The Bible and the Book of Mormon: a Comparison by Kris A. Highbargin

I. Introduction: The Issues

The Book of Mormon claims to be an ancient record of the peoples of the Americas. Not only that, but it also claims to be an account of God's dealings with those people. In the introduction to the cur- rent (1981) edition, the very first sentence says, " The Book of Mormon is a volume of holy scripture comparable to the Bible." It states further that Joseph Smith, Jr. pronounced it "the most correct of any book on earth", and said that "a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book." This thesis will compare the Book of Mormon with the Bible, starting with textual evidence, then going into historical evidences, a brief look at methods of translation, and finally, a comparison of the styles and contents of both books.

II. The Textual Evidence

A. Manuscript Evidences

1. The Old Testament

Prior to the first printed edition of the Hebrew Old Testament, which was produced in 1526, there are about 1,000 manuscripts in existence. These are from the Massoretic Text. This text was produced in about 500 A.D. by the Massoretes, who were intent on preserving the Hebrew Scriptures in their original state. To this end, they compared as many of the extant manuscripts as they could find, and made notes of all the variant readings that they came into contact with. There were approximately 1,200 of these notes, which equals less than one per page of the printed Hebrew Old Testament. Included in the Massoretic system were intricate safeguards to insure that the text was preserved intact. These included counting the words, letters, etc. in a certain book, as well as finding the middle word of a book or the middle letter of a book or section. The extreme care that these people showed in textual transmission, and the fact that there were not many variations to start with show that the Hebrew Old Testament is phenomenally well preserved.

In addition to the Hebrew texts, there are a number of other versions as well. The Greek Septuagint, or LXX, was used by the Jews and Christians, for many centuries. Later, there were threeother Greek versions as well as the Samaritan Pentateuch, Syriac, and the Latin Vulgate. These translations of the Old Testament are important as they point to the authority of the Hebrew original, and the demonstrate conclusively that while there are differences in translation, the original did not change significantly for hundreds of years.

The Dead Sea Scrolls also point to the accuracy of the Hebrew Old Testament. An example of this is seen in the comparison of the "Isaiah A" manuscript with the Massoretic Text. There is in existence a copy of the Massoretic Text from about 916 A. D. When compared to the Isaiah A manuscript (about 100 B.C.), they are proven to be quite accurate. Dr. Norman L. Geisler cites this example:

"Of the 166 words in Isaiah 53, there are only 17 letters in question. Ten of these letters are simply a matter of spelling, which does not affect the sense. Four more letters are minor stylistic changes, such as conjunctions. The remaining three letters comprise the word 'light' which is added in verse 11, and does not affect the meaning greatly." Geisler, Norman L., and William E. Nix, General Introduction to the Bible. Chicago: Moody Press, 1968 p. 263. When compared with other literature of the same time frame, it appears that the Old Testament is remarkably well preserved. In fact less than 5% of the text is disputed in any of the manuscripts. This is especially significant when we remember that we are dealing with manuscripts inseveral ancient languages over a long period of time.

2. The New Testament

There are over 5,300 Greek manuscripts, fragments, lectionaries, and codices that contain all or part of the New Testament. In addition, there are between 18,000 and 20,000 manuscripts and fragments in other languages (Latin, Coptic, Syriac, Armenian, Gothic, Frankish, etc.) that contain all or part of it. In the 20.000 lines of the Greek New Testament, there are only 40 lines that are disputed. This equals out to about 400 words scattered throughout the entire document. Concerning these disputed readings, most are spelling variations, changes in word order, or obvious slips of the pen. None of them affect the doctrine or history of the New Testament significantly. The numbers alone certify that the New Testament is 99.5 % accurate! (See Geisler, Norman L; Christian Apologetics. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1976. p 308) This discussion does not include the forty or so lines added to the text found in Mark 16:9ff, John 7:53- 8:11, and I John 5:8, which are generally acknowledged to be additions to the original text.

