[David] You make some interesting comments in your Preface regarding the opinion of many people in modern society concerning Mormonism, which would presumably apply to the Book of Moses as well. Specifically, that Mormons seem to be a very superstitious people from the perspective of our modern, scientific world, with our beliefs based, as author J. Hannay once charged, on “the absurdity of seeing visions in the age of railways.” The Book of Moses, I would think, would be a prime example of this supposed fault: a book produced in modern times that contains a very traditional view of the Creation, very literal descriptions of Satan and of God’s corporeality, etc. It has a number of visions in which Moses and Enoch actually see God. It contains quite fanciful accounts of the Earth speaking and mourning and even God himself weeping. Do these elements and others in the Book of Moses lend support to a negative perception of Mormonism as outdated and what Mormons say as “mostly nonsense”? What weight should Latter-day Saints place on the Book of Moses as a part of their personal beliefs?

[Dr. Jeff Bradshaw] Our acceptance of the book of Moses as part of the LDS scriptural canon and, more generally, the premise that the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible might contain something more than a naïve personal update on passages that perplexed the Prophet has not only been a source of amusement for many non-Mormons, but also has drawn criticism from some within the tradition of the Restoration. Consider the following quotation from former Community of Christ President W. Grant McMurray who, in a 2006 address to the John Whitmer Historical Association, said:

I grew up being taught that not only did we have the original church restored, but we were also given the Bible in its perfected, pristine form resulting from Joseph Smith’s call to translate it under the influence of the Holy Spirit. We have known for decades that it is not a restoration of the original text. That would be even more compelling a statement if there were such a thing as an original text of the Bible. What we do have is a theological commentary by Joseph Smith, demonstrably incomplete, that got some of the most significant scriptural language, particularly the theology of grace so beautifully expressed in the Pauline letters and butchered in the Inspired Version. It is time to identify it properly as a product of Joseph Smith’s fertile and creative mind. I have not preached from it for decades. There are many fine versions available based on current scholarship and with poetic and literary power. The Inspired Version should have no standing as an authoritative Biblical version for the Church (quoted in Richard G. Moore, Know Your Religions Volume 2: A Comparative Look at Mormonism and the Community of Christ, Orem, UT: Millennial Press, pp. 111-112).

While recognizing that the above statement of President McMurray does not represent the view of all members of the Community of Christ, still it expresses the view of many people today.

[David] What are some of the opinions expressed in current scholarship, both LDS and non-LDS, concerning the Book of Moses and its value?

[Dr. Jeff Bradshaw] In contrast to numerous scholarly analyses of Joseph Smith’s translations of the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham that began to appear in the 19th century, explorations of the textual foundations of the JST began in earnest only in the 1960s, with the pioneering work of the RLDS scholar Richard P. Howard and the LDS scholar Robert J. Matthews (R. P. Howard, Restoration Scriptures; R. J. Matthews, Plainer Translation). A facsimile transcription of all the original manuscripts of the JST was at last published in 2004 (S. H. Faulring, et al., Joseph Smith’s New Translation). Among other studies of the Joseph Smith Translation, Brigham Young University Professor Kent P. Jackson, a longtime student of these topics, prepared a detailed study of the text of the portions of the JST relating to the book of Moses in 2005 (K. P. Jackson, Book of Moses).

Although several brief studies of the teachings of the book of Moses had previously appeared as part of apologetic and doctrinally-focused LDS commentaries on the Pearl of Great Price, the first detailed verse-by-verse commentary—and the first to incorporate significant amounts of modern non-LDS Bible scholarship—was published by Richard D. Draper, S. Kent Brown, and Michael D. Rhodes in 2005 (R. D. Draper, et al., Pearl of Great Price). All the LDS scholars mentioned above, and many more, take the book of Moses seriously as an inspired work of scripture, with echoes of ancient traditions readily apparent in many places.

A few non-Mormon scholars have also courageously signaled their appreciation of the significance of the Joseph Smith’s translation efforts in light of ancient documents. For example, Margaret Barker cited relevant passages from the Book of Mormon and the Joseph Smith Translation in her 2007 Society of Biblical of Literature presentation on Jewish and early Christian perspectives on Melchizedek (M. Barker, Who was Melchizedek?). Noted Yale critic of secular and sacred literature Harold Bloom, who in 2005 classed these the book of Moses and the book of Abraham among the “more surprising” and “neglected” works of LDS scripture (H. Bloom, Names Divine, p. 25), is intrigued by the fact that many of their themes are “strikingly akin to ancient suggestions” that essentially restate “the archaic or original Jewish religion, a Judaism that preceded even the Yahwist.” While expressing “no judgment, one way or the other, upon the authenticity” of LDS scripture, he finds “enormous validity” in the way these writings “recapture… crucial elements in the archaic Jewish religion.… that had ceased to be available either to normative Judaism or to Christianity, and that survived only in esoteric traditions unlikely to have touched [Joseph] Smith directly” (H. Bloom, American Religion, pp. 98, 99, 101).

[David] What do you feel that you, personally, have gained from your extensive studies of the Book of Moses?

Although I have always felt a special spiritual affinity to the book of Moses, my study has given me additional “reason[s] for the hope that is within [me]” (1 Peter 3:15). The way in which my “intellectual conversion” to the book of Moses was added to my spiritual witness recalled for me Elder B. H. Roberts’ description of the greater appreciation he experienced of the Atonement as he finished the writing of a manual on that subject for the Seventy:

[W]hile religion must appeal to and satisfy the emotional nature, it must also appeal to and satisfy the intellect… [T]his late inquiry into that subject has had a wonderful effect upon my own thought and state of mind… It has been a matter of faith with me and knowledge, by the testimony of the Spirit of God to my soul; but upon close inquiry, by deeper delving into the subject, my intellect also gives its full and complete assent… I account it for myself a new conversion, an intellectual conversion, … and I have been rejoicing in it of late exceedingly. (B. H. Roberts, 8 April 1911, p. 59)

Having spent more than three years in focused study of the book of Moses, I have been astonished with the extent to which its words reverberate with the echoes of antiquity—and, no less significantly, with the deepest truths of my personal experience. Indeed, I would not merely assert that the book of Moses holds up well under close examination, but rather that, like a fractal whose self-similar patterns become more wondrous upon ever closer inspection, the brilliance of its inspiration shines most impressively under bright light and high magnification: there is glory in the details.

To Be Continued…

Post author’s note: Since I began this series, I have received a significant number of inquiries regarding international orders of Jeffrey Bradshaw’s book. We have been assured that Eborn Bookstore, the publisher, is very happy to take international orders directly.
If you don’t mind making an international call, you can reach Eborn Bookstore directly during the day or evening MST at +1 (801) 965-9410. Also, their email address is: ebornbk@hotmail.com

I know of a number of individuals who have been successful in placing an order for the book from outside the USA.

This is the third installment of a multi-part interview between myself and Dr. Jeffrey M. Bradshaw, author of the recently released In God’s Image and Likeness: Ancient and Modern Perspectives on the Book of Moses. For previous posts in this series, see Part I here and Part II here.

Please see the official website for the book for more details: http://www.imageandlikeness.net

Questions for Jeffrey M. Bradshaw on In God’s Image and Likeness (cont.)

[David] In the book, you give us the text of Moses 1-6 along with analysis and commentary. Is this text taken directly from our current version of the Pearl of Great Price or is it derived from other sources?

[Dr. Jeffrey Bradshaw] I’ve taken the version from the published Pearl of Great Price as my base text, while making a point to discuss significant textual variations.

Two recent studies have been particularly helpful. With painstaking effort over a period of eight years, and with the generous cooperation of the Community of Christ, a facsimile transcription of all the original manuscripts of the JST was at last published in 2004 (S. H. Faulring, et al., Original Manuscripts). A detailed study of the text of the portions of the JST relating to the book of Moses appeared in 2005 (K. P. Jackson, Book of Moses). Taken together, these studies allow us to see the process and results of translation with greater clarity than ever before.

[David]In your introduction, you give some words of advice or caution to your readers when using the various extra-canonical (apocryphal, pseudepigraphic, midrashic, etc.) texts that are available to us and that you use in your book. How do you think readers should approach these texts and what caution should be used in weighing their possible authenticity, legitimacy, or level of “inspiration”?

[Dr. Jeffrey Bradshaw] Such sources present a special problem because in so many cases the age and provenance of these writings are uncertain. Moreover, the motivations of the (frequently anonymous) authors, and the historical and prophetic basis of their compositions usually remain in doubt. Stephen E. Robinson, for one, has noted the difficulties in distinguishing between inspired literature (i.e., historical or revelatory writings akin to canonical scripture), inspired fiction (i.e., stories designed to teach doctrinal principles such as Elder Boyd K. Packer’s parable The Mediator), and outright “lying for the Lord” (i.e., pseudonymous forgeries that deceitfully present themselves as authoritative in order to promulgate self-serving interpretations). All that being said, it is always possible that documents of even very doubtful provenance may contain fragments of authentic accounts transmitted from ancient times.

Nickelsburg wisely phrased the careful stance of scholarly ambivalence that must be maintained: “One should not simply posit what is convenient with the claim that later texts reflected earlier tradition. At the same time, thoroughgoing skepticism is inconsonant with the facts as we know them and as new discoveries continue to reveal them: extant texts represent only a fragment of the written and oral tradition that once existed. Caution, honest scholarly tentativeness, and careful methodology remain the best approach to the data” (G. W. E. Nickelsburg, Judaism, pp. 25-26).

In my introduction, I freely admit that I deliberately erred on the side of inclusion in considering these texts for use in the commentary. This was done to make these documents available to a wider set of readers for discussion, and I’m hoping that these evaluations will lead to many improvements in future editions of the book.

