The reality that the Book of Mormon’s KJV voice may appear, at times, to be too familiar can be viewed as an asset rather than a liability. Intellectual Reserve, Inc.

ABSTRACT: This article examines how and why language from the KJV New Testament appears in the Book of Mormon. The expansion, condensation, and contextual reinterpretation of this material demonstrates sophisticated intertextuality rather than simple quotation. The essay surveys major scholarly approaches to explaining this matter, highlighting ongoing debates over who is responsible for the KJV phrasing in the English text of the Book of Mormon. The author explores reasons for this intertextual relationship, suggesting that the familiar biblical language helped the Book of Mormon “grow together” with the Bible and communicate effectively to its nineteenth-century audience. Religious educators should address these questions openly, emphasizing that the Book of Mormon’s engagement with the Bible should be viewed as a complex and meaningful feature of the text rather than as a challenge to its authenticity.

KEYWORDS: Book of Mormon, Book of Mormon translation theories, New Testament, intertexuality

During my decade or so working in the Department of Ancient Scripture at Brigham Young University, I have primarily taught two types of courses: those focused on the Book of Mormon and those focused on the New Testament. As such, rarely does a semester go by when I don’t have a student ask something like, “So there seems to be some passages in the Book of Mormon that read almost word for word like passages from the King James New Testament.[1] How do you explain that?”

They are generally comfortable with the language of the Book of Mormon being similar to passages from the King James Old Testament, since the Nephites had access to the brass plates, but the presence of the New Testament presents students with an entirely different question: How does a text (the New Testament) that wasn’t available to the Nephites (and in some cases wasn’t even written yet) appear hundreds of times in the Book of Mormon? And why does it appear in exactly or nearly exactly the same language as the King James Bible? I typically respond with, “Well, we just don’t fully understand at this point how Joseph Smith translated from the gold plates” and “The King James Bible was an important text for nineteenth-century Christians, so it makes sense that the inspired translation of the BoM would incorporate familiar biblical phraseology for concepts already expressed in the Bible.” If I get the sense that the student is satisfied, I move on. If they want to dig deeper, I take the time to introduce a couple of examples and walk them through the intricacies of intertextuality. I don’t want the question to hijack the lesson, but I certainly don’t want them to leave my classroom feeling like these types of questions are inappropriate or unanswerable.

I’m guessing that other religious educators have encountered similar questions from students. My aim with this essay is to provide a resource for those who are seeking ideas for helping their students come to a clearer understanding of three important questions: (1) How does the Book of Mormon use the language of the KJV New Testament?, (2) Who is responsible for its inclusion in the Book of Mormon?, and (3) Why does the Book of Mormon use the language of the KJV New Testament? First, I will evaluate Moroni 10:12–17. These verses, in my opinion, provide an ideal introduction to the nuances of that first question. Their message is digestible for our students and suggests one answer to how the Book of Mormon uses the New Testament. Second, I will explore how those verses inform readers about who is responsible for the presence of New Testament language, in this case language from 1 Corinthians 12:10–11, by discussing the different ways previous Book of Mormon scholars have attempted to deal with this issue. Third, I will tentatively answer why the Book of Mormon adopts and adapts New Testament language.

Moroni 10:12–17, 1 Corinthians 12:10–11, and the Question of How

Structure

Moroni 10:12–17 comes about halfway through the Book of Mormon’s concluding chapter, a few verses after Moroni’s famous promise. In these verses Moroni provides his personal witness to the reality of spiritual gifts and their potential charismatic power (i.e., their capacity to manifest divine power). In doing so, the English text relies heavily on the structure and language of Paul’s similar discussion with the Corinthian church preserved in KJV 1 Corinthians 12:10–11. Consider the following comparison of that passage with Moroni 10:12–17:[2]

To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues:
But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will. (1 Corinthians 12:10–11)

And again, to another, that he may work mighty miracles;
And again, to another, that he may prophesy concerning all things;
And again, to another, the beholding of angels and ministering spirits;
And again, to another, all kinds of tongues;
And again, to another, the interpretation of languages and of divers kinds of tongues.
And all these gifts come by the Spirit of Christ; and they come unto every man severally, according as he will. (Moroni 10:12–17)

If we consider only the structure of the two pericopes, their similarities quickly become apparent. In his address to the Corinthians, Paul utilized five repetitions of “to another,” each one followed by a specific charismatic gift. He then provided a summary statement that begins with “But all these” and ends with “as he will.” Moroni 10:12–17 adopts the same structure, building the pericope around five repetitions of “to another” and providing a summary statement beginning with “And all these” and ending with “as he will.” Furthermore, Paul describes five types of charismatic gifts: the working of miracles, the ability to provide prophecy, the viewing of spirits, speaking in tongues, and the interpretation of tongues. Moroni 10:12–17 follows this same order: miracles, prophecy, spirits, tongues, and interpretation of tongues.

The explicit similarity in structure strongly indicates that there is a relationship between the King James Bible’s translation of Paul’s writings in 1 Corinthians 12:10–11 and the English text of Moroni’s passage. There are simply too many points of contact to write this off as two prophets talking about spiritual gifts. Even if one wants to argue that there is a common source that both Paul and Moroni are familiar with and that both are structuring their Greek (Paul) and Reformed Egyptian (Moroni) passages based on a common source, that doesn’t explain the strong similarities that exist in the final, extant English versions.

Furthermore, it is noteworthy to me that the Book of Mormon text is rather obvious in how it adopts the language of KJV 1 Corinthians 12:10–11. There is no attempt to hide or obscure the source of the language. If the Book of Mormon wanted to downplay or disguise its reliance on the King James Bible, the text of Moroni 10:12–17 could have been switched up the order of the five charismatic gifts or could have been written “to one” instead of “to another.” To me, this signals that the English translation of the Book of Mormon is intentionally modeled after Paul’s English text and that the Lord intends it to be recognized as such.

Expanding the text

One of the more notable elements in the way that the Book of Mormon uses the New Testament is that the Book of Mormon does not just adopt text, it adapts text as well. In particular, this adaptation is often accomplished through expansion, meaning that the Book of Mormon text adds additional language to the New Testament text. At times, this expansion can simply be rhetorical, a way to differentiate the Book of Mormon text from the New Testament text without necessarily changing the meaning. For example, each of the five charismatic gifts in Moroni’s pericope includes the phrase “and again.” This addition or expansion doesn’t change the way a reader interprets the significance of the five charismatic gifts, but it does differentiate, however slightly, the two texts from one another and allow the Book of Mormon text something of its own identity.

