[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 Do these elements and others in the Book of Moses lend support to a negative perception of Mormonism as outdated and what Mormons say as “mostly nonsense”?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.

[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.

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.