in v. 4 is quite unlike the BM phrase. It lacks any match to the BM's "it shall come to pass." The Greek's verse is syntactically independent because it is translating the Hebrew which can be construed in this way (e.g., "You shall take up..."). The adverbial "in that day" in the Greek appears in a different place, after the verb "you shall say." It is apparently original in this position since the Greek and Hebrew elsewhere have other cases of the verb "to say" followed by "in that day" (12:1, 4; cf. 25:9). What happened in the BM is that, after v. 3 was made independent, v. 4 was left an incomplete subordinate phrase ("that thou shalt take up..."). To make it complete, the phrase at the beginning of v. 3 was copied and pasted to the beginning of v. 4. Notably, the beginning of v. 4 is not rendered as "Thou shalt take up this proverb...," which would be a truer sign of translation. Rather, the BM preserves the conjunction "that" which is an artifact of the KJV's translation that syntactically joins vv. 3-4. Thus not only are the Greek and BM readings independent, the BM's has ties to the English. In addition, Tvedtnes' argument for the development of the MT out of a version of Isaiah like that in the BM requires three stages and is too complex, loose, and improvised to be plausible.

(19) Isaiah 14:32//2 Nephi 24:32: KJV Isaiah 14:32 reads "What shall _one then answer the messengers of the nation?" The BM has the object in the KJV as the subject: "What shall then answer the messengers of the nations?" (2 Ne 24:32). This is paralleled by the Targum: ûmä' y^ebass^erûn izgaddê ^camm^emayyä' "and what will the messengers of the peoples announce?" The 1QIsa^aand the LXX follow the same syntax, though they have "kings" instead of "messengers" (a matter of a slight variant in the Hebrew: mlky versus ml'ky, respectively): wmh y^cnw mlky gwy "what will the kings of a/the nation answer?"; kai ti apokrithesontai basileis ethnon "what shall the kings of the nations answer?"¹⁶⁵Despite these ancient parallels a more cogent explanation of the BM text is possible. It has simply deleted the italicized word "_one." Evidence that this is so is the BM's retention of the KJV word order, which yields a slightly awkward reading. If the BM reading were a translation we would expect a more normal word order, such as: "What then shall the messengers of the nations answer?"¹⁶⁶

(20) Isaiah 48:11//1 Nephi 20:11: The KJV reads "For mine own sake, _even for mine own sake, will I do it: for how should _my _name be polluted?" The BM has "For mine own sake, yea, for mine own sake will I do this, for I will not suffer my name to be polluted." Some of the ancient versions have verbs in the first person and some of these have negative particles like the BM:¹⁶⁷1QIsa^a: lm^cny lm^cny '^csh ky' 'ykh 'yxl "for my sake, for my sake, I will act, for how shall I be polluted";¹⁶⁸ a Targum manuscript: b^edîl $mî b^edîl mêm^erî 'a^cabêd d^elä' 'ittaxal "for the sake of my name, for the sake of my Memra, I will act so that I not be polluted";¹⁶⁹ the Peshitta : m+lty '^cbd dl' 't+w$ "for my sake I will act so that I will not be polluted"; the Vulgate: propter me propter me faciam ut non blasphemer "for my sake, for my sake I will act so that I am not blasphemed." The correspondence of these examples to the BM reading is inexact. Though there is a first person verb and three versions have a negative particle, the verb is passive in all of them, not active as in the BM phrase. These texts also lack the term "my name" in the clause containing the pollution/blasphemy verb, just as it is missing from the MT and so noted by italics in the KJV. The Greek, the Old Latin (which depends on the Greek), and one Hebrew manuscript have "my name"; these, however, have a third person verb without a negative: eneken emou poieso soi, hoti to emon onoma bebeloutai "for my own sake I will act for you, because my name is polluted"; propter me faciam, quia nomen meum polluitur "I will act for my sake, because my name is polluted"; 'ykh yxl $my "how shall my name be polluted." Hence no text is in fact like the BM's.

While the term "my name" may have originally been in the text (and it should not be forgotten that the KJV supplies this),¹⁷⁰other problems remain that make the BM reading appear secondary. It is not clear that a rhetorical question with an interrogative "how" would develop from a simple negative in the MT; development in the other direction seems more likely, especially in the versions, which are often interpretive in nature. Too, it seems that the third person verb is original (as in the MT, with "my name" as subject) and that first persons arose when the subject of the third person verb was no longer present or clear. Hence the versions with the negative particle and first person verbs appear to be secondary. Furthermore, the BM variant can be seen as a response to the italics. This is already happening in the line before this: italicized "_even" becomes "yea" and "_it" becomes "this." Instead of changing or deleting "my name" the surrounding words were changed. The first person transitive formulaltion may have been suggested by the first person form in the following line: "I will not give my glory unto another."¹⁷¹

(21) Isaiah 48:14//1 Nephi 20:14: The relevant passage in the KJV has "which among them hath declared these _things?" The BM has "which among them hath declared these things unto them." Nibley's, Tvedtnes', and BMCT's claim that the Greek has the reading of the BM is in error.¹⁷² The Hebrew reads: mî bähem higgîd 'et-'ëlleh "who among them declared these things?" The LXX reads: tis autois anengeilen tauta, literally, "who to them has declared these things?" The Greek is simply translating the Hebrew bähem "among them" as autois "to them," clearly signaled in the one to one correspondence of Greek to Hebrew terms and the same word order in both. Tvedtnes argues further that haplography has occurred: 'l(y)hm "to them" has dropped because of its similarity to 'lh "these (things)." This is plausible but still a conjecture (see the cautions accompanying example 1). It is more likely, in regard to the evidence of Part 2, above, that the variant in the BM is an environmental modification reacting to the italicized word "things."

