Two honest questions for Bible scholars...
 

The threads on the book "Misquoting Jesus" got me wondering about a couple of things:

1. Given the KJV is filled with errors and that more accurate versions of the Bible exist, do those more accurate version support or contradict the JST?

2. Given the KJV is highly inaccurate and that Joseph Smith claimed to have translated the Book of Mormon from original text, how do LDS scholars reconcile the nearly word for word Bible passages that appear in the Book of Mormon?

I'm not trying to be antagonistic or to bait anyone. They are fair questions, and I'm honestly curious how these issues are reconciled.

No one ever mistook me for a bible scholar, but I'll give a shot.

1. JST isn't meant to be a more perfect translation of the original text. It is a clarification where doctrinal misconceptions could likely arise. For example, reading the KJV and misinterpreting it could give you idea A. JST gives you idea B. A more accurate translation of the original text could give you idea C. A might be inaccurate doctrine while B and C might be different concepts but both accurate doctrine.

2. I disagree again with your concept of translation of JS--BoM in this case. I believe JS put into words KJV where other different words could have been used, but the KJV was familiar to him and to the potential BoM reading audience.

I am not a Bible scholar either, but I do think Kevin Barney's article on the subject is a good place to start:

The Joseph Smith Translation and the Ancient Texts of the Bible, 1986, Dialogue.

Link: http://content.lib.utah.edu/cdm4/doc...&CISOPTR=23226

The article starts on page 85.

Here's my take:

1. As was stated by the other two, the JST was not always meant to be a perfect translation of the original language, but was at times meant to convey what the original words should have said. This operates under the assumption that even correctly translated words may take on a meaning that does not accurately reflect the original idea, or that the original words have been altered or incorrectly transmitted.

2. There are many changes made to the KJV portions in the Book of Mormon, and many are very significant. Essentially, I believe the KJV was used because it was, by and large, close enough, with a few exceptions.

Stephen Robinson was interesting how we would dance around the subject of the JST. He didn't want to directly say he didn't like it, but he didn't see eye to eye on a few issues involving it. I think he wished Joseph could have or would have waited until scholars had a shot at trying to get a truer, actual translation of the original text.

Those are good questions. I'm on the go this evening, but I will give you my take when I get a chance.

I'll take a stab...
 

1. This is a tough one to answer since I think the evidence shows that the JST is, well, i'll use the trite "midrashic" commentary that serves to emphasize or view the NT text through the lens of missionary work. I don't think the JST has anything to do with restoring or correcting any texts, and I think the expectation of the average member is not commensurate with JS's intention.

2. This is not a tough question, since you can argue that JS knew the KJV inside and out, and that knowledge conditioned his use of biblical passages in the BOM. I personally am not satisfied with this answer, but it is the one given by most FARMS scholars, for example. For me the bigger issue is the biblical texts included in the BOM. For example 2nd Isaiah, not written until well after the exile is included in the BOM, before it had even been written yet. Yes, I know, many say that the 2nd Isaiah dating is controversial....well, it's not controversial to mainstream scholars. If you read it, it presumes a post-exilic historical context, as much as LDS scholars try to say it is *prophesying* about the exile. It just doesn't fly.

I do not wish to contend with a scholar or pretend that I am in any way capable of extensive discourse on this subject but I find you commentary insufficient.

I understand the issue of ‘dating’ and why the explanation of ‘prophesying’ with regards to Isaiah passages doesn’t fly. Yet the Book of Mormon is of course an extensive ‘abridgment’ and does not claim to be anything more than that.

Perhaps It doesn’t fly because it is somewhat out of context … not unlike your two paragraphs that certainly represent many years of study and hard work, yet as I read them are insufficient.

Not understanding you...
 

How does the abridgment issue negate the problem with "Nephi" including texts that had not been written yet? I couldn't tell if you are disputing the Isaiah dating issue, or my application of it. If I understand you correctly, you are saying the BOM is not an ancient abridgment, but a modern one? If so then I agree.

Mormon was charged with making an abrigment from many texts, thus Mormon included the texts, and not Nephi. Perhaps the chronology of their inclusion truly was prophetic, but not on the part of Nephi, but Mormon?

