Pergunta: Se a Tradução de Joseph Smith (TJS) é uma "correção" dos erros bíblicos, por que essas correções não correspondem a manuscritos conhecidos?

Índice

Pergunta: Se a Tradução de Joseph Smith é de Joseph Smith "correção" dos erros bíblicos, por que estas correcções não correspondem conhecido manuscritos bíblicos?

A Tradução de Joseph Smith é melhor pensado como um "comentário inspirado" em vez de uma "tradução"link title

A tradução de Joseph Smith (TJS) não é uma tradução no sentido tradicional. Joseph não se considerava um "tradutor" no sentido acadêmico. A TJS é mais considerada como uma espécie de "comentário inspirado" - Geralmente, Joseph não estava restaurando "texto perdido" (embora em alguns poucos casos, poderia estar).

Alguns aspectos da TJS podem refletir uma restauração do texto bíblico que foi perdido. Mas tal restauração é provavelmente a minoria. Joseph não afirmou estar preservando mecanicamente algum texto bíblico o qual era hipoteticamente 'perfeito'. Em vez disso, Joseph usou o texto existente do Rei Tiago como base para comentários, expansão e esclarecimentos baseados em revelação, com atenção especial para as questões de importância doutrinária para o leitor moderno. Ler a TJS é semelhante a ter o profeta ao seu lado enquanto se estuda - isso permite a Joseph esclarecer, elaborar e comentar sobre o texto bíblico na luz da revelação moderna.

The JST comes from a more prophetically mature and sophisticated Joseph Smith, and provides doctrinal expansion based upon additional revelation, experience, and understanding.

Joseph Smith: "I might have rendered a plainer translation to this, but it is sufficiently plain to suit my purpose as it stands"

It is important to remember that Joseph did not consider one 'translation' of anything to be perfect or 'the final word.' Joseph had indicated that Moroni quoted Malachi to him using different wording than the KJV (See Joseph Smith History 1:36–39). However, when Joseph quoted the same passage years later in a discussion about vicarious baptism for the dead, he said:

I might have rendered a plainer translation to this, but it is sufficiently plain to suit my purpose as it stands. It is sufficient to know, in this case, that the earth will be smitten with a curse unless there is a welding link of some kind or other between the fathers and the children, upon some subject or other-and behold what is that subject? It is the baptism. for the dead (D&C 128:18). (emphasis added)

Thus, to Joseph, the adequacy of a translation depended upon the uses to which a given text will be employed. For one discussion, the KJV was adequate; for others, not. A key element of LDS theology is that living prophets are the primary instrument through which God continues to give knowledge and understanding to his children. Scriptures are neither inerrant, nor somehow "perfect," but are instead produced by fallible mortals. Despite this, because of current prophets and the revelation granted each individual, the writings of past prophets are sufficient to teach the principles essential for salvation. Additional revelation is sought and received as required.

Os leitores modernos estão acostumados a pensar em uma "tradução" como unicamente a conversão de texto de uma língua para outra. Mas Joseph usou o termo em um sentido mais amplo e mais abrangente, que incluiu explicação, comentário, e harmonização. A TJS é provavelmente melhor compreendida nesta luz.

An Example: The Lord's Prayer

There is a great example of this kind of difference in the Lord's prayer. Compare the following:

And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil (Book of Mormon).

And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil (KJV Bible).

And suffer us not to be led into temptation, but deliver us from evil (JST Bible).

The JST changes the statement to passive voice whereas the KJV Bible and the Book of Mormon are in active voice. According to E. W. Bullinger, this particular scripture contains a Hebraism, namely, "active verbs were used by the Hebrews to express not the doing of the thing, but the permission of the thing which the agent is said do." Consequently, Bullinger interprets the passage this way: "Lead us not (i.e., suffer us not to be led) into temptation."

Adam Clarke agrees with Bullinger. He wrote this scripture means "'Bring not in,' or 'lead us not into.' (This is a mere Hebraism. God is said to do a thing which He only permits or suffers to be done)."

In Barnes' Notes on the New Testament we read the same interpretation. "This phrase then must be used in the sense of permitting. Do not suffer us or permit us, to be tempted to sin. In this it is implied that God 'has such control over us and the tempter, as to save us from it if we call on him."

When properly considered, this passage is an example of where the JST reading and the KJV/Book of Mormon are both correct. The KJV and Book of Mormon are literal interpretations while the JST is an interpretive translation that is also correct. Given Joseph's relative inexperience in prophetic interpretation in 1829, he would be far more likely to render a verse literally than engage in interpretation.