JST as the Brass Plates

[churchistrue]

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/thou-art-the-fruit-of-my-loins-the-interrelated-symbolism-and-meanings-of-the-names-joseph-and-ephraim-in-ancient-scripture/

In this article Matthew Bowen and Loren Spendlove are referencing a phrase from a JST passage of Genesis and claiming that Lehi had access to it through the brass plates. They then in a chart show phrases in the BOM along with the source which is the Brass Plates. This is the phrase "fruit of thy loins", from the JST.

Ignoring this specific phrase, I'm interested in a larger question.

Is this common to view the JST as a restoration of the Brass Plates? I've never heard of this. Is it common to look for intertextuality of BOM and JST and assume this is Brass Plates thing?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[hope_for_things]

3 minutes ago, churchistrue said:

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/thou-art-the-fruit-of-my-loins-the-interrelated-symbolism-and-meanings-of-the-names-joseph-and-ephraim-in-ancient-scripture/

In this article Matthew Bowen and Loren Spendlove are referencing a phrase from a JST passage of Genesis and claiming that Lehi had access to it through the brass plates. They then in a chart show phrases in the BOM along with the source which is the Brass Plates. This is the phrase "fruit of thy loins", from the JST.

Ignoring this specific phrase, I'm interested in a larger question.

Is this common to view the JST as a restoration of the Brass Plates? I've never heard of this. Is it common to look for intertextuality of BOM and JST and assume this is Brass Plates thing?

I honestly don't think I've heard of people suggesting the JST is connected to the Brass plates before.  This is new for me. 

Of course, the simplest and what seems like obvious answer to explain what happened is that Joseph is the author of both books, BoM and the JST.  

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, churchistrue said:

Is this common to view the JST as a restoration of the Brass Plates? I've never heard of this. Is it common to look for intertextuality of BOM and JST and assume this is Brass Plates thing?

I've not heard the claim about the brass plates, but it used to be a common view that it was restoring an ur text of some sort. I didn't think anyone really held that view anymore. I think Robert Matthews vacillated on it in his writings in the 80's and early 90's more or less ending on thinking it was restoring a text. But I think even by the late 90's that was a difficult conclusion to hold for various reasons.

I'll try and read the paper later if they are making that claim. It seems pretty questionable. "Fruit of thy loins" is in the Book of Mormon in various places (3 Ne 5:23; 2 Ne 3:7; etc.) so that maybe why they think it was on the brass plates. But one might well think Joseph just picked up the phrase and used it in his revelations. 

The phrase does occur in early 19th century non-Mormon sources. Methodists seem to have used it a bit translating the Septuagint version of Ps 132:11. "Of the fruit of thy loins will I set on thy throne." This is using "loins" instead of "body." While not the exact phrase, Shakespeare has something similar with "issue of your loins."

 

Edited August 10, 2018 by clarkgoble

[CV75]

I seem to recall something about Tamar commenting on the "Loin of Judah"...

[Calm]

3 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I've not heard the claim about the brass plates, but it used to be a common view that it was restoring an ur text of some sort. I didn't think anyone really held that view anymore. 

Among scholars at least.  We have gotten a few questioners (as in asking us questions, not doubting) writing in to FM who understand the JST as a pure restoration.

Edited August 10, 2018 by Calm

[churchistrue]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

Among scholars at least.  We have gotten a few writing in to FM who understand the JST as a pure restoration.

Now we have it at The Interpreter I guess. Doesn't Interpreter have a peer review process?

 

[Ryan Dahle]

4 hours ago, churchistrue said:

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/thou-art-the-fruit-of-my-loins-the-interrelated-symbolism-and-meanings-of-the-names-joseph-and-ephraim-in-ancient-scripture/

In this article Matthew Bowen and Loren Spendlove are referencing a phrase from a JST passage of Genesis and claiming that Lehi had access to it through the brass plates. They then in a chart show phrases in the BOM along with the source which is the Brass Plates. This is the phrase "fruit of thy loins", from the JST.

Ignoring this specific phrase, I'm interested in a larger question.

Is this common to view the JST as a restoration of the Brass Plates? I've never heard of this. Is it common to look for intertextuality of BOM and JST and assume this is Brass Plates thing?

