Joseph Smith Translation Ezekiel 19:10: The Living Prophet Renews Scripture

The Prophet Joseph Smith changed many verses in Isaiah and Jeremiah; Ezekiel received a light touch. He pronounces Ezekiel's first 13 chapters "all correct." Starting with Chapter 14, he, here and there, updates the usage (sith becomes since; that that becomes that which; turn yourselves and live ye is now turn ye and live); he even attends to what appears to be a typo in his Bible (Arvan should be Arvad). (JST Ezekiel 35:6; 36:36; 18:32; 27:11)

See Faulring, Jackson, Matthews (eds.), Joseph Smith's New Translation of the Bible: Original Manuscripts.

Of the ten changes to Ezekiel, only six stand out as being, in any way, substantial. By substantial, I mean a change in the English of such a nature that we can ask a) whether the received Hebrew text may be in error or incomplete or b) whether the meaning of the Hebrew text has been long misunderstood and, perforce, also lost in translation. Because changes in Ezekiel 23:17, 22, and 28 apparently serve to iron out such a misunderstanding of a presumably correct underlying Hebrew idiom and text, we are left with but five small changes to a book of 48 chapters. Of these, then, a mere four require a reexamination of the Masoretic text. Yet while one of the four suggests that a rhetorical question should be recast in the indicative: Ye are . . . and ye commit (20:30), the shift does not require adjustment in the original Hebrew. Indeed some translators, sensitive to the complicated sentence structure and the intent of the Hebrew, also recast the "question" as accusation. Because these few make for good company: St. Jerome, Luther, Wycliffe, and the JPS Tanakh, Ezekiel 20:30 is a bull's-eye for Joseph Smith. Three remain.

So what prompted the prophetic mind to zoom in on a particular verse?


I

Consider Ezekiel 19:10, where a very strange phrase is crossed out:

Thy mother is like a vine in thy blood, planted by the waters: she was fruitful and full of branches by reason of many waters.

Like a vine in thy blood--that's about as faithful to the Hebrew as it's possible to get, and just about as odd an idiom as can be.

Entire chapters of Ezekiel jar modern sensibilities and baffle understanding, so why this verse? Was Joseph Smith merely searching, now and again, for a bit of clarity in a scroll of obscurity?

We picture Joseph and his associates reading Ezekiel aloud chapter by chapter, marking changes along the way. Did he read aloud the first fourteen chapters and then state "all correct?" Or did he so pronounce, without the need of reading? We can imagine the furrowing of the brow when 19:10 was read, but, if we study changes elsewhere made in the Biblical text, there were several choices available to him. He might choose to ignore the strange reading, add to the text so as to clarify meaning, rearrange words or even sentences in a meaningful way, or consider the marginal notes found in his own Bible. The Prophet solves the difficulty by simply deleting the phrase--a single word in Hebrew: bdmk--"in thy blood." Was he so prompted? Latter-day Saints believe he translated under the spirit of inspiration.

The Joseph Smith Translation of Ezekiel 19:10 accordingly reads:

The mother is like a vine planted by the waters: she was fruitful and full of branches by reason of many waters.

Who is to say the change is insignificant? According to Professor Zimmerli, the prophecy embraces the destiny of the "entire Davidic royal house" of whom the "mother" is symbolic (Walther Zimmerli, A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel. Chapters 1-24, 397).


II

We start where all students must, with text critical editions of the Hebrew Bible, e.g., the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (BHS) and the Hebrew University Bible.

Two Hebrew manuscripts show, not bdmk (in your blood), but krmk (in your kerem, an orchard or vineyard). To understand the underlying scribal tradition for these manuscripts, we must recall how b/k and d/r make up two pair of consonantal confusables. A little adjustment to the bifocals, and you could see "like a vine in your kerem"--just where a vine ought to be.

These textual apparatus now take up the Greek Septuagint, the ancient translation of the Bible into Greek.

The Septuagint, however, yields no orchard but a single vine and a single tree: hos ampelos kai hos anthos en hroa (like a vine and like a flower on a pomegranate tree). Did an "original" Hebrew be-rimmon prompt the Greek translation of en hroa, on a pomegranate? (See notes in Hebrew University Bible: Ezekiel.) Or might the notionality of blood have been confused with the redness of the pomegranate flower?

The BHS further suggests the possible emendation bakerem (in the vineyard). What about "your"?


We turn now to the Great Rabbinic Bible, Rashi's commentary on Ezekiel, and other commentators. The popular Soncino Bible, for instance, follows the rabbinic interpretation:

Thy mother was like a vine, in thy likeness, planted by the waters
Rabbi Solomon Fisch, Ezekiel.

Why "in thy likeness"? Because the Hebrew verb damah (to be like, resemble; n., dimyon, dmy, likeness) much resembles dam (blood). Yet "in thy likeness" but poorly echoes the Hebrew construction and nuance. Rav Joseph Breuer tells us the particular verbal form represented by bdmk is a qal infinitive (a verbal noun), dmyt, with preposition, be. He translates: "But your mother was (also) like a vine--you were like (it)" (Breuer, The Book of Yechezkel, 159).

And how can a vine be in thy likeness, when thy mother is also like that vine? It's a matter of likeness, of riddling, of bloodline--and of Hebrew poetry packing it in.

Jacob 5, quoting an ancient Hebrew prophet, evinces comparably dense doubling: "I will liken thee, O house of Israel, like unto a tame olive-tree, which a man took and nourished in his vineyard" (5:3; cf. Doctrine and Covenants 88:61: "Therefore, unto this parable I will liken all these kingdoms"). It's all here: to liken thee like unto; the tame olive-tree ("in thy quietness" for "in thy blood," Heb. dami, quiet, rest); took and nourished (Eichrodt: "transplanted by the water").

Yet Rabbi Fisch also notes that "in thy blood" suggests in "thy natural vigour," the vigor of both vine and bloodline; as far as that goes, bkrm would place the vine in its "natural setting." Marginal notes in Brother Joseph's own Bible prompted: "or, in thy quietness, or, in thy likeness." And divines of the day held to the reading "in thy blood" or "in thy quietness" and interpreted accordingly, creatively, and variously (cf. the examples found in the online Bible Hub, including KJV Translator's Notes).

Addressing "the puzzle of bdmk," Moshe Greenberg concludes: "The word remains a crux," (Ezekiel 1-20, The Anchor Bible, v. 22, 1983), 353.


Walther Eichrodt, as does BHS, prefers emending the text to bkrm, which could signify either bakerem or bekerem (in the vineyard or in a vineyard):

"Your mother was like a vine [in a vineyard], transplanted by the water."

Eichrodt yet concludes of bkrm: "A completely uncertain emendation of the unintelligible 'in your blood,' in the text," Ezekiel: A Commentary, 250 note J.

The toy parade of the scholars marches true to form:

"The reading of MS ken 356 krmk, which is graphically close, creates difficulties due to its suffix. Toy, Holscher, Hesekiel, Bertholet, Fohrer would read kbrm [how richly ironic: a typo in Zimmerli for bkrm!], whilst Cornill, Ehrlich, Randglossen, following MS ken 399, 421, would simply delete bkrm," Walther Zimmerli, A Commentary on Ezekiel, 397.

I poke fun at the scholars, but their words and their ways remain

Things beyond my ken. Before we can get in step with Cornill, Ehrlich, Fohrer, Toy, we're going to have to track down ken 356, 399, 421, we're going to have to tilt at Kennicott's Vetus Testamentum Hebraicum cum Variis Lectionibus. . . How easy it would be at this juncture to shrug shoulders and to say: We have Joseph Smith's translation of the verse, why bother with the manuscripts?

Zimmerli never yields the game. His own tentative conclusion? "Masoretic 'in thy blood' is certainly not original." "Already Rashi and Kimhi favor a derivation from dmh [to be like], which is probable," but only after further adjustments: "Should we then read a participle ndmh or a perfect ndmth, which has been written incorrectly as in [Ezekiel] 27:32?" (Zimmerli, 390).

Without Zimmerli's "probable," "unintelligible" and "certainly not original" would remain the latest words on the "puzzle of bdmk." After Zimmerli's emendations we arrive at: "Thy mother is like a vine ndmh planted by the waters," which signifies "Thy mother like a vine (who) is likened (being made like unto, comparable) planted by the waters." I marvel at the poetic complexity of the thing--but how to translate into plain English? Zimmerli's adoption and adaptation of the rabbinic reading only brings us back to Joseph Smith:


Thy mother is likened to a vine planted by the waters,

or simply,

Thy mother is like a vine planted by the waters.

I will liken thee, O house of Israel, like unto a tame olive tree.


