Brigham Young on Bible Translation

[Indy Coug]

What should the church do?

Let's don't make this about Tex, Lebowski, SEIQ or anyone else.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

What should the church do?

Like I have said before, the issue of errors in biblical translation is one of our articles of faith. One would think that we, of all people, would be at the forefront of textual criticism and the adoption of demonstrably-improved translations. That is why I think BY's statement above is right on the money. Ironically, we cling to the KJV.

[Indy Coug]

So what should the church do?

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by Tex

As I said in the other thread, as a matter of standardization and/or canonization I think the church is appropriately cautious. It has compelling reasons to stay with the KJV. Maybe someday they will decide to go another direction, and if/when they do I will get in line.

I agree, though I think it wouldn't hurt the church to be a little less conservative on this.

Originally Posted by Tex

In the meantine that doesn't mean there isn't value in the newer translations, nor that they cannot be studied and extrapolated from. We know Joseph didn't limit himself to only the KJV, and we have a revelation from God telling him (and the church) that while not necessary for the JST, the apocryphal books contain many things that are true.

Hope so, since Elder Holland is quoting them in GC.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

So what should the church do?

Like I said:

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

...be at the forefront of textual criticism and the adoption of demonstrably-improved translations...

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Like I said:

I guess I was looking for something specific.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Like I have said before, the issue of errors in biblical translation is one of our articles of faith. One would think that we, of all people, would be at the forefront of textual criticism and the adoption of demonstrably-improved translations. That is why I think BY's statement above is right on the money. Ironically, we cling to the KJV.

Do you not see any compelling reasons to remain with the KJV?

As an unrelated tangent, do you see any irony in how easily some people will quote from JoD when it suits their tastes, and decry quotes from the same source when it doesn't?

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

What should the church do?

Let's don't make this about Tex, Lebowski, SEIQ or anyone else.

Despite the fact that I'd very much like to have an LDS edition of the NRSV as soon as yesterday, there's another approach that the Church could take in the meantime.

Some churches have authorized study bibles. These bibles are not primarily for use during Sunday services (although, in my experience, they make the occasional appearance), but they do have the official stamp of approval for personal use. LDS Bible scholars already use many different English translations (which is to say nothing of their work in the Greek and Hebrew), and it would be nice for this practice to get a nod that would encourage others too.

[Sleeping in EQ]

I also wouldn't mind an authorized ESL Bible (the GNT or CEV would work nicely). There are few things more needlessly absurd than trying to shove Jacobian English down today's immigrant investigators.

[Archaea]

I like many of these ideas.

This debate shoulders what I believe plagues most biblical Mormon scholars, a lack of credibility in the academic world.

IMHO, it seems most LDS scholars either commence doing something with FARMS which has such a low volume of scholarship or interest outside of LDS world to be almost meaningless, or to engage in plain apologetics for LDS faith.

Now, somebody will point to an exception, but in other fields, we have accomplished LDS scholars not engaged in apologetics. The best scholars which touch upon these subjects are Givens and Bushman, not biblical scholars per se, but a literary and an historical scholar.

We need LDS who research and write cutting edge stuff on textual criticism or on the Documentary Hypothesis with such skill and determination that the nonLDS scholars, the Germans and other Continentals take note, so that when their scholarship is turned to LDS issues, they have credibility.

It almost seems as if BY is challenging LDS scholars to be on the cutting edge, and as Henry Eyring argued to be on the side of truth, even if risk is involved. What too often happens, LDS scholars end up with no support and often lose faith instead of forging ahead.

These last two years I have refamiliarized myself with the quality of LDS scholarship in religious matters, and the quality is very disparate, some of it good, some of it horrible but almost none of it first rate. Why is that? It isn't true in other disciplines.