Thoughts on the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible?

[caspianrex]

One of the more interesting items in my library of materials from the Latter-day Saints tradition is the 1974 printing of The Holy Scriptures (Inspired Version), published by what was then known as the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (RLDS). A recent thread on this Forum, concerning the JST's adjustment to the story of Jesus' temptation in the wilderness, "inspired" me to get out my copy of the work, to take a look at some of the interesting features of version. Some of Joseph's changes to the text of the KJV are fairly obvious, such as the first couple of verses of Genesis:

 

Quote

 

Gen 1:1 And it came to pass that the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Behold, I reveal unto you concerning this heaven and this earth; write the words which I speak.

Gen 1:2 I am the Beginning and the End, the Almighty God. By mine Only Begotten I created these things.

 

Other changes, like the aforementioned adjustments in Matthew's (and Luke's) Gospel, are a bit more subtle. Another example that I just stumbled upon was a minor addition to the end of the Pericope Adulterae, the story of the Woman Caught in Adultery: at the end of John 8:11, we read, "And the woman glorified God from that hour, and believed on his name."

I had had the Inspired Version in my library for quite some time before I realized that it didn't contain the Song of Solomon. It was only later that I noticed the note in the LDS publication of the KJV that reads, "...the JST manuscript states that 'The Songs of Solomon are not inspired writings."" I certainly found that an interesting piece of information. 

I would be interested in hearing thoughts from Saints who are familiar with the JST (or Inspired Version), as to how you view the Prophet's adjustments to the Scriptures. Has anyone else had much experience with the edition published by the RLDS? I guess I'm unclear as to the "canonicity" of the JST changes, and how that interacts with #8 of the Articles of Faith, " We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God." I look forward to hearing from several of you!

[caspianrex]

This quote from the Bible Dictionary that is published in the LDS edition of the KJV is interesting, if not particularly illuminating:

Quote

Although not the official Bible of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the JST offers many interesting insights and is an invaluable aid to biblical interpretation and understanding. It is a most fruitful source of useful information for the student of the scriptures. It is likewise a witness for the divine calling and ministry of the Prophet Joseph Smith.

 

[Ahab]

3 minutes ago, caspianrex said:

One of the more interesting items in my library of materials from the Latter-day Saints tradition is the 1974 printing of The Holy Scriptures (Inspired Version), published by what was then known as the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (RLDS). A recent thread on this Forum, concerning the JST's adjustment to the story of Jesus' temptation in the wilderness, "inspired" me to get out my copy of the work, to take a look at some of the interesting features of version. Some of Joseph's changes to the text of the KJV are fairly obvious, such as the first couple of verses of Genesis:

 

Other changes, like the aforementioned adjustments in Matthew's (and Luke's) Gospel, are a bit more subtle. Another example that I just stumbled upon was a minor addition to the end of the Pericope Adulterae, the story of the Woman Caught in Adultery: at the end of John 8:11, we read, "And the woman glorified God from that hour, and believed on his name."

I had had the Inspired Version in my library for quite some time before I realized that it didn't contain the Song of Solomon. It was only later that I noticed the note in the LDS publication of the KJV that reads, "...the JST manuscript states that 'The Songs of Solomon are not inspired writings."" I certainly found that an interesting piece of information. 

I would be interested in hearing thoughts from Saints who are familiar with the JST (or Inspired Version), as to how you view the Prophet's adjustments to the Scriptures. Has anyone else had much experience with the edition published by the RLDS? I guess I'm unclear as to the "canonicity" of the JST changes, and how that interacts with #8 of the Articles of Faith, " We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God." I look forward to hearing from several of you!

I'm guessing you're probably familiar with the info in this link, but for others reading who aren't:: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/gs/joseph-smith-translation-jst?lang=eng

My understanding of what we as a Church consider to be "canon" is what are our "standard" works, and since some excerpt of the JST are in our "standard" works I would say that at least some of his writings are considered "canon" or "standard" in our Church.

I'm guessing you're also probably aware that what we consider to be scripture isn't limited to our canon or standard works.  Anything spoken or written by holy men as they are moved upon by the Holy Spirit should be considered scripture, and the standard works simply give us some examples of scripture which were inspired by the Holy Spirit so we can utilize them as a kind of measuring tool to determine if other utterances or writings are scripture, with the Holy Spirit being our primary means of attaining our spiritual knowledge from God.

