Joseph Smith And Hebrews 6:1

[Sentinus]

I have been visiting and attending my local LDS ward off and on with my family. I make it a point to study the manuals offered, so that if I have concern or question I can ask in a constructive way.

Hereâ??s my question, I will reference the current manual used in priesthood/relief society. It is my hope that someone here can offer a different perspective, on what seems to me to be a open and shut case of misunderstanding of context on Joseph's part. I am aware that the official stance of the LDS church in SLC is that the JST is not cannon, but to an investigator, or critic of the church it's use to establish doctrine and further understanding of doctrine, makes this stance irrelevant (IMO). If it is good enough to use in the manual, AND to help shed light on doctrine, THEN it should at least be as authoritative as the manual itself teaches it is.

The Prophet later said: â??I believe the Bible as it read when it came from the pen of the original writers. Ignorant translators, careless transcribers, or designing and corrupt priests have committed many errors. â?¦ Look at [Hebrews 6:1] for contradictionsâ??â??Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection.â?? If a man leaves the principles of the doctrine of Christ, how can he be saved in the principles? This is a contradiction. I donâ??t believe it. I will render it as it should beâ??â??Therefore not leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection.â?? â?2

Firstly, what proof can be demonstrated that these men were "Ignorant, careless, and corrupt"? Also from a non LDS position can anyone see how "Anti" this statement can be taken? These are pretty serious charges that the readers of the manual are lead to believe is accurate, and it is said as if it is common knowledge, which is highly debatable.

Also this verse is on it's face very easily misinterpreted without taking it, in it's correct context.

Hbr 5:11 Of whom we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, seeing ye are dull of hearing.

Hbr 5:12

[Log]

Firstly, what proof can be demonstrated that these men were "Ignorant, careless, and corrupt"?

If the text as we have it differs from the text as it was originally written, please inform us what logical explanations for the differences can possibly be, other than that the scribes were ignorant, careless, or corrupt.

Can anyone else see how inserting the word not contradicts Paulâ??s message to the Hebrews ?

I personally think it's superfluous, but I also understand Joseph's perspective. Perhaps you can inform us how the insertion of "not" contradicts Paul's message, in your eyes?

[Sentinus]

If the text as we have it differs from the text as it was originally written, please inform us what logical explanations for the differences can possibly be, other than that the scribes were ignorant, careless, or corrupt.

I personally think it's superfluous, but I also understand Joseph's perspective. Perhaps you can inform us how the insertion of "not" contradicts Paul's message, in your eyes?

If the text as we have it differs from the text as it was originally written, please inform us what logical explanations for the differences can possibly be, other than that the scribes were ignorant, careless, or corrupt?

This doesn't answer Josephs claim. I didn't make the claim he did. So it is up to those that believe his words to defend IMO. Thats why I asked.

I personally think it's superfluous, but I also understand Joseph's perspective. Perhaps you can inform us how the insertion of "not" contradicts Paul's message, in your eyes?

Then why respond?

Regards,

Sentinus

[Log]

This doesn't answer Josephs claim. I didn't make the claim he did. So it is up to those that believe his words to defend IMO. Thats why I asked.

But it does. Unless you are going to hold to the position that what we have exactly matches the original manuscripts, then you have to account for the differences. If you agree that we don't have the original manuscripts in textual form today, then please, tell us how your explanation would differ from Joseph's.

Personally, I can't think of an alternative explanation outside of ignorance, carelessness, or corruption which accounts for the differences.

Then why respond?

I asked a question. How does the insertion of "not" where Joseph did contradict Paul's message, in your eyes?

[Anijen]

Sentinus,

In the lower left hand part of this manuscript you can see where it has been altered, and then later a priest chastising the person by calling him a fool and a knave for doing so. I don't know if this answers your question ("'what proof can be demonstrated that these men were "Ignorant, careless, and corrupt"?) but it could be all three or none.