This expansion can also occur in a fashion that does alter the specific meaning in the New Testament texts, adding interpretive levels. Consider, again, the five charismatic gifts. In each case, the Book of Mormon expands the scope of the gift, either through the addition of words or through shifting terminology. Paul’s “miracles” becomes Moroni’s “mighty miracles,” and Paul’s “diverse kinds of tongues” becomes Moroni’s “all kinds of tongues.” In both cases, the scope of the term (miracle/tongue) is expanded (mighty/all).

In the other three cases, the expansion is much more sophisticated and developed. Paul’s gift of “prophecy” becomes, for Moroni, “that he may prophesy concerning all things.” The shift from noun (prophecy) to verb (prophesy) is subtle, but Moroni has also added “concerning all things.” Likewise, Paul’s “discerning of spirits” expands into Moroni’s “the beholding of angels and ministering spirits.” The shift from one verb (discerning) to another (beholding) may again be subtle (although it does, I think, imply a more concrete experience), but rather than Paul’s simple term “spirits,” Moroni’s charismatic gift expands to include “angels and ministering spirits.” Finally, Paul’s rather straightforward “interpretation of tongues” becomes in Moroni 10:16 something much more complex: “the interpretation of languages and of divers kinds of tongues.” The result of this expansion is that Book of Mormon readers understand “interpretation” to include not one but two areas of focus: “languages” and “divers kinds of tongues.” Astute readers will likely notice that the phrase “divers kinds of tongues” is actually a quotation drawn from the previous charismatic gift and now reapplied in a new context; rather than “divers kinds of tongues” being the gift itself, as it was for Paul, it is now whatis being interpreted.

It is important to note that Moroni is far from the only Book of Mormon author to expand on the New Testament text. When the Book of Mormon adopts New Testament text, the adaptation often involves additional language. Consider the following two examples. The first is a rather simple example, with the inclusion of only two words:

And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. (John 1:14)

I say unto you, that I know of myself that whatsoever I shall say unto you, concerning that which is to come, is true; and I say unto you, that I know that Jesus Christ shall come, yea, the Son, the Only Begotten of the Father, full of grace, and mercy, and truth. And behold, it is he that cometh to take away the sins of the world, yea, the sins of every man who steadfastly believeth on his name. (Alma 5:48)

The second is a bit more complex:

For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body. (1 Corinthians 11:29)

For whoso eateth and drinketh my flesh and blood unworthily eateth and drinketh damnation to his soul; therefore if ye know that a man is unworthy to eat and drink of my flesh and blood ye shall forbid him. (3 Nephi 18:29)

In this second example, two things are expanded: the inclusion of “flesh and blood” and the stipulation that anyone who partakes of the sacrament unworthily should be forbidden.

Condensing the text

Although it occurs less often, another facet of the Book of Mormon’s adaptation comes through condensing the New Testament text. This feature can best be seen through the concluding statements in both pericopes:

But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will. (1 Corinthians 12:11)

And all these gifts come by the Spirit of Christ; and they come unto every man severally, according as he will. (Moroni 10:17)

In this case, the topic of discussion is the source of these charismatic gifts. For Paul, “all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit”—a rather wordy phrase that seems to refer to the Holy Ghost. Moroni tightens up Paul’s language by simply identifying the source of charismatic gifts as “the Spirit of Christ.” In this case, a slight condensing of Paul’s language provides clarity, although it is still a bit ambiguous whether Paul’s “spirit” is identical to Moroni’s “spirit of Christ.” This example of condensation is rather slight, but the following two examples demonstrate just how notable some of the Book of Mormon’s condensing can be:

The merchandise of gold, and silver, and precious stones, and of pearls, and fine linen, and purple, and silk, and scarlet, and all thyine wood, and all manner vessels of ivory, andall manner vessels of most precious wood, and of brass, and iron, and marble. (Revelation 18:12)

And I also saw gold, and silver, and silks, and scarlets, and fine-twined linen, and all manner of precious clothing; and I saw many harlots. (1 Nephi 13:7)

And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet. For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places. (Matthew 24:6–7)

And there shall also be heard of wars, rumors of wars, and earthquakes in divers places. (Mormon 8:30)

In both examples, lengthy New Testament catalogs (worldly items in the first example, catastrophes in the second) are adopted into the Book of Mormon text but have been considerably condensed. First Nephi 13’s catalog preserves about half of what Revelation 18 lists, and likewise Mormon 8 maintains the very first part of the verse and the very last five words found in Matthew 24 but eliminates everything in between.

As we consider how the Book of Mormon adopts and adapts New Testament texts, there are two key features to consider as we help our students work through this textual complexity. The first is that the Book of Mormon typically embraces its textual similarities with the New Testament. We can see in Moroni 10:12–17 that there is little to no attempt to camouflage or downplay its reliance on the King James Bible. Paul’s structure is maintained all the way through Moroni 10:12–17, down to the very order of the charismatic gifts. If the Book of Mormon text is comfortable highlighting this feature, then perhaps we as readers and teachers should be comfortable in expressing it openly (albeit with care). The second is that the Book of Mormon text alters the New Testament text. This may come through adding language to the New Testament quotations, or it may come through removing language, but in doing so it calls attention to these adaptations and thus places the burden on us as readers to interrogate these adaptations and strive to understand how they enrich and enlarge our understanding of the Book of Mormon. We shouldn’t be satisfied to simply identify the similarities and move on. The similarities are there for a reason, and the differences are there for a reason.

Moroni 10:12–17, 1 Corinthians 12:10–11, and the Question of Who

In most cases, walking through Moroni 10:12–17 with your students and pointing out points of contact and areas of expansion will naturally lead into our second question: Who, exactly, is placing the language of 1 Corinthians 12:10–11 into the text of Moroni 10:12–17? Is it Moroni? Joseph Smith? Jesus Christ? Somone else? And where and whenin the Book of Mormon composition process did this KJV text appear? Did the Book of Mormon authors have access to the KJV New Testament in some fashion? Is this intertextuality the result of revelation? Or did Joseph Smith use a KJV New Testament as he did his translation?

