Keväällä v. 1831 Joseph Smith aloitti
työn, jota kutsuttiin "Innoitetuksi raamatunkäännökseksi".
Se ei suurelta osalta ollut lainkaan käännös, vaan
pikemminkin Kuningas Jaakon raamatunkäännöksen
tarkistettu laitos.
William E. Berrett, Palautettu kirkko, 1956 engl. laitos,
s. 134.
Herran käskystä ja ilmoituksen hengen johdatuksella
toimien profeetta korjasi, revisoi, muutti, lisäsi ja poisti
tekstiä Kuningas Jaakon raamatunkäännöksestä
muodostaakseen sen, mihin nykyään yleisesti viitataan
nimellä Innoitettu raamatunkäännös. ...
Raamatun innoitetun version kautta ilmoitettu ihmeellinen valon
ja tiedon virta on yksi suuri todiste Joseph Smithin jumalallisesta
tehtävästä.
Apostoli Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 1958, ss.
351-52.
Itse asiassa Innoitetusta raamatunkäännöksestä
on aiheutunut mormonikirkon johtajille paljon päänvaivaa.
Sitä ei koskaan painettu Joseph Smithin elinaikana; hänen
leskensä Emma piti käsikirjoituksen, eikä suostunut
antamaan sitä Brigham Youngin lähettämälle Willard
Richardsille. Young sanoi silloin kuin kettu pihlajanmarjoista yrittäen
vähätellä kirjoitusten tärkeyttä:
Olimme kovin innokkaita, silloin Josephin päivinä,
saamaan uuden käännöksen; mutta Raamattu on hyvä
sellaisena kuin se on, se riittää tarkoituksiini ...
Journal of Discourses, osa 3, s. 116
Tämä lausunto näyttää siinä sivussa
asettavan kyseenalaiseksi Josephin 10.1.1832 saaman ilmoituksen
ja käskyn Jumalalta uudistaa pyhät kirjoitukset, joka
on
Opin ja liittojen kirjan luvussa 73:
3. Nyt, totisesti minä sanon teille, palvelijani
Joseph Smith nuorempi ja Sidney Rigdon, sanoo Herra, että
on tarpeen jälleen kääntää;
4. ja sikäli kuin mahdollista, saarnata lähiseuduilla
aina konferenssiin asti, ja sen jälkeen on hyväksi jatkaa
käännöstyötä, kunnes se on valmis.
Mormonioppinut Reed C. Durham, Jr. kertoo seuraavaa:
... God had commanded him to make that Revision. The command
from God was reason enough, the knowledge gained from the above
revelation conditioned his soul to better understand that command.
There are eighteen sections in the Doctrine and Covenants wherein
the Lord gives commands and specific instructions relating to
the Revision. ("A History of Joseph Smith's Revision of
the Bible," tohtorinväitöskirja, Brigham Young
University, 1965, ss. 23-24).
To the early Church members this work was considered to be
an important and an essential part of the restoration work,
whereas, in the present day, the Revision work is too often
thought to be a lesser work not essential to the work of the
Lord (p.72).
Though it was clear to the Church that it was the Lord's will
that the Revision should be published, the lack of sufficient
time and money, prevented its publication during Joseph Smith's
lifetime (p.83).
When the Reorganized Church printed the "inspired revision"
in 1867, Brigham Young was very much opposed to the idea of members
of his church receiving it from an "apostate" organization.
Apostle Orson Pratt, on the other hand, wanted to accept it and
this caused some conflict between the two men.
Although the Mormon church has never printed the Inspired Version,
the Reorganized Church's printing is now available at the Mormon-owned
Deseret Book Store, and Mormon scholars use it freely in their
writings.
Apostle John A. Widtsoe affirms:
Joseph Smith accepted the Bible as far as it was translated
correctly but felt that many errors which should be corrected
had crept into the work of the copyist and translators. ...
he endeavored through inspiration from on high to correct those
many departures from the original text. This was not fully completed
when he died, but his manuscript exists in the original and
in copies, and has been published by the Reorganized Church
of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. It is a remarkable evidence
of the prophetic power of Joseph Smith. Hundreds of changes
make clear many a disputed text. (Joseph Smith — Seeker
After Truth, s. 251)
Dr. Truman G. Madsen, of the Brigham Young University, has assured
that
the recent 1944 New Corrected Edition of the Reorganized Church,
which book many interested Latter-day Saints have acquired,
is faithful to the original manuscript and a most accurate printing....
this edition is worthy of trust. (Improvement Era, maal.
