Chapter vi: verse 25. Chapter xiii: verse 25. Chapter vi: verse 25.

Therefore I say And now it came Therefore I say unto you, take no to pass that when unto you, be not solicitous thought for your Jesus had spoken for your life, what ye shall these words, he life, what you shall eat, or what ye shall looked upon the eat nor for your drink; nor yet for twelve whom he had body what you shall your body, what ye chosen, and said unto put on. Is not the shall put on. Is them, [33] Remember life more than the not the life more the words which meat: and the body than meat, and the I have spoken. For more than raiment? body than raiment? behold, ye are they whom I have chosen to minister unto unto this people. Therefore I say unto you, take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment?

KING JAMES' BIBLE. BOOK OF MORMON. DOUAY BIBLE. Verse 26. Verse 26. Verse 26. Behold the fowls Behold the fowls Behold the birds of the air: for they of the air, for they of the air, for they sow not, neither do sow not, neither do neither sow nor do they reap, nor gather they reap, nor gather they reap, nor gather in barns; yet your into barns; yet into barns; and heavenly Father your heavenly Father your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are feedeth them. Are feedeth them. ye not much better ye not much better Are not you of than they? than they? much more value than they?

KING JAMES' BIBLE. BOOK OF MORMON. DOUAY BIBLE. Verse 27. Verse 27. Verse 27. Which of you by Which of you by Which of you by taking thought can taking thought can taking thought can add one cubit unto add one cubit unto add to his stature his stature? his stature? one cubit?

Verses 28, 29. Verses 28, 29. Verses 28, 29. And why take ye And why take ye And for raiment thought for raiment? thought for raiment? why are you solicitous Consider the lilies Consider the lilies Consider the of the field, how of the field, how lilies of the field, they grow; they they grow; they toil how they grow; they toil not, neither do not, neither do they labor not, neither they spin: and yet spin; and yet I say do they spin. But I I say unto you, that unto you, that even say unto you, that even Solomon in all Solomon, in all his not even Solomon, his glory was not glory was not arrayed in all his glory, was arrayed like one of like one of arrayed as one of these. these. these.

Verse 30. Verse 30. Verse 30. Wherefore, if God Wherefore, if God And if the grass so clothe the grass so clothe the grass of the field, which is of the field, which of the field, which today, and tomorrow today is, and tomorrow today is, and tomorrow is cast into the is cast into the is cast into the oven, God doth so oven, _shall he_ not oven, even so will clothe: how much much more _clothe_ he clothe you, if you more you, O ye of you, O ye of little are not of little little faith? faith? faith?

KING JAMES' BIBLE. BOOK OF MORMON. DOUAY BIBLE. Verses 31, 32, 33. Verses 31, 32, 33. Verses 31, 32, 33. Therefore take no Therefore, take no Be not solicitous thought, saying thought, saying therefore, saying: What shall we eat? What shall we eat? What shall we eat: or, what shall we or, what shall we or what shall we drink? or Wherewith drink, or wherewith drink, or wherewith shall we be shall we be clothed? shall we be clothed? clothed? for after For your heavenly For after all these all these things do Father knoweth that things do the heathens the Gentiles seek: ye have need of all seek. For your For your heavenly these things. But Father knoweth that Father knoweth that seek ye first the you have need of all ye have need of all kingdom of God and these things. Seek these things. But his righteousness, ye therefore first the seek ye first the and all these things kingdom of God, kingdom of God and shall be added unto and his justice: and his righteousness, you. all these things shall and all these things be added unto you. shall be added unto you.

Verse 34. Verse 34. Verse 34. Take therefore no Take therefore no Be not therefore thought for the thought for the solicitous for tomorrow. morrow: For the morrow, for the For the morrow morrow shall take morrow shall take will be solicitous thought for the thought for the for itself; sufficient things of itself. things of itself. for the day is Sufficient unto the Sufficient is the day the evil thereof. day is the evil unto the evil thereof. thereof. [34]

