25 replies to this topic

[Rob Bowman]

All,

I am curious to know what sorts of changes you think the Joseph Smith Translation (JST) makes to the text of the Bible. Are the changes:

* restorations of the original text
* clarifications of the original meaning
* commentaries that goes beyond what the original said or meant (a la "midrash" or "targum," as some have suggested)
* revisions or alterations of the text that depart from what the original meant
* something else (please specify)
* some combination of these types of changes (please specify which ones you think are included)

If you wish to cite examples that would be very helpful, especially if you think the JST includes more than one type of change.

I would also like to know if you think Joseph Smith intended to make these kinds of changes, or if he might have thought (at least at times) that he was making one sort of change when in fact he was making another.

Of course, I'd like to know if you think all of these changes were divinely inspired.

Finally, it's my understanding that the LDS Church has no official position as to what sort(s) of changes there are in the JST. Is that correct?

Thanks!

[David Bokovoy]

On this topic, I have shared the following views on another site:

I cannot accept the work as a restoration of an original biblical text.  Whatever we do with the JST, we cannot employ the Book of Moses in an effort to restore the earliest form of Genesis. When all is said and done, the Book of Moses is a 19th century revision of the KJV of the opening chapters of the Bible.

Taking the first two chapters of the book as a guide, Genesis begins with an amalgamation of two separate versions of creation, the second, which commences in Genesis 2:4b, actually predates and appears to have directly influenced the version that now opens the Bible with the famous clause, “In the beginning…”

The Book of Moses attempts to bridge the obvious literary gap between these two disparate sources by identifying the creation story in Genesis 1:-2:4a as purely “spiritual” in nature (see Moses 3:5).  This attempt to reconcile two historically distinct sources reveals that Moses does not predate Genesis 1-2.

End of story.

Yet even adopting a traditional view that ignores the observations of contemporary biblical scholarship, it is clear via the Prophet Joseph himself that whatever the Book of Moses does, it does not restore what Joseph himself identified as the original version of the text.

Towards the end of his ministry, the Prophet Joseph declared that prior to the days of uninspired tampering, the earliest version of Genesis 1:1 read: “The head one of the Gods brought forth the Gods” (Teachings, 348).
Now, if we consider Moses 2:1 in light of this teaching, a verse which would, if the Book of Moses contained a restored original text, reproduce the earliest version of Genesis 1:1, we gain the following insight:

“And it came to pass that the Lord spake unto Moses, saying: Behold, I reveal unto you concerning this heaven, and this earth; write the words which I speak. I am the Beginning and the End, the Almighty God; by mine Only Begotten I created these things; yea, in the beginning I created the heaven, and the earth upon which thou standest” (Moses 2:1)

And there we have it.  No mention of heads, or of gods, or even of councils.  Moses 2:1 revises Genesis 1:1 to simply read as a first person divine narrative.  So clearly even if we ignore the implications of biblical scholarship and simply rely upon the teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith himself, when it comes to the Book of Moses, the JST does not restore an original text.

Hence, if we cannot use the JST to recreate the earliest biblical manuscripts, what can believing Latter-day Saints do with the JST?

Well, I don’t pretend to have all of the answers.  Heck, I don’t even assume to hold the best answers.  But I do have a few ideas that have worked for me personally that I’ve gained while pondering the matter.

I have for many years viewed the JST as a type of inspired workbook, or in other words, as a literary production documenting the Prophet Joseph’s evolutionary encounters with the revelatory process.    As has been well documented, many of the revelations in the D&C derive specifically from theological questions Joseph encountered while working his way through the inspired revision.

Many examples of the process could be cited, but perhaps none more interesting than D&C 132 which represents an amalgamation of three distinct questions Joseph acquired on marriage while working on the JST (see Danel W. Bachman. “New Light on an Old Hypothesis: The Ohio Origins of the Revelation on Eternal Marriage.” Journal of Mormon History 5 (1978):19-32).

Again speaking personally, as I have studied the D&C, I have felt inspired witnessing the way the Lord responded to the Prophet Joseph’s theological ponderings.  Through the production of the JST, we witness the Lord leading the Prophet into a world of grand religious insights that eventually culminate in the advanced theological ideas manifested at the end of the Prophet’s ministry via the famous King Follett Sermon.