[David] A related question: To what extent should we feel comfortable comparing some of these texts, e.g. The Apocalypse of Abraham, The Testament of Moses, 1 Enoch, or The Life of Adam and Eve, to the Moses (or Abraham) material revealed to the Prophet Joseph Smith? At first look, these texts would seem to cover similar ground, but from your experience, is there much compatibility between them?

[Dr. Jeffrey Bradshaw] LDS scholars have long noted many similarities between the revelations and translations of Joseph Smith and ancient Jewish and Christian documents. Most of the more difficult work needed to transform these “parallels” into “bridges” demonstrating how related ideas from widely-scattered cultures and diverse eras could have been shared and transmitted has yet to be done.

In assembling this volume, I have also been interested in ancient texts from outside the Judeo-Christian tradition. Note that the Lord pointedly told Nephi: “I shall also speak unto all nations of the earth and they shall write it” (2 Nephi 29:12). In light of this fact, it should not be at all surprising if genuinely revealed teachings, promulgated at one time but subsequently lost or distorted, sometimes appear to have survived in heterodox strands of religious traditions the world over. Many of these teachings have served, in the words of the First Presidency, to “enlighten whole nations and to bring a higher level of understanding to individuals” (S. W. Kimball, et al., God’s Love). Nor, it seems, could the Lord’s purposes have been achieved in any other way. As Elder Orson F. Whitney once said: “God is using more than one people for the accomplishment of his great and marvelous work. The Latter-day Saints cannot do it all. It is too vast, too arduous, for any one people” (O. F. Whitney, Discourse (April 1928), p. 59). Thus, in our search for truth, we must, as Charlesworth expressed, “be attuned critically to all possible sources of revelation,” including “the word from God that has been heard by the great thinkers, inspired poets, and musicians” (J. H. Charlesworth, Protestant View, p. 84).

[David] What are some of the dangers we must be aware of when comparing modern LDS Scripture to ancient documents?

I like what Gary Gillum writes about the dangers of the two extremes of those who either eschew such writings or else develop an unhealthy obsession with them (G. P. Gillum, Bibliography). While recognizing the ease with which any of us can be led astray when our enthusiasm outstrips our understanding, he also argues that “even as we should be prepared and open to personal revelation, so should we be ready and eager to learn from additional truths which may confirm our fundamental beliefs. Perhaps these apocryphal discoveries are mere preparations for more divine writings to be given us later.” Revealing the principle governing his own stance, he writes that “whatever I read as apocrypha, in the very general sense, must not lead me farther afield, but back to the divine word of God.”

[David] This question is purely to satisfy my own curiosity. You mention in an endnote that we do not have all of what Joseph Smith translated for the Book of Abraham. While what we have in the Pearl of Great Price can be read in about a half hour, what Joseph originally translated took about two hours to read. Do you know what happened to the rest of the manuscript Joseph produced?

[Dr. Jeffrey Bradshaw] I’m also very curious about this question. I am hopeful that there may be additional portions of the book of Abraham that may come to light once the relevant volume from the Joseph Smith Papers project is published.

Post Author’s Note: Since conducting this interview, I have spoken to some of the individuals involved in the above project and it does appear that this is indeed the case.  We should have more of the Book of Abraham available to us soon.

To Be Continued…

[David] In your introduction, you spend some good time addressing the fact that although Joseph spent three years working on his inspired translation of the Bible, a disproportionate amount of time was spent translating the first half of the Book of Genesis, including the chapters we know as the Book of Moses. Why do you feel this was the case? Was there something especially important to be learned from these chapters?

[Dr Jeffrey Bradshaw] While there are a variety of circumstantial factors that had their part to play in the fact that Genesis 1-24 received such a disproportionate amount of Joseph Smith’s time and attention as he translated the Bible, my own study and reflection on the matter led me to consider the content of the chapters themselves. For example, here Joseph would be introduced to the story of Enoch’s Zion, so relevant to the Saints’ upcoming efforts to establish a Zion in Missouri. Perhaps more importantly, however, he would have an opportunity to receive revelation relating to the Creation, the Fall, and the successive unfolding of the doctrines and ordinances of the New and Everlasting Covenant to Adam and Eve. In the first half of Genesis, he would also learn more about Noah, Abraham, and Melchizedek. One day it dawned upon me that, perhaps, the most important result of this translation process at the time was not the scripture itself, but the process of divine tutoring in temple-related themes that Joseph Smith may have received as an immediate follow-up to his translation of the Book of Mormon. Otherwise, assuming one believes that the Prophet was divinely directed in this work, as I do, how can one reconcile the fact that he was so urgently enjoined by the Lord to engage in the Bible translation so early in his ministry with the fact that so very little of the translation was eventually published during his lifetime?

If, indeed, the sequence of the JST translation was largely determined by its tutorial value, one might begin to ask interesting questions about why it was that as soon as the Prophet finished the translation of Genesis 1-24, the Lord asked him to jump to the New Testament—incidentally, a command that he obediently followed the very next day. As an aside, it is both striking and characteristic of the Prophet that he so quickly followed the instructions given in the revelation by abruptly changing his translation priorities. I like the way Bushman characterizes the faith that Joseph Smith had in his own revelations: “Judging by his actions, Joseph believed in the revelations more than anyone. From the beginning, he was his own best follower. Having the word of God at his back gave him enormous confidence” (R. L. Bushman, Rough Stone, p. 173; see also R. L. Bushman, Creation of the Sacred, p. 98).

One of many eye-opening experiences that I had that convinced me that Joseph Smith knew much more about temple covenants in the early 1830s than I had previously imagined was my study of D&C 84, in particular the verses relating to the Oath and Covenant of the Priesthood. As I argue in Excursus 3 of the commentary, this revelation, received on 22-23 September 1832, succinctly describes a definite sequence of promised blessings that were not fully bestowed upon the Saints until more than ten years later in Nauvoo.

[David] If most of the translation was finished by 1833, why did it take Joseph until 1843 to have the first chapter of the Book of Moses published?

[Dr Jeffrey Bradshaw] Again, while one could quite appropriately cite all the circumstantial factors that led to delays in the publication of the Joseph Smith Translation, I have also been intrigued by evidence that seems to indicate that the Prophet regarded at least some portions of his work on the Bible to be of such a sacred nature that they were not to be immediately shared. Taking the example you mention of Moses 1, he was specifically commanded not to show it “unto any except them that believe until I command you” (Moses 1:42), and this may have had something to do with the fact that it was not printed until years after other selected excerpts from our book of Moses had appeared in church publications. As another example, in Bachman’s groundbreaking studies on the origins of D&C 132, which has not only to do with celestial marriage but also the whole context of temple work, he convincingly argued that nearly all of that section was revealed to the Prophet as he worked on the JST. This was more than a decade previous to 1843, when the revelation was first recorded (D. W. Bachman, New Light).

Even more striking is the following statement, which seems to indicate that Joseph Smith initially believed that, in sharp contrast to the incredible efforts that had recently been made to promulgate the Book of Mormon, the Lord did not even intend the JST to be published: “I would inform you that [the Bible translation] will not go from under my hand during my natural life for correction, revisal, or printing and the will of the Lord be done” (JS to WW Phelps, July 31, 1832, Jessee, PWJS, 287). Some of what the Prophet learned as he worked on the JST and other translation projects (e.g., the Book of Abraham) may have never been put to writing. Brigham Young is remembered as stating “that the Prophet before his death [spoke] about going through the translation of the scriptures again and perfecting it upon points of doctrine which the Lord had restrained him from giving in plainness and fulness at the time” (Cited in G. Q. Cannon, Life, pp. 147-148). As other examples in which the Prophet only gave very abbreviated summaries of what, from historical and circumstantial evidence, are clearly much more extensive revelations, we have D&C 87 and D&C 110.

[David] Why do you think that the Book of Moses is the only section of the Old Testament that we have from the Inspired Version preserved in our Pearl of Great Price?

[Dr Jeffrey Bradshaw] The Book of Moses is itself a pearl of great price—it is nothing less than a prophetic exposition of the entire plan of salvation from start to finish, all packed into eight chapters. Hugh Nibley says it far more eloquently than I ever could:

“After all these years it comes as a surprise for me to learn that the Book of Moses appeared in the same year as the publication of the Book of Mormon, the first chapter being delivered in the very month of its publication. And it is a totally different kind of book, in another style, from another world. It puts to rest the silly arguments about who really wrote the Book of Mormon, for whoever produced the Book of Moses would have been even a greater genius.…

Was the great last dispensation to be brought on with old shopworn forms and ceremonies? A dispensation is a period of the world’s history during which the church of God with its covenants and ordinances is upon the earth; in the apocalyptic scheme of things it is a comparatively brief period of light following a long period of darkness. What would be an appropriate ensign to announce and inaugurate such a happy time? The single civilization that embraces the world today, whichever way it turns, sees only itself, a great all-confining cliché in which one can think only of what is being thought and do only what is being done. It cannot even imagine a new dispensation, let alone supply one. Like a heavy galleon it labors on into ever deepening gloom, prodded on its way from time to time by promising puffs of a New Order, New Method, New Education, New Deal, New Life, New Cure, New Light, New Way, etc., but ever and again losing momentum as the fleeting winds quickly blow themselves out, leaving the old scow to wallow on as best it may towards the dawn of nothing… From what source can we look for comfort? From none on this distracted globe.

It came from the outside, the Mormons said: The long, long silence was broken by an angel from on high. At once the whole world exploded in one long hoot of derision—adequate witness to the total novelty of the thing; here was something utterly alien and retrograde to everything the world taught and believed… [No one could] be asked to take him seriously were it not that he came before an unbelieving world with boundless riches in his hands.” (H. W. Nibley, To Open, http://mi.byu.edu/publications/transcripts/?id=71).

TO BE CONTINUED…

For the first of this series of posts from my interview with author Jeffrey Bradshaw, see here.