But how are these differences to be accounted for? They unquestionably arise from the fact that the Prophet compared the King James' translation with the parallel passages in the Nephite records, and when he found the sense of the passage of the Nephite plates [35] superior to that in the English version he made such changes as would give the superior sense and clearness. This view is sustained by the fact of uniform superiority of the Book of Mormon version wherever such differences occur. It is also a significant fact that these changes occur quite generally in the case of supplied words of the English translators, and which in order to indicate that they are supplied words, are printed in Italics. * * * * * I fancy to all this, however, another inquiry will arise in your mind and that is since Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon by means of the Urim and Thummim, why is it that he did not give throughout a translation direct from the Nephite plates, instead of following our English Bible, where it paralleled passages on the plates, since translation by means of the Urim and Thummim must have been so simple and so easy? It is at this particular point where, in my opinion, a very great mistake is made, both by our own people, and our friends in the world. That is, translation by the Urim and Thummim is not so simple and easy a thing as it might at first glance appear. Many have supposed that the Prophet Joseph had merely to look into the Urim and Thummim, and there see, without any thought or effort on his part, both the Nephite characters and the translation in English. In other words, the instrument did everything and the Prophet nothing, except merely to look in the Urim and Thummim as one might look into a mirror, and then give out what he saw there. Such a view of the work of the Urim and Thummim I believe to be altogether incorrect. I think it caused the Prophet the exercise of all his intellectual and spiritual forces to obtain the translation; that it was an exhausting work, one that taxed even his great powers to their uttermost limit; and hence, when he could ease himself of those labors by adopting a reasonably good translation already existing, I think he was justified in doing so."

Such was the answer made to Mr. Chamberlain's inquiries, and as the reader will doubtless be interested to know how this answer was received by this unprejudiced gentleman, I quote the following from his letter in response to the explanation. [36]

Of course, I realize that if the Book of Mormon was not just what it purported to be, the whole fabric [of Mormonism] must fall to the ground, so far as being an inspired religion, and would then only be worth what good one could get out of it as the best organization or controlled religion on earth. * * * Upon studying the Book of Mormon, I, of course, found these portions of King James' version of our Bible, and judging it by the applied law of human experience, as we lawyers learn to judge everything, I could account for it in on other way, than that Joseph Smith copied it therefrom, and I am free to say that your reasons for his so doing are not only probable, but the only solution that can be given. * * * I believe and think that your suggestion is the only theory upon which it is possible to advocate its divine character. It seems to me that God, so far as I know, has never supplied man with what he already possessed, and Joseph Smith already had language with which to express his ideas, and all that was required in addition from God was, that he furnish him with the thought, and then let him express it in his own language. I never could for a moment believe that God is interested in placing his approval on King James' translators' style of translating, nor upon the composition of the English language therein adopted. I do not see wherein your theory detracts in any manner from the value of the Book of Mormon, as an inspired work acknowledged by God as authentic, nor makes more impracticable the manner of its introduction.

II.

_Miscellaneous Objections Based on Literary Style and Language_.

The theory established that the language of the translation of the Book of Mormon is Joseph Smith's, and that at least for extended quotations from Isaiah and the New Testament writers he turned to the common English version of the Bible and adopted it, the answer to all objections based upon errors in literary style and grammar, and the finding of many passages from the Hebrew prophets and New Testament writers transcribed from King James' translation--is obvious:

(1) The language is Joseph Smith's; the errors in style and grammar are due to his very limited education, for which the lack of educational opportunities alone is responsible.

(2) To relieve himself somewhat of the mental strain in the work of translation when he came to matter transcribed from the Hebrew prophets into the Nephite record, or to instructions of the Messiah that paralled his teachings to the people of Judea--of which there already existed a reasonably good English translation--the Prophet adopted that translation. [37]

The ideas underlying this explanation once adopted, it is equally easy to meet the objections to the Book of Mormon based on the existence of modern words and phraseology found in it; of provincialisms of the time and place in which the translation was wrought; of phrases and words from modern poets and religious exhorters. These words and phrases made up the vocabulary of Joseph Smith; and his mode of expressing his thought is that of the period and place in which he lived; and hence the ideas obtained from the Nephite plates he couched in those modern words, phrases and modes of expression familiar to him.

