Translation

[Anonymous]

or it could be Midrash, technically, even if Joseph thought he was translating scripture from papyrus.

That sounds like a stretch to us with our analytical mindsets, at first blush, I know, but what if Joseph wasn’t versed in midrash, didn’t know the difference between “scripture” and “midrash” and, therefore, wrote midrash while thinking he was translating scripture – since midrash was all he knew with regard to his own work? It isn’t a stretch at all to believe he did what ancient prophet-writers did but, not understanding it, thought what he was producing was traditional scripture. All that means is that he didn’t understand his own mission perfectly, and can accept that without any hesitation or lower respect for him or what he produced.

I personally believe in the midrash explanation – and I don’t think it lessens either the BofA or the BofM in any way. I don’t take any scripture as the literal, inerrant, pure word of God, so, in practical terms, I see it all as midrash-ish, if you will.

[Anonymous]

wayfarer wrote:

it is clear that in the book of Moses, being part of the ‘inspired version’ exercise, Joseph is doing a sort of Midrash. The problem with the BoA is that it claims a a source the papyri, written by abraham’s own hand. This is clearly false: it was not, and the egyptology, along with the interpretation of “Elohim” was all wrong.

Wayfarer…Yes, you are certainly right about the false egyptology and the interpretation of Elohim. However, while the BoMo does in some ways read like Midrash, I believe that it can’t really be considered midrash precisely because it doesn’t have a “source”. Midrash has to have a source to work from, and the BoMo has no claimed source.

wayfarer wrote:

Mormons expect prophetic and scriptural perfection, and BoA doesnt deliver it–and that is a serious problem.

I agree. But if we “downgraded” our claim for the BOA from “scripture” to midrash, I think that would “solve” the problem of the BOA. Of course, I doubt the Church would ever do that, since it would put everything else in question.

wayfarer wrote:

Correct me if I am wrong, but midrash never claimed to be “scripture” on the same level as the Tanakh. In this respect, the BoA must be evaluated as scripture and not midrash, because it claims to be such. The Book of Moses makes no such claim, so it fits midrash better.

I see your point, and you are certainly correct that midrash never claimed to be scripture. And as an Orthodox rabbi once told me, “If you put 4 rabbis in a room, you’ll get 5 opinions”. If either the BOA or the BoMo were midrash, however, that would tend to solve the problem of “inspired” or “made up” that started my comments on this thread. Midrash, in my understanding, while not on the level of scripture, could be BOTH inspired AND made up (in the sense of “commentary”) and still be valuable.

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

or it could be Midrash, technically, even if Joseph thought he was translating scripture from papyrus.

That sounds like a stretch to us with our analytical mindsets, at first blush, I know, but what if Joseph wasn’t versed in midrash, didn’t know the difference between “scripture” and “midrash” and, therefore, wrote midrash while thinking he was translating scripture – since midrash was all he knew with regard to his own work? It isn’t a stretch at all to believe he did what ancient prophet-writers did but, not understanding it, thought what he was producing was traditional scripture. All that means is that he didn’t understand his own mission perfectly, and can accept that without any hesitation or lower respect for him or what he produced.

I personally believe in the midrash explanation – and I don’t think it lessens either the BofA or the BofM in any way. I don’t take any scripture as the literal, inerrant, pure word of God, so, in practical terms, I see it all as midrash-ish, if you will.

Ray, I’m sure that JS wasn’t versed in midrash, since if I recall the timeline that Wayfarer posted earlier in this topic, he didn’t begin learning Hebrew until after about 1835, which I think is after his encounter with the mummies in Kirtland. And due to his dogged insistence that Elohim is plural, I think it shows that JS was willing to bend what he did know to his own liking. So I think it’s possible as you say that JS didn’t understand quite what he was doing and ended up using the papyri to produce a midrash that he THOUGHT was a “translation”.

I DO agree with Wayfarer though that IF one takes scripture literally, that WOULD pose a problem for the midrash explanation.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

I DO agree with Wayfarer though that IF one takes scripture literally, that WOULD pose a problem for the midrash explanation.

Yup – so I’m glad that’s not a problem for me. :thumbup:

[Anonymous]

You’re saying Elohim is not plural?

Now I’m more confused. I’ve been taught (LDS) that Elohim was Heavenly Father and (non-LDS) that Elohim was a plural noun.

[Anonymous]

Thoreau wrote:

You’re saying Elohim is not plural?

Now I’m more confused. I’ve been taught (LDS) that Elohim was Heavenly Father and (non-LDS) that Elohim was a plural noun.

Thoreau:

Sorry for the confusion.

