Talk:Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Name change 2 Twice-translated parts 3 Greek Delete 4 Translation?

[edit] Name change

This should be moved to Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible. Any thoughts? B 00:23, Dec 10, 2003 (UTC)

Fine by me. Go ahead and make the change. Visorstuff 01:40, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Twice-translated parts

Moved from the article:

There are two sections of the work that Smith dictated twice at different times in his life: one in the Book of Genesis and another in the Gospel of Matthew. These duplicate manuscripts contain many of the same revisions to the King James Version, with some substantive additions or changes in one but not in the other.

I once read a BYU Studies article comparing these two manuscripts, but I can't find the reference to it (--COGDEN)

This is a weird statement and does not read well - it makes it sound like he gave them word for word on two different occasions. There were in fact many sections of the bible that he translated more than once. The first sixteen psalms were translated a number of times, but the second sixteen were compeltely untouched (as were a section later in the Psalms). The bulk of the psalms were done mainly once or twice. Isaiah, John, Revelations and Paul's letters also received a good deal of attention on multiple occasions. The process was still incomplete at the time of his death, he was still making edits and changes and translations at that time. Please clarify as I have no idea where you are going here. This is another one of my areas of primary research, so I'm curious to your point. Have you ever read "A Plainer Translation" may be a good place to start for background --Visorstuff. -->

That's what happened, apparently, in this case. The BYU Studies article I'm talking about (and I'm looking for it--I think I copied it once, but I can't find the copy) examined two recently-available manuscripts that Smith apparently dictated word-for-word, where he went over the same passages and dictated two different versions. I think this is important to include here because it shows (and this is what the BYU article concluded) that Smith's work was not a precise restoration of the "lost" text of an earlier document, but an enhancement to the Bible that included explanations and elaborations, depending upon what he felt inspired to say at the time he was "translating".COGDEN 18:23, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Let me rephrase my question. How it is currently worded leads the reader to believe that Joseph Smith dictacted the exact same words for two passages on two seperate occasions. If this is the point you are trying to make, then it should read that Smith was able to give an exact word for word translation of the same text, without any changes of two passages. However, I don't think that that is the point you are trying to make. I think you are trying to say that Smith occasionally re-translated the same passage with different results on at least two occasions.

As far as "recently-available" the entire mss is complete in the COFC archives, and is viewable by CD since 1997-8ish (which to me is not recent). Robert Millet and a graduate student, who also lectured about it at BYU at the same time helped with the OCR conversion for the CD.

The entire manuscripts is described to the most miniscule detail in Robert Matthew's book - which is more about the translation process, the documents and manuscripts and the Bible used than the text itself. By "Bible," I mean that Smith bought a large family-type bible and made edits in the columns until manuscript pages were needed. Most of the minor changes were done directly in the bible, much like you'd mark your scriptures, so there is some controversy as to whether the changes are his random thoughts while marking or actual translation edits. I am aware of multiple passages that ended up with different results, and he even made comments that he felt like he needed to find a way to convey the author's meanings better as some wrote dualistically. That was one reason for pinning comments on top of other comments on top of second manuscripts of the same passage edited in his bible. Remember he spent nearly four years preparing the translation for publication and never felt that it was done. It definitely was a work in progress.

I agree that translation in our current vocabulary is not an descriptive word of what he did. I would rather call it an inspired rendition, inspired editing, inspired study, or restoration of the original intent. A number of years ago, Richard G. Scott suggested that we write in our scriptures the thoughts and impressions we have, as study is a source of revelation for us. That is what the translation is - except to the prophet of this dispensation, the revelations contained in his study set the doctrinal foundations we teach today. In this context, there is no wonder that there are differences in his translations of the same passage. If you think any of this information has merit for the article, feel free to add. I just didn't want to confuse the reader with all this additional (which I consider relevant but periphrial) information. -Visorstuff 20:01, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I see what you're saying. I was under the impression that the article I read regarded some new finds, but obviously Robert Matthew is the big authority on the JST, and he would probably cover it in his book. I've given up looking for the article--maybe it wasn't in BYU Studies, but in some other journal (I read it last fall) and I'm not going to be near BYU any time soon, so I'm just going to revise what's there and state something generic. If it still doesn't sound right, you can go ahead and change or delete it.COGDEN 01:03, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Greek Delete

