Introduction – the dilemma:

While Mormon saw the fall of his nation and people he saw records that were “choice” to him.[1] One might ask what could possibly appear inspiring, wonderful or, “choice” to a person so affected by trauma and personal loss. What could inspire Mormon in the face of so much destruction? When we read the small plates of Nephi (this is to what Mormon was referring) do we get similar inspiration? I propose we do not. And yet, the inspiration we do not see is actually hidden in plain sight.

As one culture attempts to understand another, logistical issues arise in translation and subsequently when interpreting the translated text. The functional equivalence of one phrase may be completely lost if not a priority in translating. I propose the Nephites differentiated between high fidelity and paraphrastic citations. One aim of this book is to attempt to identify the locution used to designate the level of fidelity in a citation. I hold that the only parts of Nephi’s writing that should be considered a citation of Isaiah in the modern sense is 2 Nephi 12-24. This is likely all very intentional by Nephi. It follows that the second book of Nephi is best understood as a witness document. Moving on; the importance of identifying paraphrased text is highlighted with the example of 1 Nephi 21. This demonstrates additional literary techniques such as: weaving terms and allusions in with the current text, changing the frame of reference from which the scripture is understood, giving additional prophecies based on new situations, juxtaposing the current situation with the past and future, juxtaposing opposing emotions and experiences, and the use of repetition and metric devices. These were the tools the nascent Nephite nation used to confront reality. They can continue to inspire today.

Part 1 – The Art of Paraphrasing

When a person quotes a phrase with less than perfect accuracy, it is considered a “misquote.” The very term contains a prefix connoting wrong-doing of some sort. Perhaps misquoting may be viewed as stemming from lack of intelligence, indolence, or insincerity on the professed topic. Of course there are appropriate times to quote a phrase with less than perfect accuracy. Such as a paraphrase.

Largely, Western culture often declares it taboo to change or modify art, including literature and poetry. Touching on this, anthropologist Dennis Tedlock, for example, contrasted Western and Mayan civilizations, “to paraphrase the lines of a finished poem would be what modern Western critics have called a ‘heresy,’ but paraphrase is the method by which Mayans construct poems in the first place.”[2] Certainly sacred writing may be viewed by laypersons as “finished” and therefore unalterable.

Other cultures (such as the Mayans) provide an example of a more fluid approach to internalizing art, including written texts. Another example is found within certain eastern cultures. Chaplain Brian Steed of the U.S. Army describes meetings in Jordan in which he noted that all present spoke the same words, formed the same sentences, and made the same points but with variations. He wrote, “an American would typically see this as a wasted forty minutes or so, but the Arabs understood they all had a right to make those remarks regardless of who else had said them.” [3] Such a pseudo-recitation is meaningful as it shows personal internalization of the topic at hand. Additionally, when the group allows each person time to speak – even in a manner that we would consider nearly redundant – it offers inclusion.

There is another setting in which modification of text is considered positive, even crucial. This is the process of likening. In Nephite literature the concept is never defined. This absence implies Nephi’s audience is familiar with their own process of likening. Perhaps to liken is to modify text to make it more understandable, however as I cannot be sure, I will refer to any text that is modified in any way as paraphrased.

Nephi, the founder of the Nephite nation, was a writer for all time, but also a writer of his time. Therefore, some of the concepts and methods he employs were so well-known by his immediate audience as to make their explicit definition unnecessary or even condescending. Since the Book of Mormon is the story of a fallen people[4], in retrospection we are left to wonder what represented common knowledge among the members of the fallen nation.

First, we have some work to do.

Today it is universally recognized that quotation marks can indicate a verbatim quotation. On the other hand, a paraphrase is not designated with quotation marks. Within Nephite society there was also a manner to designate between a verbatim citation and a paraphrase. However, today we are blind to these designations.[5]^,[6]

Yet if we compare similar passages and look at the text surrounding them, it will become clear what designates a citation. Isaiah is often cited in the Book of Mormon, therefore great insights can be obtained about Nephite literary techniques by comparing repetitive “citations.” Although we don’t have the original text or source material, presumably, if there is a text reproduction that is identical to another text I suspect the translator’s intent was to imply a citation.[7] Here is the key: there must be intentional modifications in the text when changes are present in only one of the multiple citations. This is what I mean. I have marked all changes in red text.

KJV (original)	High-Fidelity Citation	Paraphrastic Citation
Isaiah 11:4	2 Nephi 21:4	2 Nephi 30:9
But with righteousness shall he judge the poor, and reprove with equity for the meek of the earth: and he shall smite the earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips shall he slay the wicked.	But with righteousness shall he judge the poor, and reprove with equity for the meek of the earth; and he shall smite the earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips shall he slay the wicked.	And with righteousness shall the Lord God judge the poor, and reprove with equity for the meek of the earth. And he shall smite the earth with the rod of his mouth; and with the breath of his lips shall he slay the wicked.
Isaiah 11:6	2 Nephi 21:6	2 Nephi 30:12
The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them.	The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid, and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them.	And then shall the wolf dwell with the lamb; and the leopard shall lie down with the kid, and the calf, and the young lion, and the fatling, together; and a little child shall lead them.
Isaiah 49:25	1 Nephi 21:25	2 Nephi 6:17
But thus saith the Lord, Even the captives of the mighty shall be taken away, and the prey of the terrible shall be delivered: for I will contend with him that contendeth with thee, and I will save thy children.	But thus saith the Lord, even the captives of the mighty shall be taken away, and the prey of the terrible shall be delivered; for I will contend with him that contendeth with thee, and I will save thy children.	But thus saith the Lord: Even the captives of the mighty shall be taken away, and the prey of the terrible shall be delivered; for the Mighty God shall deliver his covenant people. For thus saith the Lord: I will contend with them that contendeth with thee
Isaiah 52:7	Mosiah 12:21	1 Nephi 13:37
How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him that bringeth good tidings, that publisheth peace; that bringeth good tidings of good, that publisheth salvation; that saith unto Zion, Thy God reigneth!	How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him that bringeth good tidings; that publisheth peace; that bringeth good tidings of good; that publisheth salvation; that saith unto Zion, Thy God reigneth;	and whoso shall publish peace, yea, tidings of great joy, how beautiful upon the mountains shall they be.
Isaiah 52:8	Mosiah 12:22	Mosiah 15:29
Thy watchmen shall lift up the voice; with the voice together shall they sing: for they shall see eye to eye, when the Lord shall bring again Zion.	Thy watchmen shall lift up the voice; with the voice together shall they sing; for they shall see eye to eye when the Lord shall bring again Zion;	Yea, Lord, thy watchmen shall lift up their voice; with the voice together shall they sing; for they shall see eye to eye, when the Lord shall bring again Zion.

Table 1: Verses in which Isaiah text is apparently reproduced on multiple occasions. High-fidelity citations are identical in every case to the KJV Isaiah base text (keep in mind a cultural and creative translation process). Low-Fidelity citations have changed text demonstrated in red.

Therefore it follows there are occasions when Isaiah’s words are cited in a different manner than the original. These paraphrastic citations demonstrate that the Nephites at times modify the text. While all of these examples are instructive on many levels, for now I want to only establish the idea that high-fidelity and paraphrastic citations exist. That is to say, at times a Nephite orator may reference another’s words without giving a verbatim quote.

Markers of High-Fidelity and Paraphrastic Text Reproduction

Having established that there are multiple levels of fidelity with which a citation is reproduced, I now turn to the question of high-fidelity quote identification. Did Nephite authors bother to indicate whether a citation is a paraphrastic quote or not? Perhaps an orator was content to merely deliver the overall message they perceived was conveyed in source material. While this may be the case on occasion, I hold that Nephite authors did ensure the reader could distinguish high-fidelity and paraphrastic citations.

Presentation of High-Fidelity Citations

The citations identified as high-fidelity in table 1 are introduced with the following:

“now these are the words …”[8]

“but thus saith the Lord…”[9] and,

“what meaneth the words which are written, and which have been taught by our fathers, saying…” [10]

In two of these cases we see a determiner. The definite article is used: “these are the words” or, “the words which are written.” In both cases of high-fidelity citation the term “words” is used as a direct object depicted in table 2.

Determiner: the definite article

The term “words” is used as a direct object

Table 2: Language adjacent to multiple high-fidelity citations[11]

Notice that words are referenced as an object, as if they are their own entity or record. This may make sense of other Nephite societal constructs. For example, on one occasion Mormon writes, “and now the words of Amulek are not all written, nevertheless a part of his words are written in this book.” [12] Nephi likewise writes, “And now, Jacob spake many more things to my people at that time…”[13] These verses may seem strange to the reader. Why is this clarification present? Did the reader truly expect an exhaustive account of every word spoken by Amulek when preaching to an entire city? Did the reader expect every word uttered by Jacob at a multi-day conference to be written? Certainly not. And yet, both Mormon and Nephi feel obliged to excuse themselves for only giving a partial record. We can infer two things. First, there must be a record that contains something defined as the words of Amulek’s mission in Ammonihah and the words of Jacob in that specific conference. Second, Mormon and Nephi must have implied at some point in the record that they were giving a complete record. This then is the reason Mormon and Nephi write that the words of Amulek and the words of Jacob are only a partial account.

But, what did Mormon and Nephi write that implied that they were giving a complete record (and thereby necessitating clarification that the account was not complete)? As expected, there is verbiage indicating a High-fidelity citation is present. We read:

“Now these are the words which Amulek preached…” [14] and,

“The words of Jacob, the brother of Nephi, which he spake unto the people of Nephi.” [15]

In both cases we see a determiner and a reference to words as a direct object. Let’s move on to paraphrastic citations for now.

Presentation of Paraphrastic Isaiah Citations

We will now turn our attention to words introducing these paraphrastic citations. While we can’t be sure, by assuming there is some degree of correlation between the English text and the source material we presume the paraphrastic citations on Table 1 were intentionally altered by the speaker.

