Nuggets from the NRSV

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

If you had the JST bible, wouldn't you want to know when you were reading a JS-edited portion? And wouldn't you want to know how it differs from the original?

From an academic perspective? Or from an ecclesiastical one?

[creekster]

Originally Posted by Tex

From an academic perspective? Or from an ecclesiastical one?

That may be a false dichotomy.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Furthermore, what I am longing for now is a dual NRSV-KJV copy of the bible (new testament at least) where I have the NRSV version of the left page and the KJV on the right. Now that would be awesome.

Well, this shows you how much I know. I quick search on amazon shows several such editions. Including this one with four parallel translations:

http://www.amazon.com/Laymans-Parall...993142&sr=1-11

[Tex]

Originally Posted by creekster

That may be a false dichotomy.

It's not a dichotomy at all. It's very open-ended. Feel free to add other perspectives.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by Tex

It's not a dichotomy at all. It's very open-ended. Feel free to add other perspectives.

Becasue the gosepl embraces all truth, I am nto sure there should be a distinction of these different persectives. Wouldn't the gospel include the academic, expecially as it pertains to the scritpures?

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Tex

It's not a dichotomy at all. It's very open-ended. Feel free to add other perspectives.

I would think the JST is more interesting from a historical perspective, than a pure theological perspective. It is not scholarly, but midrashic.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by creekster

Becasue the gosepl embraces all truth, I am nto sure there should be a distinction of these different persectives. Wouldn't the gospel include the academic, expecially as it pertains to the scritpures?

From a "pure truth" perspective, perhaps. But the interest I might have in the scriptures as a scholar would be very different than what I would seek as a spiritual or ecclesiastical leader.

For instance, it might be very interesting to know how a passage evolved through the translations from when it was spoken (A) to times when it was translated (B, C, D) to when I look at it now (E). It might tell me things about the bias of the translators or the perspective of whomever it was being translated for. But it wouldn't necessarily give me doctrinal truth.

For that, I go to the prophet. A prophetic translation of the same passage may or may not produce exactly what was spoken (A). It may instead be some derivative of what was said (A'), but it would convey the correct sense of the doctrine.

Originally Posted by Archaea

I would think the JST is more interesting from a historical perspective, than a pure theological perspective. It is not scholarly, but midrashic.

This is the same argument as Lebowski is making--that it's only commentary. While this is apparently the case in some circumstances, it's not the case in all.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Tex

This is the same argument as Lebowski is making--that it's only commentary. While this is apparently the case in some circumstances, it's not the case in all.

Because Joseph failed to declare it a finished work, I don't think the doctrinal insights are that important. And although you may claim the insertions to be replacements, I really don't find any of the claimed "revealed" passages consistent with current scholarship.

Find me a section which you consider a revealed passage, not commentary.

[Tex]

Here is Matthews' conclusion after his (heretofore) unprecedented look at JST manuscripts.

To regard the New Translation as a product of divine inspiration given to Joseph Smith does not necessarily assume that it be a restoration of the original Bible text. It seems probable that the New Translation could be many things. For example, the nature of the work may fall into at least four categories:

1. Portions may amount to restorations of content material once written by the biblical authors but since deleted from the Bible.

2. Portions may consist of actual historical events that were not recorded, or were recorded but never included in the biblical collection.

3. Portions may consist of inspired commentary by the Prophet Joseph Smith, enlarged, elaborated, and even adapted to a latter-day situation. This may be similar to what Nephi meant by "likening" the scriptures to himself and his people in their particular circumstance.

4. Some items may be a harmonization of doctrinal concepts that were revealed to the Prophet Joseph Smith independently of his translation of the Bible, but by means of which he was able to discover that biblical passage was inaccurate."

From "A Plainer Translation": Joseph Smith's Translation of the Bible.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Tex

Here is Matthews' conclusion after his (heretofore) unprecedented look at JST manuscripts.

From "A Plainer Translation": Joseph Smith's Translation of the Bible.

Find me evidence of 1 and 2.

3 and 4 I buy, but 1 and 2 I do not. I seem to recall some of the Genesis provisions which may be events not recorded, but I have no perfect recollection of those provisions right now. For the most part, the 'restored' provisions don't provide significant enough insight that Joseph felt the need to complete the work.