I have previously written on St. Seraphim and the fruits of the Spirit (see here). Please refer to that post for a more complete account of Seraphim’s discussion on recognizing the presence of the Holy Spirit. In this post, I will present the main points that he makes, similar themes from the Patristic period, and then modern similarities from Mormon teaching and experience.  I have cut out several parts from the original paper for the sake of brevity, but have tried to preserve the parts of most interest to LDS readers.

Saint Seraphim of Sarov and the Recognition of the Holy Spirit

            The spirituality of St. Seraphim of Sarov has become well-recognized in modern Christian mystical literature for its stunning portrayal of the tangible effects of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. In his highly circulated conversation with Nicholas Motovilov, “Concerning the Aim of the Christian Life,” Seraphim attempts to instruct his friend regarding the acquisition of the Holy Spirit. After attempting to express the process using a number of different explanations, Seraphim directs Motovilov’s attention to the intense spiritual manifestation they were experiencing as a recognizable outpouring of the Holy Spirit. St. Seraphim teaches his disciple that one can know when the Third Person of the Trinity is present by certain signs and feelings or emotions that accompany the Spirit. 

            In the above-mentioned conversation with Motovilov, likely recorded around 1830, Motovilov expresses to the saintly monk his inability to fully understand how an individual can know that he has the Spirit with him; how he can “dwell” in the Holy Spirit and “apprehend his appearance” in him. “My need,” he exclaimed, “is to understand this well.” Instead of offering further explanations or scriptural illustrations, as he had previously done, St. Seraphim turns to a more practical and tangible demonstration of his point by asking his friend to simply recognize what he is seeing and feeling at the moment -his final and greatest proof for how one is to know that the Holy Spirit is present. According to Motovilov’s account, the following were described as recognizable manifestations of the Holy Spirit:

• Transfigured appearance

Father Seraphim grabs Motovilov by the shoulders and says “We are both together, son, in the Spirit of God! Why lookest thou not on me?” To which Motovilov replies:

“I cannot look, father, because lightning flashes from your eyes. Your face is brighter than the sun and my eyes ache in pain!” Father Seraphim says: “Fear not, my son; you too have become as bright as I. You too are now in the fulness of God’s Spirit; otherwise you would not be able to look on me as I am.”

• Calmness and peace

St. Seraphim then asks, “How do you feel now?” “Unwontedly well!” Motovilov exclaims. The staretz then probes deeper, looking for his friend to sincerely evaluate and recognize exactly what he is feeling. “But well in what way? How in particular?” Motovilov  answers: “I feel a calmness and peace in my soul that I cannot express in words!”

• Sweetness

Seraphim encourages him to further express the specific feelings that he is experiencing. “An unwonted sweetness!” is the reply.

• Joy

“An unwonted joy in all my heart!”

• Warmth

“An unwonted warmth!” When Seraphim hears this from his disciple, he probes him further in order to see if he understands the significance of this manifestation. “But why warmth, my son? See, we sit in the forest, the winter is out and about, the snow

is underfoot, there is more than an inch of snow on us and still the snowflakes fall. What warmth can there be?” Motovilov answeres: “Such as there is in the bath-house, when they pour the water on the stone and the steam rises in a cloud.”

• Aid to Memory

As this powerful experience with the Spirit of God would clearly be an important lesson to remember, Father Seraphim asks his disciple: “Will you remember this manifestation of God’s ineffable mercy which has visited us?” “I know not, father,” he replies, “whether the Lord will grant me always to remember this mercy of God as vividly and clearly as now I feel it.” “I think,” Father Seraphim answers, “that the Lord will help you always to retain it in your memory…”

            This process of questioning by St. Seraphim can be seen as a tool-even the principal tool-used by the saint to help his friend recognize the presence of the Holy Spirit and know when he had acquired it in his life. For St. Seraphim, the acquisition of the Holy Spirit is the most important goal of mortal life.  It is essential for priest, monk, and layman alike. When one’s heart is open to the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, that heart becomes “the throne whereon [the Lord] loves to sit and whereon He appears in the fulness of His heavenly glory.” (p. 56) Without this acquisition of the Holy Spirit, “there is not and cannot be any salvation” (p. 51). Seraphim wants his disciple to know when he has the Spirit and his conversation serves as an outline for what one should be able to see and feel when he does.

The Tradition

            That all these properties should be linked to the presence of the Holy Spirit was an idea that was perpetuated in the early Church and in the Christian tradition over the centuries.  Over time, these principles were preserved more strongly in the more ascetic or mystical strains of Christianity, and in the Eastern Orthodox churches.  Because space is limited, I will only highlight a few examples of the preservation of each of the spiritual manifestations.

Transfigured Appearance

            As mentioned above, the “lightning” from the eyes and face “shining like the sun” motifs, for the uninitiated, can be the most familiar and startling parts of Seraphim’s explanation. While such descriptions are uncommon among most Christians today, talk of such visions of light was surprisingly frequent and emphatic for centuries. Out of all the elements referred to in this essay, there was likely more ink spent on this topic by the ancients than any of the others.  The brilliant appearance of a person as the result of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit was often referred to as a transfiguration or transformation into an angelic or divine state.

            Tertullian was well aware of the importance of this motif in the Scriptures:

Even the Holy Scriptures give us instances of this form of change…For example, the face of Moses was changed, with a brightness that the eyes could not bear…So also Stephen had already put on the appearance of an angel-even though it was still his human knees that bent beneath the stoning. The Lord, again, in the retirement of the mountain, had changed His clothing for a robe of light…In that same scene, Moses also and Elijah gave proof that the same condition of bodily existence may continue even in glory.

For Origen, this transformation, including the shining face, was a step in the process of the glorification or deification of the human. Citing the example of Moses’ radiant countenance, Origen explained that it was a result of his vision of Deity, for which he had been purified; he then “transcended all material things” and was “deified by what [he] contemplate[d].” He continued by stating:

Such a state may be said to be the glorification of the face of him who has contemplated God and conversed with him and spent time in such a vision, since this is represented figuratively by the glorified face of Moses, when his intellect had been deified by God.

            A few centuries later, in the so-called Macarian writings, Macarius emphasized the central role of the Holy Spirit in monastic life. His exegesis of Ezekiel’s vision of the throne-chariot portrays a view of the indwelling of the Spirit very similar to that of St. Seraphim:

For the prophet was contemplating a mystery of the soul that was to receive its own Lord and become a throne of glory to him. For a soul that is counted worthy to participate in the Spirit of his light and is illuminated by the beauty of his ineffable glory, seeing that he has prepared it for himself as a throne and dwelling, becomes wholly light…That is to say, no part of it is in darkness, but has been turned entirely and completely into light and spirit…seeing that the ineffable beauty of the glory of the light of the face of Christ has mounted it and sat upon it…Thus the soul is illuminated perfectly by the ineffable beauty of the glory of the face of Christ and has participated perfectly in the Holy Spirit, and has been counted worthy to become a throne and dwelling of God.

            Gregory Palamas, a central figure of the hesychast movement of the fourteenth century, strongly emphasized the importance of the vision of divine light and how it transforms both body and soul. He states:      

So, when the saints contemplate this divine light within themselves, seeing it by the divinizing communion of the Spirit, through the mysterious visitation of perfecting illuminations-then they behold the garment of their deification, their mind being glorified and filled by the grace of the Word, beautiful beyond measure in his splendour; just as the divinity of the Word on the mountain glorified with divine light the body conjoined to it.

Other Manifestations

             The sublime peace afforded by the Holy Spirit was the goal of every monk. Diadochus, in the fifth century, indicated that when a person turns to the Lord, grace makes itself felt in the heart as a “sensible warmth.” Isaac of Ninevah proclaimed that “sweeter than honey and the honeycomb is the awareness of God whence love is born.” 

            Eastern theologian John Cassian explained:

It is not easy to know how and in what respects spiritual tenderness overwhelms the soul. Often it is by an ineffable joy and by vehement aspirations that its presence is revealed. So much so that the joy is rendered unbearable by its very intensity, and breaks out into cries that carry tidings of your inebriation as far as a neighbouring cell. Sometimes οn the contrary the whole soul descends and lies hidden in abysses of silence. The suddenness of the light stupefies it and robs it of speech. All its senses remain withdrawn in its inmost depths or completely suspended. And it is by inarticulate groans that it tells God of its desire. Sometimes, finally, it is so swollen with a sorrowful tenderness that οnly tears can give it consolation. 

 

Mormonism

            The spiritual revivals that helped spread the influence of Methodism also opened the way for new spiritual movements such as Alexander Campbell’s “restorationist” movement and Joseph Smith, Jr.’s The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Joseph Smith (1805-1844), roughly a contemporary of St. Seraphim, held to a view of the fruits of the Holy Spirit very similar to that of the Russian Orthodox monk.

            The early Mormon Church was recognized for its powerful and dramatic spiritual manifestations. A contemporary religious periodical, The Spiritual Magazine [May 1, 1871], attempted to account for the success of early Mormon missionaries to the British Isles:

In Great Britain the Mormons were Spiritualists. Their churches were established, converts made, and success wrought out by spiritual manifestations and the “influences.” This was recognized by the various denominations whose disciples the Elders (Mormon missionaries) drew away by their spiritual fascinations…The possession of this “power” gave the Elders such a decided advantage over the learned clergy that in many cases they have annihilated whole churches, and Mormonism has swept some of the districts of England and Wales like a whirlwind, literally to the consternation of other religious bodies.

            While perhaps not as recognized, this emphasis on manifestations of the Spirit continues in modern Mormon proselytizing efforts. In the Missionary Guide, a manual printed in 1988 by the Church and issued to all missionaries until only recently, missionaries are instructed that the “most important process in conversion is for people to feel the Spirit of the Lord… It is your privilege to act as a servant of the Lord and help people feel and recognize the influence of the Spirit.” In order to help others “feel and recognize” the Holy Spirit, a technique is employed that is remarkably similar to that of St. Seraphim in his conversation with Nicholas Motovilov-the missionary is to ask the person how he or she feels. The missionary teaches scriptural principles, and then encourages listeners to express how they feel; when the missionary is convinced that the listener has felt the Spirit of the Lord (by listening to their answers to such questions), the missionary is to identify that they are, indeed, feeling the Spirit.