Okay, I see what you're saying, but the problem is the small plates were not an abridgment. The material was written by Nephi himself, unabridged, and then included later. The Isaiah material, according to Nephi, came straight off the brass plates. There was Isaiah material on those brass plates that had not been written yet. Hence the problem.

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/3_ne/23/1#1

Assuming your premise is correct, who's to say how or when the Nephites obtained the various writings of Isaiah? Certainly the existence of the Mulekites would show that there is a possibility that they or some other unnamed group that arrived in the Americas might have had any writings of Isaiah that would post-date Lehi's departure from Jerusalem.

Nephi tells us how he got them. It's right there, read it. It came from the brass plates he took from Laban around 600 BC.

So what's your conclusion?

1. Nephi lied or failed to fully explain himself.
2. Joseph Smith lied, or failed to fully explain himself
3. Additional Isaiah writings were acquired by the Nephites after arriving in America and were inserted by Mormon or someone else without documenting that fact
4. God had Joseph Smith stick it in there because it was as good a spot as any
5. The mainstream dating of 2nd Isaiah is flawed.
6. Other

1. Not possible...
2. No, I don't think so...
3. No, given what Nephi says about the brass plates
4. This is the most likely, if you believe JS was inspired.
5. If you just read it, the answer is no.
6. ***my opinion: The BOM is not historical, there's too much evidence against it and none for it. Beyond that, who knows? Warm fuzzies tell me nothing. Personally I'm fine with it and have embraced the ambiguity. If the BOM is inspired, fine. I'm open to it but don't know.

Is this your way of saying that you don't believe in witnesses from the Holy Ghost? That you don't believe in a spiritual dimension removed from rationalism?

What I'm saying is that warm fuzzies, which is how spiritual communication is conceptualized these days, and which I've had plenty of, is too universal a phenomenon. If you have a exclusive religious belief, ie. this is the only true church, then it should be confirmed in such a way that is spiritually exclusive. But the same kinds of feelings tell people radically different things regarding the truth. Warm fuzzies are common to every tradition, even other exclusive ones. It's not that hard to see through.

As for a spiritual dimension, I'm open to it, but don't trust feelings as a guide for truth. So at this point, I don't know, and I take a wait for further light and knowledge approach. I'm NOT asserting or arguing that there is NO spiritual dimension, and I'm honestly not trying to argue with anyone one way or the other. This is a sidetrack for me, I'm more interested in arguing historical issues, such as source criticism of the BOM, dating of Isaiah, NT textual criticism, etc.

My aunt told me "when i was a Catholic, I would feel the spirit at times. When I became Mormon, I felt it more often and stronger."

I don't think that the spirit is exclusive to a particular religion. And because it is not, I don't think that is a reason to dismiss it.

You speak very definatively about the subject, almost in absolutes. However it doesn't change the fact the overall work that is the Book of Mormon is an abridgment by a prophet hundreds of years removed from Nephi.

In what order and over what time frame did Nephi restate in his own writing what he had read and seen in visions, that was in turn abridged? How many small plates involving dealings with God and the Nephite nation verses larger 'a peoples history' plates did Mormon have to study and draw from for his abridgment?

Furthermore the more and more I read this section it is not always clear to me at what point Nephi is no longer speaking and in fact Jacob is speaking, in addition to the author of the abridgment? Perhaps it's due mostly to my poor reading comprehension?

I am not stretching, or looking for a silver bullet explaination. The Book of Mormon is a whole work of abridgment, note merely a complilation. I feel there is a very clear distinction to be made.

Then you have a progressive view of the spirit and I appreciate that. But when it is used as a tool to confirm exclusive claims, it becomes very different. Not to mention the oft-taught principle that what sets the LDS church apart from everyone else is the possession of the Holy Ghost (Joseph Smith). With all due respect, I like your view and to me it is an ideal view, but I don't think it works as a tool to gain any knowledge with regard to exclusive claims.

I'm not speaking in absolutes. I'm telling you what the BOM text says. Read it for yourself. Nephi says, here I'm quoting from Isaiah, stuff I found in the brass plates. You're off on a completely unrelated tangent.

