KJV dependence, Deutero-Isaiah and Adam Clarke
The clearest textual evidence that the English text was made from an 1820s Bible: its quotations follow the King James Version, its italics and its late Isaiah.
What the Church claims
The biblical passages in the Book of Mormon were translated from the brass plates and the Nephite record, not copied from the King James Bible.
Once the evidence is in, this claim: Weak. The KJV wording, italics and late Isaiah point to an 1820s Bible as the source of these chapters. Only a theological premise (God chose the KJV) saves the traditional claim, and it concedes they are not translated from the plates.
The record
- Royal Skousen's figures, as reported by FAIR: about 23% of the differences between the Book of Mormon's biblical quotations and the KJV involve KJV italicized words, and about 38% of the italics in those passages are altered. David P. Wright concluded from this pattern that the Book of Mormon Isaiah 'derives from the KJV'.
- FAIR does not concede that a Bible was on the table, citing witness unanimity, and offers three hypotheses: ancient variants on the plates, Joseph deliberately revising italics he understood, or Stan Spencer's proposal that the vision supplied the text with the italicized words missing.
- Brant Gardner, reviewing Davis, concedes that the Isaiah changes are concentrated around italicized KJV words and that this precision cannot be extemporaneous.
- Nephi quotes Isaiah 40-55, which most scholars date to the exile, after Lehi's departure about 600 BCE. FAIR states the challenge is genuine, that some LDS scholars accept multiple authorship of Isaiah, and that the Church has no position requiring single authorship.
- Colby Townsend (Dialogue 55:3, 2022) extends the problem: the Book of Mormon also uses Third Isaiah (61:10, 63:1, 65:2, 66:1) and, within its block quotation of Isaiah 2-14, passages most scholars assign to exilic or post-exilic redaction (2:1-5, 4:2-6, 11:10-12:6, 13-14), always in KJV order and wording; his thesis is that the author knew Isaiah only as it stands in the KJV.
- Ronald Huggins (Dialogue 36:1, 2003) argued that two non-KJV readings, the omission of 'without a cause' at 3 Nephi 12:22 and the doubled 'ships of the sea' and 'ships of Tarshish' at 2 Nephi 12:16, match notes in Adam Clarke's commentary and Wesley's Explanatory Notes, both circulating in Emma's Methodist family.
- Thomas Wayment and Haley Wilson-Lemmon (2017-2020) argued that Joseph's 1830-33 Bible revision (JST) drew on Adam Clarke's commentary in more than thirty places. Kent Jackson (Interpreter 40, 2020) replied that none of the examples can be traced to Clarke; he also argues that the JST's omission of 'without a cause' comes from the Book of Mormon, not Clarke.
- Believing scholar Blake Ostler concedes that the book 'freely adopted KJV phraseology and concepts', including whole chapters, and that its theology of atonement, original sin and free will is 19th-century.
- Skousen holds that the KJV phraseology is 'blended' throughout the text in a way that shows 'considerable intervention by the translator(s)', and that the translation is cultural rather than literal.
The moving target
- 2013-12: Describes the translation as reading English words from the instrument; does not address the KJV passages or italics.
The exchange
FAIR; Skousen; Stan Spencer
God gave the familiar King James wording where the plates agreed with it; the changes at italics show Joseph or the divine translator correcting the translators' additions; and no witness saw a Bible.
The answer: Every version of this concedes the point at issue: the English of these chapters is the English of a 1769-text King James Bible with its italics, not a fresh translation from Hebrew on brass plates. A revelation that reproduces the KJV's italics, its verse order and its post-exilic chapters is indistinguishable from a man working from a KJV. If a Bible was present, the 'no books' witnesses were mistaken or incomplete; if none was, Joseph knew the KJV Isaiah by heart, which is also a naturalistic explanation.
What they get right: The italics pattern cuts against pure extemporization and against theories of a hidden manuscript alike, and Skousen's tight-control evidence is what makes the italics awkward for believers in the first place.
FAIR; Kent Jackson; Scripture Central
Deutero-Isaiah dating is a scholarly hypothesis, not a fact; conservative scholars such as J. J. M. Roberts date some contested passages early; and a Nephite redactor could account for later-seeming material.
The answer: Townsend shows that the disputed material is not confined to chapters 40-55 and that the Book of Mormon reproduces the KJV's arrangement of it, including verses that even conservative critics (Roberts on 2:1) treat as late. The 'ancient variant' hypothesis has never produced a single Book of Mormon Isaiah reading confirmed by the Dead Sea Scrolls or the Septuagint against the KJV, a point skeptics should make and apologists should answer.
What they get right: Isaiah composition history is genuinely contested at the margins, and FAIR is candid that the Church requires no position on it.
Kent P. Jackson (Interpreter 40, 2020)
The Adam Clarke thesis concerns the JST, not the Book of Mormon, and is itself unproven.
The answer: Jackson's critique of the JST claims is serious and skeptics should not cite 'Clarke' as settled. But Huggins's two 1829 readings are the relevant evidence for the Book of Mormon, and they are best explained by a commentary or Methodist notes. Jackson's own argument that the JST took 'without a cause' from the Book of Mormon just relocates the question to 1829.
What they get right: Wayment's thirty-plus parallels are uneven, and Wilson-Lemmon's later public advocacy has colored the reception on both sides.
Both cases at full strength
The skeptics' case
This is the strongest textual evidence for a modern English composition. The book quotes the Bible in the wording of the King James Version, tracks the KJV translators' italics, reproduces the KJV's chapter order for Isaiah including material composed after Lehi's departure, and in at least two places follows textual notes available in 1820s commentaries. Believing scholars concede the KJV saturation and the 19th-century theology. The apologetic responses all amount to God dictating a 1769 Bible.
The apologetic case
If the Lord chose to give the Isaiah chapters in the Bible the readers already knew, the KJV wording is expected and the italics are where a translator would naturally intervene. Skousen's view that the translation is cultural, not literal, absorbs much of the evidence. Isaiah's authorship is not settled, and no one saw a Bible in the room.
What would change this
A Book of Mormon Isaiah variant confirmed by pre-Christian manuscripts against the KJV; or a demonstration that the italics correlation is an artifact of where any reviser would intervene.
Closely related
Sources
- KJV italicized text in the Book of Mormon
- Oral Creation and the Dictation of the Book of Mormon
- Book of Mormon/Anachronisms/Biblical/Deutero-Isaiah
- The Robe of Righteousness: Exilic and Post-Exilic Isaiah in The Book of Mormon
- 'Without a Cause' and 'Ships of Tarshish': A Possible Contemporary Source for Two Unexplained Readings from Joseph Smith
- Some Notes on Joseph Smith and Adam Clarke
- The Book of Mormon as a Modern Expansion of an Ancient Source
- The Language of the Original Text of the Book of Mormon
- Book of Mormon Translation (Gospel Topics essay)
An independent project. Not affiliated with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or with any organization cited here. Summaries are written here; short quotations are attributed and linked. Every page names its sources so that it can be corrected, and every page can be challenged.