So, when all is said and done, if nothing else, for me, the JST documents the evolutionary development of the doctrines of the Restoration and the method God uses to instruct his children. Yet I maintain that there’s even more to be gained by LDS students of the JST...

Now, It’s not my intent to focus on issues of textual criticism in this forum, but I would, however, like to suggest that even though the JST does not restore an ancient historical text and that there exists no place for the JST in the study of the ancient world, I believe that there does exist a place for the ancient world inside the JST.  In other words, as students of LDS scripture, we can study the JST in light of the ancient world, and in so doing, glean some profound literary and religious insights.

At least, I believe that I have on many occasions.  I’ll take the opportunity to share one example.

The Book of Moses begins with material entirely absent from the Biblical record, which directly alters the Sitz in Leben or “life setting” for the biblical stories of creation and Eden:

“The words of God, which he spake unto Moses at a time when Moses was caught up into an exceedingly high mountain” (Moses 1:1)

This concept of a mountain (an exceedingly high one no less), is really quite interesting.  As locations that offer a symbolic connection between heaven and earth, mountains in antiquity traditionally provided a strong thematic link with Near Eastern temple worship.  In their recent publication on Solomon’s temple via Thames & Hudson, LDS scholars William Hamblin and David Seely did in my estimate a nice job capturing the ancient connection between temple and mountain in Near Eastern thought:

“In many ancient creation stories, the earth was formed when the deity conquered chaos represented by the primeval waters and established the primordial hillock, the first portion of earth to rise from the waters. A temple was built on the primordial hillock commemorating the god’s pre-eminent role in creation and their power in defeating Chaos, legitimizing the worship of the god enshrined in the temple and the rule of his divinely appointed king.” William J. Hamblin and David Rolph Seely, Solomon’s Temple Myth and History, Thames and Hudson, 2007, 10.

So reading the ancient world into Moses 1 places the opening events of Genesis into the context of a temple revelation given to Moses on “an exceedingly high mountain.”  That the Prophet Joseph explicitly believed that Moses experienced a temple theophany upon a mountain seems clear from Joseph’s Nauvoo teachings:

“I preached in the grove on the keys of the Kingdom, Charity &c The keys are certain signs and words by which false spirits and personages may be detected from true, which cannot be revealed to the Elders till the Temple is completed. The rich can only get them in the Temple—the poor may get them on the Mountain top as did Moses… No one can truly say he knows God until he has handled something, and this can only be in the Holiest of Holies.” Joseph Smith, The Words of Joseph Smith; 119 – 120.

In Moses 1, Moses appears on the exceedingly high mountain approaching the Lord through traditional veil imagery:

“And he saw God face to face, and he talked with him, and the glory of God was upon Moses; therefore Moses could endure his presence” (Moses 1:2).

In Near Eastern temple worship, the veil was a curtain hung within the temple precinct in order to protect mortal eye from the glory associated with the physical presence of deity (think Isaiah 6).  Moses addresses the issue in verse 11 of the Inspired Version:

“But now mine own eyes have beheld God; but not my natural, but my spiritual eyes, for my natural eyes could not have beheld; for I should have withered and died in his presence; but his glory was upon me; and I beheld his face, for I was transfigured before him.”

So the new introduction provided via the JST transforms the way LDS readers approach the opening chapters of the Bible.  Genesis is now interpreted within the context of temple worship and ritual.  A brief survey of themes explored throughout the Book of Moses reveals the following list of LDS temple related motifs:

The dispensing of Satan (vv. 12-22)

A ritual depiction of the creation drama (Moses 2)

A ritual presentation of the Fall in which readers can put themselves in the place of Adam and Eve (Moses 3-4)

Ritual presentation of the Law of Sacrifice (Moses 5:1-9)

A depiction of Adam’s promise that he will enter the presence of the Lord (Moses 5:10)

Adam and Eve are identified as true messengers sent from God (Moses 5:12); angels are sent forth as true “messengers” sent to teach the Law of the Gospel.