Given such a baffling word in an otherwise clear text, and chary of erudition, some modern translators simply ignore bdmk. Scribes might have lost sight of some infinitive or participle attached to the mother-vine long ago; yet we lose nothing in our understanding of the poem thereby.



III

Some lessons may be drawn from such prophetic correction--or cancellation. (And I'm speaking solely for myself, and to myself, here.)

We learn a vital lesson about prophetic authority and guidance: the living prophet, who holds the keys of the kingdom, can change scripture. He can add, expand, delete, and interpret as a living oracle, a living fountain of Scripture. The Prophet may even authoritatively modify, as did Joseph Smith, his own translations and revelations. Consider the versions of the visions of Moses and of Enoch in Old Testament Manuscript One and compare these to what appears, some months later, in Old Testament Manuscript Two. The reader of the Pearl of Great Price, which follows OT 1, will be startled to see familiar, even beloved, words and phrases crossed out and recast. Startled is not strong enough a word, it shocks.

How could the Prophet do such a thing to this or that poetic expression? But he can and he does--and we're here to learn. Here is new scripture, if you will. I had never seen these changes before 2015 or thereabouts (I had noticed, yes, but just couldn't handle them a year or so ago. . .)

Just so, Brother Joseph's contemporaries responded startled, shocked, thrilled, scandalized--you name it--to what they saw in 1830 and thereafter. Imagine the shock of the Creation account in the Book of Moses (1831); an even greater jolt comes with Abraham's take on Creation, or rather, "Organization" (1842).

The living prophet, who struggles to make truth "plain and pure, and most precious and easy to the understanding of all men," not only restores "many plain and precious parts" of scripture (1 Nephi 14:23; 1 Nephi 12:34), he also takes away the unplain and the unprecious--even down to the detail. The deletions require as much inspired attention as do the expansions or the changed word. Each new day breathes new light into a living prophet of God. Will we keep up?

The change in Ezekiel 19:10 prompts a few final insights.

Who is to say the wee change is insignificant? The mother, after all, represents "the entire Davidic royal house." The promised "taking away of [our] stumbling-blocks" of scriptural error, enables us to consider the allegory anew (1 Nephi 14:1).

After passing through the Prophet's hands, new life is breathed into an ancient prophecy, and we receive a pressing invitation: "when [Ezekiel's] record I unfold, all things appear divinely new." Any attention paid by the prophets of our day to Ezekiel, including and especially the focus on Ezekiel 37 and the Book of Mormon, urges us to "Come, let us anew our journey pursue" through this ancient book of prophecy.





Notes

There are Hebraists a-plenty among the Latter-day Saints, and doubtless many have mulled over the text history of Ezekiel 19:10 in light of Brother Joseph's changes to the text. At the same time, it's fascinating how such wee changes in the JST never figure in articles or books. Many Latter-day Saints cut our teeth on Joseph Smith's "New Translation" of the Bible (Herald Publishing, 1970), which sets everything in parallel columns. Ezekiel 19:10 is nowhere to be seen in either that volume nor in the official LDS Bible. The latter notes that "in your blood" should be understood, in light of the Hebrew, as "in your likeness." This is to rely on the KJV Translator's Notes: "or, in thy quietness, or, in thy likeness" (see Bible Hub online) or on Rashi. The recent publication of all the manuscripts of the Joseph Smith Translation heralds a new day. 


Copyrighted by Val H. Sederholm, June 2015

Something New Under The Old Sun: Joseph Smith Translation Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs

Sandwiched between Joseph Smith's three small corrections to the Proverbs and his numerous changes to Isaiah comes the statement: "The Songs of Solomon are not Inspired writings." Nothing beside remains: we await Ecclesiastes as permanent fixture under the sun and find emptiness instead. And why the plural: the Songs of Solomon, are, inspired writings? Well, there are any number of 'em. Love's like that: Lieder not Lied. 

(See also valsederholm.blogspot.com, 13 July 2010: "Joseph Smith's New Translation and the Rejection of the Song of Solomon as "Inspired Writings.")

Robert J. Matthews addressed the curious matter of Ecclesiastican neglect in a question-and-answer session about the Joseph Smith Translation:

"I have heard that the book of Ecclesiastes was omitted from the JST. Why was it not included?

"Response: It is not Ecclesiastes but the Song of Solomon that was omitted. The JST Old Testament manuscript (page 97) states that 'The Songs of Solomon are not inspired writings.' However, what you may also have heard is that in the JST Old Testament manuscript there is no mention of the book of Ecclesiastes, one way or another, with no comment. This is probably an oversight. The printed JST has Ecclesiastes precisely as contained in the King James Version," in Robert Millett and Robert J. Matthews (eds), Plain and Precious Things, 183-184.

Brother Matthews's answer calls for clarification. First, let's be fair: The questioner did not confuse the statement about the Song of Solomon with what he or she had heard about Ecclesiastes. Second, "the printed JST" refers to the Inspired Version published by the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and thus sheds no light on an uncorrected, unmodified Ecclesiastes in Old Testament Manuscript 2. Third, when John M. Bernhisel copied the New Translation manuscript in Emma Smith's keeping, he added words not found in the manuscript itself: "Ecclesiastes Correct." That was all generations of Latter-day Saints, eager to get the latest on Ecclesiastes, would ever see (Reed C. Durham dissertation, "A History of Joseph Smith's Revision of the Bible," 162). Fourth, with the possible exception of the Song of Solomon, Latter-day Saints accept and study the entire Bible as canonical scripture. The Doctrine and Covenants no less than three times quotes the Song of Songs to describe the Restored Church adorned as a bride. Joseph Smith himself, here and there, borrows phrases from both Ecclesiastes and the Songs to illustrate his teachings (see indexes in Scriptural Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith and The Words of Joseph Smith). And lest there be any doubt about the continuing status of Ecclesiastes in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, consider the magnificent way in which Elder David A. Bednar, speaking on 4 April 2015 (today) in General Conference, summarized his own theme by letting us "hear the conclusion of the whole matter": "Fear God. . .For God shall bring every work into judgment" (12:13-14).

With these four points out of the way, we can now see the substance of Matthews's answer to what should have been taken as an apt question: "The omission of Ecclesiastes from the manuscript was probably an oversight." Matthews qualifies his answer with "probably" because he has no definite answer to give. That he doesn't, however, find the omission purposeful can be seen by the follow-up: "The printed JST has Ecclesiastes precisely as contained in the King James Version." The Prophet Joseph did make changes in Proverbs; Proverbs and Ecclesiastes partly overlap; therefore, Ecclesiastes must be scripture and, accordingly, its omission must (let's qualify it with "probably") be an oversight.

Matthews makes a case, but the omission of a book does not fit the Prophet's pattern.

Ruth escapes change. The record boldly states: "The Book of Ruth is all correct" (OT Manuscript 2, 711). The same annotation attends the Lamentations of Jeremiah and six minor prophets. For both Ezra and Esther, following each Roman number, the chapters are, one by one, marked "correct." No surprise here: Ezra was the great scribe of Israel: no tidying up necessary. As for Ruth and Esther, these are the only books in all scripture bearing the names of women. Enough said. Correct.

The Lamentations of Jeremiah also passes unscathed. How could anyone's lamentation invite correction? That would hardly be fair. The Book of Mormon includes some lamentations of its own. Consider Nephi lamenting from the tower. A lamentation can carry scriptural authority.

The most economical answer to the question Why was Ecclesiastes not included in the Joseph Smith Translation? must be because the Prophet Joseph Smith felt that some of the "writings" attributed to Solomon were "not inspired writings." Was "Songs" of Solomon intended as a catch-all? did it include the Preacher's wisdom? Not necessarily. Even so: "The Songs of Solomon are not inspired writings" does, by default, include Ecclesiastes.

H. Michael Marquardt, in a review of Faulring-Jackson-Matthews, Joseph Smith's 'New Translation of the Bible: Original Manuscripts, says that editing in the Prophet's "Marked Bible" shows intent to change wording in Ecclesiastes (Journal of Mormon History 31:3, 2005, 274-281; page 277). A review of the pages shows nothing to invite comment, however. The scribal hand makes a quick go-over of Ecclesiastes by striking out many, perhaps most, of the italicized words and phrases. A very few words inseparably bound in meaning to the italicized are likewise struck through. The strikeouts point at an intent to read Ecclesiastes in a new light by omitting any words presumably not reflecting original Hebrew text, but signal nothing more.

