The text of this article is only available as a PDF.

Footnotes

1. Throughout this study I will use the 1830 edition as the base text of the Book of Mormon unless otherwise noted, and I am dependent on the one provided by the Joseph Smith Papers Project, http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/book-of-mormon-1830/1. I will also note variants between the 1830 and the original (O) and printer’s (P) manuscripts. For the printer’s manuscript I have relied on Royal Skousen and Robin Scott Jensen, eds., The Joseph Smith Papers: Revelations and Translations Volume 3: The Printer’s Manuscript of the Book of Mormon, 2 vols. (Salt Lake City: The Church Historian’s Press, 2015).
2. Malachi has influenced at least thirty-nine verses in the Book of Mormon directly, some more substantially than others. These verses together are only a preliminary list at the present moment and will be expanded upon in my future work: 1 Nephi 2:23; 3:7; 11:27; 14:17; 17:13; 22:15, 24; 2 Nephi 25:13; 26:4, 6, 9; 45:13a, 14a; Alma 45:14; 3 Nephi 24:1–18; 25:1–6; Ether 9:22.
3. Andrew E. Hill makes a similar statement about the use of Malachi in the New Testament in Malachi: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, The Anchor Yale Bible, vol. 25D (New York: Doubleday Publishing, 1998), 84.
4. The main proponent of this theory is Royal Skousen, the leading text critic of the Book of Mormon. See his “How Joseph Smith Translated the Book of Mormon: Evidence from the Original Manuscript,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 7, no. 1 (1998): 22–31 and his essay, of which the former is an updated, shorter version, “Translating the Book of Mormon: Evidence from the Original Manuscript,” in Book of Mormon Authorship Revisited: The Evidence for Ancient Origins, edited by Noel B. Reynolds (Provo: FARMS, 1997), 61–93.
5. Daniel was written around the 160s BCE. See John J. Collins, Daniel: A Commentary, Hermeneia: A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993), 38; Norman W. Porteous, Daniel: A Commentary, The Old Testament Library (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1965), 13; and Daniel L. Smith-Christopher, “The Book of Daniel,” in The New Interpreter’s Bible, edited by Leander E. Keck (Nashville, Tenn.: Abingdon Press, 1996), 7:20–32, who seems to purposefully skirt the dating of the text of the book of Daniel. While he utilizes John Joseph Collins’s earlier The Apocalyptic Vision of the Book of Daniel, Harvard Semitic Monographs 16 (Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1977) to argue for the dating of the “traditions,” he never uses Collins’s full commentary on Daniel, which explicitly dates the text later.
6. See Hill, Malachi, 80–84, who assigns 500 BCE; W. Neil, “Malachi,” in The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, edited by George A. Buttrick (Nashville, Tenn.: Abingdon Press, 1962), 3:229, who assigns 460–450 BCE; John Carmody, Denise Lardner Carmody, and Robert L. Cohn, Exploring the Hebrew Bible (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1988), 257, who assign 500–450 BCE; David Noel Freedman, et al., Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible (Grand Rapids, Mich.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2000), 848, who offer different dates ranging from ca. 605–550 BCE, 515–456 BCE, or into the late Persian period, but these earlier dates are highly unlikely because of Malachi’s affinities with other post-exilic texts; and Michael D. Coogan, The Old Testament: A Historical and Literary Introduction to the Hebrew Scriptures (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011), 436, who says “a date in the fifth century BCE is likely.”
7. Hill, Malachi, 26.
8. See Carmody, et al., Exploring the Hebrew Bible, 257. They state that the “traditional division of the brief text is into eight sections,” citing Eric M. Meyers, “Malachi, the Book of,” in Paul J. Achtemeier, ed., Harper’s Bible Dictionary (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1985), 598.
9. See Hill’s discussion of the differing views in Hill, Malachi, 26.
10. Ibid., 19.
11. Ibid., 19–20.
12. For example, see John E. Harvey, Retelling the Torah: The Deuteronomistic Historian’s Use of Tetrateuchal Narratives, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 403 (London: T&T Clark International, 2004); Michael A. Lyons, From Law to Prophecy: Ezekiel’s Use of the Holiness Code, Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies 507 (New York: T&T Clark, 2009); G. Brooke Lester, Daniel Evokes Isaiah: Allusive Characterization of Foreign Rule in the Hebrew–Aramaic Book of Daniel, Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies 606 (London: Bloomsbury, 2015); and Jeffrey Stackert, Rewriting the Torah: Literary Revision in Deuteronomy and the Holiness Legislation, Forschungen zum Alten Testament 52 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007).