1970, s. 70)
Before Joseph Fielding Smith became president of the church he
claimed that he wanted the church to publish its own edition of
the "inspired revision." He finally became president
in 1970, but the church still did not make any move toward publishing
Joseph Smith's "inspired revision."
On November 20, 1974, the Mormon church obtained microfilm copies
of the original manuscripts of the "inspired revision"
from the Reorganized Church. We do not feel, however, that any
president of the church will allow this book to be printed because
it would tend to embarrass the church and to show that Joseph
Smith was not a prophet of God.
The Mormon church is faced with a peculiar dilemma with regard
to Joseph Smith's "inspired revision." They cannot reject
it entirely without admitting that he was a deceiver. On the other
hand, if they were to print the revision and fully endorse it,
they would be faced with equally unsurmountable problems. The
contents of the "inspired revision" actually contradict
doctrines that are now taught in the Mormon church.
Therefore, the Mormon church can neither fully accept nor fully
reject the Inspired Version of the Bible. They claim that Joseph
Smith was inspired to translate, and then turn right around and
use the King James Version. Joseph Fielding Smith stated:
Kirkko käyttää Raamatusta kuningas Jaakon raamatunkäännöstä,
koska se on paras raamatunkäännös, joka on käännetty
ihmisen voimasta. Pelastuksen oppeja, osa 3, s. 172
Since the Mormon leaders cannot come right out and say that Joseph
Smith made mistakes in his Inspired Version, they have devised
another excuse to keep from fully endorsing it. They claim that
Joseph Smith never finished the translation. Joseph Fielding Smith
wrote:
Joseph Smithin Herran käskystä laatima raamatunkäännös
ei ollut täydellinen raamatunkäännös. Raamatussa
on monia kohtia, joissa profeetta ei muuttanut merkitystä,
joka ei ole oikea. Hän teki korjauksia sikäli kuin
Herra salli hänen sillä hetkellä tehdä,
ja hän aikoi tehdä enemmän, mutta vainon tähden
tätä ei saatu päätökseen. Pelastuksen
oppeja, osa 3, s. 173
Reed Durham sanoo:
"the Revision was incomplete because after it was finished
it still contained errors and contradictions" ("A
History of Joseph Smith's Revision of the Bible," p.128).
While we certainly agree that Joseph Smith's "inspired
revision" still contains "errors and contradictions,"
there is evidence to show that at one time the early Mormons considered
it to have been complete. In fact, in the Doctrine and Covenants
73:4, Joseph Smith was commanded to "continue the work of
translation until it be finished."
In the History of the Church, under the date of February 2, 1833,
we find this statement by Joseph Smith:
"I completed the translation and review of the New Testament,
on the 2nd of February, 1833, and sealed it up, no more to be
opened till it arrived in Zion" (History of the Church,
vol. 1, p.324).
In the Church Chronology, by Andrew Jenson, we find the following
under the date of February 2, 1833:
"Joseph Smith, jun., completed the translation of the
New Testament."
Under the date of July 2, 1833, this statement appears:
"Joseph the Prophet finished the translation of the Bible."
In a letter dated July 2, 1833, signed by Joseph Smith, Sidney
Rigdon, and F. G. Williams, the following statement is found:
"We this day finished the translation of the Scriptures,
for which we return gratitude to our Heavenly Father ..."
(History of the Church, vol. 1, p.368).
Mormon writer Arch S. Reynolds says that
"the scriptures at that time were considered finished.
This is proved by revelation from the Lord commanding the printing
and publishing the same ... the Lord felt that the Bible contained
his word and also was given in fulness" ("A Study
of Joseph Smith's Bible Revision," typed copy, p.17).