This is how the citations are introduced:

“I would speak unto you”.[16]

“But thus saith the Lord…” [17]

“For, behold, saith the Lamb:”[18]

“And now Abinadisaid unto them…”[19] and finally,

“I say unto you…”[20]

I do not want Abinadi’s intent to be lost on us. Why would he change the wording of scripture? The original reads, “Thy watchmen shall lift up their voice…” Abinadi states, “Yea, Lord, thy watchmen shall lift up their voice…” In the original ‘thy’ refers to Zion. By including, “Yea, Lord…” Abinadi appears to make the verse into a prayer. One must also question if part of Abinadi’s martyrdom speech is in part a conversation between Abinadi and the Lord. Aside from that, in the original, “thy watchmen” refers to Zion’s watchmen. Consistent with Abinadi’s message, the Lord is an embodiment of Zion. Such a modification is not likely made lightly, and it depicts the verse had a personal meaning to Abinadi.

The Savior also appears to follow Nephite convention when talking to them. Prior to citing clear variants of Isaiah (verses different from His own prior citation) He states, “And verily I say unto you…” [21] In each of these paraphrastic citations Mormon or the speaker and sometimes both ensure to clarify this is another person speaking.

I clarify that I am terming these citations “paraphrastic” because they appear to contain deviations from the known Isaiah text that the Nephites possessed (this is evident because of the existence of the High-fidelity citations). However, these paraphrastic Isaiah citations likely represent High-fidelity citations relative to the person speaking (e.g. Nephi, Abinadi, and Jesus Christ).

Furthermore, the term ‘paraphrastic’ may have a negative connotation. That should not be the case. These paraphrastic citations could equally be referred to as examples of intertextuality or likening. I use the term ‘paraphrastic’ to emphasize that the Nephites do indeed appear to differentiate between High-fidelity and paraphrastic citations of source material. It is notable that in each paraphrastic case a source other than Isaiah was named. I do not believe that was happenstance. I hold that the textual designation of specifying another speaker is citing the original author indicates a paraphrastic citation.[22]

“Thus saith” – a Paraphrastic Citation Marker
 Up to this point I have not addressed the phrase “thus saith.” The term “thus saith” occurs 46 times in the Book of Mormon. Here, for convenience, I have copied side by side the same verses that are in the table 1 above.

1 Nephi 21:25	2 Nephi 6:17
But thus saith the Lord, even the captives of the mighty shall be taken away, and the prey of the terrible shall be delivered; for I will contend with him that contendeth with thee, and I will save thy children.	But thus saith the Lord: Even the captives of the mighty shall be taken away, and the prey of the terrible shall be delivered; for the Mighty God shall deliver his covenant people. For thus saith the Lord: I will contend with them that contendeth with thee.

Table 3: Nephi’s unaltered and Jacob’s altered citation of Isaiah.
Nephi’s version (left) is identical to Isaiah’s words in the KJV Bible.
Jacob’s word’s (right) has added text (red).

To us “thus saith” may sound very official. It is archaic and it might be understood to imply a sense of formality. However, we must recall that the Book of Mormon was written according to pre-1800 English conventions.[23] A dictionary from 1730 reports the definition of “thus” as “after this Manner.”[24] It is certainly difficult to evaluate the original Book of Mormon text, however, the Hebrew term that was used in Isaiah 49:25[25] and therefore in Jacob’s speech here is ‘כֹּה’ (kō). It often translates to “like this.” [26] The definition of the likely original term, and its use in context, suggests “thus saith” is a paraphrastic citation marker.

Jacob is comfortable to paraphrase, modify and truncate the Isaiah verse that otherwise doubly appeared as a ‘citation’ (i.e. Jacob was citing Isaiah who was citing God.). Consistent with the current proposal, there is no High-fidelity citation marker relative to citing Isaiah or God here. It appears Jacob feels at liberty to modify and truncate becausethe citation was not introduced as a High-fidelity citation by Jacob.

Aside from that, why is Jacob willing to modify this verse? Clearly he knows that any reader of the brass plates or Nephi’s plates will have access to the original words. And yet, Jacob is completely comfortable modifying words here without explanation. Presumably the term ‘thus saith’ does not connote a verbatim citation.

But why would Jacob paraphrase here? He removes the word “I” and places “the mighty God” in its place. He then adds, “shall deliver his covenant people.” Then, perhaps because he has modified the text, he resumes by adding the restatement, “For thus saith the Lord.” Jacob is clearly emphasizing God’s might (power) and the Nephite’s covenant status. I presume that this is what Jacob’s band of exiles needs to hear.

I will point to another example that demonstrates how ‘thus saith’ functions as a marker of a paraphrastic citation in Nephite culture.

Isaiah 50:1	2 Nephi 7:1
Thus saith the Lord, Where is the bill of your mother’s divorcement, whom I have put away? Or which of my creditors is it to whom I have sold you?	Yea, for thus saith the Lord: Have I put thee away, or have I cast thee off forever? For thus saith the Lord: Where is the bill of your mother’s divorcement? To whom have I put thee away, or to which of my creditors have I sold you?

Table 4: Isaiah 50:1 from KJV (left). Jacob’s citation (right) with significant modifications marked in red text.

Regardless of whichever text is an earlier witness of the “original text” of Isaiah,[27] it appears that one or both of the stewards reproducing the text felt at liberty to modify the text at this point (i.e., either a Lehite or a Judean writer either added to or removed from the record). Alternatively, as Nephi stated that plain and precious parts were taken from the writings of the Jews, it is possible the phrase, “have I cast thee off forever?” was maliciously removed. After all, the phrase, “have I cast thee off forever?” represents the ethos of what was removed from Jewish writings.[28] Regardless, that a variant involves portions incorporating the term ‘thus saith’ suggests it was not regarded as a High-fidelity citation marker by the transmitters of the text.

A final example I give that the term, ‘thus saith’ is used as a paraphrastic notation is found in Alma 8:17. In that verse, it is clear the term ‘thus saith’ does not constitute a citation because it would create incongruence with the passages’ voice. Therefore, apologetic parenthesis have been in place since the original printing in order to excuse the lack of conformity with our modern-day English conventions. It reads, “For behold, they do study at this time that they may destroy the liberty of thy people, (for thus saith the Lord) which is contrary to the statutes, and judgments, and commandments which he has given unto his people.” If ‘thus saith’ is not understood to connote a verbatim citation no parenthesis are needed.

It follows that if a speaker states, ‘thus saith…’ then the speaker is not only familiar with the message but also in this case God’s disposition. Furthermore, this suggests God has trusted (and therefore holds accountable) the speaker with some degree of autonomy in the presentation of the message. We can see through the messenger’s words the type of relationship they hold with God.

It is clear the Nephites bothered to differentiate high-fidelity and paraphrastic texts. High-fidelity texts have a nearby determiner referencing ‘words’ as a direct object. Paraphrastic citations lack this high-fidelity designation.

Examples of Embedded Citations Presented with High-Fidelity Locution:

Grant Hardy wrote of the Book of Mormon that, “recurring expressions may simply be random, but it is also possible to read some of them as intentional.”[29]

That high-fidelity citations are notated by referring to them as objects seems generally consistent throughout the rest of Nephite culture. Moroni would write, “An epistle of my father…”[30] He also wrote, “The words of Christ…”[31] and “The manner of administering the wine…”[32] Some of the presumed citations such as epistles are introduced with high-fidelity notation: “Lachoneus… received an epistle from the leader and the governor of this band of robbers; and these were the words…” [33] Prior to citing Captain Moroni’s letter to Pahoran, Mormon writes, “these are the words which he wrote…” [34] Prior to Pahoran’s response we read, “And these are the words which he received.” Prior to Helaman’s letter to Captain Moroni we read, “these are the words which he wrote…”[35] Therefore it seems with these examples the same notation was used during much of Nephite history. Moroni perhaps modifies ‘words’ to ‘epistle.’ There is always a determinant and direct object.

It would be amiss to not include the most essential citations. It goes without say that of all the words in the Book of Mormon, the words of Christ would be modified the least. Accordingly we read:

“When Jesus had spoken these words…”[36] (8 occurrences)

“When he had said these words…”[37]

“Those same words which Jesus had spoken…” [38]

“When Jesus had said these words…” [39]

”…when Jesus had told these things…”[40]

Finally, at the end of the Jesus’ ministry to the Nephites, Mormon references the, “words of Jesus” multiple times.[41] Therefore, nearly without exception after every citation, Christ’s words are introduced as “the words” or “these words.” The high frequency of that type of notation alone surrounding the words of Christ indicate that manner of writing is significant in Nephite custom.

It appears then that Mormon is very deliberate and systematic about indicating when a high-fidelity citation is used and he attributes the citation to the appropriate party. I hold that in the absence of notation indicating a high-fidelity, the text should not be considered a verbatim citation. That is very significant because many of Nephi’s records containing his father’s words of counsel or blessing are not introduced with high-fidelity locution. To me this indicates a more casual and conversational tone in that section of the record.

Part 2: Comparing Nephi’s Writings to the Biblical Record

So far we have largely been relying on internal comparisons of the Book of Mormon to understand how specific phrases are used with regard to Nephite notation conventions. However, it is reasonable to look separately at Nephi’s writings and compare them to his contemporaries. For that we need to understand the setting Nephi was raised in. I will start with the importance documents played in society.

