Bill Hamblin Posted January 31, 2010 Share Posted January 31, 2010 This is an extension of a discussion that was closed while I was in Egypt.Bill,Perhaps I have not made my position sufficiently clear. I will try again.There is nothing wrong with an inspired writer producing a new text that covers much of the same material, whether historical (narrative) or didactic or liturgical, as an existing inspired text. My understanding of the biblical prohibitions against adding to or subtracting from the word of God (Deut. 4:2; Prov. 30:5-6; Rev. 22:18-19) would in no way impugn Deuteronomy repeating material found in Exodus, or Chonicles using Kings as a source, or Matthew adapting most of the material in Mark. It would, however, be a problem for my view if Matthew had issued a theologically doctored version of Kings (in which, say, he had Solomon speaking about dreams that he had about the coming of Jesus to die on the cross for our sins) and claimed to have "translated" the book of Kings.Nor is there anything wrong with Greek-speaking Jews translating, say, Genesis from Hebrew into Greek. Admittedly, translations are generally imperfect, so the LXX ended up differing somewhat from the Hebrew text on which it was based. (In turn, the traditional Hebrew text, the MT, is very close to the original text of Genesis, but in some cases the LXX may preserve an earlier reading. But that's another issue!) What would be objectionable would be for Greek-speaking Jews to claim to have produced a "translation" of Genesis but in fact deliberately rewrote it to teach Platonism.To give some examples from LDS scriptures, I would not argue that the use of the Sermon on the Mount in 3 Nephi is a violation of the biblical prohibition concerning adding to or taking away from the word of God (although I object to that text on other grounds). On the other hand, I most certainly do argue that Joseph Smith's revisions of the book of Hebrews in the JST violate that prohibition.Hi Rob,Do you agree that Matthew and Luke quote extensively and frequently word-for-word from Mark? Link to comment
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.