Hello, recently I’ve been studying some of the anti-mormon material. I enjoy studying it and then proving it wrong. My primary resource for proving anti-mormon critics wrong is FAIRLDS and this site. FAIRLDS doesn’t have anything on this specific anti-mormon topic, so perhaps you can answer my question. In the Bible, Golgotha is interpreted as “place of a skull,” but the JST changes this to “place of burial.” However, the Greek work Golgotha truly does mean “place of a skull.” How can this be explained? I remember reading somewhere that Joseph Smith’s translation of the Bible weren’t always inspired, but sometimes he just translated it according to what he believed to be an “obvious” need for translation, could this be it? Was Joseph Smith simply mistaken?
2 Responses to “Hello, recently I’ve been studying some of the anti-mormon m…”
Gabriel Ramos
2010-04-11 00:01:21
Joseph Smith was the first president of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. He received a message from God to restore Christs ancient church in modern times.
Hi Lowell. I'm also a huge fan of FAIRLDS! I've spent many hours reading through the answers posted on their site. They do a fantastic job.
Pamela gave an excellent answer; I thought I'd just add a few additional thoughts. Joseph often used the word "translate" in ways that modern speakers of English would not. The 1828 Noah Webster Dictionary reveals that "translate" could also mean "interpret" in Joseph's time. The work Joseph did bringing to light the Book of Mormon was clearly a translation in the sense that we understand it today. Though he translated using methods no modern scholar would use, the end result was to convey a foreign-language text in English
However, many of Joseph's other "translations" could be better described as divinely-inspired "interpretations" or "revelations." For example, the Book of Moses was not translated from any foreign-language text Joseph had in his position. It was received entirely by revelation.
I see the Joseph Smith Translation as being a divinely inspired Biblical interpretation, a Biblical commentary, rather than a literal translation. In many cases Joseph did restore the original meaning of the ancient texts, but in other cases he simply tried to clarify the texts' true meaning.
It's worth mentioning, also, that Joseph Smith never finished his "translation." As it is not a finished work, the JST has never been canonized and is not doctrinally binding. Hope this answer helps.
Pamela Dean
2010-04-05 15:14:25
Personally I believe that Joseph was more inspired than he is given credit for by even faithful latter-day saints. The interpretation of "Golgotha" meaning "place of the skull" is a very popular theory and belief. However, it is not the only one. One has to remember that most of who read scriptures are reading translations of translations of copies of copies, so while many things may remain essentially unchanged, errors and misunderstandings and mistranslations do occur. A prime example would be the depiction of Moses with horns protruding from his forehead as painted by Michaelangelo and other artists, based on a mistranslation of a Hebrew word which could also mean "radiance". "Golgotha" in Greek does mean "place of the skull". But perhaps one should ask what this actually means: why would a place be known as "place of the skull"? Well, according to the Itinerarium Burdigalense, which was written around 330ad by a pilgrim to the Holy Land, this hilltop was littered with bones - including skulls - of the people who had been executed there. Scattering of bones by carrion could be considered a form of burial. According to the Catholic encyclopedia, the hill was so named because it was a burial place, and thus would have contained the skulls of those who had been buried there. There is also a Jewish tradition that states that Adam's skull was buried here - hence "place of the skull" not "place of many skulls", Adam being our first earthly father. This theory would seem to be supported by the Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, who do not use the plural "skulls" when referring to the place. But, again, there is reference to burial. The other theory for the name of the place has to do with a physical description of the area, which apparently has the appearance of a skull due to the rock formations. On the surface, this doesn't appear to have any reference to burial, but when one considers that Jewish burials took place in caves, the openings for eye sockets, nasal passages, and the mouth would have created ideal openings to be used as burial caves/tombs, so again, there is reference to burial in this theory. All of these theories, however, are predicated upon the notion that "Golgotha" is the correct Greek word being used. There is another theory, however, that states that Golgotha has been mistranslated, and that it actually comes from the Aramaic "gol goatha", meaning "mount of execution", and that it may refer to the geographical description of Jeresalem mentioned in Jeremiah 31: 38-39: "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord , that the city shall be built to the Lord From the tower of Hananeel unto the gate of the corner. And the measuring line shall yet go forth over against it upon the hill Gareb, and shall compass about to Goath." The LDS Bible dictionary favours the Aramaic rather than the Greek origin of the name, and, incidentally, this interpretation does not negate any of the aforementioned theories, nor Joseph's interpretation of the word. (It is important to remember that Joseph's 'translations' of the KJV are better described as 'interpretations' to bring clarity to the text.)
