|
|
| (22 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| {{FME-Source
| | #REDIRECT[[The Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible#What is the relationship between the JST and biblical manuscripts?]] |
| |title=Question: If the Joseph Smith Translation (JST) is Joseph Smith's 'correction' of Biblical errors, why do these corrections not match known Biblical manuscripts?
| |
| |category=Bible/Joseph Smith translation
| |
| }}
| |
| <onlyinclude>
| |
| ==Question: If the Joseph Smith Translation (JST) is Joseph Smith's 'correction' of Biblical errors, why do these corrections not match known Biblical manuscripts?==
| |
| ===The Joseph Smith Translation (JST) is not a translation in the traditional sense===
| |
| | |
| The Joseph Smith Translation (JST) is not a translation in the traditional sense. Joseph did not consider himself a "translator" in the academic sense. The JST is better thought of as a kind of "inspired commentary"--Joseph was not usually restoring 'lost text' (though in some few cases he may have).
| |
| | |
| Some aspects of the JST may reflect a restoration of lost Biblical text. But, such restoration is likely in the minority. Joseph did not claim to be mechanically preserving some hypothetically 'perfect' Biblical text. Rather, Joseph used the extant King James text as a basis for commentary, expansion, and clarification based upon revelation, with particular attention to issues of doctrinal importance for the modern reader. Reading the JST is akin to having the prophet at your elbow as one studies—it allows Joseph to clarify, elaborate, and comment on the Biblical text in the light of modern revelation.
| |
| | |
| Modern readers are accustomed to thinking of a 'translation' as only the conversion of text in one language to another. But, Joseph used the term in a broader and more inclusive sense, which included explanation, commentary, and harmonization. The JST is probably best understood in this light.
| |
| </onlyinclude>
| |
| {{endnotes sources}}
| |
