Israelites and Gentiles: Who Were the Other Sheep? Yet Another Contradiction Between The Book of Mormon and The Holy Bible

In John 10:16 Jesus made a bold statement:

16 And other sheep I have, 
which are not of this fold: 
them also I must bring, 
and they shall hear my voice; 
and there shall be one fold, 
and one shepherd.

Most Christians have interpreted this passage to be the Savior's declaration that He will bring the Gentiles into the fold.

In The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ, the Resurrected Savior visits His covenant people whom The Father had led to the hemisphere we now know as the Americas. Here The Savior declares that this branch of Israel is part of the sheep He was to visit. 3 Nephi 15:21-23.

21 And verily I say unto you, 

that ye are they of whom I said: 

Other sheep I have which are not of this fold; 

them also I must bring, 

and they shall hear my voice; 

and there shall be one fold, 

and one shepherd.

22 And they understood me not, 

for they supposed it had been the Gentiles; 

for they understood not 

that the Gentiles should be converted 

through their preaching.

23 And they understood me not 

that I said they shall hear my voice; 

and they understood me not 

that the Gentiles should not at any time hear my voice—

that I should not manifest myself unto them 

save it were by the Holy Ghost.

One impression the reader receives when studying The New Testament is how often the Disciples misunderstood Jesus' words. For example, when He spoke to them of being weary of the "leaven of the Pharisees", meaning 'beware of their (false) doctrines', the Disciples said among themselves, "It is because we have brought no bread." Matthew 16:6-12

In The Book of Mormon Jesus says that His disciples misunderstood this statement as well believing Him to be saying that He was going to visit the Gentiles. If the statement of Jesus in 3 Nephi 15:21-23 is authentic, then the interpretation of "Gentiles as the other sheep" would be the longest running misinterpretation by His disciples, over two thousand years and running. Clearly, however, for anyone to believe that John 10:16 is properly clarified by Jesus in 3 Nephi 15:21-23, one would need to believe that The Book of Mormon is true. Herein lies the issue: Most Christians tenaciously hold to the very old "Gentiles as the other sheep" interpretation, and this leads them to claim that the passage in 3 Nephi 15:21-23 is a contradiction between The Book of Mormon and The Holy Bible, an error in The Book of Mormon that is incompatible with Biblical teaching.

One Error, All Erroneous

A common tool used to scrutinize The Book of Mormon is "if there is one error, then the whole is erroneous." Regardless of whether there is validity to this all-or-nothing approach to evaluating the truthfulness of The Book of Mormon, the converse never seems to be true among the same critics, namely, "if there be one truth, then the whole is true." When the same critics are confronted with what may appear to be errors or inconsistencies in The Bible, the very same critics merely stipulate, "One or another detail being off is of no consequence", forgetting their normal stance of all or nothing.

My comment on the average person's rather extremist form of textual criticism aside, I ask the question, is it true that Jesus' statement in John 10:16 was a reference to the Gentiles rather than to the House of Israel?

Sheep as the House of Israel

For many centuries prior to Jesus the House of Israel were referred to as sheep and The Lord as the Shepherd.

2 Samuel 24:17

17 And David spake unto the Lord 

when he saw the angel that smote the people, 

and said, Lo, I have sinned, 

and I have done wickedly: 

but these sheep, 

what have they done? 

let thine hand, I pray thee, 

be against me, and against my father’s house.

Psalm 23:1

The LORD is my shepherd;

I shall not want.

The imagery is of the covenant people being innocent, prone to being preyed upon, but gathered together under the protection of a shepherd, The Lord and His servants.

Jesus made use of these symbols as well. When Jesus first organized His Twelve Apostles He sent them out to only the "lost sheep of the House of Israel."

Matthew 10:5-7

5 These twelve Jesus sent forth, 

and commanded them, saying, 

Go not into the way of the Gentiles, 

and into any city of the Samaritans 
enter ye not:

6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

7 And as ye go, preach, saying, 

The kingdom of heaven is at hand.

We see here that Jesus drew a distinction between the Gentiles along with those who had the blood of Israel yet were outside the covenant of Abraham, the Samaritans, and contrasted them to those who were within the covenant. These latter He called "the lost sheep of the House of Israel." 

At this point it is clear that Jesus not only did not send His Twelve to outsiders, He even forbade His Twelve from going to preach to anyone outside of the lost sheep of Israel.

Jesus even stated that He Himself had not been sent to anyone but the lost sheep of the House of Israel.