“Elohim” is a plural of majesty in Hebrew, not a plural of number.

If it were a plural of number, like JS thought is was, we would properly translate El or Eloah as “God” and EloHIM as “Gods”.

However, Elohim is a plural of majesty. Plural of majesty is a literary device where a single person is meant, but that person is spoken of in the plural to denote greatness or importance. So, when the Queen of England says: “We are not amused”, she means “I am not amused”, but refers to herself as “we” to denote that she is great or important.

The writers of the OT referred to God in the plural of majesty — EloHIM to denote importance or greatness. However, Elohim is actually singular and should ALWAYS be translated in the SINGULAR “God”, NEVER the plural “Gods”.

So, when JS “translates” Elohim in the BoA as “Gods” he shows his ignorance of Hebrew language and practice.

[Anonymous]

Mormonguy wrote:

Thoreau wrote:

You’re saying Elohim is not plural?

Now I’m more confused. I’ve been taught (LDS) that Elohim was Heavenly Father and (non-LDS) that Elohim was a plural noun.

Thoreau:

Sorry for the confusion.

“Elohim” is a plural of majesty in Hebrew, not a plural of number.

If it were a plural of number, like JS thought is was, we would properly translate El or Eloah as “God” and EloHIM as “Gods”.

However, Elohim is a plural of majesty. Plural of majesty is a literary device where a single person is meant, but that person is spoken of in the plural to denote greatness or importance. So, when the Queen of England says: “We are not amused”, she means “I am not amused”, but refers to herself as “we” to denote that she is great or important.

The writers of the OT referred to God in the plural of majesty — EloHIM to denote importance or greatness. However, Elohim is actually singular and should ALWAYS be translated in the SINGULAR “God”, NEVER the plural “Gods”.

So, when JS “translates” Elohim in the BoA as “Gods” he shows his ignorance of Hebrew language and practice.

that is a wonderfully jewish apologetic answer. El was a name of god, and the plural is indicated in more ways than just the term “elohim”. out of respect for rabbinical jewish tradition, i recognize that THEY consider elohim singular, but if joseph, as a prophet, found rabbinical traditions to be apostate, as did jesus, then there should be nothing wrong with thinking of elohim as plural.

[Anonymous]

wayfarer wrote:

that is a wonderfully jewish apologetic answer. El was a name of god, and the plural is indicated in more ways than just the term “elohim”. out of respect for rabbinical jewish tradition, i recognize that THEY consider elohim singular, but if joseph, as a prophet, found rabbinical traditions to be apostate, as did jesus, then there should be nothing wrong with thinking of elohim as plural.

Wayfarer:

I think the confusion comes in when we realize that Elohim is used in different senses when referring to different deities. Elohim IS a plural inherently because of the “im” ending. And, when it was used by the Jews in reference to any God but YHWH in the Hebrew tradition, it was allowed to take its normal, plural meaning, such as when it referred to the “gods of the nations” (elohim ha goyim). However, in reference to YHWH, the plural ending was taken to mean a plural of majesty, not number.

So, if one like JS or me or you is “translating” an ancient Hebrew text, and the text uses elohim in reference to the God of Israel, we as translators are OBLIGATED to translate the text as God, not Gods, because the ancient Hebrew writer would not have meant “gods” when he wrote it. Since the BoA claims to be a translation, JS would be unjustified in translating elohim in any other way than “god” when the text referred to the God of Israel.

If he were doing some kind of midrash, as I suggested — and not actually translating anything — then he could say “gods” if he wanted to because midrash includes commentary and interpretation. I don’t think that even a prophet can call a tradition of language interpretation apostate. And even so, one thing I appreciate about the LDS tradition is that we don’t believe in the infallibility of our prophets. So even if JS as a prophet called a tradition of language interpretation apostate, I think he would be wrong.

[Anonymous]

Since I personally believe in a Council of Gods theology, and I accept that someone can represent someone else (including a group of others), I have no problem translating Elohim as either plural or simgular in many cases – and certainly not in the earliest Genesis references.

Also, “as far as it is translated correctly” carries an amibguity and flexibility I love, since it doesn’t tie us to the earliest writers’ understanding. Most members don’t understand how different that foundation is than what they believe it to be (and, imo, how expansively it applies to all scripture-ish writings), but it’s there, nonetheless, in our most basic statements of belief.

[Anonymous]

This has been a really great discussion – thanks to all.

Mormonguy wrote:

Midrash, in my understanding, while not on the level of scripture, could be BOTH inspired AND made up (in the sense of “commentary”) and still be valuable.

How is Midrash different than Scripture? What is the process for Scripture making?

[Author]

Posts