The Joseph Smith Translation

[Hemidakota]

Instead of jumping into the 'fray' without investigating the background reasoning why would Joseph Smith attempt of adding, editing, or removing text would speculation on our part; when we failed to understand the history what made Joseph Smith conceive the idea of such.

PREPARATION FOR THE NEW BIBLE TRANSLATION

A number of events seem to have been critical in the preparation of Joseph Smith for his labor as Bible translator. As early as 1820 young Joseph recognized that salvation was not to be found within the covers of the Bible alone; confusion and uncertainty were the obvious results of unillumined minds and undirected study, even when the object of study was the Holy Bible. Seeking for both personal fulfillment and the one system of religious practice which would lead him back to the divine presence, Joseph Smith discovered that not all of the answers were to be found within the Bible.

A further lesson was taught to the seventeen-year-old Prophet by the angel Moroni in the year 1823. Moroni quoted numerous passages of scripture to Joseph, particularly Malachi 4, though "with a little variation from the way it reads in our Bibles" (JS-H 1:36). Whether Moroni gave detailed instructions concerning specific passages of scripture, or whether he taught Joseph how to interpret biblical verses, is unknown. The young prophet did learn, however, that the King James Version of the Bible was not the only authorized translation of the scriptures.

Joseph Smith had learned early in his translation of the Book of Mormon that theological darkness and spiritual stumblings in the Judeo-Christian world were due in large measure to a wilful tampering with some of the earliest Bible texts. Approximately six hundred years before Christ's coming, Nephi prophesied of a time when the Bible—identified as a record which proceeded out of the mouth of a Jew (1 Nephi 13:23)—would fall into the hands of designing individuals who would "take away" or "keep back" plain and precious truths, and many covenants of the Lord. As a result of such corruption, "an exceedingly great many do stumble, yea, insomuch that Satan hath great power over them." (1 Nephi 13:26-34.) Joseph Smith further became aware of the fact (through Nephi's prophetic vision) that through the restoration things would be made known once again to those willing to receive them. (1 Nephi 13:35-40.) The Prophet was to observe many years later: "I believe the Bible as it read when it came from the pen of the original writers. Ignorant translators, careless transcribers, or designing and corrupt priests have committed many errors." 1

While still engaged in the translation of the Book of Mormon (probably in 3 Nephi), Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery, on 15 May 1829, "went into the woods to pray and inquire of the Lord respecting baptism for the remission of sins," which was mentioned in the Nephite record (JS-H 1:68). John the Baptist appeared and delivered the keys and powers associated with the Aaronic Priesthood, and gave instructions concerning the baptism and priesthood ordination of Joseph and Oliver. The Prophet Joseph remarked that immediately upon coming up out of the waters of baptism both men enjoyed a rich endowment of the Holy Ghost, and each had the spirit of prophecy and revelation. Joseph further explained: "Our minds being now enlightened, we began to have the scriptures laid open to our understandings, and the true meaning and intention of their more mysterious passages revealed unto us in a manner which we never could attain to previously, nor ever before had thought of" (JS-H 1:74; emphasis added). No doubt such spiritual understanding would have given to the Prophet not only the ability to grasp "true meaning and intention," but also the divine perspective to recognize and correct faulty biblical texts.

On 8 October 1829 Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery purchased a large pulpit-style edition of the King James Bible (containing the Old and New Testaments and Apocrypha) from E. B. Grandin in Palmyra, New York, for $3.75. The Bible was printed in 1828 by the H. and E. Phinney Company at Cooperstown, New York. It was this Bible which was used in the translation.

FOOTNOTE: 1] Joseph Smith, History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 7 vols. (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1957), 6:57. Hereafter cited as History of the Church.

Joseph Smith Translation: The Restoration of Plain and Precious Things by Monte S. Nyman, Robert L. Millet

[Jim108]

It might have - if I had not done research in ancient literature – specifically the Dead Sea Scrolls. That addresses a “Prophet to the Gentiles” in the last days and specifically states that the name of the prophet was named in scripture and would be a descendent of Joseph that was sold into Egypt.

My point is that if Joseph was creating a hoax why pick one that looks so obvious until documents are found over 100 years later?

