On The Myth Of Scriptural Literalism

[Mars]

The JST is a better translation of the Greek or Hebrew than the KJV in some places. I can't remember any off the top of my head, but there are a handful of them. The vast majority of changes move away from the Greek and Hebrew texts, though. 

 

fair enough.

 

background: i've had a few discussions with folks who felt that newer Biblical scholarship didn't converge on a JST-like interpretation of the Bible for the verses that Joseph Smith translated.  as such, they felt this invalidated Joseph Smith's prophetic claims.

[Paradox_58]

I'm speaking about either. The Bible has been translated numerous times, but we still have ancient manuscripts in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek that aren't translations at all. While we don't have the autographa (the original manuscripts on which the authors originally wrote) we have a variety of ways to reconstruct quite early versions of certain texts. There are no ancient Hebrew manuscripts of the NT, and it's not true that many NT manuscripts have been discovered that vindicate the JST. There are places where the JST represents a more clear rendering of what was in the Hebrew or the Greek, but that's not the result of recently discovered manuscripts.

Regarding Gal 5:12, the Greek word there is αποκόψονται, which literally means to cut off or amputate. It is primarily used of castration. The notion of excommunication is an interpretive choice obviously intended to soften the author's rhetoric, but in the context of discussion of circumcision, it is quite clearly a rhetorical wish for them to just castrate themselves and be done with it.

Nehemiah Gordonn Hebre scholar in Israel, would disagree. He's worked on the Hebrew gospel of Matthew and states there are otherfragments of various early Christian writers in Hebrew, manuscripts dated to earlier than any known Greek manuscripts available. I'm pretty well convinced by my reading of Howard and Gordon and their scholarship that we haven't yet begun to see the earliest and most accurate versions of the NT, and the scholarship on the OT indicates that likewise there is much as yet undiscovered about the actual writings that became the Torah.

[maklelan]

Nehemiah Gordonn Hebre scholar in Israel, would disagree. He's worked on the Hebrew gospel of Matthew and states there are otherfragments of various early Christian writers in Hebrew, manuscripts dated to earlier than any known Greek manuscripts available. I'm pretty well convinced by my reading of Howard and Gordon and their scholarship that we haven't yet begun to see the earliest and most accurate versions of the NT, and the scholarship on the OT indicates that likewise there is much as yet undiscovered about the actual writings that became the Torah.

 

And he would be wrong. 

[maklelan]

fair enough.

 

background: i've had a few discussions with folks who felt that newer Biblical scholarship didn't converge on a JST-like interpretation of the Bible for the verses that Joseph Smith translated.  as such, they felt this invalidated Joseph Smith's prophetic claims.

 

if one believes the JST to be a pure restoration of all the original text of the Bible, yes, biblical scholarship would be moving at ludicrous speed in the opposite direction. If one understands the JST to be a modern reworking of the biblical text to clarify it and alter it to bring it into better alignment with contemporary ideologies, then biblical scholarship is less problematizing. 

[Paradox_58]

And he would be wrong. 

Good to know your own level of scholarship and depth of research in libraries around the world is so much greater than his...or Nibley's...or many others. 

[ERayR]

Bingo. For instance, no human being that has ever lived has ever read the Bible and concluded, independent of outside influence, that God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are three persons constituting one being. That conclusion must be taught. It cannot be pulled from the scriptures. It can only be imposed on them.

 

That is pretty all inclusive.  Someone must have thought of it.  What/who was the outside influence?  Where did they get the idea?

[Nevo]

Good to know your own level of scholarship and depth of research in libraries around the world is so much greater than his...or Nibley's...or many others. 

 

Where are these 1st and 2nd-century Hebrew manuscripts of the New Testament that you (and apparently Nehemia Gordon) claim exist? 

[maklelan]

That is pretty all inclusive.  Someone must have thought of it.  What/who was the outside influence?  Where did they get the idea?

It came from the debates of the second and third century CE that demanded Christian apologists respond to Jewish and Greco-Roman criticisms that questioned the theological propriety of a second power in heaven. They had to find a way to get the three different members of the godhead into an arrangement that satisfied a more philosophical monotheism and still managed to maintain the equality of all three members. The Council of Nicea is really where the notion of homoousios (same substance) originated, and Constantine played a role in promoting that idea and insisting on agreement.

[ERayR]

It came from the debates of the second and third century CE that demanded Christian apologists respond to Jewish and Greco-Roman criticisms that questioned the theological propriety of a second power in heaven. They had to find a way to get the three different members of the godhead into an arrangement that satisfied a more philosophical monotheism and still managed to maintain the equality of all three members. The Council of Nicea is really where the notion of homoousios (same substance) originated, and Constantine played a role in promoting that idea and insisting on agreement.