The Concept of Objects as a Witness in Ancient Mesopotamia

While not much is known about pre-exilic law in Judah, extensive records of legal interactions from neighboring regions are available to us in the form of thousands of clay tablets from civilizations in Mesopotamia, including Akkadian, Babylonian, and Sumerian empires.^[42] Many of these documents are court transcriptions. It is clear that these civilizations had significant political influence on each other and the surrounding areas, and the Hebrew Bible attests to this influence, yet there is not a consensus on the degree of influence biblical law had on Judean state law.^[43] The question is further complicated by the Judean legal system’s simultaneous recognition of secular and clerical judicial authorities.^[44] However, thanks to the great repository of tablets available to us, we can speculate with some assurance about the process by which witnesses provided evidence for use in legal proceedings. Most legal transactions were presumably oral, but both objects and persons qualified as witnesses. For instance, a carcass, garment, document,^[45] or an oath could be considered a witness.^[46] This may affect our perception of the stories in Genesis that contain a garment (i.e., the significance of Potiphar’s wife retaining Joseph’s garment or the presentation of Joseph’s torn garment to his father).

To further demonstrate how an object could be viewed in ancient Mesopotamia, one could consider the tablets containing the ten commandments. The tablets are more than writing or admonitions. The tablets themselves are a proof of the covenant with God. This is evident when they are described as “tables of testimony…”[47] Further designating their authoritative status, they were effectively sealed in the Ark of the Covenant. Official records were generally sealed by the scribe and a second unsealed version was made available for viewing.^[48],[49]

Centuries later in Nephi’s day, documents were produced by professional scribes whose training and standing stood as guarantees of their documents’ validity, therefore parties to legal actions did not need to sign legal documents to confirm their validity or to place them in force.^[50] A scribe could write a document and seal it. There is even recorded use of unsealed records used as a testimony in court proceedings at the discretion of a Judge.^[51] While the use of unsealed documents appears to be an exception, that unsealed documents were accepted as valid on occasion speaks to the weight given to written records. Egyptian written culture around Nephi’s time did not require a signature or a witness for sales records to be considered valid. The scribe was effectively the witness. Indeed, in the seventh century B.C., scribes frequently referred to themselves as “the witness scribe.”^[52] A clear example of this is the divorce certificate BM 351. From 490 B.C.E., the document states the divorce and succinctly ends: “Scribe. Horuz son of Nes-Hor-pechrat.”[53] No signatures or list of witnesses are present. In contrast, centuries later, legal documents do appear to require additional validation.[54] The power of the witness scribe and the influence of writings appears significant. Indeed, written records could constitute a witness. This is particularly noteworthy in our discussion as archeological evidence suggests scribes operated in Israel after Egyptian custom^[55] and Nephi states he was trained in the language of the Egyptians.[56] It is further noteworthy that many scholars have contended Nephi had formal training as a scribe.^[57],[58] Regardless, the office of scribe was clearly an important one, and a scribe’s work could have lasting consequences.

Headers, Superscriptions and Colophons

We turn again to what implications this has for our text. Presumably literacy was not prevalent enough to allow for forgeries in Nephi’s day, thus obviating the need for signatures. Therefore, Nephi’s ability to write multiple languages attests to his training. This brings us to the work of a scribe.

Judean literary culture used superscriptions (text headings) as a way to verify text. An example of a superscription is the following, “The words of Jacob, the brother of Nephi, which he spake unto the people of Nephi.”[59] Multiple scholars have given that verse the designation of “header”^[60],[61] or colophon. However, the term header is reminiscent of modern formatting practices. One might assume the writer’s intent was to merely identify source material and organize text. This is not likely the case. These ‘headers’ meant much more, especially in the age of minimal literacy. Recall that even unsealed writing was allowed in court proceedings on occasion.

Some scholars refer to verses like 2 Nephi 6:1 (above) or Isaiah 1:1 (“The vision or Isaiah the son of Amoz, which he saw concerning Judah…”) as superscriptions or superscripts. As depicted in the mentioned examples, superscriptions typically contain the name, some bibliographical information and a brief summary or description. Superscriptions have been compared to colophons. However, colophons are typically written at the end of the text and give much more additional information regarding a record. Traditional colophons may contain the title of the composition, number of tablets, number of lines per tablet, source of the text, the owner’s name, the name and genealogy of the scribe making the record, the date of the copy and other similar information.^[62]That is to say colophons are much more involved and detailed than a superscription. A colophon’s purpose was to certify or validate a copy. However, colophons are generally limited to non-Judean texts in Mesopotamia. H. Gevaryahu opined that biblical superscriptions were actually the remnants of colophons and that they were later moved to the beginning of the work. This theory was based on the comparison of superscriptions to colophons and that many ancient Near Eastern cultures placed colophons at the end of their works.^[63] However, in her paper, “Where Are All the Colophons? Colophons in the Ancient Near East and in the Dead Sea Scrolls” Sidnie Crawford notes that these superscriptions contain substantially less information than typical colophons and that the earliest extant copies of Judean writing have the superscriptions at the beginning of a text.^[64] Crawford continues and proposes the omission of additional technical data in superscriptions (such as scribal information) noted in Judean records indicates that their authorship is ultimately credited to divine sources. Absent information describing a document’s copyist or source material, no human origin can be ascribed even to the copies that form the great bulk of ancient documents known to modern scholars. Whereas a traditional colophon could raise questions about the scribe responsible or the source material used. This could thereby call into question the record’s authenticity. Indeed, a colophon has the potential to stigmatize an entire record. Crawford notes that some Egyptian literature was recorded similarly (no use of colophon) when words were credited to deities such as Thoth or Horus.

Therefore, a superscription’s purpose is different than merely identifying the author and introducing the work. David Baker points out that the formal introduction of a person with biographical elements (superscriptions) serves not to name the messenger, but rather tovalidate the words that follow.^[65]This practice was not unique to Israel.^[66] It is notable that there are often citations introduced in the Bible with minimal introduction. What then is implied with a formal superscription if not some form of certification? Indeed, despite evidence that Judean scribes knew about the practice of colophons^[67] they did not employ fully developed colophons, likely in an effort to avoid calling into question the veracity of their work. It appears that superscriptions go one step further than a colophon, placing the copy almost beyond reproach. Considering the superscriptions of the psalms, for example, G. Wilson wrote, “It seems difficult to escape the conclusion that the intent of the editors was to cast an aura of Davidic authority over the whole text by expanding Davidic superscriptions…”[68]

Into this background and culture Nephi was born. Nephi would have known the non-trivial nature of records (given the scarcity of literacy). He also would have known what aspects on a document certify the contents.

I must pause here. Perhaps some are concerned about the potential to certify or validate copies of text. After all, this presumes that there may be writing that is not certified. It suggests that the majority of text is malleable. Perhaps this is not a sentiment that is reassuring. However, it appears that such was the culture of the First Temple period. Emanuel Tov wrote, “most scribes felt they had the freedom to change the text.[69] It is clear from the various scrolls analyzed over the years that text could vary in grammar, syntax, and other linguistic content.[70] Perhaps the culture at the present allowed for a scribe to make mild variations under certain settings, such as to keep up with changing dialects. Whatever the case may have been, the writings available to us show that a period of “diminish[ed] textual variation” began in the Second Temple period.[71] An account exhibits the developing attitude toward textual standardization. A writer engaged in transmitting the records we benefit from today was taught, “my son, be careful, because your work is the work of heaven; should you omit one letter or add one letter, the whole world would be destroyed.”[72] This anecdote demonstrates the attitude that eventually developed.

Perhaps because of the culture of the First Temple period allowed for changes in text (likely to increase understanding) it follows there would be method to certify the fidelity of a text when needed.

Comparing Nephi’s Writing

Despite living in the First Temple period, Nephi displays both attitudes—assiduous fidelity to his sources and a penchant for improvisation—in his writing. At times, he is perhaps meticulous to a fault. At other times, he deliberately likens or otherwise modifies the text “that [his hearers] may have hope”.[73]

It is goes without stating that textual analysis is best performed in a text’s original language.[74] However, Nephi’s original writings are not extant. Of necessity, I compare the 1769 King James Version of Isaiah with the Book of Mormon: the Earliest Text,[75] as some have stated evidence to suggest that the language of the King James Bible is the language of the Book of Mormon.[76] Further discussion is beyond my scope. It is necessity that dictates we compare Nephi’s English text with the closest analog.

Building on that assumption. I will review how others compare Nephi’s writing both with and without superscriptions. First, Royal Skousen developed a method to identify citations.[77] Skousen used a WordCruncher text-analysis toolkit to calculate the number of identical words appearing in succession between the Book of Mormon and the KJV bible. Skousen did indeed identify the Isaiah text preceded by a superscription (2 Nephi 12-24) as a citation. He found this passage shared more identical word sequences than any other section of Isaiah found in Nephi’s writings. He also showed that this section had much longer strings of identical word sequences than other Isaiah-related passages (more than double). For a second source of comparison, I will turn to John Tvedtness’ work.[78] After manual comparison by two reviewers, Tvedtness documented all variations between multiple versions of Isaiah and Nephi texts. Altogether he found 416 Isaiah verses ‘cited’ in the first and second book of Nephi. In regions following a superscription (2 Nephi 12-24) he found 126 of the 275 (46%) verses had minor variants. In the text without a preceding superscription, 116 of the 141 (82%) verses demonstrate a minor variant. The difference between those proportions is statistically significant and the magnitude of the difference is meaningful. But that is not all; Tvedtness also noted dozens of major variants, or, ‘paraphrases’ as he termed them in verses not following a superscription. Nomajor variants were found inside 2 Nephi 12-24. Finally, for the sake of reproducibility, I attempted additional objective assessment. I uploaded the relevant portions of Isaiah from the 1769 KJV and the Book of Mormon: the Earliest Text to the validated anti-plagiarism service Copyleaks. Copyleaks uses artificial intelligence to detect commonalities between texts. Because it uses optical character recognition to extract text from uploaded documents, I removed all punctuation and rendered the text uniformly uppercase. I limited the compared the similarity those portions with superscriptions (2 Nephi 12-24) and those sections without superscriptions (1 Nephi 20-21, and 2 Nephi 6:16-8). I intentionally excluded 2 Nephi 27 (corresponding with Isaiah 29) since Nephi’s frequent interjected commentary would artefactually lower the resulting similarity. Copyleaks reported a 99.0% similarity among the 7,534 words in chapters in 2 Nephi 12-24. Only a 92.1% similarity was noted in the 2,974 words in 1 Nephi 20-21 and 2 Nephi 6:16-8. Thus, all five techniques—WordCruncher consecutive identical word string length, quantity of identical strings, manual evaluation of both minor and major variants and finally the Copyleaks AI analysis —demonstrate the section following a superscription (2 Nephi 12-24), is closer to the corresponding Isaiah KJV text compared with other Isaiah citations within the books of Nephi and their corresponding Isaiah KJV texts.