The Traveler

First of all this example does not support adding JS name to the bible. But, I was wondering, lets assume you are correct, why would Joseph Smith's name have been removed in the first place? Makes no sense, Jim

[Dravin]

Scholars have done a remarkable job at arriving at an understanding of what original autographs said. There is some uncertainty left of course, and although there is some small evidence that JS did restore some original text or truth in some cases, in most cases there is no such evidence - meaning that the evidence points toward original texts that did not include JS later changes.

Okay, then scholars have been very busy since I last checked because last I checked the writings that we had were for the most part hundreds of years removed from when the prophecies were given. For instance don't scholars believe that the Torah is an oral history that wasn't written down until 500BC or so. Or at least the compilation that we are working with is dating from that time? If such is the case then nobody knows exactly what Moses may have said. The New Testament is less problematic as the time scale is smaller but you still don't have the pieces of parchment that various apostle either wrote or dictated and some of the changes are fairly subtle/small.

Because there isn't evidence that he restored scripture text - rather that he added to it or changed it. So, the Gospel according to Matthew (or whoever really wrote Matthew) now because the Gospel according to the author of Matthew AND Joseph Smith.

My point was we know the prophecy existed before the JST, Lehi made it and he very well may have been quoting the brass plates, which if so means it was written down somewhere. So the prophecy was already extant and possibly already recorded in the past as far as somebody who believes the man is a prophet goes he wasn't making prophecies up.

Additionally unless you happen to have original copies of what Moses said you don't know it wasn't there any more then I know it was. Do I think its reasonable to assume that not every change was in the original text and that it was modified according to Joseph Smith's inspired understanding? Certainly. Thing is, unless Joseph said something about Genesis 50, or we have a copy of what Moses said we don't know one way or the other if it was there to begin with or not. *shrug*

First of all this example does not support adding JS name to the bible. But, I was wondering, lets assume you are correct, why would Joseph Smith's name have been removed in the first place? Makes no sense, Jim

Makes perfect sense if you want to hinder the restoration. I've encountered plenty of people who demand I show them in the Bible where it talks about Joseph Smith, If I could quote that to them it might help (or more likely they'd just argue over if thats what it actually means like they do any verse they demand they be shown, demanding instead of queries for explanation tend to show a certain mindset in my experience). Also, you are assuming that some person is sitting over some records somewhere thinking, "What are the future implications of the removing of this scripture in the restoration of the Gospel of Jesus Christ in the latter days." accident and mishap are also possibilities, additionally Israel was in bondage several times, I could see the powers that be taking a crack at it and trying to excise all they could about seers rising up, the last one that did so in Israel started them on the path of swarming over the land of Canaan like locusts.

Now talking about lost scripture in general. I'm fairly sure that every verse in the book of Zenock or the Book of Gad the Seer was not 'Restoration Gold' but would have been lost through the same processes any historical document doesn't make it down the annuls of history to us. Scripture has the additional trouble of people weeding through it to decide cannon and Satan actually caring that scripture gets lost (or confused as not genuine when it is) where he probably doesn't care as much about Obsolitious' Treatise on Roses.

[TruthSeekerToo]

It was being prepared to be printed, yes. They claim he was finished as early as 1838, but he made many changes after that, and even up until a month or two before he died.

Some sources that were close to him said he did not look at every book in his "translation." It is probable there would have been more corrections.

Thanks for clarifying. Yes, it does appear that entire books were ignored so he possibly *could* have made additional changes. However, he and the entire first presidency declared it finished 2 July 1833. Both in writing on the manuscript and in the History of the Church.

The Lord spent the next 10 years commanding them to print it. Commanding the members of the church to financially support the printing (and JS personally so he could attend to it).

If the Lord felt it was ready to be published that is good enough for me. :)

[Traveler]

First of all this example does not support adding JS name to the bible. But, I was wondering, lets assume you are correct, why would Joseph Smith's name have been removed in the first place? Makes no sense, Jim

Okay you have my attention. But before we get deep into this do you understand the name Joseph Smith does not appear in the JS version. The next thing is to realize the type and shadow of Joseph in Egypt and how that relates to the last days. (We can start with Ecclesiastes 1:9-1). There are many Biblical scriptures about the gentiles in the last days – all such prophesies are part of the tapestry of a gathering of Israel – as Joseph that was exiled from the house of Israel and mixed with the gentiles. Joseph having a gentile wife and two sons with gentile names.

Now that the type and shadow is identified by the epoch of Joseph in Egypt we have the stage set for the addition by Joseph Smith in the inspired version. Then we have many biblical scriptures that address the gathering of Israel and the relationships of the house of Joseph and Judah.