Sometimes, however, more is claimed for the existence of these modern words, phrases and alleged quotations from modern poets than is warranted. [38] For example: Campbell, Hyde, Lamb, Linn, and many others, sarcastically remark that the words of Shakespeare are quoted in a passage in the Book of Mormon accredited to Lehi, 2200 years before Shakespeare was born! Linn puts it in this form:

Shakespeare is proved a plagiarist by comparing his words with those of the second Nephi, who, speaking twenty-two hundred years before Shakespeare was born, said, "Hear the words of a trembling parent, whose limbs you must soon lay down in the cold and silent grave, from whence no traveler can return." [39]

The theory already advanced as an explanation of the existence of modern words and phraseology in Joseph Smith's translation of the Nephite record is adequate as an explanation of such instances of modernisms as this. [40] Through school books extant, or through listening to itinerant preachers, the Prophet might have become acquainted with such phraseology as this alleged quotation from Shakespeare, and employed it where it would express some Nephite idea or thought found in the Nephite record. Still, this alleged quotation from the British poet, at least, is susceptible of another explanation.

In the book of Job I find two passages either of which, and surely both of them combined, would furnish the complete thought, and for that matter largely, the phraseology to both Lehi and Shakespeare. I quote Job's language, and afterwards that of Lehi's and Shakespeare's, that the reader may compare them:

1. _Job_, "Let me alone that I may take comfort a little before I go whence I shall not return, even to the land of darkness and the shadow of death." [41]

"When a few years are come, then I shall go the way whence I shall not return." [42]

2. _Lehi_, "Hear the words of a parent whose limbs you must soon lay down in the cold and silent grave, from whence no traveler can return."

3. _Shakespeare_, "That undiscovered country from whose bourne no traveler returns."

It will be observed that the passage from the Book of Mormon follows Job more closely than it does Shakespeare, both in thought and diction; and this for the reason, doubtless, that Lehi had been impressed with Job's idea [43] of going to a land whence he would not return; and Joseph Smith being familiar with Job, and very likely not familiar with Shakespeare, when he came to Lehi's thought he expressed it nearly in Job's phraseology; and undoubtedly Shakespeare paraphrased his now celebrated passage from Job.

It is also objected that many of the prophecies of the Book of Mormon respecting the earth-career of Messiah, especially the prophecies found in first Nephi, are given sometimes in the language of accomplished fact. [44] "Lehi," says Campbell, "was a greater Prophet than any of the Jewish prophets, and uttered all the events of the Christian Era and developed the records of Matthew, Luke, and John 600 years before John the Baptist was born." He follows the general statement with a number of passages illustrative of it.

This circumstance of writing prophecy in the language of accomplished fact, however, ought not to appeal to orthodox Christians as a very serious objection to the prophecies in the Book of Mormon, since they have on their hands the fifty third chapter of Isaiah to account for. This chapter by a consensus of opinion of orthodox Christian scholarship is regarded as a wonderful prophecy, outlining the earth life, character and redemptive mission of the Christ; and for the most part this prophecy is given in the language of accomplished fact. I quote part of the chapter conceded to refer to the Christ:

He hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.

He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief, and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.

Surely he hath borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.

But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.

All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.

He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth; he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.

He was taken from prison and from judgment; and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.

And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth. (Isaiah, LIII: 2-10.)

Surely after this it is not worth while for orthodox Christians to be objecting to prophecies in the Book of Mormon on the ground that they are written in the language of accomplished fact. So far from this peculiarity of Isaiah's having brought him into disrepute as a prophet, it seems to have added to his glory, because so writing his prophecy, it is claimed, has given a vividness to his predictions, an exactness that made the messianic prophecies all the more valuable. "The prophecies regarding the Messiah's birth, passion, glory, rejection by the Jews, and acceptance by the Gentiles are so exact as to have earned him the name of the 'Gospel Prophet.' "--(Oxford Bible Helps--Isaiah). It should be remembered, too, in this connection, that the Book of Isaiah's prophecies carried by the colony of Lehi into the Western hemisphere with them became a powerful influence among the Nephite writers. His book is quoted from more extensively than any other book of the Jewish scriptures possessed by the Nephites; and that because of the plainness with which Isaiah spoke of the coming and mission of Messiah. The first Nephi, commenting upon Isaiah and the esteem in which he held his writing, said:

And now I, Nephi, write more of the words of Isaiah, for my soul delighteth in his words. For I will liken [apply] his words unto my people, and I will send them forth unto all my children, for he verily saw my Redeemer, even as I have seen him. And my brother Jacob also has seen him as I have seen him, wherefore I will send their words forth unto my children, to prove unto them that my words are true.