[caspianrex]

1 minute ago, Ahab said:

I'm guessing you're also probably aware that what we consider to be scripture isn't limited to our canon or standard works.  Anything spoken or written by holy men as they are moved upon by the Holy Spirit should be considered scripture, and the standard works simply give us some examples of scripture which were inspired by the Holy Spirit so we can utilize them as a kind of measuring tool to determine if other utterances or writings are scripture, with the Holy Spirit being our primary means of attaining our spiritual knowledge from God.

Certainly, what is considered "canon" by Latter-day Saints is considerably more flexible that what is found in mainline Protestant Christianity, which is where I am. Meanwhile, issues of how even the standard Christian canon of Scripture developed over time have long fascinated me. After all, the Catholic Bibles in my collection have considerably more extra material in them than the Protestant Bibles which make up the majority of my collection. Far more "extra" material than the additions and changes compiled by Joseph Smith in his work. And I've often wondered how the average Jewish person looks at the New Testament when considering the canon of Scripture.

One thing I find particularly interesting about the JST is how connected Joseph's translation work was to revelations found in Standard Works like the D&C, as well as the status given to that work by modern Saints. Does it send a message to the average Latter-day Saint, that the JST material is relegated to footnotes and an appendix? As an outsider, obviously, I don't have any idea of the answer to that question. It seems to me that, in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the perspective on that question may be quite different from the perspective of a member of the RLDS from the 1970s, and certainly from a modern-day member of the Community of Christ. (Indeed, even the status of the Book of Mormon seems a bit questionable in the Community of Christ.) I hope all of these ruminations make sense. As I said above, the entire issue of "canonicity" is one that continues to fascinate me. And as I interact with religious works outside my own tradition (a United Methodist who was raised Lutheran), I find the topic no less interesting!

[Ahab]

11 minutes ago, caspianrex said:

Certainly, what is considered "canon" by Latter-day Saints is considerably more flexible that what is found in mainline Protestant Christianity, which is where I am. Meanwhile, issues of how even the standard Christian canon of Scripture developed over time have long fascinated me. After all, the Catholic Bibles in my collection have considerably more extra material in them than the Protestant Bibles which make up the majority of my collection. Far more "extra" material than the additions and changes compiled by Joseph Smith in his work. And I've often wondered how the average Jewish person looks at the New Testament when considering the canon of Scripture.

One thing I find particularly interesting about the JST is how connected Joseph's translation work was to revelations found in Standard Works like the D&C, as well as the status given to that work by modern Saints. Does it send a message to the average Latter-day Saint, that the JST material is relegated to footnotes and an appendix? As an outsider, obviously, I don't have any idea of the answer to that question. It seems to me that, in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the perspective on that question may be quite different from the perspective of a member of the RLDS from the 1970s, and certainly from a modern-day member of the Community of Christ. (Indeed, even the status of the Book of Mormon seems a bit questionable in the Community of Christ.) I hope all of these ruminations make sense. As I said above, the entire issue of "canonicity" is one that continues to fascinate me. And as I interact with religious works outside my own tradition (a United Methodist who was raised Lutheran), I find the topic no less interesting!

I think there are 2 ways to look at what is considered canon, regardless of what it is that is considered canon:  1) this is it and no more, nothing else is scripture, or 2) this is a sample of what is considered scripture and all other scripture should harmonize with this.

As LDS we are generally open to the idea that there is more scripture than what is in our canon or standard works.  Words spoken by Presidents of our Church are often considered scripture even if they are never included in our canon or standard works or written down anywhere else for that matter, although we do try to keep records of utterances in our Ensign articles or recordings of General Conference sessions or other forms of media.   So you may reasonably ask:  What is it that tells us whether or not an utterance from a President of the Church is scripture?  How are we supposed to know?  I would answer by telling you that it is by the power of the Holy Spirit that confirms that message to us, and I think many other members of the Church would give the same or a similar answer.

Edited February 28, 2020 by Ahab

[Calm]

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/history/topics/joseph-smith-translation-of-the-bible?lang=eng
 

There are several articles listed as resources at the bottom. I believe the Matthews one is what has been most commonly used. 