]]User:Benefros]] stated that he couldn't find evidence for Smith studying greek - may want to do a more thourough search next time, but thanks for the edit anyway - keeps us honest. Here are a few sources:

• Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith (commenting about greek word renderings), pages 300,309,372...
• Encyclopedia of Mormonism, Vol 1, "Bible Scholarship"; Vol 2, "Kirtland, Ohio"; Vol 3, "Scripture" (this one states he studied, hebrew greek and german (german most likely to understand Luther's changes to the text that is used today). See below for excerpt on Kirtland.
• Answers to Gospel questions, vol 2, p 86
• Anti-mormons including the Tanners also agree.
• Amatuer Mormon apologists also point to it. http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/basic/bible/

Encyclopedia of Mormonism, Vol.2, KIRTLAND, OHIO

As a result of this and other divine commands, Joseph Smith in 1833 invited about twenty elders to attend a School of the Prophets. Following the initial sessions of that school, Church leaders and members established a school of the elders, a grammar school, and various private schools, in which adults and youth studied theology, philosophy, government, literature, history, geography, English grammar, penmanship, arithmetic, Latin, Greek, and Hebrew. In 1836 more than one hundred Latter-day Saints commenced studying Hebrew. Women attended and taught school in Kirtland, and studied various subjects with their husbands.

Incidentally, has anyone got a hold of the new JST manuscript compliation book? Interesting to see the blots, the marks, the pins and the edits. Very interesting...-Visorstuff 17:26, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Translation?

Since Joseph Smith did not know the source languages of the Bible (see above), this is clearly not a translation. In this case, it may be best to classify the JST as a revision.--ndansmith 03:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and this is clearly explained in the second paragraph of the article. --Blainster 03:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

But the section headings still refer to it as a translation. Also, the article is listed as an English translation of the Bible.--ndansmith 22:10, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Although it is clarified, Splanxna, you may want to read the definition of translated (from dictionary.com) [1]

1. To render in another language. 2.

1. To put into simpler terms; explain or interpret.

2. To express in different words; paraphrase.

3.

1. To change from one form, function, or state to another; convert or transform: translate ideas into reality.

2. To express in another medium.

4. To transfer from one place or condition to another. 5. To forward or retransmit (a telegraphic message). 6.

1. Ecclesiastical. To transfer (a bishop) to another see.

2. To convey to heaven without death.

7. Physics. To subject (a body) to translation. 8. Biology. To subject (messenger RNA) to translation. 9. Archaic. To enrapture.

v. intr. 1.

1. To make a translation.

2. To work as a translator.

2. To admit of translation. 3. To be changed or transformed in effect. Often used with into or to: "Today's low inflation and steady growth in household income translate into more purchasing power" (Thomas G. Exter).

By this definition, translation is an appropriate term. In 1830, the term mean more than just conveying ideas from one language to another. -Visorstuff 16:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Joseph Smith did not convey ideas from one language to another. English was the only language involved if I have my facts straight. Also, I think that adding information would necessarily disqualify a revision from being called a translation. Besides, the definition of the word in 1830 is irrelvenat, we are classifying it today. Furthermore, the various definitions of "translation" listed in the dictionary reflect usage, not a technical definition (which is what we need).

Just to be clear, I think that the title of the article "Joseph Smith Translation" is acceptable since it is the name of the document, but there needs to be more some more clarification in the article. For instace, as Blainster pointed out, this is addressed in the second paragraph - but the heading of the second section still reads "Process of Translation" and the third section is "Content of the translation." This article is also listed as an "English translation of the Bible." Perhaps the terms "revision" and "version" should be used instead. --ndansmith 02:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

It is relevant what the term meant in 1830, as that became the name of the document. Smith fully considered himself a "translator" one who "put into simpler terms; explain or interpret. To express in different words...express in another medium...to retransmit. Yes it is it not the common connotation of today, but the term is quite accurate, even from today's definition. If the New World translation gets to be an english translation, I see no reason that the JST shouldn't be a translation. Both add in text and have changes. Translation as a term is accurate. Just not translation from one language to another. -Visorstuff 22:24, 1 May 2006 (UTC)