            The precedent for spiritual manifestations in the Mormon Church was set by Joseph Smith himself, who was considered by his followers to be a prophet. Many of Smith’s contemporaries give descriptions of his appearance and demeanor when under the influence of the Holy Spirit that are very similar in nature to Motovilov’s account of St. Seraphim. Mormon scholar Hyrum Andrus comments that the “visions and revelations given to Joseph Smith were also accompanied by an overshadowing power and glory visible to those present-not merely a change of facial expression resulting from a given mood or attitude of mind, but a thrilling, intelligent power both felt and seen by others.”

            Orson Pratt testified that he saw the Smith’s “countenance light up as the inspiration of the Holy Ghost rested upon him…” And Brigham Young said:

Those who were acquainted with him knew when the Spirit of revelation was upon him for his countenance wore an expression peculiar to himself while under that influence. He preached by the Spirit of revelation, and taught in his council by it, and those who were acquainted with him could discover it at once, for at such times there was a peculiar clearness and transparency in his face.

Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner, an early convert to the Church, witnessed a similar transfiguration in Joseph Smith at a small meeting at Smith’s home in Kirtland, Ohio. She related:

After prayer and singing, Joseph began talking. He began very solemnly and very earnestly. Suddenly, his countenance changed and he stood mute; he seemed almost transfixed. He was looking ahead and his face outshone the candle which was on a shelf just behind him. I thought I could almost see the cheek bones. He looked as though a searchlight was inside his face. I never saw anything like it on earth. I could not take my eyes away from him. I shall remember him as he looked then as long as I live.

            Smith’s revelations on the topic of the influence of the Spirit also parallel the elements expressed in Seraphim’s conversation. He taught that the Holy Spirit brings feelings of peace, joy, warmth, intelligence, and love. Dr. Victor Ludlow of Brigham Young University, outlines some of the ways in which Mormons are taught to recognize the presence of the Spirit:

Some people feel a burning sensation in the body when the Spirit is present. (See D&C 9:8.) Some feel a sense of peace or joy, making them feel like praising or even singing God’s glory and blessings. Others experience a tingling sensation or a quickening of the mind…One common manifestation of the spirit…is when a sudden idea or insight comes into our minds after we have been pondering over a question or problem…The ideas and insights we receive from the Spirit are also confirmed by feelings of peace…God reminded him [Oliver Cowdery, Joseph's scribe] again how to recognize the manifestation of his Spirit: “I will tell you in your mind and in your heart, by the Holy Ghost, which shall come upon you and which shall dwell in your heart” (D&C 8:2).

George Q. Cannon, an early leader of the Church, offered a description of how one can recognize the influence of the Holy Ghost:

I will tell you a rule by which you may know the Spirit of God from the spirit of evil. The Spirit of God always produces joy and satisfaction of mind. When you have that Spirit you are happy; when you have another spirit you are not happy. The spirit of doubt is the spirit of the evil one; it produces uneasiness and other feelings that interfere with happiness and peace.”

The preceding explanations of the effects of the Holy Spirit are but a few examples from the vast Mormon discourse on the subject. These principles are still very much a part of the Mormon belief system, and while seemingly not as prevalent today, or perhaps not as acknowledged publicly as in the past, tangible manifestations of the Spirit are still a common phenomenon among Mormons, especially in the mission field.

Conclusion

            While Nicholas Motovilov’s account of his conversation with St. Seraphim of Sarov and its attending spiritual manifestations may sound fantastical and foreign to many, such elements have been central to the beliefs of some Christians since New Testament times.  In this essay, I have endeavored to show how these fruits of the Spirit discussed by Seraphim are securely rooted in Scripture, were known and understood by the early Church Fathers and subsequently carried on in the thought of many important theologians over time. While this type of spirituality is readily recognized as part of the Eastern Orthodox tradition, it is found in remarkably similar form in many modern Christian denominations, including Wesleyan thought, as well as Mormon doctrine and experience.  The words of Diadοchus of Photike express the significance of this experience with the Spirit: “One who knows God by the feeling of the heart has been known by him.”

Origen, Commentary on John, 32. 27. 338-9, GCS iv. 472. 24-34, as cited in Norman Russell, The Doctrine of Deification in the Greek Patristic Tradition (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004) 143-144.

Coll. II, Homilies, 1.2, as cited in Russell, 245.

Gregory Palamas, Triad 1.3.5, as cited in Russell, 306.

As cited in Russell, 247.

Isaac of Ninevah, Ascetic Treatises, 38.

Jοhn Cassian, Conferences, ΙX, 27 (SC 54, p. 63)

T. Shorter, “On Mormonism,” in The Spiritual Magazine, vol. VI, May 1871 (London: Thomas Scott), 194.

From the Missionary Guide, p. 9, published by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Hyrum L. Andrus, Joseph Smith, the Man and the Seer (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1960), 136.

As cited in Ibid.

As cited in Ibid.

Ludlow is referring to the book of Doctrine and Covenants, published by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which is a collection of revelations given through Joseph Smith and some of his successors.

Victor L. Ludlow, Principles and Practices of the Restored Gospel (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1992), 97.

George Q. Cannon, Journal of Discourses, 26 vols. (London: Latter-day Saints’ Book Depot, 1855-86), 15:375.

Diadοchus of Photike, Gnostic Chapters, 14 (SC 5 bis, p. 91)

Before I get into some more specific details regarding how this motif is represented in the Dead Sea Scrolls, I want to share a latter-day parallel to this ancient type of thinking.  As I compare the modern with the ancient, if you are like me, you will be surprised at the amazing similarity between the two.

This following “Diagram of the Kingdom of God” was done by early LDS apostle Orson Hyde for the church published Millenial Star in England (January 15th, 1847; 9:23-24).

The above diagram shows the order and unity of the kingdom of God. The eternal Father sits at the head, crowned King of kings and Lord of lords. Wherever the other lines meet, there sits a king and a priest unto God, bearing rule, authority, and dominion under the Father. He is one with the Father, because his kingdom is joined to his Father’s and becomes part of it.

The most eminent and distinguished prophets who have laid down their lives for their testimony (Jesus among the rest), will be crowned at the head of the largest kingdoms under the Father, and will be one with Christ as Christ is one with his Father; for their kingdoms are all joined together, and such as do the will of the Father, the same are his mothers, sisters, and brothers. He that has been faithful over a few things, will be made ruler over many things; he that has been faithful over ten talents, shall have dominion over ten cities, and he that has been faithful over five talents, shall have dominion over five cities, and to every man will be given a kingdom and a dominion, according to his merit, powers, and abilities to govern and control. It will be seen by the above diagram that there are kingdoms of all sizes, an infinite variety to suit all grades of merit and ability. The chosen vessels unto God are the kings and priests that are placed at the head of these kingdoms. These have received their washings and anointings in the temple of God on this earth; they have been chosen, ordained, and anointed kings and priests, to reign as such in the resurrection of the just. Such as have not received the fulness of the priesthood, (for the fulness of the priesthood includes the authority of both king and priest) and have not been anointed and ordained in the temple of the Most High, may obtain salvation in the celestial kingdom, but not a celestial crown. Many are called to enjoy a celestial glory, yet few are chosen to wear a celestial crown, or rather, to be rulers in the celestial kingdom.

While this portion of eternity that we now live in, called time, continues, and while the other portions of eternity that we may hereafter dwell in, continue, those lines in the foregoing diagram, representing kingdoms, will continue to extend and be lengthened out; and thus, the increase of our kingdoms will increase the kingdom of our God, even as Daniel hath said: “of the increase of his kingdom and government there shall be no end.” All these kingdoms are one kingdom, and there is a King over kings, and a Lord over lords. There are Lords many, and Gods many, for they are called Gods to whom the word of God comes, and the word of God comes to all these kings and priests. But to our branch of the kingdom there is but one God, to whom we all owe the most perfect submission and loyalty; yet our God is just as subject to still higher intelligences, as we should be to him.

…These kingdoms, which are one kingdom, are designed to extend till they not only embrace this world, but every other planet that rolls in the blue vault of heaven. Thus will all things be gathered in one during the dispensation of the fulness of times, and the Saints will not only possess the earth, but all things else, for, says Paul, “All things are yours, whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come: all are yours, and ye are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s”

(Orson Hyde, “A Diagram of the Kingdom of God,” Millennial Star 9 [15 January 1847]: 23-24).¹

 For Orson Hyde, our Heavenly Father’s kingdom appears to be divided up into a hierarchy of sub-kingdoms, each having “a king and a priest” presiding over them, under the direction of the King of kings and God of gods.  The rulers over these lower divisions of heaven are called gods and reign over their own kingdoms. They are one with the Father because their kingdom is part of the Father’s.

It is quite amazing how similar some of the texts found at Qumran present this theme.  Of course I can’t claim that the sectarians who lived at Qumran understood all this in the same way that Orson Hyde or other Latter-day Saints did/do, but the parallels are very interesting.

I want to consider primarily the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice, a liturgical text found in Cave 4 of Qumran. The Songs are portrayed as a description of the angelic worship that goes on in the heavenly temple.  It is set up as a sort of cultic drama that would lead the earthly participants through the various levels of heaven, moving inwards/upwards with each song until they reach the throne room of God in the highest heaven.  That is a very meager description of the rich detail presented in these songs, but that is the main idea.  Each song is to be presented on one of a series of thirteen sabbaths so that each sabbath the priestly participants move to a new stage of the ritual.