I literally think of it in these terms ... A music producer can create a compilation album of a popular band for distribution. Or, the same producer can invite another artist to perform the songs of a popular band in his or her own musical style for distribution.

The two resulting albums would be dramatically different.

I'm not disputing the plainess of what is written, nor am I trying to attack you. I am pointing out that you are reading what Nephi says through the filter of Mormon who writes; Nephi says.

Let's consider the subject of history on the whole; Does an absolutely comprehensive, entirely truthful history of any event or moment in recorded human history exist?

No. Such a work would require an omniscient author.

That is why the Book of Mormon is an abridgment and not merely a compilation.

Whoa, you're misunderstanding the BOM. Again, 2 Nephi is unabridged. It is Nephi writing. Moroni included his writings without editing or otherwise touching them. Mormon doesn't enter the picture until Mosiah. That's the distinction between the large plates, which are an abridgment, and the small plates, which come straight from Nephi and were appended to the abridged large plates.

It's not all there though, namely what was written by Lehi -those plates were taken from JS and are lost.

Again, the entire book as a whole is an abridgment. Why were only the Isaiah writings included? Furthermore we are only permitted access to a small portion of the abridgment. The remainder of Mormons work was sealed.

I agree with what you wrote in another thread that the Book of Mormon is not a history ... in a traditional sense. So why then attemp, as though it were a round peg, to force it into a square hole?

I feel I understand the BOM pretty well ... That there is much more to the abridgment that has not yet been translated, and may yet be revealed; and that what is essential to my salvation has been provided to me on it's pages if I will but study, ponder on and pray about it.

Why do you want to talk about every part of the bom except the part with Isaiah in it? The Isaiah chapters are in 2nd Nephi. They aren't in the large plates, they aren't in the book of Lehi, they aren't in the sealed portion. I feel like you're having a completely different conversation with someone else, yet responding to me. 2 Nephi was written by Nephi, and nobody else, according to the text. Nephi quotes from Isaiah, including chapters that had not been written yet. The compilation of the BOM as a whole has nothing to do with this problem. As to your last statement: I agree, but if you think the BOM is not a history, then why argue that the inclusion of the Isaiah chapters had a historical basis?

What is the mainstream date for 2nd Isaiah that you are rigorously defending?

Your argument seems to be

1. You claim that Nephi was responsible for all the Isaiah chapters in 2nd Nephi.
2. You seem to claim that 2nd Isaiah was written after either the death of Nephi or after they left Jerusalem (not sure which) and that there is no way that Nephi had access to that chapter.

Obviously, at least one of the two is false. Which one is it?

Indy, I think scholarly mainstream would be something like no earlier than 540 BCE. 3rd Isaiah would be even later but Nephi doesn't ever quote from that part of Isaiah.

You are misunderstanding me and I apologize. I have understood that you wish to critique those that would assign historical basis to the Isaiah chapters. I will not criticize for I do believe it may be possible to discover historical basis for the Isaiah chapters ... I am open to the possiblity.

I do struggle with your regimented scholarly thought process. You seem fully prepared to dissect the sections of the Book of Mormon and place them in separate silos. Yet, that directly contradicts the stated purpose of what the book purports to be … And ultimately it is a fruitless intellectual endeavor as it feels like you have missed the point.

I don't believe the BoM should be regarded as historical record, per se, but rather a religious record. The caretakers were not trained historians, but rather religious record keepers and prophets. The purpose was distinctly different.

It has historical ties, but is not intended to be a document verifying historical events. I am open to different possibilities for the Isaiah chapters, as they do come at a strange time, and it makes sense that God may have inspired Joseph Smith to insert them at that stage for discussion and illustration purposes.

Let me just weigh in on a couple of things related to this discussion.

1. I do think the dating of second Isaiah is a serious issue for the Book of Mormon. Mormons have historically argued for the unity of Isaiah. I think a good representation of that position is given by John W. Welch, "Authorship of the Book of Isaiah in Light of the Book of Mormon," in Donald W. Parry and John W. Welch, eds., Isaiah in the Book of Mormon (Provo: FARMS, 1998), 423-37. On the other hand I tend to accept the scholarly mainstream on the issue. The evidence seems to support both a Deutero and Trito Isaiah, and arguing for a Deutero Isaiah before 540 BCE is a bit difficult.
   