Marquardt does discover a real puzzler. The manuscript stops tracking changes in Proverbs after chapter 22 (in fact, after v. 12). He again notes changes in the "Marked Bible," but once again, these "proposed changes" are simply a first tracking of the italics. The Prophet likely decided by chapter 23 (or 22:13) that the Proverbs, or at least the last nine-and-a-half chapters, was of little moment, perhaps of none at all--not even sufficient to mark "correct." The manuscript shows but three small corrections to Proverbs anyhow. For instance, Joseph justifiably corrects "the way" to "a way" in Proverbs 16:29: the Hebrew, after all, reads bederekh lo-tov not baderekh lo-tov. From Proverbs 24 to Isaiah 1, a unique prophetic stillness falls upon the Bible. Pass. Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs get lost in the wake of that decision or realization (Marquardt, "Review," 277).

Wisdom yet "uttereth her voice" in Scripture (Proverbs 1:20). The Book of Mormon evokes Lady Wisdom 58 times. Lehi speaks of bringing up a child in the way he should go (2 Nephi 4:5; Proverbs 22:6: "train up"). Does that show Lehi read the same collection of proverbs we do? It simply means Lehi went to school and became an "instructed scribe." There might even be a touch of Kohelet in Alma 40:11 (and cf. 2 Nephi 9), but we should not view Alma as quoting that book. The New England translator of Alma may indeed echo the Preacher, but any original similarity in wording signals not dependence but Kulturkreis, a broadly shared cultural theme: at death the spirit of life returns to the Giver.

We can lose our focus on the central truths of eternity in the interminable parade of proverbs. Joseph Smith was impatient to get on with "the translation of the prophets" (Doctrine and Covenants 90:13). "Remember," he tells the whimsical Josiah Quincy, "I am a prophet": "for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy," that is to say, "the spirit of all the prophets" (Revelation 19:10).

The Lord taught the Prophet more about some books than others, and there are effulgent expansions so well as splendid changes. If He taught nothing at all about darksome Ecclesiastes, so be it. The Joseph Smith Translation guides us to those Biblical places which yield the greenest pastures of covenant, the stillest waters of promise, and the deepest wells of salvation. There Lady Wisdom also walks, and "the children of men," "wild flock" though they be, go there to "seek Wisdom" that "she should rule over them" (Mosiah 9:20-21; see also Helaman 12).


Joseph Smith--Kohelet-like--tried his hand at a few maxims of his own, but he never put them out as scripture. Sometime let's all get together and read from the Maxims, the Songs, and Kohelet to the strumming of harps. You come too.

Joseph Smith Translation Exodus 34:1-2: The Holy Order and the Migration Bees

I                                                                                                                                            
When Latter-day Saints meet in general conference, our leaders often remind us of the foundational symbols that signal "our focused, concentrated commitment to the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ."

Consider the bee:

"The beehive has always been an important symbol in our Church history. We learn in the Book of Mormon that the Jaredites carried honeybees with them (see Ether 2:3) when they journeyed to the Americas thousands of years ago. Brigham Young chose the beehive as a symbol to encourage and inspire the cooperative energy necessary among the pioneers to transform the barren desert wasteland surrounding the Great Salt Lake into the fertile valleys we have today. We are the beneficiaries of their collective vision and industry.

The beehive symbol is found in both the interiors and exteriors of many of our temples. This podium in our magnificent Conference Center is made from the wood of a walnut tree grown in President Gordon B. Hinckley’s backyard and is adorned with carved beehive images.

All of this symbolism attests to one fact: great things are brought about and burdens are lightened through the efforts of many hands 'anxiously engaged in a good cause' (Doctrine and Covenants 58:27). Imagine what the millions of Latter-day Saints could accomplish in the world if we functioned like a beehive in our focused, concentrated commitment to the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ" (Elder M. Russell Ballard, One Drop at a Time: A Message for Women, 2013, 9-13; originally published as, "Be Anxiously Engaged," Conference Report, October 2012; see also Elder Harold B. Lee, Conference Report, April 1942: of the temple symbolism, "the symbols by which power might be generated that will save this nation from destruction"; Elder Harold B. Lee, Conference Report, October 1964: symbol of dipper and north star, Salt Lake Temple).

These foundational symbols are embedded into the Holy Scriptures "for our profit and learning," and we must seek them out and liken them to our own circumstances (see Doctrine and Covenants 46:1). Ether 2:3, our source scripture for the bees, says of the ancient Jaredite migration: "And they did also carry with them deseret, which, by interpretation, is a honey bee; and thus they did carry with them swarms of bees."


II

The Joseph Smith Translation of Exodus 34: 1-2 likewise directs our thoughts to the sign of the bee. To understand the significance of the New Translation, we must begin with what we already have in the King James Version:

1 And the Lord said unto Moses, Hew thee two tables of stone like unto the first: and I will write upon these tables the words that were in the first tables, which thou brakest.

2 And be ready in the morning, and come up in the morning unto mount Sinai, and present thyself there to me in the top of the mount.

We now take up the Joseph Smith Translation (italics added to show changes):

1 And the Lord said unto Moses, Hew thee two other tables of stone, like unto the first, and I will write upon them also, the words of the law, according as they were written at the first on the tables which thou breakest; but it shall not be according to the first, for I will take away the priesthood out of their midst; therefore my holy order, and the ordinances thereof, shall not go before them; for my presence shall not go up in their midst, lest I destroy them.

2 But I will give unto them the law as at the first, but it shall be after the law of a carnal commandment; for I have sworn in my wrath, that they shall not enter into my presence, into my rest, in the days of their pilgrimage. Therefore do as I have commanded thee, and be ready in the morning, and come up in the morning unto mount Sinai, and present thyself there to me, in the top of the mount (cf. Joseph Smith Translation Deuteronomy 10:2: the words of the everlasting covenant of the holy priesthood).

Is the Joseph Smith Translation of Exodus 34:1-2 authentic? The New Translation of Exodus 34 does consist of phrases found elsewhere in the King James Version of Exodus thus lending it an authentic flavor: "take away"; "out of their midst"; "go up in thy midst"; "the days of their pilgrimage" (biymey meygureyhem), and so forth. The phrase about the "holy order," on the other hand, recalls Psalms 110:4.

Striking and unique is the migration imagery of "my holy order, and the ordinances thereof" going before the camp of Israel. We think of standards, "an ensign for the people," leading the way, or of the dipper pointing to the polar star, as depicted on the center west tower of the Salt Lake Temple, reminding us "that through the priesthood of God, the lost might find their way."

And, then, there is Deseret. "The bee," says Hugh Nibley, "is before all creatures the sponsor, inspiration, and guide of the Great Trek" (Hugh Nibley, Abraham in Egypt, Chapter 12, "The Deseret Connection," 612). To get to the root of the thing, we must turn the pertinent verses back into Hebrew, a lost Hebrew wording, for what the Prophet Joseph restores in Exodus 34:1-2 is, after all, a lost portion of scripture.


For I will take away the priesthood out of their midst;
va-hasiroti et-ha-kehonet miq-qirbam

therefore my holy order, and the ordinances thereof, shall not go before them;
ve-al-divrat (or divrat or al-divrati) qadoshti ve-hukotav lo yelkhu lefaneychem

for my presence shall not go up in their midst,
ki panay lo ya'alu beqirbam

lest I destroy them
pen 'akh'ekhem

These tightly-woven verses, with their repeated reference to faces and forward movement, and to the idea of the center (their "midst"), flow beautifully together in Hebrew. The weave is chiastic:

the Lord tells Moses that as a result of His taking the priesthood out of their midst (or lit., innards or heart)
His holy order shall not go before them (lit. to their faces);
for His presence (His faces)
shall not go up in their midst (or lit., innards or heart).

The phrase "shall not go before thee" elsewhere occurs in Exodus when the Lord tells Moses that His presence shall not go before his people into the promised land. Because of their rebellion, his angel shall go before them, but not his presence (Exodus 33:2-3).

According to the Joseph Smith Translation, His presence cannot go before them, because with the fullness of the priesthood, the holy order, taken away, and its attendant sacred ordinances thus also taken away, there can be no access to the face of God. The sacred ordinances of His holy order are necessary to enjoy the Presence of the Lord (Doctrine and Covenants 84: 21-22).

The phrase "my holy order," rendered back into Hebrew, yields: divrat or divarti qadoshti, "the order of my holiness." Though not attested anywhere in the Hebrew Bible, the phrase does reflect, as every reader knows, Psalm 110:4: "Thou art a priest after the order of Melchisedek" ('al-divrati Malki-Tzedek).

What al-devrati means in Hebrew may be endlessly debated, but striking is how the common Hebrew word for the honey bee, dvrh (divorah), matches the word KJV Psalms 110:4 translates as order, dvrh, as if to say: "The bee shall not go before thee." The relation between bees and word and speech and order, all from the verbal root d-b-r, is beyond all of us--buzzing philology has pursued it in vain. Yet any reader of Hugh Nibley will now recall his essay dealing with such themes as "The Bees and the Migrations" and "The Bee and the Rites of Resurrection" (Abraham in Egypt, Chapter 12, "The Deseret Connection," 608-649). The bees lead the way, as in the case of the Jaredites and Deseret. Here is a touch not of the authentic alone but of the genuine, of the peculiar and the specific.