Matthew 15:24

But he answered and said,

I am not sent 

but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

Thus at this stage in the mission of the Messiah He was sent only to the lost sheep of the House of Israel, and He likewise sent His Twelve only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

Change Was Afoot

However, change was coming. After His resurrection and during His ascension into heaven Jesus gave a new commission to His Disciples:

Matthew 28:19-20

19  Go ye therefore, 

and teach all nations, 

baptizing them 

in the name of the Father, 

and of the Son, 

and of the Holy Ghost:

20 Teaching them 

to observe all things 

whatsoever I have commanded you: 

and, lo, I am with you alway, 

even unto the end of the world. Amen.

Here Jesus gives the glorious news that He is now sending out His Disciples, the Eleven (soon to be Twelve again), to all the world, no more distinction between Israelite and non-Israelite or between Israelite within the covenant and Israelite without the covenant being made. 

Jesus had actually foreshadowed this great expansion of His work of gathering. 

Matthew 8:11

And I say unto you,

That many shall come from the east and west,

and shall sit down with Abraham, 

and Isaac, and Jacob,

in the kingdom of heaven.

Although Jesus had initially imposed a ban on allowing Gentiles to enter His Kingdom, His Church, and even forbade preaching to them, Jesus also foreshadowed the end of that ban (roughly some three and a half years later He lifted the ban), and then He commanded His Disciples to go unto the Gentiles, "the nations". Jesus even promised to be with them always, a promise that recalls His promise not to leave them "comfortless." 

John 14:18-19

18 I will not leave you comfortless: 

I will come to you.

19 Yet a little while, 

and the world seeth me no more; 

but ye see me: 

because I live, 

ye shall live also.

It is interesting to note that in Jesus' preface to His promise to send the Comforter to His Apostles, Jesus says "the world seeth me no longer". Many Gentiles living in Judea saw Jesus during His mortal ministry. Jesus here said that the "world" would no longer see Him, presumably after His death and resurrection.

Still, as regards the glorious declaration in Matthew 28:19-20, we also know that here too the Disciples misunderstood. They most likely believed that Jesus was sending them out to the world to fish out scattered Jews living among the Gentile nations. For this reason the earlier prohibition on preaching to non-Israelites continued in rigor until Acts 10:9-16 when The Lord commands Peter in symbolic terms to bring the non-Israelites into the Church.

The Real Question

The real question is not whether Jesus was to allow the Gentiles to enter His Church as members with full fellowship. Jesus made it clear that initially Gentiles were not allowed, but then on two occasions Jesus made it clear that, having overcome death and sin, He was sending His Apostles out to the world, to Jew and Gentile alike.

The real question is, therefore, whether Jesus Himself was to go to the Gentiles in person. Let us briefly review the issue as we have covered it thus far:

1. Jesus forbade preaching to the Gentiles. Matthew 10:5-7
2. Jesus foreshadowed the entry of Gentiles into His Kingdom. Matthew 8:11
3. Jesus commanded His Apostles to go to all the world and to baptize all who will desire to enter. Matthew 28:19-20 and Acts 10:9-16
4. Jesus says the world which was seeing Him (during His mortality) was soon no longer to see Him. John 14:19
5. Jesus said He had other sheep to visit who were not of the fold (in Judea). John 10:16

From these passages we see that Jesus imposed a temporary ban on the preaching to Gentiles, but foreshadowed its great lifting, and lifted it in clear terms twice. But notice what we do not see: We do not see Jesus saying that He will go unto the Gentiles personally, as a resurrected Being. Jesus said He had other sheep that He would visit, He had made it clear that Gentiles and Samaritans were not His sheep, and He said He would visit His sheep, and they would hear His voice, thus it appears that Jesus was saying that He would indeed go visit the other members of the House of Israel personally.

The above-cited Scriptures narrow the question to a very sharp issue: Did Jesus really go visit the Gentiles in person, such that they would actually hear His voice, or did He go visit the other members of the House of Israel? A second matter is strongly implicit in the answer to the first: If Jesus did go visit others, then their witnesses most likely would have recorded the visit and used that witness testimony for preaching and instruction.

Prophecy Fulfilled 

The power of studying Scripture is that The Lord will, if we ask Him to, guide us and reveal His workings to our mind. 

I ask the readers, Were you aware that there was a prophecy that The Lord would gather "the strangers" unto Him and be the Head of the Gentiles?

Psalm 18:43-46

43 Thou hast delivered me 

from the strivings of the people; 

and thou hast made me the head of the heathen: [Heb. Head of the Gentiles]

a people whom I have not known shall serve me.

44 As soon as they hear of me, 

they shall obey me: 

the strangers shall submit themselves unto me.

45 The strangers shall fade away, 

and be afraid out of their close places.

46 The Lord liveth; 

and blessed be my rock; 

and let the God of my salvation be exalted.

This is a much-overlooked prophecy of the Messiah's great gathering of the "heathen" (Heb. "Gentiles"). Did you notice that curious detail the Psalmist added under inspiration: "As soon as they hear of me"? 