(22) Isaiah 49:1//1 Nephi 21:1: The BM Isaiah has a long plus at the beginning of the verse after which the KJV equivalent of Isaiah 49:1 follows:

And again, hearken O ye house of Israel, all ye that are broken off and are driven out, because of the wickedness of the pastors of my people, yea, all ye that are broken off, that are scattered abroad which are of my people, O House of Israel. Listen O isles unto me, and hearken ye people from far, ....

Tvedtnes sees a chiastic structure at the beginning of the verse which he believes demonstrates the antiquity of the BM: (A) Hearken, (B) O ye house of Israel, (C) All ye that are broken off..., (D) Because of the wickedness..., (C') Yea, all ye that are broken off..., (B') ...O house of Israel, (A') Listen, O isles, unto me.¹⁷³ He argues that it may be missing from the MT/KJV because of parablepsis between $im'û "hearken" with which the verse supposedly began and the same verb ("listen") at the beginning of the MT.¹⁷⁴ This argument is invalid because the chiastic structure he perceives is artificial and the mechanism for parablepsis is doubtful:

(1) The last element of the chiasmus (A') is part of a bicolon that includes the line that follows it ("Listen, O Isles...// and hearken, ye people..."). One would expect (A') to belong wholly to the chiastic structure or to its bicolon, not both. (2) The chiastic structure here is generally between what might be judged to be poetic lines but Tvedtnes exceptionally divides the first line into two members to achieve chiastic balance ("hearken" and "O ye house of Israel"). (3) There is one too many vocative elements in lines B'-A'. That is, he makes B' parallel to B since both have "O...house of Israel," but A' with its "O isles" following an imperative verb looks like it should be seen as parallel to A-B taken as a whole. The extra vocative element is an example of what I call "chiastic interference" and a sign that the structure is artificial. (4) In English, the verb at line A in the chiasmus is "hearken" while at A' it is "listen." If the underlying verb is the same as Tvedtnes claims (i.e., $im'û), we should expect English "listen" at the beginning of the BM verse. In the verse the KJV uses "hearken" to translate another verb, haq$îbû (in the line "hearken ye people from far"). (5) The argument for parablepsis also suffers because of the BM's initial words "and again." One assumes this phrase came before the verb "hearken" and its vocative object because it conceptually stands outside the "hearken" phrase. "And again" should have been preserved. (6) In the earlier version of his study, Tvedtnes proposed a different chiastic structure which avoids several of the problems noted:¹⁷⁵ (A) Hearken, O ye house of Israel, (B) all ye that are broken off (C) and are driven out, (D) because of the wickedness of the pastors of my people, (B') yea, all ye that are broken off (C') that are scattered abroad, (A') which are of my people O house of Israel. One difficulty with this proposed structure that the B//B' and C//C' members are not in chiastic order. Another is that A and A' are not exactly parallel. The latter is a relative clause similar to the relatives in lines B, C, B', C'. It also has relationship to the B' and C' lines before it as D does to B and C, making it somewhat parallel to D. And note the term "my people" which appears in D and A'. These problems, and the fact that two different chiastic structures can be found, suggest they may be inventions of the analyst. (7) Even if one maintains that there is chiasmus here, it cannot be used as a sign of antiquity as Brent Metcalfe has convincingly shown.¹⁷⁶ Chiasmus is found in Smith's scriptural writings that manifestly come from his own hand and time (e.g., D&C). (8) The plus seems secondary since it defines who is meant by the "isles" and "people from far" (see Part 5).¹⁷⁷

(23) Isaiah 50:2//2 Nephi 7:2: The KJV reads "I make the rivers a wilderness: their fish stinketh, because _there _is no water, and dieth for thirst." The BM has "I make their rivers a wilderness, and their fish to stink, because the waters are dried up, and they dieth [sic] because of thirst." 1QIsa^a and the LXX are said to provide support for the originality and antiquity of the BM reading.¹⁷⁸ This, however, is another instance where the versions are only superficially parallel. The Qumran biblical text and translation read, respectively: 'çym nhrwt mdbr tyb$ dgtm m'yn mym wtmwt b&m' "I make the rivers a wilderness; their fish dry up, because there is no water, and die from thirst"; kai theso potamous eremous kai kseranthesontai hoi ichthues auton apo tou me enai hudor kai apothanountai en dipsei "and I will make rivers a wilderness; and their fish will dry up because there is no water, and they will die from thirst." These texts read essentially the same as the MT, except they have or presuppose tyb$ "dry up" for tb'$ "to stink."¹⁷⁹ They do not represent a textual tradition significantly distinct from the MT in this particular verse. The verb "dry up" in these versions is not in the same clause as the BM's verb "dry up."¹⁸⁰ Indeed, an argument that the BM text is original and led to the two different readings in the MT on the one hand and the 1QIsa^a and LXX on the other,¹⁸¹ or that the BM brings together the two alternative readings secondarily,¹⁸²requires a highly complex, and hence highly speculative, process of textual alteration, with movements of elements between clauses (see the cautions at example 1).

The BM reading clearly evolves from the KJV. Part 4, above, determined that the use of the verb "make" and the preposition "because" (first occurrence) reflect a development on the basis of English polysemy. Furthermore, the BM variant arises in large part by a reaction to the italicized words "_there _is." The term "dry up" comes from the influence of the phrase three lines before it which says "I dry up the sea." There are several cases where changes at the italics reiterate an idea present in the lines or verses just before.¹⁸³ The only variant in the verse that is susceptible to interpretation as a manifestation of antiquity is "their rivers" instead of "the rivers." The pronoun "their" in Hebrew is written with a suffixed -m; since the next word begins with m- (mdbr "wilderness") it could have dropped out because of the similarity. This is not enough, however, to prove antiquity. The pronoun "their" could have as easily arisen in English from assimilation to or influence from the following phrase "their fish."

