Law22 Posted October 23, 2012 Posted October 23, 2012 What is the general consensus regarding the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible among the LDS faithful? Do you think it a little odd that Joseph Smith wrote himself into Genesis? Although I understand Joseph allegedly did not completely finish the translation, why isn't the JST the exclusive Bible used by LDS?
volgadon Posted October 23, 2012 Posted October 23, 2012 Any other standard talking points which you'd like to use? 3
Calm Posted October 23, 2012 Posted October 23, 2012 (edited) What is the general consensus regarding the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible among the LDS faithful? Do you think it a little odd that Joseph Smith wrote himself into Genesis? Although I understand Joseph allegedly did not completely finish the translation, why isn't the JST the exclusive Bible used by LDS?Makes more sense to use the more familiar and complete text with references to the changes as opposed to the reverse, IMO.I think it's odd that Joseph Smith wrote scripture at all. Not too many people do that these days. Once you get past that, if one accepts that it is inspired why should one think such inspiration is "odd"?I suspect the consensus follows pretty much this summary: http://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/joseph-smith-translation-jst?lang=eng Edited October 23, 2012 by calmoriah
Kemara Posted October 23, 2012 Posted October 23, 2012 (edited) What I find odd, Law22, is that you are aksing questions on this thread when you have not answered questions that have been asked of you, by people who took the time to answer your questions, on another thread days ago. One might question the genuine nature of your enquiries from this type of conduct. I know, in trying to be charitable, lets just call your conduct an oversight shall we. Edited October 23, 2012 by Kemara
Calm Posted October 23, 2012 Posted October 23, 2012 (edited) For those interested in the publishing history of the JST: https://www.lds.org/ensign/1983/01/joseph-smiths-efforts-to-publish-his-bible-translation?lang=engFor those who prefer podcasts: http://mormonchannel.org/joseph-smith-papers-season-1/20Part two is episode 1/21. Edited October 23, 2012 by calmoriah
Freedom Posted October 23, 2012 Posted October 23, 2012 We do use parts of the 'translation' as scripture. Joseph never indicated, to my knowledge, that it was intended to be a restoration of scripture as was the Book of Mormon; but some passages, such as the Book of Moses and Matthew 24, are part of the canon. If Joseph was called to the prophet to herald in the last dispensation before the second coming, doesn't it stand to reason that he would have been mentioned by past prophets?
Storm Rider Posted October 23, 2012 Posted October 23, 2012 What is the general consensus regarding the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible among the LDS faithful? Do you think it a little odd that Joseph Smith wrote himself into Genesis? Although I understand Joseph allegedly did not completely finish the translation, why isn't the JST the exclusive Bible used by LDS?Why do you think it would be better to us the JST? The JST adds clarification and makes some verses easier to understand, but we are free to use any Bible translation we choose. The KJV we use has footnotes for the JST in it so we have the benefit of reading both.Do you think it a little odd that the doctrine of the Trinity was added to the Bible in the Johannine Comma? Best get out of that glass house.
Robert F. Smith Posted October 23, 2012 Posted October 23, 2012 What is the general consensus regarding the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible among the LDS faithful? Do you think it a little odd that Joseph Smith wrote himself into Genesis? Although I understand Joseph allegedly did not completely finish the translation, why isn't the JST the exclusive Bible used by LDS?Different phenomena took place in that endeavor, including some large blocks of revelatory material (which we have in the Book of Moses and in JS-M of the PGP). Most of that project was pursued by Sidney Rigdon and Joseph Smith together in trying to clarify through inspired revision certain passages of the KJV. This was not an unusual thing to do in those days, and Rigdon's former associate Alexander Campbell himself did just such a revision.The RLDS Church (now Community of Christ) actually did publish and use what they called the "inspired version" of the Bible under the direction of Joseph Smith III back in the mid-19th century. You can still buy a copy of The Holy Scriptures: Inspired Version (1991 edition) from Herald Publishing House in Independence, MIssouri.
Damien the Leper Posted October 23, 2012 Posted October 23, 2012 What is the general consensus regarding the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible among the LDS faithful? Do you think it a little odd that Joseph Smith wrote himself into Genesis? Although I understand Joseph allegedly did not completely finish the translation, why isn't the JST the exclusive Bible used by LDS?I didn't care for the Inspired Version of the Holy Scriptures because it didn't clarify anything for me. As I've said before, it is ONLY a translation and NOT a correction. The majority of the Inspired Version isn't recognized by the LDS because it is not part of the official canon as it is with Community of Christ (RLDS) and the Restoration Branches. The manuscripts that were worked on by Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon didn't go west with Brigham Young. They stayed with Emma Smith, Lucy Mack Smith and eventually went into the care of Joseph Smith III and the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Historical Archives. IOW, the manuscripts were never the property of the LDS church.