With this in mind, I think it is very important to remember that the adversary has many insidious ways of corrupting our beliefs. There are many anti-LDS people who use this example as "proof" that Joseph was a fraud. In attacking Joseph on this front, they are also attacking every other church who disagrees with their particualr point of view, albeit silently. One must ask why Joseph's teachings on this subject - and many others - are so often attacked when these same people do not attack others who believe the same thing? Well, in my quest to find a church where I could believe all the the doctrines and principles, I studied and attended countless churches and religions. Without fail, I *always* found things that I already believed in every other church. Not once did I walk away because I found no truth. Rather, I walked away because I sensed it was not the whole truth. Good people, good beliefs... But I *knew* there was more. In my nine years as a member and six years as an investigator, I have not found even one teaching of Joseph's that was not taught elsewhere. The difference? I have a strong and fervent testimony that Joseph was inspired and guided by the Lord to bring all truth together, to reunite truth in its entirety. Anti-LDS focus on 'disproving' the things they don't agree with. How many times do you hear them talk about the things we actually agree upon and share common beliefs about? In the particular example you quoted, why is that Joseph and our church is singled out, when Catholics, Jews, and some Protestant churches at the very least also have differing views from that particular detractor of the church? The answer, I believe, is that the adversary is all too aware of the power of truth and light, and therefore, seeks every opportunity to confuse and confound, to lead astray the souls of men, to cause doubt and a gradual weakening of testimony that eventually falls just short of apostasy. Was Joseph mistaken? I choose to believe he was not. I choose to believe that there are many mysteries of the kingdom which I do not understand. But I also choose to not fuel the fires lit by detractors of beliefs I hold most dear through engaging them and thereby giving credance to their work and turning my thoughts and activity from faithbuilding wholesome activities to those of contention.
Pamela gave an excellent answer; I thought I'd just add a few additional thoughts. Joseph often used the word "translate" in ways that modern speakers of English would not. The 1828 Noah Webster Dictionary reveals that "translate" could also mean "interpret" in Joseph's time. The work Joseph did bringing to light the Book of Mormon was clearly a translation in the sense that we understand it today. Though he translated using methods no modern scholar would use, the end result was to convey a foreign-language text in English
However, many of Joseph's other "translations" could be better described as divinely-inspired "interpretations" or "revelations." For example, the Book of Moses was not translated from any foreign-language text Joseph had in his position. It was received entirely by revelation.
I see the Joseph Smith Translation as being a divinely inspired Biblical interpretation, a Biblical commentary, rather than a literal translation. In many cases Joseph did restore the original meaning of the ancient texts, but in other cases he simply tried to clarify the texts' true meaning.
It's worth mentioning, also, that Joseph Smith never finished his "translation." As it is not a finished work, the JST has never been canonized and is not doctrinally binding. Hope this answer helps.
With this in mind, I think it is very important to remember that the adversary has many insidious ways of corrupting our beliefs. There are many anti-LDS people who use this example as "proof" that Joseph was a fraud. In attacking Joseph on this front, they are also attacking every other church who disagrees with their particualr point of view, albeit silently. One must ask why Joseph's teachings on this subject - and many others - are so often attacked when these same people do not attack others who believe the same thing? Well, in my quest to find a church where I could believe all the the doctrines and principles, I studied and attended countless churches and religions. Without fail, I *always* found things that I already believed in every other church. Not once did I walk away because I found no truth. Rather, I walked away because I sensed it was not the whole truth. Good people, good beliefs... But I *knew* there was more. In my nine years as a member and six years as an investigator, I have not found even one teaching of Joseph's that was not taught elsewhere. The difference? I have a strong and fervent testimony that Joseph was inspired and guided by the Lord to bring all truth together, to reunite truth in its entirety. Anti-LDS focus on 'disproving' the things they don't agree with. How many times do you hear them talk about the things we actually agree upon and share common beliefs about? In the particular example you quoted, why is that Joseph and our church is singled out, when Catholics, Jews, and some Protestant churches at the very least also have differing views from that particular detractor of the church? The answer, I believe, is that the adversary is all too aware of the power of truth and light, and therefore, seeks every opportunity to confuse and confound, to lead astray the souls of men, to cause doubt and a gradual weakening of testimony that eventually falls just short of apostasy. Was Joseph mistaken? I choose to believe he was not. I choose to believe that there are many mysteries of the kingdom which I do not understand. But I also choose to not fuel the fires lit by detractors of beliefs I hold most dear through engaging them and thereby giving credance to their work and turning my thoughts and activity from faithbuilding wholesome activities to those of contention.