These questions did not appear to be pressing ones for Latter-day Saints during the nineteenth century, when greater concern was paid to proofs of the Book of Mormon’s divinity, such as in Orson Pratt’s Divine Authenticity of the Book of Mormon.[3] But beginning with B. H. Roberts, Book of Mormon scholars began to recognize the tension that adopting and adapting King James Bible language so pervasively placed on the Book of Mormon text.[4] Roberts observed that many Latter-day Saints, familiar with both the Urim and Thummim and the brown seer stone, subscribed to a view of translation in which the gold plates and the Book of Mormon were much more closely aligned:

Of late years the manner in which the Book of Mormon was translated is a subject that has been much discussed. Through a misconception, as I think, in relation to the part taken in the work of translation by the Urim-Thummim, it is charged by anti-Mormon writers from first to last, that the verbal errors and errors in grammar which occur in the translation must be assigned to the Lord—a thing unthinkable. The popular understanding among the Latter-day Saints of the manner in which the translation was wrought out by means of Urim-Thummim has been such as to attribute the errors of the translation to equivalent errors in the Nephite original, which, it is held, were brought over literally and arbitrarily into the English translation—a thing most absurd.[5]

Roberts, however, felt that such a view did not hold up to scrutiny. In a May 1906 issue of the Improvement Era, Roberts argued that “enough . . . is here apparent to make it plain that the Book of Mormon is not a ‘literal translation’ from the Nephite language, that is, in the sense of being brought over word for word and letter for letter from the Nephite into English,” which left the pressing question of who was responsible for the King James idiom: “Whose is it? The Urim and Thummim’s, the Lord’s, or is it Joseph Smith’s?”[6] When it came to the questions of who was responsible for the presence of biblical language, such as 1 Corinthians 12, in the Book of Mormon, Roberts wrote, “When Joseph Smith saw that the Nephite record was quoting the prophecies of Isaiah, of Malachi, or the words of the Savior, he took the English Bible and compared these passages as far as they paralleled each other, and finding that in substance they were alike, he adopted our English translation.”[7]

Roberts’s views on the translation of the Book of Mormon quickly became known as the manual theory of translation (due to its origins in a Young Men’s MIA manual for 1903–1904) and placed the origin of King James English within the Book of Mormon on Joseph Smith. Roberts felt that those who supported the idea that Joseph Smith had simply performed a “mechanical procedure” in reading the Book of Mormon text off a stone had misunderstood statements made by men such as David Whitmer or Martin Harris. Instead, Roberts drew on the language of Doctrine and Covenants 9 to explain “the manner in which he translated the Book of Mormon,” meaning that Joseph Smith looked into the stones and “saw there by the power of God and the gift of God to him, the ancient Nephite characters, and by bending every power of his mind to know the meaning thereof, the interpretation wrought out in his mind by this effort . . . was reflected in the sacred instrument, there to remain until correctly written by the scribe.”[8] Thus The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints now moved forward into the twentieth century with two working models of Book of Mormon translation: one in which Joseph Smith read English words off an instrument and one in which Joseph used “every power of his mind” to render the language of the gold plates into English.

The next half century or so was largely spent exploring the tension created through Roberts’s manual theory. Sidney B. Sperry, speaking specifically about 1 Corinthians 12 and Moroni 10, noted, “That there is more than a casual connection between these two scriptures is apparent to everyone. To be sure, there are great differences between the two texts, but great likenesses also exist.” Sperry’s solution was similar to Roberts’s: “When the prophet Joseph Smith came to a passage which contained statements which reminded him of similar ones in the New Testament, he was doubtless influenced by their wording and used them whenever it was possible to do so.”[9] In a response printed in the Church News section of the Deseret News on July 29, 1961, Hugh Nibley largely avoided the question of who was responsible but did tackle the question of where. Speaking specifically about the connections between 1 Corinthians 13 and Moroni 7 (a comparison quite similar to our case study), Nibley argued that such connections could easily be explained through the existence of an ur-text, an older source that was available to both Paul and the Nephites, something Nibley felt was “a confirmation of the authenticity of the Book of Mormon when Paul and Moroni both quote from a once well-known but now lost Hebrew writing.”[10] Finally, in a 1977 Ensign article, Richard Lloyd Anderson largely reinforced Roberts’s manual theory, writing that “the language in the sections of the Book of Mormon that correspond to parts of the Bible is quite regularly selected by Joseph Smith, rather than obtained through independent translation.”[11] Anderson is likely referring to the extensive Isaiah quotations with this statement, but his observations could presumably apply to our case study as well.

The publication of Anderson’s article in the Ensign may have suggested to some that Roberts’s manual theory had become, at least implicitly, the official position of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. But a 1987 Dialogue article called Roberts’s theory into question. This article, penned by Latter-day Saint lawyer Blake Ostler, pushed against the idea of Joseph Smith’s contribution to the translation of the Book of Mormon to a point that some Latter-day Saints found uncomfortable. Ostler argued that the Book of Mormon essentially occupied a space between legitimate ancient document and modern English text. According to Ostler, Joseph Smith

provided unrestricted and authoritative commentary, interpretation, explanation, and clarifications based on insights from the ancient Book of Mormon text and the King James Bible (KJV). The result is a modern world view and theological understanding superimposed on the Book of Mormon text from the plates.

Thus the Book of Mormon is best understood as

an ancient text mediated through the mind of Joseph Smith, who attempted to render its message in categories of understanding that were meaningful to him and his contemporaries.[12]

Ostler was up-front in revealing that he brought “a believer’s experience” to his analysis of the Book of Mormon, and his theory was likely an attempt to find a suitable middle ground between the increasing criticism that some scholars were bringing to the text and those who generally resisted any critique of the book. One scholar, Stephen E. Robinson, lamenting that Ostler’s theory required believing members of the Church “to accept as givens three a priori assumptions which are inimical to the teachings of the Church and which are, I believe, merely camouflaged capitulation to the arguments of the Church’s opponents.”[13] In a sense, Ostler was simply pushing Roberts’s manual theory to its logical conclusion: If Joseph Smith could include, through some revelatory process, his own language and wording in the Book of Mormon, could he not also have influenced the Christianized portrayal of certain events, such as describing King Benjamin’s address in ways that alluded to nineteenth-century Christian revivals?