 

Okay, I misunderstood what you were saying. 

[Calm]

This is something that is to be expected from the God of nature that is more like a gardener sometimes than an engineer.  

Like the imagery.

[Calm]

Kevin Barney had an excellent  presentation of the 1st Cor. JST at the BYU NT Commentary Conference that had some examples where the JST was a better representation of the text than the KJV.  His presentation will eventually be on their website.

[maklelan]

Kevin Barney had an excellent  presentation of the 1st Cor. JST at the BYU NT Commentary Conference that had some examples where the JST was a better representation of the text than the KJV.  His presentation will eventually be on their website.

Yes, I recall a couple interesting examples from that presentation. Thanks for the heads up!

[Robert F. Smith]

I don't believe I ever said that a literal interpretation of any passage of scripture at all is impossible, but yes, for the vast majority of reader of the Bible, a belief that Jesus died for sins precedes the reading of the text. In light of that, the interpretation of the relevant texts takes place through the lens of that belief. This is why Christian fundamentalists can never understand what James 2 is about. They unilaterally presuppose it cannot mean what it very clearly means.

While I agree with your conclusion here it illustrates that how we interpret depends on our pov. 

Not always.  A scholar like Martin Luther could clearly see that James could not be twisted to fit his POV, so he honestly rejected the epistle.  This is also indicative of the selection process which produced the NT.  The same is true of the OT.

Edited August 29, 2015 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

You're on a mean streak lately. Are you hangry? Need a sandwich?

 

I hope you're as smart as you think you are.

Not nearly.

However, does this mean that you consider Bobbieaware's summation to be correct?  Made no sense to me.

[Robert F. Smith]

1

 

 

It leaves us right where we were before.   We will all continue to read the scripture with the same degree of literalness as we always have, Maklelan included.  We all read and interpret in line with our own pov.

Relativistic and entirely circular nonsense.

[Robert F. Smith]

fair enough.

 

background: i've had a few discussions with folks who felt that newer Biblical scholarship didn't converge on a JST-like interpretation of the Bible for the verses that Joseph Smith translated.  as such, they felt this invalidated Joseph Smith's prophetic claims.

That is because Joseph didn't "translate" them.  He and Sidney Rigdon made an inspired revision at selected points.  This is what Alexander Campbell was doing at about the same time in order to clarify the text.

[Mars]

That is because Joseph didn't "translate" them.  He and Sidney Rigdon made an inspired revision at selected points.  This is what Alexander Campbell was doing at about the same time in order to clarify the text.

 

not to be flippant, but it makes the label of JST a titch more confusing.

[mfbukowski]

"There are no facts, only interpretations"- Nietzsche

 

That used to be very controversial.  Now it is taken for granted.

 

Except for many atheists.

 

Pretty ironic that a major theme from the "God is dead" philosopher now is seen as a help to understanding religion.  Of course he was talking about sectarian fundamentalism being "dead", not really God, at least as he is now interpreted.

 

"Life is change.  How it differs from the rocks!  I've seen their ways too often for my liking!"

Edited August 29, 2015 by mfbukowski

[HappyJackWagon]

That is because Joseph didn't "translate" them.  He and Sidney Rigdon made an inspired revision at selected points.  This is what Alexander Campbell was doing at about the same time in order to clarify the text.

No. I see where she's coming from but I don't agree with her. That doesn't mean I call her an embarrassment. It's just rude, man.

[ERayR]

Not always.  A scholar like Martin Luther could clearly see that James could not be twisted to fit his POV, so he honestly rejected the epistle.  This is also indicative of the selection process which produced the NT.  The same is true of the OT.

 

There are always exceptions.

 

One in a thousand years.

Edited August 29, 2015 by ERayR

[Bobbieaware]

That is because Joseph didn't "translate" them. He and Sidney Rigdon made an inspired revision at selected points. Thiws is w

hat Alexander Campbell was doing at about the same time in order to clarify the text.

In my original posts on this thread I made it clear -- or at least I thought I made it clear -- that I was focusing on the Book of Mormon when it comes to an example of a book of scripture with a very high degree of historical accuracy, reliability, and trustworthiness. My focus was on the Book of Mirmon in particular because it most certainly did not come forth in the same way the Bible did. Unlike the Bible, the Book of Mormon was brough forth by inspired ancient prophets who's sacred writings were directly conveyed to an inspired modern prophet by a holy angel. And this living modern prophet was aided in his wonderfully accurate translation by the mighty gifts and powers of God.