"Joseph Smith puts us right into the picture," Nibley insists. "For he has told us not of one but of two separate migrations taking place shortly after the flood, starting from about the same place, from the Tower, but moving in opposite directions. Both parties toiled through the deserts of a blighted earth under dark and violent skies, moving toward promised lands. And the intimate and peculiar link between the two migrations is the friendly bee. The account of the Jaredite trek makes the bee explicitly a significant item in the baggage of the host: 'And they did also carry with them deseret, which, by interpretation, is a honeybee; and thus they did carry with them swarms of bees' (Ether 2:3). Why the odd name, why used in the singular, if they took swarms? Here the bee is representative and symbolic as well as real and recalls the bee leaders and migrating swarms of the Maya migrations in the book of Chumayel" (Abraham in Egypt, "The Deseret Connection," 629-630).

"A midrash on the very first line of Deuteronomy," says Rabbi Natan Slifkin, "plays on the words devarim and devorim: "The fifth book of the Torah, Sefer Devarim, begins with the words 'Eileh hadevarim... These are the words that Moshe spoke.' However, the Midrash homiletically reads the second word not as devarim, which means 'words,' but rather as devorim, which means 'bees.'

'These are the devarim'--Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachman said: The Holy One said, my sons were conducted in this world like bees with the righteous and with the prophets" (Midrash Devarim Rabbah 1:5).

Again: 'These are the devarim'--Just as with the bee, its children are led after it, so too Israel is led by the righteous and the prophets" (Midrash Yalkut Shimoni 1:795).

Prophets, yes. But what of the everlasting covenant of the Holy Priesthood?

The midrashic view of Israel leaving Egypt recalls how, once, in a reversal of events, "The bees led the migration to Egypt in a time of cosmic upheaval" (Hugh Nibley, Abraham in Egypt, 612-13). Here Israel marches bereft of the bee, though a hornet may yet lead them (Natan Slifkin, "Being Beeish," Rationalist Judaism Web site, 4 August 2012).


III

What clinches the association of the bee with Joseph Smith Translation Exodus 34:1-2 is another place from the same book of scripture. Hugh Nibley marvelously cites Exodus 23:28 in footnote 156 of "The Deseret Connection," and, indeed, much of Exodus 23 pertains to our theme:


20 Behold, I send an Angel before thee, to keep thee in the way, and to bring thee into the place which I have prepared.

 21 Beware of him, and obey his voice, provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgressions: for my name is in him.

 22 But if thou shalt indeed obey his voice, and do all that I speak; then I will be an enemy unto thine enemies, and an adversary unto thine adversaries.

 23 For mine Angel shall go before thee, and bring thee in unto the Amorites, and the Hittites, and the Perizzites, and the Canaanites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites: and I will cut them off.

* * * * *

25 And ye shall serve the Lord your God, and he shall bless thy bread, and thy water; and I will take sickness away from the midst of thee. [Note the wording!]

* * * * *

27 I will send my fear before thee, and will destroy all the people to whom thou shalt come, and I will make all thine enemies turn their backs unto thee.

 28 And I will send hornets [ha-tsir'ah, the hornet] before thee, which shall drive out the Hivite, the Canaanite, and the Hittite, from before thee.

 29 I will not drive them out from before thee in one year; lest the land become desolate, and the beast of the field multiply against thee.

 30 By little and little I will drive them out from before thee, until thou be increased, and inherit the land.


IV

One great purpose of Joseph Smith's translations is to restore the doctrine of the Holy Priesthood, including the "knowledge of my covenants" (2 Nephi 3:12). As we read the restored narrative of the dealings of God with the ancients, we come to understand not the essential history alone but also the purposes and powers of the Priesthood. We further come to appreciate how delicate the link between the principles of righteousness and the powers of heaven (see Doctrine and Covenants 121). We learn from the chastening historical narrative, as in no other way, to treasure the restoration of Priesthood ordinances and covenants.

Consider the theme of reversal, of the blessing "taken away," as we now read the King James Version of Exodus in light of the New Translation.

Exodus 33 repeats the idea of the Angel, the Fear, the Hornet going before the Camp of Israel:


 2 And I will send an angel before thee; and I will drive out the Canaanite, the Amorite, and the Hittite, and the Perizzite, the Hivite, and the Jebusite:

 3 Unto a land flowing with milk and honey: for I will not go up in the midst of thee; for thou art a stiffnecked people: lest I consume thee in the way.

 4 And when the people heard these evil tidings, they mourned: and no man did put on him his ornaments.


Moses pleaded with the Lord to relent and received hope:


14 And he said, My presence shall go with thee, and I will give thee rest.


Yet, by Deuteronomy 1:42-46, we see that hope rescinded in total reversal of the promised protection and guidance:


42 And the Lord said unto me, Say unto them, Go not up, neither fight; for I am not among you; lest ye be smitten before your enemies.

43 So I spake unto you; and ye would not hear, but rebelled against the commandment of the Lord, and went presumptuously up into the hill.

44 And the Amorites, which dwelt in that mountain, came out against you, and chased you, as bees do, and destroyed you in Seir, even unto Hormah.

45 And ye returned and wept before the Lord; but the Lord would not hearken to your voice, nor give ear unto you.

46 So ye abode [no further migration or guidance] in Kadesh many days, according unto the days that ye abode there.


We must turn to Psalm 118, with its Messianic promises, to quench the encompassing bees.


V

As Elder Ballard reminds us:

"The beehive symbol is found in both the interiors and exteriors of many of our temples," even gracing the door panes of sealing rooms, where families are organized after the pattern of the Priesthood.

The symbol is a fitting one, for "mine house is a house of order" (Doctrine and Covenants 132:8).

Bees connote the ordered society, an ideal which in its fullest sense signifies a society under the direction and order of the Priesthood. Hugh Nibley refers to "the authority and order(!) by which [the Saints] were ruled":

"The Latter-day Saints, ever settling and ever on the move, adopted the bee symbol from the beginning. It caught their imagination, and they saw in it exactly what the ancients did, the example of a society in which 'men lived together like bees,' of the authority and order by which they were ruled, and of the industry and organization with which they gathered the sweets of the field and enhanced their growth: in the State of Deseret, 'our lovely Deseret,' the beehive symbol was everywhere" (Hugh Nibley, Abraham in Egypt, "The Deseret Connection," 630, italic added).

Yet it is particularly in the holy temple where "we may find the symbols by which power might be generated that will save this nation [or this Deseret community] from destruction. Therein may be found the fullness of the blessings of the Priesthood. The spires on the eastern towers of the temple are to represent the presidency of the Melchizedek Priesthood; the spires to the west, the presidency of the Aaronic Priesthood" (Elder Harold B. Lee, April Conference, 1942).

"Look to the east," says President Lee, "just underneath the west towers of the great Salt Lake Temple, and see a depiction of the dipper pointing toward the North Star, which Truman O. Angell said in an article in the Millennial Star was to symbolize to the Church "that through the priesthood of God, the lost might find their way" (October Conference, 1964). The bee, leading the way, is also a pointer, a director (so Natan Slotkin notes), a Liahona. The ordinances of the Priesthood point homeward to God.

As already noted, one great purpose of Joseph Smith's translations is to restore the doctrine of the Holy Priesthood--yet there is more.

The vital truths about the Holy Priesthood, its ordinances and covenants, come to us couched in revelations and translations narrating the dealings of God with Abraham, Moses, Enoch, Melchizedek, and others. Doctrine does not descend to us in abstract packaging. The reason for favoring narrative for didactic purposes, forever intertwining story and symbol, is clear. The Prophet Joseph Smith taught these vital truths precisely as they once came to Moses and Abraham; thus we also receive them as if from the very mouths of the ancients, and, in so receiving, become, as priesthood holders, "the sons of Moses and of Aaron, and the seed of Abraham." In restoring the doctrine of the Holy Priesthood, the Lord, at once, also binds in a direct line of descent the hearts of the fathers to their children.

8 "Therefore, thus saith the Lord unto you, with whom the priesthood hath continued through the lineage of your fathers—

 9 For ye are lawful heirs, according to the flesh, and have been hid from the world with Christ in God—

 10 Therefore your life and the priesthood have remained, and must needs remain through you and your lineage until the restoration of all things spoken by the mouths of all the holy prophets since the world began" (Doctrine and Covenants 86:8-10).