Some Latter-day Saint scholars responded by returning to the primary position held by many believers before Roberts, namely, the idea that the text of the gold plates and the English text of the Book of Mormon were very closely aligned. John W. Welch posited that the Book of Mormon’s internal quotations, the presence of chiasmus, its careful and accurate use of legal terminology, and its “remarkable textual complexity” all suggest (along with the statements of witnesses to the translation such as David Whitmer) that the English Book of Mormon “corresponded in some way, point-by-point, with the ancient writing that was being translated . . . , although one cannot know in all cases how close that relationship or connection was.”[14] Brigham Young University linguistics professor Royal Skousen advocated for a view of translation similar to that of Welch and helpfully suggested three categories: “iron-clad control” (meaning that the language in the English Book of Mormon matches exactly the language from the stones and that mistakes were immediately remedied), “loose control” (meaning that Joseph Smith could have had some input and volition in the way the language of the English Book of Mormon appeared), and Skousen’s own choice, “tight control” (meaning that the language of the English Book of Mormon was revealed to Joseph Smith and he read it off the stones, but mistakes, such as spelling, could be made).[15]

According to the Gospel Topics essay published on the Church’s official website, it appears that the position of Welch and Skousen has, by and large, won the day. The statements of Martin Harris and David Whitmer (which were rejected by Roberts) play a key role, as does a statement from Emma Smith stating that Joseph “had neither manuscript nor book to read from,”[16] making it highly unlikely for Joseph himself to have provided the extensive biblical quotations present in the Book of Mormon, such as Moroni 10:12–17. Yet the Bible is there. First Corinthians 12:11–12 is there. As Book of Mormon scholar Brant Gardner has cheekily observed, “Joseph was reading the KJV Bible, but he wasn’t reading the KJV Bible? What a delicious conundrum.”[17]

So where does that leave us regarding our case study of Moroni 10:12–17 and the questions of who and its related questions of when and where? How should readers understand, on the one hand, the clear and obvious presence of 1 Corinthians 12:11–12 while, on the other hand, interpreting the changes that have been made to Paul’s discussion of charismatic gifts? The historiographic discussion in this section suggests that there are generally two interpretive options: the manual theory put forth by B. H. Roberts, followed by Sidney Sperry, Richard Anderson, and Blake Ostler, and the tight control theory, championed by Royal Skousen and John Welch. The when and where in this case are pretty straightforward. For those in the first camp, Moroni 10:12–17 is in the Book of Mormon because the KJV Bible was used as part of the translation process. For those in the second camp, Moroni 10:12–17 is present because that text appeared on the stone(s) and was transcribed in a tight or precise fashion.

The who is also straightforward for those in the first camp: Joseph Smith was responsible for Moroni 10:12–17 reading the way it does, either because he opened up a Bible and relied on it during the translation process or because he visualized it in some fashion in his mind, perhaps due to memory.[18] But it becomes more complicated to account for the who in the second camp. Words appeared on the stone(s) and were then read off by Joseph Smith and recorded by a scribe, but who is the source of these English words? In other words, who composed the KJV English version of Moroni 10:12–17 that appeared on the stones(s) and was recited by Joseph Smith? Did Moroni, as caretaker of the plates, provide an English translation? Was there a divine scripture committee that worked behind the scenes to compose the English text? Or was Roberts on the right track when he suggested that Joseph could somehow bend “every power of his mind” to formulate the English text? The identity of who remains one of the more provocative questions for those who ascribe to the theory of tight control.

Moroni 10:12–17, 1 Corinthians 12:10–11, and the Question of Why

We now have a better sense for how Moroni 10:12–17 adopts and adapts the text of 1 Corinthians 12:11–12, and we may even have a better sense for who is responsible for putting it there. This leaves us with the question of why. Why would the Lord sanction a divinely revealed record of men and women who lived between 600 BC and 431 AD to contain clear and obvious quotations from and allusions to the King James Bible, a record published in AD 1611?[19] After all, the presence of the KJV Bible within the pages of the Book of Mormon was one of the earliest weapons critics used to undermine the book’s historicity.[20] Sidney B. Sperry called it a “literary problem.”[21] Hugh Nibley referred to it as the third “most devastating argument against the Book of Mormon.”[22] Even without considering the lost 116 pages or the sealed portion, there was (presumably) plenty of content on the gold plates without having to include New Testament quotations and allusions.

Some answers to the question may be provided by the Book of Mormon itself. For example, 2 Nephi contains a lengthy quotation from the brass plates that is a prophecy made by Joseph of Egypt about a “choice seer” (Joseph Smith). The prophecy contains the following verse:

Wherefore, the fruit of thy loins shall write; and the fruit of the loins of Judah shall write; and that which shall be written by the fruit of thy loins, and also that which shall be written by the fruit of the loins of Judah, shall grow together, unto the confounding of false doctrines and laying down of contentions, and establishing peace among the fruit of thy loins, and bringing them to the knowledge of their fathers in the latter days, and also to the knowledge of my covenants, saith the Lord. (2 Nephi 3:12)

This verse speaks to the coming forth of two books, one from the loins of Joseph and one from the loins of Judah. The latter, presumably, is the Bible, the record of the tribe of Judah. The former, then, would presumably be the Book of Mormon, the record of Joseph’s descendants. Joseph is told by the Lord that these two records “shall grow together,” leaving readers with the question of what, exactly, does this mean? How will these two records be unified? One possibility is that they will share the same language, the same idiom—that of the King James Bible.[23]

Another example that speaks to the unification of the Bible and the Book of Mormon is found in Mormon 7, the last chapter penned by Mormon before turning over the record to his son Moroni. As with the prophecy of Joseph cited above, Mormon’s concern is to illustrate the close relationship between the Bible and the Book of Mormon:

Therefore repent, and be baptized in the name of Jesus, and lay hold upon the gospel of Christ, which shall be set before you, not only in this record but also in the record which shall come unto the Gentiles from the Jews, which record shall come from the Gentiles unto you. For behold, this is written for the intent that ye may believe that; and if ye believe that ye will believe this also; and if ye believe this ye will know concerning your fathers, and also the marvelous works which were wrought by the power of God among them. (Mormon 7:8–9)

Here, “this” refers to Mormon’s record, the Book of Mormon. One of the intents in writing and preserving the Book of Mormon will be so its readers will believe “that,” namely the Bible. Likewise, those who believe in “that” (the Bible) will be predisposed to believe in “this” (the Book of Mormon). While Mormon’s explicit discussion centers around key doctrines and awareness of important covenants, it is possible that the language of the King James Bible, such as Moroni 10:12–17, was adopted to make the connection between the two texts tighter.