“And thus the Gospel began to be preached, from the beginning, being declared by holy angels sent forth from the presence of God, and by his own voice, and by the gift of the Holy Ghost” (5:58)

An introduction to secret combinations that reflect true worship, yet serve as its antithesis (Moses 5:29):

“And Satan said unto Cain: Swear unto me by thy throat, and if thou tell it thou shalt die; and swear thy brethren by their heads, and by the living God, that they tell it not; for if they tell it, they shall surely die; and this that thy father may not know it; and this day I will deliver thy brother Abel into thine hands.”

A ritual vestment in which Adam appears as a divine temple working king who receives a coat of skin (Moses 4:27).

And clearly, more could be added.

So in sum, even though the JST does not restore an original historical biblical text, I believe the work does carry some significant insights for LDS readers.  Not only does the JST provide a view of the revelatory process at work during the Ohio period of the Prophet’s ministry, the JST can also provide readers with interesting religious and literary insights, granted not insights into the ancient world, but rather insights into modern revelation, when the ancient world is brought to the JST as an interpretive guide.

[mapman]

JST is inspired, but probably wasn't finished.  Since Joseph didn't have any ancient manuscripts of the Bible, it would seem that he didn't actually do what we usually think of as translation.  His definition of tranlation was quite a bit different.  He was restoring lost truths that may or may not have been in originals and getting rid of errors.  Some passages in the Old Testament (Moses 1, Enoch stuff) seem to be revealing things that actually happened but we did not know and may have never actually been written down in Genesis.  That's my understanding anyways.

[David T]

I think all of those listed were a part of it.

My opinion is that it is, for the most part, an inspired Targum/Midrash, based on revelation and divine insight,  intended to place new doctrines and practices into a familiar Biblical context, and to replace in some instances cultural elements and references that had no applicable meaning for the saints who would not understand without access to lots of ANE research (most of which wasn't even available then). In some cases, Joseph appears to attempt to clarify and expand an original unclear concept, and in others there was an unrelated teaching 'superimposed' on the context of ancient narrative. While in some cases literal ancient narratives and text may have been inserted, I think this is the exception rather than the rule. As David said above, the JST is not a place to look for the original autographs of the scriptures.

In some cases, where a scripture as presented contradicted current revealed understanding, it was revised to make it clear, in some cases stripping it of the historic ANE symbolism, and making it clear for the present day what was going on (such as the change the the Lord didn't harden Pharoah's heard, but he made the choice himself; The change of the covenant between Abraham and his servant being not hand on thigh, but hand in hand, etc, Satan not physically whisking the Savior away to the Temptation sites, but the spirit of the Lord doing so, etc)

When a new doctrine or paractice was introduced in the Church, a narrative concerning it found its way into the JST as a literay example of prescedence.  (thus in the same month the Saints recieved the Law of the United Order, we find an expanded JST of Melchizedek acting in the role of High Priestly Keeper of the Storehouse (Bishop) , and Abraham obediently giving his tithing surplus to him).

In addition, Joseph also attempted to regularize/update grammar, to make the scriptures more 'reader friendly'.

I understand (and use) the JST not as a replacement for the Bible and its original texts and context, but as an inspired 'update' or companion to it - a work of Modern Revelation. Which is why it is published as footnotes and commentary to the official LDS version, and not as a replacement as the Official Bible (a la RLDS/Community of Christ).

It's a case where I agree with Elder McConkie's assertion in speaking of the differences between the early Genesis chapters in the Biblem and the JST: "both of them are true." He stated that John 1 in the Bible "is true," yet the JST gives it "an entirely new perspective."


This BYU paper has a very good discussion of the types of changes perceived.

Edited by nackhadlow, 06 February 2010 - 09:04 PM.

[zerinus]

Rob Bowman, on 06 February 2010 - 10:39 AM, said:

All,

I am curious to know what sorts of changes you think the Joseph Smith Translation (JST) makes to the text of the Bible. Are the changes:

* restorations of the original text

I believe that is the correct explanation of the JST. The Book of Mormon informs us that the New Testament in particular has had many of its "plain and precious" parts deliberately removed by evil persons with malicious intent. See 1 Nephi 13. The purpose of the JST was to restore many of those "plain and precious" parts. The JST is described throughout the Doctrine and Covenants as a "translation" (see D&C 37:1; D&C 41:7; D&C 45:61; D&C 73:3; D&C 93:53). So we have to take the Lord's words for it that that is exactly what it is.