(24) Isaiah 51:9//2 Nephi 8:9: The first part of the verse in the KJV reads "Awake, awake, put on strength, O arm of the Lord; awake, as in the ancient days, in the generations of old." The BM lacks the phrase "in the generations of old." Tvedtnes claims, though I cannot confirm, that some Hebrew manuscripts lack the term dörôt "generations" thus giving some support for the BM reading.¹⁸⁴ If this is true, it is still a case of an imperfect match between the manuscripts and the BM, since the Hebrew manuscripts would presumably still have ^côlämîm "of old."¹⁸⁵

(25) Isaiah 51:15 // 2 Nephi 8:15: The KJV and MT read "his name" while the BM reads "my name." Tvedtnes finds support for the antiquity of the BM reading in the LXX which reads "my name."¹⁸⁶ But contextual smoothing of the KJV may account for the variant (see example 6, above). Verses 15-16 have God speaking in the first person. The third person formulation of the phrase "the Lord of hosts is his name" appears awkward. Hence a revision to "my name" seems in order. The neighboring italicized word "_is" may have offered some impetus for this change. The Greek translation may have construed an original third person pronoun as first person for similar contextual reasons.

(26) Isaiah 54:15 // 3 Nephi 22:15: The KJV reads "Behold, they shall surely gather together, _but not be me"; the BM has the variant: "Behold, they shall surely gather together against thee not by me." Tvedtnes and BMCT say that the LXX supports the BM reading.¹⁸⁷ The LXX reads: idou proselutoi proseleusontai soi di' emou (kai paroikesousin soi)¹⁸⁸ kai epi se katapeuksontai "Behold, strangers (or: proselytes) shall come to you by my agency, (and they shall live with you), and they shall find refuge with you." The dative pronoun "to you" in the first line correlates in position with the BM's variant "against thee." Not mentioned by Tvedtnes and BMCT, but certainly to be brought into consideration here, is the Targum's reading: h' 'tkn$' ytkn$wn lyk glwt ^cmyk lswp' mlky ^cmmy' dmtkn$yn l'^cq' lyk yrw$lm bgwyk ytrmwn "Those exiled of your people shall be gathered to you at the end; the kings of the nations that gather to trouble you, Jerusalem, shall be thrown into your midst."189 The word "gathered" (ytkn$wn) is followed by "to you" (lyk) which correlates with the BM's "against thee."

While this evidence makes one think that the Hebrew texts underlying these translations had a preposition and pronoun in the first clause, it is far from definitive. The Hebrew verse is very difficult and the translations paraphrase rather than offer an exact translation. As for the LXX, Ziegler observes that "the MT of 54:15 was for the LXX quite opaque"¹⁹⁰ and that it translated freely in connection with Isaiah 55:5, where foreigners run with positive motive to Israel.¹⁹¹ More specifically, it seems that the LXX assimilated its translation to the wording of the Pentateuchal laws about resident aliens. The MT of Leviticus 19:33 reads w^ekî -yägûr 'itt^eka gër "when an alien dwells with you." The LXX translates this: ean de tis proselthe proselutos humin "if a proselyte comes to you." Here proserchomai "come" is used to translate the verb gwr and a dative pronoun humin is used to translate the Hebrew preposition and pronoun.¹⁹² Now, Isaiah 54:15 has nothing to do with resident aliens or dwelling; the verb gwr that appears there thrice comes from a homonymous root meaning something like "attack."¹⁹³ The LXX, however, took the verb as the gwr root dealing with residing. It renders this as proserchomai "come" as in the Pentateuch, and it inserts the subject proselutos "proselyte." The LXX also could have inserted the dative pronoun soi by influence from Pentateuchal formulation.

As for the Targum, it is clearly interpretive: note the two different renditions of the verb gwr (one positive and one negative), the rendering of ^cälayik yippôl "shall fall because of you" as "shall be thrown into you"; and the insertion of "those exiled of your people," "the kings of the nations," and "Jerusalem." It may have inserted a preposition with a pronoun as part of its interpretation.

Even many modern translation provide an object for the verb gwr, apparently not on the basis of the ancient texts but simply out of need to make sense. The verses before and the end of v. 15 and v. 17 speak of Jerusalem in the second person. In this context it is easy for a translator to add a pronoun referring to Jerusalem after the verb in the first part of the v. 15. The NIV translates: "If anyone does attack you"; the JB and NJB: "should anyone attack you"; the NEB and REB: "should any(one) attack you." McKenzie translates: "If anyone assails you."¹⁹⁴

In view of this, it may be that Smith inserted the prepositional phrase "against thee" for contextual reasons. It clarifies the relationship of the "they" and their "gathering" here to the "thou" in the larger context. The wording "against thee" duplicates the same prepositional phrase in "gather together against thee" later in the verse. The stimulus for the change can be seen in the italicized word "_but." The awkwardness of the BM reading is further testimony that we are dealing here with a modification of the KJV. The phrase "against thee" has simply replaced the conjunction "_but," leaving "not by me" poorly coordinated with the foregoing. Another indication this is not a translation is the retention of the KJV's wording "not by me." The Hebrew behind this last phrase is not really clear.¹⁹⁵ If this is a translation we would expect more clarity overall and not just the insertion of the preposition and pronoun (see Part 3 on problematic translations retained in the BM Isaiah).

