Jeff Needle kindly allowed me to put his review of Joseph Smith's New Translation of the Bible on my blog. This was originally up on AML earlier today.
Title: Joseph Smith's New Translation of the Bible: Original Manuscripts
Author: Scott H Faulring, Kent P. Jackson, Robert J. Matthews, eds.
Publisher: Religious Studies Center, BYU
Year Published: 2004
Number of Pages: 851
Binding: Hardcover
ISBN: 1-59038-328-1
Price: $99.95
When I first began my journeys in Mormonism, more than a dozen years ago, the news that Joseph Smith had produced his own "translation" of the Bible was big news. I wanted a copy. I wanted to see what he'd done with the text, whether it would be any easier to understand than the King James Version of the Bible, so heavily favored by the Mormon community.
Upon receiving my copy, I was dismayed at first when I realized that a side-by-side comparison with the King James Version would be difficult. The first chapters of Genesis were foreign to me. Where did this text come from? What skills did Joseph Smith possess to "translate" the Bible?
In fact, the word "translation" really doesn't reflect, from a modern perspective, what Joseph Smith accomplished. We can better understand the intention if we substitute the word "correction." It places the work in a category of commentary rather than with strict translations, such as the Revised Standard Version.
The present volume is a massive, thorough and thoroughly engrossing look into the mind of Joseph Smith. Indeed, his "corrections" were not a matter of re-translating ancient manuscripts. Instead, they arose from Joseph's claims to a place in the prophetic line of authority.
"The scriptures give examples of prophets revising, reusing, editing, and adding to the writings of earlier prophets. There are places in Old Testament books where it appears that a later writer may have added to an original author's words. New Testament authors frequently used in their own writings passages from the Old Testament in ways that may not have been anticipated by the earlier prophets. Matthew and Luke seem to be, to some extent, expansions on Mark. Moroni put together a lengthy string of Old Testament passages from various diverse contexts to teach Joseph Smith. Elder Bruce R. McConkie suggested that much of the content of Malachi is actually reused from the earlier prophet Zenos." (p. 11)
These points are well taken, but I'm not aware of any of the above referring to their revisions as a "translation" of the previous text. In each case, an acknowledged source was edited and presented as new text. This further complicates, in my view, the use of the word "translation" to describe this work.
However you understand the origin and value of the Joseph Smith Translation, this current study adds a new dimension of understanding both the revision and the man himself. The bulk of this work constitutes a page by page reproduction of the work done by Joseph Smith and his scribes. You can see, firsthand, the method of editing and correcting used. Included are several color plates, photo-reproductions of the hand-written sheets that ultimately became part of the New Translation.
We are also given glimpses into Joseph's own copy of the Bible, showing the notation system he used in preparation for the revision. It shows the work of an ordered and determined individual, one who takes his task very seriously.
Several introductory chapters enhance the study and provide necessary, helpful information:
"Joseph Smith's New Translation of the Bible" provides a bird's eye view of the work. A brief history of the translation, along with a discussion of the types of changes made by the Prophet, help in understanding the larger work. Also included is a brief note on how the translation has been used in the Church.
"The New Translation and Latter-day Saint Doctrine" discusses the impact of the work on the development of doctrine in the LDS Church.
"The New Translation Materials Since 1844," written by a scholar from the RLDS (Community of Christ) tradition, is a fascinating look at the ownership, publication and use of the materials outside the LDS tradition, and the eventual permission given to the Utah church to utilize the work.
"Scribes" identifies the men and women responsible for the transcription of the Joseph Smith translation. New to me is mention of an unidentified scribe, named Scribe A. Who could this have been?
"Transcription Methods" discusses the awesome responsibility that confronted the editors of the present volume in transcribing the manuscripts. Take as an example the New Testament portions. The marking system used in Joseph Smith's Bible provided only one clue. They had to be placed side by side with the manuscripts created by the scribes. Illegible texts, scribal errors, etc., all made for a rather formidable task.
"The Sequence of the New Translation" presents, in table form, a chronological view of the translation. It reconstructs, as carefully as the record permits, the date, scripture reference, name of the scribe and where the translation was done, along with helpful comments.
The question of whether to purchase this volume depends on many factors. The price, about a hundred bucks, is a major investment, and will necessarily restrict the number of copies that will be sold. When one considers that nearly eight years of research and very hard work went into the production, the price seems more reasonable.
Scholars of the LDS scriptural tradition will find a gold mine of information and insight in this book.
Jeffrey Needle
Clark: Man, it seems to me that they have adopted my view of the Expnasion Theory to explain the New Translation view of "translation." I could have written the very paragraph quoted and I have written something that says essentially the same thing -- except when I wrote it somehow it was not quite faithful enough. Go figure.
Kent Jackson has been here in Hawaii giving about four public lectures as part of the Joseph Smith Lecture Series. Really interesting stuff.
Blake, with the "expansion theory" of translation, you apply this to the Book of Mormon, is that right? Can't you see how that would be generally held to be a different thing than applying it to the Bible? What was happening in one seems to be different than the other--different claims being made.
