And heaven forbid having a view that is “profoundly contrary to so many elements of the Mormon tradition.” ;)

Me, too.

In response to my question as to whether LDS scripture scholars see a need for a coherent revelatory model for a given sacred text, you reply:

“No, because nothing related to revelation is coherent in a fallen world.”

Well put. There’s something I like about that, if only on an intellectual level (since I’m theistically challenged). :)

I think the rub (for those of my ilk) emerges in your next sentence…

“Given everything the BoM has to say about its own weakness in writing, faults, limitations, etc.,…”

… because how does an interpreter discern whether BoMor passages that acknowledge human imperfections are not themselves JS’s commentary on his own shortcomings that he seamlessly integrated much like his commentary in the JSR/JST?

That aside, the evidence does confirm, as you note, that a simple plenary revelatory model can’t account for the manuscript development of JS’s sacred texts. As I pointed out decades ago (and Grant Underwood recently reiterated), JS occasionally revised the KJV Bible in the JSR only to jettison his revisions in Nauvoo because the KJV rendition better suited his later theology. This scarcely lends itself to a view of translation where JS is simply restoring ancient text.

Very much looking forward to our interview on the Mormon Studies podcast.

Kind regards,

No, because nothing related to revelation is coherent in a fallen world. Given everything the BoM has to say about its own weakness in writing, faults, limitations, etc., I don’t know why Mormons would expect written revelations to evidence coherency. If there was coherency to begin with, there are probably enough instances of human muddling throughout the process to make the pattern obscure to us as we examine its products.

Or maybe I should say this: the coherent revelatory model of the JST is the one Mormons are all aware of from their own callings: you take a question to God, sometimes you get an answer so clear that it scares you, sometimes you are left to muddle through on your own, and sometimes every point in between those two extremes. Maybe that was Joseph’s experience.

Another thought: I think trying to determine a revelatory model which permits a variety of material may be putting the cart before the horse. We do have a variety of material (I honestly don’t see how anyone can deny this–it clearly isn’t all restoration of an original text when most of the changes are along the lines of “saith” to “said”); the subsequent task is to find a model which permits what exists.

I’m fairly well versed in what scholars do with texts (secular and sacred). Still, I don’t see how your post addresses in any meaningful way the variety of editorial stages in the JSR/JST (I *was* asking about revelatory models, BTW, not revelatory metrics; hence my examples).

Hi Kevin,

As always, I appreciate your candor. Perhaps a better question is: do LDS scripture scholars see a need for a coherent revelatory model for a given scriptural text (such as the JSR/JST); and if not, why not?

Scholars from other religious traditions seem to think it’s critical for a viable theology. As Jesuit theologian Avery Dulles cautioned: it “would be superficial and irresponsible” to posit a theology of revelation that “use[s] one model in dealing with one problem, other models for other problems.” More recently, Peter Enns has made some theological inroads at a coherent revelatory model for such a profoundly human book as the Bible. A few LDS scholars are making headway—David Bokovoy, you (at least when you’re serving meat instead of milk) :) , Julie Smith, et al.—but this seems largely lacking in Mormon scripture studies.

Best to all,

Brent

I have to say I am very surprised with your stab at an answer, Julie, as well as the stabs of all the commenters. No, the JST was never fully canonized, but I think we’d do best to start with what the Lord Himself had to say about it. In D&C 45, He gives one of the most comprehensive, detailed discourses on the signs of His coming (including several parables) and then says:

60 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;

61 Wherefore I give unto you that ye may now translate it, that ye may be prepared for the things to come.

62 For verily I say unto you, that great things await you;

Suffice it to say, the JST should in no way be treated as McConkie’s chapter headings or even Joseph’s sermons. The Lord specifically tasked Joseph with translating it, telling him that it was ‘given unto him’ (meaning He would give the gift and power of the Holy Ghost necessary to do so) and even told him that these translations would be the key to unlocking the discourse itself.

Say what you will that only JST Matthew made it into the official canon – perhaps the Lord did it this way to create a little controversy and see what His saints would say about it as well as the prophet who translated it and see how serious we are about seeking out the Spirit to reveal the truth of the translations as a whole. Either way, leaving it out there unfinished in this regard certainly adds to the picture of an “ongoing restoration.”

I don’t claim to have a coherent revelatory model for what is going on in the JST. My approach is indeed, as you frame it, ad hoc. For instance, in the case of Matt. 5:22, was that revealed insight, something he borrowed from a contemporary source (such as a commentary), a lucky guess, or something else altogether? Beats me. My six categories focus on categorizing broad types of *results* of the JST emendation (harmonizing contradictions, etc.). The *process* by which those results were achieved strikes me as often pretty inscrutable. Other times, however, I kind of feel as though I can get in his head a bit and kind of grasp his thought process. All the revisions to OT scrips that portray God as repenting are a good illustration of this. As Julie correctly describes it in the OP, Joseph saw these passages as implying that God sins, which he thought was problematic. So he, rather indiscriminately, applied the verb to whatever human actor happened to be closest (e.g., Noah). He really didn’t care that much about the implication of doing that for the human actor; his sole focus was on avoiding the implicaition of sin to God. The result was a laudable one if one is willing to translate Joseph’s thought process a bit here, because the verb nicham used of God indeed does not have anything to do with sin. But as Julie says, the way Joseph achieved that correction was pretty ham handed and could have been more elegantly done, for instance by just substituting a different word for repent rather than insisting on keeping that word in the text.

(I’m rambling now, just trying to convey some sense of how I see things.)