In the Doctrine and Covenants, Joseph Smith was definitely commanded
to print the Inspired Version:
... minä olen käskenyt teidän järjestyä ja sinela [painattaa]
minun sanani, kirjoitusteni täyteyden ... (LK 104:58)
... Toinen maa-ala etelään päin pyhitettäköön minulle talon
rakentamiseksi minulle kirjoitusteni käännöksen painamista varten
... (94:10)
... Jos hän [William Law] tahtoo tehdä minun tahtoni, niin
hän kuulkoon tästedes palvelijani Josephin neuvoa,... ja julkaiskoon
pyhän sanani uuden käännöksen maan asukkaille. (124:89)
A
photograph of the History of the Church, vol. 1, page 368. Joseph
Smith says he finished the translation of the Bible on July 2,
1833.
These commandments were never obeyed:
Why the Bible was not published is still an enigma; of course
the Saints were unsettled: they were persecuted, but many other
works were published so why not the Holy Scriptures?... The
Lord gave Joseph a commandment to publish the Bible to the world,
and the Lord prepared the way to accomplish this but it was
not fulfilled. (Arch S. Reynolds, "A Study of Joseph Smith's
Bible Revision," p.32)
Even with all the money the Mormon church has today, it still
has not obeyed the command to publish the Inspired Version of
the Bible to the world.
Perhaps the strangest thing of all concerning the Inspired Version
of the Bible is the fact that Joseph Smith himself did not take
it seriously. For instance, he ignored his own "inspired"
renderings concerning the Godhead:
At times Joseph Smith ignored his own renderings of the Inspired
Bible and quoted the King James version in his letters, sermons,
etc...
In twenty-six different quotations to different parties in
and out of the Church ... in the first six volumes of the History
of the Church, they are like the King James Bible although he
had given previous varied renderings in the Inspired Bible.
These passages are pertaining to all the principles of the gospel....
The above various renderings as given by Joseph differing in
essential parts from both the King James and his previous revision
show that he had grown in doctrine and had broadened in learning
German, Greek, and Hebrew.
(Arch S. Reynolds, "A Study of Joseph Smith's Bible Revision,"
typed copy, pp.20, 21, 25)
While it took many scholars, who were authorities in Greek and
Hebrew, years to complete the King James Version of the Bible,
Joseph Smith began his work without any knowledge of these languages
and completed it in three years. Reynolds clarified the matter:
We know that Joseph Smith was not at that time familiar with
either the Greek or Hebrew language; therefore it would be impossible
for him to have translated the Bible from the original tongues.
Later, however, the need of the knowledge of these languages
was seen by him, so he studied those languages and became quite
proficient in reading the holy scriptures in those tongues.
But in 1830, he was unlearned in those ancient languages. So,
technically speaking, he did not translate the scriptures in
his Inspired Bible.
(Arch S. Reynolds, "A Study of Joseph Smith's Bible Revision,"
p.61)
Although some Mormon scholars now hesitate to call Joseph Smith's
Inspired Version a translation, Robert J. Matthews points out
that
every reference to it in the Doctrine and Covenants and the
History of the Church calls it a translation. (BYU Studies,
Autumn 1968, p.3)
R. C. Evans registered this comment about Joseph's Inspired Version:
Those who wish to read this marvellous work, the new Bible
translated by Joseph Smith, by direct revelation, will discover
that he has not translated a single word, that he had no manuscript
of any kind, that he was an ignorant young man, is admitted.
There is no evidence that he compared any originals with each
other, nor could he have done so if the originals were before
him. The claim is that it was all done by direct inspiration
from the Almighty, but to call it a translation is the height
of impudence and nonsense....
Here is the secret of Smith's power to translate. He read the
Bible, thought that such and such a change should be made, either
by adding a few verses, or taking away a few verses. If he had
the burning sensation in his bosom it was right, and so he cut
and slashed away at the Word of God to his heart's content,
and the result is the Mormon Bible (Forty Years in the Mormon
Church-Why I Left It! Toronto, Canada, 1920, pp.111-12).
Joseph Smith not only made many unnecessary changes in the Bible,
but he also failed to see the places where the text of the Bible
really needed correction. There is one statement in the King James
Version, 1 John 5:7 and 8, which scholars are certain is an interpolation.