This suggests Nephi is familiar with the customs of the day. Paraphrases are allowed when appropriate. On the other hand, the very office and societal structure of a scribe demanded a high-fidelity reproduction of the text at other times.

Part 3 – Nephi’s Literary Style

The start of Nephi’s record is richly detailed —Nephi discusses commandments, recounts events, cites the Lord, recalls his visions and his father’s blessings, among other things. Despite these occurrences being vital and formative, the somewhat informal tone and structure resembles a discursive memoir. Nephi tells us that they are not a “full account”[79] But Nephi still asserts that the passages are indeed sacred to him. He states, “I do not write anything upon plates save it be that I think it be sacred.”[80] However, Nephi’s text and tone changes significantly from 2 Nephi 6 onward.

Four changes mark a shift in Nephi’s purpose and approach at this juncture as well. First, perhaps the most obvious change is Nephi’s formal introduction of words attributed to others (superscriptions). Second, Nephi demonstrates a new tendency to introduce other figures with biographical information. These two features are seen in 2 Nephi 6:1 which reads, “The words of Jacob, the brother of Nephi, which he spake….” This verse, which some refer to as a heading, was placed by Nephi.[81] We have already read about Jacob in 1 Nephi 18, 2 Nephi 2 and 2 Nephi 5. While we can never be sure of Nephi’s reason for (re-)introducing Jacob this way, his choice does connote a level of formality not previously apparent in his writings. Another formal introduction occurs in 2 Nephi 12:1: “The word that Isaiah, the son of Amoz, saw…” This may seem like a cursory introduction, but in Nephi’s pages, only God, Isaiah, and Jacob are given formal appellations. When we consider Nephi’s chapter divisions, the beginning of the passage in 1 Nephi 19:22-24 introduces Isaiah’s words. It starts by saying, “Now it came to pass that I, Nephi, did teach my brethren…” Nephi continues, “And I did read many things … Wherefore I spake unto them, saying… for after this manner has the prophet written.” While it is certainly common for Isaiah to be referred to as “the prophet,” one presumes different connotations are present when his title is specified as, “Isaiah the son of Amoz.” A third change after 2 Nephi 6 is Nephi’s use of second person references. Prior to 2 Nephi 6, Nephi has referred to the reader on one occasion.[82] After 2 Nephi 6 there are approximately 30 second person references. First Nephi is perhaps written as an informative account of Nephi’s travelling. However, second Nephi is a direct message to the reader. Finally, a greater portion of the second book of Nephi is composed of potential citations from Isaiah. Over one-third of the text of Second Nephi is a citation of Isaiah compared to one-fifteenth of the text in First Nephi.[83]

These four changes in writing -use of superscriptions, more formal introduction of speakers, increased second person references and increased citation – coincide with the portion of the text Nephi identifies as “more sacred.”[84] Nephi will improvise at times, but not in this section. The locution surrounding 2 Nephi 6-10 and 2 Nephi 12-24 suggest an extremely high-fidelity text reproduction.

One might question whether merely citing a source constitutes a unique writing style, yet formalities alone could leave an impression on his hearers. Nephi’s likely status as a scribe, the increased formality evident in 2 Nephi 6 and 12, along with the account of Nephi sealing his record (2 Ne 33:15), combine to cast the book of second Nephi in a light to which we are unaccustomed, perhaps, as a witness statement. In this view, the second book of Nephi can be seen as a formal collection of formal documents. However, such a view likely imposes a modern perspective on the culture in which Nephi lived. The culture of the day would have seen his writings as a witness in and of themselves.

An example of Nephi’s High-Fidelity Citation

To give an idea of the fidelity with which Nephi treats 2 Nephi 12-24, we can look at a corresponding section in 2 Nephi 30. Nephi values Isaiah’s words, but Nephi has a problem: his children do not understand Isaiah. They are not taught in all the customs of the Jews and do not understand Isaiah’s manner of prophesying.[85] And yet, Nephi is sending Isaiah’s words to his children. It would follow that he would adapt the text, and indeed he will need to. But he does not do so in 2 Nephi 12-24. The following table suggests Nephi needed to comment on this text and to change only a few words. However, instead of placing comments in 2 Nephi 21, which would risk compromising the record, Nephi re-writes these four verses in a later section.

Isaiah 11:4-10	2 Nephi 21:4-10	2 Nephi 30:10-16
But with righteousness shall he judge the poor, and reprove with equity for the meek of the earth: and he shall smite the earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips shall he slay the wicked.	but with righteousness shall he judge the poor and reprove with equity for the meek of the earth. And he shall smite the earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips shall he slay the wicked.	For the time speedily cometh that the Lord God shall cause a great division among the people; and the wicked will he destroy and he will spare his people, yea, even if it so be that he must destroy the wicked by fire.
And righteousness shall be the girdle of his loins, and faithfulness the girdle of his reins.	And righteousness shall be the girdle of his loins, and faithfulness the girdle of his reins.	And righteousness shall be the girdle of his loins, and faithfulness the girdle of his reins.
The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them.	The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid, and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them.	And then shall the wolf dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid, and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them.
And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.	And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together. And the lion shall eat straw like the ox.	And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together. And the lion shall eat straw like the ox.
And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice’ den.	And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice’s den.	And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice’s den.
They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea.	They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain, for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea.	They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain, for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea.
And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people; to it shall the Gentiles seek: and his rest shall be glorious.	And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse which shall stand for an ensign of the people; to it shall the Gentiles seek, and his rest shall be glorious.	Wherefore the things of all nations shall be made known; yea, all things shall be made known unto the children of men.

Table 5: An example of Nephi’s insistence on a high-fidelity transcription in 2 Nephi 12-24. Nephi presumably wanted to put this 4-verse excerpt in context and add two words (in red). However, instead of changing a single word in 2 Nephi 21, Nephi wrote the entire section again in 2 Nephi 30.

While Nephi then was willing to at times modify or liken Isaiah’s words, at other times it appears he deliberately did not despite the need to. To recap, we have discussed the strong possibility that Nephi was a trained scribe, and the implications of that possibility. Textual clues such as formality, the inclusion of titles (appellations), five methods of quantitative analysis, a comparative example from the text, and finally Nephi’s frank words are all consistent with a view of 2 Nephi 12-24 being a high-fidelity citation (and therefore systematically receiving different treatment from other sections of Nephi’s writing).

Witness Hypothesis

The Book of Mormon was translated without punctuation or extensive formatting. This lack of formal features can sometimes make it difficult to know what we are reading. But in context, Nephi’s writing following a superscription suggests the document constitutes a witness in Nephite society. Indeed in 2 Nephi 11, Nephi alludes to the law of Moses and discusses that multiple witnesses constitute a proof. It is doubtful Nephi is merely recalling details of societal conventions without an application. We recall from earlier that in Judean society objects and written statements can be witnesses. Considering that Nephi may have viewed the words themselves as a witness, it follows that Nephi sends the “words forth unto [his] children to prove unto them that [his] words are true.”[86] Perhaps 2 Nephi might be roughly comparable in our society to the perceived strength of multiple witness statements, a legal archive, or a dossier. Other context suggesting 2 Nephi is a witness statement is found in the final chapter. Nephi states he seals the record. The possible use of the verb חָתַם here that denotes an attestation.[87] Further, he writes that the words will be “brought against you at the judgement bar…”[88]^,[89] It is difficult to imagine the relevance of anything being brought to the judgement bar except for evidence. As we have been using these terms, in Nephi’s language relevant evidence may be an object[90] and is referred to as a witness. It follows that features of 2 Nephi mark it in that manner. The need for high-fidelity text reproduction is a potential explanation for the large discrepancy in the distribution of Isaiah variants previously noted.  

One must wonder what the words of Nephi, Jacob and Isaiah all testify of. What do they witness? It will come as no surprise. All three authors write extensively of Christ and that Israel will be gathered. There are other themes I will leave for discovery that are spread across all three works.

An applicable tangent is to mention how 2 Nephi is viewed by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints largely. Elder Jeffrey R. Holland said, “Standing like sentinels at the gate of the [B]ook [of Mormon], Nephi, Jacob, and Isaiah admit us into the scriptural presence of the Lord.[91]”

Introduction to Likening

Immediately prior to 2 Nephi 12, Nephi writes, “Now these are the words and ye may liken them unto you.”[92] Consistent with our earlier discussion, this qualification seems to imply that the following words are the originals and have not yet been changed or “likened.”[93] If we had any doubt, a superscription is also placed. In contrast, prior to less formal citations of Isaiah Nephi instead mentions that he will apply the scriptures and “liken them” to themselves. This may imply some sort of change or paraphrase in the oral reproduction of the text if not the written text as well. Nephi writes, “after this manner has the prophet written…”[94] Comparatively, this appears to be an assertion that Nephi will not transliterate Isaiah’s words verbatim. Unsurprisingly, scholars have suggested the variants found in 1 Nephi 20 may comprise intentional changes from the source material to apply the text to the Nephites’ specific situation.[95]

Our difficulty in understanding likening is that Nephi does not ever explain precisely what likening is. His silence on the matter implies to us that his original audience was familiar with the concept. He then invites his audience to liken the scriptures to themselves, but again, does not describe the practice. If likening does involve modifying or updating text, then the present analysis perhaps gives a place to start a discussion on likening. Having identified which passages from Isaiah are transmitted with high degrees of fidelity to their source and which have been handled with more artistic freedom, we are now able to determine which texts have been potentially altered.