"Behold, I will reveal unto you the Priesthood, by the hand of Elijah the prophet" (Doctrine and Covenants 2:2; 110:13-16; Malachi 4:4-6). Another engraving on temple walls reads: HOLINESS TO THE LORD. The "holy order, and the ordinances thereof" go before the Camp of Israel today. The symbol of the bees, that is to say, "the words of the everlasting covenant of the holy priesthood," the promised and restored sealing power, are written in our hearts. "But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people" (Jeremiah 31:33).

Notes


President Harold B. Lee (and compare Exodus 23:25):

We talk of security in this day, and yet we fail to understand that here on this Temple Block we have standing the holy temple wherein we may find the symbols by which power might be generated that will save this nation from destruction. Therein may be found the fulness of the blessings of the Priesthood. . . ; the gilded figure of the angel Moroni symbolizes the preaching of the gospel to the world. The gospel must be preached as a witness (Matt. 24:14) under the direction of the holy Priesthood: "Fear God and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come" (Rev. 14:7).
April 1942

Look to the east, just underneath the west towers of the great Salt Lake Temple, and see a depiction of the dipper pointing toward the North Star, which Truman O. Angell said in an article in the Millennial Star was to symbolize to the Church "that through the priesthood of God, the lost might find their way."
October 1964


Rabbi Natan Slifkin, "Being Beeish" (also titled: "Consider the Bee"), on his blog, Rationalist Judaism, 4 August 2012
http://www.jidaily.com/18491



Copyright 2013 by Val H. Sederholm

Joseph Smith and Hannibal: Mount Hanabal in Joseph Smith Translation Genesis 14:10

The Prophet Joseph Smith left for the benefit of the Saints not one but two books of Abraham. The first appears in the added words, phrases, sentences, and even paragraphs of the New Translation of Genesis. The second came to light from a roll of papyrus, written in hieratic script and purporting, in its title, to be The Book of Abraham, Written by His Own Hand upon Papyrus. Like the gold plates of the Book of Mormon, the record on papyrus, scribal copy though it be, becomes a tangible earnest of the resurrection of the dead. Together, these two offerings yield startling details, stories, and revelations not found in the Holy Bible and set forth the covenant of the priesthood God made with the fathers.

Among the many easily missed details Brother Joseph added to the ancient story of Abraham is the place name Hanabal, a name which could refer to one or several of the Mountains of Moab--perhaps Jebel Shihan, with its high ruins and caves. A stele depicting a form of Ba'al wearing Egyptian accoutrements was found just to the west of Shihan. Another candidate is Bemot Ba'al, the High Place of Ba'al, to which "Balak took Balaam" (Numbers 22:41). The mountain towers out of nowhere in Joseph Smith Translation Genesis 14:9--a verse not found in the footnotes of the current LDS edition of the Holy Bible.

The story begins with KJV Genesis 14:10:

1 And it came to pass in the days of Amraphel king of Shinar, Arioch king of Ellasar, Chedorlaomer king of Elam, and Tidal king of nations;

2 That these made war with Bera king of Sodom, and with Birsha king of Gomorrah, Shinab king of Admah, and Shemeber king of Zeboiim, and the king of Bela, which is Zoar.

8 And there went out the king of Sodom, and the king of Gomorrah, and the king of Admah, and the king of Zeboiim, and the king of Bela (the same is Zoar;) and they joined battle with them in the vale of Siddim;

9 With Chedorlaomer the king of Elam, and with Tidal king of nations, and Amraphel king of Shinar, and Arioch king of Ellasar; four kings with five.

10 And the vale of Siddim was full of slimepits [JST OT Manuscript 1 has: was filled with slime pits]; and the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah fled, and fell there; and they that remained fled to the mountain.

To the last verse, the Prophet adds:

and they that remained fled to the mountains [with the s crossed out] which is called Hanabal. (Old Testament Manuscript 2, p. 640),

or,

to the Mountain [note the capital letter] which was called [Hanable: crossed out] Hanabal (Old Testament Manuscript 1, p. 125).

In an earlier essay, posted on 21 June 2010, I suggested deriving the name from the root n-b-l. Ha-nabal (even Har-nabal) could signify either The Lofty, the Elevated, or Mount Lofty, Mount Eminent, and so forth. I no longer subscribe to that view.

The name of Mount Hanabal clearly combines the root h-n-n (to be gracious, graced) and the epithet Ba'al (master, husband). The author of Genesis 14, after all, had a "predilection for composite place names," and the like (Michael C. Astour, "Hazazon-Tamar", Anchor Bible Dictionary, III, 86). Though I did, in my first try, briefly compare Hanabal to the name of the Carthaginian general Hannibal, the name of another odd mountain known to the patriarchs, Lubar (in Jubilees and the Genesis Apocryphon), threw me off track. Lubar, nevertheless, has its own fascinating etymology. . .

Hanabal signifies Ba'al is gracious, or Ba'al graces, even as the Hebrew name Hananiah signifies Jehovah is gracious. The Old Testament does twice attest Ba'al-Hanan (the Akkadian Ba'al ha-nu-nu), Ba'al has shown mercy: Ba'al Hanan names a king of Edom (Genesis 36:38; see Ernst Axel Knauf, "Baal-Hanan," Anchor Bible Dictionary I 551-2). A list of personal names from Ebla yields Hanna-Il, "God (Il or El) is gracious" (#792). Also from Ebla: Har-Ba'al, Harra-Ba'al, Ba'al is a Mountain (see Cybernetica Mesopotamica: Ebla PNs).

Ba'al is a Mountain also reminds me of Mount Lubar. Might not Lubar derive from Ilu-Ba'al, a combination of the two divine names Ilu and Ba'al? If so, Lubar could then be read as Ba'al is (my) God. Lubar is leading me off track again. . . Delitzsch derives Lubar from the Alborz Mountains of Persia (The Jewish Encyclopedia, 1906, "Noah"). The derivation doesn't go far enough. In the Encyclopaedia Iranica entry for "Alborz," we read that the Hara berezaiti in Avestan texts (later shortened to Harborz) names a vast cosmic mountain or mountain range stretching from horizon to horizon; the connection with the Persian range dates to later times. Lubar is a kind of cosmic mountain for Noah and his sons. Can Lubar really derive from Hara berezaiti? It can.

When looking for derivations, we mustn't expect exact matches. Shouldn't we demand of Joseph Smith the spelling Hananabal in place of Hanabal? Consider Hannibal and Hamilcar of Carthage: here we find West Semitic names in Latin texts and Latin forms. Today we might justifiably spell Hannibal in a variety of ways: Hananibal, Hananibal, Hananabal, Hannabal, even Anibal (as in Spanish). Joseph Smith's Hanabal (or even the odd Hanable) sufficiently signals Hannabal or, just so well, Hananabal. Joseph Smith gives us only one n, it is true, but the consonant is long. (Semitic languages have long consonants.)

How have students understood the name Hannibal? Hannibal may signify "Ba'al has been gracious (in providing me with a son")--that's Hamilcar speaking; others read "Ba'al is gracious." John Huehnergard, "Semitic Roots," in The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 5th edition, suggests Hann-i-bal, "my grace is Baal." 

Why the name of a mountain? One has only to consider the home of Ba'al Hadad on Mount Zaphon, just north of Latakia. Zaphon was Ba'al Hadad's Olympus, but, for the Canaanites, other mountain tops also reflected that central home. Hadad's thunder reverberated from peak to peak. And then there's the name from Ebla: Har(ra)-Ba'al.

Balak, king of Moab, takes the prophet Balaam to Bemot Ba'al, the High Place of Ba'al: "And it came to pass on the morrow, that Balak took Balaam, and brought him up into the high places of Ba'al, that thence he might see the utmost part of the people" (Numbers 22:41). Standing upon that High Place of Ba'al, Balaam asks Balak to build seven altars in preparation for the cursing of Israel. The pair then travel to Peor to build yet another seven high altars (Numbers 23). The Bible attests a particular worship of Ba'al at Peor, in the name of Ba'al Peor (the Ba'al of Peor). Bemot Ba'al and Peor, though attested after the Patriarchal Age, give good Biblical evidence for such a mountain in Moab as Hanabal.

We return to the stele found "in the vicinity of Jebel Shihan [Mount Shihan]," another candidate for our Hanabal: "The Rujm al-'Abd figure with its downward-thrusting spear, cap with streamer, and accompanying lion fits iconographic features used to identify the Canaanite god Ba'al, especially when fused with Seth as the slayer of Apophis the serpent in Egyptian art" (Bruce Edward Routledge, Moab in the Iron Age: Hegemony, Polity, Archaeology, 180). Again: "Some scholars have speculatively identified this figure as the god Kemosh, a suggestion that cannot be completely discounted, as local deities were frequently represented as the hypostasis of Ba'al as storm god" (180; illustration of stele on page 179). The Rujm al-'Abd figure, which blends Egyptian and Canaanite iconography in violent aspect (and note the lion!), might as well be called Facsimile 4 of the Book of Abraham. 