In modern versions of the Bible this statement has been removed
to conform with the ancient Greek manuscripts. Following is a
comparison of the text in the King James Version and that found
in the Revised Standard Version:
|
1 John 5:6-8
|
|
King James Version
|
Revised Standard Version
|
| 6. This is he that came by water and blood,
even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood.
And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit
is truth. |
6. This is he who came by water and blood, Jesus
Christ, not with the water only but with the water and the
blood. |
| 7. For there are three that bear record in heaven,
the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three
are one. |
7. And the Spirit is the witness, because the
Spirit is the truth. |
| 8. And there are three that bear witness in
earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these
three agree in one. |
8. There are three witnesses, the Spirit, the
water, and the blood; and these three agree. |
In Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts, page 258, we
learn that
the text is found in no Greek MSS. except a few of very late
date in which it has been inserted from the Latin. It is a purely
Latin interpolation of African origin, which, beginning as a
gloss, first found its way into the text of Spain, where it
appears in the Freising Fragments, and later in the Vulgate
codices Cavensis and Toletanus. Thence it spread over Europe
as an unequivocal Scripture 'proof' of the doctrine of the Trinity.
Even in Joseph Smith's time this portion of 1 John was rejected
by many scholars. Adam Clarke wrote:
Though a conscientious advocate for the sacred doctrine contained
in the disputed text, and which I think expressly enough revealed
in several other parts of the sacred writings, I must own the
passage in question stands on a most dubious foundation.
(Clarke's Commentary, vol. 6, p.929).
An examination of the writings of Mormon scholars reveals that
they also question the authenticity of this verse. Arch S. Reynolds
stated:
The extraneous matter added in the Authorized Version is clearly
an interpolation ...
("A Study of Joseph Smith's Bible Revision," p.169)
Richard L. Anderson, of Brigham Young University, agrees:
One of the few major additions that seem apparent is I John
5:7.... The text of the fifth century did not speak of the heavenly
Trinity, and the fact that very few Greek manuscripts add the
heavenly Trinity makes it probable that this comment was not
an original part of John's letter.
(Fourteenth Annual Symposium on the Archaeology of the Scriptures,
BYU, 1963, p.53)
Now, if Joseph Smith was inspired at all in his work on the Scriptures
we would expect to find this interpolation removed in his "inspired
revision." Instead, however, we find that it appears exactly
as written in the King James Version:
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father,
the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one.
And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit,
and the water, and the blood; and these three agree in one.
(Inspired Version, by Joseph Smith, 1 John 5:7-8)
In our book Mormon Scriptures and the Bible we presented
more evidence to show that Joseph Smith relied so heavily upon
the King James Version of the Bible that he failed to see some
of the real textual problems found in the Bible. While this is
certainly a serious defect in Joseph Smith's work, even more objectionable
is the fact that he made changes which cannot be supported by
any evidence. For instance, John 1:1 in the King James Version
reads:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God,
and the Word was God.
Joseph Smith, however, changed this verse to read:
In the beginning was the gospel preached through the Son.
And the gospel was the word, and the word was with the Son,
and the Son was with God, and the Son was of God.
(Inspired Version, John 1:1)
To our knowledge Joseph Smith's rendition of this verse is not
supported by any evidence. In fact, in Mormonism-Shadow or
Reality? p.384, we show that "Papyrus Bodmer II,"
dated about 200 A.D., reads exactly like the King James Version.
Mormon writer Robert J. Matthews admits that
in the main the passages revised by Joseph Smith are not supported
by the three great parchment manuscripts that now enjoy popularity,
nor by the thousands of Papyrus manuscripts and fragments, nor
by the Dead Sea Scrolls. In some few passages there is a type
of similarity but these are the exception rather than the rule.
("Joseph Smith's Revision of the Bible," by Robert
J. Matthews, 1968, typed copy, p.17)
Dr. Sperry, of Brigham Young University, made a similar admission
with regard to the text of the Sermon on the Mount found in the
Book of Mormon:
The divergent readings of the Nephite text are all interesting
and thought-provoking, but lack the confirmation of practically
all ancient Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. Nor do the
ancient versions lend much support, a fact which might well
be expected....