Quote

* clarifications of the original meaning
* commentaries that goes beyond what the original said or meant (a la "midrash" or "targum," as some have suggested)
* revisions or alterations of the text that depart from what the original meant
* something else (please specify)
* some combination of these types of changes (please specify which ones you think are included)

A certain element of that is always involved in any translation. It is impossible to do a translation without some of those elements involved in it. If you look at the KJV, you will find many words printed in italics. Those were all words which were added by the translators which did not exist in the original text. So you can't do a translation without some of that being involved in it. But I beleive that the JST is essentially and primarily an (inspired) translation.

Quote

If you wish to cite examples that would be very helpful, especially if you think the JST includes more than one type of change.

I think the text bears witness that it is a translation. For example, there are many quotations in it direct from the Lord, which are not found in the New Testament. If those quotations were just inventions then it would be a falsehood. They are either literal translations or they are falsehoods. I believe they are translations.

Quote

I would also like to know if you think Joseph Smith intended to make these kinds of changes, or if he might have thought (at least at times) that he was making one sort of change when in fact he was making another.

That is out of the question! He knew what he was doing throughout the translation process.

Quote

Of course, I'd like to know if you think all of these changes were divinely inspired.

Absolutely! I have no doubts about that.

Quote

Finally, it's my understanding that the LDS Church has no official position as to what sort(s) of changes there are in the JST. Is that correct?

That is probably correct. I haven't come across any official statements that specifically answer your question.

[Rob Bowman]

nackhadlow,

Thanks for your input. You wrote:

Quote

This BYU paper has a very good discussion of the types of changes perceived.

The link didn't work for me.

[cdowis]

Quote

I am curious to know what sorts of changes you think the Joseph Smith Translation (JST) makes to the text of the Bible. Are the changes:

* restorations of the original text
* clarifications of the original meaning
* commentaries that goes beyond what the original said or meant (a la "midrash" or "targum," as some have suggested)
* revisions or alterations of the text that depart from what the original meant
* something else (please specify)
* some combination of these types of changes (please specify which ones you think are included)

The Lord tells us in Heb 11:5 5 By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death;

Was Enoch translated from Hebrew to English?  Or does "translate" have more than one meaning.  Perhaps translate means to bring from one level to a higher, more perfected level.  Enoch was not resurrected, but changed into a more perfected state.

Thus, the JST is moving the text to a higher level of accuracy.

This does not answer you questions, but gives some context on what may be going on here.  I think it was a combination of commentary and direct revelation.  Perhaps I will be able to give specific examples in a later post.

Edited by cdowis, 06 February 2010 - 08:36 PM.

[David T]

Rob Bowman, on 06 February 2010 - 08:07 PM, said:

nackhadlow,

Thanks for your input. You wrote:



The link didn't work for me.

Sorry. http://jst.byu.edu/p...Translation.php

[Rob Bowman]

I'd really be interested in getting some additional responses from the LDS participants here. So far, the few that have responded have offered quite different answers.

[David T]

Rob Bowman, on 08 February 2010 - 10:34 AM, said:

So far, the few that have responded have offered quite different answers.

Seems to me that Zerinus' response is the only one that differs in any substantial way.

[Vance]

(merriam-webster.com)
Main Entry: trans·late
Pronunciation: \tran(t)s-?l?t, tranz-; ?tran(t)s-?l?t, ?tranz-\
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): trans·lat·ed; trans·lat·ing
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French translater, from Latin translatus (past participle of transferre to transfer, translate), from trans- + latus, past participle of ferre to carry — more at tolerate, bear
Date: 14th century

transitive verb 1 a : to bear, remove, or change from one place, state, form, or appearance to another : transfer, transform <translate ideas into action>
----------

It was an inspired translation (change from one place, state, form, or appearance to another) from a less clear and plain version to a more clear, plain and truth revealing version.

[Sargon]

I join those who suggest an "all of the above" approach. For the most part, though, I think it was mostly brand new material. And while I think Joseph was generally inspired as he did it, I don't necessarily believe all of it was inspired.

[Rob Bowman]

I'm genuinely interested in the responses so far, but I would like to comment on two of them.

