The Joseph Smith Translation

[Rivers]

I've heard the idea that Joseph Smith did more than just restore lost pieces of biblical text, but is there any textual evidence from old bible manuscripts that show that Joseph actually did restore things that are lost?

[etana]

I've heard the idea that Joseph Smith did more than just restore lost pieces of biblical text, but is there any textual evidence from old bible manuscripts that show that Joseph actually did restore things that are lost?

Not that i know of. We have been able to restore a few lost things since that he missed, such as the correct names for the officials in Jeremiah 39:3.

Edited June 20, 2011 by etana

[rameumptom]

Joseph Smith's goal was not necessarily to add things missing from the original Bible, but to update it and correct it doctrinally. Some consider his efforts more of a Midrash, than a "translation" (which is a poor term to use for what he did).

It is noteworthy, however, that some things were restored. The Book of Enoch fragments in the Dead Sea Scrolls note Enoch meeting a man Mahujah who asks him questions. Well, in the Book of Moses (part of the JST) Enoch travels to a place Mahujah, where a man Mahijah asks him questions. They are basically the same word here. This concept and Mahijah/Mahujah is found nowhere else except in the Book of Moses and the DSS Enoch fragments.

[zerinus]

I've heard the idea that Joseph Smith did more than just restore lost pieces of biblical text, but is there any textual evidence from old bible manuscripts that show that Joseph actually did restore things that are lost?

If those missing pieces could be found in existing manuscripts, they wouldn't be "lost," would they.

[mfbukowski]

I've heard the idea that Joseph Smith did more than just restore lost pieces of biblical text, but is there any textual evidence from old bible manuscripts that show that Joseph actually did restore things that are lost?

Is there any evidence of what the authors actually wrote?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I've heard the idea that Joseph Smith did more than just restore lost pieces of biblical text, but is there any textual evidence from old bible manuscripts that show that Joseph actually did restore things that are lost?

It was my understanding that JS did not restore actual lost words, rather he gave a very inspired interpretation of the bible. IOW in conveyed the original intent of what was written.

[cdowis]

There are those who suggest that "translation" is meant in the sense that Enoch was translated -- move to a higher level.

Edited June 20, 2011 by cdowis

[Vance]

There are those who suggest that "translation" is meant in the sense that Enoch was translated -- move to a higher level.

Too many people artificially limit the definition of "translation" to not included what the JST really is. In our modern lexicon there may very well be better words but in JS's vocabulary "translation" was the best word at his disposal (in my opinion).

1828 Websters,

1. To bear, carry or remove from one place to another.

3. To transfer; to convey from one to another. 2 Sam. 3.

5. To change.

[Calm]

I've heard the idea that Joseph Smith did more than just restore lost pieces of biblical text, but is there any textual evidence from old bible manuscripts that show that Joseph actually did restore things that are lost?

This might be helpful: http://lds.org/ensign/1997/08/the-joseph-smith-translation-plain-and-precious-things-restored?lang=eng&noLang=true&path=/ensign/1997/08/the-joseph-smith-translation-plain-and-precious-things-restored

[Questing Beast]

I've heard the idea that Joseph Smith did more than just restore lost pieces of biblical text, but is there any textual evidence from old bible manuscripts that show that Joseph actually did restore things that are lost?

Not a scrap. Any old texts are like the Bibles we have. There are no more fulsome versions that show Joseph Smith's "translation" to be correct.

However, this could be held as evidence that scripture revision was already an old practice; the most accurate copies were suppressed or otherwise lost.

There's a reason why its popularly called "the inspired version": because taken altogether, Joseph Smith's changes create a cohesive Mormon doctrine pov, which was the purpose of "translating the Bible" in the first place....

[Robert F. Smith]

I've heard the idea that Joseph Smith did more than just restore lost pieces of biblical text, but is there any textual evidence from old bible manuscripts that show that Joseph actually did restore things that are lost?

QuestingBeast said:

Not a scrap. Any old texts are like the Bibles we have. There are no more fulsome versions that show Joseph Smith's "translation" to be correct.

However, this could be held as evidence that scripture revision was already an old practice; the most accurate copies were suppressed or otherwise lost.

There's a reason why its popularly called "the inspired version": because taken altogether, Joseph Smith's changes create a cohesiveMormon doctrine pov, which was the purpose of "translating the Bible" in the first place....

Doing revisions of the Bible was a popular enterprise in Joseph Smith's time. Thomas Jefferson did a cut and paste job so as to remove the mystery and supernatural from the Bible, and Alexander Campbell (Sidney Rigdon's mentor) did a distinctly different sort of revision. So when Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon together set about revising some parts of the Bible as well as obtaining major revelations about other parts, one needn't have been surprised.

