42 replies to this topic

[Rob Bowman]

I have a couple of questions concerning Joseph Smith’s handling of Luke 23:43. I have done some research on this and have not found in addressed in any LDS publication, though of course I might easily have missed something.

In 1843, Joseph Smith made the following remarks about Luke 23:43:

“There has been much said by modern divines about the words of Jesus (when on the cross) to the thief, saying, ‘This day shalt thou be with me in paradise.’ King James’ translators make it out to say paradise. But what is paradise? It is a modern word: it does not answer at all to the original word that Jesus made use of. Find the original of the word paradise. You may as easily find a needle in a haymow. Here is a chance for battle, ye learned men. There is nothing in the original word in Greek from which this was taken that signifies paradise; but it was—This day thou shalt be with me in the world of spirits: then I will teach you all about it and answer your inquiries” (Teachings, p. 310; History of the Church 5:424-25).

My first question is very simple: How can we understand Joseph’s remarks here to be anything but mistaken? Here is a literal translation of the Greek text of Luke 23:43:

“And he said to him, ‘Amen to you I say, today you shall be with me in the paradeis?.”

The italicized word here is a transliteration of the Greek word that English Bibles, including the KJV of course, translate as “paradise.” Obviously, the English word “paradise” is simply an Anglicized form of the Greek word. It “answers to the original word” as much as any English word possibly could do so.

I have scratched my head and tried to think of how someone devoted to Joseph Smith as a true prophet might explain this apparent mistake. None of the explanations I can devise seem to work. Here they are:

• Perhaps Joseph meant that the word Jesus originally used—an Aramaic or Hebrew word—was not the same word as “paradise.” This won’t work, because he explicitly says “there is nothing in the original word in Greek from which this was taken that signifies paradise.”
• Perhaps Joseph meant that the text of Luke 23:43 was copied incorrectly and that the original Greek text used a different expression (that would translate literally as “world of spirits”). There are at least two problems with this explanation. First, Joseph challenged the “learned men” of his day to check his claim by referring to the Greek text. That challenge presupposes that the Greek text available in 1843 (which has the same word as the manuscripts discovered since then) was accurate on this point. Second, Joseph claims that the word “paradise” is not simply the wrong Greek word, but “a modern word.” This claim demonstrates that Joseph thought that the word was a modern mistake arising from the work of the English translators (note his reference to “King James’ translators”), not a mistake in the medieval or ancient Greek manuscripts. By the way, Joseph’s claim is simply false: the word occurs in Greek literature dating from several centuries earlier than the New Testament.
• Perhaps Joseph meant that the word “paradise” in Luke 23:43 does not mean “heaven” but refers to the “world of spirits” where the dead go awaiting the future judgment. No doubt something like this explanation reflects Joseph’s theological point, but it is not what he says. Rather, he says that the translators erred by using the word “paradise,” that the word is a modern word, and that nothing corresponding to it is in the Greek text.

Of course, another answer might be simply to acknowledge that Joseph was wrong. Most Mormons in my experience are prepared to admit that prophets can be mistaken; they even acknowledge that statements in the scriptures can be mistaken. I think this is your only honest way out (although I’m open to other suggestions if anyone has any). But notice that Joseph is not simply making an innocent mistake; he is throwing down the gauntlet on the basis of his supposed knowledge on this point (“Here is a chance for battle, ye learned men”). So if he’s wrong about this, it ought to be viewed at the very least as a rather arrogant mistake.

My second question is a natural follow-up to the first. If Joseph was an inspired translator, how did he miss this in his revision of the Bible? I count changes to 25 of the 56 verses in Luke 23 in the JST, including changes to verses 39, 40, and 42, but no change to verse 43.

Edited by Rob Bowman, 25 June 2010 - 01:29 PM.

[frankenstein]

are you sure that means what you think it means as the word "paradeis?" is used in Gen referring to the garden.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Rob Bowman, on 25 June 2010 - 01:29 PM, said:

I have a couple of questions concerning Joseph Smith’s handling of Luke 23:43.

Sounds good. I am not a scholar so I really can't answer yout question.

Rob Bowman, on 25 June 2010 - 01:29 PM, said:

I have scratched my head and tried to think of how someone devoted to Joseph Smith as a true prophet might explain this apparent mistake.