Have you realized the great import of those words? The "strangers" were to "hear of Jesus", not "hear from Jesus". The prophecy describes the "strangers" being taught about Jesus and obeying, serving and submitting themselves to Him even though He did not know them. 

Therefore, in John 10:16 when Jesus says, "and they shall hear my voice", He is not referring to the Gentiles somehow "symbolically hearing His voice" through the preaching of His disciples, for that preaching was fulfilled and is being fulfilled when the strangers hear "of Him" and believe. 

The words of Jesus as recorded in 3 Nephi 15:21-23 are acutely accurate and concord with both Testaments, Old and New, linking the teachings of The Old and New Testaments harmoniously to the "Other Testament of Jesus Christ". 

The popular notion that John 10:16 has to do with the Apostles preaching to the Gentiles is another case of disciples of Jesus misunderstanding His words (as with "the leaven of the Pharisees"), curiously enough, just as Jesus says in 3 Nephi 15:22-23:

22 And they understood me not, 

for they supposed it had been the Gentiles; 

for they understood not 

that the Gentiles should be converted 

through their preaching.

23 And they understood me not 

that I said they shall hear my voice; 

and they understood me not 

that the Gentiles should not at any time hear my voice—

that I should not manifest myself unto them 

save it were by the Holy Ghost.

Conclusion

Many Christians believe that in John 10:16 Jesus prophesied His bringing the Gentiles into His fold, and it is this long-running interpretation that leads them to see 3 Nephi 15:21-23 as contradicting The Holy Bible by affirming that Jesus prophesied of His personal ministration to the scattered tribes of Israel, the Gentiles being reached by the preaching of His disciples. The Old and New Testaments, however, concur: Jesus was not sent to the Gentiles directly, and it was only during His mortality that Gentiles who lived among the Jews of Judea were able to see Him, and that after His resurrection His servants would preach to Gentiles, but Jesus Himself would visit scattered Israel. The bringing in of Gentiles through preaching "hearing of the Messiah" would happen, but through the means of His disciples.

Inasmuch as The New Testament demonstrates that special witnesses of the ministry of Jesus Christ record that experience and use that Scripture to preach and instruct, the most likely conclusion to draw from John 10:16 is that there has to be a written account of Jesus' ministry to other sheep of the House of Israel. Whether one is ready to put The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ to the test of sincere study and sincere inquiry of Heavenly Father in the name of Jesus Christ with reliance on the witness of the Holy Ghost, or whether the readers would rather defer the matter, one must admit, at the very least, The Book of Mormon really does fill the expectation of additional witness testimony of the ministry of Jesus Christ among His other sheep. 

In conclusion, what looked like a contradiction between The Holy Bible and The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ, turned out to be astonishing harmony at an acutely deep level. The interpretation of John 10:16 as being a reference to the Gentiles originated with the disciples between AD 30-33, and curiously enough, is perhaps the longest running such misunderstanding among Christian believers. 

Clearly readers are at liberty to conclude what they will from the evidence, and I would expect nothing less. However, as always, I ask only that what I have shared here be taken for what it is: Teachings that are actually textual.

A Date that Changed the World: 37 B.C.

While studying Scripture I came upon a historical fact that intrigued me, one that suddenly took a few variables I had held more or less in a loose jumble throughout my life, and instantly shook them into astonishing order. 

In the first century B.C. Judah was in a precarious position: Judah was sandwiched between the (Greek) Seleucid Empire in the east 

and the Roman Empire in the west, 

and both powers had taken an interest in obtaining Palestine to enhance their military advantage in the region.

Judah, a small state dwarfed by its hostile neighboring powers, was truly in peril. At this time an internal division within Judah took place, and the Romans seized the opportunity to invade and conquer Judah, in 63 B.C.

The Date 37 B.C.

Twenty-six years later, in 37 B.C., the Romans laid siege on Jerusalem with the object of removing the Jewish monarchy from power. The drive to remove and replace the Jewish monarchy was led by none other than Herod. With Roman assistance, Herod succeeded in dethroning the Hasmonean (Jewish) king (who turned out to be the last Jewish priest-king)--Antigonus II Mattathias--and executed him. In that same year, 37 B.C. Herod the Great at long last accomplished his aspiration to establish himself as the king of Judea.

Why Should the Year 37 B.C Matter at All?

Why, you might ask, does this historical description instantly interest me?