 

It isn't just a phrase. There are paragraphs of text in JST Genesis 50 that are quoted in 2 Nephi 3:

2 Nephi 3

Genesis 50

6 For Joseph truly testified, saying: A seer shall the Lord my God raise up, who shall be a choice seer unto the fruit of my loins.   7 Yea, Joseph truly said: Thus saith the Lord unto me: A choice seer will I raise up out of the fruit of thy loins; and he shall be esteemed highly among the fruit of thy loins. And unto him will I give commandment that he shall do a work for the fruit of thy loins, his brethren, which shall be of great worth unto them, even to the bringing of them to the knowledge of the covenants which I have made with thy fathers.   8 And I will give unto him a commandment that he shall do none other work, save the work which I shall command him. And I will make him great in mine eyes; for he shall do my work.   9 And he shall be great like unto Moses, whom I have said I would raise up unto you, to deliver my people, O house of Israel.   10 And Moses will I raise up, to deliver thy people out of the land of Egypt.   11 But a seer will I raise up out of the fruit of thy loins; and unto him will I give power to bring forth my word unto the seed of thy loins—and not to the bringing forth my word only, saith the Lord, but to the convincing them of my word, which shall have already gone forth among them.   12 Wherefore, the fruit of thy loins shall write; and the fruit of the loins of Judah shall write; and that which shall be written by the fruit of thy loins, and also that which shall be written by the fruit of the loins of Judah, shall grow together, unto the confounding of false doctrines and laying down of contentions, and establishing peace among the fruit of thy loins, and bringing them to the knowledge of their fathers in the latter days, and also to the knowledge of my covenants, saith the Lord.   13 And out of weakness he shall be made strong, in that day when my work shall commence among all my people, unto the restoring thee, O house of Israel, saith the Lord.   14 And thus prophesied Joseph, saying: Behold, that seer will the Lord bless; and they that seek to destroy him shall be confounded; for this promise, which I have obtained of the Lord, of the fruit of my loins, shall be fulfilled. Behold, I am sure of the fulfilling of this promise;   15 And his name shall be called after me; and it shall be after the name of his father. And he shall be like unto me; for the thing, which the Lord shall bring forth by his hand, by the power of the Lord shall bring my people unto salvation.

26 A seer shall the Lord my God raise up, who shall be a choice seer unto the fruit of my loins.     27 Thus saith the Lord God of my fathers unto me, A choice seer will I raise up out of the fruit of thy loins, and he shall be esteemed highly among the fruit of thy loins; and unto him will I give commandment that he shall do a work for the fruit of thy loins, his brethren.   28 And he shall bring them to the knowledge of the covenants which I have made with thy fathers; and he shall do whatsoever work I shall command him.   29 And I will make him great in mine eyes, for he shall do my work; and he shall be great like unto him whom I have said I would raise up unto you, to deliver my people, O house of Israel, out of the land of Egypt; for a seer will I raise up to deliver my people out of the land of Egypt; and he shall be called Moses. And by this name he shall know that he is of thy house; for he shall be nursed by the king’s daughter, and shall be called her son.   30 And again, a seer will I raise up out of the fruit of thy loins, and unto him will I give power to bring forth my word unto the seed of thy loins; and not to the bringing forth of my word only, saith the Lord, but to the convincing them of my word, which shall have already gone forth among them in the last days;   31 Wherefore the fruit of thy loins shall write, and the fruit of the loins of Judah shall write; and that which shall be written by the fruit of thy loins, and also that which shall be written by the fruit of the loins of Judah, shall grow together unto the confounding of false doctrines, and laying down of contentions, and establishing peace among the fruit of thy loins, and bringing them to a knowledge of their fathers in the latter days; and also to the knowledge of my covenants, saith the Lord.   32 And out of weakness shall he be made strong, in that day when my work shall go forth among all my people, which shall restore them, who are of the house of Israel, in the last days.   33 And that seer will I bless, and they that seek to destroy him shall be confounded; for this promise I give unto you; for I will remember you from generation to generation; and his name shall be called Joseph, and it shall be after the name of his father; and he shall be like unto you; for the thing which the Lord shall bring forth by his hand shall bring my people unto salvation.