Simple, we don't believe that prophets are inerrant. There is nothing in the bible to suggest that a prophet needs to be inerrant to be not be called a prophet.

Rob Bowman, on 25 June 2010 - 01:29 PM, said:

My second question is a natural follow-up to the first. If Joseph was an inspired translator, how did he miss this in his revision of the Bible? I count changes to 25 of the 56 verses in Luke 23 in the JST, including changes to verses 39, 40, and 42, but no change to verse 43.

Again, he is not inerrant. Per the BoM if there be errors they be the errors of man.

Notice that I will give you the benefit of the doubt that he "got it wrong" this time.

Edited by Mola Ram Suda Ram, 25 June 2010 - 01:49 PM.

[Rob Bowman]

Frankenstein,

As I pointed out, Joseph clearly claimed that the KJV translators used the wrong word, "a modern word," not that modern Christians misunderstood the meaning of the word (which is a different claim).

frankenstein, on 25 June 2010 - 01:45 PM, said:

are you sure that means what you think it means as the word "paradeis?" is used in Gen referring to the garden.

[Rob Bowman]

Mola,

Would you also agree with me (assuming I am correct about Joseph getting the point at issue wrong) that it was rather arrogant for him to criticize the translators and modern scholars of his day, when clearly it was Joseph who did not know what he was talking about?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Rob Bowman, on 25 June 2010 - 01:52 PM, said:

Mola,

Would you also agree with me (assuming I am correct about Joseph getting the point at issue wrong) that it was rather arrogant for him to criticize the translators and modern scholars of his day, when clearly it was Joseph who did not know what he was talking about?

Sure, but I guess it would depend on if he was really being arrogant or ignorant. Perhaps he read something from a scholar of the day and he ran with it. Perhaps that scholar was not very good.

Of course I would be interested in hearing more about this from people that are versed in Greek.

Edited by Mola Ram Suda Ram, 25 June 2010 - 01:58 PM.

[Bill Hamblin]

The word is a Greek loan word from Persian, where it just means "garden".  Are we to assume that the Greek meaning is exactly the same as the Persian?  Or do cultures generally modify the meaning of loan words as they adopt them?

In the LXX the word occurs 31 times, generally for either the Garden of Eden (paralleling the NT use in Rev 2:7), or just an ordinary earthly garden.  In the OT context it is never used to refer to the final abode of the righteous after death in Heaven.  

But JS was not making a linguistic point, but a theological one.  The early 19th century Christian concept of entry into Paradise as equated to the final post-resurrection Heaven was incorrect.  Paul claims to have entered Paradise as a mortal in 2 Cor 12:4.

[Rob Bowman]

Bill,

If the word "is a Greek loan word from Persian" (which is correct), then it is not "a modern word." Agreed?

I showed very clearly that the issue Joseph Smith raised was in fact a linguistic one. He claimed the KJV translators used a word that in no way corresponded to the Greek word. I gave specific rebuttal to the explanation that he was only making a theological point.

Bill Hamblin, on 25 June 2010 - 02:12 PM, said:

The word is a Greek loan word from Persian, where it just means "garden".  Are we to assume that the Greek meaning is exactly the same as the Persian?  Or do cultures generally modify the meaning of loan words as they adopt them?

In the LXX the word occurs 31 times, generally for either the Garden of Eden (paralleling the NT use in Rev 2:7), or just an ordinary earthly garden.  In the OT context it is never used to refer to the final abode of the righteous after death in Heaven.  

But JS was not making a linguistic point, but a theological one.  The early 19th century Christian concept of entry into Paradise as equated to the final post-resurrection Heaven was incorrect.  Paul claims to have entered Paradise as a mortal in 2 Cor 12:4.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Rob Bowman, on 25 June 2010 - 02:22 PM, said:

Bill,

If the word "is a Greek loan word from Persian" (which is correct), then it is not "a modern word." Agreed?

I showed very clearly that the issue Joseph Smith raised was in fact a linguistic one. He claimed the KJV translators used a word that in no way corresponded to the Greek word. I gave specific rebuttal to the explanation that he was only making a theological point.