First of all, the ancient Patriarch-Prophet Jacob, Israel, in his dying days pronounced prophetic blessings on each of his twelve sons. In his blessing to Judah, Jacob made the following prophecy:

"The sceptre shall not depart from Judah,
nor a lawgiver from between his feet,
until Shiloh [In Hebrew "Shiloh" means 'He who shall be sent'] come;
and unto him shall the gathering 
of the people [Hebrew: "gentiles"] be."
Genesis 49:10

As the reality that the Jewish priest-king Antigonus II Mattathias was gone and another legitimate yet purely mortal Jewish monarch unlikely to arise, and appreciating that any Jew now to take the throne would have not only to challenge Roman authority but defeat it, if indeed this Jewish king were to wrest the throne of Judah from Herod, Divine intervention would be necessary. Indeed, the Jewish people remembered the words of Jacob that after the scepter had departed from Judah, Shiloh, "He who was sent", would appear. 

The Jews also would have held the end of a forty-year period as particularly significant (for 40 years the Israelites had wandered the desert before reaching the promised land, Moses had fasted for 40 days to see God, etc.). These factors--the scepter of Judah having passed and nearly 40 years having lapsed since the execution of Antigonus II Mattathias--combined to produce the expectation that God was about to send Him to whom the Gentiles would gather, and that could only mean the advent of The Son of God, The Messiah.

It was likely for these reasons that Jerusalem was waiting with anxious anticipation, and Herod, being no less aware of these prophecies at least in general, and he being the very instrument of evil that had unbeknownst to him set these events in motion, Herod likely feared that the Messiah would indeed come and have His holy eyes set on paying Herod Divine retribution. 

Now I understand (though do not approve of in the least) Herod's rabid reaction to the inquiry of the wise men, "Where is he that is born King of the Jews?" Matthew 2:2 Herod, reacting rabidly and out of panic-induced brutality, attempted to destroy this Jewish King and at all costs prevent the prophecies from achieving any further fulfillment.

Internal Strife and King-Men Led to the Collapse of Judea

The Hasmonean Queen Alexandra Salome died in 67 B.C. Her elder son, Hyrcanus took the throne, but then her younger son, Aristobulus, removed his older brother from the throne as well as the high priesthood in Jerusalem. As Aristobulus assembled men to fight to ensure his claim to the throne, the Romans led by Gnaeus Pompey Magnus, seeing the internal strife within Judea as the tiny nation divided into two groups of men fighting for a different king (a supremely foolish contention given the stark dangers that faced minuscule Judea sandwiched between two hostile empires, Rome and the Seleucid Empire), seized the moment and invaded. In 63 B.C. the Romans laid siege on Jerusalem and succeeded in taking control of the nation. As the old saying goes, "A house divided cannot stand."

Meanwhile in the West

At this point you may be wondering why I have cited the details of the collapse of Judea, why the internal division of Judea into two groups of men fighting for a different king would have any further interest for me.

The Lord had led two Jewish migrations to the Americas, the first being in 600 B.C. Here The Lord had led the houses of Lehi and Ishmael (as well as one Zoram) to the western hemisphere, and in roughly 592 B.C. The Lord led a second migration, one headed by one son of King Zedekiah, the only prince who was able to escape (with Divine intervention) just before the Babylonians conquered Judah and brutally slaughtered the royal family. 

Initially the two different Jewish groups did not meet up in America. Both groups intermarried with local indigenous peoples, but the first group, the descendants of Lehi, converted the Indians thus making them members of the House of Israel. The second group, the descendants of Prince Mulek, had brought no Scriptures with them, and they dwindled in unbelief. However, in 120 B.C. the two peoples, the Nephites and the people of Zarahemla (a.k.a. the Mulekites), united as one nation: the Nephites. 

By the time of the unification of the Nephites with the People of Zarahemla (the Mulekites) the Nephites--who had had a succession of kingly descendants of Lehi's middle son, Nephi-- had now established a democratic government in which any citizen could seek to be elected to one of the offices of higher or lower judges. These judges upheld Nephite law and oversaw military operations. Major decisions not covered by Nephite law were decided by referendums. By the time the Mulekites joined the Nephites, the Nephites had already moved on from a monarchy to the reign of the judges.

A House Divided

The Nephite nation was relatively small, and like its counterpart in the Old World, Judea, the Nephite nation was surrounded by hostile and aggressive nations keen on conquering the Nephites and oppressing their religion. 

At one point a sizable group of people, not the majority, but a considerable minority, sought to change Nephite law and institute a new monarchy based on "the blood of nobility". Given that nowhere in The Book of Mormon had any descendant of the House of Lehi, not even Nephi's kingly successors, referred to themselves as having "the blood of nobility", the most likely conclusion is that these contenders for a monarchy based on a royal bloodline were Mulekites, descendants of Prince Mulek, the sole surviving son of King Zedekiah of Judah.

Inasmuch as under Nephite government all major issues not covered by law were decided by referendums, a referendum was held, and a solid majority voted in favor of preserving the reign of the judges. 