Bob Crockett Posted October 24, 2012 Posted October 24, 2012 (edited) The JST is part of the official canon. Open your quad and you can see for yourself that it is there and intended to be read. In fact, the official marginal readings of the KJV have been dropped by the LDS version of the Bible, and Joseph Smith's work added. That LDS bible was accepted by the vote of the Church. One interesting side note. In 2 Cor where Paul says that women are to be silent in the church, Joseph Smith replaced that with the text that women shall not rule in the church. Thus, there is little chance of them receiving the priesthood. Edited October 24, 2012 by Bob Crockett
Law22 Posted October 24, 2012 Author Posted October 24, 2012 What I find odd, Law22, is that you are aksing questions on this thread when you have not answered questions that have been asked of you, by people who took the time to answer your questions, on another thread days ago. One might question the genuine nature of your enquiries from this type of conduct. I know, in trying to be charitable, lets just call your conduct an oversight shall we.Don't know if it's odd, but maybe rude. Sorry! I'll go back and answer as quick as I can. 1
Calm Posted October 24, 2012 Posted October 24, 2012 Good, because I am very curious as to why you've concluded that JS didn't actually edit "white" to "pure" in 1840 (iirc).
swfarnsworth Posted October 24, 2012 Posted October 24, 2012 I have a book that has the JST in one column and the KJV in the other (published by the RLDS, though I am of course LDS myself) for comparative purposes, and whenever there's a meaningful difference between them, I always go with the JST. I point out, however, that the vast majority of changes are devoid of any meaning. For example, Joseph had a major vendetta against colons and replaced them with semicolons at any given opportunity.I also point out that using the JST would change the versification of our Bible, meaning that our verses (and in some cases, chapters) would not match up with those of other faiths, making it difficult for us to talk to each other. Including the meaningful changes in the footnotes and PoGP makes this much easier.Also, where did Joseph write himself into Genesis? I'm not doubting that he did this, but I would like to see where.
Damien the Leper Posted October 24, 2012 Posted October 24, 2012 The JST is part of the official canon. Open your quad and you can see for yourself that it is there and intended to be read. In fact, the official marginal readings of the KJV have been dropped by the LDS version of the Bible, and Joseph Smith's work added. That LDS bible was accepted by the vote of the Church. One interesting side note. In 2 Cor where Paul says that women are to be silent in the church, Joseph Smith replaced that with the text that women shall not rule in the church. Thus, there is little chance of them receiving the priesthood.Yes, there are portions of the JST that are recognized and accepted by the LDS church. I said the majority of the manuscript is not. The LDS only have very little of it.In 2 Cor, Paul is dealing with the Super Apostles and uses what many term as Holy Sarcasm. Paul didn't believe as they did concerning women.
Nevo Posted October 24, 2012 Posted October 24, 2012 Also, where did Joseph write himself into Genesis? I'm not doubting that he did this, but I would like to see where.You can read it here: http://www.lds.org/s...-33?lang=eng#25
Bob Crockett Posted October 24, 2012 Posted October 24, 2012 In 2 Cor, Paul is dealing with the Super Apostles and uses what many term as Holy Sarcasm. Paul didn't believe as they did concerning women.The Bart Erhman view of the NT is no longer relevant in the parts Joseph Smith edited; in particular, this one canonized by a vote of the Church.
Damien the Leper Posted October 24, 2012 Posted October 24, 2012 The Bart Erhman view of the NT is no longer relevant in the parts Joseph Smith edited; in particular, this one canonized by a vote of the Church.I'm not suggesting an Ehrman perspective at all. I remember first learning about this sarcasm in an LDS Institute class about a a decade ago and then again when i took my first college NT course. The JST is irrelevent to the greater and more serious discussion of of both the NT and the OT.
Cobalt-70 Posted October 24, 2012 Posted October 24, 2012 (edited) What is the general consensus regarding the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible among the LDS faithful? Do you think it a little odd that Joseph Smith wrote himself into Genesis? Although I understand Joseph allegedly did not completely finish the translation, why isn't the JST the exclusive Bible used by LDS?He actually did finish his translation. Smith declared his translation of the New Testament complete on Feb. 2, 1833 (HC 1:324), and then finished the entire bible, including the Old Testament, on July 2, 1833. He just didn't get around to publishing it during his lifetime. The LDS Bible Dictionary claims that Smith made later modifications to the JST over the years subsequent to the 1833 completion. However, work by BYU professor Kent P. Jackson has established that this is incorrect. No changes were made after 1833, and Smith considered that work complete.Given the state of modern bible scholarship, I don't think it is a plausible theory anymore that Joseph Smith's version of the bible could be some pristine original text as it existed prior to the bible's "corruption." Perhaps that's what Smith thought it was, but if so, then he would be wrong. That couldn't be true, anyway, because Smith mistakenly translated at least one passage twice, and there are substantive differences between the two translations.I think the better explanation for the JST is that Smith was not restoring original text, but rather amplifying and tweaking the KJV based on a combination of his learning, inspiration, and in a couple of instances (like Moses and JS-Matthew), new revelation. Edited October 24, 2012 by Cobalt-70
Bob Crockett Posted October 24, 2012 Posted October 24, 2012 I'm not suggesting an Ehrman perspective at all. I remember first learning about this sarcasm in an LDS Institute class about a a decade ago and then again when i took my first college NT course. The JST is irrelevent to the greater and more serious discussion of of both the NT and the OT.I suppose, if one didn't believe that the latter-day Church wasn't founded by a latter-day prophet with Jesus as the chief cornerstone. No doubt secular NT scholars would scoff at Joseph Smith's changes to 2 Cor and other places. But, to a member of the Church, the quad and the instructional manuals are imbedded with these changes and they are, thus, canonized, making the affected NT text irrelevant prior to the changes.