Further complicating the issue, it is almost certain that Nephi employed more than one literary technique. Therefore, while we may identify paraphrastic passages, it is another work altogether to identify all of the literary mechanisms at work and correctly attribute which mechanisms contributed to which changes. Therefore, I prefer the term “paraphrastic citation” so as to encompass all forms of potential changes that may occur in the process of handing down text over generations.

Potential Meanings of “Likening”

To continue our discussion on likening specifically, I will mention that Nephi, Jacob, and Jesus Christ are the only figures that use the word “liken” in the Book of Mormon. In some cases it appears that to liken means to compare. Christ states,

Therefore, whoso heareth these sayings of mine and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man… (emphasis added).[96]

The usage in Joseph Smith’s day as well suggests that to liken is to compare. On one occasion he stated:

I take my ring from my finger and liken it unto the mind of man, the immortal spirit, because it has no beginning. Suppose you cut it in two; but as the Lord lives there would be an end (emphasis added).[97]

When thinking of Nephi’s time, it appears that liken also means to compare. Nephi discusses Isaiah’s description of Latter-day events:

 [T]he Lord God will proceed to do a marvelous work among the Gentiles, which shall be of great worth unto our seed; wherefore, it is likened unto their being nourished by the Gentiles and being carried in their arms and upon their shoulders (emphasis added).[98]

In all three uses here the word “likened,” appears to function to denote a comparison. As I review modern scholarly articles, I do not find a consensus definition of the term “to liken.” Some have described the process of likening as “a rhetorical and poetic device in which one text alludes to an earlier text in a way that evokes resonances of the earlier text beyond those explicitly cited.”[99] Nephi is certainly doing that with frequent allusions to Isaiah. Others have written Nephi’s likening “is a question of taking the material letter of the text as a kind of template for making sense of one’s own experience and vision. This process is neither exegetical nor hermeneutic; rather, reading in this sense involves taking a past text as a guide for faithfully recasting the present.”[100] Nephi adds details as he likens[101] and he observes and re-applies patterns in God’s dealings.[102] Complicating the issue is that different Nephite prophets liken Isaiah’s words with different methods and intent.[103] Likening can occur on an individual basis or on a communal basis.[104] Joseph Spencer wrote, “likening a text is, for Nephi, a question of weaving into the scriptural text …[the] truths one has learned regarding the meaning and importance of the Abrahamic covenant through some kind of revelatory or prophetic experience. It might thus be said that it is only a prophet—though that word must be taken in its broadest definitions referring to anyone who has “the spirit of prophecy” (see 2 Nephi 25:4)—who can authoritatively give new life to [liken] a scriptural text.”[105] These are some of the descriptions Latter-day scholars associate with likening.

Complicating the definition of the term “to liken,” I will point out here that Strong’s concordance states three possible words that can be translated as “to liken.” These are, “damah”, “shavah”, and “mashal”.[106]^,[107],[108] Each of these verbs occur preciously few times in the Old Testament, which makes comparative analysis almost impossible. While all three verbs may mean, “to compare,” it seems reasonable that different cultural practices necessitated the existence of three distinct words, each of which clearly have different roots. Additionally, Nephi’s training in the First Temple period was likely less influenced by Hellenistic and Babylonian influences when compared with the Second Temple period. Therefore even should a consensus among scholars exist regarding the term “to liken” it is possible the definition of the term hearkens to a different era.

Ultimately, for the above reasons I prefer the term “paraphrastic citation” to encompass all potential literary techniques Nephi may have applied (with the exception of high-fidelity text reproduction). Regardless, consistent with the scribal culture of Nephi’s day, it would likely be unnatural for Nephi if he didn’t update or modify text (i.e., we saw apparently intentionally made changes listed in Table 1). Presumably any change would be made to increase understanding of the listeners and could be construed as a form of “likening.”

It is notable that Latter-day Saints today are taught in Preach My Gospel, “to “liken” is to create a mental bridge between understanding the doctrine and living the doctrine.”[109] This appears to be encompass multiple methodologies as well. Whether likening includes comparing, alluding, appropriating, re-applying, adding to text, understanding doctrine or finally whether likening constitutes a new revelation itself requires additional investigation. And this is an essential point if we are to liken the scriptures.

It appears the term ‘to liken’ may include multiple ancient concepts as it has multiple roots. Further, at least one definition of ‘to liken’ appears to be an inclusive umbrella that encompasses any technique or subordinate process aimed at achieving understanding.

1 Nephi 21: a Case Study in Paraphrastic Text Reproduction

When comparing 1 Nephi 21 to Isaiah 49, there are a few additional phrases found in 1 Nephi 21. I believe many Latter-day Saints would opine that the extra phrases found in 1 Nephi 21 were likely in Isaiah’s original work, but that malicious hands removed the phrases from the original before it came down to us. Nephi has certainly commented on parts of scripture being removed by evil individuals.[110] However, given that entire scrolls are missing, probability suggests that statements regarding the removal of scripture refers to at least one of dozens of books that are alluded to in canonized works, but that have not survived for us to read.[111] That is to say, unfortunately, far more than the few lines of text we will discuss here were potentially lost. Regardless, the additional lines in 1 Nephi 21 could represent Isaiah’s brilliance that nefarious individuals censored or, alternatively, the lines represent the work of Nephi’s molding of the text. In any case, it may be instructive to consider what these extra words are and ask what they contribute.

I personally hold that Nephi added the additional lines in 1 Nephi 21 that are not found in Isaiah 49. I hold this view in part based of my perception of the translation process of Nephi’s writings. If multiple translators work on the same ancient text, even using the same method of translation, they will produce “very different versions” from each other’s material.[112] And yet, for much of Nephi’s text there is up to 99% similarity with Isaiah at times. I do not find this level of similarity happenstance. Therefore, a reasonable conclusion is that the translator means to imply the writings on the brass plates are similar to those found in the Hebrew Bible. Similar enough that it is generally reasonable to use the KJV as a base text. The translator was gifted, and could have undertaken a translation from scratch.[113] Instead, it is clear that a post-1660 KJV Bible was consciously used as a base text.[114] There are certainly times Nephi’s text deviates from the KJV and instead follows older documents that had not been found until recently (providing evidence for the translation).[115] Therefore it is reasonable to conclude the times the translator elects to continue with KJV text even when it may not have provided the best academic translation is intentional.[116] Taken together, this has left me little choice but to conclude the translator performed a creative and cultural translation.[117] This method is used daily, for example when translating idioms or poetry or song lyrics (e.g. to retain a rhyme scheme or meter). Such an approach would help the text resonate with its intended audience. While further discussion on this matter is outside the my scope, I bring it up to opine on the translator’s intentions and methods. It follows that the high degree of similarity between Nephi and Isaiah in places that Nephi also designates as high-fidelity is indicative of Nephi’s intent to make a verbatim copy of the record regardless of what the text on the gold plates or brass plates actually said.

In other words, if Nephi had reproduced all the text similarly, then we would expect to find the same degree of similarity among the KJV and Book of Mormon. Yet, we find more than 7,000 words in 2 Nephi 12-24 translated in a way that may suggest Nephi cited with extraordinary fidelity, and according to Tvedtness there is not so much as a paraphrase; yet of the 800 words of Isaiah 49 cited in 1 Nephi 21 are present with at least six phrases changed. Now as I mentioned previously, after the Book of Mormon was translated, the discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls has validated many of the variations it contains, but none of the phrases added in 1 Nephi 21 are seen in the Dead Sea Scroll records.[118] Therefore, our oldest extant copies of Hebrew literature also suggest that many of the additions in Nephi’s book are in fact Nephi’s own work.

But recall that Nephi is not esoteric—he is the man who “glories in plainness.” So his own words should suffice, and if we read them as he intended, we do not need the statistics or history or textual clues I have presented here. And indeed, Nephi himself says that he did liken these words[119]. It is reasonable that to liken implies some sort of modification. Again, he also omits high-fidelity citations markers that would be readily identifiable to his audience. It is reasonable then to interpret the differences in 1 Nephi 21 as Nephi’s own additions. I have listed them as red text in Table 6.

Phrases in 1 Nephi 21 Not Found in Isaiah 49

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, who are of my people O house of Israel. (in vs 1)

O isles of the sea, (in vs 8)

O house of Israel, behold, these shall come from far; and lo, these from the north and the west; and these from the land of Sinim. (vs 12)

Sing, O heavens; and be joyful, O earth; for the feet of those who are in the east shall be established; and break forth into singing, O mountains; for they shall be smitten no more; For the Lord hath comforted his people, and will have mercy upon his afflicted. But, behold, Zion hath said: The Lord hath forsaken me, and my Lord hath forgotten me- but he will show you that he hath not. For can a woman forget her sucking child, that she should not have compassion on the son of her womb? Yea, they may forget, yet will I not forget thee, O house of Israel. (vs 13)

Table 6: Red text is present in 1 Nephi 21 but is not found in Isaiah 49. Black text is included for context and is found in both accounts.

