Brigham Young on Bible Translation

[YOhio]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

So what should the church do?

A deemphasis on the KJV would be a good start, recognizing that there is value in using other versions.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by YOhio

A deemphasis on the KJV would be a good start, recognizing that there is value in using other versions.

A great first start. We probably invested too much in the KJV. It may have been a good bible for the 19th century but it's almost outlived its usefulness.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by YOhio

A deemphasis on the KJV would be a good start, recognizing that there is value in using other versions.

How do you deemphasize the KJV? If nearly everyone is already carrying around a KJV to church, what do you do as an organization to deemphasize it?

[YOhio]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

How do you deemphasize the KJV? If nearly everyone is already carrying around a KJV to church, what do you do as an organization to deemphasize it?

Tricky to be sure, but not impossible. Perhaps a correllation approved NT manual using other translations as source would be interesting. The church library could also stock additional copies of the different translations and encourage members to check them out.

This could also start at the CES level where HS Seminary and Institute students are encouraged to compare and read the different versions. It would be fairly inexpensive, especially with the free resources available online.

[ChinoCoug]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

There are few things more needlessly absurd than trying to shove Jacobian English down today's immigrant investigators.

I don't see how that's a problem. Immigrants can read the Bible in their own language. English-speaking immigrants usually already know the Bible 10x better than we do.

[MikeWaters]

First things first. Let's get rid of the King's English in prayers.

[YOhio]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

First things first. Let's get rid of the King's English in prayers.

Surely thou jests?

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by ChinoCoug

I don't see how that's a problem. Immigrants can read the Bible in their own language. English-speaking immigrants usually already know the Bible 10x better than we do.

Living in a Hispanic Branch, I have yet to see someone carry an English Bible around.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

How do you deemphasize the KJV? If nearly everyone is already carrying around a KJV to church, what do you do as an organization to deemphasize it?

I'm not sure how the church can place its imprimatur of authority explicitly or tacitly on a translation that corrects the translation errors contained in the KJV of Isiah that are replicated in second Nephi.

I don't think that can of worms gets opened purposefully.

[ChinoCoug]

Originally Posted by 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.

I think the trend in scholarship today is moving AWAY from the Documentary hypothesis. Most apologetic work on textual criticism has been building on the work of liberals. In these areas, having LDS at the forefront would be great, but not necessary. The consensus of Biblical scholarship deny it teaches creation ex-nihilio and trinitarianism. The consensus holds that the religion of Israel evolved from henotheism (as in LDS belief) into monotheism AFTER THE EXILE.

It is true there are no world-class LDS Bible scholars. But compared to the NT Church, we have a good number of tenured professors. I've spoken with my OT prof. Seely and he said that there is still discrimination against LDS for positions and publications.

There is one area in which LDS are on the cutting edge, and that is Dead Sea Scroll research. There's five LDS on the editing team, and BYU, along with Notre Dame and Hebrew U., are the main centers of DSS imaging. That is an area in which the LDS have gained respect.

Many schools are opening Mormon studies depts. Maybe that will make up for that we don't have a school of theology.

Nibley, in spite of his errors, is well-respected among non-LDS scholars. He's been called a linguistic genius by the dean of Harvard Divinity and has received other praise.

If you haven't read Owen and Mosser's piece, you should read it, that is the best summary of LDS scholarship ever.