I would be very interested if you could identify the “stick” of Joseph Ezek 37: 15 – to chapter end. Note that in the original Hebrew this is a complex Chiasm literary form and how Joseph is separate from Judah and thus gathered separately until a time of uniting and restoration of one nation.

Now – as I stated there are ancient manuscripts mingled with the oldest of biblical text that speak of the prophet of the gentiles. In fact there are scriptures that pinpoint the date when the gathering will begin – when the Roman Empire (kingdom of Iron and clay) is divided into 10 kingdoms. This gets us to less than a decade of historic time.

So I ask you can you identify a gathering that begun with the fall of 10 kings that rule over the old Roman Empire which when they fell there was not a kingdom established to replace them – in other words when did the kings of Europe end? Now what was established during that time that has any relationship to the house (or stick) of Joseph and in particular Ephraim?

If you still have problems with this context and would like to discuss it – feel free.

The Traveler

[JohnnyRudick]

In truth there are no translations of the Bible available in any modern language. The most prominent English Bible is the King James Version that is called a version because it was not a literal translation. The closest we have to a translation is the New World Translation. For the most part there are no translations of any ancient scripture text to any modern language. The only exception that I know of is the Isaiah Scroll that is part of the Dead Sea Scriptures that were found. I have a copy in my library of a translation of that particular scroll.

The Bible as it is published is at best a smorgasbord version where scholars select from a cacophony of variant readings possible from a variety of ancient textual types and origins based on the most popular notions of such things at the time of translation.

When we consider the Bible I am reminded of a joke where two friends that had not seen each other in a long time met with the usual pleasantries. The first asked, “Well Joe how’s the wife and kids”.

To which Joe responds, “Compared to what?”

For the most part the Joseph Smith Translation was never intended to stand on its own. But underpinning the overall LDS concept of scripture I believe no individual scripture is intended to stand on its own. This is both a unique and important notion that is supported within Biblical text. As we view the methods of G-d in dispensing his “word” among man we find that in his economy of things that G-d does not operate on a once and done method. Those that argue that the Bible is sufficient demonstrate a complete disconnect to G-d and his “word”. Even Jesus said that man must live by every word that comes from G-d. And he said this before any of the books of the New Testament of the Bible were even written.

I submit that the Joseph Smith translation of the Bible is a very useful tool to any student of Christianity that can read English.

The Traveler

Most everything you write I say a hearty "Amen" to.

I thank you for your many useful posts.

At this point I wish to point out that even though the New World Translation is rightly a translation (strictly speaking as compared to the KJB which is a compilation of existing translations from the TR), I must point out the difference of the underlying texts.

1. The KJB, the distilled version from the TR out of Syria.

2. And the New World Translation, basically a newer English version of Jerome's Latin Vulgate from Origen's earlier corruption out of Egypt.

I prefer the King James a Bible and the "Inspired" Version of the KJB over the New World, Dewey, American Standard and it's daughters any day for the above reasons that they have distinctly different parentage's.

I believe this is a very important fact of the history of the texts that we have to keep in mind.

1 Nephi 13:24 And the angel of the Lord said unto me: Thou hast

beheld that the book proceeded forth from the mouth of a Jew; and

when it proceeded forth from the mouth of a Jew it contained the

fulness of the gospel of the Lord, of whom the twelve apostles

bear record; and they bear record according to the truth which is

in the Lamb of God.

1 Nephi 13:25 Wherefore, these things go forth from the Jews in

purity unto the Gentiles, according to the truth which is in God.

1 Nephi 13:26 And after they go forth by the hand of the twelve

apostles of the Lamb, from the Jews unto the Gentiles, thou seest

the formation of a great and abominable church, which is most

abominable above all other churches; for behold, they have taken

away from the gospel of the Lamb many parts which are plain and

most precious; and also many covenants of the Lord have they

taken away.

1 Nephi 13:27 And all this have they done that they might pervert

the right ways of the Lord, that they might blind the eyes and

harden the hearts of the children of men.

Bro. Rudick

[Justice]

I've always been a believer in the KJV, but could never put my finger on why, other than the Church says so, and we have the JST of it which helps us understand it.

But, there those scriptures were, staring me in the face, and I didn't relate them to my feelings (and I just recently read those).

Thank you.