Joseph Smith's Book of Moses: The Other Smoking Gun

[_Tal Bachman]

This is for Gazelam, but I'd be happy for all non-thread-hijackers to join in. This is fairly long, but it's as short as I could make it. I hope those interested will read it all carefully before diving in to the discussion.

Required text: The Bible and Joseph Smith's "Book of Moses" (might be better if you grab them right now).

Question: Joseph Smith claimed that his "Book of Moses" was an inspired restoration of a corrupted original text (namely, Genesis) authored by Moses. Was his claim true?

You decide. Here goes.

The careful reader who opens up his Bible and begins to read will almost immediately notice something a bit strange. The creation account contained in the first chapters of Genesis appears to contradict itself in certain regards, and seems to zip back and forth chronologically. For example, Genesis 1:1 to 2:3 covers the creation of the earth, mentions that humans were created and given a command to propagate, etc., and concludes with God resting on the seventh day. Yet, beginning in Gen. 2:4, the text immediately reverts back to a time prior to the period just described. It doesn't continue the story and tell what happened after "God rested" - an entirely different creation account appears to begin, which differs in important respects from what has preceded it. For example, starting in Gen. 2:4 (which sounds suspiciously like a preamble) we go back in time to before humans are created (even though we just heard of them being created in the previous chapter, in verse 27), and this time, we read an account with more detail (Gen.2:7, 21-22). In this version of the story, God also appears to create the humans prior to finishing the job of creating the earth (see Gen. 2:7-10). As this account unfolds, we hear a story that includes a serpent, and forbidden fruit, a fall from grace, the beginning of the human family (again, an event apparently alluded to but not explained in Gen. 1:28).

As the careful reader continues in Genesis and on through subsequent books, s/he finds more and more puzzling textual features: many stories are told twice, the stories disagree in both important and extraneous details, there are mixed-up chronologies, plain contradictions, the same characters change names in the middle of the story, etc. The many puzzling features of the Bible, and in particular of the narrative portion of the Old Testament, beg for some explanation.

Joseph Smith appears to be aware that all is not exactly right with the Bible's text (mostly because it doesn't agree with his "revelations" - but that's a different story). Anyway, his proposal is that "careless translators" and "interpolators", or people with theological prejudices, have changed, in some cases dramatically, what was once a coherent, consistent, and pure text. To make a long story short, we now have far older Biblical texts than were available in Joseph's time, and they all pretty much explode Joseph's hypothesis. While there are some textual discrepancies between copies of the Bible, what is remarkable is how few there are in our oldest texts. What is most relevant is that beyond statistically predictable coincidences, none of of Joseph Smith's "translation" of the Bible is corroborated by any ancient Biblical text; all argue against his changes. (Bizarrely, "The Encyclopedia of Mormonism" cites as support for "The Book of Moses" status as "revelation", two parallels between it and a Jewish pseudigraphical book called "The Life of Adam and Eve", written around 100 BC. Even leaving aside the question as to whether "The Life of Adam and Eve" should qualify as an edition of the Hebrew Bible, the Encyclopedia of Mormonism article makes no mention at all of the numerous discrepancies between it and the Book of Moses).

Anyway, where was I? Oh yes. Members hailed the Dead Sea Scrolls (just like we hailed the recovery of the Book of Abraham papyri) because we thought that Joseph's prophetic claims would be once and for all vindicated; and yet, as happened with the Egyptian scrolls, the opposite occurred. His claims for his biblical translation have essentially evaporated (though you can still find FARMS-style mind/word game explanations if you're still intent on believing the unbelievable). Anyway, I'm getting ahead of myself. Back to Genesis/The Book of Moses.

If Joseph's proposal that wicked or careless translators are responsible for the Bible's narrative-portion oddities doesn't hold water, what does?

Scholars, particularly a German named Wellhausen in the late 1800's, in effect cracked the code of the narrative portion of the Old Testament. Textual analysts saw that the Old Testament narrative in fact comprised the texts of several older Israelite histories that had been spliced together and then edited, or "redacted", by a later writer (possibly Ezra). The reason that two different creation accounts appeared to have been placed side by side in the beginning chapters of Genesis, then, was because, that is exactly what had happened. As they studied, scholars were able to isolate out of the text the original sequences written by the original Israelite historians. They began to notice consistently divergent points of view among the original Israelite historians, consistently different terminology, etc. For example, one writer only ever refers to the Israelite God as "YHWH" (which we transliterate as "Jehovah"). Scholars refer to this original author, then, as "J". You can actually now read his original Israelite history (as it has been surgically separated out from the Old Testament) in Richard Elliot Friedman's "The Hidden Book of the Bible".