Small wonder then if a prophet held in such large esteem, as was Isaiah, and so extensively quoted, influenced prophetic Nephite literature, and led to the habit of writing prophecies referring to the Christ in the language of accomplished fact.

The Rev. M. T. Lamb, in his "Golden Bible" makes practically the same charges as Mr. Campbell, saying, in addition that many of the quotations from the Jewish scriptures found in the Book of Mormon, are written "in the exact language of the New Testament."

It is sufficient to say to this objection that Joseph Smith having a full knowledge of the facts of the Christian story, as related in the New Testament, clothed the ideas caught from the Nephite record in New Testament phraseology; and it has been suggested that he may have done so in places in stronger terms than a rigidly strict translation might have warranted. [45]

It is not necessary to go into detail in considering this objection, [46] or of objections of similar nature, for the reason that this whole class of objections is met completely by the theory suggested in these pages concerning the translation of the Book of Mormon.

III.

_The Difficulty of Passages from Isaiah Being Quoted by Nephite Writers, that Modern Bible Criticism (Higher Criticism) Holds Were Not Written Until the Time of the Babylonian Captivity--586-538 B. C., and not Written by Isaiah at all_.

It is held that Isaiah's historical period--the period of his ministry--runs through the reign of four kings of Judah--Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz and Hezekiah. Some extend his ministry over into the reign of Manasseh, by whose edict, it is said, he was sawn asunder. In any event Isaiah would be a very aged man at the close of the reign of Hezekiah, 698 B. C.; and he would have been between eighty and ninety at the accession of Manesseh. So that it is safe to say that life ended soon after the close of Hezekiah's reign. Now if it be true that the latter part of the Book of Isaiah, from chapter forty to chapter sixty-six, inclusive, was not written until and during the Babylonian Captivity, 586-538 B. C.--as assumed by modern criticism--then of course the prophet Isaiah did not write that part of the book which bears his name as author.

Again: If it be true that these chapters 40-66 were not written until and during the Babylonian captivity, then Lehi could not have taken that part of the book of Isaiah with him into the wilderness and subsequently brought it with him to America, where his son Nephi copied passages and whole chapters into the record he engraved upon plates called the plates of Nephi, [47] since Lehi left Jerusalem 600 years B. C.

The difficulty presented by the Higher Criticism is obvious, viz: If Joseph Smith is representing the first Nephi as transcribing into his Nephite records passages and whole chapters purporting to have been written by Isaiah, when as a matter of fact those chapters were not written until a hundred and twenty-five or a hundred and fifty years after Isaiah's death; and not until fifty years after Lehi's colony had departed from Jerusalem, then Joseph Smith is representing Nephi as doing that which is impossible, and throws the whole Book of Mormon under suspicion of being fraudulent. This, therefore, becomes a very interesting as well as a very important objection; and many among the Higher Critics will say a fatal one. Here it can only be treated in outline; it is undoubtedly worthy of exhaustive analysis.

The Book of Isaiah divides into two parts: first, chapters 1-39, universally allowed to be the work of the prophet Isaiah, whose ministry extended through the reigns of the four kings mentioned in Isaiah i:1; second, chapters 40-66, written by an unknown author, nearly one hundred and fifty years after Isaiah, sometimes called Isaiah II. It is claimed that these chapters 40-66; "form a continuous prophecy, dealing throughout with a common theme, viz, Israel's restoration from exile in Babylon. * * Jerusalem and the temple have been for long in ruins--the 'old waste places;' Israel is in exile." [48] It is to these conditions that the unknown prophet addresses himself. His object is to awaken faith in the certainty of an approaching restoration.