Acutally I am inclinded to agree with Bill. Why? Because if the word means something similar to the Garden of eden or an earthly garden, then the word "paradise"  as we know the word, is not a very good translation. Hence this has some serious theological implications to it.

it seems you agreed with what Bill claimed that the greek word meant.

From Wikipedia

Quote

Paradise is a place in which existence is positive, harmonious and timeless. It is conceptually a counter-image of the miseries of human civilization, and in paradise there is only peace, prosperity, and happiness. Paradise is a place of contentment, but it is not necessarily a land of luxury and idleness. It is often used in the same context as that of utopia.

I would say that the Garden of Eden or an earthly garden doesnt really fit this discription. Esp inlilght that Christ didn't go to a garden or to the Garden of Eden when he died. Or do you disagree?

Further more from Wiki

Quote

The word Paradise entered European languages from the Persian root word "Pardis" which was the name of a beautiful garden enclosed between walls.

Like I said though I am no scholar on this stuff.

Edited by Mola Ram Suda Ram, 25 June 2010 - 02:38 PM.

[Nathair]

Rob Bowman, on 25 June 2010 - 01:52 PM, said:

Would you also agree with me (assuming I am correct about Joseph getting the point at issue wrong) that it was rather arrogant for him to criticize the translators and modern scholars of his day, when clearly it was Joseph who did not know what he was talking about?

If we grant that this may be an example of Brother Joseph's hubris, will you grant that this does not disqualify him from being the Lord's anointed Prophet any more than Elisha's siccing a bear on some kids for mocking his baldness disqualifies him from the same position?


Yours under the standardized oaks,


Nathair /|\

[Rob Bowman]

Nathair,

Let's get something straight here. Are you claiming that Elisha acted wrongly?

Nathair, on 25 June 2010 - 02:39 PM, said:

If we grant that this may be an example of Brother Joseph's hubris, will you grant that this does not disqualify him from being the Lord's anointed Prophet any more than Elisha's siccing a bear on some kids for mocking his baldness disqualifies him from the same position?

Yours under the standardized oaks,

Nathair /|\

[Rob Bowman]

Mola,

The issue is not whether "paradise" is "a very good translation." It isn't a translation at all--it's the same word, simply spelled in an Anglicized form! The issue is whether Joseph Smith was correct when he stated that "paradise" was "a modern word" and that there was nothing in the Greek that answered to the word paradise.

Mola Ram Suda Ram, on 25 June 2010 - 02:33 PM, said:

Acutally I am inclinded to agree with Bill. Why? Because if the word means something similar to the Garden of eden or an earthly garden, then the word "paradise"  as we know the word, is not a very good translation. Hence this has some serious theological implications to it.

it seems you agreed with what Bill claimed that the greek word meant.

From Wikipedia



I would say that the Garden of Eden or an earthly garden doesnt really fit this discription. Esp inlilght that Christ didn't go to a garden or to the Garden of Eden when he died. Or do you disagree?

Further more from Wiki


Like I said though I am no scholar on this stuff.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Rob Bowman, on 25 June 2010 - 02:49 PM, said:

Mola,

The issue is not whether "paradise" is "a very good translation." It isn't a translation at all--it's the same word, simply spelled in an Anglicized form! The issue is whether Joseph Smith was correct when he stated that "paradise" was "a modern word" and that there was nothing in the Greek that answered to the word paradise.

Right, I see. I will need to respond after work out. Brb.

[Mortal Man]

Rob Bowman, on 25 June 2010 - 01:29 PM, said:

So if he’s wrong about this, it ought to be viewed at the very least as a rather arrogant mistake.

No argument here; however, it's unlikely that Jesus spoke those words in the first place. Luke has Jesus chatting away on the cross like he's at a picnic. Mark's account of a Jesus who speaks nothing but to cry out in agony is likely more accurate.

[Rob Bowman]

Mortal Man, on 25 June 2010 - 04:42 PM, said:

No argument here; however, it's unlikely that Jesus spoke those words in the first place. Luke has Jesus chatting away on the cross like he's at a picnic. Mark's account of a Jesus who speaks nothing but to cry out in agony is likely more accurate.

Three short sentences (Luke 23:34, 43, 46) constitute "chatting away on the cross like he's at a picnic"? And did you miss Mark 15:34 (which reports a statement by Jesus prior to his final cry, v. 37)?

