3

There is a whole Book of Moses that I cannot find any original manuscript for. Internally it clearly says that it is a translation "from the Bible":

An extract from the translation of the Bible as revealed to Joseph Smith the Prophet, June 1830–February 1831.

What Bible would Joseph Smith be referencing and what would have been his source manuscripts? Also, were there fragments of this manuscript found with the Dead Sea Scrolls?

3

This is from an article in the Church Magazine The Ensign published January 1986

The material constituting the eight chapters of the book of Moses is an extract from Joseph Smith’s translation of the Bible. More precisely, chapter one of Moses is an account of a revelation given to the Prophet Joseph just prior to, or at the commencement of, the translation, while Moses chapters two through eight constitute his translation of Genesis from chapter one through chapter six, verse thirteen. [Moses 1, 2–8; Gen. 1–6:13] The Joseph Smith translation of the Bible (hereafter identified as JST) began with Genesis and continued through the entire Bible to the book of Revelation. The initial draft of his Bible translation was made between June 1830 and July 1833. However, the short excerpt that we recognize as the book of Moses, being the early part of Genesis, was completed in its first draft by February 1831. 1

LDS.org "How We Got the Book of Moses"

BYU "History of the Book of Moses"

BYU-Idaho "The Book of Moses"

Joseph Smith's Translation of the Bible

Bible Dictionary

A revision or translation of the King James Version of the Bible begun by the Prophet Joseph Smith in June 1830. He was divinely commissioned to make the translation and regarded it as “a branch of his calling” as a prophet.

BYU

Joseph Smith often used the words "translated" and "translation," not in the narrow sense alone of rendering a text from one language into another, but in the wider senses of "transmission," having reference to copying, editing, adding to, taking from, rephrasing, and interpreting. This is substantially beyond the usual meaning of "translation." When he said the Bible was not translated correctly, he not only was referring to the difficulties of rendering the Bible into another language but he was also observing that the manuscripts containing the text of the Bible have suffered at the hands of editors, copyists, and revisionists through centuries of transmission. Thus, the available texts of the Bible are neither as complete nor as accurate as when first written.

Bible Dictionary

Although not the official Bible of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the JST offers many interesting insights and is an invaluable aid to biblical interpretation and understanding. It is a most fruitful source of useful information for the student of the scriptures. It is likewise a witness for the divine calling and ministry of the Prophet Joseph Smith.

Bible Dictionary "Joseph Smith Translation"

BYU "Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible (JST)

  • 1
    So, there is no manuscript in existence that could have been dated prior to 1830, which answers the second part of my question. The JST was a result, not of translation, but of transmission. Therefore there can be no comparison or confirmation, based on ancient manuscripts, or any fragments thereof. They did not exist. – Abstraction is everything. Jan 5 '17 at 17:10
  • 1
    @Abstractioniseverything., the information quoted from the The Ensign published January 1986 seems to be a tad incorrect because it says ", while Moses chapters two through eight constitute his translation of Genesis from chapter one through chapter six, verse thirteen." Although this is only incorrect inasmuch that while Moses 2-4 is a translation from Genesis, Moses ch. 5 onward to Moses ch. 8 includes additional material that is not in Genesis ch. 5. – SherlockEinstein Dec 22 '17 at 14:19
  • 1
    "he not only was referring to the difficulties of rendering the Bible into another language but he was also observing that the manuscripts containing the text of the Bible have suffered at the hands of editors, copyists, and revisionists through centuries of transmission" when these 'lost bits' can be anything a 'prophet' wants, there is no accountability to revelation, or falsifiability. Muslims claim this to 'prove' (again, with zero evidence) that Jesus was a Muslim. – Sola Gratia Dec 23 '17 at 17:00

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.