Nowadays I teach Valiant 9s, and it is a critical age when they go from reading gospel stories to reading the actual scriptures. The first lesson was about “Getting to know the New Testament” and did have us point out the JST correction in 2 Timothy 3:16. Throughout the class, I want them to feel empowered that they really can understand scripture. We begin each session with vocabulary words, this week it was “epistle” and “rebuke.” When we hit the word in our reading aloud, I ask them to rephrase that in modern language, using the definition that we already discussed.

So I had always commended the chapter headings to them as a way to get a head-start on understanding what it is going to be about. But I was really thrown in Daniel 3 at the huge difference there. It went from “The Son of God preserves them, and they come forth unharmed” to the current, “They are preserved and come out unharmed.” The former suggests that the fourth man was the Son of God, the latter version not so much.

With adults, you can just tell them to take everything with a grain of salt or FWIW or whatever. They can see nuance. With kids, it is not so clear. They will trust it or not, black or white–gray areas are not so clear. And I was there for the first General Women’s meeting in 1978, when President Kimball talked about a Primary teacher who taught him false stuff that he had believed as true until years later, and challenged us all to become scriptorians.

As for a revelatory model, Joseph was once asked by Hyrum to give further details on how revelation worked, and Joseph declined. Whether he was unable to explain his method or whether he simply declined to provide further details is unclear. Biblical comparison doesn’t give much help. Apart from the instances where a declaration is preceded by “thus saith the Lord” or the rare instance where a writer notes that he is just giving his own opinion (Paul, once, as I recall) the status of the words are often rather murky. So the case of Joseph and his revelatory method is as clear or as confusing as for biblical cases.

Likewise for a revelatory metric — LDS and other Christians have a variety of explanations for distinguishing revelatory discourse (or inspired discourse) from other stuff, most of which amount to something like the ad hoc approach you allude to as insufficient. But the case-by-case approach, considering any given passage or book on its own merits in light of whatever learning or enlightenment a reader brings to the text, is fairly defensible. It’s what scholars do, for the most part.

What model of *revelation* (let alone translation) do you think coherently explains Joseph Smith’s restoration of ancient text in one pericope and insertion of modern commentary just a few verses later, while appearing oblivious that his New Translation of the Bible entails distinctions between ancient and modern elements?

My friend Kevin Barney, for instance, suggests that in Matthew 5:22, JS (i.e., Joseph Smith, not Julie Smith) :) restored an original manuscript reading. If so, to what end? (The Sermon on the Mount is rife with interpretive difficulties—*many* NT scholars view the Sermon as the compositional product of the Matthean author in lieu of a unified discourse delivered by a historical Jesus.) If God had the capacity to reveal and JS had the capacity to receive ancient textual restorations, why didn’t God just give JS the pristine sermon delivered by Jesus? Instead, according to Kevin, God gave JS a textual variant from among the manuscript traditions, one that was already well known in JS’s era.

In any event, a few verses later in Matthew 5:40–41 something quite extraordinary happens in JS’s New Translation manuscripts. In the initial transcription in NT ms. 1, the text duplicates the KJV, which is also replicated in 3 Nephi 12: 40–41. This is the “go the extra mile,” the “do more than is required” pericope that we’re all familiar with.

*Until* JS revises the pericope in prep for creating NT ms. 2. In JS’s new version, Jesus instructs that when you are sued for your coat, relinquish it, and then when you are sued a second time for your cloak, relinquish it as well; also, when you are compelled to go a mile, go a mile, and then when you are compelled to go two miles, go two miles. The meaning has fully shifted from doing more than is required to doing what is required only.

Simply listing what you think is going on in the text based on problems you encounter strikes me as more of an ad hoc hypothesis than a coherent revelatory model.

I welcome your thoughtful input.

(My apologies in advance for any typos.)

Best regards,

Brent

I believe that parts of the Joseph Smith Translation restore original biblical text that had become lost since the time of the Bible’s authors. There are some things in the translation that, in my opinion, cannot be explained in any other way. For example, I have found wording on the first Old Testament manuscript that I believe can only be explained as a very literal translation from a Hebrew original. The wording is so odd in English that editors after Joseph Smith’s time took it out, so it is not in the Book of Moses today. Even though I believe that the JST restores original text, it is likely that most changes have other explanations. Joseph Smith taught that some truths pertaining to our salvation were lost even before the Bible was compiled, and thus some JST corrections may reveal teachings or events that never were recorded in the Bible in the first place. Some JST changes probably edit the text to bring it into harmony with truth found in other revelations or elsewhere in the Bible. The Prophet taught: “[There are] many things in the Bible which do not, as they now stand, accord with the revelation of the Holy Ghost to me,” necessitating latter-day correction. And many changes edit the wording of the Bible to make it more clear and understandable for modern readers. As I examined the changes the Prophet made, I was surprised to see that more individual corrections appear to fall into this last category than into any other. Few are aware of that (nor was I), because the JST footnotes in our LDS Bible rightly focus on the more important matters of doctrine and history. There are many instances in which the Prophet rearranged word order or added words to make the text easier to read and modernized the language to replace archaic King James features with current grammar and vocabulary. There are numerous changes from saith to said, from that and which to who, and from thee and ye to you. He even modernized the language of his original dictations in some instances. When refining one passage, he changed “this earth upon which thou standest, and thou shalt write” to “this earth upon which you stand, and you shall write.” But by no means were the modernizations done consistently through the manuscripts, and alternative forms like “mine hands” and “my hands” and hath and has are very frequent.
https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/volume-6-number-3-2005/new-discoveries-joseph-smith-translation-bible