FAIR is a non-profit organization dedicated to providing well-documented answers to criticisms of the doctrine, practice, and history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Criticism of Mormonism/Websites/MormonThink/Joseph's Translation of the Bible
Response to MormonThink page "Joseph's Translation of the Bible"
| Joseph Running with the Plates | A FAIR Analysis of: MormonThink A work by author: Anonymous
|
- "How is it that the BOM doesn’t match the" Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible?
- "Joseph...left 'uncorrected' the passages about how in heaven, they neither marry nor are given in marriage"
- "Each time linguists make a new Bible translation....not one to date has confirmed any of Joseph Smith's inspired version passages"
"How is it that the BOM doesn’t match the" Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible?
MormonThink states...
"Joseph Smith corrected the Bible. In doing so he also corrected the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon is the most correct book and was translated a mere decade before the JST. The BOM was not corrupted over time and did not need correcting. How is it that the BOM doesn’t match the JST?"
"Joseph Smith corrected the Bible. In doing so he also corrected the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon is the most correct book and was translated a mere decade before the JST. The BOM was not corrupted over time and did not need correcting. How is it that the BOM doesn’t match the JST?"
FairMormon Response
Home > The Bible > The Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible
Criticism of Mormonism/Websites/MormonThink/Joseph's Translation of the Bible
Summary: Joseph Smith created an inspired "translation" of parts of the King James version of the Bible, mostly from 1830-1833, then continued until his death in 1844. It was complied into a book in 1867 by The Reorganized Church (now Community of Christ). In 1979 it was included in as footnotes in the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints 1979 King James Version of the Bible.
The JST as compiled/published in 1867 is not considered scripture, but some of it has been canonized in the Pearl of Great Price, the Book of Moses, and the Book of Matthew. We believe some of it was restoring the original intent of some Biblical verses. Some of it was restoring missing scripture or missing events. Some was for clarifying or harmonizing similar verses. Some of the same verses have different interpretations for some temporary purpose. Some call it inspired commentary. See the JST on the church website.
[1]
Is the JST a restoration of lost Bible text?
The JST is not intended primarily or solely as a restoration of lost Bible text.
As expressed in the Bible Dictionary on churchofjesuschrist.org "The JST to some extent assists in restoring the plain and precious things that have been lost from the Bible."
Two main points should be kept in mind with regards to the Joseph Smith "translation" of the Bible:
- The JST is not intended primarily or solely as restoration of text. Many mainline LDS scholars who have focused on the JST (such as Robert J. Matthews and Kent Jackson) are unanimous in this regard. The assumption that it is intended primarily or solely as a restoration of text is what leads to expectations that the JST and Book of Mormon should match up in every case. At times the JST does not even match up with itself, such as when Joseph Smith translated the same passage multiple times in different ways. This does not undermine notions of revelation, but certainly challenges common assumptions about the nature and function of Joseph's understanding of "translation".
- One of the main tendencies of the JST is harmonization. Readers are well aware of differences in Jesus' sayings between different Gospels. For example, Jesus' statements about whether divorce is permitted and under what conditions differ significantly. Matthew offers an exception clause that Mark and Luke do not, and this has severely complicated the historical interpretation of Jesus' view of divorce.
- The JST often makes changes that harmonize one gospel with another. While one gospel says "judge not" (though this may not be as absolute as some make it out to be), John 7:24 has Jesus commanding to "judge righteous judgment." The JST change harmonizes the two gospels by making Matthew agree with John. If there is a real difference between being commanded to "Judge righteously" and being commanded to "Judge not", then it is a problem inherently present in the differing accounts of the Gospels, which the JST resolves.
FAIR Resources on the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible
- How was the JST translated?
- Was the JST ever completed?
- Why are there discrepancies between translations in the Book of Mormon, KJV, and the JST?
- Why is the JST Genesis creation account not more like the Book of Abraham?
- Why does the church use the KJV instead of the JST as its official Bible?
- Was the JST influenced by outside sources?
- Did Adam Clarke's Bible commentary influence the JST?
- Why does the Book of Mormon and Book of Moses use "God" while the Book of Abraham use "Gods"?
- Why does the Book of Moses contain New Testament language?
- What is the relationship between the JST and biblical manuscripts?