Another original writer only ever refers to the Israelite god as "Elohim". For this reason, he is called "E" (no, there is no scriptural basis for the LDS claim that "Jehovah" was the name the Israelites used for Jesus prior to his birth, and Elohim the name for the Father - there is no distinction made in the original Hebrew between Father and Son; from what I can tell, the concept doesn't even exist. The Israelite historians are staunch monotheists, and Elohim and YHWH are simply different names, used by different writers, to refer to the same Israelite deity).

Another original writer, referred to as "P", has a special concern about priestly issues. The Redactor (the later editor) is usually called "R". (You can see "R" slipping in yet another Israelite history text beginning in Genesis 5...)

The textual evidence that this was how the Old Testament narrative was constructed is overwhelming and, I think, convincing, so much so that there appears to be no dispute among serious Bible scholars about the "Documentary Hypothesis". Without it, the Old Testament doesn't make sense, and a thousand insoluble problems appear. With it, it makes perfect sense, and the problems vanish. It is true that many fundamentalist Christians and Jews continue to argue that Moses in fact wrote the Torah alone; but then, like their Mormon counterparts, they appear all to believe they are under religious obligation to believe this, and thus begin their examination of the evidence already having arrived at "the one true conclusion", and then work backward. Interestingly, I have not found any real acknowledgement from LDS apologists of the "Documentary Hypothesis", presumably because of its disturbing (not to say lethal) implications for Joseph's "Book of Moses". I found one weird, dismissive mention by Kent Jackson in his (...yawn...) "The Restored Gospel and the Book of Genesis" - I say it was weird because he characterizes the Documentary Hypothesis as something that most scholars now discount. I have no explanation for this characterization, which is the exact opposite of the truth, other than a.) he's lying because of the disturbing implications, or b.) he's completely incompetent. I looked up his footnote attached to this flagrantly untrue assertion, but all there is, is a reference to an assertion made in - what else? - an evangelical Christian Bible commentary! Sad, and all too predictable.

In any case, if anyone wants to further research the Documentary Hypothesis, I recommend "Who Wrote The Bible?" by Richard Elliot Friedman, as well as the other book of his I mentioned above. Harold Bloom has also written about "J". You can also find follow up information in reference books like the HarperCollins Bible Dictionary and Commentary (these are valuable reference books).

Well...What does this have to do with the Book of Moses? Everything. If the Documentary Hypothesis is valid (and I believe it clearly is), the Book of Moses cannot be what Joseph claims it is. Joseph Smith, like every other person of his era (and as I was in the Christian school I attended when young), was taught that Moses himself had written the first five books of the Bible (even, rather improbably, the account of his own death found at the end of Exodus). Who, out in upstate New York in the 1830's, could have imagined the Old Testament narratives might not have been written by old Moses? Who could have imagined the first five books (and subsequent books) were actually comprised of 2,3, or 4 collated narratives? No one. This is why Joseph Smith didn't think twice about claiming that he had restored, in his "Book of Moses", Moses's original, uncorrupted text of Genesis, and rescued it from "careless translators" and "interpolators" (talk about irony!). Joseph unwittingly "restored" a book of Moses that never actually existed. The truth is that Genesis, like the books that follow, is a compilation originally composed and compiled long after Moses died. Genesis 1:1-2:3 was composed by an unknown author we call "P", and the account that continues on is merely where the later "redactor" inserted "J"'s Israelite history (I could go into more detail, but you get the point). Joseph, gleefully oblivious and no doubt impressed with his own prophetic powers of discernment, blasts right through both accounts without noticing anything amiss. After all, the only way he could have known about Genesis's provenance would be, if he had actually been a prophet...

In early 2004, when I began teaching the Old Testament Gospel Doctrine class, I became aware of this issue, and concluded that it had pretty grave implications (at that point, I hadn't explored the Book of Abraham question very much...). Not being mentally able to conceive of Joseph not being a prophet, I had no explanation at first, even though it was plain that Joseph had blown the Book of Moses. Moreover, it was clear that virtually all of the JST revisions listed at the bottom of our scriptures were just complete baloney (in particular, I remember Joseph's imaginative spin on Abrahamic circumcision: that it is in fact evidence that baptism at age 8 is correct). And after some time, I began to wonder, "What would Joseph have to have gotten wrong, before he could no longer considered to be a prophet?". I wondered, because it was becoming increasingly clear he had produced the Book of Moses (along with the rest of the JST), on his own.

