{"id":40694,"date":"2020-08-06T12:34:11","date_gmt":"2020-08-06T17:34:11","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/?p=40694"},"modified":"2020-09-10T00:26:51","modified_gmt":"2020-09-10T05:26:51","slug":"joseph-smiths-studies-and-translations","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/2020\/08\/joseph-smiths-studies-and-translations\/","title":{"rendered":"Joseph Smith’s Studies and Translations"},"content":{"rendered":"

It has been a big year for volumes that discuss Joseph Smith\u2019s translation projects, with contributions ranging from Terryl Givens and Brian Hauglid\u2019s The Pearl of Great Price: Mormonism\u2019s Most Controversial Scripture<\/em> last October, to William L. Davis\u2019s Visions in a Seer Stone: Joseph Smith and the Making of the Book of Mormon<\/em> this April, to Samuel Brown\u2019s Joseph Smith\u2019s Translation: The Words and Worlds of Early Mormonism<\/em> in May, and a few other notable works.\u00a0 One book in particular, however, has recently been billed as groundbreaking and potentially one of the most foundational contributions to the subject:\u00a0 Producing Ancient Scripture: Joseph Smith\u2019s Translation Projects in the Development of Mormon Christianity<\/a><\/em>, ed. Michael Hubbard MacKay, Mark Ashurst-McGee and Brian M. Hauglid.\u00a0 The volume is a collection of chapters written by many notable scholars of Mormonism, discussing a variety of topics related to Joseph Smith\u2019s translation of the Book of Mormon, the Bible, and the Book of Abraham. \u00a0Recently, Kurt Manwaring sat down to interview Michael Hubbard MacKay and Mark Ashurst-McGee (two of the general editors of the book).\u00a0 What follows here is a co-post to that interview, a summary with quotes and commentary on the interview, but to get the full treatment, I recommend going to read the interview here<\/a>.<\/p>\n

It is relatively common to describe Joseph Smith\u2019s translations as being revelations.\u00a0 For example, at the most recent general conference, Elder Ulisses Soares stated that the Book of Mormon \u201cwas not \u2018translated\u2019 in the traditional way that scholars would translate ancient texts by learning an ancient language. We ought to look at the process more like a \u2018revelation\u2019 with the aid of physical instruments provided by the Lord, as opposed to a \u2018translation\u2019 by one with knowledge of languages.\u201d[1]<\/a>\u00a0 In the interview, Michael Hubbard MacKay pointed out, however, the ways in which the translations differed from Joseph Smith\u2019s other revelations:<\/p>\n

It\u2019s not just that Smith called some revelations \u201ctranslations\u201d and called others \u201ccommandments\u201d or \u201crevelations.\u201d A comparison of the revelations deemed \u201ctranslations\u201d and the other revelations does show qualitative differences (as well as similarities).<\/p>\n

The translations were presented as ancient texts. Moreover, they were usually associated with some kind of artifact\u2014such as plates or parchment or papyri. Most of the other revelations, in contrast, were direct transmissions given through no other medium than Smith\u2019s mind and his inherited vocabulary.<\/p>\n

Because of this, the revelations differ in narrative voice. They were delivered in the voice of the living God\u2014often directed to specific individuals in the immediacy of present circumstances and employing familiar address.<\/p>\n

In contrast, the translations were narrated in the voice of ancient prophets and generally addressed an unknown audience of scripture readers somewhere far off in the distant future.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

These are some significant differences that underscore why the translations are still considered a category unto themselves within Joseph Smith\u2019s revelatory output.<\/p>\n

It is also important to note that the translations required a lot of work from many different people to bring them to fruition. \u00a0One chapter in Producing Ancient Scriptures <\/em>in particular has been noted for its contributions in this regard.\u00a0 In that chapter, Amy Easton-Flake and Rachel Cope \u201capply theoretical work from an intersection between gender studies and archival studies to highlight a substantial body of often overlooked documentation regarding the production of Mormonism\u2019s founding text. Also, they provide balanced readings of these sources\u2014thereby revealing just how much the production of the Book of Mormon was a group effort involving both men and women.\u201d\u00a0 Mark Ashurst-McGee noted that while he \u201cwas familiar with most of the sources used in this chapter,\u201d he still felt that \u201cthe authors pointed out so many things I had never before noticed\u201d and that \u201creading this chapter, for me, was also a spiritual experience.\u201d<\/p>\n