In his study on the liturgical works found at Qumran, James Davila attempts to reconstruct how those who performed these rituals would have seen the structure of the heavens:

A possible reconstruction is that seven firmaments are envisioned, each of which has its own sanctuary containing its own inner chamber (holy of holies) and administered by its own high-priestly chief prince. Multiple chariots and thrones are mentioned as well (e.g., XI 4Q405 20ii-21-22:2-5; XIII 11Q17 x:7), so perhaps each sanctuary has one of these, presumably ridden or occupied by its chief prince.

The final inner chamber, the central throne room [is] inhabited by God himself.  In this room we find the structure of the throne-chariot located above the firmament of the cherubim. It may be that the heavenly sacrificial cult is carried out in the tabernacle of the exalted chief (VII 4Q403 1ii:10), perhaps the angelic priest and warrior angel Melchizedek, who sits on a seat like the throne of God’s kingdom (XI 4Q405 20ii-21-22:2)((Davila, James R. Liturgical Works. Eerdmans Commentaries on the Dead Sea Scrolls. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2000), p. 84)).

If I understand Davila’s description correctly, it seems uncannily similar to Hyde’s view. There are multiple levels of heaven under the highest heaven.  Each sub-heaven is modeled after the highest, each having its own god-like ruler who sits on his own chariot-throne in a holy of holies similar to the Most High God’s.

Interestingly, the Songs depict a secondary exalted/angelic figure who is in charge of the rituals/sacrifices that are being performed in the highest heaven.  Davila suggests that in the Songs this figure was likely seen as “the angelic priest and warrior angel Melchizedek.” This head of the heavenly cult is depicted elsewhere as Enoch/Metratron, Michael, and, in Christian literature, as Jesus Christ.

Later, he expands more on the idea of this latter idea, suggesting that there are ”secondary princes” that rule under each of the chiefs of the sub-heavens, as well.  After comparing the notion of the rulers of the lower heavens to similar themes in the Jewish Hekhalot literature (which depict chiefs of the gates of the lower heavenly palaces), he concludes:

Perhaps in the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice the seven chief princes and seven secondary princes preside together over the seven priesthoods (VIII 4Q403 1ii:20, 22) in the seven sanctuaries (VII 4Q405 7:7), although the reconstructions in the last three references are not certain ((Davila, 121)).

So, in each lower “kingdom,” there is a god-like ruler and each of these has a secondary high priestly figure under him.  In other words, perhaps we could say that each level has a god and a christ!

All this talk of multiple gods and sub-gods may sound very uncharacteristic of the monotheistic Judaism that most people are familiar with.  That is the wonder of these discoveries of the Judaean desert!  There was much more to Judaism, or certain sects of Judaism, than is attested to in the later Rabbinic version of the religion.  In certain texts found at Qumran, the term elohim is used very broadly, both to refer to God and also very often to other divine beings, whom we would usually refer to as angels.

The Most High God (God the Father), while sometimes called Elohim, is more often referred to as El in the Qumran literature.  But frequently elohim is used as a plural, referring to angelic beings.  Many scholars recognize this distinction and have often translated the term into English as “divinities” or “gods” instead of angels².

Besides being a common term for angels, many texts seem to suggest that the chiefest among the “gods” are actually exalted human beings.  The text termed the “Self-Glorification Hymn” appears to depict a human author who claims to have been exalted above the angels and allowed to sit on a throne in heaven in the council of the gods.

Furthermore, the “secondary prince” of the highest heaven, the chief of all angels, is often seen as an exalted human.  As mentioned before, some later texts see this figure as Enoch, who is exalted and transformed into the angel Metatron.  Enoch/Metatron is given his own throne in heaven and guards the entrance. The transformation/exaltation of Enoch, Levi, and others are noted in documents found at Qumran.  The figure of Melchizedek is mentioned as an exalted angelic figure, although it is difficult to know if this is the same Melchizedek as is mentioned in the book of Genesis (Davila seems to think it is). 

All of this is very exciting for our understanding of both Mormon and early Christian thought.  While care must be taken in making such parallels (many have accused us of asserting that the sectarians at Qumran were Mormons), I think this comparison is fruitful for demonstrating that there are certain ancient  trends in religion that were preserved over time, although other parties would try to suppress them.  What is amazing is how similar to these ancient, long-forgotten trends Joseph Smith’s restored religion is.

1. The Words of Joseph Smith: The Contemporary Accounts of the Nauvoo Discourses of the Prophet Joseph, compiled and edited by Andrew F. Ehat and Lyndon W. Cook [Provo: BYU Religious Studies Center, 1980], 297.
2. see Davila, p. 101

The first volume, just released December 1, contains Joseph Smith’s personal journal entries, covering the years 1832 to 1839.  While this volume is very impressive and is extremely valuable for those who have any interest in the life of the Prophet, it is only the first installment of an enormous project that has been underway for years and that will continue on for many years to come. 

A recent LDS.org Newsroom release had this to say about the size of the project:

This unprecedented compilation, to be published by The Church Historian’s Press, will eventually comprise 30 volumes, including journals, correspondence, discourses and written histories, as well as legal and business documents.

Elder Marlin K. Jensen, Church historian and recorder, has called the Joseph Smith Papers Project “the most significant Church history project of this generation.” When finished, it will be the most complete and authoritative collection of documents related to Joseph Smith Jr., founder of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

“The Joseph Smith Papers will rank among the most significant projects in the history of American religion,” said Kenneth Minkema, director of the Jonathan Edwards Center at Yale Divinity School.²

Upon receiving my copy of the book, I was immediately impressed with its presentation. The dust jacket is very fine and has a neat, classical and scholarly look to it.  It is a sizeable volume: 7×10 inches and almost 500 pages.  The book includes photographs of actual pages from Joseph Smith’s journal and full transcriptions of his journal entries, which are presented in the original grammar and spelling.  There are also helpful notes, photos, maps, and other reference materials that help in understanding the background behind the journal entries.

To read more about the Joseph Smith Papers project in detail, please visit the official site: www.josephsmithpapers.org. 

For me, personally, this volume is a wonderful opportunity to get to know the Prophet Joseph Smith in a more profound and intimate way.  I have not had the time yet to get throught the entire book, but I would like to comment on some interesting journal entries that I’ve seen.

On the first page of the Ohio journal, dated 27th of November, 1832, Joseph notes simply that he bought this “Book for Record” for the purpose of keeping “a minute acount of all things that come under my obsevation &c–”((p. 9)). He goes on to make a heartfealt plea to the Lord: “oh may God grant that I may be directed in all my thaughts Oh bless thy servant Amen [p. 1]“ ((p. 9)).

Another simple entry ends with Joseph directing his thoughts to God: “Monday 14th at the same place this day expect to start for Canada Lord be with us on our Journy Amen &c”³. 

So many of Joseph’s entries end in an open prayer in this way. It is almost as if he is writing directly to God, giving an accounting of his daily activities and pleading for the Lord’s help for himself and those he cares for.  These humble and sincere expressions are a window into the intimate friendship that Joseph had with his God.

We get wonderful insight into both the important and little things that he did during his day. Sometimes there is only a short entry, such as “Left for home” or even “Nothing of note today,” but some of these short entries are very meaningful and touching, giving a special view into Joseph’s heart and soul. For example:

November 30th [1832] this day returned home to Kirtland found all well to the Joy and satisfaction of my soul on my return home stopped at Mr Kings bore testmony to him and Family &c–⁴

He often prayed for the well-being of his family:

O may God bless us…to accomplish the Journy…to the land of Kirland…and <find> my Family all well O Lord bless my little children with health and long life to do good in th- generation for Christs sake sake Amen⁵

We see Joseph as a normal human being, getting a better perspective on his own personal struggles:

December 4th this day I been unwell done but litle been at home all day regulated some of my things this Evening feel better in my mind then I have for a few days back Oh Lord deliver out thy servent out of temtations and fill his heart with wisdom and understanding⁶

Joseph Smith??

And the struggles he had in working with less-than-perfect people:

this afternoon at Mr Pattricks expect to hold a Meeting this Evening &c–people very superstitious Oh God esta[b]lish thy word among this people held a meeting this Evenning had an attentive conngregation the spirit gave utterance⁷

November 19th from the 13th u[n]till this date of nothing of note has transpired since the great sign in the heavins this day my <hart>is somewhat sorrowfull but feel to trust in the Lord the god of Jacob I I have learned in my travels that man is trecheous [trecherous] and selfish but few excepted Brother <Sidney [Rigdon]> is a man whom I love but is not capab[le] of that pure and stedfast love for those who are his benefactors as should posess possessthe breast of an man a Presedent of the chu[r]ch of Christ [p. 20] this with some other little things such as a selfish and indipendence of mind which to[o] often manifest distroys the confidence of those who would lay down their lives for him but notwithstanding these things he is <a>very great and good man a man of great power of words and can <gain> the friendship of his hearrers very quick he is a man whom god will uphold if he will continue faithful to his calling O God grant that he may for the Lords sake Amen…((19 November 1833, p. 18))

In the last entry above, he mentions “the great sign in the heavins,” a reference to the Leonid meteor shower that he and other members witnessed. He saw it as a sign of the proximity of the Second Coming of Christ. 