- Was Joseph Smith a "self certifying prophet" with JST Genesis 50:33?
- Is the church embarrassed by the JST?
Key sources |
|
FAIR links |
|
Online |
|
Video |
Video published by BYU Religious Education.
|
Print |
|
Navigators |
Life and Character |
|
Youth |
|
Revelations and the Church |
|
Prophetic Statements |
|
Society |
|
Plural marriage (polygamy) |
|
Death |
Latter-day Saints and the Bible |
|
Reliability of the Bible |
|
Creation |
|
Genesis |
|
Understanding the Bible |
|
Cultural issues |
|
The Bible and the Book of Mormon |
|
Notes
- ↑ Video published by BYU Religious Education
On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Why didn’t the next prophet, or any subsequent prophet, finish the inspired version of the Bible that the church thought was so important that they altered our version of the King James Bible to include the portions that Joseph did retranslate? Does it make any sense that the inspired version of the Bible should not be finished merely with the death of the first prophet of the restoration? If we really did have a succession of prophets since Joseph Smith, this important work would have been finished and published as God commanded Joseph to do.....Note: There seems to be some debate as to whether or not Joseph actually finished the inspired translation of the Bible before he was killed. From the LDS Church website: “Though he published some parts of the translation during his lifetime, it is possible that he would have made additional changes had he lived to publish the entire work.”
FairMormon commentary
- The fact that Joseph was collecting funds to publish what we call the JST suggests that he believed it was sufficiently advanced to be published.
- Again, MormonThink is confused if they think Joseph or others saw a "once and for all" or "finally completed translation" as the goal. They didn't--a translation could be acceptable for purposes, but still subject to later clarification or elaboration.
- There was no attempt to canonize the JST then, or now.
- The JST (or "Inspired Version") is probably better seen as a type of inspired commentary on the Bible text by Joseph. Its value consists not in making it the new "official" scripture, but in the insights Joseph provides readers and what Joseph himself learned during the process.
- MormonThink overlooks the fact that the JST or other scripture is not the ultimate source of LDS doctrine—having a living prophet is what is most vital. Joseph improved his prophetic capacity through the production of the JST.
Additional information
- As a restoration of the original Bible text—If the Joseph Smith Translation (JST) is Joseph Smith's 'correction' of Biblical errors, why do these corrections not match known Biblical manuscripts? (Link)
- As the Church's official Bible—Why don't Latter-day Saints use the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible as the "official" Bible instead of the King James Version. (Link)
"Joseph...left 'uncorrected' the passages about how in heaven, they neither marry nor are given in marriage"
MormonThink states...
"The JST contradicts current Mormon teaching and practice that is so basic and important to Mormonism. The doctrine of eternal marriage is not taught in the JST. Joseph (and all the subsequent prophets who are also translators, see D&C 107:91-92) left 'uncorrected' the passages about how in heaven, they neither marry nor are given in marriage...
....
Some apologists say that Joseph covered this doctrinal error D&C 132:15-17 which they say correctly states the LDS view on eternal marriage. However, this provides another reason why Joseph should have corrected the marriage verses of the Bible when he did the JST so there would not be contradictions. Why bother translating the bible at all when he could merely correct all scriptural and doctrinal erros of the past by giving new revelations in the D&C?"
"The JST contradicts current Mormon teaching and practice that is so basic and important to Mormonism. The doctrine of eternal marriage is not taught in the JST. Joseph (and all the subsequent prophets who are also translators, see D&C 107:91-92) left 'uncorrected' the passages about how in heaven, they neither marry nor are given in marriage...
....
Some apologists say that Joseph covered this doctrinal error D&C 132:15-17 which they say correctly states the LDS view on eternal marriage. However, this provides another reason why Joseph should have corrected the marriage verses of the Bible when he did the JST so there would not be contradictions. Why bother translating the bible at all when he could merely correct all scriptural and doctrinal erros of the past by giving new revelations in the D&C?"
FairMormon Response
Latter-day Saint interpretation of "neither marry nor given in marriage"
Jump to details:
- Question: Does Jesus Christ's statement "they neither marry, nor are given in marriage" contradict the Latter-day Saint doctrine of eternal marriage?