[hagoth7]

Rob Bowman, on 25 June 2010 - 01:29 PM, said:

In 1843, Joseph Smith made the following remarks about Luke 23:43:

“There has been much said by modern divines about the words of Jesus (when on the cross) to the thief, saying, ‘This day shalt thou be with me in paradise.’ King James’ translators make it out to say paradise. But what is paradise? It is a modern word: it does not answer at all to the original word that Jesus made use of. Find the original of the word paradise. You may as easily find a needle in a haymow. Here is a chance for battle, ye learned men. There is nothing in the original word in Greek from which this was taken that signifies paradise; but it was—This day thou shalt be with me in the world of spirits: then I will teach you all about it and answer your inquiries” (Teachings, p. 310; History of the Church 5:424-25).

My first question is very simple: How can we understand Joseph’s remarks here to be anything but mistaken?

Hi Rob,

Easy.
1. Simply entertain the possibility that garden = the world of spirit.
2. And dispel the notion that the same has to mean anything other than a place where reality is more fluid - more easily nurtured to bring forth good fruit.

Quote

It “answers to the original word” as much as any English word possibly could do so.

True. But what did Christ mean by its use there?
In a similar vein...what of a similar Hebrew term in Genesis?

Quote

I have scratched my head and tried to think of how someone devoted to Joseph Smith as a true prophet might explain this apparent mistake. None of the explanations I can devise seem to work.

Does the above help?
(Or are you of the opinion that I didn't understand your intended point?)

Quote

But notice that Joseph is not simply making an innocent mistake; he is throwing down the gauntlet on the basis of his supposed knowledge on this point (“Here is a chance for battle, ye learned men”). So if he’s wrong about this, it ought to be viewed at the very least as a rather arrogant mistake.

The key is IF.
And IF he isn't? What then?
Who would then be the one at risk of being somewhat presumptuous? (I'm not trying to be rude, it's just a return of your volley in a fair exchange.)

Quote

If Joseph was an inspired translator, how did he miss this in his revision of the Bible?

He's not translating in the scientific sense. He's expounding. Conveying truth.

Edited by hagoth7, 25 June 2010 - 07:03 PM.

[Rob Bowman]

Hagoth7,

With regards to my first question, I'm afraid you have not engaged the evidence of what Joseph Smith actually said. He said there was nothing in the Greek text of Luke 23:43 that answered to the English word paradise in the King James Version. He claimed that the word paradise was "a modern word." Your response ignores what Joseph Smith said and suggests another approach to the topic. You're free to take any approach you like, but the issue I raised has to do with Joseph's actual statement.

With regard to my second question, if Joseph Smith was "expounding" on Luke 23 in the JST, and if the word "paradise" was incorrect (as Joseph later claimed), then why didn't he "expound" Luke 23:43 by using a more correct term?

hagoth7, on 25 June 2010 - 07:01 PM, said:

Hi Rob,

Easy.
1. Simply entertain the possibility that garden = the world of spirit.
2. And dispel the notion that the same has to mean anything other than a place where reality is more fluid - more easily nurtured to bring forth good fruit.


True. But what did Christ mean by its use there?
In a similar vein...what of a similar Hebrew term in Genesis?


Does the above help?
(Or are you of the opinion that I didn't understand your intended point?)


The key is IF.
And IF he isn't? What then?
Who would then be the one at risk of being somewhat presumptuous? (I'm not trying to be rude, it's just a return of your volley in a fair exchange.)


He's not translating in the scientific sense. He's expounding. Conveying truth.

[hagoth7]

Hi again Rob,

Rob Bowman, on 25 June 2010 - 07:24 PM, said:

With regards to my first question, I'm afraid you have not engaged the evidence of what Joseph Smith actually said.

Perhaps. Let's see.

Quote

He said there was nothing in the Greek text of Luke 23:43 that answered to the English word paradise in the King James Version.

I hear you. Which could simply mean Joseph is saying that the baggage surrounding the English word "paradise" didn't align with Christ's intended meaning of the parent word in Greek. Likewise, "gay" carries a much different connotation than it did fifty years ago. The meanings of words shift - based on time and context. Wouldn't you agree?

Would it then not be fair to chalk that up as a possibility for what Joseph meant?