The remainder of 3 Nephi 12 differs in a marked degree from
the parallel readings in Matthew 5.... We point out here also
that the Greek manuscripts of the Gospels, as well as other
ancient versions offer little support to the divergent Nephite
readings.
(The Problems of the Book of Mormon, 1964, pp.105-6)
The best Dr. Sperry can offer his people is a hope that some
day supporting evidence in the Greek manuscripts will be found:
A Latter-day Saint textual critic would be thrilled to find
Greek manuscripts of the New Testament with readings like some
of those in the Book of Mormon. And who knows but someday some
will be found!
(Book of Mormon Institute, BYU, December 5, 1959, p.7)
In his "inspired revision" Joseph Smith even indicated
that the book of Genesis originally contained a prophecy concerning
the Book of Mormon and that his own name was mentioned there.
Over 800 words were added into Genesis 50:24. In this large interpolation
we find the following:
And that seer will I bless, and they that seek to destroy
him shall be confounded; for this promise I give unto you; for
I will remember you from generation to generation; and his name
shall be called Joseph, and it shall be after the name of his
father...
The reader will notice that the "choice seer" was to
be "called Joseph.... after the name of his father."
Joseph Smith was obviously referring to himself, for his father's
name was Joseph. Apostle Mark E. Petersen claimed that
one of the most interesting parts of the Old Testament as
it should have been, ... were the predictions pertaining to
Joseph Smith, through the writings of Joseph who was sold into
Egypt. (As Translated Correctly, p.64)
The Septuagint--a Greek version of the Old Testament said to
have been translated from the Hebrew before the time of Christ--offers
no support for Joseph Smith's "inspired revision" of
Genesis 50:24, but instead is almost identical with the King James
Version.
It is almost impossible to believe that this prophecy could have
been dropped from both the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts without
being detected. Mormon writer Merrill Y. Van Wagoner admits the
difficulty but suggests that such changes were planned by the
"Spirit of Darkness" (see The Inspired Revision of the
Bible, pp.33-34).
Besides adding his own name to the Bible, Joseph Smith added
many of his own views. For instance, his bias against Blacks is
apparent in several interpolations he made in the book of Genesis.
In the "inspired revision," Genesis 7:10, 14 and 29
we read:
And there was a blackness came upon all the children of Cainan,
that they were despised among all people.... Enoch continued
to call upon all the people, save it were the people of Cainan,
to repent.... the seed of Cain were black, and had not place
among them.
In the King James Version, Genesis 9:26 reads:
And he said, Blessed be the Lord God of Shem; and Canaan shall
be his servant.
In his Inspired Version, Joseph Smith changed this to indicate
that a "veil of darkness" came upon Canaan:
And he said, Blessed be the Lord God of Shem; and Canaan shall
be his servant, and a veil of darkness shall cover him, that
he shall be known among all men.
(Inspired Version, Gen.9:30)
Joseph Smith's rendition of this verse is not supported by the
Septuagint.
One of the most unusual things concerning Joseph Smith's "inspired
revision" is that he put New Testament quotations and practices
into the Old Testament. For instance, the "inspired revision"
indicates that Adam was baptized and received the Holy Ghost:
And he called upon our father Adam ... he also said unto him,
If thou wilt, turn unto me and hearken unto my voice, and believe,
and repent of all thy transgressions, and be baptized, even
in water, in the name of mine Only Begotten Son, who is full
of grace and truth, which is Jesus Christ, the only name which
shall be given under heaven, whereby salvation shall come unto
the children of men; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy
Ghost, asking all things in his name, and whatsoever ye shall
ask it shall be given you.
(Inspired Version, Genesis 6:52-53)
Mormon leaders have always had a great deal to say about apocryphal
books and claim that many books were removed from the Bible. Since
Joseph Smith was supposed to have been "inspired" in
his work on the Bible, we would expect to find the missing books
restored in his Inspired Version. While he did make some interpolations
in the Bible, he did not restore any of the "lost" books.
Robert J. Matthews admits:
Apparently he attempted to make an ammended or amplified version
rather than a literal translation. Nor did he attempt to restore
any of the so-called 'lost books' of the Bible.
