- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Long time lurker here. On Sunday we had a lesson on the ten commandments and the LDS interpretation that the first set of tablets contained the “higher law”, and after being smashed were replaced with the “lesser law”. Of course this interpretation conflicts with the text of Exodus. I brough this up and was directed to the JST Exodus 34: 1-2
“And the Lord said unto Moses, Hew thee two other tables of stone, like unto the first, and I will write upon them also, the words of the law, according as they were written at the first on the tables which thou brakest; but it shall not be according to the first, for I will take away the priesthood out of their midst; therefore my holy order, and the ordinances thereof, shall not go before them; for my presence shall not go up in their midst, lest I destroy them.
2 But I will give unto them the law as at the first, but it shall be after the law of a carnal commandment; for I have sworn in my wrath, that they shall not enter into my presence, into my rest, in the days of their pilgrimage. Therefore do as I have commanded thee, and be ready in the morning, and come up in the morning unto mount Sinai, and present thyself there to me, in the top of the mount.”
This got me thinking about the JST in general. The way I can see there are two ways to look at it.
1. Literal interpretation: If you could see the original document, it would read exactly as it appears in the JST. This seems to be the orthodox view.
2. Expository interpretation: The JST consists of Joseph’s attempt to interpret and reconcile passages of scripture with his theology.
The fact that the JST has not been validated by any ancient manuscript, coupled with the fact that the church doesn’t formally incorporate the JST into its own version of the bible (like the RLDS church did) leads me to think that 2 is more likely.
What do you think?
I agree with you that 2 is more likely. I also believe that’s what the PoGP is all about. I don’t think the JST is useful in dealing with other Christians. doc, I IMO the JST is a very, very important work; not for its content, but for what it tells us about Joseph Smith. The JST was a big undertaking, and JS devoted a lot of effort to it. He hit it hard in the first few years of the Church, then tapered, but it was always on his mind. He was very meticulous about it, and revisited sections to refine his translation.
To me, this is compelling evidence that he thought of himself as the real deal, and not as a con man.
Even more than that, I think the JST is a glimpse into exactly how (at least in this case) JS thought that God communicated to him. It appears that he believed that he could look at a passage of the KJV, open his mind, think about it, and receive divine inspiration about what it should say, with no voice or vision. I think that JS thought that God spoke
throughhim, and I think the JST is evidence of that. There is no evidence or support for number 1. I have had this discussion with prominent rabbi before. It’s rather offensive to them. But they were compassionate enough to put me in touch with people that work with the original manuscripts. And by original I mean Aleppo codex and Leningrad codex. There is no basis for what is written in the JST in them, neither the Dead Sea scrolls. Which is part of the reason we don’t list them for study. Because all bibles are based on Masoretic Hebrew and not the original Hebrew written with 22 vowelless text(no copies of them exist). All modern editions are based on these 9th century C.E. Text and not the oldest recorded of Greek translation(Septuagint)4th century CE.
Regardless, because they do bit match up with the JST we are left with number 2.
The oldest written text that establish errors that might be in the Masorectic text fr the original are the Dead Sea scrolls (408 BCE-318 CE).
You are anyone can now look at them here
http://www.deadseascrolls.org.il/?locale=en_UShttp://www.deadseascrolls.org.il/?locale=en_US” class=”bbcode_url”> Because they are avoidable online now in high res anyone can view and verify and match the text with Masorectic text.
Ultimately it all is testimony of how individuals perceived the world in their time written down as history for future Jewish generations(never intended for goys-non Jews when it was written and passed down).
So it all comes down to what one believes.
I choose to believe in anything that by numerous test and studies can show as good for humanity and the world.
How you interpret how other people long ago interpreted the world is up to you.
On Own Now wrote:doc,
I IMO the JST is a very, very important work; not for its content, but for what it tells us about Joseph Smith. The JST was a big undertaking, and JS devoted a lot of effort to it. He hit it hard in the first few years of the Church, then tapered, but it was always on his mind. He was very meticulous about it, and revisited sections to refine his translation.
To me, this is compelling evidence that he thought of himself as the real deal, and not as a con man.
Even more than that, I think the JST is a glimpse into exactly how (at least in this case) JS thought that God communicated to him. It appears that he believed that he could look at a passage of the KJV, open his mind, think about it, and receive divine inspiration about what it should say, with no voice or vision. I think that JS thought that God spoke
throughhim, and I think the JST is evidence of that. I guess he’ll always be a mystery to me. I see the inelegant insertion of himself into Genesis 50 as ….. I don’t know …. something bordering on mental illness. I wish I didn’t.
On Own Now wrote:doc,
I IMO the JST is a very, very important work; not for its content, but for what it tells us about Joseph Smith.
+1
TheDoctor13 wrote:the church doesn’t formally incorporate the JST into its own version of the bible (like the RLDS church did) leads me to think that 2 is more likely.
Incidentally, I purchased a copy of the “inspired version” from the RLDS church. In the preface they have an article on the JST, his process, and scholarly research. The main thrust of it was that JS was not working particularly methodically. He would change a verse in one location but not change the corresponding verses in the other gospels. Likewise that his changes do not appear to be supported by any other translations. It made the assertion that JS spent most of his time 1) fixing things that appeared contradictory in the bible itself and 2) marrying Joseph’s understanding of theology with the bible writings.
Roy wrote:2) marrying Joseph’s understanding of theology with the bible writings.
Philosophies of men …
A book on the history of the JST: Unknown wrote:Roy wrote:2) marrying Joseph’s understanding of theology with the bible writings.
Philosophies of men …
Hate to point out the obvious but it’s all philosophy of men.
That’s what scripture is. Just various people have a belief which ones and what were inspired by god.
That’s why I have no particular issues with it. Same stuff, all scriptures our a record of a man(s) perception of the works around him. Which ones feel inspired is up to the individual (you).
What we interpret as “scripture” was decided long ago by what cannons to include and what not to include that was “interpreted as inspired or Devine”.
It’s a choice. There are tones of modified scripture and tons of left out “scripture”.
It’s a choice to believe which is which. Usually based in tradition.
I guess a follow up question would be is what the TBM consensus is. Whether it is a literal translation or just Joseph’s attempt to reconcile doctrinal issues. TheDoctor13 wrote:I guess a follow up question would be is what the TBM consensus is. Whether it is a literal translation or just Joseph’s attempt to reconcile doctrinal issues.
I usually hear that the JST replaces some of the plain and precious truths that were lost by conniving or ignorant transcribers etc. Except that it was a work in progress that was never fully completed to Joseph’s satisfaction.
Joseph never claimed it was a literal translation. That is good enough for me. See Book of Abraham translation It’s an “amplified” version of the Bible. Not just resolving contradictions but adding commentary to obscure passages. In actual fact it doesn’t really change that much of the Bible.
TheDoctor13 wrote:I guess a follow up question would be is what the TBM consensus is. Whether it is a literal translation or just Joseph’s attempt to reconcile doctrinal issues.
I’m not sure anybody here can really answer that. The Church keeps a pretty low profile on the JST, so while there are fanatics at one extreme and minimalists at the other, I don’t think it’s really possible to say what the ‘consensus’ is.For myself, I don’t think I ever took it as ‘literal’ in the sense of restoring what was originally written. My recollection is that I thought of portions of it as ‘revealed’ and portions of it as ‘clarifying’. But when we talk about the general membership of the Church, remember that it isn’t even available in any language other than English and Spanish (excepting the portions in the PofGP). So, a significant percentage of the Church doesn’t even have access to it, let alone use it on a regular basis.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.