Comments on: The JST http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2006/02/the-jst/ Truth Will Prevail Sat, 11 Feb 2012 21:28:55 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Logan Lawson http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2006/02/the-jst/#comment-121410 Logan Lawson Thu, 23 Feb 2006 17:09:44 +0000 http://www.timesandseasons.org/?p=2929#comment-121410 RE #23 "was cast upon thee [IE dependent on you] from the womb [IE from birth] thou art [IE you have been] my God from my mother’s belly [IE from birth]. The JST means something as follows: I was cast upon thee from the womb; thou wast my God from [the time I suckled at] my mother’s breasts. In the end, the JST doesn’t really change the meaning of the passage. It ultimately means the same thing in both formulations. The JST is really more focused on resolving issues present for modern English readers of the text, which is often the case. That is my take on this particular revision." ------ I love the imagery of the IV changes regarding breasts. Kevin is right about womb and belly being "from birth." But breasts creates in me an image of being fed and nurtured for a longer period of time than childbirth and of being sustained during the dependancy we know as infancy. It's akin to the hen protecting her young image used elsewhere in scripture. I feel it's a more initmate and enduring relationship between us and God than just birth. Yes, the Creator gave us life but he continues to nuture us as we grow into the fully developed being He desires. That is the sense I feel as I read what could be discribed asl Joseph Smith's Inspired Revision of the KJV. Regarding #5 "My knee-jerk reaction is that Joseph Smith claimed the BoM to be an actual translation but never made that claim for the JST, but I may be wrong about that. Anyone know?" ----- The Lord called it a translation. "And now, behold, I say unto you, it shall not be given unto you to know any further concerning this chapter, until the New Testament be translated, and in it all these things shall be made known; Wherefore I give unto you that ye may now translate it, that ye may be prepared for the things to come." (DC 45:60 - 61) and also, "And, verily I say unto you, that it is my will that you should hasten to translate my scriptures," (DC 93:53). Joseph Smith also called it a translation, "For while we were doing the work of translation, which the Lord had appointed unto us, we came to the twenty–ninth verse of the fifth chapter of John" (DC 76:15) It is more an inspired revision that a translation but if the Lord and His prophet choose to call it a translation, who am I to to differ with them? RE #23 “was cast upon thee [IE dependent on you] from the womb [IE from birth]
thou art [IE you have been] my God from my mother’s belly [IE from birth].
The JST means something as follows:
I was cast upon thee from the womb; thou wast my God from [the time I suckled at] my mother’s breasts.
In the end, the JST doesn’t really change the meaning of the passage. It ultimately means the same thing in both formulations. The JST is really more focused on resolving issues present for modern English readers of the text, which is often the case.
That is my take on this particular revision.”
——
I love the imagery of the IV changes regarding breasts. Kevin is right about womb and belly being “from birth.” But breasts creates in me an image of being fed and nurtured for a longer period of time than childbirth and of being sustained during the dependancy we know as infancy. It’s akin to the hen protecting her young image used elsewhere in scripture. I feel it’s a more initmate and enduring relationship between us and God than just birth. Yes, the Creator gave us life but he continues to nuture us as we grow into the fully developed being He desires. That is the sense I feel as I read what could be discribed asl Joseph Smith’s Inspired Revision of the KJV.

Regarding #5 “My knee-jerk reaction is that Joseph Smith claimed the BoM to be an actual translation but never made that claim for the JST, but I may be wrong about that. Anyone know?”
—–
The Lord called it a translation. “And now, behold, I say unto you, it shall not be given unto you to know any further concerning this chapter, until the New Testament be translated, and in it all these things shall be made known; Wherefore I give unto you that ye may now translate it, that ye may be prepared for the things to come.” (DC 45:60 – 61) and also, “And, verily I say unto you, that it is my will that you should hasten to translate my scriptures,” (DC 93:53).

Joseph Smith also called it a translation, “For while we were doing the work of translation, which the Lord had appointed unto us, we came to the twenty–ninth verse of the fifth chapter of John”
(DC 76:15)

It is more an inspired revision that a translation but if the Lord and His prophet choose to call it a translation, who am I to to differ with them?

]]> By: Steve A. http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2006/02/the-jst/#comment-120938 Steve A. Sat, 18 Feb 2006 16:22:21 +0000 http://www.timesandseasons.org/?p=2929#comment-120938 J. Stapley -- the second link you included in (#7) isn't working. Could you post again? Thanks. J. Stapley — the second link you included in (#7) isn’t working. Could you post again?