3. The Book of Mormon

There are no manuscripts, fragments, plates or any indication whatsoever that the Book of Mormon existed prior to 1827. The earliest known manuscript is the one in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Historical Archives in Salt Lake City Utah. The Mormon historian, D. Michael Quinn intimates that the "original" 1830 Palmyra edition does not always follow this manuscript (see Quinn, D. Michael; The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power. Salt Lake City, Ut: Signature Books. pp 272-275). We do know, however, that between the 1830 Palmyra edition and the current (1981) edition there are roughly 4,000 changes in the text, most of which are grammatical corrections or stylistic changes, but some of which are of historical or theological significance. There should be no need for grammatical corrections. The claim for the Book of Mormon is quite clear: It is "the most correct of any book on earth", and it was "translated by the gift and power of God" (see Testimony of Three Witnesses). The most notable of these changes is found on the title page, which in the 1830 edition bills Joseph Smith Jr. as "Author and Proprietor" and in all editions thereafter as "Translator". This change also occurs in the Testimony of Eight Witnesses, which is appended to the book.

B. External Evidences

1. The Old Testament

The Old Testament has been loved, revered, and quoted by Jews and Christians world wide since its canonization about 2,500 years ago. It was used extensively in the Midrash, 100 B.C.-300 A.D. which was a series of doctrinal studies of the Jews, as well as the Targums, 500 A.D, which were interpretations of the histories and prophets, the Gemaras or "commentaries" from Babylon, A.D. 500, and from Palestine, A.D. 200. In addition, the Mishnah, or "second law" drew heavily from the Old Testament. It was also quoted by Philo of Alexandria and Josephus as well as by the Ante-Nicene church fathers. The list could go on seemingly forever.

2. The New Testament

Quoted by friend and foe alike, the New Testament is attested to by a huge number of people and documents. Sir David Dalrymple once stated that he'd found the entire New Testament contained in the writings of the early church fathers with the exception of eleven verses! The mere existence of the Muratorian Canon speaks eloquently for the authenticity of the New Testament. This version, chopped up as it is, represents the use of at least parts of the New Testament by the Gnostics, the greatest enemies of the Christian church at that time. The existence of this counterfeit proves conclusively that there was an original and the manuscript evidence proves that this original has been preserved 99.5% pure.

3. The Book of Mormon

No ancient author appears to have known of the Book of Mormon. There have been found no quotes, references, or allusions to it whatsoever. If the Book of Mormon was known by any ancient society it made no impact at all! It is simply unconscionable for "scripture" to have any such lack of effect - see Isaiah 55: 11.

III. Contents and Historicity

A. The Old Testament

The Old Testament contains the history of creation and the world up to the time of Abraham. After Abraham, the history centers around the Jewish people up to about 450 B.C. Also found in it are the Law of Moses, the Wisdom Literature of the Jews, and the prophecies of their prophets. Theologically, it is profoundly monotheistic (Deut. 6:4, Is. 43:10, etc.). God is seen as an infinite-personal being who is holy, just, and jealous, yet kind and merciful to those who love Him. He is also presented as totally sovereign. His covenants with the Jews are of the "suzerainty" type, that is, they are non-negotiable. (See Davis, John J.; Moses and the Gods of Egypt. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1971 pp. 192-212) The prophecies centered around a coming Messiah who would take away the sins of His people (Is 53, etc.), and set up His kingdom (Is. 9:6, Is.11, etc.).

The Old Testament is quite accurate historically, and there are no irresolvable differences between it and ancient history as we know it.

B. The New Testament

The New Testament consists of the life of Jesus Christ in the four Gospels, the early history of the Christian Church in Acts, 13 letters of Paul the Apostle, eight "general epistles", and one book of prophecy, Revelation. God is represented as triune (Matt. 28:19, Eph. 4:6, John 1:1, Acts 5:3,4, etc.) or as one God in three persons. Jesus Christ is seen as fully human and fully divine (Phil 2:6-8). Man is saved by the grace of God (Eph. 2:8-10). Other salient points of New Testament history and doctrine will be covered later in the comparison.

Historically, the New Testament is totally accurate. The people, places, and things mentioned actually existed and the events occurred exactly as presented.