 

 

[clarkgoble]

27 minutes ago, Calm said:

Among scholars at least.  We have gotten a few questioners (as in asking us questions, not doubting) writing in to FM who understand the JST as a pure restoration.

Yes. And if you search lds.org you tend to get Matthews work from the 80's and early 90's and nothing more recent. So it's understandable why those not paying attention to the arguments might think it a restoration of a pure text.

7 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

It isn't just a phrase. There are paragraphs of text in JST Genesis 50 that are quoted in 2 Nephi 3:

Doesn't that make a big assumption about the direction of influence? It'd seem much more likely to see Genesis 50 dependent upon 2 Nephi 3. Especially when the phrasing is that close. If I had to argue I'd say Joseph was mostly quoting from the text of the Book of Mormon. We know that in the post-NT and partially the NT era he was following elements of Clarke's Commentary. Genesis 50 is part of the return to work on the Old Testament. So Genesis 50 was likely done in February 1833. I think it quite likely that in correcting texts he made us of the Book of Mormon as a resource.

Edited August 10, 2018 by clarkgoble

[Ryan Dahle]

11 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

16 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

It isn't just a phrase. There are paragraphs of text in JST Genesis 50 that are quoted in 2 Nephi 3:

Doesn't that make a big assumption about the direction of influence? It'd seem much more likely to see Genesis 50 dependent upon 2 Nephi 3. Especially when the phrasing is that close. If I had to argue I'd say Joseph was mostly quoting from the text of the Book of Mormon.

Whatever the specific degree of similarity is in the English phrasing, there is good reason to suspect that something in the brass plates was conceptually very similar to JST 50. I think that is all the paper is concluding about the matter. So whether or not the specific wording in JST 50 was derived from 2 Nephi or whether JST 50 was recieved as a an independent, verbatim revelation (there are significant variations) really isn't addressed by the paper. At least I didn't see anything like that as I skimmed it.

Edited August 10, 2018 by Ryan Dahle

[Calm]

48 minutes ago, churchistrue said:

Now we have it at The Interpreter I guess. Doesn't Interpreter have a peer review process?

 

No one at FM as far as I am aware excludes all possibility of restoration of an original text.  There seems to me that those who speak about it see it as a mix of midrash (sp?) and revelation, how much of each varies.  I assume there are those who see it as primarily revelation.  Revelation could include restoration.

Dan Peterson was explaining The Interpreter the other day.  He might have referred to that.  I suspect that they put up a variety of viewpoints, different theories on details.

Edited August 10, 2018 by Calm

[clarkgoble]

27 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

Whatever the specific degree of similarity is in the English phrasing, there is good reason to suspect that something in the brass plates was conceptually very similar to JST 50. I think that is all the paper is concluding about the matter. So whether or not the specific wording in JST 50 was derived from 2 Nephi or whether JST 50 was recieved as a an independent, verbatim revelation (there are significant variations) really isn't addressed by the paper. At least I didn't see anything like that as I skimmed it.

I've not read the paper yet. So I'll hold off saying much more. It'd just seem to me that JST 50 isn't too helpful there. The primary issue would be 2 Nephi 3 - although there clearly Lehi appears to be making use of an established tradition and not something he was newly raising. He is quoting Joseph. Presumably Joseph Smith remembered that so when he came to Genesis 50 he added in what had been revealed there. That seems the simplest explanation especially if the JST isn't seen as restoring a text but restoring or correcting information.

[churchistrue]

1 hour ago, Ryan Dahle said:

It isn't just a phrase. There are paragraphs of text in JST Genesis 50 that are quoted in 2 Nephi 3:

2 Nephi 3

Genesis 50

6 For Joseph truly testified, saying: A seer shall the Lord my God raise up, who shall be a choice seer unto the fruit of my loins.   7 Yea, Joseph truly said: Thus saith the Lord unto me: A choice seer will I raise up out of the fruit of thy loins; and he shall be esteemed highly among the fruit of thy loins. And unto him will I give commandment that he shall do a work for the fruit of thy loins, his brethren, which shall be of great worth unto them, even to the bringing of them to the knowledge of the covenants which I have made with thy fathers.   8 And I will give unto him a commandment that he shall do none other work, save the work which I shall command him. And I will make him great in mine eyes; for he shall do my work.   9 And he shall be great like unto Moses, whom I have said I would raise up unto you, to deliver my people, O house of Israel.   10 And Moses will I raise up, to deliver thy people out of the land of Egypt.   11 But a seer will I raise up out of the fruit of thy loins; and unto him will I give power to bring forth my word unto the seed of thy loins—and not to the bringing forth my word only, saith the Lord, but to the convincing them of my word, which shall have already gone forth among them.   12 Wherefore, the fruit of thy loins shall write; and the fruit of the loins of Judah shall write; and that which shall be written by the fruit of thy loins, and also that which shall be written by the fruit of the loins of Judah, shall grow together, unto the confounding of false doctrines and laying down of contentions, and establishing peace among the fruit of thy loins, and bringing them to the knowledge of their fathers in the latter days, and also to the knowledge of my covenants, saith the Lord.   13 And out of weakness he shall be made strong, in that day when my work shall commence among all my people, unto the restoring thee, O house of Israel, saith the Lord.   14 And thus prophesied Joseph, saying: Behold, that seer will the Lord bless; and they that seek to destroy him shall be confounded; for this promise, which I have obtained of the Lord, of the fruit of my loins, shall be fulfilled. Behold, I am sure of the fulfilling of this promise;   15 And his name shall be called after me; and it shall be after the name of his father. And he shall be like unto me; for the thing, which the Lord shall bring forth by his hand, by the power of the Lord shall bring my people unto salvation.

26 A seer shall the Lord my God raise up, who shall be a choice seer unto the fruit of my loins.     27 Thus saith the Lord God of my fathers unto me, A choice seer will I raise up out of the fruit of thy loins, and he shall be esteemed highly among the fruit of thy loins; and unto him will I give commandment that he shall do a work for the fruit of thy loins, his brethren.   28 And he shall bring them to the knowledge of the covenants which I have made with thy fathers; and he shall do whatsoever work I shall command him.   29 And I will make him great in mine eyes, for he shall do my work; and he shall be great like unto him whom I have said I would raise up unto you, to deliver my people, O house of Israel, out of the land of Egypt; for a seer will I raise up to deliver my people out of the land of Egypt; and he shall be called Moses. And by this name he shall know that he is of thy house; for he shall be nursed by the king’s daughter, and shall be called her son.   30 And again, a seer will I raise up out of the fruit of thy loins, and unto him will I give power to bring forth my word unto the seed of thy loins; and not to the bringing forth of my word only, saith the Lord, but to the convincing them of my word, which shall have already gone forth among them in the last days;   31 Wherefore the fruit of thy loins shall write, and the fruit of the loins of Judah shall write; and that which shall be written by the fruit of thy loins, and also that which shall be written by the fruit of the loins of Judah, shall grow together unto the confounding of false doctrines, and laying down of contentions, and establishing peace among the fruit of thy loins, and bringing them to a knowledge of their fathers in the latter days; and also to the knowledge of my covenants, saith the Lord.   32 And out of weakness shall he be made strong, in that day when my work shall go forth among all my people, which shall restore them, who are of the house of Israel, in the last days.   33 And that seer will I bless, and they that seek to destroy him shall be confounded; for this promise I give unto you; for I will remember you from generation to generation; and his name shall be called Joseph, and it shall be after the name of his father; and he shall be like unto you; for the thing which the Lord shall bring forth by his hand shall bring my people unto salvation.

 

 

Nice. Did you make this find or read it somewhere else? I skimmed the Interpreter article and didn't see this.

[Ryan Dahle]

1 hour ago, churchistrue said:

Nice. Did you make this find or read it somewhere else? I skimmed the Interpreter article and didn't see this.

I already knew of this intertextual connection. I think it is fairly widely known among Book of Mormon scholars. Not sure where I picked up on it. 

[longview]

Are you aware there are JST corrections of Isaiah passages in the BoM?  Meaning the Brass Plates already had errors creeping into it before 600 B.C.