Let us for a moment appreciate the words that Nephi added. We are finally getting a clear albeit partial display of Nephi’s rhetorical skills. Recall that his writing does not carry the weight of his oratory skills.[120] We consider the band of refugees which forms Nephi’s people at this point. They have left Jerusalem. They have crossed the ocean and the reality of their situation is becoming more gravely clear. Some of them feel they will forever wander as a lonesome and a solemn people.[121] Nephi likens their plight to a well-known story so “that [his hearers] may have hope.”[122]

Nephi reads or says,

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, who are of my people O house of Israel… (emphasis added)

Nephi does not pretend that things are going well. He addresses the issue head-on. “House of Israel” in this setting appears to reference his people’s history. In that setting, a group of exiles would certainly not intuitively feel like the Kingdom of Israel or House of Israel. “House of Israel” alludes in this case to the strength and togetherness of Israel. When they were together, they were a mighty kingdom the envy of the world.[123] Not only was Israel delivered from the slavery of Egypt but it had established a united monarchy. The prosperity of Israel was such that it could perform large-scale and long-term operations hundreds of kilometers from Jerusalem on the very borders of neighboring powers. This is evidenced by thousands of now abandoned mining sites.[124]

I imagine that as Nephi referred to his people as “house of Israel,” it may have been perceived as ironic or even sardonic. It is possible his people no longer viewed themselves as the house of Israel.[125] Nephi has just juxtaposed their doubt with an emphasis four times over that they are broken off from their home (broken off, driven out, scattered, broken off). They are scattered and driven away. This is not getting any happier.

But, lest their minds fall into overwhelming self-doubt or perhaps guilt, Nephi reminds them the situation is not their fault. This is because of the pastors of the people, an allusion that also certainly brings up multiple memories. Nephi then says again for a second time in verse 1, “O house of Israel.” This time the reference is less ironic and more poignant, an acknowledgment of their reality and how far they have fallen as a people.

Nephi then goes on to explain hard things that Israel will pass through and their role. “[God] will also give [Nephi’s people] for a light to the Gentiles.” Nephi then adds a term in verse 8: “O isles of the sea.” This is a new title embodying their current state and it is the opposite of what the house of Israel is. Here, Nephi is acknowledging reality. With this little addition he explains the exact situation they find themselves in. Nephi partially explains why this is happening and assures his listeners that it will be temporary. So far all of these added statements correspond to a people in exile.

The talk then turns to the gathering of Israel. The refugees hear the words, “house of Israel” again in verse 12. After being called “isles of the sea,” “house of Israel” may serve to remind Nephi’s people that despite their current state they are still somehow the great house of Israel. Additionally, now used perhaps as a rhythmic device, the term likely serves to remind them their earlier poignant feelings. Nephi then may have paused as his listeners pondered on how they can be both the house of Israel and isles of the sea. Nephi continued, “Behold, these shall come from far; and lo, these from the north and from the west and these from the land of Sinim.” Nephi’s people likely understand this as a reference to the gathering of Israel. Are people truly being gathered back to Zion? Nephi then says, “Sing, O heavens; and be joyful, O earth;” Joyful singing is probably hard to imagine given the tragic state of things—what in the world is there to be joyful for? Why would the whole earth rejoice? Nephi then adds this phrase, “for the feet of those who are in the east shall be established.” Nephi clarifies that this is not a reference to Judah’s return from Babylon by adding, “for they shall be smitten no more.” [126] This is Jerusalem’s second return. That is why his people can rejoice: the sign that the Nephite and Lamanite exile is at an end.[127] It appears Nephi has told his people what Isaiah’s words mean with respect to their new position and given additional signs relevant to their new perspective. When Nephi’s people see those return to Jerusalem the second time (for they shall be smitten no more), then is the time for their all of Israel’s gathering (including theirs), and thus they have reason to sing. Even the mountains are singing. All of this of course seems too good to be true; it is in fact the exact opposite of the reality in which they find themselves. Aware of their feelings and future perspective, Nephi continues, “Zion (representing collective gathered Israel) hath said: The Lord hath forsaken me, and my Lord hath forgotten me.” Then Nephi adds “but he will show you that he hath not.” Nephi then reads one of the most powerful scriptures, describing the love the Savior has for us. Citing God, Nephi says, “For can a woman forget her sucking child, that she should not have compassion on the son of her womb? Yea, they may forget, yet will I not forget thee. O house of Israel.” In this context the final, “house of Israel” references the opposite of what it did at the beginning of this passage. Instead of emphasizing what Nephi’s people lost, the term is affirming. It tells them of God’s love and looks forward to what they will become. They are the house of Israel and therefore God’s power will bless them. God has promised their redemption and restoration. They are loved. Things will be okay and there is a sign to know what to look forward to.

In my view this is a beautiful and strengthening acknowledgement of the past, the present reality and the future. In this way Nephi gives knowledge and comfort to his people. I believe Nephi uses his own words to weave them into Isaiah’s words to emphasize the sure redemption they will feel, while still referencing their current hardships and being careful not to minimize their struggles. Nephi’s declared purpose, that they may “lift up their hearts and rejoice…” [128] seems to be met.

Part of my purpose in writing about this passage is to appreciate Nephi’s writing. I also want to demonstrate the importance of identifying high-fidelity and paraphrastic citations. We cannot know for certain which pieces of this passage Nephi counts as likening, or even what changes are his. However, Nephi seems to:

• Weave terms and allusions in with the current text
• Change the frame of reference from which the scripture is understood
• Give an additional prophecy or sign based on the new situation
• Juxtapose the current situation with the past, and future
• Juxtapose opposing emotions and experiences
• Use repetition and metric devices

If this altogether is what is meant by likening the scriptures (and I am not sure it is), we have a great work that lays before us. Nephi instructs all to liken the scriptures.

Repetition of the term, “house of Israel” may seem trivial to some as it does not seem to add new doctrine or information. But Alan Goff wrote, “such repeated elements (such as the term ‘House of Israel’ here) aren’t failures or shortcomings but are themselves artistic clues to narrative meaning that call readers to appreciate the depth of the story understood against the background of allusion and tradition. Adaptation and repetition are what Hebraic prophecy and narrative are about.”[129]

Conclusion

Nephi tells us that he wrote his books words so his people could rejoice. The Nephite populace who experienced the unnerving loss of civilization upon leaving Jerusalem and whose typical daily worries included existential threats could put their minds at rest and know with surety that God lives, loves them, and has a plan.

Nephi’s use of both paraphrastic and high-fidelity citations appears to be a deliberate rhetorical tactic, adapted to highly personalized situations. We can reach that conclusion with some confidence partly because of apparent passage modifications contrast with his more faithful renditions of scripture.

Nephi was certainly well prepared to write in multiple modes. His likely status as a scribe trained him to faithfully produce and certify accurate documents. Nephi takes the execution of these tasks seriously; the writings he produces likely constitute the legal requirements of a valid witness. While one may not consider a verbatim copy to be a literary technique, Nephi clearly uses it as one in 2 Nephi 6-10 and 12-24 (i.e. the incorporation of witnesses changes the view of the whole work). The formalities alone leave impressions on his hearers. Furthermore, Nephi uses the strength in multiple first-hand accounts. In light of these observations, given modern uses of the term ‘citation,’ only 2 Nephi 12-24 should be considered citations of Isaiah. Trained to create highly accurate written records, Nephi would only have deviated from that course knowingly and with purpose. It should not surprise us, with a clear and mature methodology that reflects his training as a scribe, Nephi distinguishes high-fidelity and paraphrastic sections of Isaiah transcriptions. With the knowledge of the applicable locution, one can posit which sections of text Nephi has modified. The single example of 1 Nephi 21 is given. Nephite literature is complex as it makes use of many mechanisms simultaneously. These include: weaving terms and allusions in with the current text, changing the frame of reference from which the scripture is understood, giving additional prophecies based on new situations, juxtaposing the current situation with the past, and future, juxtaposing opposing emotions and experiences, the use of repetition and metric devices. Additionally, Abinadi appeared to transform a scripture into a prayer. It appears that it was with these tools the Nephites confronted reality.

---

[1] Words of Mormon 1:6

[2] Dennis Tedlock, 2000 Years of Mayan literature (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2010), 2.

[3] Brian L. Steed, Bees and spiders: Applied Cultural Awareness and the art of cross-cultural influence (Houston, TX: Strategic Book Publishing and Rights Co., 2014), 63.

[4] D&C 20:9

[5] Skousen proposed that whenever 16 or more consecutive identical words were shared between the Book of Mormon and the Bible, this should constitute a citation. Royal Skousen, The History of the Text of the Book of Mormon Part 5, The King James Quotations in the Book of Mormon (KJQ) 2019 pg 16

[6] Other approaches have been taken to include consensus from manual comparison by multiple investigators. John A. Tvedtnes, The Isaiah Variants in the Book of Mormon (Provo, UT: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1981).

[7] Certainly the English terms have no direct correlation with the original text. However, one presumes there is an association in some manner.

[8] 2 Nephi 11:8 prior to Isaiah 2-14 citation. Emphasis added.

[9] 1 Nephi 21:25 at the beginning of Isaiah 49:25 citation.

[10] Mosiah 12:20 prior to the high-fidelity citation of Isaiah 52:7-10. Emphasis added.

[11] This is not to say there is Hebrew or Egyptian equivalent in syntax and grammar. Rather, I submit that just as a start codon such as “AUG” precedes an area of transcription, likewise, the translator portrays the citation locution using the described convention.

[12] Alma 9:34. Emphasis added.

[13] 2 Nephi 11:1

[14] Alma 10:1. Emphasis added.

[15] 2 Nephi 6:1. Emphasis added.

[16] 2 Nephi 30:1

[17] 2 Nephi 6:17

[18] 1 Nephi 13:35

[19] Mosiah 15:1

[20] Mosiah 15:11

[21] 3 Nephi 21:1

[22] This will explain many of the variants in 2 Nephi 7-8 since they are specifically identified as the words of Jacob.