The party of Nephites who had pushed for a new monarchy based on royal blood was not deterred, and they launched a rebellion just as the neighbors of the Nephites launched a fresh invasion. The chief commander of military operations, Captain Moroni, put down this rebellion in 67 B.C., precisely the very same year that Aristobulus began plotting to remove Hycanus from the throne back in Judea.

"And thus Moroni put an end to those king-men,
that there were not any known by the appellation of king-men;
and thus he put an end to the stubbornness
and the pride of those people 
who professed the blood of nobility;
but they were brought down to humble themselves
like unto their brethren,
and to fight valiantly for their freedom from bondage."
Alma 51:21
circa 67 B.C.

At this point, in 67 B.C., the Nephites were united, having put down a rebellion, and this unity was critical since their neighbors had launched an invasion. However, as the war dragged on, the Nephite commanders became alarmed that more support was not being sent from the central government. The commanders began to suspect yet another internal division to be at play:

"...behold, we fear that there is some faction in the government,
that they do not send more men to our assistance;
for we know that they are more numerous than that 
which they have sent."
Alma 58:36
circa 63 B.C.

It is already noteworthy that an internal division, one that had first erupted in 67 B.C., the very same year when a contention over the throne of Judea arose, was now manifesting itself among the Nephites for the second time, and this second rebellion, also over the issue of establishing a monarchy, took place precisely in the year 63 B.C., the year when Judea fell due to internal strife over the question of royal succession.

Before too long it became clear that the group of rebels indeed consisted of supporters of the establishment of a monarchy based on what they called "the blood of nobility", royal descent, and this time these king-men had managed to seize control of the central government. 

The Nephite military, however, was much wiser than their fellow Jewish counterparts in Judea. The Nephites realized that if their nation descended into civil war, the Nephites would be conquered by their enemies. Thus the military, remaining united, proceeded to put down the second rebellion:

"And the men of Pachus received their trial,
according to the law,
and also those king-men who had been taken
and cast into prison;
and they were executed according to the law;
yea, those men of Pachus and those king-men,
whosoever would not take up arms 
in the defence of their country, 
but would fight against it, 
were put to death."
Alma 62:9
circa 61 B.C.

With the second rebellion suppressed the Nephites eventually succeeded in repelling the massive onslaught of their neighbors.

Sceptre of Judah

The parallels in events among the Nephites and the Jews in Judea are astounding:

• 67 B.C.  Jewish Prince Aristobulus begins plotting a rebellion against Jewish King Hyrcanus causing lethal internal strife foolishly ignoring the threat the Roman and Seleucid Empires posed.
• 67 B.C. Nephites, most likely descendants of Prince Mulek, son of King Zedekiah of Judah, attempt to replace then topple the representative government of the Nephites even as the People of Nephi are under a massive attack from their neighbors. The rebellion is put down.
• 63 B.C.  The Romans, taking advantage of the internal conflict or outright civil war, conquer Judea.
• 63 B.C. The treasonous king-men launch a second rebellion, seize control of the central government, and collude with the invaders to deny support to the military. The military remains united and in 61 B.C. puts down the final rebellion over the establishment of a monarchy based on the "blood of nobility".

But there is one more parallel that is noteworthy, and it has already been discussed. In 61 B.C.  the Nephites put down the second rebellion of the king-men. But imagine what might have happened. Suppose, for a moment, that the Nephites would have voted to establish a monarchy, almost undoubtedly based on the descendants of Prince Mulek, son of King Zedekiah of Judah. This Nephite or Mulekite King, King Pachus, being a direct-line descendant of the royal priest-kings of Judah would have preserved a legitimate succession of Jewish kings even after the execution of Antigonus II Mattathias in 37 B.C., at the hands of Herod the Great. 

The fact that on two occasion--67 B.C. and 61 B.C.--the Nephites denied Pachus the opportunity to establish a line of succession of Jewish kings with direct-line royal Jewish blood meant that the only legitimate line of Jewish kings, the "sceptre of Judah", was the Hasmonean line in Judea, and that succession ended in 37 B.C. when Herod the Great executed Antigonus II Mattathias. Then the clock began ticking and within 40 years The Messiah was born, just as Jacob had prophesied would happen once the "sceptre" passed from Judah.

Conclusion

I will make one last point: Some naysayers are wont to dismiss The Book of Mormon, often based on superficial appearances or even on bias and nothing more. A close scrutiny reveals deep and uncannily accurate and harmonious correspondences both with The Holy Bible doctrinally and the historical events that unfolded in Judea during the same periods. Such correspondences may help fortify faith or even stir an interest to seek faith--faith being pure science and conviction given by God the Father through His Holy Spirit to the end of converting a man or woman to accept that Jesus is the Christ--but all pales before that simple never-to-be-refuted witness of the Holy Ghost that Jesus is The Christ, and that He has given The Holy Bible and The Book of Mormon, as well as much more.