13. See John R. Levison, Portraits of Adam in Early Judaism: From Sirach to 2 Baruch, Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha Supplement Series 1 (Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic Press, 1988); G. W. E. Nickelsburg, “The Bible Rewritten and Expanded,” in Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period: Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Qumran Sectarian Writings, Philo, Josephus, edited by Michael E. Stone, Compendia rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum, section 2 (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984), 89–156; and Devorah Dimant, “Use and Interpretation of Mikra in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha,” in Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity, edited by Martin Jan Mulder and Harry Sysling, Compendia rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum, section 2 (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988), 379–419.
14. See Steve Moyise, Evoking Scripture: Seeing the Old Testament in the New (London: T&T Clark, 2008) and Craig A. Evans and James A. Sanders, Early Christian Interpretation of the Scriptures of Israel: Investigations and Proposals, Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 148 (Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997).
15. See Anne M. O’Leary, Matthew’s Judaization of Mark: Examined in the Context of the Use of Sources in Graeco-Roman Antiquity, Library of New Testament Studies 323 (London: T&T Clark, 2006).
16. For example, see Carroll D. Osburn, The Text of the Apostolos in Epiphanius of Salamis, New Testament in the Greek Fathers, no. 6 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2004) and Jean-Francois Racine, The Text of Matthew in the Writings of Basil of Caesarea, New Testament in the Greek Fathers, no. 5 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2004).
17. Michael Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985).
18. Richard B. Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1989).
19. Christopher A. Beetham, Echoes of Scripture in the Letter of Paul to the Colossians, Biblical Interpretation Series 96 (Leiden: Brill, 2008).
20. Hays, Echoes of Scripture, 29–32.
21. Beetham, Echoes of Scripture, 17.
22. Ibid., 20.
23. Ibid., 24.
24. Nicholas Frederick, “Line Within Line: An Intertextual Analysis of Mormon Scripture and the Prologue of the Gospel of John” (PhD diss., Claremont Graduate University, 2013), 12–13. See also his more recent monograph, Nicholas J. Frederick, The Bible, Mormon Scripture, and the Rhetoric of Allusivity, Fairleigh Dickinson University Press Mormon Studies Series (Madison, N.J.: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 2016).
25. Many of the studies since Fishbane and Hays have been dependent on either of these two scholars, but more have followed Hays’s terms than Fishbane’s. There have been a number of studies that have challenged Hays’s terminology and criteria, but even those studies use his research. See in particular Charlene McAfee Moss, The Zechariah Tradition and the Gospel of Matthew, Beihefte zur Zeitschrift fur die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 156 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2008), 7–12; Marko Jauhiainen, The Use of Zechariah in Revelation, Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2, Reihe 199 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), 18–36; Shiu-Lun Shum, Paul’s Use of Isaiah in Romans: A Comparative Study of Paul’s Letter to the Romans and the Sibylline and Qumran Sectarian Texts, Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2, Reihe 156 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002), 5–11; and Patricia Tull Willey, Remember the Former Things: The Recollection of Previous Texts in Second Isaiah, Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 161 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997), 81–84.
26. Frederick, “Line Within Line,” 30.
27. The extant manuscript of O jumps from 3 Nephi 21:11 to 3 Nephi 26:3. Royal Skousen, ed., The Original Manuscript of the Book of Mormon: Typographical Facsimile of the Extant Text (Provo: FARMS, 2001), 524–25.
28. Brant A. Gardner, Second Witness: Analytical and Contextual Commentary on the Book of Mormon, Volume One: First Nephi (Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2007), 411–12.
29. Isaiah 47:14 (KJV).
30. See Ulrich F. Berges, The Book of Isaiah: Its Composition and Final Form, Hebrew Bible Monographs 46 (Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2012); and David P. Wright, “Isaiah in the Book of Mormon: Or Joseph Smith in Isaiah,” in American Apocrypha: Essays on the Book of Mormon, edited by Dan Vogel and Brent Lee Metcalfe (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2002), 157–234.
