Was the Pentateuch, As We Have It, Authored Entirely by Moses?
An impressive array of evidences for the seeming heterogeneity of sources within the first five books of the Bible have converged to form the basis of the Documentary Hypothesis, a broad scholarly consensus whose most able current popular expositor has been Richard Friedman. However, even those who find the Documentary Hypothesis—or some variant of it—compelling have good reason to admire the resulting literary product on its own terms. For example, in the case of the two Creation chapters, Friedman himself writes that in the scriptural version of Genesis we have a text "that is greater than the sum of its parts."[i] Sailhamer aptly summarizes the situation when he writes that "Genesis is characterized by both an easily discernible unity and a noticeable lack of uniformity."[ii]
The idea that a series of individuals may have had a hand in the authorship and redaction of Genesis should not be foreign to readers of the Book of Mormon, where inspired editors have explicitly revealed the process by which they wove separate overlapping records into the finished scriptural narrative. However, in contrast to the carefully controlled prophetic redaction of the Book of Mormon, we do not know how much of the editing of the Old Testament may have taken place with less inspiration and authority. Joseph Smith wrote: "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 have committed many errors."[iii]
In what I have written, I have usually treated the book of Moses from a canonical perspective, ignoring the rather complex questions about how primary sources may have been authored and combined to form the scriptural text as we now have it.
Is the Book of Moses in a "Final" Form?
While I do not think it is necessary to believe that every word in our book of Genesis came from the pen of Moses, I am fully convinced that Joseph Smith made his revisions as the result of a prophetic mandate from God.
This being said, I think it would be a mistake to assume that this work of scripture is currently in any sort of "final" form—if indeed such perfection in expression could ever be attained within the confines of what Joseph Smith called our "little, narrow prison, almost as it were, total darkness of paper, pen and ink; and a crooked, broken, scattered and imperfect language."[iv] As Robert J. Matthews, a pioneer of modern scholarship on the Joseph Smith Translation (JST), aptly put it, "any part of the translation might have been further touched upon and improved by additional revelation and emendation by the Prophet."[v]
Though Joseph Smith was careful in his efforts to render a faithful translation, he was no naïve advocate of the inerrancy or finality of scriptural language. For instance, although in some cases in his Bible translation he resolved blatant inconsistencies among different accounts of the Creation and the life of Christ, he did not attempt to merge these versions into single, final harmonizations. The fact of having multiple accounts of these important stories should be seen as a blessing rather than a defect or inconvenience. Differences in perspective—and even seeming inconsistencies—between such accounts, composed "in [our] weakness, after the manner of [our] language, that [we] might come to understanding,"[vi] can be an aid rather than a hindrance to human comprehension, perhaps serving disparate sets of readers or purposes to some advantage.
In Joseph Smith's translation of Bible verses, his criterion for acceptance was generally pragmatic rather than absolute. For example, in rendering a particular verse in Malachi he admitted that although he "might have rendered a plainer translation," it was, in this case, satisfactory because the words were "sufficiently plain to suit [the] purpose as it stands."[vii] This approach is also evident in his renderings of key passages of the Bible in several of his discourses, where he varied the wording of verses he cited in order to better bring out whatever point he happened to be making.
There is another reason why I am reluctant to think of the book of Moses as being in its "final" form. My own study of the translations, teachings, and revelations of Joseph Smith has convinced me that he sometimes knew early on much more about certain matters than he taught publicly. Indeed, in some cases, we know that the Prophet deliberately delayed the publication of early temple-related revelations connected with his work on the JST until several years later. Even after Joseph Smith was well along in the translation process, he seems to have believed that God did not intend for him to publish the JST in his lifetime. For example, writing to W. W. Phelps in 1832, he said: "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."[viii] Although he later reversed his position and made serious efforts to prepare the 1833 manuscript of the JST for publication, the statement implies that, at least during the early part of his ministry, he did not feel authorized to share all that he had learned during the translation process.
Even the limited, partial accounts of the Prophet's revelations that we have in the book of Moses were orignally deemed so sacred that they was not be shared indiscriminately among nonbelievers.[ix] It seems entirely plausible to me that, as Joseph Smith is purported to have said, he intended to go back and at least rework some portions of the translation to add in truths he was previously restricted from giving in plainness.[x]
Does the Book of Moses Restore the "Original" Version of Genesis?
LDS teachings and scripture clearly imply that Moses learned of the Creation and the Fall in vision and was told to write it. Moreover, there are revelatory passages in the book of Moses that have remarkable congruences with ancient texts. However, I think it is fruitless to rely on JST Genesis as a means for uncovering a Moses Urtext. Even if certain revelatory passages in the book of Moses were found to be direct translations of ancient documents—as was, apparently, D&C 7—it is impossible to establish whether or not they once existed as an actual part of some sort of "original" manuscript of Genesis.