The readers are at liberty, obviously, to make of these passages what they will. I ask only that the readers bear in mind that everything I have shared is actually textual.             

An Error from the 1769 Edition of the King James Bible Identified in The Book of Mormon

I will admit that I have a longstanding disagreement with non-linguists.

"About what?"--you may wonder. 

The objection I have with non-linguists is that, although they freely admit to having no training in linguistics, this unfamiliarity does not seem to prevent them from propounding linguistic arguments. 

"Why should it bother you that novices would propose linguistic arguments?"

To be honest, I welcome any linguistic arguments, and in many instances novices hit upon research gold. My only concern is when such arguments are intended to turn my brethren from the faith, and then it pains me to see some of my brethren falter and fall based on the apparent plausibility of usually faulty premises. 

Take for example an argument touted among disaffected members for the last five years at least:

"The Book of Mormon has large quotations from the 1769 King James Bible which passages from 1769 have mistakes. Why are mistakes from the 1769 King James Bible found in a supposedly ancient text translated through divine means as the 'most correct book'!"

What Are The Mistakes? 

One mistake that is touted is the word "dragon". In Isaiah 51:9 the KJV uses the word dragon, which word choice some critics of the last decade have been pleased to call an error of the 1769 King James text, an error which appears in 2 Nephi 8:9 of The Book of Mormon. Shall we fancy a look?

Isaiah 51:9

Awake, awake, put on strength, 

O arm of the Lord; 

awake, as in the ancient days, 

in the generations of old. 

Art thou not it that hath cut Rahab, 

and wounded the dragon?

2 Nephi 8:9

Awake, awake! Put on strength, 

O arm of the Lord; 

awake as in the ancient days. 

Art thou not he that hath cut Rahab, 

and wounded the dragon?

Leaving aside the issue of the superior translation of "he" meaning The Lord as used in The Book of Mormon (The King James uses the odd "it"), my question as a linguist is why the 1769 edition of the King James Bible was targeted to begin with.

The answer these critics give is that Joseph Smith used the 1769 edition of the King James Bible.

True, but the 1769 passage in question is identical to the 1611 first edition passage save for two words that were spelled slightly differently (arme, dayes), so why has this simple fact not been mentioned? After all, if the allegation is that Joseph Smith copied whole portions out of the Book of Isaiah and wove them into his own composition, The Book of Mormon, and then tried to pass his work off as the translation of a bona fide ancient text but inadvertently included "errors" the King James translators had committed, if this is what these critics allege, what difference would it make to allege that Joseph Smith included errors from the 1611 King James Bible rather than the 1769 edition?

1611

Isaiah 51:9

Awake, awake, put on strength, 

O arme of the Lord; 

awake, as in the ancient dayes, 

in the generations of old. 

Art thou not it that hath cut Rahab, 

and wounded the dragon?

The non-linguist would say that it makes no difference whether one alleges that Joseph Smith plagiarized the 1611 or the 1769 edition. The linguist will say that it does make a difference--not to acknowledge that the 1611 edition has the same putative (supposed) error is an admission that the critic has not done thorough research but may be rushing to a conclusion. The experienced linguist will tell you that rushed conclusions usually end up being wrong.  

What Does The Hebrew Say?

I would ask what the underlying Hebrew word that got translated actually is, and as it happens, the Hebrew actually says "tannin"  'monster'. The critics in question claim that since the Hebrew says "monster" (in the sense of a large creature, such as a whale, among others), the King James translators made a "mistake" by writing "dragon", and Joseph Smith, the critics allege, being unsophisticated copied the mistake into The Book of Mormon.

Origin of the "Mistake"

As a linguist, however, I am aware of the challenges translators face when converting the names of flora and fauna from the language of one culture into the language of another. If the translator merely imports the names of flora and fauna the audience reacts with perplexity--"What is X?"--and the effect of the translation is ruined. 

I also would ask the critics if they examined the other Bible translations of the era to see how their translators rendered that passage. 

Now The Work Begins

Now the work begins, and none of it has been done by the aforementioned gleeful critics because, alas, lacking any familiarity with linguistics, they are unaware that this very question could undo and unravel their argument. That is, if I am going to allege that the King James translators made a "mistake" and Joseph Smith unwittingly carried it into his own composition, I must demonstrate that the word choice in question--"dragon" in this case--was indeed incorrect. Stating what the underlying Hebrew word actually means is useful, but to demonstrate that an erroneous word choice was effected, I should research how other translators of that era rendered that Hebrew word. In this instance there are several versions to choose from, thus the critics should have accounted for the contemporary translations. The critics, as you may guess, did not account for any contemporaneous translations of the same passage.

