D&C 84:28 and the baptism of John the Baptist

The current text of D&C 84:28, speaking of John the Baptist, reads as follows:

For he was baptised while he was yet in his childhood, and was ordained by the angel of God at the time he was eight days old unto this power, to overthrow the kingdom of the Jews, and to make straight the way of the Lord before the face of his people, to prepare them for the coming of the Lord, in whose hand is given all power.

The handwritten original of this revelation, however, reads differently (emphasis added):

For he was baptised while he was yet in the womb and was ordained by the Angel of God at the time he was eight days old . . . (see Joseph Smith Papers: Revelations and Translation—Manuscript Revelation Books, eds. Robin Scott Jensen, Robert J. Woodford, and Steven C. Harper [Salt Lake City: The Church Historian Press, 2009], 276-77).

In the Kirtland Revelation Book (in many respects, a printer’s manuscript for the 1835 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants), the text was changed to the modern reading thereof (ibid., 458-49).

As far as I can ascertain, there has not been much discussion about this variant, and even then, nothing very substantial; indeed, much of what has been written explaining this change is rather superficial. A good example would be Robert J. Woodford’s otherwise masterful PhD dissertation, "The Historical Development of the Doctrine and Covenants" (3 vols.: Brigham Young University, 1974) writes:

Verse 28 in both Manuscript #1 and the Kirtland Revelation Book have John the Baptist baptised while yet in his mother's womb. This is obviously an error, and justifiably changed. (Woodford, p. 1052).

It is understandable why Woodford (and other LDS commentators) would view this as an “error,” in light of the Church’s very negative view of infant baptism, a doctrine in Roman Catholicism and many Reformed and other traditions (see Moroni 8 which castigates the practice of infant baptism; historically, Latter-day Saints have viewed the introduction of this doctrine as evidence of the apostasy of “Orthodox” Christianity), so an individual being baptised in his mother’s womb will be “odd,” to say the very least. However, from my examination of the evidence, there is no possibility that this was a “mistake” in the handwritten original text due to (1) mishearing by a scribe or (2) any issues relating to misspelling, which accounts for most textual variants in ancient and modern texts (see any good introduction on textual criticism of the Bible or Royal Skousen’s multi-volume commentary on textual variants of the Book of Mormon). The change is obviously deliberate, and not a correction of what was originally uttered by Joseph Smith.

What are we to make of John the Baptist being baptised in his womb? From the context, “baptism” here is not metaphorical—just as the ordination of John to the priesthood is a real, not metaphorical event, as with his confirmation by the Holy Spirit, it is to engage in eisegesis to propose anything other than a literal “baptism” in Elizabeth’s womb. Furthermore, if John the Baptist received baptism in an “ordinary” (to Latter-day Saints) manner, why the explication of his reception thereof? The treatment of this verse and its textual history by Woodford et al., is rather superficial and doesn’t really address the real issues and questions arising from it.

All throughout Scripture, God sets a “fixed norm” for his covenant people, but allows for flexibility in extraordinary circumstances. For instance, In 1 Sam 21:6, David was permitted to consume the shewbread (literally: bread of the [divine] presence), notwithstanding the "normative" command that it would only be consumed by the temple priests. Furthermore, we do know that God sanctifies certain people while in the womb of their mother, paralleling John's baptism in Elizabeth's womb. Note a well-known text often cited by Latter-day Saints to support (personal) pre-existence of all people:

Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.

In this text, we learn that God consecrated/sanctified (קדשׁ) Jeremiah and ordained him (נתן [literally, “to give”]) a prophet while he was still gestating in his mother’s womb; its very explication shows that this was an extraordinary event, perhaps warranted by the mass apostasy of the people of his day (for e.g., see Jer 10:10-11, which shows the idolatry of the general populace).

D&C 84:28, even as it now stands, presents John the Baptist receiving the ordinances of the priesthood in an extraordinary manner, speaking of his being ordained (to the Aaronic Priesthood) by an angel at only eight days of age and being confirmed. Furthermore, in v. 27, we learn that he was “filled with the Holy Ghost from his mother’s womb.” Perhaps, in light of the original reading of v. 28, one could plausibly argue that this was the reception of the ordinance of confirmation (cf. Luke 1:41). Perhaps one could argue (and this is just my working thesis), is that God sanctified John the Baptist in the womb to allow for there to be a forerunner, an Elijah-like figure, to prepare for Jesus Christ and his ministry. By consecrating and regenerating a prophet in such an extraordinary manner, even before his birth, would allow for a holy, righteous individual to carry out the Old Testament prophecy of there being one to prepare the way of Yahweh (Isa 40:3), and we know that God, ultimately, will be triumphant, even in the face of opposition (in the case of Jesus’ time, the mass apostasy of the people; cf. the Hebrew parallelism in Gen 50:20, where Joseph of Egypt recognises that God brings out good from evil).