Jeff

[Sentinus]

Sentinus,

In the lower left hand part of this manuscript you can see where it has been altered, and then later a priest chastising the person by calling him a fool and a knave for doing so. I don't know if this answers your question ("'what proof can be demonstrated that these men were "Ignorant, careless, and corrupt"?) but it could be all three or none.

Jeff

I am unable to read any of this document, nor is a source listed. But it seems to prove that at least one priest was NOT corrupt, and was astonished at someone having made an alteration. To me this demonstrates the desire by many if not most to preserve the texts in their most accurate form.

I never said that the translations were perfect, nor did the people who translated them. But great care to maintain the integrity and authenticity of these sacred documents is much easier shown than is showing "Ignorance, Carelessness, and corruption." Joseph Smith made IMO some very broad and general statements regarding the individuals that were responsible in preserving the texts that we ALL hold as sacred.

Thank you Anijen for offering this response, it is good to talk to you again..

Regards,

Sentinus

[Sentinus]

But it does. Unless you are going to hold to the position that what we have exactly matches the original manuscripts, then you have to account for the differences. If you agree that we don't have the original manuscripts in textual form today, then please, tell us how your explanation would differ from Joseph's.

Personally, I can't think of an alternative explanation outside of ignorance, carelessness, or corruption which accounts for the differences.

I asked a question. How does the insertion of "not" where Joseph did contradict Paul's message, in your eyes?

Unless you are going to hold to the position that what we have exactly matches the original manuscripts, then you have to account for the differences. If you agree that we don't have the original manuscripts in textual form today, then please, tell us how your explanation would differ from Joseph's.

I would avoid assigning such nefarious intent to something unless I had SOLID proof. When translating from Greek, or Hebrew or other such languages to English for example it is very difficult to be exact. Sometimes there is just no equivelant words or ideas within a language to express the ideas. But you can be assured that from my research great care was taken to preserve the integrity of the texts. Look at how well the ancient Jews kept their record intact. The early Christians were brought up in the same culture, these were texts and letters that were revered and considered Holy. It makes more logical sense to assume positive intent, then to sow such negative seeds. Was it possible that some carelessness, Ignorance, corruption occured sure, but to whitewash the entire group in such a way is just ridiculous. Many Religious Scholars (Including some LDS I am sure) who are much more informed on these matters than I, agree that there is more evidence for the NT being accurate than there is for it being tampered with in the manner Joseph suggests. While I am sure you may debate each point I make here I will provide a few links that outline what things could be said in defense of the New Testament, and it's accuracy. Here is what one scholar has said after doing far more research than I.

Evidence from the existing New Testament manuscripts, from the writings of the apostolic fathers, from the works of ancient secular authors, from the ancient creeds and hymns found in the New Testament, and from the opinions of the world's leading experts have been examined. All this evidence leads to the conclusion that the existing New Testament manuscripts are reliable and authentic testimony of what the apostles wrote. A person is free to deny this conclusion, but to do so is to go against all the available evidence.

I would challenge you to find error in his work, and then alert him to your findings.

http://www.biblicaldefense.org/Writings/ne...reliability.htm

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/8449/reliable.html

I asked a question. How does the insertion of "not" where Joseph did contradict Paul's message, in your eyes?"

Please if you would explain to me why you feel it is superfluous, please also show how it is so within the context I have offered. I will then gladly answer your question as best I can.

As a side, what would you say if Joseph's use of the word "not" changed the meaning from the writers actual intent? Would you then label him careless, ignorant, and corrupt ?