One last point. Joseph's misreading of Genesis, I noticed at that time, also appeared to serve as the origin of the Mormon rival to the Nicene creed for theological idiocy. To explain:

Because Joseph, and his successors in formulating LDS doctrine, have no idea that Genesis wasn't just originally composed by Moses all at one stroke, Mormon doctrine has wound up promulgating a few odd ideas about the fall. Here's one. The LDS church teaches (it's even in the temple ceremony), that God, who we are asked to believe is the embodiment of all righteousness, imposed two conflicting requirements on Adam and Eve - don't eat the fruit, and also, propagate - thus fathering unrighteousness. (That this contradicts I Nephi 3:7, and Paul's assertion that "God is not the author of confusion", need hardly be mentioned). In this creative re-telling, Eve, because she's more insightful and "more in tune" than her doofus husband, supposedly then recognizes the trap God has put them in, and then, stuck in God's double bind, is forced to eat.

Why does Mormonism have this doctrine? Because modern day "prophets" read Gen.1:28 and what follows, and then mistakenly project chronology on to it - they assume this scripture records a command given to Adam and Eve before their fall (because after all, everything was written by Moses, right?). The reality is that there is absolutely no relative point in time specified in Gen. 1:28. In the "P" creation account, which this is, we don't even get the story of the fall, for Pete's sake. All "P" says is that, at some point Adam and Eve were created, given procreative powers and commanded to use them. Period.

When we read "J"'s creation account (starting in Gen. 2:4), we find that there is NO mention of ANY commandment given to Adam and Eve to propagate while they are in a state of innocence (of what value would that have been, since they didn't even understand what it meant to be naked, let alone grasp sexual intercourse and human reproduction?). The first mention of procreative power in fact only comes ONCE THEY HAVE FALLEN (see Gen.3:16, or Moses 4:22, 5:2-3). That is, the Mormon doctrine that God issued two mutually exclusive requirements derives from an entirely unwarranted inference of chronology and unity of authorship in Genesis. Once we separate out the two original histories, we find that in fact, they are merely telling different versions of the same basic story, J leaving out one requirement and E leaving out the other. Neither history on its own contains the "double bind" - it is only when we jumble them up. And when you think about it, it is perfectly absurd, and an outrageous insult to an entity presumed to be the author of all righteousness, that he should force unrighteousness.

And what is really kind of perverse is that, despite all the Mormon teachings that "Eve got it beforehand", The Book of Moses itself portrays her as only realizing in retrospect what had gone on: this is "Eve" in Moses 5:11:

"Were it not for our transgression we never should have had seed..."

I searched every Book of Mormon, D&C, and PGP scripture about the Fall; they ALL argue against the idea that God issued two mutually contradictory requirements to Adam and Eve, so they would be forced to fall. As a member of the church, you have to basically ignore all the scriptures, and every other known description of God's character, to believe this - and then also believe there is no contradiction there.

The creation account as recorded in the scriptures is pretty simple. I don't know why "modern day prophets" had to ruin it. This is it:

1.) Adam and Eve are placed in the garden, and commanded not to eat of the fruit;

2.) Satan tempts Eve, and she eats because she saw that it was "good for food, and that it became pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make her wise" (Moses 4:12). NOT because God had already commanded someone who didn't even know what it meant to be naked, to have sex with her husband and reproduce, and she was stuck trying to obey two contradictory commands...; Adam, put in a bind by Eve's decision, now must decide whether to stay in the garden or stick with her; he chooses Eve.

3.) After their fall, they become mortal, gain procreative powers, and are commanded to use them;

4.) Eve in retrospect understands now what the whole thing had been about, and feels grateful after all. The end.

About a year and a half ago, I wrote up a three or four page letter outlining this whole thing and sent it to Dallin Oaks, in hopes that as a church we might stop printing what was a completely unscriptural (and impossible) spin on the fall in all our manuals, preaching it from the pulpits, etc. (I wrote to him because he had given a talk on the very subject, in which he tried to explain this inexplicable item of theology with the old "transgression versus commandment" maneuver). He wrote back and suggested I send my letter to the First Presidency.

By the way, I should mention that I did not, in these letters, point out that Joseph had blown the Book of Moses, only that our puzzling version of the Adam/Eve story was clearly based on an unwarranted inference of chronology in the scriptural text, that was in fact contradicted by dozens of other scriptures.

Anyway, I get this letter back from F. Michael Watson, Secretary to the First Presidency, that says, "A reply to your letter has been sent to your Bishop. He will read the contents of that letter to you". That seemed pretty weird.

So I call up the Bishop, who says he is not allowed to give me a copy of the letter, and he reads me the big response: a three sentence form letter explaining that Adam and Eve had to fall, and suggesting two passages where I could read about it.