Of course, the above is speculative, but I think in light of the exceptions God allows for, and Himself makes, even within the realm of soteriology, one perhaps could argue that John the Baptist is a break from the “norm” of waiting until the “age of accountability” for the reception of baptism and confirmation. One thing is clear, however, is that LDS commentators on the Doctrine and Covenants have to do a more persuasive job on discussing this change.

If there has been any sustained discussion of this change, I would like to know--one can contact me at irishlds87atgmaildotcom and let me know of the source(s) that go in-depth on this change.

Michael S. Heiser, Letter Differences in Isaiah 52:13-53:12

One common mistake (if not down-right lie) one hears from many Evangelical apologists is that the text of Isa 53 in the Masoretic Text and the Qumran Text have no textual differences, being one example of the perfect (or near-perfect [99.9% is a figure that Norman Geisler et al., likes to throw out]). However, such is without any basis in reality. Sadly, this “argument” appears in many popular works (e.g., McDowell’s poorly researched book, Evidence that Demands a Verdict). What is even sadder is that many anti-Mormons use this “evidence,” without researching it, to argue against the Latter-day Saint view of the Bible, as summed up in the eighth article of faith (e.g., Ron Rhodes and Marian Bodine, Reasoning from the Scriptures with the Mormons [1995]).

Michael S. Heiser, an Evangelical scholar, presents these differences in a paper entitled, "Letter Differences in Isaiah 52:13-53:12.” One should read it and even save it for future reference, as this claim is very popular, though it is simply false. Hopefully honest Evangelicals who are made aware of this will drop this very errant, if not deceptive, argument.

Another good resource on the issue of textual criticism of the Hebrew Bible, I would recommend the following:

Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (3d ed.: Fortress Press, 2011).

2 Nephi 28:22 and the denial of a supernatural Satan

2 Nephi 28:22 records a prophecy of Nephi:

And behold, others he [Satan] flattereth away, and telleth them there is no hell; and he saith unto them: I am no devil, for there is none--and thus he whispereth in their ears, until he grasps them with his awful chains, from whence there is no deliverance.

This prophecy predicts, in part, that there will be individuals and groups that will deny the existence of Satan. Of course, there are naturalists who, naturally (pun intended) will reject a supernatural Satan (as well as demons), but within the broad Christian perspective, there are some small groups and individual thinkers who have rejected the existence of Satan and/or demons as an article of faith.

This movement of thought grew after the publication of the Book of Mormon in 1830; a very influential work was by John Epps in 1842, The Devil. This volume played an important role in the theology of John Thomas, an English medical doctor, who, in 1848, would become the founder of the denomination which would later be called the “Christadelphians”; much of Epps arguments were adopted in Thomas’ 1849 book, Elpis Israel. Rejection of supernatural evil is a core doctrine of the Christadelphian movement (one is excommunicated from the movement if they embrace such a doctrine; belief in it is rejected by their Birmingham Amended Statement of Faith).

That the “no supernatural devil” concept was taking ground in certain quarters of the USA and elsewhere is evident by the fact that Josiah Priest had to write an entire book defending the traditional view of Satan and demons in his 1839 tome, The Anti-Universalist.

In the demonology of the Christadelphians, and other groups (e.g., Church of the Blessed Hope), the Bible does not teach a personal, supernatural devil. Instead, “the devil” is any adversary, and often an external personification of man’s personal sinful desires. Furthermore, “demons” are a first-century mannerism of speaking about mental illnesses, with the New Testament authors using the language of their time (“accommodation”) to convey their message. Duncan Heaster, a leading Christadelphian apologist, has written an entire book on the “no-devil” doctrine, The Real Devil. Duncan Smith, an Unitarian apologist, rightly labelled the book, exegetically, “a joke.”

That those who claim to privilege the biblical texts and yet deny the ontological existence of supernatural evil are often on an exegetical fishing trip but without their fishing poles. For instance, the New Testament authors clearly believed that “demons” were separate personalities from the people they possessed. In Luke 4:41, we read:

And demons also came out of many, crying out, and saying, Thou art Christ the Son of God. And he rebuking them suffered them not to speak; for they knew that he was Christ.

In Koine Greek, “demon” is a neuter noun, δαιμόνιον. The KJV translates this term as “devil” in the above text (thus my change to the text). The pronoun “them” in this verse is also a neuter, αὐτὰ, which refers back to the “demons,” not the people (which would have resulted in Luke using the masculine). Clearly, Luke believed that the demons were personalities with distinct existence from the bodies they possessed.