Regards,

Sentinus

[Hashbaz]

The manuscript page Anijen posted is from the Codex Vaticanus (c. 350 AD), and the "fool and knave" comment was written next to an altered rendering of Hebrews 1:3.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Vaticanus

According to the always reliable Wikipedia, the full comment was "Fool and knave, can't you leave the old reading alone and not alter it!"â??"ἀμαθέστατε καὶ κακέ, ἄφες τὸν παλαιόν, μὴ μεταποίει"

Wikipedia furthers states that this "suggests that inaccurate copying, either intentional or unintentional, was a known problem in scriptoriums"

Considering there are 5500 or so manuscripts of the New Testament and no two are alike in all their particulars, I'd say it's safe to say there were some problems in the scriptoriums. There are somewhere in the neighborhood of 300,000 variant readings amongst the 5500 NT manuscripts, which is all the more striking when one considers that there are only 181,000 or so words in the New Testament. I'm not suggesting all scribes were corrupt, but all it takes is one alteration/mistake in an early manuscript to affect all later copies. Bear in mind we don't have a single "autograph" or original manuscript, all we have are copies, and no matter how early a copy is, it is still a copy.

[why me]

I have no reason to doubt the manual in this regard. It seems to me that JS did clarify many issues that seemed to be left out of the King James Version. If I recall correctly and of course someone with more knowledge may comment, but the JST follows rather closely the original greek. If so, it was a remarkable achievement.

But at the end of the day, if one wants to find fault with something, they will. But I have to take my hat off to to Joseph Smith for being bold enough to do such a revision. He risked much by doing so. For example as the OP wrote:

If it is good enough to use in the manual, AND to help shed light on doctrine, THEN it should at least be as authoritative as the manual itself teaches it is.

But this did not stop JS from correcting a wrong with god's help. He did not cringe from criticism.

[why me]

QUOTE("Dr Fernandes from his doctoral dissertation")

Evidence from the existing New Testament manuscripts, from the writings of the apostolic fathers, from the works of ancient secular authors, from the ancient creeds and hymns found in the New Testament, and from the opinions of the world's leading experts have been examined. All this evidence leads to the conclusion that the existing New Testament manuscripts are reliable and authentic testimony of what the apostles wrote. A person is free to deny this conclusion, but to do so is to go against all the available evidence.

And here we have the problem: all interpret the information in their own way and quite often with bias. But for mormons, the JST version would have to be the most correct translation. It could be no other way since the process was done with God's help, as mormons would believe.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

It is my understanding that King James had the Bible translated to form and new "protestant" religion (or an anti-catholic one). Later Martin Luther removed certain books from the cannon of scripture. As I am sure you are aware there are many books missing from the Bible that are specifically mentioned in the Bible. So Josephâ??s statement although blunt, is probably true. See list below of missing books...

BIBLE DICTIONARY

Lost Books

The so-called lost books of the Bible are those documents that are mentioned in the Bible in such a way that it is evident they are considered authentic and valuable, but that are not found in the Bible today. Sometimes called missing scripture, they consist of at least the following: book of the Wars of the Lord (Num. 21: 14); book of Jasher (Josh. 10: 13; 2 Sam. 1: 18); book of the acts of Solomon (1 Kgs. 11: 41); book of Samuel the seer (1 Chr. 29: 29); book of Gad the seer (1 Chr. 29: 29); book of Nathan the prophet (1 Chr. 29: 29; 2 Chr. 9: 29); prophecy of Ahijah (2 Chr. 9: 29); visions of Iddo the seer (2 Chr. 9: 29; 2 Chr. 12: 15; 2 Chr. 13: 22); book of Shemaiah (2 Chr. 12: 15); book of Jehu (2 Chr. 20: 34); sayings of the seers (2 Chr. 33: 19); an epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, earlier than our present 1 Corinthians (1 Cor. 5: 9); possibly an earlier epistle to the Ephesians (Eph. 3: 3); an epistle to the Church at Laodicea (Col. 4: 16); and some prophecies of Enoch, known to Jude (Jude 1: 14). To these rather clear references to inspired writings other than our current Bible may be added another list that has allusions to writings that may or may not be contained within our present text, but may perhaps be known by a different title; for example, the book of the covenant (Ex. 24: 7), which may or may not be included in the current book of Exodus; the manner of the kingdom, written by Samuel (1 Sam. 10: 25); the rest of the acts of Uzziah written by Isaiah (2 Chr. 26: 22).