Thanks.

]]> By: Mike Parker http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2006/02/the-jst/#comment-120896 Mike Parker Sat, 18 Feb 2006 00:12:30 +0000 http://www.timesandseasons.org/?p=2929#comment-120896 Robert #18 and Ben #19: The problem I have (or <i>had</i>) in 1 Cor. 11 is that the JST ruins the flow from verse 20 to 21. The switch to a rhetorical question in 20 doesn't flow into a 21 that begins with "For". But, on further research, the JST for 21 starts with "But," which resolves my problem. The LDS footnotes don't have this, and I hadn't bothered to look it up in the complete JST. I still think it blunts the forcefulness of Paul's accusation, but that's a stylistic quibble. Robert #18 and Ben #19:

The problem I have (or had) in 1 Cor. 11 is that the JST ruins the flow from verse 20 to 21. The switch to a rhetorical question in 20 doesn’t flow into a 21 that begins with “For”.

But, on further research, the JST for 21 starts with “But,” which resolves my problem. The LDS footnotes don’t have this, and I hadn’t bothered to look it up in the complete JST.

I still think it blunts the forcefulness of Paul’s accusation, but that’s a stylistic quibble.

]]> By: Jim F http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2006/02/the-jst/#comment-120869 Jim F Fri, 17 Feb 2006 20:03:58 +0000 http://www.timesandseasons.org/?p=2929#comment-120869 Mark N.: The passage you refer to is, I think, one of those in which Joseph is rewriting passages (under inspiration) to fit his own context and that of the Church at his time. I don't think it is possible to make the case that the original document could have meant what Joseph rewrites it to mean. In addition, we don't need Romans 13 in its JST revision to establisht he claim that we don't owe allegiance to any earthly government. Paul himself makes that claim in a number of places. Kevin Barney: I very much appreciate that link. I didn't know about the piece, and it is, as you say, fascinating. Mark N.: The passage you refer to is, I think, one of those in which Joseph is rewriting passages (under inspiration) to fit his own context and that of the Church at his time. I don’t think it is possible to make the case that the original document could have meant what Joseph rewrites it to mean.

In addition, we don’t need Romans 13 in its JST revision to establisht he claim that we don’t owe allegiance to any earthly government. Paul himself makes that claim in a number of places.

Kevin Barney: I very much appreciate that link. I didn’t know about the piece, and it is, as you say, fascinating.

]]> By: Mark N. http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2006/02/the-jst/#comment-120853 Mark N. Fri, 17 Feb 2006 18:57:33 +0000 http://www.timesandseasons.org/?p=2929#comment-120853 My favorite scripture in the JST is Romans 13, because it destroys the whole "church members must obey the secular government" argument by showing that the phrase "the higher powers" only refers to the leadership of the Church, and not any earthly government. We owe no fealty to any earthly government that would have us do things that are wrong. And this would also seem to imply that we have a duty to exercise our agency and disobey when we know that what the government counsels (or, rather, would force) us to do is contrary to principles of righteousness. My favorite scripture in the JST is Romans 13, because it destroys the whole “church members must obey the secular government” argument by showing that the phrase “the higher powers” only refers to the leadership of the Church, and not any earthly government. We owe no fealty to any earthly government that would have us do things that are wrong. And this would also seem to imply that we have a duty to exercise our agency and disobey when we know that what the government counsels (or, rather, would force) us to do is contrary to principles of righteousness.

]]> By: Kevin Barney http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2006/02/the-jst/#comment-120850 Kevin Barney Fri, 17 Feb 2006 18:53:17 +0000 http://www.timesandseasons.org/?p=2929#comment-120850 One of the most intriguing articles ever written for understanding the translation theory of Joseph's inspired productions is Jackson, Kent P. and Peter M. Jasinski "The Process of Inspired Translation: Two Passages Translated Twice in the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible (2003)" 42:2:3 which is available for download here: http://byustudies.byu.edu/Indexes/Searches/AuthorIndex.aspx Joseph translated a couple of sections of biblical text, forgot that he had already covered those parts, and later retranslated the same portions over again. The similarities and differences between the two productions are absolutely fascinating. If you haven't read it yet, I highly recommend it. One of the most intriguing articles ever written for understanding the translation theory of Joseph’s inspired productions is

Jackson, Kent P. and Peter M. Jasinski “The Process of Inspired Translation: Two Passages Translated Twice in the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible (2003)” 42:2:3

which is available for download here:

http://byustudies.byu.edu/Indexes/Searches/AuthorIndex.aspx

Joseph translated a couple of sections of biblical text, forgot that he had already covered those parts, and later retranslated the same portions over again.