- Charles W. Penrose (1911): Jesus "was speaking of the class of people to whom the Sadducees referred. Under the law of Moses marriage for eternity was not celebrated...the marriages under consideration were for time only"
- Joseph Fielding Smith (1941): "While the Church, as well as the world, would recognize that marriage while they are in the world, yet the fact remains that when they are dead the marriage comes to an end"
- Joseph Fielding Smith (1951): Jesus "says unto those who are married for time only, and those who do not believe in marriage for eternity"
- Question: Are there any Biblical, Jewish, or early Christian teachings about marriage which lasts beyond the grave?
- Question: Were the early apostles married?
"the Book of Abraham....distinctly taught the plurality of gods....Why didn’t Joseph correct this when he translated the Bible"
MormonThink states...
"Joseph's 1842 translation of portions of the Book of Abraham, however, distinctly taught the plurality of gods as well as does the Book of Moses -- a concept of deity Joseph had started teaching a few years earlier, but one which many Saints neither understood nor appreciated. Why didn’t Joseph correct this when he translated the Bible, including many, many verses he corrected in Genesis and not wait until he produced the Book of Abraham and the Book of Moses a decade later?"
"Joseph's 1842 translation of portions of the Book of Abraham, however, distinctly taught the plurality of gods as well as does the Book of Moses -- a concept of deity Joseph had started teaching a few years earlier, but one which many Saints neither understood nor appreciated. Why didn’t Joseph correct this when he translated the Bible, including many, many verses he corrected in Genesis and not wait until he produced the Book of Abraham and the Book of Moses a decade later?"
FairMormon Response
On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Another error in the King James Version is the introduction of the name “Lucifer” into the English translation of Isaiah 14:12, a name with occurs nowhere else in the Bible.....This error is compounded in Mormon theology, with Lucifer appearing as a character in the endowment ceremony in the Mormon temple.
Author's source(s)
"How can we know when information is from Satan?" By Richard Packham
FairMormon commentary
- In LDS theology, "Lucifer" is a name which designates the pre-mortal Satan, prior to his rebellion against God.
- Because of Isaiah's use of the term, it has a long history in that role in western Christianity.
- The use of Satan/Lucifer in the endowment is not surprising—the endowment is a symbolic ritual drama designed to teach important spiritual truths. It does not matter what Satan's "pre-fall" name really was. Names like "Jehovah" and "Jesus Christ" are Hebrew and Greek respectively: yet, Hebrew and Greek are not likely the language of the pre-mortal world either. The names are used because they quickly and accurately transmit meaning to western Christians.
- John Milton, in Paradise Lost used the term in the same way—because its use would be familiar and instantly recognizable to his Christian audience. He knew that it was an allusion, but used it because it was a well-known symbol:
Citie and proud seate
Of LUCIFER, so by allusion calld,
Of that bright Starr to SATAN paragond. - Paradise Lost, Bk IX.
- It is telling that MormonThink, which claims to be "objective" is relying on the work of a former member of the Church (Packham) who publishes LDS temple ceremonies and performs them on YouTube.
"Each time linguists make a new Bible translation....not one to date has confirmed any of Joseph Smith's inspired version passages"
MormonThink states...
"Each time linguists make a new Bible translation such as the NIV, The Message, NKJV, etc. , they all go back to the original sources and try to use new information such as the Dead Sea Scrolls in making the translations, and not one to date has confirmed any of Joseph Smith's inspired version passages."
"Each time linguists make a new Bible translation such as the NIV, The Message, NKJV, etc. , they all go back to the original sources and try to use new information such as the Dead Sea Scrolls in making the translations, and not one to date has confirmed any of Joseph Smith's inspired version passages."
FairMormon Response
Home > The Bible > The Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible
Criticism of Mormonism/Websites/MormonThink/Joseph's Translation of the Bible
Summary: Joseph Smith created an inspired "translation" of parts of the King James version of the Bible, mostly from 1830-1833, then continued until his death in 1844. It was complied into a book in 1867 by The Reorganized Church (now Community of Christ). In 1979 it was included in as footnotes in the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints 1979 King James Version of the Bible.