…in the morning at 4 O’ clock I was awoke by Brother Davis knocking at (my) door saying Brother Joseph [p. 18] come git (up) and see the signs in the heavens and I arrose and beheld to my great Joy the stars fall from heaven yea they fell like hail stones a litteral fullfillment of the word of God as recorded in the holy scriptures and a sure sign that the coming of Christ is clost at hand Oh how marvellous are thy works Oh Lord and I thank thee for thy me[r]cy unto me thy servent Oh Lord save me in thy kingdom for Christ sake Amen⁸

Another aspect that I greatly appreciated was the record of many of Joseph’s visions, most likely written down as he was giving them or soon after. One random example:

Revelation. Given the same day, and read at the same time, of the preceeding ones July 8th 1838
O! Lord, show unto thy servents how much thou requirest of the properties of thy people for a Tithing?
Answer.
Verrily thus saith the Lord I require all their surpluss, property to be put into the hands of the Bishop of my Church of Zion, for the building of mine house and for the Laying the foundation of Zion, and for the priesthood, and for the debts of the presidency of my Church, and this shall be the begining of the tithing of my people, and after that, those, who have thus been tithed, shall pay one tenth of all their interest anually, And this shall be a standing Law unto them forever, for my holy pri<e>sthood saith the Lord, Verrily I say unto you, it shall come to pass, that all those who gather unto the land of Zion, shall be tithed of their surpluss properties, and shall observe this Law, or they shall not be found worthy to abide among you. and I say unto you, If my people observe not this Law, to keep it holy, and by this law sanctify the Land of Zion unto me, that my Statutes and my Judgements, may be kept thereon that it may be most holy, behold verrily I say unto you, it shall not be a land of Zion unto you, and this shall be an ensample unto all the stakes of Zion, even so Amen.

While I could certainly go on, these quotes should serve to give an idea of the priceless information that this project will provide.  This volume that has been released is but the first of many. In the “journals” series, there will be three more volumes after this one! Then there will be seven volumes of histories, eleven volumes of “documents”, three volumes of “legal and business,” three volumes of “revelations and translations,” and four volumes of administrative papers. Whereas most members of the Church (and oustside scholars) have had to rely largely on limited volumes such as The Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, this series will open up a new world of understanding of the Prophet and his life.

About the Book
Joseph Smith Papers, Journals, Volume 1: 1832-1839
General Editors: Dean C. Jessee, Ronald K. Esplin, Richard Lyman Bushman
Publisher: The Church Historian’s Press
ISBN-13: 978-1-57008-849-0
Published 1 December 2008; hardcover, $49.95

For a very interesting introduction to this work, provided by LDS scholar Richard Bushman, follow this link:

http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/Essays/Bushman.pdf

1. see http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/AboutTheProject.htm
2. Emphasis mine.
3. 14 October 1833, p. 14
4. 30 November 1832, p. 10
5. 3 March 1834, p. 29
6. 4 December 1832, p. 11
7. 24 October 1833, p. 14
8. 13 November 1833, p. 16

As I went through my first year of graduate school at Marquette University, I had the opportunity to be exposed to and ponder about the views of many Christian denominations regarding the infallibility of the Bible. I met conservative evangelicals who absolutely could not admit that there might be a single error in the biblical text–”What kind of a God would so powerless as to allow errors to creep into His holy Word?” I met more liberal Protestants who saw the Bible as the Word of God, but viewed it as mostly metaphorical–”It doesn’t really matter if there are errors in transmission as long as the story is still inspirational.” As it is a Catholic school, the most prevalent view was the scholarly opinion that recognizes that there have been a good many errors in the transmission and translations of the texts–but that for faithful Catholics, it is the holy tradition passed down to them that makes up for any inadequacies in the written word.  Some of my peers may disagree with that assessment, but such is the general perspective that I have been able to perceive.  One thing that I am sure that they all agree on, however, is that the canon of scripture is full–there is to be no more revelation from Heaven that can be counted as scripture alongside the Holy Bible.

It has been interesting for me to compare these opinions with Joseph Smith’s views on the Bible. Obviously, this last point about the canon of scripture being closed with the end of the New Testament was not accepted by the Prophet. He did not speak much on the topic of canon, but the following quote says quite enough:

 “Is not the canon of the Scriptures full?” If it is, there is a great defect in the book, or else it would have said so (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Section Three: 1838-39, p. 121).

Many critics of the Church–and many not-so-critical, but curious colleagues–have imagined that Joseph’s insistence on producing additional scripture outside of the Bible amounts to his rejection of the Bible, or at least to his diminishing of its value. However, this was simply not the case.  As I was reading W.J. Walsh’s post-exam dissertation, The Ascension Theology of Joseph Smith, I was reminded of just how profoundly Joseph Smith knew and valued the Bible–both the Old and New Testaments.

Joseph Smith’s Knowledge and Use of the Bible

The Prophet truly knew the Bible forwards and backwards and it showed in everything he said and did.  Walsh conveys this point well in Chapter 2 of his paper, as he launches into his discussion of why Smith found it necessary to “add” to the Bible. It was certainly not because he wanted to discount the word of God as found in that book. Walsh expounds on the extent of Smith’s biblical knowledge:

Smith’s own knowledge of the Bible was nothing short of profound, though his interpretations have been considered heterodox by Nicaeans [modern Christians]. While Smith’s knowledge of the bible has always been appreciated, a fairly recent study has suggested his knowledge of the OT and NT was extremely deep. Richard C. Galbraith painstakingly compared many of Smith’s most important writings and sermons to the biblical text and was able to find OT and NT phrases and partial phrases buried consistently throughout almost every one of his works, including impromptu ones. This linkage is strong evidence Smith was so engrossed in biblical literature that its language became his own (p. 59).

This trait is easily noticed by anyone who reads Joseph Smith’s words.  The Bible was certainly of great importance to Joseph Smith. However, despite this strong endorsement of the Bible, Joseph did not believe that it was infallible. As we know, he believed it to be the Word of God, “as far as it is translated correctly.”

Inadequacies in the Biblical Text

Walsh goes through and summarizes (pp. 59-60) what Joseph Smith saw that was missing from our modern biblical text. He says:

To summarize Smith’s view, the Bible alone is inadequate in conveying God’s will to mankind because it is sometimes ambiguous, irrelevant, transmitted and translated erroneously, and incomplete.

• Ambiguous–Smith believed that many parts of the Bible were ambiguous and open to conflicting interpretation.

 …[T]he teachers of religion of the different sects understood the same passage of Scripture so differently as to destroy all confidence in settling the question by an appeal to the Bible (History of the Church, Vol. 1, Ch. 1, p. 4).

• Irrelevant–While some universal truths are taught in the Bible, Smith believed some of the biblical messages are not relevant because they are no longer in their original historical context.

The Bible contains revelations given at different times to different people, under different circumstances… (HC, Vol. 1, Ch. 20, p. 277).

• Transmitted and translated erroneously–Smith believed the Bible was transmitted to later generations in a way that did not accurately reflect the intent of the original prophetic and apostolic authors.

I believe the Bible as it read when it came from the pen of the original writers. Ignorant translators, careless transcribers, or designing and corrupt priests [David's note: see my post on corrupt priests here] have committed many errors (HC, Vol. 6, Ch. 3, p. 57).

From sundry revelations which had been received, it was apparent that many important points touching the salvation of man, had been taken from the Bible, or lost before it was compiled (HC, Vol. 1, Ch. 18, p. 245).

There are many things in the Bible which do not, as they now stand, accord with the revelations of the Holy Ghost to me (HC, Vol. 5, Ch. 22, p. 425).

We believe the bible to be the word of God, as far as it is translated correctly… (HC, Vol. 5, Ch. 17, p. 342).

I am now going to take exceptions to the present translation of the Bible in relation to these matters. Our latitude and longitude can be determined in the original Hebrew with far greater accuracy than in the English version. There is a grand distinction between the actual meaning of the prophets and the present translation (HC, Vol. 5, Ch. 17, p. 342).

• Incompleteness–Even when the Bible was transmitted correctly as far as possible, Smith believed it was incomplete.

From what we can draw from the Scriptures relative to the teachings of heaven, we are induced to think that much instruction has been given to man since the beginning which we do not possess now…We have what we have, and the Bible contains what it does contain: but to say that God never said anyting more to man than is there recorded, would be saying at once that we have at last received a revelation; for it must require one to advance thus far, because it is nowhere said in that volume by the mouth of God…(HC, Vol. 2, Ch. 1, p. 18).

Joseph Smith Works to Complete the Bible

In agreement with these views, Joseph Smith believed that he was chosen to receive revelation, by way of the Holy Spirit, that would add to the Bible. As Walsh points out (p. 61), Joseph was not simply creating the equivalent of ”holy tradition”, scriptural commentary, exegesis, or midrash–but “legitimate new revelation equal to the original apostolic and prophetic biblical writings.”

Besides adding additional books of scripture (Book of Mormon, D&C, PofGP) to stand alongside the Bible, confirming and completing its doctrine, Joseph worked during most of his prophetic career on an “inspired version” of the Bible, often referred to as the Joseph Smith Translation. Of this work, Walsh explains:

In 1830, Smith attempted to correct the deficiencies of the Bible noted earlier. His corrections consist of additions, deletions, and rearrangements to over 3,400 verses in the OT and NT. His corrections vary from minor editing to reconstructions of whole chapters…In my view, the JST attempts to clarify ambiguous passages, eliminate irrelevant verses, correct transmission and translation errors, and fill in incomplete portions of the text through prophetic commentary. Thus, Smith intended the JST to be a combination of restoration and commentary. In all cases, Smith believed he was creating a version of the Bible closer to the intent of God than the one handed down through the generations (p. 64).

For those who have a testimony of Joseph Smith’s prophetic calling, his contribution to our understanding of the Bible and the Gospel of Jesus Christ in its fullness is incalculable. That there have been uncountable errors in the transmission of biblical texts is now commonly held scholarly opinion. Bart Ehrman for one (although he is a very outspoken and controversial one), suggests that among all the many thousands of New Testament manuscripts that we know of (counting Greek, Latin, Syriac, Coptic, and other manuscripts), there are up to 400,000 or more variants known. He says:

We do not know for sure because, despite impressive developments in computer technology, no one has yet been able to count them all. Perhaps, as I indicated earlier, it is best simply to leave the matter in comparative terms. There are more variations among our manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament (Misquoting Jesus, New York: HarperCollins, 2005, pp. 89-90).