[23] Stanford Carmack, Bad Grammar in the Book of Mormon Found in Early English Bibles, Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 36 (2020): 1-28

[24] Dictionarium Britannicum: Or a More Compleat Universal Etymological English, by Nathan Bailey, George Gordon (1730)

[25] The analog of 1 Nephi 21:25 and 2 Nephi 6:17

[26] Strong’s Concordance H3541. Site: http://lexiconcordance.com/hebrew/3541.html

[27] Latter-day Saints may hold that Isaiah variants represent earlier versions of the source text

[28] From the title page of the Book of Mormon we read that at least one purpose of the Book of Mormon is so that the house of Israel may know, “of the covenants of the Lord, that they are not cast off forever…” Joseph Spencer explains, “Over the course of the second century A.D., there was a complex and almost systematic effort by Gentile Christians (who were by that point the majority) to downplay the covenantal status of the Jews… namely – that the earlier covenant people (the Jews, or Israel more generally) had lost their status as a covenant people and so they’d been replaced in full by a later covenant people (the Gentiles, or at least those among the Gentiles who embraced Christianity). The anti-Semitic rhetoric of those who developed this notion in their writings is terrifying.” If a primary purpose of the Bible is to make known the covenants of the Lord, then it follows that some of Isaiah’s words be among the primary targets since Isaiah’s words are the “most brilliant available biblical explanation of the complex relationship between covenantal Israel and non-covenantal Gentiles.” Spencer, Joseph. Vision of All pg 8-11

[29] Grant Hardy Understanding the Book of Mormon: A Reader’s Guide page 248

[30] Moroni 8:1

[31] Moroni 2:1

[32] Moroni 5:1

[33] 3 Nephi 3:1

[34] Alma 60:1

[35] Alma 56:2

[36] 3 Nephi 12:1; 14:1; 15:11; 17:1; 18:17, 26; 19:30; 28:12

[37] 3 Nephi 17:21; 18:8

[38] 3 Nephi 19:8

[39] 3 Nephi 23:6; 28:1

[40] 3 Nephi 26:1

[41] 3 Nephi 28:34

[42] Raymond Westbrook and Bruce Wells, Everyday Law in Biblical Israel: An Introduction (London: Westminster John Knox Press, 2009), 21–47.

[43] Westbrook and Wells, 3.

[44] Westbrook and Wells, 39

[45] Bruce Wells, The Law of Testimony in the Pentateuchal Codes (Wiesbaden, Germany: Harrassowitz, 2004).

[46] Westbrook and Wells, Everyday law in biblical Israel, 42.

[47] Exodus 31:18

[48] There was a “‘double-document’ convention in ancient Near Eastern scribal practice, where an official version remains sealed (or otherwise inaccessible) while a public copy could be consulted, examined, and studied.” Mark Leuchter, “Sacred Space and Communal Legitimacy in Exile: The Contribution of Seraiah’s Colophon (Jer 51:59-64a),” in Mark J. Boda, Frank Ritchel Ames, John Ahn, and Mark Leuchter, eds.,The Prophets Speak on Forced Migration , AIL21 (Atlanta: SBL, 2015)

[49] Cited for additional cultural context: “This conception of writing as material witness is demonstrated in Jeremiah 32 where the prophet buys a field during the siege of Jerusalem… The double-form of the deed — a sealed and an open copy are mentioned (Jer 32:11, 14)— itself demonstrates the double-signification of writing: the open copy allows public review and repeated proclamation, even if, or after, the witnesses to the transfer event are not themselves available; meanwhile, the sealed copy exists as a persistent thing which witnesses to the originating and ongoing event. In this way, the written deed recollects the written law, which seems also to have existed in double-form: the tablets inscribed by God sealed within the Ark, a persistent material witness to covenant, and the copy inscribed by Moses placed beside the Ark as witness, allowing for ongoing publication and re-proclamation… Further, Jeremiah 32 does not merely recount the legal niceties of property transfer in ancient Judah, but continues to stress the power of inscription’s persistence, as Jeremiah charges the scribe Baruch with the LORD’s own command to take both deeds, the sealed and the open, “and put them in an earthenware jar, in order that they may last for a long time” (Jer 32:14).” Katherine E. Brown, Ph.D. 2018 Silent Idol, Speaking Text: Prophetic Writing as Material Mediation of Divine Presence [Unpublished PhD Dissertation] The Catholic University of America

[50] Westbrook and Wells, 43

[51] Herbert Liebesny, “Evidence in Nuzi Legal Procedure,” Journal of the American Oriental Society 61, no. 3 (1941): 130–42. https://doi.org/10.2307/594500.

[52] John Baines, Visual and Written Culture in Ancient Egypt (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), 75–79.

[53] https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/Y_EA10449 accessed 2/6/2023 J. Curtis and N. Tallis (eds.), Forgotten Empire: The World of Ancient Persia, London 2005, p. 199 [315]

[54] For example a certificate of divorce from 283 B.C. appears to have four signatures on the reverse. https://www.penn.museum/sites/journal/1195/ accessed 2/6/2023

[55] Orly Goldwasser, “An Egyptian Scribe from Lachish and the Hieratic Tradition of the Hebrew Kingdoms,” Tel Aviv 18 (1991): 248–53, quoted in John S. Thompson, “Lehi and Egypt,” in Glimpses of Lehi’s Jerusalem, 266

[56] 1 Nephi 1:2

 

[57] Noel B. Reynolds, “Lehi and Nephi as Trained Manassite Scribes,” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 50 (2022): 161–215.

[58] Brant A. Gardner, “Nephi as Scribe.” Mormon Studies Review 23, no. 1 (January 2011): 45–55. https://doi.org/10.18809/mormstudrevi.23.1.0045.

[59] 2 Nephi 6:1

[60] Grant Hardy, ed., The Book of Mormon, Another Testament of Christ, rev. ed. (Provo, UT: Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship and the Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 2018).

[61] Brant A. Gardner, Labor Diligently to Write: The Ancient Making of a Modern Scripture. INTERPRETER A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship § Volume 35 • 2020 See Pg 161, 169, 245

[62] Crawford, Sidnie I. “Where Are All the Colophons? Colophons in the Ancient Near East and in the Dead Sea Scrolls.” in Mighty Baal, (2020), 101-115. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004437678_008

[63] Gevaryahu, “Biblical Colophons,” in Congress Volume: Edinburgh, 1974 (VTSup 28;. Leiden: Brill, 1975) 42-59. 4

[64] Crawford, Sidnie I. pg 107

[65] David W. Baker, “Biblical Colophons: Gevaryahu and Beyond,” in Studies in the Succession Narrative: OTWSA 27 (1984) and OTWSA 28 (1985), ed. W. C. van Wyk (Pretoria: OTWSA, 1986), 29–61. See Page 37 particularly and the discussion leading up to it.

[66] Other cultures used superscriptions similarly For example, as seen in Neo-Assyrian oracle tablets, “the inclusion of the name, gender, and location of the prophet through whom the oracle was transmitted may reflect a practice of verifying whether the oracle had been proclaimed in a context or manner that itself justified reliance upon it… [and] suggest … their ongoing authority as authentic divine words.” Katherine E. Brown, “Silent Idol, Speaking Text:Prophetic Writing as Material Mediation of Divine Presence” THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA 2018 pg 197

[67] Crawford, 109

[68] Gerald H. Wilson, “The Qumran Psalms Scroll and the Canonical Psalter: Comparison of Editorial Shaping,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 59 (1997): 456.

[69] Tov, Emanuel. Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible: Revised and Expanded Fourth Edition 2022 pg 366

[70] Emanuel Tov, Textual criticism of the Hebrew Bible, 2nd ed. (Minneapolis, MI: Fortress Press, 2001), 28–32.

[71] Tov, 34.

[72] Tov, 33.

[73] 1 Nephi 19:24

[74] Arie van der Kooij, “Review: Eugene Ulrich and Peter W. Flint, Qumran Cave 1.II: The Isaiah Scrolls: Part 1: Plates and Transcriptions; Part 2: Introduction, Commentary and Textual Variants. DJD 32.” Dead Sea Discoveries 22 (2015): 116–17.

[75] Royal Skousen, The Book of Mormon: The Earliest Text, 2nd ed. (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2022).

[76] For more discussion, please see 32:00–38:00 of “History of the Text of the Book of Mormon – Royal Skousen – Volume 3 parts 5 and 6 – 1/15/20,” Book of Mormon Central, March 5, 2020, video, 1:33, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jlPgeX0U3Y&ab_channel=BookofMormonCentral

[77] Royal Skousen, “The History of The Book of Mormon Text.” BYU Studies, September 3, 2021. https://byustudies.byu.edu/article/the-history-of-the-book-of-mormon-text-parts-5-and-6-of-volume-3-of-the-critical-text, 91

[78] Tvedtnes, The Isaiah Variants in the Book of Mormon

[79] 1 Nephi 9:2

[80] 1 Nephi 19:6

[81] Brant A. Gardner, Labor Diligently to Write: The Ancient Making of a Modern Scripture. INTERPRETER A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship § Volume 35 • 2020Pg 161, 169, 245

[82] 1 Nephi 1:20

[83] By rough estimation 13,444/30,292 words in Nephi’s English text could be considered citations in Second Nephi whereas 1,708/26,018 words in First Nephi represent a citation.

[84] For a full discussion see: Noel B. Reynolds, “On Doubting Nephi’s Break Between 1 and 2 Nephi: A Critique of Joseph Spencer’s An Other Testament: On typology,” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 25 (2017): 85–102.

[85] 2 Nephi 25:1-3

[86] 2 Nephi 11:3

[87] https://biblehub.com/hebrew/2856.htm

[88] 2 Nephi 33:15.

