Book of Joseph, how much salt

[Highlander]

I was reading the book of mormon student manual and on pages 26 it talks about the book of Joesph being translated but not yet published. It uses the reference "A companion to your study of the book of mormon" by Daniel H Ludlow. Should I take this with a grain of salt or is there something to it

Cheers

[zil2]

It would be a lot easier to comment if we could go read what you're reading.  The Institute manuals are divided into chapters and sections about specific scriptures - if you told us the scriptures / chapter / section, that would be a lot more useful than a page number (especially since there are probably a zillion versions of the student manual and you haven't give us a publication date or anything).  A link to the online version (if it's still there) would be even more helpful.  (I can't find an apparent match online, though I find the book in question cited in a BofM student manual.)

[mikbone]

From Chat GPT

The phrase "take it with a grain of salt" has historical origins dating back to ancient Rome. The Roman author Pliny the Elder wrote in his "Natural History" about an antidote for poison that included taking a grain of salt with it. The idea was that the salt would help mitigate the effects of the poison. Over time, this concept evolved metaphorically to mean that one should not entirely trust or accept something potentially harmful or dubious without a measure of skepticism or caution, symbolized by the grain of salt.

Also from Wikipedia

“In the old-fashioned English units of weight, a grain weighs approximately 65 mg, which is about how much table salt a person might pick up between the fingers as a pinch.”

Edited June 9, 2024 by mikbone

[mordorbund]

https://askgramps.org/book-of-joseph/
 

The Book of Abraham was accompanied by the Book of Joseph, but I don’t know of any translation claims.

[Carborendum]

17 hours ago, mordorbund said:

https://askgramps.org/book-of-joseph/
 

The Book of Abraham was accompanied by the Book of Joseph, but I don’t know of any translation claims.

It was not translated (formally) by Joseph Smith.  He looked at it enough to recognize that it was about Joseph the Patriarch.  But he said little else about it.  Apparently, it was not a work that the Lord wanted to be translated. 

As such, I don't see why we would put too much effort into learning what was on those papyri.

[Carborendum]

On 6/8/2024 at 8:03 PM, Highlander said:

I was reading the book of mormon student manual and on pages 26 it talks about the book of Joesph being translated but not yet published. It uses the reference "A companion to your study of the book of mormon" by Daniel H Ludlow. Should I take this with a grain of salt or is there something to it

Cheers

Page 26 does not have any mention of Ludlow or Joseph.  So, please verify your sources.

In A Companion to Your Study of the Book of Mormon, Ludlow does say the following:

Quote

...the translation of the book of Joseph has not yet been published.  Evidently the record of Joseph was translated by the Prophet, but perhaps the reason it was not published was because the great prophecies therein were "too great" for the people of this day.

 -- A Companion to Your Study of the Book of Mormon, Ludlow (1976), p 131.

I wonder about the word "evidently".  I tend to think that he had heard about it, but he didn't actually have a source (no source was cited for that claim).  This leads me to believe it was just a rumor.

Other sources say that Oliver was the scribe.  But they had no idea if Joseph translated, or if Oliver tried to translate and was partially/totally successful.  But even that much was also a rumor.  Elder Tanner commented that we should be careful making that claim because we have nothing to back it up.

Edited June 10, 2024 by Carborendum

[Traveler]

On 6/8/2024 at 7:03 PM, Highlander said:

I was reading the book of mormon student manual and on pages 26 it talks about the book of Joesph being translated but not yet published. It uses the reference "A companion to your study of the book of mormon" by Daniel H Ludlow. Should I take this with a grain of salt or is there something to it

Cheers

Greetings @Highlander:

Anciently there was a bridge that spanned the gap in conical Biblical scripture text to in part account for the 400 years after Joseph that the children of Israel were in Egypt.  The records are considered apocryphal and are an account of the 12 sons (patriarchs of the 12 tribes of Israel) and their prophecies.  The earliest text found dates back to about 100 years before Christ.  Though it is one text it is considered to be 12 books – one for each son of Israel.  Officially they are called the “Testaments of the Patriarchs” but are also known as the book of each of the patriarchs – Joseph being one of them.  I am not sure if this particular “Book of Joseph” is the same as the one you are considering.  If it is there is a translation of this book that can be purchased at Amazon along with the other patriarchs.

I do not have access to my copy – perhaps something my dear wife has simplified from my dwindling collection – I think I will purchase a new copy.  The Book of Joseph is of interest to LDS because of his particular blessing given by Israel (Jacob) in the Bible narrative.  I personally find the Book of Benjamin as a document of interest to LDS.  All of the testaments of the patriarchs ought to be of interest to Christians because of the witness of Christ – and we know were created at least 100 years before Jesus.  These texts justify much that we learn from the Dead Sea Scriptures and why those Jews were expecting the Messiah.

But I would highlight the Book of Benjamin because it references the “prophet of the gentiles” in the last-days that is also referenced in other ancient text (including among the Dead Sea Scrolls).  I hope I am remembering this correctly – that it parallels the witness given in the Book of Mormon of a great prophet in the last-days among the gentiles whose name will be Joseph and who will be a descendant of the ancient patriarch Joseph. 