The biggest discussion in the interview, however, focused on the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible.\u00a0 In one of the more controversial Mormon Studies discoveries of recent years, Thomas A. Wayment and Hayley Wilson-Lemm\u00f3n found that there were significant parallels between some of the edits Joseph Smith made to the Bible and a nineteenth-century Bible commentary by Methodist theologian Adam Clarke.\u00a0 The chapter in Producing Ancient Scripture<\/em> on their findings has been highly anticipated because, as the editors noted in a recent question and answer session with J. Stapley on By Common Consent<\/em><\/a>, while a preliminary discussion of their research had been previously published and a follow-up article has been published in the Journal of Mormon History<\/em>, the chapter \u201cis the\u00a0basis<\/em> of the discussion (and all Smith-reliance-upon-Clarke discussion to follow)\u201d with far more evidence than the 2017 preliminary discussion.[2]<\/a>\u00a0 Now, their findings have proven controversial because of accusations of Joseph Smith committing plagiarism from Clarke\u2019s commentary, with Wilson-Lemm\u00f3n leading the way in making that accusation after leaving the Church.\u00a0 As such, the editors took some time to unpack those accusations and other concerns about Joseph Smith\u2019s reliance upon the Clarke commentary in their interview.<\/p>\n

The first concern they address is whether the use of Adam Clarke\u2019s commentary undermines the importance of the Joseph Smith Translation.\u00a0 Mark Ashurst-McGee explained that:<\/p>\n

Church historians have recognized for decades that there is a broad qualitative spectrum of content in the Joseph Smith Translation. At one end of the spectrum, there are the substantial expansions regarding Moses and Enoch. It\u2019s quite clear that these are meant to be understood as the result of revelation (or revelatory translation). At the other end of the spectrum there are mundane word changes that update the language of the seventeenth-century King James translation for a nineteenth-century audience.<\/p>\n

Church historians have long been open to the idea that revelation was not required for these mundane changes. There is a wide range of changes in between these two extremes, with a large gray area in the middle\u2014where it is unclear whether changes are meant to be understood as the result of revelation or reason.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

He went on to discuss the idea that while we view Joseph Smith\u2019s efforts were inspired, there is room to believe that the more mundane changes, many of which simply modernized the archaic language of the Bible, were the result of Joseph Smith\u2019s reasoning rather than revelation.\u00a0 That being the case, \u201cthe scenario of Smith drawing upon his own thoughts, conversations with others, and available Bible commentaries for some of his revisions makes perfect sense.\u201d\u00a0 It is in these more mundane changes that we see the influence of the Clarke commentary rather than the substantial, revelatory additions regarding Moses, Enoch, etc.<\/p>\n

As for the accusations of plagiarism, Ashurst-McGee responded by pointing out that the translation was never published during Joseph Smith\u2019s lifetime. \u00a0Because of that, we don\u2019t have any introduction to the work written, so we don\u2019t know whether Joseph Smith would have acknowledged Clarke\u2019s influence or not.\u00a0 Since plagiarism \u201cmeans borrowing without attribution,\u201d it would only have been plagiarism if \u201cSmith\u2019s introduction to the Joseph Smith Translation had said that all the changes were a result of direct revelation, or that all of them were his own ideas \u2014or even some combination of the two\u201d with \u201cno kind of nod toward Clarke or toward the use of any outside sources generally.\u201d \u00a0If that were the case, then \u201cthis could fairly be raised as an ethical issue,\u201d but there is insufficient evidence to know whether that would have been the case.\u00a0 We can look at how Joseph Smith introduced other standard works published by church to get an idea of how he might have written the introduction to his Inspired Version of the Bible (and they do some of that in the interview), but ultimately, we just don\u2019t know.\u00a0 So, with that being the case, it is likely that people will assume and say what best fits their own narrative about Joseph Smith when discussing potential plagiarism in the unfinished project of his translation of the Bible.<\/p>\n

The other main discussion in the interview was about the impact that studying Hebrew had on Joseph Smith\u2019s translation of the Book of Abraham (BoA).\u00a0 Matthew J. Grey\u2019s chapter in the book argues that Joseph Smith studied Hebrew \u201cbecause he felt that doing so would help him to better understand the Book of Abraham.\u201d\u00a0 The chapter is significant because, as Michael Hubbard MacKay has noted elsewhere: \u201cIn a systematic and comprehensive fashion, Grey shows just how the text of the BoA draws upon Hebrew and he documents this using Joseph Smith\u2019s Hebrew textbooks. If it ever needs to be established that Hebrew is used in the BoA, Grey\u2019s chapter is the source to cite.\u201d[3]<\/a>\u00a0 The idea makes sense to me\u2014if you compare how Joseph Smith incorporated his understanding of Hebrew into some of the theology he discussed in the King Follett Discourse<\/a> with the creation narrative presented in the Book of Abraham, chapters 4 and 5, there seem to be some common ideas rooted in Joseph Smith\u2019s understanding of Hebrew being presented.\u00a0 \u00a0Mark Ashurst-McGee put it this way: \u201cSmith\u2019s broadened linguistic capacity\u2014after having studied Hebrew\u2014may have allowed God to reveal the Book of Abraham to him within a larger linguistic scope.\u201d<\/p>\n