Moreover, exactly matching the text of scripture given in a previous dispensation is not generally the prime intent of modern revelation. Prophetic translations that seem to be unwarranted departures from the original textual sources of the Bible become less a source of concern when we remember the wise observation of Hyrum M. Smith and Janne M. Sjodahl, which applies no less to translation of Bible passages than it does to their exposition: "Strictly speaking, the Holy Spirit does not quote the Scriptures, but gives Scripture."[xi]
During the process of translation, Joseph Smith made several types of changes, running the gamut from "long revealed additions that have little or no biblical parallel, such as the visions of Moses and Enoch, and the passage on Melchizedek," to "common-sense" changes and interpretive additions, to "grammatical improvements, technical clarifications, and modernization of terms"—the latter being the most common type of change.[xii]
Of course, even in the case of passages that seem to be explicitly revelatory, it remained to the Prophet to exercise considerable personal effort in rendering these experiences into words.[xiii] As Kathleen Flake puts it, it appears from descriptions of the usual process for Bible translation that Joseph Smith did not see himself as "God's stenographer. Rather, he was an interpreting reader, and God the confirming authority."[xiv]
With respect to the English translation of the Book of Mormon, Royal Skousen argues that the actual choice of words chosen was given under "tight control."[xv] By way of contrast, however, Skousen questions whether one should assume that every change made in the JST constitutes revealed text. Besides arguments that can be made on the basis of the modifications themselves, there are questions regarding the reliability of, and degree of, supervision given to the scribes who were involved in transcribing, copying, and preparing the text for publication. Differences are also apparent in the nature of the translation process that took place at different stages of the work. For example, while a significant proportion of the Genesis passages that have been canonized as the book of Moses look like "a word-for-word revealed text," evidence from a study of two sections in the New Testament that were translated twice indicates that the later "New Testament JST is not being revealed word-for-word, but largely depends upon Joseph Smith's varying responses to the same difficulties in the text."[xvi]
For all these reasons, LDS scholars should be wary of claiming that the JST as a whole constitutes a restoration of the "original" text of the Bible.
Was Any of the Joseph Smith Translation Directly Received in Vision?
Some aspects of the JST, plausibly including the comprehensive understanding of the Creation and the Fall that both Moses and Joseph Smith received, may have first come in vision and only later have been put into words. Regarding such visionary experiences, Lorenzo Brown remembered Joseph Smith as saying:
After I got through translating the Book of Mormon, I took up the Bible to read with the Urim and Thummim. I read the first chapter of Genesis, and I saw the things as they were done, I turned over the next and the next, and the whole passed before me like a grand panorama; and so on chapter after chapter until I read the whole of it. I saw it all![xvii]
This being said, I do not think that Joseph Smith recorded in a direct fashion everything that he saw and understood relating to the material in the book of Moses. Rather than compose a completely new account of Creation and the Fall, Joseph Smith's method seems to have been to selectively weave prophetic insights as well as, in some cases, word-for-word revelation (e.g., story of the sacrifice of Adam, accounts of Enoch) into the existing biblical Genesis account. As a result of the Prophet's revelatory translation efforts, we are given enough revised and expanded material in the book of Moses to further highlight many temple themes, but not so much as to radically rework Genesis to the point it is unrecognizable to those familiar with the Bible.
In Summary, What Do We Make of the Book of Moses?
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 even 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.[xviii]
While recognizing that the above statement of President McMurray does not represent the view of all members of the Community of Christ, sadly, it still expresses the opinion of many people today.
It is my firm witness that the book of Moses is a priceless prophetic reworking of the book of Genesis, made with painstaking effort under divine direction. While neither "complete" nor "inerrant," it is a text of inestimable value that should be a centerpiece of our gospel study. With respect to yet unrevealed portions of the book of Abraham, a companion to the book of Moses, Hugh Nibley reminds us:
Important parts of the Pearl of Great Price which are still being held back include "writings that cannot be revealed unto the world; but is [sic] to be had in the holy Temple of God,"[xix] "ought not to be revealed at the present time."[xx] Years ago, when we cited some passages from what we called an Egyptian endowment,[xxi] without elaborating, many Latter-day Saints quietly recognized their own temple endowment. Important things are still expressly withheld which "ought not to be revealed at the present time"; these include Facsimile 2, figures 12-21. For some of the secrets there is a standing invitation: "If the world can find out these numbers, so let it be. Amen."[xxii] That was over a century and a half ago, and the invitation to search is still open.[xxiii]
[i] R. E. Friedman, Commentary
[ii] J. H. Sailhamer, Genesis, p. 5.
[iii] J. Smith, Jr., Teachings, 15 October 1843, p. 327.
[iv] J. Smith, Jr., Documentary History, 27 November 1832, 1:299.
[v] R. J. Matthews, Plainer, p. 215.
[vi] D&C 1:24.
[vii] D&C 128:18.
[viii] J. Smith, Jr., Writings 2002, 31 July 1832, p. 273.
[ix] See, e.g., Moses 1:42, 4:32.
[x] See the remembrance of Brigham Young's statement on this topic in G. Q. Cannon, Life, pp. 147-148.
[xi] H. M. Smith et al., Commentary, p. 350.
[xii] P. L. Barlow, Bible, pp. 51-53.
[xiii] Cf. D&C 9:7-9.
[xiv] K. Flake, Translating Time, pp. 507-508; cf. G. Underwood, Revelation, pp. 76-81, 83-84.
[xv] R. Skousen, Tight Control.
[xvi] R. Skousen, Earliest, pp. 456-470. For the original study, see K. P. Jackson et al., Two Passages.
[xvii] Lorenzo Brown in "Sayings of Joseph, by Those Who Heard Him at Different Times," Joseph Smith Jr. Papers, Church Archives, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Salt Lake City, UT, cited in K. Flake, Translating Time, p. 506 n. 31. Flake notes: "Brown's statement is based on his recollection in 1880 of a conversation that occurred in 1832. For a discussion about the reliability of this account, see R. J. Matthews, Plainer, pp. 25-26, n. 12."
[xviii] Cited in R. G. Moore, Comparative Look, pp. 111-112.
[xix] Abraham, Facsimile 2, figure 8.
[xx] Abraham, Facsimile 2, figure 9.
[xxi] H. W. Nibley, Message 2005.
[xxii] Abraham, Facsimile 2, figure 11.
[xxiii] H. W. Nibley et al., One Eternal Round, pp. 18-19.
