Comments on: The JST and the Hebrew Bible

By: nitsav

nitsav — Sun, 10 Jan 2010 20:12:20 +0000

I haven’t reread it for a few years, Jared. Though I may agree with him in parts, I’m loathe to align myself, even rhetorically, with Hutchinson.

By: Jared*

Jared* — Sat, 09 Jan 2010 02:07:30 +0000

I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned Anthony Hutchinson's article: A Mormon Midrash? LDS Creation Narratives Reconsidered. He makes exactly the same point about the seam at Genesis 2:4.

By: Blake

Blake — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 19:02:56 +0000

Kevin’s excellent article is here: Kevin Barney, The Joseph Smith Translation and Ancient Texts of the Bible, Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 19:3 (Fall, 1986): 85-102}

By: Zen

Zen — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 15:49:23 +0000

Re: #6
http://byustudies.byu.edu/showTitle.aspx?title=6831
This is the link to that paper on a doubly translated section.

Perhaps the reason we were never given the original text of the Gold Plates, is that we still have a lot to learn about what God means by ‘translate’. It is almost as if, God cares primarily about the ideas in a text, (in varying detail) and secondarily about the actual words.

By: g.wesley

g.wesley — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 14:58:07 +0000

David B.

I look forward to your next post.

As it turns out, mine was unlcear (and badly titled). To repeat one of my own comments(!), I guess what I was trying to say in the post without necessarily saying it is that the biblical scholar, even at his/her most ’scientific,’ can be difficult to distinguish from the p/Prophet.

Or in other words, there is a lapse in scholarship in the critical edition of the New Testament at Romans 5:1. Metzger’s commentary aside, from the GNT and Nestle-Aland, there is no indiciation or warning that suddenly we are reading Paul’s mind rather than the text.

That bothers me. Does it bother you? Anyone else?

When I asked about the Hebrew Bible I was wondering whether there are similiar lapses in the critical edition.

By: David B.

David B. — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 12:19:43 +0000

Clark and Zen,

You’re right. The BofA should be taken into consideration in this discussion.

Thanks.

By: David B.

David B. — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 12:18:15 +0000

Kevin thanks for drawing our attention to the piece. I’m not familiar with the article. Could you provide the full reference? This sounds like something worth considering.

Best

By: Clark

Clark — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 06:18:05 +0000

What’s more interesting, while not directly related to the JST, is the expansion of Genesis in Abraham. Abraham 3 is the discussion of the council which then continues into the regular Genesis text.

By: Kevin Barney

Kevin Barney — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 03:22:40 +0000

David, re: your point, if you haven’t seen it there’s a fascinating article in BYU Studies by Kent Jackson. Joseph had translated one section of text, and some time later he must have forgotten and translated the same section over again. It’s really interesting to compare and contrast the two translations of the same material.

By: Zen

Zen — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 01:53:57 +0000

Interesting points all around. But as long as we are in this deep, we would be remiss if we did not discuss the very similar account in Abraham, which presumably would predate Moses.

I think we first need to understand what Heavenly Father means by translate, because it certainly isn’t the straightforward way we would expect it.