   
2. I don't think that the existence of 2nd Isaiah necessarily implies that the Book of Mormon isn't an ancient document: (a) The first solution compatible with ancient origins is to argue for an early date of composition of 2nd Isaiah. (b) The second is to argue like tooblue for anonymous redaction/editorial activity at later date by Mormon or somebody else. I think the biggest problem with this is that it doesn't seem to be consistent with Mormon's later non-anonymous redaction/editorial work. (c) Following Blake Ostler's lead argue that the Book of Mormon is "a modern expansion of an ancient source." Given the "midrashic" nature of the Inspired Version of the Bible (JST) a "modern expansion of an ancient source" seems reasonably consistent at least to me with Joseph Smith's revelatory process. Still this view is not without its notable detractors.

See, there is a reason we let in these academic types. We rabble rousers have nothing on them.

I'm trying to figure out if that was a compliment:)

I'll take being called rabble a compliment!

I would disagree with the notion of consitency, especially considering Moroni also had a hand in authorship of the abridgment -obviously we could argue extent.

I'm just not prepared to put it all on the shoulders of Joseph Smith.

Great thread gentlemen! Nice to have a guy like CHC aboard. I know so very little about this subject that I can only sit back and watch but it's one of the more interesting threads we've had here in a while.

Sidenote: Pelagius, you've got the econ and stats skills and now you come forward with a bunch of esoteric knowledge about Isaiah. Man, you guys make me feel like I don't know ANYTHING about ANYTHING.

I'm actually open to what you suggest. I think it would be intriguing to find that kind of extensive redaction activity since in my view it would be a nice parallel to the Old Testament where redaction actitivty is pretty common. I am actually open to all three possiblities I raised; maybe I came across more negative than I intended for option (b).

At last, my response. I'll inject myself into the ongoing discussion as well.

First, in answer to:

1. For the most part they do not support the JST at all. There are a few passages that are interesting in this regard, and as I recall there is some ancient support for JS reworking the titles of the Gospels, but overwhelmingly the answer is "no." (they contradict it). From my training (I'm writing the last chapter of my dissertation in Communication Studies, review articles for the Journal of Media and Religion, have had extensive graduate training in historical, culture-based and literary methods, have interned with the head archivist at a presidential archive--all of which means that I'm not an expert on the JST or Greek or anything like that, but do have a good grasp of the historical issues and have formal academic training and extensive, but informal, training in Church History and doctrine) the JST is most accurately understood as not a translation of the bible, but rather an interpretation (or midrash). It tells us about JS and his developing theology, but does nothing to get the bible closer to the autographs (original texts).

For those less intellectually inclined who may be uncomfortable with what I've just written, I offer a few tangential observations:

A. Despite the presence of JST passages in the footnotes and appendix to the LDS edition of the KJV, it is almost never cited by General Authorities. They cite the King James, and have only very occasionally drawn on the JST to make a point (which I interpret as expressing agreement with JS, or thinking with JS, on a point, and not as making a claim to biblical originality).

B. Any brief foray through the accumulated mass of official LDS study materials and GA talks will reveal that scriptural passages have often been interpreted by different Church authorities in contrasting, and sometimes wholly exclusionary ways. I have no problem with this as I see similar tensions in scripture itself and feel that the burden (more of a joy, really) of truth seeking is on me. From where I sit, truth is paradoxical and constellational, and cannot be completely and universally captured by reason--this is the weakness of modernism in it's attempted supplanting of the universal discovery of truth via religion--that doesn't mean that I relinquish reason, but rather, like Emerson, James, Benjamin, and many others, use it dialectically with my faith. They are like pedals on a bicycle who's productive opposition propels me forward in my quest to catch little glimpses of knowledge and truth.

C. I have no difficulty with the idea of JS, or any prophet, growing, regressing, and struggling in what he knows. I see this in scripture, and more broadly, in human experience.