Comversely, all knowledgeable Latter-day Saints are well aware of the fact that the Bible has a far more problematic history of provenance and fidelity to original intent of meaning. Is it not true we Latter-day Saints know, by tevelation, that portions of the Bible were not translated accurately? And isn't it also true the prophet Nephi testified that by the time the Bible would make its way to colonial America large portions of its " plain and precious" original content would have been tampered with by uninspired men, and that even whole portions of scripture would be brazenly expunged by wicked designing men in a diabolical effort to destroy the true religion of God (are not these sad facts perfect examples of what can happen to holy writ when uninspired men believe the original words of the prophets are flexible, ambiguous and malleable)? So an inspired revision of the Bible was needed because, unlike the Book of Mkrmon, uninspired and wicked men tampered with its holy contents. So citing Joseph Smith's revision of the Bible in an effort to demonstrate the flexibility. ambiguity and malleability of scripture amounts to nothing more than a red herring argument.

When the day comes that the leaders of the Church initiate an "inspired revision" of the Book of Mormon, I may come around to your way of thinking. But until that day, I will continue to believe the historical portions of the Book of Mormon's narrative are accurate, trustworthy and reliable -- including the verses in 1 Nephi 17 where the Prophet Nephi solemnly asserts the Lord actually did command the children of Israel to utterly destroy the Canaanites because of the Canaanites' extreme wickedness. You'll have to excuse me if I take the Lord at his word when in the Doctrine and Covenants he testifies that the translation of the Book of Mormon is true; or as Joseph Smith called it, "the most correct book" on the face of the earth.

And one final point: If and when the Lord ever does decide to command his latter-day servants to bring forth an inspired revision of the Book of Mirmon, that revision will be performed by living prophets of God and not by politically correct individuals who would be unduly motivated to tamper with or delete portions of the text in order to get it to conform with progressive sensibilities.

All the best...

Edited August 30, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[Robert F. Smith]

not to be flippant, but it makes the label of JST a titch more confusing.

It certainly does, but the RLDS Church (Community of Christ) has been publishing their "Inspired Version" for over a century -- the entire Old and New Testaments -- as their standard biblical Scripture, entitled Holy Scriptures.  The title page also terms it "An Inspired Revision" of the KJV.  You can purchase a copy from Herald Publishing House, Independence, Missouri.  For them it is canonical, while for the LDS it is not -- but merely placed in footnotes and in an appendix to the official KJV.

[maklelan]

It certainly does, but the RLDS Church (Community of Christ) has been publishing their "Inspired Version" for over a century -- the entire Old and New Testaments -- as their standard biblical Scripture, entitled Holy Scriptures.  The title page also terms it "An Inspired Revision" of the KJV.  You can purchase a copy from Herald Publishing House, Independence, Missouri.  For them it is canonical, while for the LDS it is not -- but merely placed in footnotes and in an appendix to the official KJV.

 

And if you look online, the JST is called a "Study Help."

[Stone holm]

No one disagrees that "the scriptures" have stories where God commands genocide and racism.  The disagreement is over whether it is bad that He did such things, and the likelihood of it ever happening again. 

 

But the idea that there is no such thing as "scriptural literalism" is silly, unless you reduce the term to a semantic joke.  Obviously there are people (even in Mormonism) who take the scriptures much more "literally" than others.  Even among the leadership; is there any doubt that Joseph Fielding Smith was very much a "literalist" when it came to the scriptures?

 

As I've pointed out so often in the past, an excellent litmus test for the degree to which a person views the scriptures "literally" is the story of Noah and the Flood.  I would suggest that if a person believes that the story of Noah's flood as told in Genesis 6 - 8 actually happened and that the water covered the entire planet, then that's enough to be considered a "literalist".  There's no need to stretch the term to extreme "every word is perfect" caricatures.

I agree, but what do you do about those who take obviously symbolic verbiage literally, like those who depict Christ with a seaworthy for a tongue?

[strappinglad]

A couple of items. First , the statement " My carpet is blue " can be considered literal only if the word means ' bluish ' . Anyone who has been to a paint store or a carpet store for that matter , knows that blue is really just a starting point for discussion. Second, we tend to forget that quite a bit of the BoM is edited from much larger documents and as such may also have been subject to ' translation' by Mormon. If you have read Chaucer in the original English, you will be aware that the passage of time often renders a living language hard to understand. This would be particularly true of Reformed Egyptian that was specifically said to have been modified over the centuries. .