(27) The conjunction "and": Tvedtnes lists together ten cases where the BM has the conjunction "and" where ancient translations and manuscripts have it but where it is lacking in the KJV.¹⁹⁶ These do not provide proof. This is a minor word which can arise independently and coincidentally in various texts or translations of an ancient document, especially a biblical document whose style and/or language of translation allow for conjunctions to appear readily at the beginning of phrases or elements in a list.¹⁹⁷ The appearance of additional conjunctions could also arise in a revision of Isaiah which follows KJV style. In view of this, one would expect a number of fortuitous coincidences. Not much can be made of them in terms of support for the antiquity of the BM Isaiah text.

(a) Isaiah 3:9//2 Nephi 13:9: The MT reads wx+'tm ksdm hgydw l' kxdw "and they declare their sin as Sodom, they hide _it not" (KJV) while the BM reads "and [their countenance] doth declare their sin to be even as Sodom and they cannot hide it." Though a conjunction is found in 1QIsa^a, the LXX, Syriac, and some texts of the Targum,¹⁹⁸ the BM's conjunction (the second "and") may arise from the variation in its larger context. The subject of the verb "declare" is the people's "countenance." The conjunction may have arisen to forge a link between two clauses with different subjects.¹⁹⁹ The clause in which the conjunction occurs has likely been altered as well because of the italicized word "_it."

(b) Isaiah 3:14 // 2 Nephi 13:14: The KJV reads: "for ye have eaten up the vineyard; the spoil of the poor _is in your houses." The BM reads: "for ye have eaten up the vineyard and the spoil of the poor in your houses." The conjunction in the BM arises by necessity after the deletion of the italicized "_is" so that the last phrase not be syntactically incomplete. It makes the last phrase the object of "eaten up." The LXX and Peshitta do have a conjunction where the BM does²⁰⁰but construe the last phrase as a nominal sentence as in the MT and KJV.²⁰¹

(c) Isaiah 3:26 // 2 Nephi 13:26: This was already discussed in example 9, above. It is similar to the foregoing case: a change of an italicized word led to new syntactic arrangement requiring the conjunction.

(d) Isaiah 48:5 // 1 Nephi 20:5: KJV "I have even from the beginning declared _it to thee"; BM "And I have even from the beginning declared to thee." The BM has the conjunction "in a place where MT has the conjunction [w-] but [the] KJV did not translate it!"²⁰² Actually, the KJV did translate it, as BMCT notes,²⁰³in the word "even." Thus, technically, the conjunction "and" in the BM, if a translation, is redundant. The KJV did not translate the conjunction as "and" because it took v. 4 as a causal clause giving the reason for v. 5: "because I knew that thou are obstinate...I have even from the beginning declared it to thee."²⁰⁴ The BM has a different reading for v. 4, turning it into an independent sentence. This leaves v. 5 unconnected to v. 4 and makes insertion of the conjunction possible. English-based modifications are responsible for this. The variant "I did shew them suddenly" in v. 3 is based on English polysemy and an italicized word there (see Part 4, above). This inspired the insertion of "And I did it" at the beginning of v. 4. The insertion of "And I did it" made v. 4 independent, and v. 5 in turn ready to receive the conjunction. The English basis of the revision is implied further in the deletion or replacement of three italicized words in vv. 4-5.

(e) Isaiah 48:8 // 1 Nephi 20:8: The MT has gm l'-$m^ct "Yea, thou heardest not" (KJV) while the BM has "Yea, and thou heardest not." 1QIsa^a has wgm "and also" at the beginning of the verse and is seen as parallel to the BM reading.²⁰⁵But there is a problem in the syntax which cannot be overlooked: the BM has the conjunction after the adverb "yea" and applies it specifically to the first verb in the verse. It is not conjoined to the entire phrase as in 1QIsa^a.²⁰⁶

(f) Isaiah 48:13 // 1 Nephi 20:13: The MT reads qr' 'ny 'lhm y^cmdw yxdw which is satisfactorily translated by the KJV "_when I call unto them, they stand up together." The BM reads "and I called unto them, and they stand up together." 1QIsa^a is thought to support the second "and" in the BM with its qr' 'ny 'lyhmh wy^cmwdw yxdyw "I call to them and they stand up together."²⁰⁷ The LXX and Peshitta likewise have a conjunction at this place.²⁰⁸ Despite this, the BM's conjunction may have easily arisen by change of the English text. The word "_when" is italicized in the KJV making it subject to change. When it was modified to the conjunction "and" (not found in the Qumran text or the versions), the last clause required coordination by its own conjunction.

(g) Isaiah 48:14 // 1 Nephi 20:14: The MT reads yhwh 'hbw y^csh xp&w "The Lord hath loved him: he will do his pleasure" (KJV). The BM reads "The Lord hath loved him, yea, and he will fulfil (sic) his word which he hath declared by them, and he will do his pleasure." 1QIsa^a has a conjunction before "he will do": yhwh 'whbw wy[^c]sh xp&w "The Lord loves him and he will do his pleasure."²⁰⁹ The conjunction in the BM is probably due to the long plus which appears to be secondary, as indicated by its lack in any known ancient text, the gloss-marking term "yea" (see Part 5, above), and its prosaic rather than poetic style.

(h) Isaiah 48:22 // 1 Nephi 20:22: The KJV reads "There is no peace..." (MT: 'ên $älôm) while the BM, with a plus, reads "And notwithstanding he hath done all this and greater also there is no peace...." Tvedtnes says the "also" at the end of the BM plus should be read with the phrase "there is no peace" which then finds a parallel in 1QIsa^a which has a conjunction: we'ên $älôm "and there is no peace."²¹⁰This division of the BM sentence is forced and leaves the initial subordinate circumstantial clause hanging (*"And notwithstanding he has done all this and greater, also there is no peace...."). Thus BM's "also" must go with the preceding clause; the parallel between the Qumran manuscript and BM does not exist.