Moving beyond the text of the Book of Mormon itself, Hugh Nibley has presented a helpful argument for why the Book of Mormon contains such explicit textual connections with the KJV Bible. Nibley asks, “Why should anyone quoting the Bible to American readers of 1830 not follow the only version of the Bible known to them?” He follows up with a comparison with Jesus and the New Testament apostles, who, when quoting scripture, do not give “their own inspired translations” but quote from the Septuagint “because that happened to be the received standard version of the Bible accepted by the readers of the Greek New Testament.” As to the specific issue of New Testament quotations, such as our case study of Moroni 10:12–17, Nibley responds, “True, it is the same Savior speaking in both, and the same Holy Ghost, and so we can expect the same doctrines in the same language” (emphasis added). The solution, for Nibley, was that the scripture of the nineteenth century was the King James Bible, meaning that any scripture that came forth in the nineteenth century needed to look and sound like the King James Bible: “Furthermore, the Book of Mormon is full of scripture, and for the world of Joseph Smith’s day, the King James Version was the Scripture, as we have noted; large sections of the Book of Mormon, therefore, had to be in the language of the King James Version.”[24]

Nibley’s observations are, I think, helpful in understanding why the King James Bible would have such a critical influence on the language of the Book of Mormon. The emergence of the Book of Mormon in the nineteenth century presented a threat to a Protestant society heavily reliant on the ideal of sola scriptura. Thus the need to present the Book of Mormon in a way that would avoid alienating the Book of Mormon’s primary audience of faithful, Bible-believing Christians. As Philip Barlow has observed,

The new “gold bible” would have been incomprehensible apart from a biblical context. It was printed in biblical fashion as a collection of books, originally divided into chapters of material common to the Bible. The subjects of its narrative were originally biblical peoples, many of its episodes paralleled biblical stories, and it purported both to prophesy of the Bible as a book and to be itself a fulfillment of biblical prophecy.[25]

As such, the Book of Mormon, with its King James idiom, appears right at home in a nation where, since its inception, “the Bible sanctified all manner of public speech” and “colonists drew on scripture rhetorically—not exactly to discern the will of God but more to enlist God’s words.”[26] As historian Mark A. Noll has noted, in the years shortly after the publication of the Book of Mormon, the Bible and its language would once again take center stage in the increasingly antagonistic debates over slavery and abolition: “When in the early 1830s slavery emerged as the focus of intense national debate, the question of scripture and interpretation moved front and center. In a national culture where the Word of God enjoyed an exalted place, spokespersons scrambled to enlist scripture as support for their contradictory positions in this hyper-contentious debate.”[27] In a culture where the Bible “enjoyed an exalted place,” would a book of scripture written in any other way have gained the traction necessary to propel the Restoration forward?

The particular timing of the Book of Mormon’s coming forth was, of course, critical. The Book of Mormon was not alone in presenting itself in what scholar Eran Shalev has termed “pseudobiblicism”—that is, political tracts and other texts written in a manner that mimics the language of the King James Bible. But unlike many of the popular pseudobiblical texts of the day, the Book of Mormon eschewed the “blunt polemics that characterized many of the political pseudobiblical texts.”[28] By contrast, nineteenth-century texts that claimed divine visitations or visions largely avoided imitating the language of the King James Bible. The Book of Mormon thus occupied a sweet spot in nineteenth-century perceptions of the Bible and the use of biblical language in that it could not be easily lumped in with other texts of the day that presented similar content or similar language. But, notably, such pseudobiblicism fell out of favor shortly after the Book of Mormon’s publication. According to Shalev, “Published later, the Book of Mormon might not have benefitted from Americans’ fascination with pseudobiblicism. . . . By the time the effects of the decline were felt, however, the Book of Mormon had gained a momentum of its own.”[29]

So is this the answer to why the Book of Mormon relies so heavily on the King James Bible for its language? It is certainly onepossible answer. The first few decades of the nineteenth century were a time when responses to the Book of Mormon, a text that simultaneously appeared to both invite and challenge comparisons to the Bible, would be most effective. As such, the Book of Mormon needed to speak to these particular people “after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding” (Doctrine and Covenants 1:24). The work of Steven C. Harper has demonstrated that the Book of Mormon did in fact speak to people of the time. Harper notes that “those who became Mormons were most always first contemplative Bible believers who were skeptical of false prophets.”[30] What they needed, in an age of increasing rationality and dependance on common sense, was proof, and many early converts found the proof they needed within the pages of the Book of Mormon as they compared it with the Bible.

While focusing on the historical circumstances of the Book of Mormon’s publication gives us an answer as to why the Book of Mormon contains passages such as Moroni 10:12–17, it does not necessarily mean that it is the only answer or even the best answer. John W. Welch, in his own comparison between Matthew 5–7 and 3 Nephi 12–14, agrees with much of Nibley’s reasoning when it comes to the larger quotations from the Bible but still questions how to understand other textual overlaps:

Points such as these may sufficiently justify the similarities between the English Sermon at the Temple and the King’s English in the Sermon on the Mount, but they do not explain the origins of the overwhelming preponderance of identical phraseology in these two translations. Something more than mere vocabulary, the needs of the audience, or the adequacy of the meaning is necessary to account for the nearly identical correspondence of expressions between these two texts.[31]

Concluding Thoughts

In his recent book The Annotated Book of Mormon, Grant Hardy includes a wonderful essay about the relationship between the Bible and the Book of Mormon. Speaking of the different intertextual connections, Hardy writes: “While many of the biblical phrases in the Book of Mormon seem somewhat random, like a friendly nod from one book to another, others exhibit a surprising degree of cleverness or sophistication when they interlock into complicated patterns, or assume a knowledge of the original context, or creatively adapt the wording of the King James Bible.”[32] I agree with Hardy—the way the Book of Mormon engages the Bible is truly one of the most remarkable elements of this most remarkable book. The struggle comes in relaying this complexity in a way that allows our students to see and appreciate this as a witness of the Book of Mormon’s divinity rather than some sign of human frailty. Is this intertextuality a problem? Perhaps. But it is not a problem without a solution, as I have tried to sketch out here. For those who may find themselves pondering, as I often do, the best way to navigate this intertextual minefield, I recommend focusing on three broad points, represented by the three parts of this essay.