Based on this discussion, Kurt Manwaring asked the fascinating question: \u201cDo you think the Book of Mormon might read differently if Joseph Smith started studying Hebrew prior to translating it?\u201d\u00a0 Mark Ashurst-McGee responded that it was possible, since the Lord stated that, \u201chis revelations are \u2018given unto [his] servants in their weakness, after the manner\u00a0<\/em>of their language, that they might come to\u00a0understanding<\/em>\u2019 (D&C 1:24 [with emphasis added]),\u201d but it’s hard to tell, since it\u2019s a \u201ccounterfactual scenario.\u201d\u00a0 Michael Hubbard MacKay added more detail by stating that:<\/p>\n

Even conservative scholars of the translation accept that Joseph Smith had some control over the text.<\/p>\n

The most conservative only allow for punctuation, chapter and paragraphing choices, and slight edits and corrections. So, even within their perspective, Hebrew could have found its way into the text within the scenario you\u2019ve suggested.<\/p>\n

Also, those who accept that it\u2019s an actual translation of an ancient record could accept a translation model that embraces a translation into Smith\u2019s vernacular, which might also allow for Hebrew to find its way into the text.<\/p>\n

Note also that neither of these scenarios necessarily challenges the divine origin of the text.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

So, some interesting thoughts about how Joseph Smith\u2019s interest in studying languages may have impacted the Book of Mormon if he had studied Hebrew before translating it.<\/p>\n

For more details on the topics discussed above, some thoughts on how Joseph Smith\u2019s pursuit of academic learning and his process of receiving revelation, and how Smith\u2019s methods differed between his different translation projects, you can go read the full interview with Kurt Manwaring here<\/a>. \u00a0Note that this is the second part of a series of interviews Kurt Manwaring is doing about Joseph Smith\u2019s translations, so more discussions are coming in the next few weeks.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Footnotes:<\/strong><\/p>\n

[1]<\/a> Ulisses Soares, \u201cThe Coming Forth of the Book of Mormon,\u201d CR April 2020, https:\/\/www.churchofjesuschrist.org\/study\/general-conference\/2020\/04\/23soares?lang=eng<\/a>.<\/p>\n

[2]<\/a> J. Stapley, \u201cA Q&A with the editors of Producing Ancient Scripture<\/em>,\u201d By Common Consent<\/em>, 20 July 2020, https:\/\/bycommonconsent.com\/2020\/07\/20\/a-qa-with-the-editors-of-producing-ancient-scripture\/<\/a>.<\/p>\n

[3]<\/a> J. Stapley, \u201cA Q&A with the editors of Producing Ancient Scripture<\/em>,\u201d By Common Consent<\/em>, 20 July 2020, https:\/\/bycommonconsent.com\/2020\/07\/20\/a-qa-with-the-editors-of-producing-ancient-scripture\/<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

It has been a big year for volumes that discuss Joseph Smith\u2019s translation projects, with contributions ranging from Terryl Givens and Brian Hauglid\u2019s The Pearl of Great Price: Mormonism\u2019s Most Controversial Scripture last October, to William L. Davis\u2019s Visions in a Seer Stone: Joseph Smith and the Making of the Book of Mormon this April, to Samuel Brown\u2019s Joseph Smith\u2019s Translation: The Words and Worlds of Early Mormonism in May, and a few other notable works.\u00a0 One book in particular, however, has recently been billed as groundbreaking and potentially one of the most foundational contributions to the subject:\u00a0 Producing Ancient Scripture: Joseph Smith\u2019s Translation Projects in the Development of Mormon Christianity, ed. Michael Hubbard MacKay, Mark Ashurst-McGee and Brian M. Hauglid.\u00a0 The volume is a collection of chapters written by many notable scholars of Mormonism, discussing a variety of topics related to Joseph Smith\u2019s translation of the Book of Mormon, the Bible, and the Book of Abraham. \u00a0Recently, Kurt Manwaring sat down to interview Michael Hubbard MacKay and Mark Ashurst-McGee (two of the general editors of the book).\u00a0 What follows here is a co-post to that interview, a summary with quotes and commentary on the interview, but to get the […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":10397,"featured_media":40696,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[49,2890,18,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-40694","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-essential-texts-in-mormon-studies","category-from-the-desk","category-general-doctrine","category-scriptures"],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/08\/producing-ancient-scripture.jpg","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/40694","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/10397"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=40694"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/40694\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":40707,"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/40694\/revisions\/40707"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/40696"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=40694"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=40694"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=40694"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}