(i) Isaiah 50:9 // 2 Nephi 7:9: The BM has a conjunction preceding the last sentence: "and the moth shall eat them up." This finds a parallel in the LXX (kai hos ses kataphagetai humas "and like a moth it will consume you"), Syriac (wss' n'kwl'nwn "and the moth will eat them"), and some Targum texts (wk^c$' 'kyl lyh "and like a moth eating him up").²¹¹ The conjunction w- may have been lost from the MT by its similarity to the -w at the end of the previous word yblw "wear out" (KJV "wax old"). This one of the stronger cases in Tvedtnes' list. But other variants in the verse appear to be secondary and make one to think the BM's "and" has arisen independently of an ancient text. The BM verse has a less poetic arrangement than the corresponding KJV/MT text (on poetic matters, see Part 4, above). The MT has two bicola both beginning with hën "behold, lo." The BM less symmetrically has the conjunction "for" in place of the first, while retaining the second ("behold"). In the MT the two bicola are self contained, syntactically complete, and, though related in thought, each complete their thought. In the BM, the last line in the first bicolon is grammatically incomplete: "and all they which shall condemn me." This is only made complete with the next line, one that begins a new bicolon. This blurs the border of the two bicola. Another sign of secondariness is that the BM reading appears to smooth out a contradiction in the Bible text (see example 6, above). The verse speaks of adversaries being a "he" and then a "they." This is entirely sensible in Hebrew. The BM, however, contains only third person plural ("they") forms. Note too that the major variant occurs at a place where the KJV has two italicized words: "who _is he _that shall condemn me?" This becomes the incomplete phrase "and all they which shall condemn me."

(j) Isaiah 51:18 // 2 Nephi 8:18: The KJV has the phrase "_There _is none to guide her among all the sons _whom she hath brought forth." The BM has a conjunction at the beginning: "and none to guide her among all the sons she hath brought forth." Support of the antiquity of the BM reading is thought to lie in versions which have a conjunction at the beginning: the LXX, kai ouk en ho parakalon se apo panton ton teknon sou hon etekes "and there was none to console you from all your children whom you bore"; and the Syriac, wlyt dmby' lh mn klhwn bny' dyldt "and there is none to console her from all the children whom she bore."²¹² The parallel is not convincing. The LXX and Syriac only imperfectly match the BM: while having a conjunction they also have the equivalent of the KJV's "_there _is," which is missing in the BM. These versions are simply translating the Hebrew; the MT actually has the equivalent of "_there _is" in its negative existential partical 'en "there is not/none." This means that technically the KJV need not--indeed should not--have italicized "_there _is." Rather than depending on an ancient text, the BM's reading arises from the deletion of the KJV's unnecessary italics. Striking "_there _is" yielded an awkward uncoordinated phrase, and so Joseph Smith added "and." Note 30, above, remarked on the tendency for the conjunction "and" to appear at the beginning of phrases or clauses in the place of italicized words. The definitive evidence that the BM's text here comes about by the deletion of the italics is that even with the added "and" the larger phrase (even the larger verse) is still syntactically incomplete and does not make sense; it has no main governing verb (noted in Part 2, above). Another clue that the BM's conjunction arises from modifying italics is the fact that the BM deletes or modifies all of the ten italicized words in vv. 17-19 (which further yields several readings completely at odds with the original Hebrew, see Part 4).

Notes to the Appendix

127. Tvedtnes, "Isaiah Variants," 169; The Isaiah Variants 22. BMCT (1:172 n. 368) notes that the BM phrase may have been deleted by haplography.

128. Haplography is a scribal mistake where a letter, sometimes a word, is written once when it is to be written twice. Parablepsis is where a word or phrase is left out because its beginning is the same as the text that follows or its end is the same the text that precedes (cf. Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible [Minneapolis: Fortress Press; Assen/Maastricht: Van Gorcum, 1992], 237-240.

129. Tvedtnes, "Isaiah Variants," 168; The Isaiah Variants, 22-23.

130. See Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism, 256-258.

131. He says that the LXX has the reading "Therefore, O Jacob," or in some manuscripts, "Therefore, O Israel" (BMCT 1:172 n. 369 also refers to this). This reading is not attested in the text or apparatus of Joseph Ziegler, ed., Isaias, 3rd ed., Septuaginta, Vetus Testamentum Graecum Auctoritate Soceitatis Litterarum Gottingensis Editum, vol. 14 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983) or Alfred Rahlfs, ed., Septuaginta (Stuttgart: Württembergische Bibelanstalt, 1935). Nor is it found in the detailed textual notes of Duhm, Isaiah, 39-40; Gray, Isaiah, 57; Wildberger, Isaiah, 99 (and it is not in the Targum, Peshitta, or Vulgate).

132. w- in 1QIsa^a and gar in the LXX; Tvedtnes, "Isaiah Variants," 168-169; The Isaiah Variants, 24; BMCT 1:173 n. 377. The conjunction, as he notes, may have been lost due to similarity with the -w ending the preceding verse.

133. Tvedtnes, "Isaiah Variants," 169; The Isaiah Variants, 25-26.

134. Tvedtnes, "Isaiah Variants," 170; The Isaiah Variants, 27-28; cf. BMCT 1:174 n. 389; Sperry, Voice, 91; Compendium, 508-509.

135. BMCT 1:175, n. 393; Tvedtnes "Isaiah Variants," 170; The Isaiah Variants, 28 (he labels this as a scribal error).

136. See Wildberger, Isaiah, 124; Kaiser, Isaiah 1-12, 39; Gray, Isaiah, 63; BHK; BHS.

137. The Aramaic has a variation akin to that in the BM, but with the terms in the order of smäk, s'êd, smäk, s'êd as opposed the BM's chiastic ordering.