(Joseph Smith's Revision of the Bible, p. 18)
Dr. Matthews refers us to the History of the Church, (vol. 1,
p.363). This is a letter written by Joseph Smith and his counselors,
in which was stated:
We have not found the Book of Jasher, nor any other of the
lost books mentioned in the Bible as yet; nor will we obtain
them at present.
Instead of restoring the "lost books," Joseph Smith
actually in the end had one less book than we have in the King
James Version. He claimed that
"The Songs of Solomon are not inspired writings"
and removed this book from his Bible (see "A History of
Joseph Smith's Revision of the Bible," pp.64-65).
Robert J. Matthews, director of academic research for the department
of seminaries and institutes in the Mormon church, has done a
great deal of research on Joseph Smith's Inspired Version. In
an article published in Brigham Young University Studies, Dr.
Matthews admits the possibility that Joseph Smith may have added
material which was never contained in the original manuscripts
of the Bible:
The question might be raised whether the Prophet actually restored
the text as Matthew wrote it, or whether, being the seer that
he was, he went beyond Matthew's text and recorded an event
that actually took place during the delivery of the Sermon,
but which Matthew did not include. This cannot be determined
with certainty; ... it is unlikely that he would "add or
take from" unless he did it by the authority of divine
revelation.... The how of the Prophet's revision of the Sermon
on the Mount calls for an expression of inspiration and could
represent either a restoration of material that was once in
Matthew's account of the Sermon, or could go beyond Matthew
and reiterate an event immediately behind the text which took
place during the Sermon but which Matthew did not record.
Another example of direct discourse found only in the Inspired
Version is Matthew 9:18-21 which tells of a confrontation between
Jesus and the Pharisees and relates an exchange of information
about the subject of baptism that is not recorded in the King
James Version.... As with the earlier example the question may
again be asked whether this encounter between Jesus and the
Pharisees actually took place as recorded in the Inspired Version.
It is either historical or it is not. If not historical then
it would simply be a literary device used by the Prophet to
convey a doctrine; but since the Prophet is not known to use
devices of this kind ... there is considerable reason to believe
that the Prophet regarded this passage as a statement of historical
fact. It seems reasonable to conclude that the Inspired Version
at this point represents either a restoration of Matthew's original
record or an addition of an event that took place in the ministry
of Jesus which Matthew did not record but which is, nevertheless,
germaine to the discussion in Matthew's account.... It is probable
that the Inspired Version is many things, and that only portions
of it represent restorations while other portions may be explanations,
interpolations, enlargements, clarifications and the like.
The science of textual criticism offers an objection to the
Inspired Version being a restoration of the original text on
the basis that the Prophet's work is not extensively supported
by the many ancient manuscripts and fragments of the Bible that
are now in common use by scholars. However, this may possibly
be accounted for in two ways. First, no original manuscripts
of the Bible are available, and even the earliest available
documents are removed from the originals by many decades. Corruption
of the texts could have taken place in the intervening years.
Second, many of the passages in the Inspired Version may be
reiterations of events which were either not recorded by the
Biblical writers or were lost before the Bible was compiled,
in which case even the original Bible manuscripts would not
contain the information....
My analysis leads me to conclude that the Inspired Version
is many things. There are passages that are strongly persuasive
of being restorations of the original text, or even of historical
events beyond the text. There are other passages that may be
inspired explanations, but not necessarily restorations (BYU
Studies, Winter 1969, pp.170-74).
Mormon scholar Dr. Hugh Nibley has stated that
Whatever translation comes by the gift and power of God is
certainly no translation in the ordinary sense.... In every
case in which he has produced a translation, Joseph Smith has
made it clear that his inspiration is by no means bound to any
ancient text, but is free to take wings at any time. (BYU Studies,
Autumn 1969, p.71)
Dr. Nibley and other Mormon scholars would, no doubt, like to
prove that Joseph Smith carefully followed the ancient texts which
he claimed to translate, but since the evidence is so clearly
against such an idea, they are forced to say that Joseph Smith's
inspiration went beyond the written texts. We feel that this is
an extremely compromised position and comes very close to rejecting
Joseph Smith's entire work. The question comes to mind: Where
do you draw the line between "inspiration" and "imagination"?
Toinen osa: muutettua tekstiä
