The New Translation, Footnotes, and Joseph Smith’s Religious Thought
Many works have examined the role of the Joseph Smith translation, or what was originally called the New Translation.1 A recent Church documentary on the production of the LDS Edition of the King James Version of the Bible highlights the fact that experts on the Joseph Smith Translation were assigned to include JST footnotes into the LDS Edition.
Joseph Smith worked on the New Translation early in his prophetic career, immediately following the publication of the Book of Mormon. However, Joseph continued to develop his ideas and continued to receive revelations. In some cases, the JST emendations represent Joseph’s early religious thinking, and yet, branding his emendations into the LDS Edition of the Bible has had the effect of crystallizing such thought or establishing it as the ultimate view or interpretation held by Joseph Smith. I’ll attempt to offer a couple of examples where the JST does not represent Joseph’s final thoughts on the passage in question.
Example 1: Children of God, or Sons of God?
The KJV of the Book of Job reads that “the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord.” (Job 1:6). Sometime during the latter half of July 1832, Joseph Smith rendered this verse to read: “the children of God came to present themselves before the Lord.”2 Joseph makes an identical change in Job 2:1. Joseph made no other emendations to the Book of Job, and this JST reading was incorporated into the LDS Edition of the Scriptures, published in August 1979. Joseph never provided a reason for this change and the reader is left to speculate.
However, the reader should note that Joseph never seemed to advance his 1832 modification from sons to children. In April 1842, Joseph recounted the account in Job “when Satan presented himself before the Lord among the sons of God, he said that he came ‘from going to and fro in the earth, and from wandering up and down in it.’”3 In January 1843, Joseph again referred to same passage in Job: “we read that when the sons of God presented themselves before God, satan also presented himself and the Lord asked, ‘from whence comest thou! &c.; evidently showing that the sons of God, in those days, came into the presence of God and had communion with and revelation from him.”4
Thus, the significance of this change in the mind of Joseph Smith is somewhat uncertain. Joseph makes a change but isn’t dogmatic about it and feels perfectly fine to return to the original language. Query whether its inclusion in the footnotes, in this case, enhances readability of the text or narrative.
Example 2: Perfection by Suffering and Baptism for the Dead
On September 6, 1842 Joseph wrote an epistle concerning baptism for the dead:
And now, my dearly beloved brethren and sisters, let me assure you that these are principles in relation to the dead and the living that cannot be lightly passed over, as pertaining to our salvation. For their salvation is necessary and essential to our salvation, as Paul says concerning the fathers—that they without us cannot be made perfect—neither can we without our dead be made perfect.
the earth will be smitten with a curse unless there is a welding link of some kind or other between the fathers and the children, upon some subject or other—and behold what is that subject? It is the baptism for the dead. For we without them cannot be made perfect; neither can they without us be made perfect. Neither can they nor we be made perfect without those who have died in the gospel also. (D&C 128:15, 18)
In this passage, Joseph is clearly adopting the language of Paul’s epistle to the Hebrews: “God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.” (Hebrews 11:40). Joseph again repeats this usage in his April 7, 1844 King Follett Discourse:
the greatest responsibility that God has laid upon us to seek after our dead–the apostle says they without us cant be Perfect–now I am speaking of them I say to you Paul, you can’t be perfect witht. us.–those that are gone before & those who come after must be made perfect ~ Bullock Report, King Follet Discourse.
How did Joseph modify Hebrews 11:40 in his New Translation?
God having provided some better things for them through their sufferings, for without sufferings they could not be made perfect.5
Scholars have dated his passage to about the latter half of February 1832.6 This early reading displays no evidence of baptism for the dead. Rather, Joseph understands Paul as teaching that perfection comes through suffering, connecting the passage to Paul’s earlier statement in Hebrews 2:10 (“perfect through suffering”). This scripture would take on special significance for the Latter-day Saints, especially after the death of the prophet. Yet notice how baptism for the dead cannot be built on the JST version of Hebrews 11:40, with its insistence on perfection by suffering.