138. Tvedtnes, "Isaiah Variants," 171; The Isaiah Variants, 30-31.

139. His data is inexact, perhaps by inadvertence. He notes the Peshitta has the preposition but with this gives the transliteration of the Targum and does not mention the Targum. Both have the preposition: the Peshitta reads lzdyq' "to the righteous one" (singular; as indicated by the vocalized editions and the lack of seyame dots in the Brill edition) and the Targum reads l&dyqy' "to the righteous ones" (plural). The prepositions in Peshitta and Targum do not mean their underlying Hebrew texts had prepositions; these texts may be construing according to sense. Though the MT does not have a preposition, it must be construed with one.

140. The description here is based on the correction of data made in the previous note; it is the Targum, not the Peshitta, that has the plural.

141. Tvedtnes, "Isaiah Variants," 171; The Isaiah Variants, 34; cf. BMCT 1:178 n. 436.

142. BMCT 1: 178 n. 437 correctly notes the parallel in the LXX, but wrongly references two other texts. 1QIsa^adoes not read like the BM, but like the MT. The Targum does have a conjunction, but it is in the wrong place: wttrwqn 'r^c' wtxrwb "her land will be emptied out and be desolate" (and this reading is highly interpretive).

143. Tvedtnes, "Isaiah Variants," 171; The Isaiah Variants, 39; cf. BMCT 1:183 n. 476.

144. Tvedtnes, "Isaiah Variants," 171; The Isaiah Variants, 42; cf. BMCT 1:185 n. 492.

145. Cf. Wildberger, Isaiah, 248; NJPS, NRSV. Tvedtnes (The Isaiah Variants, 42) actually gives the translation "and the forsaking shall be great" but does not draw attention to the discrepancy with the BM or KJV.

146. Tvedtnes, "Isaiah Variants," 171-172; The Isaiah Variants, 46; BMCT 1:191 n. 545; Sperry, Voice, 93-94; Compendium, 511-512. Cf. a similar solution to a problematic negative in Isa 49:5, noted in Part 3, above.

147. See, for example, Wildberger, Isaiah, 386; Anthony Hutchinson, "The Word of God is Enough: The Book of Mormon as Nineteenth-Century Scripture," in Metcalfe, New Approaches, 13.

148. Tvedtnes, "Isaiah Variants," 172; The Isaiah Variants, 46-47; BMCT 1:192 n. 555.

149. Tvedtnes also argues that the original Hebrew text had an abbreviation wyw$, as found in 1QIsa^a, which he says could have been read as a singular or plural. It is unlikely the Qumran scroll has an abbreviation. It has no other cases of the participle or substantive yô$ëb in any of its forms appearing as an abbreviation. Too, the odd wyw$ comes at the end of a line where the accidental omission of a final letter (i.e., -b) seems possible. We may have a scribal mistake rather than an abbreviation. Moshe H. Goshen-Gottstein, ed., The Book of Isaiah, The Hebrew University Bible, 3 vols. (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1975-93), 1.35, says that the scroll has a lacuna (not an abbreviation) here: wyw[ ].

150. BMCT 1:197 n. 585; cf. Welch, Reexploring the Book of Mormon, 77-78.

151. Tvedtnes, "Isaiah Variants," 172; The Isaiah Variants, 50.

152. "Ramath" occurs in Judg 15:17 in the compound place name Ramath-lehi. The term "Lehi" occurs independently in this chapter as a place name in vv. 9, 14, 19. This is the only place in the Bible where this latter term occurs. This term caught Smith's imagination and he used it as the name of the leading patriarch in the BM story (1 Nephi, etc.). One wonders, quite speculatively, if the compound place name Ramath-lehi made an impression upon him such that he readily converted "Ramah" into "Ramath." Note, however, the place name Ramah in Ether 15:11.

153. The insertion of a -t at the end of 'yh (Aiah) in v. 28 of 1QIsa^a may not be to show and older form or conform to an earlier text but simply to correct a mistake, contra Tvedtnes. In any case, it provides no proof that the BM reading "Ramath" comes from an ancient text.

154. Tvedtnes, "Isaiah Variants," 172-173; The Isaiah Variants, 52-53.

155. Tvedtnes, "Isaiah Variants," 173; The Isaiah Variants, 55.

156. Note that Edwin Hatch and Henry A. Redpath (A Concordance to the Septuagint, 2 vols. [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1897]) take tachu as a translation of Hebrew qärôb (2:1339a) and chroniei as a translation of yimmä$ëkû (2:1476b). Joseph Ziegler (Untersuchungen zur Septuaginta des Buches Isaias, Alttestamentliche Abhandlungen 12/3 [Münster: Verlag der Aschendorffschen Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1934], 112) also takes the Greek phrase as a translation of the last phrase in the MT.

157. See the critical apparatus in Rahlfs, Septuaginta, and Ziegler, Isaias, ad loc.

158. BMCT 1:203 n. 632 says that the LXX has eight poetic lines in this verse just as the BM has eight poetic lines. This is wrong. The BM has only seven poetic lines (four where it correlates with the Bible, and three in its plus). The LXX (including the two plusses noted in the apparatus of Ziegler, Isaias) has at most five, maybe six lines. One of the plusses, as just seen in the main text above, is a recapitulation of or an alternative to the last line of the MT. The other plus translates part of the second poetic line in the MT (kai en tois naois tes spatales autes "and in her sanctuaries of luxury") and comes after a line which is also a translation of this same MT line (kai nossopoiesousin echinoi en tois oikois auton "and hedgehogs shall make their nests in their dwellings"; note that Hatch and Redpath, Concordance to the Septuagint, take echinoi as a translation of Hebrew tannîn in this line [1:592a], and they note several cases where Hebrew hêkäl, which appears in this line, is translated oikos [2:973-982; for the line under discussion here see 2:980b]). Again the LXX provides no support for the BM reading.