And any reader familiar with the hill at the head of the plain of Olishem, the place of Elkenah's sacrifical altar in Abraham 1, will wish to visit the hilltop stele of Ramesses the Great, which overlooks an obscure Syrian village. The stele shows the pharaoh offering a figurine of Ma'at to a divinity sporting a bizarrely horned Osirian Atef Crown. An accompanying legend yields: Ilu (El) k-n-a Zaphon, which both Giveon and de Moor read as El qny Zaphon (El Creator of Zaphon). While the transliteration and meaning of the sequence k-n-a is disputed, it does recall "the god of Elkenah" in the Book of Abraham. Or what to make of the many bronze figurines of El, accoutred in "the manner of the Egyptians" and in the pose of a smiting god? So accoutred, the priest of Elkenah, who was also priest of Pharaoh, sought to slay Abraham upon the altar (Kitchen, Ramesside Inscriptions II, 263.)

Because people are constantly casting aspersions on the Prophet's Book of Abraham, Latter-day Saints might consider a standard response. One response would be to invite all to see in the Joseph Smith Translation yet another restored Book of Abraham. Criticize Abraham's works and watch how, like his seed, they multiply. More scripture from father Abraham is forthcoming. 

Nephi has another response: "But behold, there are many that harden their hearts against the Holy Spirit, that it hath no place in them; wherefore, they cast many things away which are written and esteem them as things of naught" (2 Nephi 33:2). Cast out the pearl of great price, then where will you be? 

Learned posturing borders on imposture:

"Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked:

I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see" (Revelation 3: 17-18). 

None of us sees very well in the mortal state--and we must walk by faith--still, what evidence we do have for the divine Book of Abraham shows that it deserves a second look. 

Because the scriptures revealed through the Prophet Joseph Smith give us many a mountain and hill heretofore unknown: Shelem, Hanabal, Potiphar, Cumorah, etc., we should take that second look from a lofty perspective. From a cosmic vantage point, we may see all heights and depths.

Yet before we consider Joseph Smith as linguist (or as student of early Canaanite religion), let's taste of his prophetic irony:

10 And the vale of Siddim was full of slimepits [JST OT Manuscript 1 has: was filled with slime pits]; and the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah fled, and fell there; and they that remained fled to the mountain,

which is called Hanabal (Old Testament Manuscript 2, p. 640),

which is, being interpreted, Ba'al is gracious. 

Some final words

Abraham holds the keys of the Book of Abraham. To diminish the Book of Abraham is thus also to diminish Abraham, a god, who "hath entered into his exaltation and sitteth upon his throne" (Doctrine and Covenants 132), and, ultimately, to challenge and to diminish the purposes of the God of Abraham, the God of the living. Neither need we redefine Abraham; his years exceed ours.

Latter-day Saints have long ago (1880 and 1890) taken upon themselves, by obligation, a covenantal promise to reverence the Book of Abraham as scripture. For the Saints, there is no more need to revisit the genuineness of the writings of Abraham than there is to revisit the reality of the exalted Abraham himself. The Book of Abraham comes to us clothed in purity as a translated record of the living father of the covenant people. Abraham is a living prophet, and the Book of Abraham, a true record of his revelations, covenants, ministry, and teachings. 

The doctrine is simple: God is God; Abraham is Abraham; covenants are covenants, and scripture is scripture. The Book of Abraham serves as a compass pointing to true north; we take our bearings by it in both time and eternity and, by this means, avoid the errors inherent in the never-settled, ever-shifting theories of men. 

As President Boyd K. Packer teaches, we are to examine and scrutinize, yes, critique, the learning of men from the perspective of gospel and scriptural truth--not the other way round. As we do so, the truth will shine fair as the sun, clear as the moon, and terrible as an army with banners. Errors in our understanding of history, language, and letters will take flight as we raise high those bright banners to the glory of God. Then intelligence will be ours.

NOTES

1) The text of JST Genesis 14, transcribed according to accepted standards, appears in Joseph Smith's New Translation of the Bible: Original Manuscripts, Scott Faulring, Kent Jackson, Robert Matthews (eds). The introduction to the volume, with its explanations of the various manuscripts of the JST, are invaluable. I further recommend "The Doctrinal Restoration," the transcript of a talk delivered by Elder Bruce R. McConkie, The Joseph Smith Translation, Monte S. Nyman and Robert S. Millet (eds).

Other useful editions of the JST include Joseph Smith's "New Translation" of the Bible (Independence, Missouri, 1970), which I studied as a young child and of which I'm fond, and The Bible Corrected by Joseph Smith, Kenneth and Lyndell Lutes (eds), which shows the changes with more clarity. Neither is a perfect edition, and both perpetuate errors. Other editions are available, given that Latter-day Saints never tire of publishing the same things over and again.

2) Geography of the Pentapolis: J. Simons, The Geographical and Topographical Texts of the Old Testament, 222-229; Neballat: Simons, p. 390. 

Of Jebel Shihan: it "overlooks the Wadi al-Mujib (the Arnon) and the Dead Sea. It rises to 965 meters above sea level, and its summit is occupied by ruins and caves [a place of refuge]," Online Article: "The Karak District in the Madaba Map," by Fawzi Zayadine, part of the study, Jordan: the Madaba Mosaic Map, on the Franciscan Cyberspot. Ba'al's Mount Zaphon itself is not so very much higher: ca. 1500 meters.

"He will kill Jeremiah too!": Joseph Smith Translation Jeremiah 26:17-23

Among the Bible's most vivid episodes is that of Jeremiah prophesying in the court of the Temple, whereupon an angry assemblage of priests, prophets, princes, and people try him for his life on the spot, that is, at the New Gate of the Temple, where "trials involving sacral law were regularly heard."

Sources: William McKane, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Jeremiah, Edinburgh, 1996, 678; on the supposed legal model for the narrative see McKane, ps. 676-681; see also John W. Welch, "The Trial of Jeremiah: A Legal Legacy from Lehi's Jerusalem," in David R. Seely, JoAnn Seely, and J. Welch (eds), Glimpses of Lehi's Jerusalem (Provo, 2004), which shows parallels with legal procedure in the Book of Mormon narrative but does not mention JST Jeremiah 26:17-23; cf. also David R. Seely, "The Ministry of Jeremiah," in Kent Jackson (ed), Studies in Scripture 4.

In his New Translation of Jeremiah 26 the Prophet Joseph Smith makes several changes, though none carries more dramatic power than the line added to verse 20, at the very moment the wavering people stand ready to spare: "But there was a man among the priests, rose up and said." While the "man among the priests," who seeks to turn any wavering, merciful souls against Jeremiah, does not appear in any other textual tradition, what follows is the speech about Urijah, a prophet cut down by sword's edge and cast into a common grave for prophesying the very same things Jeremiah now sets forth. David Kimchi, paragon of commentators, sums up the point about comparing Jeremiah to Urijah with the following verdict: gm yrmyhw yhrg: You wish to acquit him but, as you now see, "[Jehoiakim] will kill Jeremiah too" (see W. McKane, Jeremiah, 670). The Prophet must die.

In order to grasp the power, and balance, these new words add to the narrative--raising its dramatic tension to fever pitch--we must first consider Jeremiah's most dangerous mission as set forth in the Authorized Version of the Bible:

1 In the beginning of the reign of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah king of Judah came this word from the Lord, saying,
2 Thus saith the Lord; Stand in the court of the Lord’s house, and speak unto all the cities of Judah, which come to worship in the Lord’s house, all the words that I command thee to speak unto them; diminish not a word:
3 If so be they will hearken, and turn every man from his evil way, that I may repent me of the evil, which I purpose to do unto them because of the evil of their doings.
4 And thou shalt say unto them, Thus saith the Lord; If ye will not hearken to me, to walk in my law, which I have set before you,
5 To hearken to the words of my servants the prophets, whom I sent unto you both rising up early, and sending them, but ye have not hearkened;
6 Then will I make this house like Shiloh, and will make this city a curse to all the nations of the earth.

The reaction of the audience was to detain Jeremiah as one worthy of death:

8 ¶Now it came to pass, when Jeremiah had made an end of speaking all that the Lord had commanded him to speak unto all the people, that the priests and the prophets and all the people took him, saying, Thou shalt surely die.

Verse 9 further records: And all the people were gathered against Jeremiah in the house of the Lord.