2. For starters, I have no problem with the idea that JS simply felt inspired to plug those passages into the BoM. As well ask Matthew or Luke why they selected certain passages from Mark, but also felt obligated to change them (yes, I find myself agreeing much with the Mark as the first gospel we have in the Canon hypothesis, drawing on Q, and oral tradition and all that), or ask the writer of Daniel why he reinterpreted Jeremiah's prophecy (and Daniel is a quazi-history book, not a future predicting book, in my view). Prophets and bible writers often draw on and change older scriptural writings, and typically do so in a way that can make them more relevant in the now. Scriptures are just words and shouldn't be worshipped. They are digital (in that they’re alphabetic), and can never capture the more analogue aspects of human experience. Moreover, and from a communication studies perspective, I think the sola sciptura doctrine of the Reformation is a colossal mistake. Other prophetic forms such as images (I’m working on an article on the word-image contrast in the stone tablets vs. golden calf account in Exodous), theatre (such as in the Endowment presentation), and the voice of the living should be accounted for. The scriptures have their value and I'm commited to striving for accuracy in their texts (Insert my pitch for you to go out and buy an NRSV here!!! Do it now!!!), but much of their relevance comes from the continuing tradition of prophets and prophecy. Hence, my perspective is quite LDS, actually.

As someone somewhat trained in historical criticism, I can make a much, much, stronger case AGAINST the BoM as the history it has been purported to be than I could make in FAVOR of it. Linguistically it has some interesting features and has the marks of a religious genius. It has turns of phrase that strike me as 19th century New York, Elizabethan, 13th century English, and even ancient (I’m thinking of John Welch’s chiasmus material here, but not only that). Similarly, I believe the Gospels (and much of the NT) were written pseudonymously, Paul only wrote some of the letters attributed to him, and the fantastic stories in the OT are essentially folklore (and some of those, such as from the early part of Genesis, correspond to Babylonian myth and were doubtlessly handed down via oral tradition for a long time before they were even written down.). But then I’m not in the business of conflating scripture with some kind of definitive historical record. Jesus’ parables aren’t describing “real” historical events, yet they reverberate with the human experience. The same goes for Job (my favorite OT book, hands down), the Song of Solomon (another favorite, I love that there’s some erotica in the bible to stick a thorn in the feet of the puritanical), the allegory of the olive tree in Jacob five and on and on.

As a correlative to this, I’m not inclined to look for truth exclusively within the Church. I read philosophy, literature, holy books from other traditions (such as the Qur’an and Bhavagad Gita), and have found much value in them. I believe that the ordinances of my Church are valid and that it is an excellent framework for my search for truth, but I don’t make the kinds of exclusive claims that many Mormons do. If you want some insight into my perspective, read 2 Kings 22 where Hilkiah finds the lost book of the law and sends people out to all the various and sundry Israelite sects to come and perform the temple ordinances again. In other words, I believe that while a priest may be a prophet (and in the case of the LDS church, is), a prophet doesn’t have to be a priest. I believe this view is very much supported in scripture, and even in the 1978 First Presidency statement that said there was a measure of inspiration in Mohammed and Confucius. Moreover, the bible speaks of prophetesses like Deborah, and that even after some very patriarchal folks had control of the manuscripts for a long time.

In brief, the word-for-word Isaiah passages don’t bother me at all and I see no reason not to accept the scholars’ dating of second Isaiah. If the BoM is the historical artifact it's purported to be, or something similar, great. If not (and I suspect that this is so), that's not a problem for me whatsoever.

Also, one of the plusses of moving on from the KJV would be a renewed understanding that the JST is about Joseph and not about bible originals.

In conclusion, I’m going to quote President Hinckley on the BoM. This is from the First Presidency Message of the February, 2004 Ensign (p.6). The emphasis is mine:

“The evidence for its truth, for its validity in a world that is prone to demand evidence, lies not in archaeology or anthropology, though these may be helpful to some. It lies not in word research or historical analysis, though these may be confirmatory. The evidence for its truth and validity lies within the covers of the book itself. The test of its truth lies in reading it. It is a book of God. REASONABLE PEOPLE MAY SINCERELY QUESTION ITS ORIGIN; but those who have read it prayerfully have come to know by a power beyond their natural senses that it is true, that it contains the word of God, that it outlines saving truths of the everlasting gospel, that it "came forth by the gift and power of God … to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ.”

SEIQ,

Thank you for taking the time to put together that post. I really enjoy your contributions on this site.