First, have a specific example of New Testament language in the Book of Mormon ready to comment on. I find that Moroni 10:12–17 works well for me, which is why I chose it as the case study for this paper, but other possibilities include 1 Nephi 10 / John 1 and Moroni 7 / 1 Corinthians 13. Moroni 10:12–17 allows the students to see two broad themes: (1) The New Testament language is clearly and intentionally present in the text; and (2) the Book of Mormon authors frequently adapt the New Testament language to fit their needs, either through expansion or condensation. This allows students to see that the Book of Mormon does not simply copy the Bible; rather, it takes the textual seeds and helps them to grow into something unique.

Second, be ready to walk through different possibilities regarding the questions of who, when, and where. I find that wanting a resolution to some variation of these questions is what typically causes a student to ask the question in the first place. This doesn’t need to be a lengthy discussion, but laying out, for example, the manual theory alongside the tight control theory can show students that there are different ways to visualize the Book of Mormon’s composition. I find that my students do not necessarily need to know which one I personally subscribe to; they just appreciate knowing the possibilities and feeling like I am not hiding something from them.

Finally, the discussion inevitably turns to an additional question of why the Lord would choose to put something in the Book of Mormon that would cause so much confusion and debate. This is where I find it helpful to say something about the why. The Book of Mormon came forth at a specific, predesignated time. Jesus himself instructed the Nephites on the circumstances of the Book of Mormon’s coming forth in 3 Nephi 21. Thus we can presume that the Lord selected the early nineteenth century for a reason. Additionally, the Book of Mormon states again and again that it is specifically addressing future generations and that its authors were aware of our modern challenges and circumstances.[33] They understood how to write in a manner that would resonate with modern readers through a “familiar spirit” (2 Nephi 26:16).[34] The reality that the Book of Mormon’s KJV voice may appear, at times, to be too familiar should be viewed, in my opinion, as an asset rather than a liability.

As religious educators, we certainly don’t want to shut the door and come down too quickly on those inquisitive students who may be concerned that the presence of New Testament intertextuality within the Book of Mormon is, first and foremost, clear and straightforward evidence that Joseph Smith plagiarized the Bible in composing the Book of Mormon. After all, once you see the biblical connections, it’s hard to unsee them, and sometimes the most obvious answer can be the easiest one to adopt. For cases like this, I recommend leaning on Hardy’s observation that the Book of Mormon integrates New Testament language with a “surprising degree of cleverness of sophistication.” Here are ten Book of Mormon passages that I believe exemplify Hardy’s claims of sophistication in terms of their structure and how they contextualize and even recontextualize the Book of Mormon.[35]

Example 1

Howbeit Jesus suffered him not, but saith unto him, Go home to thy friends, and tell them how great things the Lord hath done for thee, and hath had compassion on thee. (Mark 5:19)

Yea, and how is it that ye have forgotten what great things the Lord hath done for us, in delivering us out of the hands of Laban, and also that we should obtain the record? (1 Nephi 7:11)

In this example, the first passage, spoken by Jesus to the Gadarene demoniac after Jesus has exorcised “Legion,” now appears in the mouth of Nephi as he is describing his deliverance from Laban. A key contrast is made between the now-faithful demoniac and the still-faithless Laman and Lemuel.

Example 2

And I will shew wonders in the heavens and in the earth, blood, and fire, and pillars of smoke. (Joel 2:30)

And I will shew wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke. (Acts 2:19)

Behold, my brethren, I say unto you, that these things must shortly come; yea, even blood, and fire, and vapor of smoke must come; and it must needs be upon the face of this earth; and it cometh unto men according to the flesh if it so be that they will harden their hearts against the Holy One of Israel. (1 Nephi 22:18)

In this example, an Old Testament prophecy from Joel is paraphrased by both Nephi and Peter in 1 Nephi 22:18 and Acts 2:19, yet the language of Nephi’s paraphrase more closely follows Peter’s version than it does Joel’s. This suggests that even when the Book of Mormon could easily quote from the KJV Old Testament, it chooses the KJV New Testament.

Example 3

O wretched man that I am! Who shall deliver me from the body of this death? (Romans 7:24)

Nevertheless, notwithstanding the great goodness of the Lord, in showing me his great and marvelous works, my heart exclaimeth: O wretched man that I am! Yea, my heart sorroweth because of my flesh; my soul grieveth because of mine iniquities. (2 Nephi 4:17)

In these examples, the Book of Mormon text mirrors the context of the New Testament passage as both Paul and Nephi ponder their fallen state and recognize the absolute need for a loving Savior and Redeemer.

Example 4

And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized. (Acts 9:18)

And then shall they rejoice; for they shall know that it is a blessing unto them from the hand of God; and their scales of darkness shall begin to fall from their eyes; and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a pure and a delightsome people. (2 Nephi 30:6)

Here the theme of physical blindness (in the case of Paul) has been reworked into an example of spiritual blindness (in the case of the Lamanites).

Example 5

And he said unto her, Daughter, thy faith hath made thee whole; go in peace, and be whole of thy plague. (Mark 5:34; compare Matthew 9:22; Mark 10:52; Luke 8:48; 17:19)

And he said unto me: Because of thy faith in Christ, whom thou hast never before heard nor seen. . . . wherefore go to, thy faith hath made thee whole. (Enos 1:8)

Similar to the above passages, an example of something physical has been reworked in the Book of Mormon into something spiritual. In this case, the first passage speaks to the physical healing of the woman with the issue of blood, while the second witnesses to the spiritual healing of Enos, with faith in both cases being the determining factor.

Example 6

Saying, Let us alone; what have we to do with thee, thou Jesus of Nazareth? art thou come to destroy us? I know thee who thou art, the Holy One of God. (Mark 1:24; compare Matthew 8:29)

And now when the king had heard these words, he said unto his priests: Away with this fellow, and slay him; for what have we to do with him, for he is mad. (Mosiah 13:1)

In this example, language originally placed in the mouths of evil spirits or demons has been recontextualized to be words spoken by King Noah, suggesting that he is an evil spirit or demon that must be exorcised from the Nephite people.

