Brigham Young on Bible Translation

[Chapel-Hill-Coug]

Originally Posted by ChinoCoug

you're right, if JS supervised the publication it doesn't matter who took them off.

the point was that the original manuscript had the italicized words, when you said they had everything but. so there's no need to claim Joseph had everything memorized, etc.

i do believe he copy and pasted, but it doesn't vitiate his claim to prophethood.

Your right, I had the argument wrong. I see what you are saying, and it demonstrates even more fully just how dependent the BOM Isaiah is on KJV Isaiah. LOL, I knew there was something to what I was saying, I just botched the argument.

[BlueK]

Originally Posted by jay santos

Could someone help me understand why Joseph looks bad if he copies from the KJV Isaiah (memorized or not) for sections of Nephi where Nephi is quoting Isaiah?

I don't see the problem either.

[Tex]

There's a little too much for me to respond to here, point by point. Let me just try to make a few final comments. Sorry if I miss someone ... it's not on purpose.

1. Did Joseph Smith copy the KJV? And does it matter?

I don't know (but I don't think so), and yes.

I'm not scholarly enough to get into the textual analysis details. I wish I were, but I'm not. Thus, I don't have a good counter explanation as to why they match so well, including mistakes common to both. I form my opinion on two predicates: (1) there is no indication the historical record, such as it is, that Joseph did this, and (2) it seems inconsistent with what we DO know about the translation process.

I really do have a hard time reconciling the prophetic gift in this manner. While there are large contiguous passages of KJV-like scripture, there are also small inserts peppered throughout the Book. I have a hard time imagining Joseph reading "And now I Nephi will quote Isaiah" and him cracking open his KJV to follow along, making modifications as he went. This he did with the JST, and made no secret of it. Why do it here, and pretend it was written by ancient prophets?

I don't buy the "Joseph had the KJV memorized" line either, incidentally. Also seems implausible.

2. But the record is incomplete.

Doesn't matter to me. I am very cautious to fill in blanks either accidentally or purposely left blank without some historical basis to do so. I remember reading once (wish I had the reference) that Joseph had said the Lord did not wish the mechanics of the BofM translation to be made known.

3. Did the New Testament translators violate this principal by borrowing from the Septuagint rather than from the Masoretic Text?

It does seem to be a little disingenuous to me to translate a text, supplant what is actually written with something else, and then claim that the translation is an accurate representation of the original. Does it not?

But I think it's a hard thing to compare their work to Joseph's anyway. Theirs was essentially an academic endeavor; Joseph's was spiritual. Their credentials were of man; Joseph's were of God.

4. What did the plates actually contain?

Despite being accused of "appealing to the masses," the question of how the early Saints thought of the plates is a relevant one. Without looking at them ourselves, we cannot really know what was on them (indeed, we've even seen a bone-headed allegation that they never existed). So, the opinions of the people closest to the plates' translator matter. It's stating the obvious to say that they believed the Book was a translation of what was actually on the plates.

I know of no reading of any history or journal or publication from that period to suggest that any of the believers thought it contained anything else. Perhaps they were all wrong, but they got their impressions of what it contained from the 11 witnesses and from Joseph. This is not a logic proof, but it does make sense.

---

In conclusion, I don't have good answers to some of the difficult (and valid) questions that come from the translation story. But in the absence of solid data about the process, I am resistant to suppositions that I feel detract from the prophetic call.

If that means weathering some accusations that I'm denying 2+2, then so be it. It would not be the first time that something "obvious" has proven wrong in the long run.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Tex

In conclusion, I don't have good answers to some of the difficult (and valid) questions that come from the translation story. But in the absence of solid data about the process, I am resistant to suppositions that I feel detract from the prophetic call.

If that means weathering some accusations that I'm denying 2+2, then so be it. It would not be the first time that something "obvious" has proven wrong in the long run.

It means you're not much of an empiricist despite functioning in the pseudlogical world of computer programs.

What find detracting from a "prophetic" call is only detracting in your mindset, not in the mindset of all global possibilities for prophetic calls. Your mindset of a "prophetic call" seems very fundamentalistic and not very open to other options.

[ChinoCoug]

Originally Posted by Tex

3. Did the New Testament translators violate this principal by borrowing from the Septuagint rather than from the Masoretic Text?

It does seem to be a little disingenuous to me to translate a text, supplant what is actually written with something else, and then claim that the translation is an accurate representation of the original. Does it not?

But I think it's a hard thing to compare their work to Joseph's anyway. Theirs was essentially an academic endeavor; Joseph's was spiritual. Their credentials were of man; Joseph's were of God.

We're not talking about the NT translators. We're talking about Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John: prophets or scribes commissioned by prophets. They wrote in Greek because the NT was missionary material. And when they had OT quotes they used the the LXX to remain consistent. Reword your question to:

3. Did the New Testament authors violate this principal by borrowing from the Septuagint rather than from the Masoretic Text?

and start over.

[BlueK]

Originally Posted by Tex

4. What did the plates actually contain?

Despite being accused of "appealing to the masses," the question of how the early Saints thought of the plates is a relevant one. Without looking at them ourselves, we cannot really know what was on them (indeed, we've even seen a bone-headed allegation that they never existed). So, the opinions of the people closest to the plates' translator matter. It's stating the obvious to say that they believed the Book was a translation of what was actually on the plates.

I know of no reading of any history or journal or publication from that period to suggest that any of the believers thought it contained anything else. Perhaps they were all wrong, but they got their impressions of what it contained from the 11 witnesses and from Joseph. This is not a logic proof, but it does make sense.

I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around this one. Are you saying that because the BofM gives us perfect KJV for the Isaiah chapters, that the Isaiah passages on the plates were written so that the KJV was the exact translation of what was on there? Isn't that somewhat of a paradox?