[sunstoned]

12 hours ago, churchistrue said:

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/thou-art-the-fruit-of-my-loins-the-interrelated-symbolism-and-meanings-of-the-names-joseph-and-ephraim-in-ancient-scripture/

In this article Matthew Bowen and Loren Spendlove are referencing a phrase from a JST passage of Genesis and claiming that Lehi had access to it through the brass plates. They then in a chart show phrases in the BOM along with the source which is the Brass Plates. This is the phrase "fruit of thy loins", from the JST.

Ignoring this specific phrase, I'm interested in a larger question.

Is this common to view the JST as a restoration of the Brass Plates? I've never heard of this. Is it common to look for intertextuality of BOM and JST and assume this is Brass Plates thing?

 

First of all, the JST was not really a "translation" of the bible. It was not a "inspired" verson at all.  It was a copy (plagiarism) of Adam Clarke’s famous Holy Bible, Containing the Old and New Testaments. Which was a popular Bible commentary that was readily available to Joseph Smith during the 1820's and 1830's.

This information was  brought to light by BYU researchers.  It pretty much kills the notion that JS added further light and knowledge to the New Testament.   Here is a quote from the BYU article:

Quote

Joseph Smith’s translation of the Bible has attracted significant attention in recent decades, drawing the interest of a wide variety of academics and those who affirm its nearly canonical status in the LDS scriptural canon. More recently, in conducting new research into the origins of Smith’s Bible translation, we uncovered evidence that Smith and his associates used a readily available Bible commentary while compiling a new Bible translation, or more properly a revision of the King James Bible. The commentary, Adam Clarke’s famous Holy Bible, Containing the Old and New Testaments, was a mainstay for Methodist theologians and biblical scholars alike, and was one of the most widely available commentaries in the mid-1820s and 1830s in America.

http://jur.byu.edu/?p=21296

Edited August 11, 2018 by sunstoned

[clarkgoble]

2 hours ago, sunstoned said:

First of all, the JST was not really a "translation" of the bible. It was not a "inspired" verson at all.  It was a copy (plagiarism) of Adam Clarke’s famous Holy Bible, Containing the Old and New Testaments. Which was a popular Bible commentary that was readily available to Joseph Smith during the 1820's and 1830's.

This information was  brought to light by BYU researchers.  It pretty much kills the notion that JS added further light and knowledge to the New Testament.   Here is a quote from the BYU article:

http://jur.byu.edu/?p=21296

Dude. First off do you really think most people here aren't familiar with that? (I've mentioned it several times in recent threads) Second making use of Clarke's Commentary is not the same as plagiarizing it. Indeed most of the time he doesn't follow Clarke, particularly in some key passages. Most of us would say this use was part of "studying it out in your mind." Later he learned Hebrew and Greek to be able to do better.

Anyway, look at Genesis 50 in Clarke. Then look at it in the JST. They aren't the same. The JST follows 2 Nephi 3.

3 hours ago, longview said:

Are you aware there are JST corrections of Isaiah passages in the BoM?  Meaning the Brass Plates already had errors creeping into it before 600 B.C.

There's expansions and corrections. The Book of Mormon largely follows the KJV with a few expansions. It's very doubtful the brass plates did.

Edited August 11, 2018 by clarkgoble

[Doctrine 612]

There is research that the JST is connected to the Clarke bible commentary 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Doctrine 612 said:

There is research that the JST is connected to the Clarke bible commentary 

Had you read the thread prior to making this comment?  Just curious.

[churchistrue]

I just saw there was a KnowWhy on this topic from earlier this year. https://knowhy.bookofmormoncentral.org/content/how-lehi-likened-the-scriptures-to-himself

Why didn't I know this before? grrrr I hate it when I don't know stuff. Was this intertextuality in Grant Hardy's book? I have my copy loaned out right now.

I have to say this is one of the sketchiest Know Why's I've read. Some of Book of Central stuff I like. Some of it I think has the potential to do more harm than good. This is one. We really hurt our credibility when we make outlandish statements like:

In 2 Nephi 3, Lehi interpreted Genesis in a remarkably complex way. The subtle nuances that become apparent when comparing 2 Nephi and JST Genesis 50 strongly suggest that Joseph Smith did not simply modify 2 Nephi to produce the Joseph Smith Translation. It is much more likely that something very close to the Joseph Smith Translation of Genesis 50 was on the Plates of Brass, and that Lehi carefully reinterpreted this text to apply it to his own descendants.