[caspianrex]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/history/topics/joseph-smith-translation-of-the-bible?lang=eng
 

There are several articles listed as resources at the bottom. I believe the Matthews one is what has been most commonly used. 

Thanks for sharing...I don't believe I had read this article before. I found this quote interesting: "A revelation directed Joseph not to translate apocryphal writings even though such writings contained 'many things … that are true.'”

Which makes me think, would it ever be possible that the Church would publish an edition of the KJV with the Apocrypha (as the original 1611 printing of the KJV did)? Some modern versions of the Bible, published mainly for the use of Protestants have restored the tradition of including the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical books (RSV, NRSV, CEB, REB, NEB, ESV are a few from the past four decades, off the top of my head). It's something interesting to consider.

[caspianrex]

2 minutes ago, caspianrex said:

Which makes me think, would it ever be possible that the Church would publish an edition of the KJV with the Apocrypha (as the original 1611 printing of the KJV did)? Some modern versions of the Bible, published mainly for the use of Protestants have restored the tradition of including the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical books (RSV, NRSV, CEB, REB, NEB, ESV are a few from the past four decades, off the top of my head). It's something interesting to consider.

Of course, can you imagine how huge that Quad Combo would be if it included the Apocrypha? It might be more than anyone could carry...

😋

[Ahab]

44 minutes ago, caspianrex said:

Of course, can you imagine how huge that Quad Combo would be if it included the Apocrypha? It might be more than anyone could carry...

😋

It would be nice if it was included in our Library app though.  I think most of us carry the scriptures around on our phones these days, which can usually link to the internet, so we could probably have all scriptures on our phones now without adding any extra weight. 

 

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/?lang=eng 

 

 

Edited February 28, 2020 by Ahab

[Stargazer]

1 hour ago, caspianrex said:

Of course, can you imagine how huge that Quad Combo would be if it included the Apocrypha? It might be more than anyone could carry...

😋

Yuck. I can't deal with Quads.  I had one in German on my mission and found it incredibly inconvenient.  I'd want to have the Bible open at the same time as the Book of Mormon, and dang it, the binding was just not helping!

But it did form a kind of teaching tool when it came to discussing Ezekiel 37:15-19 as a visualizing of the "sticks" of Judah and Joseph being "one in thine hand":

15 The word of the Lord came again unto me, saying,
16 Moreover, thou son of man, take thee one stick, and write upon it, For Judah, and for the children of Israel his companions: then take another stick, and write upon it, For Joseph, the stick of Ephraim, and for all the house of Israel his companions:
17 And join them one to another into one stick; and they shall become one in thine hand.
18 And when the children of thy people shall speak unto thee, saying, Wilt thou not shew us what thou meanest by these?
19 Say unto them, Thus saith the Lord God; Behold, I will take the stick of Joseph, which is in the hand of Ephraim, and the tribes of Israel his fellows, and will put them with him, even with the stick of Judah, and make them one stick, and they shall be one in mine hand.

As you know, of course, the stick of Judah is the Bible, and the stick of Joseph is the Book of Mormon (because Lehi was a descendant of Joseph through Manasseh).

[Stargazer]

1 hour ago, Ahab said:

It would be nice if it was included in our Library app though.  I think most of us carry the scriptures around on our phones these days, which can usually link to the internet, so we could probably have all scriptures on our phones now without adding any extra weight. 

 

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/?lang=eng 

You can get the Apocrypha on your phone. There's an Android app for it (probably also an iPhone app):

https://apkpure.com/apocrypha/com.bible.apocrypha

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, caspianrex said:

One of the more interesting items in my library of materials from the Latter-day Saints tradition is the 1974 printing of The Holy Scriptures (Inspired Version), published by what was then known as the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (RLDS). ...............................................

I had had the Inspired Version in my library for quite some time before I realized that it didn't contain the Song of Solomon. It was only later that I noticed the note in the LDS publication of the KJV that reads, "...the JST manuscript states that 'The Songs of Solomon are not inspired writings."" I certainly found that an interesting piece of information. 

I would be interested in hearing thoughts from Saints who are familiar with the JST (or Inspired Version), as to how you view the Prophet's adjustments to the Scriptures. Has anyone else had much experience with the edition published by the RLDS? I guess I'm unclear as to the "canonicity" of the JST changes, and how that interacts with #8 of the Articles of Faith, " We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God." I look forward to hearing from several of you!