159. Tvedtnes, "Isaiah Variants," 173-174; The Isaiah Variants, 55; BMCT 1:204 n. 633.

160. Tvedtnes, The Isaiah Variants, 55 and cf. BMCT 1:204 n. 633. For the Aramaic texts, see Alexander Sperber, The Bible in Aramaic, 5 vols. (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1959-1973), ad loc.

161. Tvedtnes, The Isaiah Variants, 55.

162. Tvedtnes, "Isaiah Variants," 174; The Isaiah Variants, 56-57; BMCT 1: 204 n. 636 and 637.

163. Cf. Benjamin Kennicott, ed., Vetus Testamentum Hebraicum cum Variis Lectionibus, vol. 2 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1780); cf. Goshen-Gottstein, Isaiah, ad loc.

164. Isa 2:17, 20; 3:7, 18; 4:1, 2; 5:30; 7:18, 21, 23; 10:20, 27; 11:10, 11; 12:1, 4; 17:4, 7, 9; 19:16, 18, 21, 23, 24; 20:6; 22:8, 12, 20, 25; 23:15; 24:21; 25:9; 26:1; 27:1, 2, 12, 13; 28:5; 29:18; 30:23; 31:7; 52:6 [cf. 2:12; 7:20; 10:3; 13:6, 9].

165. Tvedtnes, "Isaiah Variants," 174; The Isaiah Variants, 60. He notes in both of these studies that the Targum has "kings" instead of messengers. This is an error.

166. BMCT 1:207 n. 664 notes that some ancient versions have "nations," as does the BM, over against the KJV/MT "nation." See the discussion of singular/plural variants in example 13, above.

167. Tvedtnes, "Isaiah Variants," 174; The Isaiah Variants, 68, BMCT 1:106 n. 781.

168. A better translation is "be profaned" but I use "be polluted" to show the correspondence between this and the KJV translation.

169. Most manuscripts and early editions, however, have the third person d^elä' yittaxal "so that it not be polluted."

170. See Ziegler, Untersuchungen, 75; Duhm, Jesaia, 364; Hermisson, Deuterojesaja, 207. They are not agreed on where the word may have appeared in the verse. For the originality of the term "my name" in the verse somewhere, compare the similarity of 42:8-9 with 48:11-12.

171. Thus the formulation is not necesssarily a manifestation of original poetic parallelism. The idiom in Ezekiel 39:7,"I will not let them pollute my holy name any more," may have also, but not necessarily, influenced the formulation of the BM variant (cf. also Ezek 20:9).

172. Nibley, Since Cumorah, 132-134; Tvedtnes, "Isaiah Variants," 174-75; The Isaiah Variants, 70; BMCT 1:106 n. 790.

173. Tvedtnes, "Isaiah Variants," 175; cf. The Isaiah Variants, 72-73; BMCT 1:108 n. 811.

174. Nibley's argument (Since Cumorah, 134) that the plus is missing because the "doctors of the schools who made both the Septuagint and the Masora" found it offensive is without merit, since the people's leaders are routinely denounced in prophetic literature. Why delete this instance and not the many other cases?

175. Tvedtnes, The Isaiah Variants, 72-73.

176. Metcalfe, "Apologetic and Critical Assumptions," 162-169.

177. Cf. 1 Ne 19:10, 12, 16; 22:3-4; 2 Ne 10:8 and especially vv. 20-21.

178. Tvedtnes, "Isaiah Variants," 175; The Isaiah Variants, 80-81; BMCT 1:150 nn. 200, 202; Sperry, Voice, 93; Compendium, 509-511.

179. The reading tb'$ rather than tyb$ appears to be correct since elsewhere in the Bible there are cases of fish stinking (Exod 7:18, 21), but not of fish drying up.

180. The note in BMCT 1:150 n. 202 that the LXX has "dried up" is misleading since it makes it appear as if LXX has the BM phrase "waters are dried up" which is not the case.

181. Tvedtnes, "Isaiah Variants," 175-176; The Isaiah Variants, 81.

182. Tvedtnes, The Isaiah Variants, 81. This is the first proposal mentioned there; it does not appear in "Isaiah Variants."

183. Compare: "whose arrows _are sharp" > "whose arrows shall be sharp" (Isa 5:28//2 Ne 15:28; cf. context of preceding future tenses); "and every one that is joined _unto _them" > "yea, and every one that is joined to the wicked" (Isa 13:15//2 Ne 23:15; cf. "the wicked" v. 11 and the general context of evil doing); "_but not in truth" > "yet they swear not in truth" (Isa 48:1//1 Ne 20:1; cf. the preceding "which swear"); "I did _them" > "I did shew them" (Isa 48:3//1 Ne 20:3; cf. "shew" in previous line); "I shewed _it" > "I shewed them" (Isa 48:5//1 Ne 20:5; cf. "I shewed them" in v. 3);"will not ye declare _it? I have shewed" > "will ye not declare them and that I have shewed" (Isa 48:6//1 Ne 20:6; cf. context of "them" in vv. 3, 5); "from the time that it was, there _am I" > "from the time that it was declared have I spoken" (Isa 48:16//1 Ne 20:16; cf. "to declare" of v. 15 of BM); "I _am the Lord thy God" > "I have sent him, the Lord they God" (Isa 48:17//1 Ne 20:17; cf. "sent" v. 16).

184. Kennicott (Vetus Testamentum Hebraicum) notes many manuscripts with different spellings of the word but not any that lack the term. BHS and BHK do not note variants. Goshen-Gottstein, Isaiah, 3.234, does not list the variant.