The similarities and differences between the two productions are absolutely fascinating. If you haven’t read it yet, I highly recommend it.

]]> By: Robert C. http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2006/02/the-jst/#comment-120828 Robert C. Fri, 17 Feb 2006 15:59:43 +0000 http://www.timesandseasons.org/?p=2929#comment-120828 Jim (#22), looking more carefully at Romans 7 as a whole (and chapters 6 and 8), I appreciate the difficulty much more, though I find vv. 15-25 a very difficult passage to read. I'm sure I speak for many that we're all very anxious for your <a href="http://www.timesandseasons.org/?p=2923#comment-120743" rel="nofollow">next Romans installment</a> (has chapters 2-4 been published anywhere??). In particular I'm having a hard time understanding whether Paul is referring to obeying the law or breaking the law when he says "that which I do". Does he mean he follows the law despite a desire to sin, or that he breaks the law despite a desire not to sin? Or does the meaning change with the different verses? I made a rough (and not particularly careful) outline of how I undestand the preceding and subsequent verses <a href="http://feastupontheword.org/User:RobertC/Outlines/Rom_7" rel="nofollow">here</a>, but I'm quite stuck on (vv. 15-25) in the KJV. Also, if you get a chance to respond (totally understand if not) are there any particular New Testament commentaries you 'd recommend (I've been very pleased with the Cassuto and Liebowitz commentaries you recommended, thanks again!)? And any particular New Testament translation(s) you'd recommend along with the KJV,(esp. for Romans 7!) for those of us who don't know Greek? Jim (#22), looking more carefully at Romans 7 as a whole (and chapters 6 and 8), I appreciate the difficulty much more, though I find vv. 15-25 a very difficult passage to read. I’m sure I speak for many that we’re all very anxious for your next Romans installment (has chapters 2-4 been published anywhere??).

In particular I’m having a hard time understanding whether Paul is referring to obeying the law or breaking the law when he says “that which I do”. Does he mean he follows the law despite a desire to sin, or that he breaks the law despite a desire not to sin? Or does the meaning change with the different verses? I made a rough (and not particularly careful) outline of how I undestand the preceding and subsequent verses here, but I’m quite stuck on (vv. 15-25) in the KJV.

Also, if you get a chance to respond (totally understand if not) are there any particular New Testament commentaries you ‘d recommend (I’ve been very pleased with the Cassuto and Liebowitz commentaries you recommended, thanks again!)? And any particular New Testament translation(s) you’d recommend along with the KJV,(esp. for Romans 7!) for those of us who don’t know Greek?

]]> By: Jim F. http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2006/02/the-jst/#comment-120808 Jim F. Fri, 17 Feb 2006 03:47:10 +0000 http://www.timesandseasons.org/?p=2929#comment-120808 a random John (#25): Very good! Kevin Barney (#23): <i>The JST is really more focused on resolving issues present for modern English readers of the text</i>. I agree that accounts for a significant number of the changes in the Inspired Version. I think we need to explain that more often (though since the IV doesn't come up in class that often, and when it does, the changes are usually more substantial, perhaps we don't need to). a random John (#25): Very good!

Kevin Barney (#23): The JST is really more focused on resolving issues present for modern English readers of the text. I agree that accounts for a significant number of the changes in the Inspired Version. I think we need to explain that more often (though since the IV doesn’t come up in class that often, and when it does, the changes are usually more substantial, perhaps we don’t need to).

]]> By: a random John http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2006/02/the-jst/#comment-120803 a random John Fri, 17 Feb 2006 03:29:33 +0000 http://www.timesandseasons.org/?p=2929#comment-120803 Jim F., I was actually hoping for something more along the lines of, "I cannot read a sealed book!" Jim F.,

I was actually hoping for something more along the lines of, “I cannot read a sealed book!”

]]> By: Julie M. Smith http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2006/02/the-jst/#comment-120802 Julie M. Smith Fri, 17 Feb 2006 03:21:43 +0000 http://www.timesandseasons.org/?p=2929#comment-120802 Kevin, that's fascinating, thanks. Kevin, that’s fascinating, thanks.

]]>