The Inspired Revision/JST is not canonical, although some portions are canonical and contained in the LDS Pearl of Great Price (see Book of Moses and Joseph Smith Matthew 24).

A book review just out has some very enlightening comments on the JST.  Mark J. Johnson, “Scriptures through the Jeweler’s Lens,” Interpreter, 36 (2020): 85-108, online at https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/scriptures-through-the-jewelers-lens/ .   Johnson also comments on the Articles of Faith.  He has a good grasp of the main issues.

 

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, caspianrex said:

........................ "A revelation directed Joseph not to translate apocryphal writings even though such writings contained 'many things … that are true.'”

Which makes me think, would it ever be possible that the Church would publish an edition of the KJV with the Apocrypha (as the original 1611 printing of the KJV did)? ....................

Joseph Smith's Bible included the entire Apocrypha, which was normal in his time.  It is only later that the Apocrypha begins to be deleted from the KJV.  In my own research, I have made extensive use of the KJV Apocrypha.

[sunstoned]

Joseph Smith's bible also included quite a significant amount of material lifted directly from Adam Clarke's famous Bible commentary.  The link below is the BYU paper that discusses this.  I think the research is very aptly named: "A Recently Recovered Source, Rethinking Joseph Smith’s Bible Translation”.

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

 

[Robert F. Smith]

11 hours ago, sunstoned said:

Joseph Smith's bible also included quite a significant amount of material lifted directly from Adam Clarke's famous Bible commentary.  The link below is the BYU paper that discusses this.  I think the research is very aptly named: "A Recently Recovered Source, Rethinking Joseph Smith’s Bible Translation”.

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

Yes, and we frequently forget that Sidney Rigdon was the trained Protestant minister who assisted Joseph in making "cprrections" in the margins of that 1828 Phinney Bible.  We also forget that Rigdon's former boss, Alexander Campbell, was also doing a revised Bible -- as were many others in those days, including Thomas Jefferson.  Everyone knew that the KJV Bible had faults and needed corrections.

[champatsch]

Skousen discusses the JST on pages 132–40 of KJQ (2019) (chapter 7). There's detailed comparative work in those pages, laid out in tables and side by side columns.

[CA Steve]

22 hours ago, caspianrex said:

Which makes me think, would it ever be possible that the Church would publish an edition of the KJV with the Apocrypha (as the original 1611 printing of the KJV did)

I think it is important to note that 'the Apocrypha" that influenced J.S. was  not limited to the books found in the majority of bibles printed in the early 1800's. Besides those 14-15 books there were literally 100's of other Christian writings. Principal among these other writings was a publication called .  The Apocryphal New Testament by William Hone 1st published in 1817 and known to have been owned by JS in Nauvoo. 

If the Church were to publish a version of the KJB with those 14-15 books, many members might be surprised to encounter names like these .

From 2 Maccabees 1:36

Quote

36 And Neemias called this thing Naphthar, which is as much as to say, a cleansing: but many men call it Nephi.

From 1 Esdras 8:2

Quote

The son of Sadduc, the son of Achitob, the son of Amarias, the son of Ezias, the son of Meremoth, the son of Zaraias, the son of Savias, the son of Boccas, the son of Abisum, the son of Phinees, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the chief priest.

or similar phrasing like:

Quote

"for he was filled [drunk] with wine" (Judith 13:2; 1 Nephi 4:)

and,

Quote

“took hold of the hair of his head” (Judith 13:7) versus “took . . . by the hair of his head” (1 Nephi 4:18)

and,

Quote

“make an abridgment” (2 Maccabees 2:31; 1 Nephi 1:17).[24]

For more on JS use of the Apocrypha see Joseph Smith’s Developing Relationship with the Apocrypha by Thomas Wayment

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, CA Steve said:

.................................

If the Church were to publish a version of the KJB with those 14-15 books, many members might be surprised to encounter names like these .

From 2 Maccabees 1:36 And Neemias called this thing Naphthar, which is as much as to say, a cleansing: but many men call it Nephi [the cleansing agent naptha, Greek νεφθαι].

Quote

In I Esdras 5:21, among the names of Jewish families who returned from Babylonian captivity, is the patronymic Nephis (Greek Νιφις).