First, cdowis wrote:

Quote

The Lord tells us in Heb 11:5 5 By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death;
Was Enoch translated from Hebrew to English? Or does "translate" have more than one meaning. Perhaps translate means to bring from one level to a higher, more perfected level. Enoch was not resurrected, but changed into a more perfected state.
Thus, the JST is moving the text to a higher level of accuracy.

Second, Vance wrote:

Quote

(merriam-webster.com) Main Entry: trans·late....  1 a : to bear, remove, or change from one place, state, form, or appearance to another : transfer, transform; translate ideas into action

It was an inspired translation (change from one place, state, form, or appearance to another) from a less clear and plain version to a more clear, plain and truth revealing version.

What both cdowis and Vance are doing here is selecting a definition or usage of the word translate or translation that is not normally associated with texts and applying it in that context in order to circumvent the obvious understanding of the word in such a context. This maneuver is linguistically fallacious. One cannot simply rifle through a list of definitions of a word and pick one that seems appealing or that gets you out of a jam.

For example, one of the Merriam-Webster dictionary definitions of translate (1.b.) is "to convey to heaven or to a nontemporal condition without death." This is the meaning of the word as it is used in Hebrews 11:5 KJV. This clearly cannot be what is meant by Joseph Smith "translating" the Bible. Smith did not convey the Bible to heaven. The explanation that cdowis gives, "to bring from one level to a higher, more perfected level" is not an actual meaning or usage of the word translate. Definition 1.b. has reference specifically to something done to human beings, not to texts.

Vance commits the same fallacy when he quotes Merriam-Webster definition 1.a., "to bear, remove, or change from one place, state, form, or appearance to another." The synonyms the dictionary gives here are "transfer" and "transform," and its example is the expression "translate ideas into action." This definition also has nothing to do with translating texts.

The Merriam-Webster dictionary does give a definition pertaining to texts, under definition 2:

Quote

2 a : to turn into one's own or another language;  b : to transfer or turn from one set of symbols into another : transcribe c (1) to express in different terms and especially different words : paraphrase; (2) to express in more comprehensible terms : interpret."

All of these closely related definitions have to do with language, whether oral or written, and are therefore all applicable to texts. But the other definitions are not applicable to texts.

[cdowis]

Rob Bowman, on 08 February 2010 - 12:28 PM, said:

What both cdowis and Vance are doing here is selecting a definition or usage of the word translate or translation that is not normally associated with texts and applying it in that context in order to circumvent the obvious understanding of the word in such a context. This maneuver is linguistically fallacious. One cannot simply rifle through a list of definitions of a word and pick one that seems appealing or that gets you out of a jam.

Well, the truth is now out.  You are not interested in the JST, but in an argument over apologetics.

I was not aware that I was "in a jam".  I have a few ideas and specific examples, but that's not really what you are looking for.  You want me to defend against some imaginary argument that you have concocted.

Well, Rob, if you want to conduct an apologetic argument -- attack and defend, then please let us know up front instead of some sneak attack.  

My goodness, you really blind-sided us with that fake sincerity routine.  Very skillfully done.  You have learned your lessons well from your mentor, Hank.  Perhaps he will take you back someday.  

Hank, I hope you're watching.  Your student is now becoming the teacher.

Edited by cdowis, 08 February 2010 - 01:34 PM.

[David T]

It is interesting to note that one of the definitions in Webster's 1828 dictionary is simply "to explain". Which is exactly what Targums did. Yes, they changed the text from Hebrew to another language - like Aramaic - but with some fascinating independent interpretive emendations to 'explain' or 'make known the hidden meaning' , or simply just 'application' of the text. Such is the Talmudic view of what was going on in Nehemiah 8:8.

Edited by nackhadlow, 08 February 2010 - 01:20 PM.

[Vance]

Rob Bowman, on 08 February 2010 - 12:28 PM, said:

What both cdowis and Vance are doing here is selecting a definition or usage of the word translate or translation that is not normally associated with texts and applying it in that context in order to circumvent the obvious understanding of the word in such a context. This maneuver is linguistically fallacious. One cannot simply rifle through a list of definitions of a word and pick one that seems appealing or that gets you out of a jam.

I gave you a valid definition of the word "translate" and why I think it applied.  If you don't like it, feel free to translate yourself to where you can pound sand.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

THe JST is an inspired revision of the bible. I don't beleive it be a restoration of the text.