Three independent lines of argument are said to establish this theory of the authorship of chapters 40-66 in the Book of Isaiah:

(1) The internal evidence supplied by the prophecy itself points to this period [time of the captivity] as that at which it was written. It alludes repeatedly to Jerusalem as ruined and deserted; to the sufferings which the Jews have experienced, or are experiencing, at the hands of the Chaldaeans; to the prospect of return, which, as the prophet speaks, is imminent. Those whom the prophet addresses, and, moreover, addresses in person--arguing with them, appealing to them, striving to win their assent by his warm and impassioned rhetoric--are not the men of Jerusalem, contemporaries of Ahaz and Hezekiah, or even of Manasseh, they are the exiles in Babylonia. Judged by the analogy of prophecy, this constitutes the strongest possible presumption that the author actually lived in the period which he thus describes, and is not merely (as has been supposed) Isaiah immersed in spirit in the future, and holding converse, as it were, with the generations yet unborn. Such an immersion, in the future would be not only with parallel in the O. T., it would be contrary to the nature of prophecy. The prophet speaks always, in the first instance, to his own contemporaries: the message which he brings intimately related with the circumstances of his time; his promises and predictions, however far they reach into the future, nevertheless rest upon the basis of the history of his own age, and correspond to the needs which are then felt. The prophet never abandons his own historical position, but speaks from it. [49]

(2) The argument derived from the historic function of prophecy is confirmed by the literary style of c. 40-66, which is very different from that of Isaiah 1-39. Isaiah 1-39 shows strongly marked individualities of style; he is fond of particular images and phrases, many of which are used by no other writer of the O. T. Now, in the chapters which contain evident allusions to the age of Isaiah himself, these expressions occur repeatedly; in the chapters which are without such allusions, and which thus authorize prima facie the inference that they belong to a different, age, they are absent, and new images and phrases appear instead. This coincidence cannot be accidental. The subject of c. 40-66 is not so different from that of Isaiah's prophecies (e.g.) against the Assyrians, as to necessitate a new phraseology and rhetorical form. The differences can only be reasonably explained by the supposition of a change of author. [50]

(3) The theological ideas of c. 40-66 (in so far as they are not of that fundamental kind common to the prophets generally) differ remarkably from those which appear, from c. 1-39, to be distinctive of Isaiah. Thus, on the nature of God generally, the ideas expressed are much larger and fuller. Isaiah, for instance, depicts the majesty of Jehovah: in c. 40-66 the prophet emphasizes his infinitude; He is the Creator, the Sustainer of the universe, the Life-Giver, the Author of history, the First and the Last, the Incomparable One. This is a real difference. And yet it cannot be argued that opportunities for such assertions of Jehovah's power and Godhead would not have presented themselves naturally to Isaiah whilst he was engaged in defying the armies of Assyria. But, in truth, c. 40-66 show an advance upon Isaiah, not only in the substance of their theology, but also in the form in which it is presented; truths which are merely affirmed in Isaiah being here made the subject of reflection and argument. [51]

These arguments when expressed in these general terms seem quite formidable; but they are much stronger in general statement than when one follows the advocates of them through all the references cited by them in support of the theory; for then one is impressed with the very heavy weights which the Higher Criticism hangs on very slender threads. As before remarked, however, I may not go beyond outline treatment of the matter here.

The first thing those of us who believe Isaiah to be the author of the whole book through so many ages accredited to him, both by Jews and Christians--the first thing we have a right to demand of these innovators is: If Isaiah the prophet is not the author of the last twenty-seven chapters of the book that bears his name, who is the author? Confessedly chapters 40-66 of Isaiah are the most important part of the book. How is it that chapters 1-39 can be assigned an author, but the more important chapters 40-66 have to be assigned to an "unknown" author? Was knowledge in those antique times so imperfect that the author of such a remarkable production as Isaiah 40-66 could not be ascertained?

Second, there is no heading to this second division of Isaiah 40-66; and it is not true that this second part is unconnected with the first part. Allowing something to the spirit of prophecy in Isaiah, by which I mean a power to foresee events, which carries with it a power in the prophet to project himself into the midst of those things foreseen, and to speak from the midst of them as if they were present--as indeed they were to his consciousness--and there is an immediate connection between the two parts. Chapter 39 predicts the Babylonian captivity. Hezekiah has just been made to hear the word of the Lord--

Behold, the days come, that all that is in thine house, and that which thy fathers have laid up in store until this day, shall be carried to Babylon; nothing shall be left, saith the Lord.

And thy sons that shall issue from thee, which thou shalt beget, shall they take away; and they shall be eunuchs in the palace of the king of Babylon. (Isaiah 39:6-7.)

In the opening chapter of the supposed second division of Isaiah,