Historical evidence suggests that Joseph first publicly taught baptism for the dead in a sermon given on August 15, 1840.7 Before this time it isn’t certain how early Joseph understood this teaching, however, it is clear that Joseph rethought his understanding of Hebrews 11:40 as the revelations increased. Joseph was flexible enough to return back to the original wording of the KJV that “that they without us should not be made perfect” in order to establish the connection between they (the fathers) and us (the children).
Implications
These are only two examples where the JST, while representing Joseph’s early thought, was superseded by later developments and revelation. Unfortunately, JST footnotes provide the reader no historical information as to whether Joseph later expanded upon his initial thought. Therefore, in certain instances, the JST represents a kind of snapshot of Joseph’s earlier thinking that shouldn’t be taken as the capstone or culmination of his thought, but rather as the understandings of the prophet as he is schooled by experience and as he obtained further light and knowledge.
Notes
1. For an important work on the topic see Scott H. Faulring, Kent P. Jackson, and Robert J. Matthews, eds. Joseph Smith’s New Translation of the Bible: Original Manuscripts. Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 2004.
The editors write: “We could gain a clearer, richer, and more comprehensive understanding of the way our doctrine unfolded if we were to take the revealed passages of the New Translation and place them in their proper chronological order between the sections of the Doctrine and Covenants… Before we had access to the original JST manuscripts, this arrangement was impossible, because we did not know the dates that are written on the documents. Seeing the originals changes our perspective.” p. 19. Together with the Joseph Smith Papers volumes, a more accurate revelatory chronology is possible, albeit not without effort.
2. Original Manuscripts, 738-739.
3. “Try the Spirits.” Times and Seasons, vol 3. No 11. April 1, 1842, p. 745. Attributed to Joseph Smith.
4. “Sons of God.” Times and Seasons, vol 4. No 5. January 16, 1843, p. 75. Attributed to Joseph Smith.
5. Original Manuscripts, 544-545.
6. Original Manuscripts, 69.
7. Report by Simon Baker on sermon given by Joseph Smith on Aug. 15, 1840, in Nauvoo, Illinois. See also Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith, (2007), p. 410, fn 4. PDF.
Leave a Reply
sideblog – delicious
- Why Everyone Needs Theology
- Organizing the Doctrine and Covenants Lessons: Or, Why the Topical Approach Doesn’t Work
- Doctrine & Covenants in 2013: Introduction
- Studying the Doctrines of the Gospel in the D&C; and Church History this year by Jeffrey Marsh: A response
- The Pedagogy of Sunday School (part 1)
- The Burden of Church History and its implications for Mormon History
- Relief Society Lesson: The Life and Ministry of Lorenzo Snow
- How the Early Church Made Peace with Prosperity
- Its a Destructive Life: A Critique of George Bailey
- A Reply to Nate Oman’s Reply to my Reply to His Post on Liberal Mormons and Prophetic Power or Long Live the Bloggernacle
- Another Surreply: Nate Oman responds to critiques
- Mormons and Gays
- Another Liberal Mormon’s Response to Nate Oman
- New Church Website on Same-Sex Attraction Offers Love, Understanding and Hope
- Previewing 2013: A Look Forward to Exciting Books in Mormon History
Nice observations! Important points. And another reminder that the JST doesn’t necessarily imply error in the original text, but rather additional commentary; which, as you demonstrate, not even Joseph treated dogmatically. Thanks for the post.
Just ran across this intriguing post and I couldn’t resist offering a speculation as to why JS might have changed “sons of God” to “children of God” in Job. No doubt this change reinforces for many LDS the current view that Job is referring to spirit born children of God. But use of the terms “sons of God” and “children of God” in early LDS publications had reference to those who embraced the gospel, and never (before late 1844) to spirit birth. This usage follows that of the New Testament, as in Paul’s: “For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:26). Of course, the other term given to these individuals in the NT is “sons of God” (see, for example, John 1:12). JS likely saw these terms as being similarly synonymous and having similar reference to the faithful.