And the Joseph Smith Tranlsation is not a translation in the traditional sense, as what was the origianl source of what he translated. He didn't look at some old hebrew scrolls and try to translate them in the traditional sense of the word.

Therefore the word Translate does have a different deffition than that of the normal use of the word.

Conext does matter and the context does not suggest a normal usage of the word. Of course I am all open to the idea that you think it should be defined as such, Rob.

[Jason]

I am also in the "all of the above" camp.  Some portions are restorations of a narrative that was one time extent, others are clarifications, and some are simplifications of the text.

I think that Joseph knew what he was doing in each instance, but wasn't too concerned with making that clear to the reader.  After all, he was being guided by the Spirit on all counts.

[zerinus]

Rob Bowman, on 08 February 2010 - 12:28 PM, said:

I'm genuinely interested in the responses so far, but I would like to comment on two of them.

First, cdowis wrote:


Second, Vance wrote:


What both cdowis and Vance are doing here is selecting a definition or usage of the word translate or translation that is not normally associated with texts and applying it in that context in order to circumvent the obvious understanding of the word in such a context. This maneuver is linguistically fallacious. One cannot simply rifle through a list of definitions of a word and pick one that seems appealing or that gets you out of a jam.

For example, one of the Merriam-Webster dictionary definitions of translate (1.b.) is "to convey to heaven or to a nontemporal condition without death." This is the meaning of the word as it is used in Hebrews 11:5 KJV. This clearly cannot be what is meant by Joseph Smith "translating" the Bible. Smith did not convey the Bible to heaven. The explanation that cdowis gives, "to bring from one level to a higher, more perfected level" is not an actual meaning or usage of the word translate. Definition 1.b. has reference specifically to something done to human beings, not to texts.

Vance commits the same fallacy when he quotes Merriam-Webster definition 1.a., "to bear, remove, or change from one place, state, form, or appearance to another." The synonyms the dictionary gives here are "transfer" and "transform," and its example is the expression "translate ideas into action." This definition also has nothing to do with translating texts.

The Merriam-Webster dictionary does give a definition pertaining to texts, under definition 2:



All of these closely related definitions have to do with language, whether oral or written, and are therefore all applicable to texts. But the other definitions are not applicable to texts.

Regrettably I am going to have to agree with you on that. Mormons are sometimes their own worst enemy when trying to "prove" their own religion.

[Rob Bowman]

Charles,

There is no excuse for your comments. This is the "Mormon Apologetics & Discussion Board." I have already posted on this board a good many times, so no one here is unaware of the fact that I am an evangelical Christian apologist who is critical of the JST. You have known about me for years and so also were under no illusion. I am here using my real name and being quite transparent about what I believe and why.

Also, as you should know, Hank Hanegraaff was in no sense my mentor. I was involved in Christian apologetics for about fifteen years before I met Hank in 1990. I had been on the staff of the Christian Research Institute (CRI) for over six years before I met Hank, who had assumed the presidency of the organization in 1988 while I was living out of state but still on staff. When I met Hank, I had a Master's degree from Fuller Theological Seminary and was ABD in my PhD studies, had written numerous articles and other resources for CRI, had published two books with a third book at the publishers being processed, and had debated the best-known apologists at that time from the Jehovah's Witnesses and Oneness Pentecostals. I was on staff after meeting Hank for only about a year and a half, when he terminated my employment at CRI via a fraudulent layoff.

I know it goes with the territory, but I tire of people making unfounded accusations instead of addressing the substantive issues.

cdowis, on 08 February 2010 - 01:11 PM, said:

Well, the truth is now out.  You are not interested in the JST, but in an argument over apologetics.

I was not aware that I was "in a jam".  I have a few ideas and specific examples, but that's not really what you are looking for.  You want me to defend against some imaginary argument that you have concocted.

Well, Rob, if you want to conduct an apologetic argument -- attack and defend, then please let us know up front instead of some sneak attack.  

My goodness, you really blind-sided us with that fake sincerity routine.  Very skillfully done.  You have learned your lessons well from your mentor, Hank.  Perhaps he will take you back someday.  

Hank, I hope you're watching.  Your student is now becoming the teacher.