31. Beetham, Echoes of Scripture, 17.
32. Gardner does not mention these verses either, which could have possibly altered the way he saw the dependence in v. 15 of this chapter. See Gardner, Second Witness, 1:414.
33. Gardner does not mention the dependence of this verse on Malachi 4:1. See below for further explanation. See Gardner, Second Witness, 2:354.
34. Gardner, Second Witness, 2:354.
35. John Tvedtnes, “Review of Wesley P. Walters, The Use of the Old Testament in the Book of Mormon,” Review of Books on the Book of Mormon 4, no. 1 (1992): 223.
36. Tvedtnes points out that “the concept (and much of the wording) in Malachi 4:1 is found in Isaiah 5:24; 33:11; 47:14 (cf. Obadiah 1:18); and Nahum 1:10” (“Review of Wesley P. Walters,” 223).
37. Ibid., 223.
38. Gardner notes that this may be a reference to Malachi 4:1. The inconsistent argumentation of dependence on Isaiah 47:14 and Malachi 4:1 in the Book of Mormon by Gardner is perplexing. See Gardner, Second Witness, 2:355.
39. Gardner argues for dependence here on Malachi 4:2. The way he discusses it will be reviewed below. See Gardner, Second Witness, 2:356–57.
40. Compare 2 Nephi 26:5 (“and they that kill the prophets”) and the sentiment found in the KJV only in the New Testament in Matthew 23:31 (“the children of them which killed the prophets”); Luke 11:47 (“the sepulchres of the prophets, and your fathers killed them”); and 1 Thessalonians 2:15 (“Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets”).
41. Compare 2 Nephi 26:5 (“the depths of the earth shall swallow them up”) with Numbers 16:30, 34 (“the LORD make a new thing, and the earth open her mouth, and swallow them up … Lest the earth swallow us up also”) and Exodus 15:12 (“the earth swallowed them”); and 2 Nephi 26:5 (“and mountains shall cover them”) with Hosea 10:8 (“they shall say to the mountains, Cover us”) and Luke 23:30 (“they begin to say to the mountains, Fall on us; and to the hills, Cover us”).
42. Terryl Givens shared this insight in a paper he presented on March 16, 2017 at a conference at Utah State University in Logan, Utah. The conference was called New Perspectives on Joseph Smith and Translation. Bricolage comes from the French anthropologist and ethnologist Claude Lévi-Strauss. See Claude Lévi-Strauss, The Savage Mind (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1966), 21–35.
43. Gardner notes the literary dependence (but not direct quotation) here on Malachi 4:2 but argues that this could not have been a direct quotation because Malachi would not have been on the plates. His further arguments will be discussed below. See Gardner, Second Witness, 2:331.
44. Gardner makes no mention of the similarity here. See Gardner, Second Witness, 1:98–99.
45. Taken from Malachi 3:9 in Adele Berlin and Marc Zvi Brettler, eds., The Jewish Study Bible (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004), 1273.
46. See 1 Kings 2:8.
47. Gardner, Second Witness, 2:357.
48. Gardner makes no mention of the similarity here. See Gardner, Second Witness, 1:103.
49. Cf. Ezekiel 45:17, 23, 24; 46:7, 12.
50. Gardner makes no mention of the similarity here. See Gardner, Second Witness, 1:250.
51. Emphasis mine.
52. Gardner makes no mention of the similarity here. See Gardner, Second Witness, 1:300.
53. See Isaac Watts, The Works of Rev. Isaac Watts. D. D. in Seven Volumes, Vol. I: Containing Sermons (Leeds: Printed by Edward Baines, 1800), 460.
54. To specify, the eight words spelled differently are not all the same as the eight variants being discussed here. The King James Version of Malachi 3–4 has 748 words, and the disparity between the Book of Mormon and King James Version is due to the exclusion of words found in the King James Version. These exclusions will become evident in the discussion.
55. It is commonly believed that the italics originate in the 1611 printing of the King James Version, but this is not necessarily true. Many of the italics that are common to printed King James Versions today were added a century or more after the 1611 edition. They were added by later printers and editors of the text of the King James Version, and most printed editions of the King James Version today are the 1769 edition, including the current LDS edition of the Bible.