The foregoing items attest to the fact that our present Bible does not contain all of the word of the Lord that he gave to his people in former times, and remind us that the Bible, in its present form, is rather incomplete.

Matthewâ??s reference to a prophecy that Jesus would be a Nazarene (Matt. 2: 23) is interesting when it is considered that our present O.T. seems to have no statement as such. There is a possibility, however, that Matthew alluded to Isaiah 11: 1, which prophesies of the Messiah as a Branch from the root of Jesse, the father of David. The Hebrew word for branch in this case is netzer, the source word of Nazarene and Nazareth. Additional references to the Branch as the Savior and Messiah are found in Jer. 23: 5; Jer. 33: 15; Zech. 3: 8; Zech. 6: 12; these use a synonymous Hebrew word for branch, tzemakh.

The Book of Mormon makes reference to writings of O.T. times and connection that are not found in the Bible, the Book of Mormon, or in any other known source. These writings are of Zenock, Zenos, and Neum (1 Ne. 19: 10; Alma 33: 3-17). An extensive prophecy by Joseph in Egypt (which is not in the Bible) is also apparent from 2 Ne. 3: 4-22, and a prophecy of Jacob (not found in the Bible) is given in Alma 46: 24-26. These writings were evidently contained on the plates of brass spoken of in the Book of Mormon (1 Ne. 5: 10-13).

[Log]

I would avoid assigning such nefarious intent to something unless I had SOLID proof.

But it seems you agree that those are the only possibilities - changes came because someone was ignorant, or careless, or purposefully altered the text - and I don't think Joseph accused any particular person of such nefarious intent; moreover, his statement included the Hebrew Bible as well. In any event, there are variant readings galore for the New Testament, some of them having doctrinal significance.

Please if you would explain to me why you feel it is superfluous, please also show how it is so within the context I have offered. I will then gladly answer your question as best I can.

I feel it to be superfluous because it seems to me that Paul is saying "Let's talk about something else" when he says "leaving the principles of Christ, not laying again...". Of course, my reading in the English is hardly authoritative.

As a side, what would you say if Joseph's use of the word "not" changed the meaning from the writers actual intent? Would you then label him careless, ignorant, and corrupt ?

I would say it is a good thing Joseph had authority from God, which is a sure shield against any such charge.

[LDSMusic483]

Look at how well the ancient Jews kept their record intact. The early Christians were brought up in the same culture, these were texts and letters that were revered and considered Holy. It makes more logical sense to assume positive intent, then to sow such negative seeds. Was it possible that some carelessness, Ignorance, corruption occured sure, but to whitewash the entire group in such a way is just ridiculous.

I don't believe that Joseph Smith was trying to "whitewash the ENTIRE group," rather the entire group of ingorant, or careless, or corrupt translators. What I'm saying is that what he says about those individuals doesn't necessarily extend to every translator or scribe of the bible, but those who did for those reasons cause changes in the text to be made.

Now, I believe JS is dead on in his change of that verse. You can't approach perfection without a foundation of the first principles. Will there be a time during the process of moving on to perfection that faith and repentance are no longer needed? No. Now I can see both renderings meaning the same thing, just JS's is clearer. The essence is that we shall shift the focus from the basic principles to those principles that lead towards perfection. Paul would obviously know that perfection will not be obtained without the basic principles, and I believe his original intent mirrored the way that Joseph Smith rendered his words.

[The_Monk]

Regarding the actual passage-

Hebrews 6:1 is speaking rhetorically, that we're going to stop talking about Gospel basics and move on to the deeper topics.

JS read it as non-rhetorical, and from that perspective, he's right. Whether Catholic, Protestant, or LDS, one cannot receive salvation if one abandons ("leaving behind") the findamentals- Jesus as Messiah, and so on. Given that this was Joseph's understanding, and that the author of Hebrews could not have taught such a thing, the only option was that the text must have been tampered with.