 

[Robert F. Smith]

On 8/10/2018 at 11:41 AM, clarkgoble said:

I've not heard the claim about the brass plates, but it used to be a common view that it was restoring an ur text of some sort. I didn't think anyone really held that view anymore. I think Robert Matthews vacillated on it in his writings in the 80's and early 90's more or less ending on thinking it was restoring a text. But I think even by the late 90's that was a difficult conclusion to hold for various reasons.

Since the JST is mostly an endeavor by Joseph and Sidney Rigdon to clarify and improve the Bible (except for the revelatory sections added to the text), I see no reason to compare it to the Brass Plates.

On 8/10/2018 at 11:41 AM, clarkgoble said:

I'll try and read the paper later if they are making that claim. It seems pretty questionable. "Fruit of thy loins" is in the Book of Mormon in various places (3 Ne 5:23; 2 Ne 3:7; etc.) so that maybe why they think it was on the brass plates. But one might well think Joseph just picked up the phrase and used it in his revelations. 

The phrase does occur in early 19th century non-Mormon sources. Methodists seem to have used it a bit translating the Septuagint version of Ps 132:11. "Of the fruit of thy loins will I set on thy throne." This is using "loins" instead of "body." While not the exact phrase, Shakespeare has something similar with "issue of your loins."

The phrase, which occurs 3 times in midrashic 2 Ne 3:5-7 is not only 19th century, but also 16 century EModE. It also occurs in Acts 2:30.

[clarkgoble]

57 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Since the JST is mostly an endeavor by Joseph and Sidney Rigdon to clarify and improve the Bible (except for the revelatory sections added to the text), I see no reason to compare it to the Brass Plates.

The phrase, which occurs 3 times in midrashic 2 Ne 3:5-7 is not only 19th century, but also 16 century EModE. It also occurs in Acts 2:30.

Doh. Didn't even think of looking at the Bible. My bad. 

For the JST, I completely agree. The assumption it was a restoration of the original text by revelation rather than inquiries, individual revelations and corrections just seems lacking in evidence.

3 hours ago, churchistrue said:

I have to say this is one of the sketchiest Know Why's I've read. Some of Book of Central stuff I like. Some of it I think has the potential to do more harm than good. This is one. We really hurt our credibility when we make outlandish statements like:

Most of them are interesting and informative. But yeah, that was pretty problematic.

Edited August 11, 2018 by clarkgoble

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, churchistrue said:

I just saw there was a KnowWhy on this topic from earlier this year. https://knowhy.bookofmormoncentral.org/content/how-lehi-likened-the-scriptures-to-himself

Why didn't I know this before? grrrr I hate it when I don't know stuff. Was this intertextuality in Grant Hardy's book? I have my copy loaned out right now.

I have to say this is one of the sketchiest Know Why's I've read. Some of Book of Central stuff I like. Some of it I think has the potential to do more harm than good. This is one. We really hurt our credibility when we make outlandish statements like:...........................

The takeaway ought to have been the form which form critics see in such Patriarchal Blessings.   We see them repeatedly throughout Scripture, and they tend to follow a particular format.  Intertextuality is merely an artifact of that larger process.

[Doctrine 612]

12 hours ago, Calm said:

Had you read the thread prior to making this comment?  Just curious.

 

12 hours ago, Calm said:

Had you read the thread prior to making this comment?  Just curious.

I read about five comments then posted.

😋

 

joseph Smith had a lot of study books to help him in his scriptures study but the most important was the Holy Ghost.

 

for his translation of the hindercook plates he used a study guide not revelation.

[mfbukowski]

Joseph wrote the same doctrine twice.

Don't worry about texts.

Joseph was a prophet. All that matters is that he got the doctrine right.

What difference does it make?

Did anyone mention Luke 1:42?

" Fruit of thy womb.."?

 

Edited August 13, 2018 by mfbukowski