Quote

He claimed that the word paradise was "a modern word."

It is. The language we call English is a modern language...even though some of its roots go far back in the past.

Quote

Your response ignores what Joseph Smith said

I could see how you might feel that way.
It doesn't ignore what he says inasmuch as it intends to focus on what I believe he meant by what he said.
Arriving at that, if I'm not mistaken, was the purpose of your questions. Yes?

Quote

...the issue I raised has to do with Joseph's actual statement.

Understood completely. And, to be fair, the issue you raised was within the framework of what **you** think Joseph meant by such a statement.
After close examination, I'm not required to accept that framework. And am free to posit another alternative for what Joseph meant. And you're not required to accept that framework - although I would appreciate your fairness in acknowledging it as a viable alternative. Fair enough?

Quote

With regard to my second question, if Joseph Smith was "expounding" on Luke 23 in the JST, and if the word "paradise" was incorrect (as Joseph later claimed), then why didn't he "expound" Luke 23:43 by using a more correct term?

Because his hearers spoke English.  
Which more correct English term would you suggest?

[Rob Bowman]

hagoth7,

On the one hand, you suggest that Joseph Smith's remarks in History of the Church may have meant "that the baggage surrounding the English word 'paradise' didn't align with Christ's intended meaning of the parent word in Greek." On the other hand, when I ask why Joseph didn't use another term in the JST at Luke 23:43, you ask, "Which more correct English term would you suggest?" I'm having trouble believing you're serious. How about the expression "world of spirits" that he claimed in History of the Church was the correct translation?

As for your suggested explanation of his remarks, you can believe anything you want, but he explicitly said that there was nothing answering to the word paradise in the original Greek. Here's the oddity: In this instance, I am letting Joseph Smith mean what he said, and (frankly) you are not. The reason is obvious: It is more important to you that Joseph be cleared of an obvious mistake than that you accept that he meant what he clearly said.

hagoth7, on 25 June 2010 - 07:39 PM, said:

Hi again Rob,


Perhaps. Let's see.


I hear you. Which could simply mean Joseph is saying that the baggage surrounding the English word "paradise" didn't align with Christ's intended meaning of the parent word in Greek. Likewise, "gay" carries a much different connotation than it did fifty years ago. The meanings of words shift - based on time and context. Wouldn't you agree?

Would it then not be fair to chalk that up as a possibility for what Joseph meant?


It is. The language we call English is a modern language...even though some of its roots go far back in the past.


I could see how you might feel that way.
It doesn't ignore what he says inasmuch as it intends to focus on what I believe he meant by what he said.
Arriving at that, if I'm not mistaken, was the purpose of your questions. Yes?


Understood completely. And, to be fair, the issue you raised was within the framework of what **you** think Joseph meant by such a statement.
After close examination, I'm not required to accept that framework. And am free to posit another alternative for what Joseph meant. And you're not required to accept that framework - although I would appreciate your fairness in acknowledging it as a viable alternative. Fair enough?


Because his hearers spoke English.  
Which more correct English term would you suggest?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Rob Bowman, on 25 June 2010 - 07:24 PM, said:

•Perhaps Joseph meant that the word Jesus originally used—an Aramaic or Hebrew word—was not the same word as “paradise.” This won’t work, because he explicitly says “there is nothing in the original word in Greek from which this was taken that signifies paradise.”

I got side tract a bit. I wanted to explore this. I think the implication here is that I think what he is trying to convey, although poorly, is that the translation that the scribes (for lack of a better term) translated the original aramaic texts from, did not contain a word that translated into greek that was paradeis?. So when the the KJV of the bible scribes translated it into english they picked the only  word that they could from the Greek that had been previously mis-translated.  

I think you jumped a head of your self here. You were on the right track but you went straight to the english from Aramaic, which is not what JS was claiming. For he said that the original  word in Greek from which this was taken that signifies paradise . What original word was he talking about? Jesus didn't speak Greek. So it was Aramaic that was the original and that was mis-translated for there was no Greek word for the original that would work. JS claims that the original Aramaic was "Spirit world", or "world of spirits". It is like saying "Tranlate the word "Ojalah" from spanish to an english equivelant and then using that english to translate it to Japanese". There is no translation that fits the english from the Spanish.

Any way I hope this make some sence.