Paul and JS agree that one can't leave behind those basic principles.

Now, if different manuscripts read differently, they can only have diverged either through conscious and deliberate change or unconscious and accidental change. I don't see that this claim is controversial at all.

[LDSMusic483]

Regarding the actual passage-

Hebrews 6:1 is speaking rhetorically, that we're going to stop talking about Gospel basics and move on to the deeper topics.

JS read it as non-rhetorical, and from that perspective, he's right. Whether Catholic, Protestant, or LDS, one cannot receive salvation if one abandons ("leaving behind") the findamentals- Jesus as Messiah, and so on. Given that this was Joseph's understanding, and that the author of Hebrews could not have taught such a thing, the only option was that the text must have been tampered with.

Paul and JS agree that one can't leave behind those basic principles.

Now, if different manuscripts read differently, they can only have diverged either through conscious and deliberate change or unconscious and accidental change. I don't see that this claim is controversial at all.

Agreed. I think that the two passages in intent mean the same thing. Joseph clarified it though so if someone read in a non-rhetorical manner, they wouldn't be confused. Reading it in Josephs rendering either rhetorically or not receive the same understanding.

[Sentinus]

I don't believe that Joseph Smith was trying to "whitewash the ENTIRE group," rather the entire group of ingorant, or careless, or corrupt translators. What I'm saying is that what he says about those individuals doesn't necessarily extend to every translator or scribe of the bible, but those who did for those reasons cause changes in the text to be made.

Now, I believe JS is dead on in his change of that verse. You can't approach perfection without a foundation of the first principles. Will there be a time during the process of moving on to perfection that faith and repentance are no longer needed? No. Now I can see both renderings meaning the same thing, just JS's is clearer. The essence is that we shall shift the focus from the basic principles to those principles that lead towards perfection. Paul would obviously know that perfection will not be obtained without the basic principles, and I believe his original intent mirrored the way that Joseph Smith rendered his words.

I don't believe that Joseph Smith was trying to "whitewash the ENTIRE group," rather the entire group of ingorant, or careless, or corrupt translators. What I'm saying is that what he says about those individuals doesn't necessarily extend to every translator or scribe of the bible, but those who did for those reasons cause changes in the text to be made.

Now this IS a good point to consider, I hadn't looked at it from that perspective. Thanks.

Regards,

Sentinus

[LDSMusic483]

Now this IS a good point to consider, I hadn't looked at it from that perspective. Thanks.

Regards,

Sentinus

No problem

[Sentinus]

In response to all:

It seems that at this point the overall belief is that the text since translated from unreliable sources at best, that regardless of what I demonstrate, ultimately it will be debated and ignored in favor of Joseph Smith's interpretation.

However I believe that what we have is extremely accurate, and I don't do so by myself. There is plenty of evidence to support this belief. So we can move on from this point of my thread and focus in on the translation.

In most study aides on this scripture chapters 5 and 6 are wound together as one theme, the chapters and verses are 5:11 - 6:12 they are considered to be the writers "Exhortation to abandon spiritual lethargy." I will do my best to make sense of all the info I and others have offered to explain it in as clear a way as possible. My comments on the verses will be in red.

Hbr 5:11 Of whom we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, seeing ye are dull of hearing.

The writer previously was talking of Christ, who was called of God a High Priest after the order of Melchisdec (See Heb 5:8-10) This is the "Of whom" he wishes to discuss, but it is "hard to utter" because they are "dull of hearing" OR have become sluggish and lazy in progressing in the gospel. (See Heb 6:12)

Hbr 5:12

[The_Monk]

I utterly fail to see a problem. Joseph Smith and other translations agree that we do not leave behind the basic principles. Joseph Smith's general statement that the texts have suffered in transmission is in agreement with modern scholarship.