Joseph’s reference to “children of God” in Job for “sons of God” seems to hark back to earlier changes he made to Genesis found in the book of Moses, which differentiates between the “sons/children of men,” who were unbelievers, and the “sons/children of God,” who were so called because they were faithful believers. This same distinction is found in other early Mormon literature. (See especially the article “Sons of God” in the LDS Millennial Star, 4:56-60.)
Notably, PPP wrote in 1838 that the “sons of God” in Job refers to resurrected believers from bygone worlds (Writings of Parley P. Pratt, 65, 216). Like PPP, Joseph may have had a similar understanding and merely changed “sons” to “children” to convey more gender inclusivity. If so, this is an example of an interpretation that may not have changed during the Prophet’s lifetime, but has since changed.
One wonders if the church will ever adopt–or at least acknowledge the possible validity of–the generally accepted scholarly interpretation that “sons of God” in this passage reflects an ancient Near Eastern conception of a heavenly court with angelic ministers (“sons of God”) unrelated to humans.
On the other, less ambiguous change you point out in Heb. 11:40, it seems to me that Joseph went through at least four interpretations of this passage during his lifetime:
• Feb 1832 – Without suffering they (the fathers) couldn’t be made perfect
• July 1839 – Without the authority restored by the fathers, we can’t bring in the latter-day Zion which the fathers anticipated, so we depend on each other for this fulfillment.
• Sept 1842 – Without the authority restored by the fathers, we can’t receive the saving ordinances of baptism nor can fathers receive this ordinance vicariously.
• March 1844 – Without the sealing authority restored by Elijah, we can’t be sealed to our fathers and therefore neither we nor they can be perfected.
As you point out, Joseph’s emendation of Heb. 11:40 in 1832 makes explicit that “suffering” is what leads to perfection, which, because of the esteem with which the JST is held, throws a wrench in all of these subsequent interpretations, not to mention the generally accepted scholarly interpretation.
C. Harrell, good to hear from you. I really appreciate the comment, and the Pratt reference. As I considered why Joseph may have made the change I wasn’t sure any of my ideas had merit. As you point out, Joseph drew a distinction between “son of man” and “son of God” in the Satan-Moses colloquy in the Book of Moses. Here, since he is changing “son” and “child” in Job, rather than “God” and “man”, I wasn’t sure whether there was a clear enough link. Curious still is why Joseph left the “sons of God” reference in Job 38:7 unchanged.
It isn’t clear how much of the divine council concept Joseph had envisioned by this time, let alone ideas of premortal existence. The manuscript history is less precise than we would hope. Joseph’s changes to Job are dated by Faulring et. al. as “between late July 1832 and 2 July 1833″ which leaves a pretty huge window. We know he received the May 6, 1833 revelation that “Man was also in the beginning with God.” And he hadn’t yet translated the Abraham papyri which seems to be the main impetus for the divine council. It isn’t until March 28, 1841 that we have evidence of a sermon where Joseph cites Job 38:4 as supporting the premortal existence. WJS, 67-68. Even later is his life, he doesn’t seem to use Job 1:6, 2:1 as support for the heavenly court or grand council. Even the 1843 “Sons of God” article does not relate the “Sons of God” to the Grand Council:
This doesn’t seem to follow Pratt’s idea of sons of God as resurrected beings, and my sense if that Joseph didn’t see members of the council to be embodied, other than God himself. In addition, Joseph’s divine council does not seem to envision an accuser or public prosecutor as a standing member of the council, as we find in Job. For that reason (assuming he was working under a divine council framework) he may have thought the chronology didn’t make sense for the Satan to come “before the Lord” since Satan had fallen already. Perhaps it made more sense for him to believe that Satan is coming among men in the flesh to tempt them.
As to the Hebrew 11:40 material, thanks for these references. Very interesting. It clearly shows Joseph reflecting and reevaluating the scriptural record far more than we typically may believe. Thanks for adding to this chronology.
aquinas, I share your puzzlement as to why JS left “sons of God” in Job 38:7 alone after changing it in earlier chapters (1 & 2) to “children of God.” Perhaps he didn’t really draw a semantic distinction between the two. Perhaps he saw them as two different groups of people. That is to say, the “sons” he changed to “children” in chapters 1 & 2 met to consider Job’s situation and were therefore contemporaries of Job, while the “sons of God” in Job 38:7 had reference to individuals shouting for joy at the foundation of the world—which leads to my next observation.