Nephi also appears as the name of a rabbi in Athanasus Kircher's 17^th century Oedipus Aegyptiacus (3 volumes in Latin).[1]  Kircher also referred to him as Abenephius the Arab.[2]

---

[1] Available online at http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/book/lookupid?key=olbp67641 , as Barachias Nephi, a rabbi from Babylon [Cairo] who is supposed to be the author of an Arabic manuscript explaining how to interpret Egyptian hieroglyphs.

[2] Jason Colavito, “Are the Fragments of Abenephius the Remains of a Lost Jewish Account of Egypt?” June 27, 2017, online at http://www.jasoncolavito.com/blog/are-the-fragments-of-abenephius-the-remains-of-a-lost-jewish-account-of-egypt .

From 1 Esdras 8:2 The son of Sadduc, the son of Achitob, the son of Amarias, the son of Ezias, the son of Meremoth, the son of Zaraias, the son of Savias, the son of Boccas, the son of Abisum, the son of Phinees, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the chief priest.

or similar phrasing like:

"for he was filled [drunk] with wine" (Judith 13:2; 1 Nephi 4:7) --  [Judith 13:15 "he did lie in his drunkenness, and the Lord hath smitten him by the hand of a woman."  Similar trope in Judges 4:21.]

“took hold of the hair of his head...and she took away his head from him” (Judith 13:7-8) versus “took . . . by the hair of his head” (1 Nephi 4:18)

For more on JS use of the Apocrypha see Joseph Smith’s Developing Relationship with the Apocrypha by Thomas Wayment

Hope you don't mind my messing with your text, Steve.  Just trying to find an easy way to expand what you said.

My 1987 three-volume Book of Mormon Critical Text made full use of Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha parallels.  One of the reasons for the importance of this research is the fact that the Book of Mormon text is written in Early Modern English (as champatsch has shown us in systematic detail).  Thus, looking at 19th century sources is no longer helpful.

Edited February 29, 2020 by Robert F. Smith

[CA Steve]

19 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Hope you don't mind my messing with your text, Steve.  Just trying to find an easy way to expand what you said

No problem and thanks for the information.

 

19 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

One of the reasons for the importance of this research is the fact that the Book of Mormon text is written in Early Modern English (as champatsch has shown us in systematic detail).  Thus, looking at 19th century sources is no longer helpful.

As interesting as EMoD is in the Book of Mormon, I have yet to see evidence that shows how it got there, so I believe looking at 19th century sources is still very important and should be the primary focus as any other explanation would require a divine/supernatural/? intervention which is impossible to prove/disprove.

[Robert F. Smith]

16 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

..............................................As interesting as EMoD is in the Book of Mormon, I have yet to see evidence that shows how it got there, so I believe looking at 19th century sources is still very important and should be the primary focus as any other explanation would require a divine/supernatural/? intervention which is impossible to prove/disprove.

So far as I can tell, the forensic evidence alone is relevant.  For example, champtasch does not speak of supernatural sources, but hews strictly to secular sources in his careful detective work.  This has led to the now outmoded 19th century notions having to be jettisoned.  The secular evidence is clear:  Joseph read the text to his scribes, and they wrote it down.  The text was in a language unavailable to Joseph.  Did Joseph realize that?  Probably not.  He could not have been familiar with the modern scholarship which alone allows us to distinguish the nature of EModE in detail.  Ignorant as he was, even Joseph could readily see that the BofM text was not in "proper" 19th century English.  That is why he edited it for the 1837 second edition, and why James Talmage did the same for the 1920 edition.

How to account for the facts?  One could claim that the BofM text was carefully composed or translated by a great genius in the 16th or 17th century, and that it was this text which Joseph somehow managed to get hold of in the 19th century (this is the context which JarMan and Rajah Manchou are studying in secular detail).  The internal complexity of the BofM (the intertextuality alone) is so highly developed that it bespeaks at least the sort of long-term effort of actual named authors and editors, or it suggests the herculean efforts of J. R. R. Tolkien in creating Middle Earth and the Hobbit.

Imagining the BofM text as having sprung from 19th century sources at the hands of a country bumpkin is the truly supernatural assumption, which is very odd in view of the rejection of the supernatural by Mormon theology.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, CA Steve said:

No problem and thanks for the information.