C. The Book of Mormon

This book, which claims to be a history of the former inhabitants of this continent, is the story of a Jewish prophet named Lehi, whom the Lord purportedly commanded to leave Jerusalem in about 600 B.C. He with his wife, four sons, and a few others, came to the Americas. In time they became two distinct peoples -the Nephites, a white race who were basically righteous, and the Lamanites, a dark-skinned race who were total apostates. There is also included a record of the "Jaredites" who came to this continent in flight from the tower of Babel. The Jaredites flourished here for about 1,500 years, until they were wiped out in a massive civil war. The Lamanites eventually killed off the Nephites and became the Native American peoples. The Book of Mormon contradicts much of what is known of American archaeology, anthropology, zoology, botany, geology, geography, and written history. The people, places, and things referred to in this work can not be proven to have existed (with the exception of those mentioned also in the Bible), nor can the events be proven to have really happened (with the same exceptions). Concrete examples of this are four alleged Hebrew prophets, Zenos, Zenock, Neum, and Ezaias (1 Nephi 19:10, Helaman 8:20) which are "quoted", but have never been discovered in Jewish literature.

IV. Methods of Translation

A. The Old and New Testament

Both Testaments have been translated many times into many languages. The most reliable translations are always based on the respective grammars of the languages involved. This requires intense studies to insure that the concepts laid out in the original Greek and Hebrew are brought across the language barrier faithfully. There are some like The Living Bible that are paraphrases and not really translations at all. The truth is that all through the ages, men and women have given large parts of their lives and have done the requisite studies in order to produce sound translations that are based on good historical-grammatical interpretation.

B. The Book of Mormon.

In the "Testimony of the Prophet Joseph Smith" appended to the beginning of the current edition of the Book of Mormon, it is stated that he translated it from golden plates by means of the urim and thummim. He describes these as two stones set in silver bows. This account has several problems. First, the Book of Mormon claims to be written in a language called "reformed Egyptian" (Mormon 9:32). This language is totally unknown to grammarians, historians, and archaeologists. As a matter of fact, the Book of Mormon is the only piece of literature to ever be purportedly written in this language. There are no government documents, church records or anything discovered on the American continents that are even close to Egyptian, reformed or otherwise. This is proven further when we look at the facsimile of the characters Joseph Smith allegedly translated. A second problem is noted when it is recalled that no one actually knows what the urim and thummim are. This term, which is Hebrew for "lights and perfections", refers to a device or set of devices that were given to the Aaronic High Priest in order to consult with God in matters of state. At no time was it construed to be an interpretive device (See Ex. 28:30; Lev. 8:8; Num. 27:21; Deut. 33:8; I Sam.28:6; Ezra 2:63; and Neh. 7: 65) From these references it is plain the urim and thummim were only to be used by the high priest of the Levtical priesthood. This presents another problem. According to Mormon history, Joseph Smith was not ordained into this priesthood until May or June of 1829. Therefore, it has to be concluded that if the urim and thummim were used it was without the authority of God.

There are a number of accounts that claim that Joseph Smith "translated" the plates with a seer stone. This was a stone used in divination to find lost property or treasure. That Joseph Smith known to use one of these stones is historical fact, verified by court documents from Bainbridge, Ny. If this is true, we may dismiss the Book of Mormon as "poisoned fruit of a poisoned tree", for one simply can not "translate" holy Scripture by occult means. (See Deut. 18: 10-12; I Cor. 6:15; etc.)

V. The Styles Compared

A. The Old Testament

In the literature of the ancient Hebrews there is a wide latitude for modes of expression. The language can be very straightforward, as in the historical narratives, or quite complex as in the symbolism that is used in the prophets. Contained within the Old Testament are both of these forms as well as songs, poetry, proverbs, allegories, and laws, each of which have their own unique modes of expression. In whatever form it comes, the Old Testament is very concise -that is, it uses very few words to convey any given concept. Consider this example:

Daniel spake and said, I saw in my vision by night, and, behold, the four winds of the heaven strove upon the great sea. And four great beasts came up from the sea, diverse one from another. The first was like a lion, and had eagle's wings: I beheld till the wings thereof were plucked, and it was lifted up from the earth, and made stand upon the feet as a man, and a man's heart was given to it. And behold another beast, a second, like to a bear, and it raised up itself on one side, and it had three ribs in the mouth of it between the teeth of it: and they said thus unto it, Arise, devour much flesh. After this I beheld, and lo another, like a leopard, which had upon the back of it four wings of a fowl; the beast had also four heads; and dominion was given to it. After this I saw in the night visions, and behold a fourth beast, dreadful and terrible, and strong exceedingly; and it had great iron teeth: it devoured and brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with the feet of it: and it was diverse from all the beasts that were before it; and it had ten horns. Dan 7:2-7 (KJV) In this relatively short passage Daniel uses figurative language to describe four successive world empires over almost a thousand years. From the material presented, we gain everything that we need to know about how these empires fit into the plan of God. The Old Testament does not always satisfy our curiosity, but it does tell us what we need to know.

B. The New Testament

As in the Old Testament, there is a wide variety of literature in the New. The same modes of expression apply. In addition it is (in this author's opinion) easier to see the individual authors' distinct styles in the New Testament. For example, the simple yet profound writings of John are an almost completely different dialect from the complex writings of Peter. Again, the practical letter of James is quite different from the theoretical explanations of the Gospel given by Paul. The Greek of Matthew with its Hebraisms was most assuredly written with the Jewish people in mind while the more pure usage of the Greek by Luke indicates a gentile audience. Also like the Old Testament, the New Testament is concise. There is no useless information, yet we can find in it everything that we must know in order to be saved. Our curiosity is not always pandered to, but the entire Gospel is to be found within its pages. Furthermore, it builds on the foundation laid by the Old Testament in a way that is logical and the transition is a natural one.

C. The Book of Mormon

Written in an imitation King James style, the Book of Mormon did not preserve any of the beauty found in the King James Version of the Bible. One must say that it is an imitation King James style, because it frequently confuses the Middle English uses of the pronouns and verbs, as well as misusing the words themselves. (See for example the alleged prophecy at the end of 1 Nephi 2. The second person pronoun switches from singular to plural and back again. It would seem that the Mormon "god" doesn't know English very well!) In addition, the entire work contains much useless information, and much more useless verbiage. (As a matter of fact, the entire first three verses of the book could be deleted with no ill effects.) It uses long, complex sentences which are hard to read, and once read, often make no sense. (See 1 Nephi 13:42, for example.)

Repeated use of phrases such as "it came to pass", "insomuch", "wherefore", and "after this manner",etc. point to a single author. The author displayed a distinct lack of literary ability.

Note this:

Now, immediately when the judge had been murdered -he being stabbed by his brother by a garb of secrecy, and he fled, and the servants ran and told the people, raising the cry of murder among them; Helaman 9:6 I don't know how many times I've worried about being stabbed with a "garb of secrecy"! And yet, there it is, in the middle of this run-on sentence that contains no less than three separate ideas. Consider another example:

And now it came to pass that when Moroni, who was the chief commander of the armies of the Nephites, had heard of these dissensions, he was angry with Amalickiah. And it came to pass that he rent his coat; and he took a piece thereof, and wrote upon it--In memory of our God, our religion, and freedom, and our peace, our wives, and our children--and he fastened it upon the end of a pole. And he fastened on his head-plate, and his breastplate, and his shields, and girded on his armor about his loins; and he took the pole, which had on the end thereof his rent coat, (and he called it the title of liberty) and he bowed himself to the earth, and he prayed mightily unto his God for the blessings of liberty to rest upon his brethren, so long as there should a band of Christians remain to possess the land--For thus were all the true believers of Christ, who belonged to the church of God, called by those who did not belong to the church. Alma 46:11-14 Believe it or not, this sample was even worse in the 1830 edition !! Aside from the problem that he mentions Christians in a pre-Christian context, this is simply barbarous from a grammatical point of view. This was translated by the "gift and power of God"?

These two examples could be multiplied many times. Only two conclusions are possible. Either the Book of Mormon is the product of human endeavor or God doesn't know English grammar.

Either the Book of Mormon is the product of human endeavor or God doesn't know English grammar.