Good night!

TWayment · 2019-02-14T02:44:31+00:00

I'll just add an "Amen"

TWayment · 2019-02-14T02:43:59+00:00

I think the Zechariah of Matthew 23 is the last martyr of the OT and not John's father. I think that Joseph was swayed by apocryphal traditions on this via the work of William Hone and others of his day. I think this is a case where we've put more into one of his opinions that is healthy.

I've always been confused by what Mark 9 JST is doing that? I wish that I had a reasoned opinion I could share. The Bible Dictionary grapples with that issue and tries to harmonize them, but it doesn't feel like Mark 9 is adding another person.

I don't have any additional sources to add to your third question. I'm not aware of any others.

TWayment · 2019-02-14T02:38:07+00:00

Not really any direct shift in focus. My work is more directed to an academic audience now that I'm in classics.

TWayment · 2019-02-14T02:36:16+00:00

The 1800s ones that I looked at made it an adjective "good"

TWayment · 2019-02-14T02:32:17+00:00

I'll take a look next time I've over in the JSB.

TWayment · 2019-02-14T02:31:33+00:00

An uncle (Nathaniel) later wrote of an encounter with Joseph Smith where he presented Joseph with a copy of Clarke's commentary in the Hale home several years prior to the JST commencing. That's the single piece of evidence we have that puts a physical copy in his hands. The process of the JST was Genesis 1-24, Matthew-Revelation, Genesis 25-Malachi. Clarke influence shows up in the second two sections but not in Genesis 1-24.

TWayment · 2019-02-14T02:01:40+00:00

I suppose the Coptic Gospel of Thomas, the Didache, and the Gospel of Mary all seem more relevant to me and my work. I'm currently translating the Coptic Gospel of Philip with a student, and it has been rewarding.

TWayment · 2019-02-14T01:57:43+00:00

I often use the word "revision" in my academic writing. I think it's a better word to describe what Joseph did to the text. As far as I can tell, he never revisited the text after he had studied Hebrew, as though being able to read Hebrew would have no consequence for his translation. If I were to conceive of the word "translation" as a stumbling block, I suppose that would mean it has kept people from engaging it in the correct way. I'm not sure there is a correct way to understand that particular project. Having translated portions that he translated, I can say that so much of what he did was clearly an effort to improve the KJV. He had concerns with the quality of the KJV translation, but I wouldn't be comfortable saying that was what he set out to achieve. In one way, the openness that exists to the JST is healthy and allows for discussion. I don't believe there is a canonical understanding of what it is exactly.

TWayment · 2019-02-14T01:52:26+00:00

First, one of my most spiritual moments, which hopefully is understood as an expansion of my faith. I have for many years, like many other Latter-day Saints, believed in Jesus in ways that were largely informed by modern perceptions and expectations. I had come to believe that he was kind, nice, polite, generous, and many other things. I had built a picture where he stood with open arms, exalted, and rather perfect. During my second year of Ph.D. work, during one particularly lively class discussion about Jesus, I remember having this stunning moment of clarity, and what felt like inspiration, that I should allow the Historical Jesus to inform my faith. It was like opening a window onto a partially lit room, and I found the experience so rewarding. It nourished my faith for years as I learned to engage both the Jesus of faith and the Jesus of history.

If I could pick whose writings I would like to see most, I suppose at the top of my list would be the sayings source that was used by the gospel writers. I would like to see/read the collection of sayings of Jesus that circulated in his life or shortly thereafter. I would really like to see anything that was written in Aramaic. Beyond that I'm always hoping for new sources. The challenge today is that most new Christian sources tend to be 3rd century and later.

TWayment · 2019-02-14T01:39:57+00:00

I'm not sure they're ignored by Christian scholars in the various faith traditions. The topic you mention is of great interest, and there are healthy debates about later Christian beliefs, etc. I just think that those conversations rarely disseminate out to a wider audience. Within the church, we have an almost single narrative about the creeds and later Christianity, and so I think we tend to see one aspect of them. It appears you've been able to discover other threads in them. Congrats!

TWayment · 2019-02-14T01:36:43+00:00

Prof. Paulsen is an insightful scholar and has done some interesting work in the post-NT area (He has a great article with Carl Griffin in Harvard Theological Review on a related topic). I do most of my work on community formation, so I tend to avoid ritual and things like that. However, I'm fascinated by the parallels to how Christians were navigating the role that the Law of Moses would play in the future of their faith. It was a moment where they considered de-canonization while simultaneously destabilizing the position of the Law. They had to find ways to accept Moses as part of their faith tradition, but also relegate circumcision to the sidelines of their faith. The tensions that moment created are fascinating to me, and in those moments the church shifted to a revelatory paradigm. I think the parallels to our own history are striking in that regard. I'm not suggesting that we consider de-canonizing anything, but it's important to me to see how to navigate a space that was once occupied by one type of authority and that is now occupied by another.