Though I agree that Pratt’s interpretation of the sons of God in Job 38:7 as resurrected beings is not exactly the same as Smith’s interpretation that the sons of God in chapters 1 & 2 were righteous contemporaries of Job (as evidenced by your quotation of JS that “the sons of God, in those [Job’s?] days, came into the presence of God”), we are talking again about two different contexts of time in which “sons of God” occurs in Job. The essential meaning of “sons” or “children” of God for both Pratt and Smith still seems to be adopted sons through gospel regeneration. It is just that the sons of God at the foundation of the world (Job 38:7) could not have been those who were spiritually reborn from this world as in Job 1 & 2.
Your comments on Joseph’s connection (or lack thereof) between the grand council and the sons of God in Job 38:7 are thought provoking and persuasive. I would concur that there is little indication that JS saw the sons of God in Job 38:7 as members of the grand council of premortal spirit children. In fact, when Joseph Smith did appeal to Job 38:7 in March 1841 as a proof-text for preexistence, his argument was that Job must have existed prior to his birth, otherwise, he reasoned, why would God have asked, “Where wast thou when I laid the foundation of the world?” (WJS 68). He gives no indication that the “sons of God” who shouted for joy at this time were preexistent spirit children of God—an inference that is routinely made today when LDS refer to this passage. I see this as one more indication that JS likely held the same view as Pratt—that the “sons of God” in Job 38:7 referred to spiritually begotten sons and daughters of God through the gospel, though from bygone worlds. Having said that, I don’t think we have enough information to know whether he connected the dots differently during the last few years of his life as his understanding of a premortal grand council was maturing. Heck, I don’t think we have enough information to conclude everything you and I have just concluded.
C. Harrell, I enjoy hearing your further thoughts on the topic and helping me flesh out my musings on the issue. Just to recap (not just for you but also for other readers) my main point is that the JST does not represent Joseph’s final thinking on the scriptures, but that the JST embedded in our footnotes tend to lead readers to this view. To preface our subsequent discussion, I agree with you that arriving at why Joseph may or may not have made a specific change in his New Translation is extremely difficult. In this case, the best we can do is set forth the revelatory chronology as best as we can with the historical sources available. In some cases, we have substantial source material to arrive at a relatively well-supported conclusion. In other cases, the material is too scant and we are left with mere conjecture. However, I find the thought process to be quite valuable despite difficulties.
By way of methodology, some of the same tools in textual criticism do apply here. It’s possible Joseph made a change that he was very non-committal about making. However, I’m would say I’m operating under the premise that he felt compelled to make these changes and therefore, the changes should be understood as significant enough to change (although one should point out not all changes are of the same type. Some are based on readability and grammar rather than some doctrinal point). I agree with Bushman that it is extremely bold for Joseph to think he can make corrections to the Bible in the first instance. That’s my point of departure.
I agree with you that Joseph, in later sermons, uses “children of God” and “sons of God” synonymously. Yet that only begs the question of why make the change in the first place, if they are semantic equivalents? There has got to be some sort of distinction else he could have left the text unchanged. I think your suggestion that the change represents a desire to draw a distinction between the sons of God at the foundation of the world and the sons of God in mortality is a plausible explanation, probably the best given the little information we have. For me, it would have more persuasive force if Joseph had made this change consistently throughout the biblical account, but he doesn’t seem to do that, and later uses the terms synonymously, so it remains puzzling. The fact that Joseph uses “sons of God” for mortals who have been spiritually born again sons and daughters through covenant only adds to the consternation since that is exactly how he views the people in Job 1:6; 2:1, hence there doesn’t seem to be any reason for the change. The fact that he returned to the original wording in his later sermons might suggest that the initial change may not have been critical.