[89] While the verbiage surrounding the second book of Nephi appears consistent with a witness, the present work does not investigate what it is a witness of. Briefly, some of the topics found in triplicate in 2 Nephi include: that Jerusalem is destroyed (2 Ne 6:8; 13:1;8; 25:10), that Israel is destroyed and captive due to wickedness (2 Ne 6:11; 15:11; 26:19), details of the Savior’s life (2 Ne 10:3; 17: 14; 25:13), that Israel will be gathered (2 Ne 6:11; 20:20; 29:14), that the Gentiles assist with the gathering of Israel (2 Ne 10:8; 15:26; 21:12; 30:3), what our fate would be without a Redeemer (2 Ne 9:7-9; 20:4; 28:20), that Gentile oppression is used as a tool in God’s hands (2 Ne 10:18; 20:12; 26:15), that repentance is essential (2 Ne 9:23; 20:1-3; 31:10), and that lest Israel think itself cast off forever, the Lord assures they are not (2 Ne 10:22, 20:21, 26:15), that as Israel is gathered, the righteous Gentiles will be counted among the House of Israel (2 Ne 10:18; 24:1; 30:2), additionally all three records touch on the fate of those who fight against Zion (2 Ne 6:13; 10:13; 20:17; 29:14). These appear to be some of the topics Nephi intends to “prove” (2 Ne 11:3) as it is these that he mentions in triplicate. There are certainly other themes not mentioned in this cursory list.

[90] Another example of an object as a witness is seen in Genesis 31:44-48.

[91] Christ and the New Covenant: The Messianic Message of the Book of Mormon [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1997], 34–36

[92] 2 Ne 11:8

[93] A discussion regarding the definition of the term likening will follow.

[94] 1 Nephi 19:24; 20:1

[95] Joseph M. Spencer, The Vision of All: Twenty-Five Lectures on Isaiah in Nephi’s Record, Contemporary Studies in Scripture(Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2016).

[96] 3 Nephi 14:24

[97] General conference of the church, Minutes, and JS, Discourses, Nauvoo, Hancock Co., IL, 6–7 Apr. 1844; in “Conference Minutes, Times and Seasons, 15 Aug. 1844, 5:615. site: https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/minutes-and-discourses-6-7-april-1844-as-published-in-times-and-seasons/13

[98] 1 Nephi 22:8

[99] Richard B. Hays, The Conversion of the Imagination: Paul as Interpreter of Israel’s Scripture (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 2005), 2.

[100] Joseph M. Spencer Jenny Web Reading Nephi Reading Isaiah: 2 Nephi 26-27 Brigham Young University BYU Scholars Archive Maxwell Institute Publications 2016

[101] Donald W. Parry, John W. Welch Isaiah in the Book of Mormon – Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship November 1, 1997, 209

[102] Ibid., 201-202

[103] “…both Nephi and Abinadi formulate their respective approaches to typology in the course of reading Isaiah. But, because they understand the task of (Isaiah’s) prophecy so distinctively, they arrive at quite different understandings of typology. For both, typology is a question of knowing how to read scripture in a uniquely Christian way, but what is to be read typologically is different for each of them. This seems, in the end, to be a consequence of Nephi’s having discovered his understanding of typology in the complexly structured writings of Isaiah, while Abinadi apparently brought his understanding of typology to the writings of Isaiah. More explicitly, Nephi draws from Isaiah an understanding of the relationship between the Law of Moses and the Messiah that fits Isaiah’s heavy emphasis on the Israelite covenant, while Abinadi imposes on Isaiah an understanding of the relationship between the Law and the Messiah that effectively ignores Isaiah’s focus on covenantal questions”

Joseph M. Spencer, “An Other Testament: On Typology” (2016). Maxwell Institute Publications 8

https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/mi

[104] Alan Goff Likening in the Book of Mormon A Look at Joseph M. Spencer’s An Other Testament: On Typology BYU Studies Quarterly volume 52 number 4

[105] Spencer, Reading Nephi Reading Isaiah: 2 Nephi 26-27

[106] Strong’s Hebrew: 1819. דָּמָה (damah) — to be like, resemble (biblehub.com)

[107] Strong’s Hebrew: 7737. שָׁוָה (shavah) — avail (biblehub.com)

[108] Strong’s Hebrew: 4911. מָשַׁל (mashal) — like (biblehub.com)

[109] Preach My Gospel. Salt Lake City, UT: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 2004, pp 23-46

[110] 1 Nephi 13:26-40

[111] Dozens of complete books are lost. For a partial list see “Lost Books of Scripture,” The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, accessed September 11, 2022, https://abn.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/gs/scriptures?lang=eng

[112] Lauren G. Leighton Translation and Plagiarism: Puškin and D. M. Thomas The Slavic and East European Journal Vol. 38, No. 1 (Spring, 1994), pp. 69-83

[113] Substantial evidence suggests that the Book of Mormon was revealed to Joseph Smith word by word. The most obvious such evidence is the extremely anachronistic English in which the Book of Mormon was originally penned. Stanford Carmack, “Nonstandard” Book of Mormon Grammar,” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 11 (2014): 209–262.

[114] For more discussion, please see 32:00–38:00 of “History of the Text of the Book of Mormon – Royal Skousen – Volume 3 parts 5 and 6 – 1/15/20,” Book of Mormon Central, March 5, 2020, video, 1:33, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jlPgeX0U3Y&ab_channel=BookofMormonCentral

[115] Donald W. Parry and Stephen David Ricks, The Dead Sea Scrolls: Questions and Responses for Latter-Day Saints (Provo, UT: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (FARMS) at Brigham Young University, 2000), 44–46.

“Does the text of the Great Isaiah Scroll support the Isaiah passages in the Book of Mormon that differ from those in the

King James Bible?

The Book of Mormon contains lengthy quotations from Isaiah (see, for example, 2 Nephi 12-24). In many instances the

wording of corresponding Isaiah passages in the King James Version of the Bible (KJV) and in the Book of Mormon differs. To date, no one has completed a comprehensive study comparing the Isaiah scroll from Cave 1 with the Isaiah passages in the Book of Mormon Isaiah….

1. In many cases passages in the Isaiah scroll and in the Book of Mormon contain the conjunction and, which is lacking in the corresponding KJV text. Compare the following:

“and they declare their sin as Sodom, they hide it not’ (KJV. Isaiah 3:9)

“and they declare their sin as Sodom, and they hide it not’ (Isaiah scroll, Isaiah 3:9)

“and doth declare their sin to be even as Sodom, and they cannot hide it” (Book of Mormon, 2 Nephi 13:9=Isaiah 3:9)

2. Second Nephi 24:32 lacks the word one, which appears in Isaiah 14:32. The Book of Mormon version thus makes messengers the subject of the verb answer. The Hebrew Bible uses a singular verb, but the Isaiah scroll uses the plural, in agreement with the Book of Mormon:

“What shall one then answer the messengers of the nation?” (KJV, Isaiah 14:32)

“What shall then answer the messengers of the nations?” (Isaiah scroll, Isaiah 14:32)

“What shall then answer the messengers of the nations?” (Book of Mormon, 2 Nephi 24:32=Isaiah 14:32)

3. In the KJV, Isaiah 48:11 reads, “for how should my name be polluted?” while 1 Nephi 20:11 reads, “for I will not suffer my name to be polluted.” The Isaiah scroll supports the Book of Mormon by having the verb in the first person, as follows:

“for how should my name be polluted?” (KJV, Isaiah 48:11)

“for I will not suffer my name to be polluted” (Isaiah scroll, Isaiah 14:32)

“for I will not suffer my name to be polluted” (Book of Mormon, 1 Nephi 20:11=Isaiah 48:11)

4. In the KJV, Isaiah 50:2 reads, “their fish stinketh, because there is no water,” and the Isaiah scroll reads, “their fish dry up because there is no water.” Second Nephi 7:2 essentially preserves the verb stinketh from the KJV and the phrasal verb dry up from the Isaiah scroll: “their fish to stink because the waters are dried up.”

5. Often a singular noun in the KJV is represented by a plural noun in the Book of Mormon. One example of this appears

in Isaiah 9:9, where the KJV reads “inhabitant” and 2 Nephi 19:9 reads “inhabitants.” The Isaiah scroll supports the reading

of the Book of Mormon with its reading of “inhabitants”:

“and the inhabitant of Samaria” (KJV, Isaiah 9:9)

“and the inhabitants of Samaria” (Isaiah scroll, Isaiah 9:9)

“and the inhabitants of Samaria” (Book of Mormon, 2 Nephi 19:9=Isaiah 9:9)

These examples of variant readings in which the Isaiah passages in the Book of Mormon agree with the Isaiah scroll but not with the KJV could be multiplied.

[116] Royal Skousen, The History of the Book of Mormon Text Parts 5 and 6 of Volume 3 of the Critical Text Article

The History of the Book of Mormon Text

[117] Among other things, a creative and cultural translation model allows for quotes from the New Testament to be found in the Book of Mormon.

[118] Craig Davis, “Biblical Dead Sea Scrolls,” Biblical Dead Sea Scrolls, accessed September 11, 2022, http://dssenglishbible.com/.

[119] 1 Nephi 19:23

[120] 2 Nephi 33:1

[121] Jacob 7:26.

[122] 1 Nephi 19:24

[123] Such was the prosperity of Israel that persons such as the Queen of Sheba were initially incredulous (1 Kings 10:7).

[124] Erez Ben-Yosef The Architectural Bias in Current Biblical Archaeology. In Vetus Testam. 69 (3), pp. 361–387. 2019

[125] It appears that Jacob (the brother of Nephi) reminds the people that they are infact of the house of Israel, “for ye are of the house of Israel.” 2 Nephi 6:5

[126] I will point out here that the interpretation of the passage does not depend on whether the author is Nephi or Isaiah. For example, from the frame of reference that Isaiah wrote the words, Professor Bruce Satterfield still considers that “those who are in the east” refers to Judah. See Bruce Satterfield, “ISAIAH 49 (1 NEPHI 21),” Brigham Young University, accessed September 11, 2022, https://emp.byui.edu/SATTERFIELDB/papers/Isaiah%2049.html.

[127] Namely the establishment of Judah – 2 Nephi 25:16-18.

[128] 2 Nephi 11:8

[129] Alan Goff, “Types of Repetition and Shadows of History in Hebraic Narrative,” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 45 (2021): 263–318.