What is the nature of the JST?

[Fether]

Are the JSTs meant to be correct translations of the Bible, or commentary on what maybe be a correct way of understanding it?

Are we suppose to view the JSTs as being more accurate and differ to them whenever possible?

[Ironhold]

Nutshell:

Joseph received revelation that over the centuries a number of theological truths and principles had been lost from the manuscripts that comprised what we today know as the Bible. The JST was him attempting a spiritually-based re-translation whose goal was to seek out these lost truths and re-insert them. 

However, he was murdered before he completed it, which is a big part of why we put the JST in footnotes and a special section at the end instead of incorporating it all into the text. 

[MrShorty]

I'm not sure the JST "corrections" are all of the same nature. A few years ago, Kevin Barney over at By Common Consent (yes, I know, one of those less than faithful blogs that one should not be reading) proposed (based in part on some work by Robert Millet and Robert Matthews) 14 different "types" of things in the JST. He followed it up with posts with several examples from different Biblical books. It seemed like a reasonable understanding of the nature of the changes Joseph Smith made to the Biblical text:

https://bycommonconsent.com/2018/01/08/toward-a-paradigm-of-jst-revisions/

[Anddenex]

2 hours ago, Fether said:

Are the JSTs meant to be correct translations of the Bible, or commentary on what maybe be a correct way of understanding it?

Are we suppose to view the JSTs as being more accurate and differ to them whenever possible?

First Question:

This is from the "Content" of the JST from the Church, "The Lord inspired the Prophet Joseph Smith to restore truths to the King James Bible text that had become lost or changed since the original words were written. These restored truths clarified doctrine and improved scriptural understanding....Joseph’s translation was more revelation than literal translation from one language into another."

Second Question:

If the Lord inspired Joseph Smith to "restore truth" then yes, we technically should differ to them within our wards and callings.

[Vort]

FYI:

• Defer = honor (someone or something); submit to; accept as authoritative. The root of the word deference "honor; esteem, respect". Accent on the final syllable.
• Differ = at variance with; not in agreement. The root of the word difference "unrelatedness; variance; elements that are not the same". Accent on the penult (next-to-last syllable).

[Just_A_Guy]

10 hours ago, Fether said:

[1]Are the JSTs meant to be correct translations of the Bible, or commentary on what maybe be a correct way of understanding it?

[2]Are we suppose to view the JSTs as being more accurate and differ to them whenever possible?

1.  I agree with @MrShorty.  I think it could be most succinctly be described as “Joseph Smith’s Bible study journal”; the result of such gave us a mostly-inspired and partially canonized commentary.  Beyond that, I don’t think one can really generalize.  You’ve got to take each correction, addition, or deletion as an individual case—it may be the direct result of either a vision, a revelation, an inspired hunch, or a purely intellectual/academic process; or, it may simply be an “educated guess” from a prophet whose spiritual education exceeded that of anyone else in his dispensation.  

2.  I regard the uncanonized parts of the JST the way I would regard any other isolated statement by a prophet/apostle:  always worth considering, probably true; but also not canon and possibly flawed (though probably not).  I guess you could call that “partial deference”. 

Edited August 10, 2022 by Just_A_Guy

[Carborendum]

• I would believe that the portions that were provided in the first revision were revelation.  They provide previously unknown narratives.  This is where we get the Book of Moses and Matt Ch 24 from.
• I believe that the second and subsequent revisions were mostly commentary.  We read commentaries by many renowned scholars.  And we consider their words as having much merit.  And we ponder them seriously.  I'd consider Joseph's divine schooling as more valuable than earthly scholars.  So, why not consider his words as having even more merit?  But canonized?  Not really.  Yet we would be well advised to believe he knew what he was talking about.
• Just because a section received no comments does not mean that there was nothing erroneous.  It simply means he had no comments.  Take the book of Esther vs the Song of Solomon, for instance.

Edited August 10, 2022 by Carborendum

[CV75]

21 hours ago, Fether said:

Are the JSTs meant to be correct translations of the Bible, or commentary on what maybe be a correct way of understanding it?

Are we suppose to view the JSTs as being more accurate and differ to them whenever possible?

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bd/joseph-smith-translation?lang=eng

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

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/revelations-in-context/joseph-smiths-bible-translation?lang=eng

The 1st question: any of these three, depending.

The 2nd question: Not necessarily more accurate since we must interpret and learn by the gift and power of the Holy Ghost; defer to the the gift and power of the Holy Ghost whenever possible.

It is not part of the canon, but given the links above, it is one of "the best of books"

[mordorbund]

From my reading of the Joseph Smith Translation, there is no single unified answer for what Joseph was doing and intended with his changes.

The vast majority of the changes in the JST are an attempt to modernize the language. These did not make it to our footnotes (you can get a copy of the Inspired Version and see for yourself, or use the NT reprint in McConkie’s Doctrinal New Testament Commentary). The most significant portions are probably the lengthier ones canonized in the Pearl of Great Price and the others found in the back of the Bible. Even these don’t all claim the same source. Moses 1 makes it clear in the last verse that  this opening prologue is a revelation but the subsequent chapters are based on an original text (although the revelation is still the framing device for the creation account). Matthew 24 may be a restoration of earlier text, or it may be a partial fulfillment of D&C 63 given in the same year (I wonder when JS-M was given in relation to the revelation). I think where In the account of the various kings Joseph acted as redactor (as in the Documentary Hypothesis). Kings were compared to David  as the ideal, and JST makes it clear he was NOT the ideal. I think this is a case of the Old Testament saints needing an example of loyal monotheism, while Latter-day Saints need an example of chaste fidelity (although now that I write this I suppose the argument could be made that Joseph restored the pre-Josiah-reform text, but I don’t see anyone making that argument).

[laronius]

On 8/9/2022 at 5:46 PM, Vort said:

FYI:

• Defer = honor (someone or something); submit to; accept as authoritative. The root of the word deference "honor; esteem, respect". Accent on the final syllable.
• Differ = at variance with; not in agreement. The root of the word difference "unrelatedness; variance; elements that are not the same". Accent on the penult (next-to-last syllable).

TVT = The Vort Translation 

[Vort]

1 hour ago, laronius said:

TVT = The Vort Translation 

Yea, verily.