© 2025 The Interpreter Foundation. A 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization.
All content by The Interpreter Foundation, unless otherwise specified, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available here.
Interpreter Foundation is not owned, controlled by or affiliated with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. All research and opinions provided on this site are the sole responsibility of their respective authors, and should not be interpreted as the opinions of the Board, nor as official statements of LDS doctrine, belief or practice.
I can’t help but bring up this article that seems to mention other LXX variants in the Book of Mormon.
https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/archive/publications/the-bible-and-the-book-of-mormon
It is not clear to me the translator is using the LXX as the base text their… rather they are just translating it.
I honestly had never thought to compare the LXX and the MT in the way you did to rediscover aspects of First Temple period culture. For example, if Jeremiah was more revered by Nephi perhaps that would suggest a “North vs South” division present at that time. Instead, it seems like Nephi had the same rubric as the other exiled groups.
Given the perceived role of prophets among Nephites, why were Jeremiah’s words distributed? Lindsay speculates the Book of Moses was not distributed. Joseph Spencer states Nephi’s words were not distributed (personal convo). Regardless, why is not Nephi cited authoritatively in the Book of Mormon?
I wonder on these a great deal. Thank you so much for writing this.
Martin, thanks for the FAIR link. That article was very interesting.
I think we who view the Book of Mormon as sacred may consider the translator’s methods a tribute to the validity of the various traditions. Certainly, human errors or omissions occur in all records, but by no means is the effort of hundreds of anonymous scribes and transmitters set aside. Rather, it is incorporated. The Book of Mormon is very much a harmonized text with horizontal interactions between texts. I think this speaks to how God will value and use our own efforts.
In Frederick’s “The Language of Paul in the Book of Mormon” he puts forward a different theory for anachronistic language in the Book of Mormon. He uses ~10 Pauline phrases found in the Book of Mormon and shows the corresponding sections are perhaps meant to be understood together (e.g., for “wretched man that I am” Paul mourns the loss of the Law of Moses. Nephi mourns the loss of his father. They are both losing a guide and question their ability to know the right choice. Jeff Lindsay did similar with phrases in the Book of Moses.
Sorry to be off-topic. I truly loved this article on Jeremiah because it is ultimately about First Temple period culture. It makes me feel I was there a little bit. This anrticle also makes me wonder why the Brass plates had recorded the words of a “lowly” prophet. It must have been a thorough record of contemporaneous events indeed.
Thank you.
Thanks Steve. Of course, a subtext in the article evokes the very question you ask: why the MT rather than the LXX, especially for the book of Jeremiah? My one word answer is tradition. With the early English versions of the Bible the translators were unaware of the antecedence of the vorlage behind the LXX text of Jeremiah. In addition, the fact that the MT was chosen over the LXX for the Hebrew Bible was also a deciding factor. As you are aware, most New Testament citations of the OT agree with the Greek against the Hebrew.
While I do not necessarily consider the MT suspect, being able to directly compare the MT and LXX traditions is helpful. And I think the ting to keep in mind is that the two versions do represent differing traditions of an older Hebrew vorlage.
I am enjoying reading your paper for the 2nd time. The fact that Jeremiah was not called a prophet and the tie to the Book of Mormon is interesting!
In an aside, I have often wondered why the English translations relied on the MT rather that LXX. If memory serves this old man, the LXX dates to about 250BC and the MT to 1000AD. The motivation behind the MT was, I have read, the success of the Christians in using the LXX messianic prophesies to convince the Jews that Jesus was the promised Messiah. With that bias, i would think the MT would be suspect?