Some Christian scholars have suggested the Paul was the prophet of the gentiles but to me it is obvious that Paul is an ancient prophet and not the prophet prophesied to testify to the gentiles in the last-days.

 

The Traveler

Edited June 10, 2024 by Traveler

[Highlander]

On 6/9/2024 at 12:23 PM, zil2 said:

It would be a lot easier to comment if we could go read what you're reading.  The Institute manuals are divided into chapters and sections about specific scriptures - if you told us the scriptures / chapter / section, that would be a lot more useful than a page number (especially since there are probably a zillion versions of the student manual and you haven't give us a publication date or anything).  A link to the online version (if it's still there) would be even more helpful.  (I can't find an apparent match online, though I find the book in question cited in a BofM student manual.)

Here is the pdf

 

Sorry I haven't responded for a bit , I got distracted 

 

bm_student1996.pdf

[Highlander]

On 6/9/2024 at 2:08 PM, mikbone said:

From Chat GPT

The phrase "take it with a grain of salt" has historical origins dating back to ancient Rome. The Roman author Pliny the Elder wrote in his "Natural History" about an antidote for poison that included taking a grain of salt with it. The idea was that the salt would help mitigate the effects of the poison. Over time, this concept evolved metaphorically to mean that one should not entirely trust or accept something potentially harmful or dubious without a measure of skepticism or caution, symbolized by the grain of salt.

Also from Wikipedia

“In the old-fashioned English units of weight, a grain weighs approximately 65 mg, which is about how much table salt a person might pick up between the fingers as a pinch.”

Wasn't helpful to my question but I do enjoy fun facts.

On 6/10/2024 at 10:56 PM, Carborendum said:

Page 26 does not have any mention of Ludlow or Joseph.  So, please verify your sources.

In A Companion to Your Study of the Book of Mormon, Ludlow does say the following:

I wonder about the word "evidently".  I tend to think that he had heard about it, but he didn't actually have a source (no source was cited for that claim).  This leads me to believe it was just a rumor.

Other sources say that Oliver was the scribe.  But they had no idea if Joseph translated, or if Oliver tried to translate and was partially/totally successful.  But even that much was also a rumor.  Elder Tanner commented that we should be careful making that claim because we have nothing to back it up.

Hopefully my the pdf I attached above helped, I also have the hard copy lying around......somewhere

 

 

On 6/11/2024 at 2:38 AM, Traveler said:

Greetings @Highlander:

Anciently there was a bridge that spanned the gap in conical Biblical scripture text to in part account for the 400 years after Joseph that the children of Israel were in Egypt.  The records are considered apocryphal and are an account of the 12 sons (patriarchs of the 12 tribes of Israel) and their prophecies.  The earliest text found dates back to about 100 years before Christ.  Though it is one text it is considered to be 12 books – one for each son of Israel.  Officially they are called the “Testaments of the Patriarchs” but are also known as the book of each of the patriarchs – Joseph being one of them.  I am not sure if this particular “Book of Joseph” is the same as the one you are considering.  If it is there is a translation of this book that can be purchased at Amazon along with the other patriarchs.

I do not have access to my copy – perhaps something my dear wife has simplified from my dwindling collection – I think I will purchase a new copy.  The Book of Joseph is of interest to LDS because of his particular blessing given by Israel (Jacob) in the Bible narrative.  I personally find the Book of Benjamin as a document of interest to LDS.  All of the testaments of the patriarchs ought to be of interest to Christians because of the witness of Christ – and we know were created at least 100 years before Jesus.  These texts justify much that we learn from the Dead Sea Scriptures and why those Jews were expecting the Messiah.

But I would highlight the Book of Benjamin because it references the “prophet of the gentiles” in the last-days that is also referenced in other ancient text (including among the Dead Sea Scrolls).  I hope I am remembering this correctly – that it parallels the witness given in the Book of Mormon of a great prophet in the last-days among the gentiles whose name will be Joseph and who will be a descendant of the ancient patriarch Joseph. 

Some Christian scholars have suggested the Paul was the prophet of the gentiles but to me it is obvious that Paul is an ancient prophet and not the prophet prophesied to testify to the gentiles in the last-days.

 

The Traveler

I don't think this is the book I was referring to but it does sound like and interesting study topic, that I'll look into

[Highlander]

....if this helps here is a screenshot

[laronius]

11 hours ago, Highlander said:

....if this helps here is a screenshot

I would be curious to know what source Daniel Ludlow cited in his book for that information. There needs to be a reliable original source. So far we just have one commentary citing another commentary. I would not ascribe too much salt to the claim without additional information.

[zil2]

Yeah, can't think of anything to add - the History of the Church ref that the record was there seems reasonable to believe (and is verifiable), but Ludlow doesn't tell us why he thinks Joseph Smith actually completed the translation of the book of Joseph (as opposed to intended to, but not having time, or some other interpretation / understanding of the HotC quote).