Keith: I disagree. Joseph didn't know reformed Egyptian (that is why he studied Egyptian later). He didn't translate based on an underlying text or knowledge of the language. Moreover, I believe that it is readily demonstrable that the biblical text quoted in the BofM is treated in the exact same way as the "Inspired Translation" of the Bible. I see the phenomena of revelation as similar in both cases.
The Book of Mormon is different. Specifically, one of the premises of the Book of Mormon is that the untranslated (or pre-translated) text of the Book of Mormon was prepared by inspired prophets for our day. It is (at least) not obvious that it needed expansion.
By contrast, it is an Article of Faith in our church that the pre-translated (if you will) text of The Bible (ostensibly the King James Version) was not “translated correctly” (to barrow the common phrase).
The notion that the Bible is not translated correctly actually seems to support my contention since Joseph didn't correct it by learning the language and restoring the ancient text. There is scant (if any) evidence that Joseph restores any ancient text of the New Testament, for instance, and it is pellucidly clear that he didn't know Greek or Hebrew. His "translation" of the Bible was the same as the BofM, by the power of God. Both were done by revelation and not by knowledge of ancient languages. He didn't even use the plates of the BofM for most its translation. It was given to him -- and it seems fairly obvious that the language (and spelling) are Joseph's and his scribes'. So yeah, there are obvious differences between the Bible and the Book of Mormon -- but I fail to see how they are relevant to the point I was making.
Moreover, if Joseph could expand on the biblical text as the Review suggests, then what is wrong with his doing so with the BofM text? Isn't that what prophets do? Read again what it says (and this applies to Keith too) -- the original scriptural texts of Second and Third Isaiah are derived from disciples who wrote in the Isaianic style and authority. Matthew and Luke (both original scriptural texts and not derived texts) expand on Mark. LATER WRITERS OF SCRIPTURE REUSE, REORDER, RESTATE AND PROVIDE ORGINAL SCRIPTURES. That is what I claim Joseph did with the Book of Mormon. So the differences to which you point just don't respond to the rather ubiquitous practice of writers of scripture who expand, explain, give extended midrashic exegesis, create new narratives and generally feel free to act like prophets.
I agree with you that there’s no inconsistency in believing your expansion theory (or, I should say, what I’ve read about it—I haven’t actually read your exposition). I also agree with your assessment of its plausibility. Given that, I am not comfortable believing it, because I hold the following three beliefs:
(1) The Book of Mormon required such expansion in order to be “true” in the sense that Joseph Smith attributed truth to it. It was transmitted from one prophet to another without scribes or others in the middle.
(2) One may explain the Book of Mormon quite reasonably without appeal to such an expansion theory.
(3) The expansion theory concedes too much to critics.
My guess is that you and I agree on (1), since to deny (1) would seem to require some deficiency in Nephi, Mormon, or Moroni as prophets.
But all of this really hinges on (2). Basically, if we can’t reasonably explain the Book of Mormon without it, then belief in the Book of Mormon must entail some expansion theory such as your own.
It may be that you are trying to make a two pronged argument that would run something like this: (a) we can explain the Book of Mormon fine on its own terms, but (b) we don’t really need to. This is certainly a strong argument, but I take you to be advocating your expansion theory a bit more forcefully than this.
At any rate, unless you wish to argue that (2) is false, it may be that (3) is where we’ll have to agree to disagree.
David: why does the Expansion Theory "concede too much to critics" in your view? My point is that everything the critics accept as scripture includes expansions of the same type so they have no ground to stand on when they critique the BofM -- and even atheists and agnostics must recognize the relativity of any translation (a la Quine). So language and terms (such as KJV quotations) that appear in the BofM cannot be evidence against it or JS's claims for it. So I don't grant (3) and I think your (3) misunderstands what the theory does. Perhaps a reading of what I have written would further the discussion?
Blake: Perhaps a reading of what I have written would further the discussion?
I am not sure I can get more specific until I do. Is the paper that formulates your expansion theory available online?
David: It is available on-line from Dialogue but at a price. It you'll e-mail me directly then I will e-mail a copy to you.
Blake, I seem to recall a discussion on FAIR you had a year or two ago which indicated you'd pulled back from some of the assertions in the text. My dim recollection suggest that you pulled back from the assertions on Alma 11. Is that right?
Clark: I don't think I've modified my view that there are expansions that are not ancient -- but I believe we must always remain open as to what the evidence indicates is or is not ancient vis a vis what is modern. I have changed my view of Alma 42 and the discussion of the atonement significantly -- I don't believe it is a satisfaction theory of atonement at all and I discuss it at length in vol. 2 of the Exploring Mormon Thought series. I don't see Alma 11 as teaching modalism (but as far as I know I never have).
I seem to recall the issue with Alma 11 being the preamble regarding weights or coinage. (Although I recognize apologists have attempted to say it doesn't deal with coins, given their absence in mesoAmerica) i.e. is the explanation of weights/coins an addition to the text that wasn't on the original plates.
I've closed comments in order to avoid spam since I don't check this older blog as much anymore.
and Theology
Number of unique visitors:
Blogged by Clark Goble