Inasmuch as I doubt the critics would even know what I am referring to when I say "contemporaneous translations of the same passage", I will be merciful and do so myself:

1611

Isaiah 51:9

Awake, awake, put on strength, 

O arme of the Lord; 

awake, as in the ancient dayes, 

in the generations of old. 

Art thou not it that hath cut Rahab, 

and wounded the dragon?

1609

The Holie Bible

(Douay Rheims, Catholic translation of the Latin Vulagte to English)

Arise, arise, put on strength

ô arme of our Lord:

arise as in the old dayes,

in the generations of worldes.

Hast thou not stricken the proude,

wounded the dragon?

1595 (first edition 1569)

Bishops Bible

(Commisioned by Queen Elizabeth I)

Wake up, wake up, and be strong,

O thou arme of the Lorde,

wake up, like as in time past, 

ever, and since the world began.

Art not thou the same arme

that hast wounded the proude,

and hewen the Dragon in pieces?

1560, Geneva Bible (Calvinist)

Rise vp, rise vp, and put on strength,

ô arme of the Lord:

rise vp, as in the olde time

in the generations of the worlde.

Art not thou the same,

that hast cut Rahab,

and wounded the dragon?

The Matthews Bible, 1537

(Permitted under Henry VIII)

Wake vp/wake vp/and be stronge:

O thou arme of the Lorde:

wake vp/lyke as in tymes past/

euer and sence the world begãne.

Art thou not he/

that hast wounded that proude lucifer/

and hewen the dragon in peces:

Well, I imagine it was as fun for you as for me to see the allegation have to amend itself:

Why does The Book of Mormon contain a mistake from the 1769 edition of the King James Bible? 

I mean from the 1611 King James Bible. 

I mean from the 1609 Douay Rheims Bible. 

Well, actually from the 1595 (1569) Bishops Bible. 

Well, actually from the 1560 Geneva Bible. 

I mean from the 1537 Matthews Bible.

But as good academics, let us go further, let us go back as far as the data will allow:

Circa 1380, Wycliffe Bible

(Illegal translation from Latin to Middle English)

Rise thou, rise thou, 

arm of the Lord,

be thou clothyd in strengthe;

rise thou, as in elde daies,

in generaciouns of worldis.

Whether thou smytidist not the proude man,

woundidist not the dragoun?

These are the English translations that predate or are contemporary with The King James Bible: The Douay Rheims (1609), The Bishops Bible (1569), The Geneva Bible (1560), The Matthews Bible (1537), The John Wycliffe Bible (1380).

However, the Wycliffe Bible and the Douay Rheims Bible are translations of the Latin Vulgate Bible, itself a translation of the Greek Septuagint Bible, which was a Greek translation of the Hebrew text current at that time (long since lost). Inasmuch as both the Latin and Greek translations predate the English translations and are extant, it is sound academic practice both to acknowledge their existence and to scrutinize them for relevance. 

Latin Vulgate

(Circa fourth century AD, adapted later, this is a 1691 edition)

Consurge, consurge, 

induere fortitudinem brachium Domini :

consurge sicut in diebus antiquis,

in generationibus sæculorum.

Numquid non tu percussisti superbum,

vulnerasti draconem?

The Septuagint, (Greek translation of a now lost Hebrew Old Testament, circa 200 B.C.)

Exegeirou, exegeirou Ierousalém 

kai endusai tén isxun tou braxionos sou

Exegeirou ôs en arxé émèras

ôs genea aiônos

ou su ei é latomésasa plates

diarréxasa drakonta

Well, well, well. Let us allow the critics to amend their charge yet further:

Why does The Book of Mormon have a mistake from the Wycliffe Bible of circa 1380?

I mean from the Latin Vulgate from the fourth century AD?

I actually mean from the Greek Septuagint circa 200 BC?

Hopefully the reader now appreciates the point I have been striving to make all along, that although some of the principles of linguistics are very simple (such as comparing contemporary translations to see if I have grounds to allege that the King James translators made a "mistake"), these simple research principles can impact the outcome, as when the charge of a 1769 mistake gets carried back further and further till landing in 200 BC and forming an unbroken string of identical translations of the same word: 

Septuagint, 200 BC: drakonta 

Vulgate 4th century AD: draconem

Wycliffe, AD 1380: dragoun

Matthews, AD 1537: dragon

Geneva, AD 1560: dragon

Bishops AD 1569: dragon

Rheims, AD 1609: dragon

King James, AD 1611/1769: dragon

When the reader is provided with actual research rather than a hurried allegation that stirs doubt but, as we have seen, undeservedly, the question at hand is transformed. After all, eight successive translations all rendered the word for "dragon" for what technically could have been rendered "monster". This nearly 2000 year phenomenon greatly diminishes what initially may have struck some readers as problematic.