56. W. W. Phelps, “Errors of the Bible,” Evening and Morning Star 2, no. 14, July 1833, 108.
57. It is common for the variants between the Book of Mormon and the King James Version to center around the italics in the King James Version, as has been noted in numerous other studies, but many italics are also not removed and were kept in the text of the Book of Mormon. It is important to note that a statistically high number of the variants between the Book of Mormon and King James Version in these sections are centered on italics.
58. See The Bible and Holy Scriptures Conteyned in the Olde and Newe Teftament. Translated According to the Ebrue and Greke, and conferred With the beft tranflations in diuers languages. (Geneva: Printed at Rouland Hall, M. D. L. X. [1560]); and The. holie. Bible. conteynyng the olde Teftament and the newe. (1568).
59. At Malachi 3:9 the later editions of the King James Version have italics at “Ye are cursed …” and Malachi 4:4 “with the statutes and judgments,” whereas the 1611 King James Version does not have regular font (i.e., italics) for either of these.
60. This should at least give us pause for applying too freely the idea that italics had as much influence in the Malachi quotations as it does in the Isaiah quotations. But still, the fact that five of the eight (possibly seven, see 3 Nephi 24:10 below) variants occur at the italics is telling for labeling these five dependent on the italics.
61. Scott H. Faulring, Kent P. Jackson, and Robert J. Matthews, eds., Joseph Smith’s New Translation of the Bible: Original Manuscripts (Provo: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 2004), 4–5.
62. It is also possible that the scribe could have misheard “mine” for “my,” but this seems unlikely due to the high percentage of exact correspondence between 3 Nephi 24–25 and King James Version of Malachi 3–4.
63. i.e., The Masoretic Text, or standard Hebrew Bible.
64. See Ludwig Koehler and Walter Baumgartner, The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, vol 1. ע- א (Leiden: Brill, 2001), 650.
65. For much of this discussion and more examples, see Hill, Malachi, 333.
66. See Eugene Ulrich, et al., eds., Qumrân Cave 4: The Prophets, Discoveries in the Judean Desert 15 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997), 227.
67. 3 Nephi 10:12.
68. The destruction after Jesus’ death begins “in the thirty and fourth year, in the first month, on the fourth day of the month,” (3 Nephi 8:5) and then the text goes on to say that “it came to pass that in the ending of the thirty and fourth year, behold … insomuch that soon after the ascension of Christ into heaven he did truly manifest himself unto them (3 Nephi 10:18).
69. 3 Nephi 23:1–4.
70. Gardner, Second Witness, 2:356–57.
71. Thomas A. Wayment, “Intertextuality and the Purpose of Joseph Smith’s New Translation of the Bible,” in Foundational Texts of Mormonism: Examining Major Early Sources, edited by Mark Ashurst-McGee, Robin Scott Jensen, and Sharalyn D. Howcroft (New York: Oxford University Press, 2018), 74–100. See also Grant Underwood, “Joseph Smith’s Use of the Old Testament,” in The Old Testament and the Latter-day Saints, edited by Carlos E. Asay (Orem, Utah: Randall Book Company, 1986), 381–413.
72. Cf. Wesley Walters, The Use of the Old Testament in the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City: Utah Lighthouse Ministry, 1990).
73. Blake T. Ostler, “The Book of Mormon as a Modern Expansion of an Ancient Source,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 20, no. 1 (1987): 66–123.
74. John L. Sorenson, “The ‘Brass Plates’ and Biblical Scholarship,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 10, no. 4 (1977): 31–39.
75. Noel B. Reynolds, “The Brass Plates Version of Genesis,” in By Study and Also By Faith: Essays in Honor of Hugh Nibley, vol. 2, edited by John M. Lundquist and Stephen D. Ricks (Salt Lake City and Provo: Deseret Book and FARMS, 1990), 136–73.
76. Colby Townsend, “Appropriation and Adaptation of J Material in the Book of Mormon” (unpublished undergraduate honors thesis, University of Utah, 2016).

Article PDF first page preview

Article PDF first page preview