Beast says that not a scrap of Joseph's inspired version of the Bible matches old Bible texts, but that is plainly false -- as the comment above on Mahujah/Mahijah in the Book of Enoch (part of the Book of Moses) clearly shows. I'm not sure that Beast even bothers to read these threads before lashing out with his freewheeling personal opinions. It would be nice if he would engage us all (pro or con) with real arguments based on fact.

We have had detailed discussions of this issue before on this Board, and it is clear that not only did Sidney and Joseph attempt to clarify some turgid texts (as at Hebrews 6:1), but they also added punctuation which is actually well justified based on Hebrew grammar -- as with the question mark in Exodus 6:3. In other cases major additions to the text (via revelation) clearly restored early material which was once canonical (part of the Jewish and Christian Bible, but since dropped from the Western Canon).

For example, when Matthew Black (with J. T. Milik) published and lectured on the Book of Enoch fragments from Qumran Cave 4, he was informed of the extensive Joseph Smith Book of Enoch parallels. He examined the issue and concluded that Joseph must have had confidential informants from a sub rosa Jewish or Catholic group which had been transmitting such texts over thousands of years. For in Joseph's time the relevant texts were unknown even to the best scholars.

Edited June 22, 2011 by Robert F. Smith

[Questing Beast]

@Robert: So you talk about modern (in Joseph's day) revisions of the scriptures to justify any similarity to what Joseph Smith added? That isn't the meaning of the OP's question as I took it. Ancient texts do not jive with Joseph Smith's editing. You might find "a scrap" that happens to be similar. But I used that phrase to make the point that searching the oldest texts (which are, save the DSS, centuries past the times they are talking about) will not produce any correlation between the "inspired version's" changes and the original texts....

[Mike Reed]

Short answer: No, not really. At least, not in a significant way that would confirm Joseph's purported prophetic calling. Longer answer: See Kevin Barney's excellent article, "The Joseph Smith Translation and Ancient Texts of the Bible," Dialogue 19/3 (1986): 85—102.

Edited June 22, 2011 by Mike Reed

[Anijen]

I have been looking into the JST from a different perspective. Of John 1:21-22 of Joseph himself being the person spoken about in that verse. I see a cool and interesting difference between the KJV and the JST;

21And he confessed, and denied not that he was Elias; but confessed, saying; I am not the Christ

22And they asked him, saying; How then art thou Elias? And he said, I am not that Elias who was to restore all things. And they asked him, saying, Art thou that prophet? And he answered, No.

Could "that prophet" spoken in this verse be Joseph Smith himself?

In studying I find the "I am not the Elias who was to restore all things" a hidden gem of knowledge. Could it be Jesus Christ? Well, as I search this through, we know that Elias could refer to any number of “restorers” it could be John the Baptist but the Savior and Joseph Smith also qualify. According to George Laub (journal entry) Joseph said he was "that prophet" in John 1:22,25 so I make the connection that Joseph was the one "who was to restore all things" (verse 22) There are journal entries that Joseph taught that he was another witness and he shall preach this gospel to all nations. In a talk given by JS on May 12, 1844 it looks pretty clear that Joseph recognized himself as this messenger who was ordained for that purpose of preaching the gospel or in his case being the head of the gospel dispensation that made it possible for it to be preached in these last days.

This of course does nothing to prove a better translation of the KJV but as others have mentioned in this thread that the JST did not have to be just a translation of word for word but to clarify also the doctrine that was being taught.

Edited June 23, 2011 by Anijen

[Xander]

My biggest problem with Joseph Smith as inspired translator, came when he decided to use Rev 1:6 to support his doctrine that God the Father has a father. His interpretation was based on an ambiguous translation as found in the KJV, but modern scholarship has cleared up the ambiguity with subsequent translations.

One might argue that he was just an imperfect man, but the problem with this is that he was supposed to be a genuine prophet, and one of the selling points for the "restoration" doctrine was that the real Church fell into apostasy, and that the world was left to erroneous interpretations of the Bible. Hence, the need for prophets with authority to tell us what the Bible is really saying. But Joseph Smth's explanation of Rev 1:6 suggested to me that what he had to offer by way of biblical interpretation, was actually less reliable than what Evangelical and Catholic theologians have to offer.

[Xander]

His failure to understand that the biblical Elias was actually in reference to the biblical Elijah, was another goof on his part.

[kolipoki09]

My biggest problem with Joseph Smith as inspired translator, came when he decided to use Rev 1:6 to support his doctrine that God the Father has a father. His interpretation was based on an ambiguous translation as found in the KJV, but modern scholarship has cleared up the ambiguity with subsequent translations.