Example 7

To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God. (Acts 1:3)

And it came to pass that Alma, having authority from God, ordained priests; even one priest to every fifty of their number did he ordain to preach unto them, and to teach them concerning the things pertaining to the kingdom of God. (Mosiah 18:18)

This is another example of the Book of Mormon mirroring the New Testament context. Here both passages speak to the shared context of the blessings that can arise from the establishment of a new church.

Example 8

One Lord, one faith, one baptism. (Ephesians 4:5)

That their hearts might be comforted, being knit together in love, and unto all riches of the full assurance of understanding, to the acknowledgement of the mystery of God, and of the Father, and of Christ. (Colossians 2:2)

And the Lord make you to increase andabound in love one toward another, and toward all men, even as we do toward you. (1 Thessalonians 3:12)

And he commanded them that there should be no contention one with another, but that they should look forward with one eye, having one faith and one baptism, having their hearts knit together inunity and in love one towards another. (Mosiah 18:21)

This example is instructive in helping readers see just how complicated the structure of some of the intertextuality can be. In this instance, phrases from three different New Testament texts combine to form one Book of Mormon verse.

Example 9

And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. (John 1:14)

I say unto you, that I know of myself that whatsoever I shall say unto you, concerning that which is to come, is true; and I say unto you, that I know that Jesus Christ shall come, yea, the Son, the Only Begotten of the Father, full of grace, and mercy, and truth. And behold, it is he that cometh to take away the sins of the world, yea, the sins of every man who steadfastly believeth on his name. (Alma 5:48)

And not many days hence the Son of God shall come in his glory; and his glory shall be the glory of the Only Begotten of the Father, full of grace, equity, and truth, full of patience, mercy, and long-suffering, quick to hear the cries of his people and to answer their prayers. (Alma 9:26)

In this example, John’s language of Jesus being “full of grace and truth” has been adapted to fit two very different contexts. To the city of Zarahemla, Alma the Younger inserts the word “mercy” between “grace” and “truth,” perhaps suggesting that the Lord will hear and bless them for their repentance. However, to the city of Ammonihah, a city that is about to be destroyed, Alma replaces “mercy” with “equity.” In both cases, the choice of words inserted between “grace” and “truth” foreshadows the results of Alma’s missionary efforts.

Example 10

And when he thus had spoken, he cried with a loud voice, Lazarus, come forth. (John 11:43)

And it came to pass that she went and took the queen by the hand, that perhaps she might raise her from the ground; and as soon as she touched her hand she arose and stood upon her feet, and cried with a loud voice, saying: O blessed Jesus, who has saved me from an awful hell! O blessed God, have mercy on this people! (Alma 19:29).

Here we encounter two similar scenes, the miraculous raising up of two individuals, yet the role of Jesus in the Johannine account is echoed, in a delightful fashion, by both Abish and the Lamanite queen.[36]

As I reflect on the writing of this essay and consider the question of why the KJV New Testament is present in the pages of the Book of Mormon, there are two important points that stand out to me above all. First, there are many questions we don’t have firm answers to when it comes to the composition of the English Book of Mormon, and that’s OK. We don’t always need to have the answers to every question, no matter how much we may want them. Second, these questions should not detract readers of the Book of Mormon from the fact that this book is sacred and has divine origins. It is a text directed by the hand of Providence specifically for these latter days. Our students will continue to have questions about the Book of Mormon—the how and the who and the why. But in our efforts to confront New Testament language, we must not allow my the book’s divine origins to be left unstated. The Book of Mormon is a remarkable book of scripture, one that has greatly influenced me and will no doubt continue to do so as I continue to study and ponder its words. I particularly appreciate its complexities, such as its relationship with the Bible, and am excited about what this marvelous text will reveal to us in the years to come.

Notes

[1] Second Nephi 4:17/Romans 7:24 and Moroni 7:45/1 Corinthians 13:4–8 are the most common comparisons made by my students.

[2] Words that are bolded and underlined are shared between the two passages. Words that are italicized are key terms that are synonymous but not exact.

[3] This is not to say that critics of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints didn’t note the presence of the Bible in the Book of Mormon. In his critique of the Book of Mormon, Alexander Campbell noted the extensive presence of what he termed “Smithisms”—King James phrases and biblical doctrines that seemed anachronistic for a text written in the sixth century B.C.—even noting that “Smith makes Nephi say the same things 600 years before Paul was converted” (Alexander Campbell, “Delusions,” The Millennial Harbinger 2 [February 1831]: 85–96). M. T. Lamb provided a more nuanced critique in his work The Golden Bible, saying that the presence of biblical text within the Book of Mormon “settles the question of the modern origin of the book beyond the possibility of dispute” (The Golden Bible, Or the Book of Mormon: Is It from God? [Ward & Drummond, 1887], 239).

[4] A helpful discussion of the context of Roberts’s work on Book of Mormon translation and the development of the so-called manual theory can be found in Jeff Lindsay, “Through a Glass Darkly: Restoring Translation to the Restoration?,” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 63 (2025): 169–202. Lindsay helpfully observes that “Roberts’s approach was not driven by data, but by an apologetic goal of defending Joseph from some misguided criticisms of his day” (178).

[5] B. H. Roberts, “The Manner of Translating the Book of Mormon,” foreword to Defense of the Faith and the Saints (Deseret Book, 1907), 1:253.

[6] B. H. Roberts, “Translation of the Book of Mormon: Answers to Questions Respecting the Theory in the Senior Manual, 1905–6,” Improvement Era 9, no. 7 (May 1906): 548. For more see Truman G. Madsen, “B. H. Roberts and the Book of Mormon,” in Book of Mormon Authorship: New Light on Ancient Origins, ed. Noel B. Reynolds (Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1982), 7–32.

[7] B. H. Roberts, New Witnesses for God (Deseret News, 1909), 3:429.

[8] Roberts, New Witnesses for God, 2:138.

[9] Sidney B. Sperry, The Problems of the Book of Mormon (Bookcraft, 1964), 114, 121.

[10] Hugh Nibley, The Prophetic Book of Mormon, vol. 8 of The Collected Works of Hugh Nibley (Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies; Deseret Book, 1989), 216.