The Next Step: Hypothesis and Evidence

All this research  notwithstanding, I will still indulge the critics with an analysis, an answer if you will, though in honesty I will amend the initial accusatory question to reflect the actual situation:

Q: Why does The Book of Mormon render the Hebrew word for "monster" as "dragon", the same as every one of the previous six English translations of Isaiah 51:9 and the Vulgate and Septuagint translations of that passage as well?

A: I believe that The Lord, the actual Translator (Joseph Smith had a gift to *read* the English text that would appear on his seer stone), used what I will call a deferential transitional translation.

Q: What do you mean by "deferential transitional translation"?

A: I mean that whenever The Book of Mormon source text has actual passages that are quotations from Isaiah (as the prime example), The Lord showed regard for the work rendered by His previous translator-servants, so long as there were no doctrinal errors. As an example of an error, the King James translators turned the focus of the first question in Isaiah 51:9 to the "arm" rather than the Lord Himself--"Art thou not it that hath cut Rahab"--and this is the actual mistake. The Lord corrected the "it" in The Book of Mormon passage--"Art thou not *he* that hath cut Rahab?" Aside from this minor doctrinal error the rest of the passage was sound, so The Lord showed regard for nearly 1800 years of translation service and preserved the word choice "dragon".

That is to say, inasmuch as all of His previous translator-servants had rendered "monster" as "dragon", from 200 BC up to 1769, The Lord deemed that word choice not to be disruptive of the doctrine and countenanced its inclusion in The Book of Mormon.

Q: That would be what you call a "deferential" translation, or one that shows deference or respect for precedence. But what do you mean by "transitional"?

A: By "transitional" I mean that elsewhere in The Book of Mormon, where the prophet, in this case Nephi, makes reference to Isaiah and expounds on Isaiah's teaching, but not by way of quoting actual passages, simply by making reference to a key point, here The Lord delivers the more precise translation of "monster".

Q: Are you saying that The Book of Mormon actually delivers the translation of "monster" just as critics initially demanded, just in parts that are not quotes from Isaiah?

A: That is precisely what I am asserting. We have already seen at length that Isaiah 51:9 is reflected almost identically in 2 Nephi 8:9. However, the Prophet Nephi expanded on the doctrine of The Lord "wounding the dragon", and here Nephi says, not "dragon", but "monster", just as he should have if he were a Hebrew-speaker familiar only with the Hebrew text:

2 Nephi 9: 10, 19, 26

10: O how great the goodness of our God, 

who prepareth a way 

for our escape from the grasp 

of this awful monster; 

yea, that monster, 

death and hell, 

which I call the death of the body, 

and also the death of the spirit.

19 O the greatness of the mercy of our God, 

the Holy One of Israel! 

For he delivereth his saints 

from that awful monster the devil, 

and death, and hell, 

and that lake of fire and brimstone, 

which is endless torment.

26 For the atonement satisfieth 

the demands of his justice upon all those 

who have not the law given to them, 

that they are delivered from that awful monster, 

death and hell, and the devil, 

and the lake of fire and brimstone, 

which is endless torment; 

and they are restored to that God 

who gave them breath, 

which is the Holy One of Israel.

It is actually quite astonishing that Nephi's words are translated from Hebrew to English using the term "monster" just as the Hebrew does in Isaiah 51:9, except in the passage that was a direct quote of Isaiah, Isaiah 51:9, and here The Lord showed deference for the 2000 years of translation work His servants had rendered.

Conclusion

As I am very fond of saying, when man raises his puny arm to assail the work of God, the weapon man supposes he has deals no discrediting blow on the Word of God but rather goes on to open up a line of inquiry that confirms the truthfulness of the work of God. 

Critics latched on to the fact that Isaiah 51:9 says "monster" in Hebrew, the King James Bible, however, says "dragon", and inasmuch as 2 Nephi 8:9 also says "dragon", these critics who were more eager to use doubt to induce departures from devotion than actually to do honest research and present their findings, ended up rushing to a hasty and ultimately groundless accusation. Their allegation, nevertheless, spurred this blogger to inquire of The Lord, the greatest Scientist of all, and He led me from point to point up to a conclusion that, yet again, adds yet more credence to what The Holy Ghost so willingly reveals to all who ask God, The Father, in the name of Jesus Christ: The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ is true.

The readers are clearly at liberty to draw their own conclusions from what I have presented here. The readers may even be prompted to yet other relevant  investigations. 

I only ask that as regards what I have shared you bear in mind that it is actually textual.