KJV italicized text in the Book of Mormon

FAIR Answers—back to home page

Question: What are the criticisms of the Book of Mormon based in its use of italics and how can one respond to those criticisms?

This page is still under construction. We welcome any suggestions for improving the content of this FAIR Answers Wiki page.

Introduction to Question

The Book of Mormon contains quotations of, echoes of, and allusions to the King James Bible. The quotations contain words from the King James Bible that are placed in italics. The italics in the King James Bible indicated that the word had been added to the text to make sense of the translation. The word was not present in the original Greek or Hebrew text but was added to explain and contextualize the translation.

Some critics believe that the presence of the italics is an indication that Joseph Smith didn’t translate an ancient text and instead just plagiarized a copy of the King James Bible. Critic Jeremy T. Runnells, author of the CES Letter, explains that “[w]hen King James translators were translating the KJV Bible between 1604 and 1611, they would occasionally put in their own words into the text to make the English more readable. We know exactly what these words are because they’re italicized in the KJV Bible.” He then asks “[w]hat are these 17th century italicized words doing in the Book of Mormon? Word for word? What does this say about the Book of Mormon being an ancient record?” The assumption seems to be that the Book of Mormon, if truly a translation of an ancient text, should either not include these words or include different words that reflect the ancient, original text of the biblical passage in question. Important to emphasize as a mild correction to Runnells that the italics did not just make the English more readable but also clarified the underlying meaning of the Greek and Hebrew being translated.

Other critics look at how the Book of Mormon modifies the biblical text in ways that seem to suggest that Joseph was using a 1769 edition of the King James Bible to compose the text of the Book of Mormon. For example, critic Stan Larson argued the following in a 1993 book chapter on this subject:

The Book of Mormon text often revises biblical quotations at the very point where the original 1611 edition of the KJV prints the word or words in a different typeface in order to indicate that the words are not found in the Greek. This printing device was both inconsistently and sparsely applied in the 1611 KJV and improved in the 1769 printing. When Smith came to the KJV italics in the Sermon on the Mount, which he knew indicated that whatever was printed in italics was not in the original Greek, he would often either drop the word or revise it. The Book of Mormon sometimes revises the KJV italics that are only found in the 1769 and later printings. For example, the Book of Mormon drops the italics of the 1769 printing at Matthew 6:5, 7; 7:18 (3 Ne. 13:5, 7; 14:18), and the Book of Mormon changes the tense of the italics at Matthew 5:12 (3 Ne. 12:12). On the other hand, the Book of Mormon fails to revise places where the KJV text ought to have been printed in italics but is not. In two places the Book of Mormon copies the noun "men" from the KJV, where it is not in the original Greek and has been improperly added in the KJV.

Thus Larson is arguing the essentially the same conclusion: that the Book of Mormon text cannot be a genuine translation of an ancient text. Though he’s arguing from a different angle. He doesn’t reason to his conclusion based on the mere presence of KJV italics in the Book of Mormon. He argues this based on the Book of Mormon’s interaction with the KJV italics. In some cases, the italics are simply dropped. In some cases, the italics are revised. In some cases, there is a passage that should have an italicized word but doesn’t. According to Larson, these considerations date the Book of Mormon’s composition (and, more particularly, the Savior's Sermon at the Temple recorded in 3 Nephi) to the 1800s.

Faithful Latter-day Saint author Stan Spencer (not Larson) informs us that "[t]hese variants are usually minor but sometimes result in readings that conflict with the larger context of Isaiah’s message or create ungrammatical or even nonsensical sentences, particularly in the earliest text of the Book of Mormon."

We deal with this reasoning below.

Response to Question

There’s Debate Over Whether Joseph Smith knew the meaning of the italics

Before all else, we should note that there is debate among scholars of the Book of Mormon as to whether Joseph Smith knew the meaning of the italics.

For those that argue that Joseph didn't know what the italics in the Bible meant, they cite six lines of evidence:

1. Emma Smith reported that, during the Book of Mormon translation, Joseph didn't know that Jerusalem was surrounded by walls, a more basic fact that someone should know about the Bible. If Joseph didn't know this basic fact about Jerusalem, can we expect him to know other basic facts about the Bible?
2. Our critics rely heavily on an assumption that Joseph Smith was deeply familiar with the Bible at the time of the translation of the Book of Mormon. Those closest to Joseph Smith in his early life state otherwise. Lucy Mack Smith, Joseph's mother, stated that "I presume our family presented an aspect as singular as any that ever lived upon the face of the earth-all seated in a circle, father, mother, sons and daughters, and giving the most profound attention to a boy, eighteen years of age, who had never read the Bible through in his life; he seemed much less inclined to the perusal of books than any of the rest of our children, but far more given to meditation and deep study."
3. The witnesses to the translation are unanimous that a Bible was not consulted during the translation of the Book of Mormon (click here or here to read their statements). Stan Spencer helpfully observed that "[I]f Joseph Smith used a physical bible, he would have had to do so frequently, since biblical interactions are scattered throughout the Book of Mormon. Continuously removing his face from the hat to make use of a physical Bible would not have gone unnoticed by those who watched him translate." Indeed, given the all the different quotations of whole chapters, phrasal interactions between the Old Testament and the Book of Mormon, as well as the phrasal interactions/similarities between the New Testament and the Book of Mormon, to conceive of Joseph Smith either memorizing these passages and phrases (for which, like the theory that Joseph consulted a Bible during the translation, there is no evidence) or consulting a Bible during the translation is ludicrous. Someone would have had to have noticed that. Yet no one reports a Bible.
4. There is no evidence that Joseph even owned a bible at the time of the translation of the Book of Mormon. It is known that Oliver Cowdery purchased a Bible on 8 October 1829. However, the Book of Mormon was already at press by this time, with the copyright being registered on 11 June 1829. Prior to that time, the only Bible Joseph is known to have had access to was the Smith family Bible, which was not in his possession after he married and moved out of the Smith home. Joseph was poor and even poorer after moving away from home. Yet Oliver purchased the Bible for Joseph in October 1829 from the same guy that did the type-setting for the Book of Mormon and Joseph later used that Bible for the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible. Why would Joseph, poor as he was, get a Bible if he supposedly already owned one that he consulted/plagiarized from?
5. Royal Skousen claimed the following in a 1994 paper on the subject: "In 1991, as a part of a course on textual criticism of the Book of Mormon, three of my students (William Calhoun, Margaret Robbins, and Andrew Stewart) wrote research papers on various aspects of this question. Calhoun and Robbins examined various copies of the King James Bible (including a good number that were printed in the early decades of the 1800s). As one might suspect, they found examples of variation in the use of italics, even in King James Bibles published after the supposedly final revision of 1769. Moreover, Calhoun notes that he found only one Bible (printed in London in 1800) that actually mentions (in an introduction) what the italics mean. The original 1611 edition does not explain the use of italics; in fact, it silently borrowed the idea from the Geneva Bible, which does explain the use of italics. Given the general lack of knowledge even today about what the italics mean in the King James Bible, one might surely wonder if Joseph Smith himself knew this, especially in those early years when he was translating the Book of Mormon." Newer, professional scholarship confirms that the King James Bible followed the lead of the Geneva Bible in indicating words inserted into the English translation not present in the original Greek or Hebrew text.
6. Skousen also claims the following: "Calhoun and Robbins also compared the italicized words in the King James Bible with the original text of the Book of Mormon (as found in the two manuscripts [the original manuscript and printer's manuscript]). And both discovered many examples where Joseph Smith deleted, added, or altered words that are not in italics in any of the King James printings they examined. Each concluded that there was no direct connection between the italics and the original Book of Mormon text. Simply giving examples where changes correspond with italics means nothing; one must look at all the changes including the ones that occur independently of italics."

For those that believe Joseph did know the meaning of the italics, they argue this conclusion citing typically three lines of evidence:

1. The first is the distribution of KJV italics being revised as they come to the Book of Mormon and especially the Isaiah chapters of the Book of Mormon. Royal Skousen himself "has determined that, across all Isaiah quotations in the Book of Mormon, 38 percent of the KJV’s italicized words are 'linked to differences.'" Stan Spencer analyzes different Isaiah passages in the Book of Mormon as well as the Book of Mormon's interaction with the KJV Isaiah italics and argues that the Book of Mormon's interaction with Isaiah italics cannot be due to chance.
2. The second is the practice of crossing out italicized words in the Joseph Smith Translation. The manuscripts are available for people today and anyone can see that there is a consciousness of the italicized words based in Joseph and/or his scribes crossing them out. The production of the JST began in June 1830 and continued intermittently until 1833.
3. The third is the presence of statements from Joseph Smith's contemporary environment suggesting that there was a broader familiarity with the meaning of the italics. An editorial for the Evening and Morning Star (January 1833) stated the following: "The book of Mormon, as a revelation from God, possesses some advantage over the old scripture: it has not been tinctured by the wisdom of man, with here and there an Italic word to supply deficiencies.—It was translated by the gift and power of God." A few months later (July 1833), the same paper had an editorial that states "[a]s to the errors in the bible, any man possessed of common understanding, knows, that both the old and new testaments are filled with errors, obscurities, italics and contradictions, which must be the work of men." Roughly ten years later (September 1843) in the Latter-day Saint news paper Times and Seasons, another Latter-day Saint writer stated that "[m]uch has been said about the bad translations of the Bible. . . . Every school boy seems to know that when either of the sectarian translators failed in making the two ends of a sentence meet, he filled up the vacuity with italic, by which means God has been greatly helped towards expressing himself so as to be understood by the learned world."

Both perspectives are viable and, as of yet, still in the debate among scholars of the Book of Mormon today.

Why Drop the Italics?

The first point easily made against the above arguments is that the italics make the English text of the Bible more readable. If Joseph Smith and God were trying to keep a good translation of the text and especially one that is readable, why wouldn’t God and Joseph Smith just keep those same italics in the Book of Mormon? It’s rather nonsense to claim that the mere presence of the italicized words is in and of itself damning.

But what about places where the italics are clearly "targeted" by Joseph Smith? Where he just drops or revises the italics? To answer that question, we need to lay more groundwork.

Three Hypotheses For the Presence of Italicized Words in Book of Mormon

Stan Spencer laid out three hypotheses for the italicized words of the KJV in the Book of Mormon including how and why they ended up there.

1. The first of these was created by Elder B.H. Roberts. Roberts hypothesized that the italics interaction represents what was on the actual Book of Mormon plates. In Spencer's words: "Roberts attributes the differences in the Book of Mormon to ancient variants in the Nephite plates, presumably reflecting the record on the brass plates, at least in the chapters Nephi and Jacob say they are reading, According to Roberts, the version of Isaiah in the Book of Mormon is consistently “superior [in] sense and clearness.” Spencer calls this the Ancient Variants Hypothesis.
2. The second hypothesis Spencer calls the Italics Revision Hypothesis. This is the theory held by people like Stan Larson, David P. Wright, and faithful Latter-day Saint Book of Mormon scholar Brant Gardner. This theory holds that Joseph Smith was intentionally targeting italics in the King James Bible, knowing what they meant, and intentionally revising them or dropping them.
3. The third hypothesis, Spencer's own theory, he calls the Missing Words Hypothesis. This theory holds that Joseph envisioned a biblical passage in his mind with missing KJV italics and that part of the work of Joseph Smith was to decide

Notes