 

As interesting as EMoD is in the Book of Mormon, I have yet to see evidence that shows how it got there, so I believe looking at 19th century sources is still very important and should be the primary focus as any other explanation would require a divine/supernatural/? intervention which is impossible to prove/disprove.

Perhaps you need to examine exactly what you mean by proved or disproved in this context.

And that is a much larger issue than the question of EMoD. 

Looking at it with a jaded, naturalistic, eye, the very fact that it exists is the biggest mystery of all.  Which century could possibly actually give us "evidence" almost becomes  immaterial to the larger question. And what would even constitute evidence in the first place?

Looking for "proof" is a futile exercise beyond what the Lord gives us.

Like the existence of God himself it is a question of faith

[Dan McClellan]

On 2/29/2020 at 8:44 AM, Robert F. Smith said:

Yes, and we frequently forget that Sidney Rigdon was the trained Protestant minister who assisted Joseph in making "cprrections" in the margins of that 1828 Phinney Bible.  We also forget that Rigdon's former boss, Alexander Campbell, was also doing a revised Bible -- as were many others in those days, including Thomas Jefferson.  Everyone knew that the KJV Bible had faults and needed corrections.

What a lot of people don't know is that the Phinney Bible was actually quite modernized compared to our Blayney KJV. For instance, it systematically change the indefinite article "an" before words beginning in /h/ to "a." So, in the the Book of Moses, which is drawn in part from the Phinney Bible, God creates "a help meet" for Adam, whereas our KJV and the Book of Abraham have "an help meet." Joseph Smith took a more modernized Bible and modernized it further, then we adopted a Bible a Bible that's less modernized than both. 

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours ago, Dan McClellan said:

What a lot of people don't know is that the Phinney Bible was actually quite modernized compared to our Blayney KJV. For instance, it systematically change the indefinite article "an" before words beginning in /h/ to "a." So, in the the Book of Moses, which is drawn in part from the Phinney Bible, God creates "a help meet" for Adam, whereas our KJV and the Book of Abraham have "an help meet." Joseph Smith took a more modernized Bible and modernized it further, then we adopted a Bible a Bible that's less modernized than both. 

I am unfamiliar with the Blayney Bible, but I Ne 19:14 "a hiss" (OP MSS) does parallel Jer 25:18 "a hissing" (1828 Phinney) instead of "an hissing" (LDS & 1611 KJ ).  Helpful to know our sources.

[Ahab]

6 hours ago, Dan McClellan said:

What a lot of people don't know is that the Phinney Bible was actually quite modernized compared to our Blayney KJV. For instance, it systematically change the indefinite article "an" before words beginning in /h/ to "a." So, in the the Book of Moses, which is drawn in part from the Phinney Bible, God creates "a help meet" for Adam, whereas our KJV and the Book of Abraham have "an help meet." Joseph Smith took a more modernized Bible and modernized it further, then we adopted a Bible a Bible that's less modernized than both. 

Please do whatever you can to make our next version of the Bible as modern as it can be.  I would appreciate it.

It will be like, what, the 2030 version?  Very modern by today's standards.

[champatsch]

From Skousen, KJQ 140 [emphasis added]:

Quote

Ultimately, there is not much added value in the JST text when the biblical passage is simply a copy or a slightly revised copy of how that passage was quoted in the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon. The differences almost always deal with tweaking biblical words and phrases, along with some grammatical editing. From a larger perspective, the evidence from the JST manuscripts themselves clearly suggests that not everything in the JST is of equal value. The beginning work that revised Genesis 1–6 appears to involve a word-for-word revelation (much like the Book of Mormon itself ), but later work in the JST usually reflects the use of very human methods to alter the biblical text (including wholesale copying into the JST version of Isaiah 50, a defective text from the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon). As I argued in a 2005 review of the JST (listed below in the bibliography), it is a mistake to automatically assume that every change in the JST is inspired or that the final version is in its entirety a revealed text. The minor variation that simply deals with changing a word or a phrase here and there usually indicates a human reaction to some perceived problem in the biblical text.

There are many differences between readings found in the book of Moses and the Phinney Bible, some of them complex. The totality of the evidence suggests that the book of Moses probably wasn't produced by Joseph working from a Phinney Bible.