One might argue that he was just an imperfect man, but the problem with this is that he was supposed to be a genuine prophet, and one of the selling points for the "restoration" doctrine was that the real Church fell into apostasy, and that the world was left to erroneous interpretations of the Bible. Hence, the need for prophets with authority to tell us what the Bible is really saying. But Joseph Smth's explanation of Rev 1:6 suggested to me that what he had to offer by way of biblical interpretation, was actually less reliable than what Evangelical and Catholic theologians have to offer.

What "modern scholarship" are you referring to? Talking points from Sandra Tanner?

[LeSellers]

His failure to understand that the biblical Elias was actually in reference to the biblical Elijah, was another goof on his part.

That's simply false.

Jesus told us that one specific "Elias" was John the Baptist. At least, that's what the Apostles understood, and what is recorded in scripture.

Lehi

[Vance]

I've heard the idea that Joseph Smith did more than just restore lost pieces of biblical text, but is there any textual evidence from old bible manuscripts that show that Joseph actually did restore things that are lost?

Well, he did fix one verse that has misled the Evangelical world.

KJV Rom. 4:5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

JST Rom. 4:5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth NOT the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

It is now consistent with the rest of the Bible.

ROM 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

Rom. 6:23 For the wages of sin (ungodliness) is death; . . .

1 Tim. 1:9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,

1 Pet. 4:18 And if the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear?

2 Pet. 2:5 And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;

6 And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly;

2 Pet. 3:7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

Jude 1:4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.

• • •

15 To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.

• • •

18 How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts.

2 Peter 2:9 The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished:

Ex. 23:7 Keep thee far from a false matter; and the innocent and righteous slay thou not: for I will not justify the wicked.

Deut. 25:1 If there be a controversy between men, and they come unto judgment, that the judges may judge them; then they shall justify the righteous, and condemn the wicked.

1 Kgs. 8:32 Then hear thou in heaven, and do, and judge thy servants, condemning the wicked, to bring his way upon his head; and justifying the righteous, to give him according to his righteousness.

2 Chr. 6:23 Then hear thou from heaven, and do, and judge thy servants, by requiting the wicked, by recompensing his way upon his own head; and by justifying the righteous, by giving him according to his righteousness.

Prov. 17:15 He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both are abomination to the Lord.

[Rob Bowman]

kolipoli,

Xander had made the point that Joseph Smith had misunderstood Revelation 1:6 KJV ("kings and priests unto God and his Father") to mean that God the Father himself had a Father (i.e., that there is a Grandfather God). Xander also stated that modern scholarship had cleared up the meaning of Revelation 1:6. You replied:

What "modern scholarship" are you referring to? Talking points from Sandra Tanner?

Arggh. How annoying, and how ignorant.

All modern translations render the words in question as "his God and Father" (I found ten in just a few seconds). There is sound exegetical basis for this translation, if you're interested.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance wrote:

Well, he did fix one verse that has misled the Evangelical world.

KJV Rom. 4:5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

JST Rom. 4:5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth NOT the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

It is now consistent with the rest of the Bible.

Actually, no. It is now inconsistent with the whole message of Paul's epistle to the Romans. Joseph Smith didn't even have the nerve or sense to make other changes to make the rest of the book consistent with his (Joseph's) theology. For example, the JST still leaves Romans 5:6 -- just one chapter later -- saying,

"For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly" (Rom. 5:6 KJV, JST).

Worse still, Joseph also failed in Romans 4:5 to delete the "not" in the first clause, "But to him that worketh not...." To be consistent, he should have deleted this "not." He could then have claimed that the KJV simply got the "not" in the wrong place. That isn't true or even plausible, but even more incredible is his adding "not" in the second clause while ignoring the fact that in doing so he was contradicting the first clause. Paul's point in both clauses is the same: God reckons our faith in his promise of mercy, realized in Christ, as righteousness despite the fact that we don't do the works we should (clause 1) and are by disposition, habit, and act ungodly (clause 2).

"Be sure your sin will find you out" (Num. 32:23). In Joseph's case, one need only read the whole sentence to see that he was not restoring the true meaning of the verse but simply making mincemeat of it.

[Gohan]

Maybe its just me, but I'm not seeing any 'grandfather God' in the JST of that scripture...

JST

1 The Revelation of John, a servant of God, which was given unto him of Jesus Christ, to show unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass, that he sent and signified by his angel unto his servant John,

2 Who bore record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw.

3 Blessed are they who read, and they who hear and understand the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein, for the time of the coming of the Lord draweth nigh.