Ehrman indicates that these variations include both accidental changes and intentional changes, as the Prophet suggested. Joseph Smith knew that because of errors such as these, and also because many “plain and precious” truths were removed or excluded before the canon was even compiled, the Bible is not infallible or complete–although it should still be read as the word of God.

Resurrection of Jesus-- He Lives by Simon Dewey

A great insight that Barker gives us that I did not include in my last post has to do with both the resurrection and the priesthood. In my last post, I cited a portion of the Gospel of Phillip:
The Tree of Life is in the midst of Paradise, and from [it] comes chrism, and from chrism comes resurrection. People who say they will die first and then arise are mistaken. If they do not first receive resurrection while they are alive, once they have died they will receive nothing (CG II:3:73).

 The Gospel of Phillip is making a contrast here between the notion of the resurrection of the body after death and the idea that the resurrection, in reality, begins before death. Perhaps we could say the resurrection necessarily involves priesthood ordinances involving anointing to be effectuated.

On this note, it is interesting that in Temple Themes, Margaret Barker sees the power of resurrection as the difference between the Aaronic and Melchizedek Priesthoods (p. 112). This distinction is seen in the Epistle to the Hebrews, where the Aaronic priests are described as receiving their priesthood by “descent,” whereas the Melchizedek priesthood is received by “ascent.” The author explains that Jesus “arises” (Barker notes that the original Greek denotes resurrection) “after the power of an endless life” (Heb 7:16).

Again, what Barker and the author of Hebrews are referring to is not just the resurrection of the body, but of the heavenly ascent, the return to the presence of God. Bodily resurrection is only a part, and not necessarily the most important part.

The legends of Enoch, which the Christians held dear, describe this aspect of the resurrection. Enoch, a high priest of the ancient patriarchal order, was taken up into Heaven, where he was transformed into a celestial/angelic figure. According to 2 Enoch 22:

• Enoch ascended to the Highest Heaven and stood before the Throne of God in the Heavenly Temple
• The archangel Michael removed Enoch’s earthly clothing, anointed him with oil (or “dew”), and clothed him in garments of divine glory
• As a result of this anointing and investiture, Enoch saw himself transformed into “one of the glorious ones” (2 Enoch 22:4-10)

The stories of Enoch express the belief that a mortal human being can be raised up to heaven, transformed/transfigured into a celestial being, and still return to Earth without tasting death.  Enoch returned to Earth and lived among his people for a time before being taken back up to Heaven. As we learn from the Prophet Joseph Smith, he was able to prepare his whole city to be translated and taken up (Moses 7:21).

Being raised up to the presence of God and becoming transfigured into an angel was an important issue for the inhabitants of the Qumran community. Barker notes that although the date of 2 Enoch is uncertain, it is significant that many of the Dead Sea Scrolls express this same belief:

“May you be as an angel of the Presence…May you attend upon the service in the temple of the Kingdom” (The Blessings, 1QSb IV); “Thous hast cleansed a spirit of great sin. that it may stand with the host of the holy ones, and that it may enter into community with the congregation of the sons of heaven” (1 QH XI); “Thou hast purified a man of sin that he may be holy for thee. that he may partake of the lot of the holy ones” (1 QH XI); “I am reckoned with the ‘elohim and my glory is with the sons of the King” (4Q 491.11).

 Another document, The Odes of Solomon, an early Christian document that James Charlesworth dates to the first or early second century A.D. (The Anchor Bible Dictionary, v. 6, p. 114), contains very similar expressions:

The Lord renewed me with his garment/ And possessed me by his light/ … My eyes were enlightened,/ And my face received the dew/ and my sould was refreshed/ By the pleasant fragrance of the Lord (Ode 11:11, 14, 15)

I rested on the Spirit of the Lord/ And she lifted me up to heaven/ … [She] brought me before the face of the Lord …/ And he anointed me with his perfection/ And I became one of those who are near him (Ode 36.1, 3, 6).

Barker notes that this transformation, which she calls theosis, can be detected in Luke’s account of Jesus’ transfiguration:

As [Jesus] was praying, the appearance of his countenance was altered, and his raiment became dazzling white…Now Peter and those who were with him were heavey with sleep, and when they wakened they saw his glory… (Luke 9: 29, 32).

 Barker sees this as Jesus appearing to the apostles in his “resurrected” state before his death. For Latter-day Saints, I believe we would simply refer to this as a transfigured state, the state that one needs to be in to withstand the presence of God, and that when our bodies are resurrected we will have a different state, but I think Barker is not incorrect to make a connection between these states.

Back to Baptism: In the Name vs. Into the Name

We now return to the subject of baptism. Again, I don’t fully agree with Barker’s efforts to connect Christian baptism to the initiatory washing and anointings of the ancient priesthood, but I wish to post here some other important insights that she provides about baptism.

Barker analyzes an interesting dichotomy that exists in the New Testament when it speaks of baptism. She notes that the first Christians were baptized “in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit” according to the final words of Matthew’s gospel (Matt 28:19). The words “in the name of”, however, can be used when translating both the Greek phrases “in (en) the name of,” and “into (eis) the name of.” She suggests that baptizing “in the name of” likely has reference to the status of the person baptizing, while baptizing “into the name” is referring to the changing status of the individual being baptized.

Baptizing “in the Name”

The fact that an individual could baptize another “in the Name” can be explained by the concept found in Psalm 118:26, which Christians often used:

Hosanna! Blessed is he who comes in the name of the LORD!

Triumphal Entry

The Hebrew word used here is b’ , which can mean both “in” and also “as.” Thus, we are speaking of “baptizing in the Name” or “baptizing as the Name.” “In the name of” can also mean “as a representative of.” So, when one is baptizing “in the Name of,” they are most likely speaking of baptizing someone as a representative of/with the authority of the Name, or baptizing as the Name (as if they were the Name). The Name can be a title for Christ, and is similar to terms like the Word/Logos. Baptizing “in the name of the Lord” could mean “with the authority of the Lord” (p. 119).

Regarding this last interpretation, Barker notes:

When someone came b’shem, “in/with the name of” Yahweh, it meant more than simply coming as a representative, because the Davidic king, as we shall see, “was” the LORD (footnote: See below, p. 160). One of his titles was Immanuel, “God with us” (Isa 8:8). Sometimes the Name meant the LORD himself: “Behold, the Name of the LORD comes from far, burning with his anger and in thick rising smoke” (Isa 30:27). Sometimes the Name was “in” an angel, as when an angel guided Israel from Sinai: “my Name is in/within him” (Exod 33:14). The LORD was known to be a pluriform presence: those who had his Name had his presence and were his presence.”

I think Latter-day Saints can relate to this idea when we read passages like Doctrine and Covenants 1:38:

38 What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same.

Barker cites Josephus as he explains the story of the three men who appeared to Abraham at Mamre (Gen 18):

…[H]e did not mention Yahweh even though he had the same version of Genesis as we do. Josephus described three angels appearing to Abraham “and they declared they were angels of God” (Antiquities 1:196). This shows that an educated Palestinian Jew in the first century CE, coming from a high priestly family, thought of Yahweh as present in his angels. Josephus would also have declared as the fundamental of his faith: “The LORD our God (‘elohim, a plural noun) is One LORD” (Deut 6:4). The plurality of Yahweh was a Unity, but the plurality could be perceived and described as his angels. Coming “with the Name of the LORD” meant coming as his presence, one of his presences (p. 121).

As we have discussed, the high priest wore the Name of the LORD over his forehead, and so the LORD was present in him. The high priest was, with the Name, enabled to act as if he were Yahweh himself.  The high priest wore the Name so that he could take upon himself any guilt in the sacrifices offered and thus cleanse them from their sins (Exod 28:38).  According to Barker, this was a dangerous task, and the high priest warned that if he wore the Name “lightly” he would not be protected from the guilt that he bore. Barker argues that this is the original meaning of the commandment: “Thou shalt not take the Name of the LORD thy God in vain/lightly” (Exod 20:7).  This is something that modern priesthood holders should keep in mind.

For Christians, the baptizer had to have the proper authority. Tertullian, writing around 200 AD, commented: “The supreme right of giving baptism belongs to the high priest, that is, to the bishop, and then to presbyters and deacons with the bishop’s permission” (On Baptism 17).

Baptized “into the Name”

“Into (‘eis) the Name” occurs in Matt 28:19, Acts 8:16, and in the Didache. Paul described baptism into Christ Jesus (Rom 6:3). Baptism transfers the convert into the body of Christ, the Church.

When the royal high priest was vested and anointed, he bcame an angel, a son of God (p. 123). Just as the high priest became a son of Yahweh, the person being baptized “into Christ” also became a son of Christ. They “put on Christ” and became integrated into his Body. They became a part of Him. Barker explains:

“Putting on Christ” was drawn from the imagery of vesting, and so being baptized “into the Name” implied that the new Christian became part of the Name, one of the ‘elohim that were the unity of the Lord (p. 124).

In this new unity, the convert now “cleaves” to the Lord, and the Lord is “bound” to the convert (p. 124-125). Just like the high priest who bore the Name was protected by it, so the baptized Christian is protected by virtue of the Name which he now bears.  

Joseph Smith was a very bold individual. He made all kinds of daring religious claims and published many of them in writing for all to judge their legitimacy. In 1830, he published a book (The Book of Mormon) of nearly 600 pages of what he claimed to be additional Holy Scripture written by ancient prophets of God. Today, millions of people worldwide hold this book to be the Word of God alongside the Bible.

Claims About Melchizedek’s Genealogy

One of the more daring claims that can be made about Joseph is that through revelation he knew more about the Biblical figures than the Bible itself tells us.  Examples of this are very many, however, I wish to focus on just one aspect of Joseph’s contribution to our understand of the mysterious figure of Melchizedek–his background and genealogy, which are notably absent in both the Old and New Testaments.