I suppose this shouldn't really have surprised me - after all, if you can believe two plus two equals five, how coherent is any response you give going to be? As it was, it didn't acknowledge the point of my letter. So, I guess thousands of members around the world will continue to live under another little religious burden - trying to reconcile the irreconcileable in the uniquely ridiculous and befuddling Mormon version of one of the clearest religious myths of all time.

I could spend 20 pages detailing every textual evidence that argues against the Book of Moses's claims, but the bottom line is this:

The Book of Moses, which purports to be "a translation of the Bible as revealed to Joseph Smith the Prophet", is demonstrably the product of a fertile, and modern, religious imagination. Like its counterpart in the Pearl of Great Price, the Book of Abraham, the Book of Moses has nothing whatsoever to do with the ancient texts or author it puports to derive from. It claims to be the restoration of a work written by a single author (Moses), that is actually a compiled Israelite history incorporating the writings of various authors, none of whom, if we take the oldest textual copies seriously, could have been Moses or had any connection with him, and lived long after he was dead. But Joseph doesn't realize that. As I said, how could he have, unless he had the powers he so wished to have?

As if that wasn't bad enough, a related point is that a misreading of the creation stories of both Genesis and Joseph's revision, has spawned an incomprehensible tenet of Mormon theology - that a God embodying all righteousness fostered disobedience by forcing a human to disobey, and then, contrary to even the most twisted, FARMS-like definitions of justice one might imagine, punished her for it.

So....Joseph Smith claimed that his "Book of Moses" was an inspired restoration of a corrupted original text (namely, Genesis) authored by Moses. Was his claim true? I don't think so.

Anyone interested in this (improbable given how boring this post probably is), check out "The Hidden Book of the Bible" by Richard Elliott Friedman. It's the best place to start.

Best,

Tal

[_Tarski]

This is for Gazelam, but I'd be happy for all non-thread-hijackers to join in. This is fairly long, but it's as short as I could make it. I hope those interested will read it all carefully before diving in to the discussion.

Required text: The Bible and Joseph Smith's "Book of Moses" (might be better if you grab them right now).

Question: Joseph Smith claimed that his "Book of Moses" was an inspired restoration of a corrupted original text (namely, Genesis) authored by Moses. Was his claim true?

You decide. Here goes.Anyone interested in this (improbable given how boring this post probably is), check out "The Hidden Book of the Bible" by Richard Elliott Friedman. It's the best place to start.

Best,

Tal

Nice read. thanx

[_Sethbag]

Thanks Tal! I hadn't actually spent much time thinking about the Book of Moses and how it factors into the evidence showing that the LDS church is manmade. I think you did a good job of explaining it. I'm going to have to save off your post for future reference.

[_CaliforniaKid]

See also Hutchinson, Anthony A. "A Mormon Midrash? LDS Creation Narratives Reconsidered." Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 21, no. 4 (1988): 11-74.

[_Yoda]

Good post, Tal! There's a lot to absorb here.

The contradiction of the commandment given to Adam and Eve always bothered me as well.

The chronology you laid out makes sense.

I would be curious to hear DCP and Gaz's comments.

[_barrelomonkeys]

I will be very interested to see the reply.

I've seen mention of the LDS not believing in original sin. I don't understand the LDS stance on this. This really confuses me. The simple story makes much more sense. Why does God make them fall? Why does God wish for his children to hurt?

It almost seems to turns the sin from Man and makes the sinner God!? I don't understand apparently!

I wish there were more apologists that posted here.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Question: Joseph Smith claimed that his "Book of Moses" was an inspired restoration of a corrupted original text (namely, Genesis) authored by Moses. Was his claim true?

A very, very insightful essay, Tal. Thanks for sharing; it's a keeper.

[_truth dancer]

When I first read, The Age of Reason, this issue came up for me BIG TIME!

In fact it was one of the first issues that really helped me see the reality of what was going on with Joseph Smith and his revelations.

While folks can argue about horses and tapirs, swords made of wood, etc. etc. etc ... it is pretty difficult to get around the facts surrounding these types of issues.

Thanks Tal for putting this together so succinctly!

~dancer~

[_Who Knows]

It's interesting that you choose to focus on these unimportant details regarding the production of the Book of Moses, while ignoring the amazing doctrinal points, remarkable parallels to ancient history (which Joseph Smith could not have known) and the beauty of the text itself. [/Book of Abraham sarcasm off]

[_silentkid]

Great post, Tal. This is an issue that I hadn't spent a lot of time thinking about. You presented it in a clear, insightful way. I saved it for future reference.