Representatives of the king, the sarim or princes, now join the Assembly of the People as its presiding secular officers, and Jeremiah contests his life at Newgate. The religious leaders or officers, the priests and the prophets, prosecute the case before the Assembly:

10 ¶When the princes of Judah heard these things, then they came up from the king’s house unto the house of the Lord, and sat down in the entry of the new gate of the Lord’s house.
11Then spake the priests and the prophets unto the princes and to all the people, saying, This man is worthy to die; for he hath prophesied against this city, as ye have heard with your ears.

Jeremiah is next permitted to defend himself before the Assembly and its presiding officers:

12 ¶Then spake Jeremiah unto all the princes and to all the people, saying, The Lord sent me to prophesy against this house and against this city all the words that ye have heard.
13 Therefore now amend your ways and your doings, and obey the voice of the Lord your God; and the Lord will repent him of the evil that he hath pronounced against you.
14 As for me, behold, I am in your hand: do with me as seemeth good and meet unto you.
15 But know ye for certain, that if ye put me to death, ye shall surely bring innocent blood upon yourselves, and upon this city, and upon the inhabitants thereof: for of a truth the Lord hath sent me unto you to speak all these words in your ears.

The sarim and the Assembly then make their decision, a first, or secular decision (Jack W. Welch, "The Trial of Jeremiah," cites 2 Chronicles 19:8, 11 as evidence for a clear division of secular and sacral judges under King Jehoshaphat; he notes "jurisdictional lines were not always sharply divided" in antiquity):

16¶Then said the princes and all the people unto the priests and to the prophets; This man is not worthy to die: for he hath spoken to us in the name of the Lord our God.
17 Then rose up certain of the elders of the land, and spake to all the assembly of the people, saying,
18 Micah the Morasthite prophesied in the days of Hezekiah king of Judah, and spake to all the people of Judah, saying, Thus saith the Lord of hosts; Zion shall be plowed like a field, and Jerusalem shall become heaps, and the mountain of the house as the high places of a forest.
19 Did Hezekiah king of Judah and all Judah put him at all to death? did he not fear the Lord, and besought the Lord, and the Lord repented him of the evil which he had pronounced against them? Thus might we procure great evil against our souls [Joseph Smith Translation: Thus by putting Jeremiah to death we might procure great evil against our souls].

20 And there was also a man that prophesied in the name of the Lord, Urijah the son of Shemaiah of Kirjath-jearim, who prophesied against this city and against this land according to all the words of Jeremiah.
21 And when Jehoiakim the king, with all his mighty men, and all the princes, heard his words, the king sought to put him to death: but when Urijah heard it, he was afraid, and fled, and went into Egypt;
22 And Jehoiakim the king sent men into Egypt, namely, Elnathan the son of Achbor, and certain men with him into Egypt.
23 And they fetched forth Urijah out of Egypt, and brought him unto Jehoiakim the king; who slew him with the sword, and cast his dead body into the graves of the common people [Vulgate: in sepulchris vulgi ignobilis; Targum: lqbry gly', "graves of the heaps," "common graves" = W. McKane, 664].

Nevertheless!

24 Nevertheless the hand of Ahikam the son of Shaphan was with Jeremiah, that they should not give him into the hand of the people to put him to death.

So runs the narrative, but at the juncture between verses 19 and 20 the Joseph Smith Translation breaks with the Masoretic Text by adding the previously unknown character of "a man among the priests" who rises to speak of Urijah and his doom. And whether we are thinking of the Prophet Joseph or of David Kimchi: "The sense of v.24 is then that this [same] outcome is blocked only by Ahikam's shielding of Jeremiah. In connection with Kimchi's hypothesis we may ask about the identity of those who are alleged [by Kimchi] to say gm yrmyhw yhrg. . . So we need a new constituency which the narrative does not supply" (McKane, 671).

Both Rashi and Kimchi, our greatest medieval commentators, draw on the midrashic tradition and, in particular, the Sifrei to Numbers (88):

R. "Up to this point the statement is what the righteous people said. As to the wicked, what did they say? "there was another man who prophesied in the name of the Lord, Uriah," etc.
S. So the wicked said, 'Just as Uriah was put to death, so Jeremiah is liable to be put to death.'"
Sifre to Numbers: An American Translation and Explanation, ed. Jacob Neusner (Atlanta, 1986), vol. 2, 88-9.

The contrast between the righteous elders of the people, who argue for Jeremiah, and the wicked, who convict him as worthy of death, also appears in the Tosefta-Tractate, Sotah 9:5 (note the prepositional phrase among them): (A) "So said the proper ones among them." (B) "The evil ones among them said, 'There was another man,'" etc. (C) "They said, 'Just as Uriah prophesied and was killed, so Jeremiah is subject to the death penalty.'" (D) "This entire pericope is a mixture of the words of different parties, so that one who said one thing did not say the other," Jacob Neusner (ed), Jeremiah in Talmud and Midrash (University Press of America, 2006), 9.

Or as Professor Neusner summarizes: "Several distinct voices make up Jeremiah's statement. The righteous defended the prophet, the wicked introduced a negative precedent. The context involves a number of such constructions," Jeremiah in Talmud and Midrash, 18.

"Several voices" rise but no specifically identified speakers, an ambiguity reflected in Rashi: "The one who said one thing did not say the other. Until now we have the words of the elders, but the wicked people who were there rose up and said: 'There was also a man who prophesied,' etc." The commentary Mitzudat David (Fortress of David) later attempts to close the gap on specificity: "These are the words of the priests and the prophets" (see the Rabbinic Bible, Miqra'ot Gedalot: Jeremiah.)

New England divines, as readers of Calvin's Commentaries on Jeremiah, would have been familiar with the difficulties found in Jeremiah Chapter 26: 17-23 (Revd. John Owen, ed., Commentaries on the Book of Jeremiah and the Lamentations, vol. 3, 1852, 2nd ed 1959, Grand Rapids, Michigan).

Calvin, who presents both sides well, is also simply wild in double mindedness (nearly so much as the people before whom Jeremiah stands): "Some explain the whole in the same manner, as though the elders designed to shew that the wicked can gain nothing by resisting God's prophets, except that by contending they make themselves more and more guilty. But others think that this part was brought forward by the opposite party. . . and this opinion seems to be confirmed by what follows in the last verse the chapter, Nevertheless the hand of Ahikam," 339.

"I dare not yet reject wholly the idea," cries Calvin, 341.

This is what the Prophet, if he knew his Calvin, would have had to deal with:

"It hence appears that this view can without absurdity be defended, that is, that the enemies of Jeremiah endeavoured to aggravate his case by referring to the punishment the king inflicted on Uriah, whose case was not dissimilar; and I do not reject this view. If any approve of the other, that this part was spoken by the advocates of Jeremiah, I readily allow it; but I dare not yet reject wholly the idea, that Jeremiah was loaded with prejudice by having the case of Uriah brought forward" (341).

"I dare not yet reject wholly the idea," cries Calvin--and I'd love to see the Latin for that mouthful. By way of contrast the New England Prophet decides and never wavers; as we all know, Brother Joseph was a James 1:5-6 sort of man.

The Prophet Joseph is not the only 19th century reader to add words to the text. Calvin's editor, the Rev. John Owen, taking the hint from 18th century commentator Hermann Venema, both transposes verses and also adds text. Venema "considers that the 17th verse has been removed from its place between the 19th and the 20th, and that the 'princes' mentioned the case of Micah in favour of Jeremiah, and that 'the elders of the land' adduced the case of Uriah against him" (341 n.1).

Dr. Owen suggests for verses 16, 18, and 19:

"Then said the princes and all the people to the priests and to the prophets, 'Against this man there is no judgment of death, for in the name of Jehovah hath he spoken to (or against) us. Micah the Morasthite was a prophet in the days of Hezekiah,' etc. 'But we are doing a great evil against our own souls.' "

Transposed Verse 17: "Then rose up men from the elders of the land and spoke to the whole assembly of the people, saying, (verse 20) 'But there was also a man, who prophesied in the name of Jehovah, Uriah,'" etc.

For the learned Vicar of Thrussington: "This arrangement makes the whole narrative plain, regular, and consistent. The conclusion comes in naturally, that notwithstanding the adverse speech of the 'elders' Jeremiah was saved by the influence of Ahikam, one of the princes" (341 n.1).

The arrangement astonishes as an attempt to correct the Bible--in 1852 England the Bible is not necessarily inerrant--yet there is nothing consistent or logical in what Rev. Owen corrects. Elders do remember long-forgotten prophets known to their fathers--they chant the ancient oracles. They do not see the latest news from court in vivid color. The events of chapter 26 are placed "in the beginning of the reign of Jehoiakim," and yet the doom of Urijah has already been played out within the framework of that new reign. Why then would it fall to the Elders to cite the story? And how would they know the details behind the execution of the prophet? Such facts would be the province of the king, his princes, or his priesthood.