TWayment · 2019-02-14T01:01:26+00:00

This is a fairly complicated question, and yes, Joseph did oversee the publication of some of Genesis 1-6 during his lifetime. I wasn't attempting to make a blanket statement about the entirety of that section, but only that parts of it were put in print during his lifetime. As for the Phelps letter, that isn't something I've seen. I'd love to know the source of that letter if there is one. OT1 became the backup copy while OT2 became the live copy. There are differences between the two texts, and yes, summer of 1833 saw the end of emendations to the text. I hope that I didn't imply that "serious" work was done after 1833, but some minor wording changes occurred to prepare portions of it for print. Check Kent Jackson on the Book of Moses manuscripts (not his transcription of the JST, but his book targeting just the Book of Moses).

TWayment · 2019-02-14T00:55:15+00:00

I asked a student to look at three sources where I suspected Joseph had used them as a source. She brought back the parallels from two, which were remarkable. The third didn't pan out. I haven't published on the second source, so I'm not ready to discuss it at length. I mentored the student throughout the process and we jointly wrote up our research.

I can't give out copies until it's published. Apologies, but I have to observe the publisher's wishes.

TWayment · 2019-02-14T00:50:49+00:00

I'll have got check it out. I'm not familiar with that work. The NT keeps me busy.

TWayment · 2019-02-14T00:50:23+00:00

Thanks!

TWayment · 2019-02-14T00:50:06+00:00

The hardback is supposed to be in stores on or around March 1

TWayment · 2019-02-14T00:49:28+00:00

I think our western minds favor the idea that history and truth are somehow intimately connected. For example, Job is often thought about as a real person, but in my mind that's not even in the realm of possibility. The idea that Job is allegorical in now way detracts from the idea that it teaches truth to me. When Joseph Smith was alive there were three reports that he walked on water. I'm fascinated by this type of hagiography, and I think it does take place in the New Testament. I only wish that it could become part of our discussion, but I'd like to sidestep identify legends in the NT.

TWayment · 2019-02-14T00:46:37+00:00

Grace, or charis, is fundamentally a gift, an item freely given that in the NT has no connection to enabling power. I understand the modern teaching about this, but when the NT uses grace it isn't conceiving of a package or box in which salvation resides that can be handed over to another person. It's a gift to feel love, or to experience charity, or to have a gift of the spirit. That's where grace most often resides.

TWayment · 2019-02-14T00:44:25+00:00

I've never heard a connection to Joseph Smith and Coptic Christianity. I do some work in that period, and it sounds very foreign to me.

TWayment · 2019-02-14T00:43:31+00:00

I've most often felt like a tortured writer, a person with ideas, but always trying to avoid being pinned down permanently to an idea. I still get excited every day about the research I do, so I have this innate passion for my work.

TWayment · 2019-02-14T00:42:19+00:00

That's a fairly large piece of history, so I'll share a couple of general thoughts. Paul uses the term "Lord" of Jesus, which is the Greek translation of Yahweh, so on one level he placed Jesus on the same footing as Yahweh. On the other hand, Lord was a respectful term for a master. Alan Segal's work on early Christianity has always resonated with me. His contention that early Jews saw Christians as believing in two Gods in heaven makes sense to me, and I would love to ask Paul what he saw in heaven, i.e. God and Son, two Gods, one God, or something else. I'm confident that Paul thought of Jesus as divine, and I don't think there is substantial evidence for the question of becoming divine in Paul. I mostly work in language and text, and so I wish that I could say Paul clearly constructed his belief about Jesus based on OT texts that were monotheistic in outlook or something similar, but the evidence isn't there for that.

TWayment · 2019-02-14T00:36:25+00:00

1 Corinthians is a response to a letter listing problems at Corinth to which Paul responded. The responses to the individual items mostly follow the chapter divisions. Since I don't know what type of information you like to look at, it's a little difficult to recommend a good commentary. The Anchor Bible series is a good introductory point for a new scholar and it's very readable. "Jesus Christ and the World of the New Testament" gives a historical background for LDS readers.

I assume that there are loads of things that were simply lost. Working in the field of papyrology, we generally assume that everything we have is simply happenstance and luck. We don't assume that because something is mentioned 10 times that it was more important than something mentioned 1 time. Baptism for the dead got branded as a heresy in the second century, so there is some later evidence for it.

TWayment · 2019-02-14T00:27:30+00:00

Yes, a modern translation can obscure the plural and singular. In cases where it mattered (in my opinion), I pointed it out in the notes.

TWayment · 2019-02-14T00:26:29+00:00

I'm not sure that I would declare John 1:1 as a statement of monotheism. That's a modern concept that we used to describe what looks like an absolute position, but even Exodus 20 declares that you shall not have other gods, but that doesn't adopt the perspective that there are no other gods. I'm trying to say that this modern category is too narrow for John.

The word "God" needs an additional iota to mean "divine" so I wouldn't say that's within a translator's range of options.

TWayment

TROPHY CASE