Pyhät kirjat

Innoitettu raamatunkäännös

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.

Olimme kovin innokkaita, silloin Josephin päivinä, saamaan uuden käännöksen; mutta Raamattu on hyvä sellaisena kuin se on, se riittää tarkoitukseeni ... Journal of Discourses, vol. 3, p. 116

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.

... 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:

"The Church uses the King James Version of the Bible because it is the best version translated by the power of man" (Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 3, p.191).

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:

The revision of the Bible which was done by Joseph Smith at the command of the Lord was not a complete revision of the Bible. There are many parts of the Bible in which the Prophet did not change the meaning where it is incorrect. He revised as far as the Lord permitted him at the time, and it was his intention to do more, but because of persecution this was not accomplished (Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 3, p.191).

Reed Durham says that

"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:

... I have commanded you to organize yourselves, even to shinelah [print] my words, the fulness of my scriptures ...(Doctrine and Covenants, 104:58).

... the second lot ... shall be dedicated unto me for the building of a house unto me, for the work of the printing of the translation of my scriptures ... (94:10).

... let him [William Law] from henceforth hearken to the counsel of my servant Joseph,... and publish the new translation of my holy word unto the inhabitants of the earth (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:

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