Modern students neither follow the rabbinic reading nor do they attempt to transpose verses but consider verses 20-23 to have been added by the narrator (Jack R. Lundbom, Jeremiah, vol. 2, 300 in the Anchor Bible vol.21B): "It is not to be taken as a part of the argument in Jeremiah's defense (vss 16-19), which it would tend to contradict, nor is it presented as an argument of the accused." The verses on Urijah were "inserted at this place merely as an illustration of what might well have happened to Jeremiah, had not the princes had the courage to intervene"[!], John Bright, Jeremiah (Anchor Bible 21), 172.

Indeed: "There are a number of strange features in vv. 17-19. The direct citation of another speaker's work [Micah] and its use as an argument are unique in prophetic tradition," with verses 20-23 having "nothing to do with the structured confrontation of vv. 7-16," being merely a "response to v. 19," Robert P. Carroll, Jeremiah: A Commentary (London, 1986), 518-9.

"The passage," protests Professor Feinberg, "can scarcely be the words of Jeremiah's opponents because there is no introductory formula" (Charles L. Feinberg, Jeremiah: A Commentary, Grand Rapids, Michigin, 1982), 186.

Dr. Owens tried his best to produce just such a formula and failed. How does Joseph Smith fare?

Joseph Smith Translation OT Manuscript 2 (page 835): "But there was a man among the priests, rose up and said, that, Urijah the son of Shemaiah of Kirjath-jearim, prophesied in the name of the Lord, who also prophesied against this city and against this land according to all the words of Jeremiah."

The very fact of such a clarifying addition to the much-disputed text stands worthy of remark (and Brother Joseph may well have had some awareness of the textual controversies), but a surprise or two remains to be unfolded. While the Septuagint (Greek Translation of the Hebrew) drops the phrase "and against this city," the Prophet emphasizes the same phrase by adding gam, or also: "who also prophesied against this city and against the land" (see W. McKane, 660, 673). By shifting the also from a general reference to prophecy made in the name of the Lord ("And there was also a man that prophesied in the name of the Lord") to instead specify prophecies uttered against the city, the Prophet tightens the rhetorical point being scored by the "man among the priests" as he attempts to overthrow the argument of the Elders. Also, while specifically turning the mind back to the precedent of Micah speaking against the temple and the city, ironically anticipates a verdict of condemnation: in light of the ignominious fate of Urijah, which the speaker is about to unfold, the precedent of Micah can certify no justification for Jeremiah's prophecies against the temple.

Here's another surprise. What happens if we translate the added words of the New Translation back into idiomatic Biblical Hebrew? The following attempt represents the only possible solution in light of Hebrew grammar and syntax:

vayyaqum ish mehakohanim (or bakohanim) vayyomar (ki) "hayah mitnabbeh uriyah".

The sentence deserves close analysis:

vayyaqum (va = a contrastive use of waw as also a conversive waw (that is, a grammatical marker that converts the tense or aspect of the verb from imperfective to perfective) = but; vayyaqum = he will rise up = with waw conversive = he rose up)

ish (man, a man)

me + hakohanim = from or from among the priests (e.g., Ezra 3:12); or bakohanim (ba or be + ha = in, among + the; kohanim = priests)

vayyomar (va = and; vayyomar = and he will speak = and he said")

And, perhaps, ki (that = introduces direct discourse, although not necessary for sentence grammar here).

No other solution for the phrase "But there was a man among the priests, rose up and said" matches the Hebrew syntax. (To show a difference, the formula vayhi ish, as in 1 Samuel 1:1, carries existential meaning and implies no contrast: "And there was a man.") Besides, consider the perfect economy of the Hebrew--four words: vayyaqum ish mikohanim vayyomar--not to mention the subtle ambiguity of the whole thing: just who is this "man among the priests"? is he a priest himself? or a spokesman for the priests? The wording in Hebrew, while often denoting a member of a larger group, just as often suggests an actor among, but not necessarily of, said group, or an actor possessing such characteristics as would make him stand out from the crowd. 

Professor Robert Alter often notes how Hebrew packs it in. And these four words tell us more than we might think at first glance. We learn arrangement. Just as the princes sat down at the entry of the New Gate, so the priests sat apart from the rest of the Assembly during the trial. Each constituent element of the court had its place. And what of procedure? From the text we deduce the following order: the defendant speaks first, followed by the secular authorities, then, according to Joseph Smith, the sacral authorities speak last; the Assembly of the People weigh things as they go. Who gets the last word? The Elders of the Land, however respectable, do not carry the power to silence the priests beyond possibility of response. So the last word belongs to the solemn or sullen priesthood, separated from the other attendees at the Assembly, and the priestly spokesman's response is a rhetorical volcano of denunciation and fury meant to scorch the Assembly to fever pitch: "And they threw his body into a common grave." Jeremiah hardly escaped the razor-rhetoric of this "man among the priests."

Yet another surprise comes packed into the Prophet's addition; to see it, we need, once again, to translate his English back into the Hebrew of Jeremiah. Let us compare the Hebrew sentence that opens the entire pericope about Micah and Urijah side-by-side with what the Prophet Joseph adds (to be a Joseph in Hebrew is literally to be one who adds):

vayyaqumu anashim mizaqqaney ha-eretz vayyomru
(lit. and there rose up men from/from among the elders of the land and they said)
(KJV: Then rose up certain of the elders of the land, and spake)
vayyaqum ish mekohanim vayyomar
(lit. but there rose up a man from among the priests and he said)
(JST: But there was a man among the priests, rose up and said).

We also note:
vayymdw rsh'im shayu shm vayyamru
(Rashi: but there stood up wicked people who were there and they said)

Such a perfect balance in the two introductory formulas--really the same formula--achieves what Jeremiah 26:17-23 has always deserved and what the commentators have been calling for from the commencement of rabbinical midrash and the derivative doctoral homily (cf. Jeremiah 19:1). The phrase in English, "But there was a man among the priests, rose up and said," matches the phrase in verse 17 when translated into Hebrew--and yet the translated English structures of these sentences are anything but alike! (That would be too easy.) All changes in the New Translation that reflect Hebrew syntax and narrative structure, or in this case a narrative frame, notably come years before the Prophet's acquisition of a Hebrew Bible and his formal study of the language under Joshua Seixas.

And once again we see telling evidence for the Prophet Joseph as Restorer of original Biblical text. The New Translation of the Holy Bible, as it unfolds before the prophetic sight, may come to be many things: seeric expansion, which includes restoration of the historical and doctrinal context of the original writers (that is, moving beyond text), restoration of intent, a broad task that also embraces grammatical fixing and idiomatic smoothing of the Authorized Version (and even plays on words) for a latter-day readership--but above and beyond all the New Translation comes to us as a Restoration of sealed, lost or, corrupted Text.

Thus we have the case of the spokesman for the priesthood at New Gate. Now if the story of Urijah indeed represents the words of a spokesman for the prosecution in contrast to the powerful affirmative statement of the Elders (But there was a man among the priests, rose up, that is, a spokesman who rose up in anger, then his startling summation of the case of Urijah serves as purpose to foment renewed anger in the Assembly. "Don't believe that line," he cries, "about some prophet speaking in the name of the Lord. There was another who so claimed and then fled for his life in terrific fear. Pharaoh, the friend who put our own Jehoiakim on the throne, turned over this fugitive and this your own king had him summarily dispatched with a sword and threw his body into a common grave."

Here is rhetoric at fever pitch, rhetoric designed to sway with instantaneity an Assembly vulnerable to such emotional appeal--And threw his body into a common grave! So do also to this new deceiver!

Nevertheless!

In Hebrew the word akh is a powerful affirmative--a word of power--that rings out, without further ado, the stunning conclusion of a dramatic moment. Thus we read: akh yad Ahikam ben Shaphan: Yet it was so, that the Hand of Ahikam ben Shaphan, the Power of Ahikam--a powerful elder who lends his support to Jeremiah at the very moment of fever crisis--even this Hand of Ahikam ben Shaphan was with Jeremiah, that they should not give him into the hands of the people (Hand versus hands) to put him to death. 

The priestly spokesman rises up to condemn the prophet, but now we meet Ah-i-kam, or "My Brother has Risen Up."

A stunning power of veto stands proud against the hand of "a man among the priests."

It is the Joseph Smith Translation of Jeremiah 26:20 that, without rival, effortlessly lends the story a coherent formulaic balance and which also, in high drama, attains that rhetorical pitch intended by Baruch, Jeremiah's scribe and our original Hebrew writer.


Copyright 2011 by Val H. Sederholm