swfarnsworth Posted October 24, 2012 Posted October 24, 2012 Given the state of modern bible scholarship, I don't think it is a plausible theory anymore that Joseph Smith's version of the bible could be some pristine original text as it existed prior to the bible's "corruption." Perhaps that's what Smith thought it was, but if so, then he would be wrong. That couldn't be true, anyway, because Smith mistakenly translated at least one passage twice, and there are substantive differences between the two translations.I think the better explanation for the JST is that Smith was not restoring original text, but rather amplifying and tweaking the KJV based on a combination of his learning, inspiration, and in a couple of instances (like Moses and JS-Matthew), new revelation.As I understand it, Joseph used the word "translate" because he insisted on using that word in nonconventional ways, but always claimed that the JST is what you described in the second paragraph above. 1
Cobalt-70 Posted October 24, 2012 Posted October 24, 2012 The JST is part of the official canon. Open your quad and you can see for yourself that it is there and intended to be read. In fact, the official marginal readings of the KJV have been dropped by the LDS version of the Bible, and Joseph Smith's work added. That LDS bible was accepted by the vote of the Church.One interesting side note. In 2 Cor where Paul says that women are to be silent in the church, Joseph Smith replaced that with the text that women shall not rule in the church. Thus, there is little chance of them receiving the priesthood.
Cobalt-70 Posted October 24, 2012 Posted October 24, 2012 (edited) One interesting side note. In 2 Cor where Paul says that women are to be silent in the church, Joseph Smith replaced that with the text that women shall not rule in the church. Thus, there is little chance of them receiving the priesthood.Yet nine years later, Smith called and ordained a Relief Society presidency, anointed women as queens and priestesses, and admitted them as members of the influential Anointed Quorum.Some bible scholars think this passage in 1 Cor. 14 was a later interpolation, not original to Paul. For one thing, it contradicts 1 Cor. 11:5, and it is out of character with Paul. But Joseph Smith's proposed change of "speak" to "rule" doesn't explain things, either, because Paul was happy to recognize the existence of a woman apostle (Junia, see Rom. 16:7).This is one example where I am glad the JST is not canonized. Canonization might have made it more difficult for Smith to begin moving toward gender equality in the 1840s. Also, we might have been prevented from having women Primary presidents "ruling" over both male and female Primary teachers, as well as male and female children. Edited October 24, 2012 by Cobalt-70
Damien the Leper Posted October 24, 2012 Posted October 24, 2012 I suppose, if one didn't believe that the latter-day Church wasn't founded by a latter-day prophet with Jesus as the chief cornerstone. No doubt secular NT scholars would scoff at Joseph Smith's changes to 2 Cor and other places. But, to a member of the Church, the quad and the instructional manuals are imbedded with these changes and they are, thus, canonized, making the affected NT text irrelevant prior to the changes.I'm not dismissing the JST for members of the church. I'm saying that the JST has no real place in Biblical scholarship. At best, the JST only pertains to the Restoration Movement and not the more broad and general Christian world.
Damien the Leper Posted October 24, 2012 Posted October 24, 2012 Yet nine years later, Smith called and ordained a Relief Society presidency, anointed women as queens and priestesses, and admitted them as members of the influential Anointed Quorum.Some bible scholars think this passage in 1 Cor. 14 was a later interpolation, not original to Paul. For one thing, it contradicts 1 Cor. 11:5, and it is out of character with Paul. But Joseph Smith's proposed change of "speak" to "rule" doesn't explain things, either, because Paul was happy to recognize the existence of a woman apostle (Junia, see Rom. 16:7).This is one example where I am glad the JST is not canonized. Canonization might have made it more difficult for Smith to begin moving toward gender equality in the 1840s. Also, we might have been prevented from having women Primary presidents "ruling" over both male and female Primary teachers, as well as male and female children.I would be curious to know if there is a connection between the Corinthian interpolation and the misogyny found in 1 Timothy.
Cobalt-70 Posted October 24, 2012 Posted October 24, 2012 (edited) I would be curious to know if there is a connection between the Corinthian interpolation and the misogyny found in 1 Timothy.Most bible scholars think that Paul did not write 1 Timothy. Edited October 24, 2012 by Cobalt-70
Recommended Posts