What the Bible Tells Us

Biographical information on Melchizedek is peculiarly limited in the Bible. In the Old Testament, besides Ps 110:4 (which mentions only the priesthood ”after the order of Melchizedek,” KJV), the only mention we have of this figure is in Gen 14:18-20:

18 And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God.
19 And he blessed him, and said, Blessed be Abram of the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth:
20 And blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand. And he gave him tithes of all.

In this passage, we learn that Melchizedek was king of “Salem” (probably Jerusalem), and was “priest” of the most high God (El Elyon). Melchizedek seem to have seniority over Abram as he is the one who brings out the offering and blesses Abram. The phrase “he gave him tithes of all” is rather ambiguous, and doesn’t clearly tell us who gave tithes to whom. It seems that it is Abram who would be giving tithes to the priestly Melchizedek, but this detail is not clear from the text.  More to the point, we are simply not told in clear terms who Melchizedek is and how he fits into the overall narrative. He simply appears in this scene and is not mentioned again until his name/title is used in Ps 110. 

In the New Testament, the only place he is mentioned is in the Epistle to the Hebrews. The main clues, as far as biographical info goes, are to be found in Heb 7:

1 For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him;
2 To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace;
3 Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.
4 Now consider how great this man was, unto whom even the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils.

The author of Hebrews makes it much more clear that it was Abraham that paid tithes to Melchizedek, emphasizing Melchizedek’s priestly authority over the great patriarch. However, we are still left quite clueless as to who this figure really is. Verse 2 gives us the strange formula about “without father, without mother, without descent…”, which makes it seem like he simply has no geneology. Did he really have no geneology, or, because the author was borrowing from Genesis 14, did he simply not know of any genealogy? That is certainly possible–however, it makes more sense to conclude that, as Joseph Smith suggested, the author is referring to the priesthood here, or at least that Melchizedek could be considered an eternal/immortal figure (“nor end of life”) by virtue of the priesthood that he held.

Joseph Smith’s Inspired Contribution

Through his translation of the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith gave us some interesting “extra-biblical” insight into who Melchizedek was. In Alma 13:14-15, 17-18, the prophet Alma gives some background for the figure of Melchizedek, after whom the order of the high priesthood was named: 

14 Yea, humble yourselves even as the people in the days of Melchizedek, who was also a high priest after this same order which I have spoken, who also took upon him the high priesthood forever.
15 And it was this same Melchizedek to whom Abraham paid tithes; yea, even our father Abraham paid tithes of one-tenth part of all he possessed.
• • •
17 Now this Melchizedek was a king over the land of Salem; and his people had waxed strong in iniquity and abomination; yea, they had all gone astray; they were full of all manner of wickedness;
18 But Melchizedek having exercised mighty faith, and received the office of the high priesthood according to the holy order of God, did preach repentance unto his people. And behold, they did repent; and Melchizedek did establish peace in the land in his days; therefore he was called the prince of peace, for he was the king of Salem; and he did reign under his father.

Here we have Alma borrowing from the story in Genesis, but with much greater detail into the fact that he was a “high” priest and how he received that priesthood. Also, we get an important detail that the biblical texts weren’t willing to concede–that Melchizedek had a father.

As he was revising the Bible, Joseph felt inspired to add the following passages to the account in Gen 14, giving us much more details concerning Melchizedek’s background, from which I quote a few:

25 And Melchizedek lifted up his voice and blessed Abram.
26 Now Melchizedek was a man of faith, who wrought righteousness; and when a child he feared God, and stopped the mouths of lions, and quenched the violence of fire.
27 And thus, having been approved of God, he was ordained an high priest after the order of the covenant which God made with Enoch,
28 It being after the order of the Son of God; which order came, not by man, nor the will of man; neither by father nor mother; neither by beginning of days nor end of years; but of God;

32 And men having this faith, coming up unto this order of God, were translated and taken up into heaven.
33 And now, Melchizedek was a priest of this order; therefore he obtained peace in Salem, and was called the Prince of peace.
34 And his people wrought righteousness, and obtained heaven, and sought for the city of Enoch which God had before taken, separating it from the earth, having reserved it unto the latter days, or the end of the world;
35 And hath said, and sworn with an oath, that the heavens and the earth should come together; and the sons of God should be tried so as by fire.
36 And this Melchizedek, having thus established righteousness, was called the king of heaven by his people, or, in other words, the King of peace.

In these passages, Joseph gives us some original details concerning Melchizedek’s life, including his childhood and ordination to the high priesthood. It also emphasizes the idea that it was the priesthood that did not have beginning of days nor end of years because it was of God.

Even greater insight into the genealogy of Melchizedek comes by way of Joseph Smith’s revelations, as recorded in the Doctrine and Covenants. Doctrine and Covenants 84:14-17 gives us the lineage of the priesthood of Melchizedek, which priesthood was passed on to Abraham by Melchizedek himself:

14 Which Abraham received the priesthood from Melchizedek, who received it through the lineage of his fathers, even till Noah;
15 And from Noah till Enoch, through the lineage of their fathers;
16 And from Enoch to Abel, who was slain by the conspiracy of his brother, who received the priesthood by the commandments of God, by the hand of his father Adam, who was the first man-
17 Which priesthood continueth in the church of God in all generations, and is without beginning of days or end of years.

Melchizedek then, according to this passage, was part of the line of the Patriarchs, who were his fathers. This lineage extended from Adam through Abel, down to Enoch, on to Noah, and included Melchizedek, as well. Indeed this is an great insight and, again, one that the Bible does not include. This was truly a bold claim by Joseph, one that did not have support anywhere in the biblical text.

In fact, many biblical scholars would claim that Melchizedek appears to be a Canaanite king/priest of El Elyon in the non-Israelite city of Salem [1].  If this were the case, then Joseph Smith’s idealized connection of Melchizedek to the biblical patriarchs is very much misplaced.  Is there no more information to be had on the origins of this mysterious figure? To answer that question, I now turn to pertinent ancient documents.

The Ancients on the Genealogy of Melchizedek

Extant documents of ancient origin which mention Melchizedek are by no means unanimous on the issue of his descent. There are a few available, however, that give great insight into the validity of Joseph Smith’s “theory.”

 The Book of the Bee, a Syriac text, demonstrates that there were a number of ancient theories, making the issue complicated:

“NEITHER the fathers nor mother of this Melchizedek were written down in the genealogies; not that he had no natural parents, but that they were not written down. The greater number of the doctors say that he was of the seed of Canaan, whom Noah cursed. In the book of Chronography, however, (the author) affirms and says that he was of the seed of Shem the son of Noah. Shem begat Arphaxar, Arphaxar begat Cainan, and Cainan begat Shâlâh and Mâlâh, Shâlâh was written down in the genealogies; but Mâlâh was not, because his affairs were not sufficiently important to be written down in the genealogies. When Noah died, he commanded Shem concerning the bones of Adam, for they were with them in the ark, and were removed from the land of Eden to this earth. Then Shem entered the ark, and sealed it with his father’s seal, and said to his brethren, ‘My father commanded me to go and see the sources of the rivers and the seas and the structure of the earth, and to return.’ And he said to Mâlâh the father of Melchizedek, and to Yôzâdâk his mother….” (Ch. XXI, Of Melchizedek)

 Amazingly, this early Christian text gives a theory very similar to Joseph’s–that Melchizedek was of the lineage of the Patriarchs through Noah.

Likewise, other “non-biblical” sources include him in the line of the Biblical patriarchs, either as a descendent of Noah or of Noah’s brother, Nir (2 Enoch 71:32-33). In the Nag Hammadi texts, he is placed in the line “of Adam [Abel], Enoch, [Noah] you, Melchizedek, [the Priest] of God [Most High]” [2].  In the Targumic and Rabbinic materials, Melchizedek is often specifically named as Shem, the Great High Priest, the eldest son of Noah [3]. The Rabbis understood that Shem-Melchizedek had received his priesthood from his fathers, the Patriarchs, and had passed that priesthood on to Abraham, from whom the Levites would eventually have claim to it [4].

This is by no means a comrehensive commentary on all mentions of Melchizedek in “extra-biblical” religious literature. Interestingly, although the biblical texts have so little to say about him, he was a very popular and intensely studied figure in the intertestamental and early Christian periods. I would venture to say that he was a very important figure in Old Testament times as well, although his significance has been obscured in our texts. 

As for Joseph Smith, instead of being far off the mark or obviously inventing preposterous and unsupportable lore about the figure of Melchizedek, his contribution is very much in line with what many of the ancients believed about him. He was a descendant of Noah, Enoch, and Adam. He received the ordination to the high priesthood, as his fathers did, and passed that priesthood on to Abraham.  Joseph Smith’s theory is suprisingly well supported by the ancient evidence, although this evidence is not to be found in the Bible anywhere.

References

[1] See arguments in James R. Davila, “Melchizedek: Priest, King, and God,” in The Seductiveness of Jewish Myth: Challenge or Response? (Albany: SUNY Press, 1997), pp. 218-219.

[2] Birger A. Pearson (ed.), Nag Hammadi Codices IX and X, p. 63.

[3] See Tg. Neof. on Gen. 14:18 in M. McNamara (tr.), Targum Neofiti 1:Genesis (AB, 1A; Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1992), p. 92; Tg. Ps.-J. in M. Maher (tr.), Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Genesis (AB, 1B; Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1992), 58. See also Gen. Rab. 43:1, 44:7; Abot R. Nat. 2, Pirque R. El. 7, 27; b. Ned. 32b;

[4] See arguments in Andrei Orlov, “The Heir of Righteousness and the King of Righteousness: The Priestly Noachic Polemics in 2 Enoch and the Epistle to the Hebrews,” in Journal of Theological Studies, NS, vol. 58, Pt 1, April 2007, pp. 55-57.