4 Now this is the testimony of John to the seven servants who are over the seven churches in Asia. Grace unto you, and peace from him who is, and who was, and who is to come; who hath sent forth his angel from before his throne, to testify unto those who are the seven servants over the seven churches.

5 Therefore, I, John, the faithful witness, bear record of the things which were delivered me of the angel, and from Jesus Christ the first begotten of the dead, and the Prince of the kings of the earth.

6 And unto him who loved us, be glory; who washed us from our sins in his own blood, and hath made us kings and priests unto God, his Father. To him be glory and dominion, forever and ever. Amen.

7 For behold, he cometh in the clouds with ten thousands of his saints in the kingdom, clothed with the glory of his Father. And every eye shall see him; and they who pierced him, and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.

8 For he saith, I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, the Lord, who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty.

Yeah, I'm not seeing it. Perhaps you'd like to educate me, unlearned one that I clearly am?

Edit: Well I guess it doesn't say his God and Father, just his Father. But still...

Edited June 24, 2011 by Gohan

[Rob Bowman]

Gohan,

Actually, you make an excellent point. When Joseph Smith produced the JST, he still believed that God the Father was the Supreme Being without qualification. Hence he revised the text of Revelation 1:6 in the KJV to make better sense according to his theology at the time. It was only years later when Joseph reverted to the wording of the KJV and argued in a sermon that Revelation 1:6 proved that God himself had a Father.

[Gohan]

Ah okay.

It was only years later when Joseph reverted to the wording of the KJV and argued in a sermon that Revelation 1:6 proved that God himself had a Father.

Are you referring to the King Follett discourse? It's been a while since I've read it, currently it's buried in my basement with the rest of my mission stuff.

[Rob Bowman]

Gohan,

You asked:

Are you referring to the King Follett discourse? It's been a while since I've read it, currently it's buried in my basement with the rest of my mission stuff.

You're close. This was a different sermon, given two months after the KFD, on June 16, 1844 (see Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 370-76). Here is some of the relevant material:

President Joseph Smith read the 3rd chapter of Revelation, and took for his text 1st chapter, 6th verse--"And hath made us kings and priests unto God and His Father: to Him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen." It is altogether correct in the translation. Now, you know that of late some malicious and corrupt men have sprung up and apostatized from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and they declare that the Prophet believes in a plurality of Gods, and, lo and behold! we have discovered a very great secret, they cry--"The Prophet says there are many Gods, and this proves that he has fallen."

It has been my intention for a long time to take up this subject and lay it clearly before the people, and show what my faith is in relation to this interesting matter. ...

I will preach on the plurality of Gods. I have selected this text for that express purpose. I wish to declare I have always and in all congregations when I have preach on the subject of the Deity, it has been the plurality of Gods. It has been preached by the Elders for fifteen years.

I have always declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage from God the Father, and that the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and a Spirit: and these three constitute three distinct personages and three Gods. If this is in accordance with the New Testament, lo and behold! we have three Gods anyhow, and they are plural; and who can contradict it?

Our text says, "And hath made us kings and priests unto God and His Father." The Apostles have discovered that there were Gods above, for John says God was the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. My object was to preach the scriptures, and preach the doctrine they contain, there being a God above, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. I am bold to declare I have taught all the strongest doctrines publicly, and always teach stronger doctrines in public than in private.

John was one of the men, and apostles declare they were made kings and priests unto God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. It reads just so in the Revelation. Hence the doctrine of a plurality of Gods is as prominent in the Bible as any other doctrine. It is all over the face of the Bible. It stands beyond the power of controversy. A wayfaring man, though a fool, need not err therein....

Many men say there is one God; the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are only one God. I say that is a strange God anyhow--three in one, and one in three! It is a curious organization. "Father, I pray not for the world, but I pray for them which thou hast given me." "Holy Father, keep through Thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one as we are." All are to be crammed into one God, according to sectarianism. It would make the biggest God in all the world. He would be a wonderfully big God--he would be a giant or a monster.

On the basis of a clear misreading of the Bible, Joseph Smith attacked the historic Christian doctrine of the Trinity as making God into "a giant or a monster."

This is the same sermon in which Joseph Smith, attempting to display his knowledge of Hebrew ("I will show from the Hebrew Bible that I am correct.... An unlearned boy must give you a little Hebrew"), argued that Genesis 1:1 referred to a plurality of Gods because elohim is a plural form. The whole sermon, unfortunately, shows that Joseph Smith's understanding of Hebrew was inadequate.

[Edited to remove some inflammatory language.]

Edited June 24, 2011 by Rob Bowman