185. Tvedtnes, "Isaiah Variants," 176; The Isaiah Variants, 84. Tvedtnes is not altogether convinced of the textual parallel. In The Isaiah Variants he says the BM reading may simply be an omission due to paraphrasing (on this issue in this chapter, see Part 5, above).

186. Tvedtnes, "Isaiah Variants," 176; The Isaiah Variants, 86; BMCT 1:154 n. 248.

187. Tvedtnes, "Isaiah Variants," 176; The Isaiah Variants, 95; cf. BMCT 3:1031 n. 859.

188. Present only in some manuscripts.

189. The Peshitta does not provide support. Its preposition and pronoun "to you" (lky) comes after mn 'ydy "by means of my hands" which translates Hebrew m'(w)ty "from/by me." The preposition and pronoun in the Peshitta thus appear to translate 'tk in the Hebrew.

190. "Der MT 54,15 war für die LXX zu undurchsichtig": Ziegler, Untersuchungen, 164.

191. Ziegler, Untersuchungen, 164: "Durch gwr des MT dachte sie an die Proselyten und hat sich den Satz frei zurechgelegt im Anschluß an 55, 5." There are several differences between the LXX and the MT which, in view of the difficulty of the MT, seem to be signs that the Greek is not literally translating: (1) the appearance of a noun (proselutoi) in the first line of the Greek, where the MT only has a verb; (2) the appearance of the pronoun soi in the first line of the Greek, lacking in the MT; (3) the lack of a correspondent in the Greek for MT's 'epes; (4) the lack of a correspondent for MT's mî "who" and the appearance of a conjunction (kai "and") instead; and (5) the appearance of another conjunction (kai "and") before MT's 'älayk yippôl.

192. The LXX translations of Exod 12:48 and Num 9:14 are similar, but have pros humas instead of the dative pronoun.

193. Koehler and Baumgartner, Lexikon, 177b.

194. McKenzie, Second Isaiah, 183; he has no textual note he is following the versions.

195. McKenzie, Second Isaiah, 139.

196. Tvedtnes, "Isaiah Variants," 169; most of these are listed in The Isaiah Variants, 98.

197. An example of the coincidence possible is found in sampling the appearance of conjunctions in the LXX, Targum, and Peshitta of Isaiah 2-3. These versions vary in their conjunctions in 38 places over against the MT. Most of these variants involve having conjunctions where the MT does not; in a few places they lack conjunctions. In these variants, the versions all agree in only 2 places (2:4; 3:9). Two of them agree in 12 places (2:3, 10; 3:2, 3, 7, 8, 14, 19, 20, 21, 22, 25). The other 24 occurrences-almost two-thirds-are found in only one version (2:2, 4, 5 bis, 11, 13, 19, 20, 22; 3:2, 5 ter, 7, 8, 9, 13, 14, 16, 18, 19 bis, 26 bis). It is doubtful that in every case, even when two or even three versions agree, the variants reflect conjunctions or the lack thereof in their respective underlying Hebrew text. Many of the discrepancies can be ascribed to the freedom of translators.

198. Also noted in Tvedtnes, The Isaiah Variants, 30; BMCT 1:176 n. 406.

199. The argument that the conjunction w- fell out because of similarity to the final -w in hgydw cannot work for the BM (as suggested by BMCT 1:176 n. 406) because the supposed BM Hebrew version the verb would have to read hgydh, a feminine singular form to agree with hakkäkrâ "shew (of countenance)."

200. See also Tvedtnes, The Isaiah Variants, 33; BMCT 1:177 n. 419.

201. The Greek takes the phrase as an interrogative and reads: kai he harpage (nominative!) tou ptohchou en tois oikois humon "and (why) is the booty of the poor in your houses?" In the Syriac the preceding phrase deals with literal burning ('ntwm 'wqdtwn krm' "you burned the vineyard"), not simply consumption, and thus cannot take the last clause as an object; the last clause an only be a nominal sentence as in the MT.

202. Tvedtnes, "Isaiah Variants," 169; cf. The Isaiah Variants, 66.

203. BMCT 1:104 n. 766.

204. Cf. the NJPS which construes the syntax similarly "Because I know how stubborn you are (your neck is like an iron sinew, and your forehead bronze), therefore I told you long beforehand...."

205. Cf. also Tvedtnes, The Isaiah Variants, 67; BMCT 1:105 n. 773.

206. Note that the other instances of gm in the verse are rendered "yea" in the KJV (with the BM following).

207. Cf. also Tvedtnes, The Isaiah Variants, 69; BMCT 1:106 n. 789.

208. Respectively, kaleso autous kai stesonta hama and qr' 'n' lhwn wqymyn 'kxd'. In his two studies Tvedtnes also refers to a text labeled "S"; it is not in his abbreviations.

209. Cf. also Tvedtnes, The Isaiah Variants, 70; BMCT 1:106 n. 792.

210. Tvedtnes, The Isaiah Variants, 72; cf. BMCT 1:108 n. 809. On a related matter the BMCT says that the LXX in 48:21 (at the end) "adds other material between these verses" (cf. Tvedtnes, The Isaiah Variants, 72). While this makes it sound like it provides a parallel to the plus in the BM at the beginning of v. 22, the LXX plus (kai pietai ho laos mou "and my people will drink") is nothing like the BM plus.

211. Cf. Tvedtnes, The Isaiah Variants, 82; BMCT 1:152 n. 220;

212. Cf. also Tvedtnes, The Isaiah Variansts, 87; BMCT 1:155 n. 254 .

|Click here to go to the beginning of paper
Click here to go to Part 6 of the paper

Return to Translation