The Joseph Smith Translation???

[Anonymous]

I am wondering what others think about the Joseph Smith translation of the Bible. We have a gospel doctrine teacher who uses it all the time and I find it amusing. It is not as if Joseph put stuff back that went missing over the centuries as Mormons think. If you compare his translation to the earliest texts there is no correlation. I can not see how he did anything other than just make up that stuff and add it to the bible. In a way he was much like the early scribes who put stuff in due to their own bias or they just wanted to make the story sound better.

With the BoM there is noting to compare it to so how do you say it is a fabrication. We do not have any gold plates to examine to compare Josephs translation to see if it is correct so you just have to accept it on face value or reject it. But with the bible we have numerous texts to compare Josephs translation to and well he is not such a good translator.

So do you find value in his translation of the bible? He does say some nifty stuff.

[Anonymous]

Joseph was a talented person — no doubt. He was quite a talented writer, and if everything he said IS made up, he created quite an interesting philosophy that answers a lot of questions for a lot of people. It sure did catch me several decades ago when I was an impressionable and searching young adult. And he’s attracted a lot of capable, intelligent people who believe in his scriptures and his religious philosophy. So, I enjoy reading his translation of the Bible. I think it makes more sense that the traditional wordings in many cases.

[Anonymous]

I like it, generally speaking – and I think some of it was inspired.

That’s my view of pretty much all of our scriptures (to varying degrees, including the PofGP) – and a whole lot of other writings throughout history.

[Anonymous]

Cadence wrote:

So do you find value in his translation of the bible?

Nope.

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

I like it, generally speaking – and I think some of it was inspired.

Can scripture be inspired and made up at the same time? I mean if something is not historically accurate for instance can it still be inspired to teach us a lesson? And can the same scripture change over time to more accurately reflect the norms of the day and still be inspired?

Not making a statement or accusation just asking.

[Anonymous]

I think the JST provides valuable insight into Joseph’s theology and thinking. So it does tell us more clearly how JS understood the Bible at times, feeling these modifications were better (concept-wise). I don’t think it makes the KJV more accurate on some technical or historical level. On the textual level, I agree it is more like being one of the medieval scribes in a monastery somewhere and saying “gee … that passage really should be like this _______ , it makes more sense that way, so I am going to correct it.”

Cadence wrote:

Can scripture be inspired and made up at the same time? I mean if something is not historically accurate for instance can it still be inspired to teach us a lesson?

In my opinion, that is the description of all “scripture.” So I would answer yes. All scripture is made up by people, and it can be inspired / inspiring. If God has a hand in it, that seems to be how he works.

[Anonymous]

Absolutely, Cadence – to all of your questions. At least, I believe so. 🙂

My only “quibble” would be with the phrase “made up” – since I think it implies a degree of intentional fraud that I just don’t believe is accurate with what we term “scripture” – and even with most of what most members would not term “scripture”. I think, by and large, most, if not all, of the “major” religious figures throughout history have been sincere – regardless of the “accuracy” of their beliefs. I think Joseph was sincere, and I think Brigham was, as well – and I believe our modern apostles are sincere. Whether or not, ultimately, the words came from God in some way (were “inspired” somehow), I just don’t think they were “made up” in the way that phrase normally is interpreted.

[Anonymous]

Mixed feelings…

Linguistically not of much value – I know a little Greek and Hebrew, and not much benefit there.

In terms of meaning, it’s basically an ampilified version.

The reason we don’t use it more is because the RLDS has the copyright.

[Anonymous]

Cadence wrote:

I am wondering what others think about the Joseph Smith translation of the Bible…It is not as if Joseph put stuff back that went missing over the centuries as Mormons think. If you compare his translation to the earliest texts there is no correlation. I can not see how he did anything other than just make up that stuff and add it to the bible…So do you find value in his translation of the bible?

The one that really got to me was the Joseph Smith translation of Genesis 50 where there are several added verses that contain a supposed prophecy of Joseph Smith himself even predicting his name thousands of years before his birth:

Quote:

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;

…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…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.

[Anonymous]

Cadence wrote:

So do you find value in his translation of the bible?