Edit: In terms of text-critical scholarship **on this verse** JS was wrong. But in the two principles he enumerate, he was fully correct. JS was not some kind of analytical scholar, rendering a verse-by-verse commentary.

[Sentinus]

I utterly fail to see a problem. Joseph Smith and other translations agree that we do not leave behind the basic principles. Joseph Smith's general statement that the texts have suffered in transmission is in agreement with modern scholarship.

Edit: In terms of text-critical scholarship **on this verse** JS was wrong. But in the two principles he enumerate, he was fully correct. JS was not some kind of analytical scholar, rendering a verse-by-verse commentary.

In terms of text-critical scholarship **on this verse** JS was wrong.

This is my point. As for the principles you mention, nowhere in the context is it taught that one should no longer adhere to the basics, or abandon them. But it is is preferred to advance past them.

Thank you for your input.. Also you seem to indicate that other translations did the same as Joseph-

Joseph Smith and other translations agree that we do not leave behind the basic principles.

What translations have done this, I have found none. Or am I misunderstanding you?

Regards,

Sentinus

[LDSMusic483]

In response to all:

I also offer for consideration how others have translated this same scripture.

There are more, but not one of them chose to infer that they "not leave behind the principles of Christ." The context seemed clear to them what the writer was trying to convey.

Since the writer was intent on telling the "Hebrews" to move on from the "First Principles", IMO the use of not eliminates the need for all the prior admonitions. He was telling them to leave the basics behind within the context. NOT to NOT leave them behind. At least thats how I and many, many, well more informed scholars have read and interpretted it.

Kind regards,

Sentinus

Those translations though come from a subsequent copy. How many translations or copies do you have to go back before you get to the words as it was written by Paul himself or dictated to a scribe by Paul. That is what Joseph Smith is saying, that the words as Paul said them should be rendered differently than we have them. Unless you can find the original letter and have that translated, those subsequent translations don't hold up well.

edited to delete most of the long quote

[The_Monk]

This is my point. As for the principles you mention, nowhere in the context is it taught that one should no longer adhere to the basics, or abandon them. But it is is preferred to advance past them.

Thank you for your input.. Also you seem to indicate that other translations did the same as Joseph-

What translations have done this, I have found none. Or am I misunderstanding you?

Regards,

Sentinus

I'm not talking about translations or technicalities. I'm talking about the meaning behind the words, regardless of the language.

Joseph read "leaving" in the KJV English as "abandon" instead of "progress beyond." He was not performing scholarly exegesis, but frontier preaching.

Other translations do not suggest that we should cease believing or living the basics of the Gospel.

[Sentinus]

Those translations though come from a subsequent copy. How many translations or copies do you have to go back before you get to the words as it was written by Paul himself or dictated to a scribe by Paul. That is what Joseph Smith is saying, that the words as Paul said them should be rendered differently than we have them. Unless you can find the original letter and have that translated, those subsequent translations don't hold up well.

edited to delete most of the long quote

If this is your position on the NT texts than at least I can understand why you see it the way you do. However it seems to me that there is more than enough evidence that suggests otherwise. It is up to us each as individuals to determine if we have honestly investigated this stance on the NT writings. In the end we are left to make our own choice.

Kind regards,

Sentinus

[Sentinus]

I'm not talking about translations or technicalities. I'm talking about the meaning behind the words, regardless of the language.

Joseph read "leaving" in the KJV English as "abandon" instead of "progress beyond." He was not performing scholarly exegesis, but frontier preaching.

Other translations do not suggest that we should cease believing or living the basics of the Gospel.

Other translations do not suggest that we should cease believing or living the basics of the Gospel.

Nor does the KJV, when understood and read in context.

Regards,

Sentinus

[The_Monk]

Nor does the KJV, when understood and read in context.

Agreed. But his changes are also consistent with the lesson taught, that we are to progress beyond the basic principles, not abandon them.