Scripture: Yahweh reminds Israel of its inability to free itself from captivity, a condition he has permitted. He then describes more of what he means by his “cup of fury”—the twin desolations of destruction and famine. In the midst of this fury, Israel is incapable of saving itself.
Comparison: While the King James Version reads “these two things,” the Book of Mormon reads “these two sons.” Ludlow analyzes this change: “The description of these two sons calls to mind the two witnesses who will be the major factor in keeping enemy armies from totally defeating the Jews (Rev. 11:1–6). John the Revelator describes two great servants of God who will stand and fight for Jerusalem against the armies of the world.” This reading is virtually required by verse 20, where “save these two,” clearly referring to the “two sons,” is inserted in the text.
This reading, however, requires a complete alteration of the general sense of Isaiah’s text. To equate the two sons with John’s vision, the phrase “who shall be sorry for thee” must be turned from a question to a declaration. In other words, the two sons must be sorry. That does not match the rest of the text. The final “and by whom shall I comfort thee?” is so clearly parallel to the first occurrence that it should also be read as a question. The emphasis in the KJV Isaiah is not on future deliverance by two sons but on Israel’s inability to produce offspring that can liberate it. The Book of Mormon Isaiah separates these two sons from the rest of Israel’s progeny and assigns them a beneficial (if not completely effective) role, for in the end, they too are “caught in the net.”
From a literary standpoint, the received text of Isaiah identifies the two things as “thy ‘desolation and destruction’ and ‘famine and the sword.’” These four items are paired so that “desolation and destruction” constitute one thing, while “famine and the sword” are the second, perhaps echoing the captive’s fear of not having bread (v. 14). Thus, Blenkinsopp translates this passage: “This twofold disaster has befallen you; devastating destruction—who will grieve for you? Famine and the sword—who will console you?”
Translation: This verse is perhaps one of the most important in illuminating Joseph Smith’s relationship to the English text as he translated. Because I accept that Joseph translated by the gift and power of God, I assume that his translation is based on an original text that was on the plates. However, the evidence suggests that what was produced as the English translation was not precisely a linguistically faithful representation of the language on the plates. A contrasting position is represented by H. Clay Gorton, a former mission president, who voices a very common assumption about the Book of Mormon texts: “It is possible that the Brass plates were indeed an early document even in Lehi’s time and were a prime source of the Old Testament as we know it today. Therefore it is assumed in this work that any differences between the Book of Mormon Isaiah and the other Isaiah versions represent changes made to the Hebrew scriptures after the Brass Plates had been removed from their midst.”
The problem with this position is that it assumes the very issue that needs to be proved. Are the Isaiah quotations in the Book of Mormon an authentic early version, or are they modifications of the KJV Isaiah text? That is an important question, and it should not be answered by a simple faith-declaration that the Book of Mormon must be a better or more authentic translation. The Book of Mormon is a wonderful work, but it does not require us to create myths to explain it. What we need to do is understand it.
David P. Wright has written extensively about the issue of Joseph Smith’s use of the KJV Isaiah texts. While he concludes that the Book of Mormon is not an ancient text—a conclusion I do not share—I find his data sound and draw from them significant information about the nature of Joseph Smith’s translation.
Wright’s analysis of the variations between the Book of Mormon Isaiah and KJV Isaiah notes that while only 3.6 percent of the words in the KJV Isaiah passages corresponding to those in the Book of Mormon are italicized, they represent between either 22 or 38 percent of the changes made in the Book of Mormon version of the Isaiah passages. The lower percentage includes the removal of the italicized word, and the higher percentage includes variants that retain the italicized word, but that word may have influenced the variant.
The King James Version translators italicized words implied in the source text, but not explicitly stated. Joseph appears to have understood that these “added” words were not in the Hebrew. Many of the Book of Mormon variations in the Isaiah passages either simply remove those words or rewrite the text in a way that continues to make sense without that particular word. Wright also notes other cases where the evidence suggests that Joseph Smith was using only the King James Version of Isaiah, rather than Isaiah in any other language.
These data constitute evidence, but evidence for what? Wright interprets them as evidence against the authenticity of the Book of Mormon because they indicate that Isaiah was “translated” from English, not from whatever language was on the plates. Unfortunately, that requires just as strong an initial faith-declaration as does Groton’s. The evidence can only suggest that the Book of Mormon isn’t a translation if one begins with the assumption that it is a literal translation.
In contrast, I see these data as explaining something crucial about Book of Mormon language that clearly depends on the King James Version. Joseph Smith’s translation method allowed for the insertion of King James language. This is hardly surprising. When someone translating from another language comes upon a passage that he or she recognizes, the recognized version forms the basis for the translation.
What is more important for our current text, however, is the fact that Joseph interacted with his text. We do not have the opportunity of seeing this interaction except in cases of close correlation with the KJV. Such cases illuminate the Lord’s explanation about the translation process to Oliver Cowdery: “You must study it out in your mind” (D&C 9:8). The translation process was not automatic; it was participatory.
I conclude that David Wright’s analysis of the italicized passages shows Joseph Smith interacting with his text. He thought it out and produced his translation. While the resulting “translation” does not fit our current definition of the word, it does fit what Joseph understood himself to be doing. When modern translators approach the task of translating documents such as the Bible, one of the methods used is variously called dynamic or function equivalence. The intent of such a translation is not to retain precision in the representation of the ancient words, but rather to retain ancient meanings. As Mark L. Strauss (associate professor of New Testament, Bethel Seminary, San Diego) suggests, a freer translation has the potential of capturing more of the meaning, since it has the freedom to add explanatory words or phrases. This looser connection between translation and source appears to the model that Joseph Smith used. We know that Joseph Smith edited both the Book of Mormon text (for the 1837 edition) as well as the revelations he gave (compiled into the Book of Commandments and later the Doctrine and Covenants). Very clearly he understood the words he dictated to represent the meaning: and if the meaning were not sufficiently clear, he could improve the language so that the meaning was communicated more effectively.
In the examples of the variants under consideration here, the larger sense of the passages suggests that Joseph Smith’s substitution of “sons” for “things” wrenches the sense of the text. It is perhaps understandable by reference to the “sons” in verse 18, but that simply tells us that Joseph made his “translation” as a result of focusing on a narrow part of the text rather than seeing the passage in a fuller context. This error is more likely to be committed by a modern translator than an ancient copyist. This narrow focus, rather than the larger conceptual focus that made sense of the two “things,” coupled with the fact that “things” is in italics—which Joseph apparently paid particular attention to—tells me that “sons” is Joseph’s attempt to make sense of the text, not a reflection of the underlying text. This evidence directly contradicts Gorton’s hypothesis.
However, does this conclusion mean that Joseph did not actually translate the plates? Only by the narrowest definition of “translation” and then only in cases where KJV texts are clearly inserted. Perhaps this conclusion might be an indictment of the whole text if there were no evidences of antiquity in any other aspect. Such evidence exists, however. I therefore understand that Joseph is passing on information from antiquity, but “studying it out” as he does so. Does this mean that there might be mistakes in the text? Of course. As Moroni2 declares in the title page: “And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ.” This same caution applies to our understanding of Joseph Smith. (See also 3 Nephi, Part 1: Context, Chapter 3, “Notes on the Translation Process.”)