[11] Richard Lloyd Anderson, “By the Gift and Power of God,” Ensign, September 1977. Anderson quotes Daniel Ludlow, who (writing about the Isaiah passages in the Book of Mormon) suggested, “There appears to be only one answer to explain the word-for-word similarities between the verses of Isaiah in the Bible and the same verses in the Book of Mormon. When Joseph Smith translated the Isaiah references from the small plates of Nephi, he evidently opened his King James Version of the Bible and compared the impression he had received in translating with the words of the King James scholars. If his translation was essentially the same as that of the King James version, he apparently quoted the verse from the Bible” (Daniel H. Ludlow, A Companion to Your Study of the Book of Mormon [Deseret Book, 1976], 141).

[12] 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.

[13] Stephen E. Robinson, “The ‘Expanded’ Book of Mormon?,” in The Book of Mormon: Second Nephi, the Doctrinal Structure, ed. Monte S. Nyman and Charles D. Tate Jr. (Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 1989), 413.

[14] John W. Welch, The Sermon at the Temple and the Sermon on the Mount (Deseret Book, 1990), 140–41. Welch adds that while the theory of translation advocated by Roberts, Sperry, and others has “some attractiveness and convenience, I am less inclined toward it today than they were, or than I was ten years ago. It is neither a necessary nor exclusive explanation” (Welch, Sermon at the Temple, 135–36).

[15] Royal Skousen, “How Joseph Smith Translated the Book of Mormon,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 7, no. 1 (1998): 24.

[16] “Book of Mormon Translation,” Gospel Topics Essays, www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/history/topics/book-of-mormon-translation.

[17] Brant A. Gardner, The Gift and Power: Translating the Book of Mormon (Greg Kofford, 2011), 305. Gardner’s book is, in my opinion, the best attempt to weigh all the complexities involved in Book of Mormon translation. He offers a slight critique of Skousen’s three categories and places in their stead what he terms “Literal Equivalence,” “Functional Equivalence,” and “Conceptual Equivalence.”

[18] Welch observes, “While there is no evidence that Joseph could recite verbatim long sections of Isaiah and Matthew, one may certainly assume that he had read or heard those chapters several times around the family hearth. This would make it possible for the powers of inspiration to draw these words out of his memory and put them extraordinarily at his disposal, causing him to recall them, even though they would have been buried too deep in his brain to be remembered voluntarily” (Welch, Sermon at the Temple, 136).

[19] Helpful here is a summary of Nibley’s position given by Welch: “It is counterintuitive for one to imagine that Joseph would have included long passages in the Book of Mormon, closely resembling several chapters from Isaiah, as well as the Sermon on the Mount, if he did not need to. He would not have been so stupid as to copy unnecessarily and thereby create an obvious problem for the Book of Mormon” (Welch, Sermon at the Temple, 135).

[20] “The fact that so great a proportion of the whole book being made from quotations from the Bible, a part of which was not written until six hundred years after the pretended period of our author, places the matter beyond controversy, and is conclusive testimony that the author was an infidel” (Eber D. Howe, Mormonism Unvailed, ed. Dan Vogel [Signature Books, 2015], 101–2.

[21] Sperry, Problems of the Book of Mormon, 113.

[22] Nibley, Prophetic Book of Mormon, 214.

[23] Ezekiel’s prophecy preserved in Ezekiel 37:15–17 is often interpreted in a similar fashion by Latter-day Saints. For example, Elder Quentin L. Cook taught, “As we contemplate the relationship between the Bible and the Book of Mormon as handheld devices, one might ask a question. How useful and complementary do you think two books would be if the Lord declared they would be joined together and ‘become one in thine hand’? That is what the Lord declared concerning the ‘stick of Judah,’ the Bible, and the ‘stick of Joseph,’ the Book of Mormon” (“Sacred Scriptures—The Foundations of Faith,” Liahona, November 2024, 113). See also Joseph M. Spencer, “The Sticks of Judah and Joseph: Reflections on Defending the Kingdom,” in They Shall Grow Together: The Bible in the Book of Mormon, ed. Charles Swift and Nicholas J. Frederick [Religious Studies Center, 2022], 303–26).

[24] Nibley, Prophetic Book of Mormon, 215.

[25] Philip L. Barlow, Mormons and the Bible: The Place of the Latter-day Saints in American Religion, updated edition (Oxford University Press, 2013), 27.

[26] Mark A. Noll, In the Beginning Was the Word: The Bible in American Public Life, 1492–1783 (Oxford University Press, 2015), 326, 327.

[27] Noll, In the Beginning Was the Word, 119.

[28] Eran Shalev, American Zion: The Old Testament as a Political Text from the Revolution to the Civil War (Yale University Press, 2013), 106.

[29] Shalev, American Zion, 105.

[30] Steven C. Harper, “Infallible Proofs, Both Human and Divine: The Persuasiveness of Mormonism for Early Converts,” Religion and American Culture 10, no. 1 (2000): 104.

[31] Welch, Sermon at the Temple, 138.

[32] Grant Hardy, The Annotated Book of Mormon (Oxford University Press, 2023), 764.

[33] See, for example, 2 Nephi 27:1, 4–5; Mormon 8:27–41; 9:1–6, 27–37.

[34] Second Nephi 26:16 is another place where the Book of Mormon creatively adopts and adapts KJV language, in this case Isaiah 29:4.

[35] There are many more wonderful examples of intertextuality between the New Testament and the Book of Mormon beyond just these ten. For more examples, see Nicholas J. Frederick, “The Language of Paul in the Book of Mormon,” in They Shall Grow Together, ed. Swift and Frederick, 205–34; Nicholas J. Frederick, “Finding Meaning(s) in How the Book of Mormon Uses the New Testament,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 30, no. 1 (2021): 1–35; Nicholas J. Frederick, “The Book of Mormon and Its Redaction of the King James New Testament: A Further Evaluation of the Interaction Between the New Testament and the Book of Mormon,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 27, no. 1 (2018): 44–87; and Nicholas J. Frederick, “What Has Moroni to Do with John?,” Religious Educator 14, no. 3 (2013): 93–109.

[36] There are six phrases in all shared between the stories in John 11 and Alma 19 that serve to adapt the Johannine account in some pretty remarkable ways. See Nicholas J. Frederick and Joseph M. Spencer, “John 11 in the Book of Mormon,” Journal of the Bible and Its Reception 5, no. 1 (2018): 81–105.