I believe it to be valuable scripture…as far as it has been translated correctly. Even if someone told me he had his face in a hat while receiving the revelations…I’d still feel the same.

There are some insights that I glean from it, so it is of value at times, like the rest of the sciptures.

[Anonymous]

Jared Anderson had some interesting comments about the words “plagiarism” and “forgery.” Plagiarism is copying another’s writing and attributing it to oneself. Forgery is creating something and attributing it to someone else. In reality, we don’t know a single author of the Bible. Anderson notes that about 7 letters attributed to Paul were probably written by him. However, the other ~7 letters were probably forged by someone else. Moses most certainly didn’t write all 5 books of Moses (because Deuteronomy notes that “Moses died”, so he couldn’t have finished that book.) In reality, all the books of the Bible could be considered “forged” because we really don’t know the true author of any book, and all books were probably written by someone and attributed to a more famous prophet. So, to answer your question, we generally don’t refer to the Bible as a forged document, and it probably doesn’t make sense to refer to the Book of Mormon as “made up” either. But both have inspired millions (billions?) of people. The JST is called “The Inspired Version” by the Community of Christ (for good reason.)

[Anonymous]

mormonheretic wrote:

However, the other ~7 letters were probably forged by someone else. … So, to answer your question, we generally don’t refer to the Bible as a forged document, and it probably doesn’t make sense to refer to the Book of Mormon as “made up” either. But both have inspired millions (billions?) of people. The JST is called “The Inspired Version” by the Community of Christ (for good reason.)

Well, I haven’t listened to all of the podcast (yet), but in at least two cases (Ephesians and Colossians), while the documents were not written by Paul, they were likely penned by someone from the same community or religious group. Such attribution was fairly common, and perhaps even expected, I think, at the time. Forgery doesn’t quite seem the right word for it. JST and BoM seem to be in an entirely different class.

[Anonymous]

mormonheretic wrote:

so he couldn’t have finished that book.) In reality, all the books of the Bible could be considered “forged” because we really don’t know the true author of any book, and all books were probably written by someone and attributed to a more famous prophet.

Just to throw out this tidbit from Old Testament scholar Dr. Richard Elliot Friedman (Author of “Who Wrote the Bible,” a really great read on the Old Testament):

Torah (5 books of Moses) + Psalms and Proverbs + Ezra and Nehemiah:

Ezra- (550-450 B.C.) Aaronid priest who was given authority by the Persian emperor Artaxerxes to instruct the Jews in Jerusalem on the law (Ezra 7:10-14) Promulgated a creed that included sources from all four of the sources that made up the first five books of Moses (Yahwist, Elohist, Priest, and Deuteronomist), as told in Nehemiah 8; Richard Elliott Friedman conjectures that he interwove the (already combined) Yahwist/Elohist text with the Priestly text and Deuteronomy to produce the Torah.

Joshua through 2 Kings, and some other books:

Approx 600 BC, Written by Baruch, the scribe who worked for the “Prophet” Jeremiah.

Here’s a link with a nice table summary: http://lost-history.com/authors.php

[Anonymous]

Brian Johnston wrote:

I think the JST provides valuable insight into Joseph’s theology and thinking. So it does tell us more clearly how JS understood the Bible at times, feeling these modifications were better (concept-wise). I don’t think it makes the KJV more accurate on some technical or historical level. On the textual level, I agree it is more like being one of the medieval scribes in a monastery somewhere and saying “gee … that passage really should be like this _______ , it makes more sense that way, so I am going to correct it.”

The “Inspired Version” that I bought in Nauvoo included an article by a onetime re-organized church historian. It discussed translation process as best as can be discerned from existing accounts and the notes that make up the translation itself. The thrust of the article largely agrees with Brian’s assessment that in many cases the changes make the biblical text more closely fit Joseph’s theological structure.

Silent Dawning wrote:

I think it makes more sense than the traditional wordings in many cases.

The end result of this process is that the passages make more sense, especially for people that already have an LDS framework. The Bible is messy and has contradictions and competing concepts, it was written by different people over many years of time. The JST superimposes the JS/LDS perspective over the narrative and ties up some loose ends.

[Author]

Posts