The JST as compiled/published in 1867 is not considered scripture, but some of it has been canonized in the Pearl of Great Price, the Book of Moses, and the Book of Matthew. We believe some of it was restoring the original intent of some Biblical verses. Some of it was restoring missing scripture or missing events. Some was for clarifying or harmonizing similar verses. Some of the same verses have different interpretations for some temporary purpose. Some call it inspired commentary. See the JST on the church website.
[1]
Is the JST a restoration of lost Bible text?
The JST is not intended primarily or solely as a restoration of lost Bible text.
As expressed in the Bible Dictionary on churchofjesuschrist.org "The JST to some extent assists in restoring the plain and precious things that have been lost from the Bible."
Two main points should be kept in mind with regards to the Joseph Smith "translation" of the Bible:
- The JST is not intended primarily or solely as restoration of text. Many mainline LDS scholars who have focused on the JST (such as Robert J. Matthews and Kent Jackson) are unanimous in this regard. The assumption that it is intended primarily or solely as a restoration of text is what leads to expectations that the JST and Book of Mormon should match up in every case. At times the JST does not even match up with itself, such as when Joseph Smith translated the same passage multiple times in different ways. This does not undermine notions of revelation, but certainly challenges common assumptions about the nature and function of Joseph's understanding of "translation".
- One of the main tendencies of the JST is harmonization. Readers are well aware of differences in Jesus' sayings between different Gospels. For example, Jesus' statements about whether divorce is permitted and under what conditions differ significantly. Matthew offers an exception clause that Mark and Luke do not, and this has severely complicated the historical interpretation of Jesus' view of divorce.
- The JST often makes changes that harmonize one gospel with another. While one gospel says "judge not" (though this may not be as absolute as some make it out to be), John 7:24 has Jesus commanding to "judge righteous judgment." The JST change harmonizes the two gospels by making Matthew agree with John. If there is a real difference between being commanded to "Judge righteously" and being commanded to "Judge not", then it is a problem inherently present in the differing accounts of the Gospels, which the JST resolves.
FAIR Resources on the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible
- How was the JST translated?
- Was the JST ever completed?
- Why are there discrepancies between translations in the Book of Mormon, KJV, and the JST?
- Why is the JST Genesis creation account not more like the Book of Abraham?
- Why does the church use the KJV instead of the JST as its official Bible?
- Was the JST influenced by outside sources?
- Did Adam Clarke's Bible commentary influence the JST?
- Why does the Book of Mormon and Book of Moses use "God" while the Book of Abraham use "Gods"?
- Why does the Book of Moses contain New Testament language?
- What is the relationship between the JST and biblical manuscripts?
- Was Joseph Smith a "self certifying prophet" with JST Genesis 50:33?
- Is the church embarrassed by the JST?
Key sources |
|
FAIR links |
|
Online |
|
Video |
Video published by BYU Religious Education.
|
Print |
|
Navigators |
Life and Character |
|
Youth |
|
Revelations and the Church |
|
Prophetic Statements |
|
Society |
|
Plural marriage (polygamy) |
|
Death |
Latter-day Saints and the Bible |
|
Reliability of the Bible |
|
Creation |
|
Genesis |
|
Understanding the Bible |
|
Cultural issues |
|
The Bible and the Book of Mormon |
|
Notes
- ↑ Video published by BYU Religious Education
On their old website, MormonThink claims...
All of the evidence that could be used to show that Joseph could actually translate ancient documents has failed to provide any support to his translating ability such as the Book of Abraham facsimiles and papyri, the Anthon Manuscript, the Kinderhook Plates, Joseph Smith’s Book of Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar and the Greek Psalter. We must add the JST of the Bible to this list. It fails to support Joseph’s translating ability and adds new problems to reconcile.
FairMormon commentary
- And yet, Joseph never claimed to be "translating" in an academic sense with the JST. He had an English bible and simply made inspired revisions or commentary: he did not claim to be restoring some perfect, early text.
- MormonThink makes claims that Joseph never makes, and then blames him for failing to measure up.
- Note too all the other things that MormonThink throws in here: the Facsimiles, Anthon Manuscript, Kinderhook, the Kirtland Egyptian Papers, and the Greek Psalter. They act as if they have settled these issues—but they have not. We will not waste time on them here, but resources exist on all of them. A set of bad arguments and faulty data do not add up to a compelling case.