Interestingly, most of these groups also hold to “soul-sleep” or “soul-death,” and preach that “hell” is the grave/the death-state, mirroring Nephi’s prophecy that they would deny the existence of “hell.”

Perhaps one could make the claim that this prophecy is, in part, fulfilled by such a movement of thought within this sphere of the broad Christian movement. If such is a case, we have a prophecy that finds some fulfillment after the publication of the Book of Mormon in 1830.

The Elohim of Psalm 82 and 89: Deities, not Human Judges

Latter-day Saints have interpreted the Elohim in Psa 82:6 and 89:5-8 as being actual deities, albeit subordinate to the God of gods. Usually one hears the retort that the Elohim in these texts are human judges. However, as Daniel McClellan (among others) have shown, this is not the case; Elohim does not mean judges!

I came across the following commentary from a conservative Protestant commentary on the Psalter, so one can hardly claim there is any “pro-Mormon” bias in the following comments, where the authors accept that the “gods” are deities, not human judges:

Psalm 82: King of the Gods Psalm 82 places the modern reader in a very unfamiliar world. Modern thinkers hold to a monotheistic theology, meaning there is only one god and the gods of others simply do not exist. Ancient Israel did not have the same definition of monotheism. Indeed, for them not only did other gods exist, but these gods were active in the world.[1] This psalm gives us a window on the assembly of the gods, a place where the gods are gathered to make decisions about the world.[2] This council is part of the greater ancient Near Eastern mythology and would be a familiar image to ancient Israelites.[3] [1] A multitude of texts demonstrate this belief, e.g. Exod. 20:3-6; Deut. 4:15-20; josh. 24:14-15. In addition, many prophetic texts extol the people to love God alone and not go after other gods, e.g., Jer. 8:19; Hos. 11:2. In later texts, the theology seems to move more toward an exclusive monotheism; see. Isa. 41:21-24 . . . Verses 6-7 place the gods on equal footing with the humans. They have lost their immortality, hence their god status[4]. This ability for the God of Israel to demote the others speaks of the power of the king of the council. The king alone can control all of the other gods. This divine trial also demonstrates the fairness of Israel’s god. This god is not capricious, but sentences the other gods for their refusal to act in ways that reflect the values of God’s kingdom . . . [Psalm 89:5-8] set the state in the heavenly council. In vv.5 and 8, God is praised by the heavens for God’s faithfulness, and this certainly continues the theme of vv.1-4 while also broadening God’s faithfulness to the whole world. The questions in v.6 are rhetorical, just as in Isa. 40:18 and Pss. 18:31 and 77:13, followed by the declaration of God’s clear supremacy among the gods (v.7). God is not only the God of Israel but is the chief god of the council, and all others bow before the Lord. [2] See 1 Kgs. 22:19-23; Job 1:6-12; Zech. 1:7-17. [3] See Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, pp. 177-90. [4] The Gilgamesh Epic is a story that concerns Gilgamesh’s quest for immortality that will make him a god, indicating the importance of immortality in ancient myth.

Source: Nancy Declaissé-Walford, Rolf A. Jacobson, and Beth Laneel Tanner, The Book of Psalms (New International Old Testament Commentary; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2014), 641, 642, 680

Trent C. Butler on the Text of the book of Joshua

"We believe the Bible to be for word of God as far as it is translated correctly . . . " (Article of Faith, 8)

I came across the following from a conservative Protestant commentator on the book of Joshua in a very recent publication on the redaction of the text. It flies in the face of many (not all) Evangelical critics of the Latter-day Saint view of the Bible (for a good discussion on the LDS view of the Bible, see Jeff Lindsay's LDSFAQ page on this issue). Enjoy!

The Text of the Book of Joshua The first step in the interpretation of the book of Joshua is to determine the basic text. This is necessary because virtually every verse of Joshua shows textual distinctions between the Hebrew or Masoretic Text (MT) and the earlier translation, the Greek Septuagint (LXX). The Hebrew text contains elements not attested in the Greek (Josh 6:3b-7:4; 8:11b-13, 26; 20:4-6). The reverse is also true. Greek elements are not present in the Hebrew (Josh 6:26; 16:10; 24:31, 3). Michael van der Meer points out that Josh 5:2-9 has dramatically different readings and interpretations (Formation and Reformulation, 17). The Septuagint places Josh 8:30-35 after 9:2, while the Dead Sea Scroll manuscripts indicate that this section appears before 5:2. Overall, the LXX is about 5 percent shorter than MT and in some places up to 20 percent shorter, with both texts receiving further editorial changes after their paths separated (E. Noort, Das Buch Josua: Forschungegeschichte und Problemfelder, EdF 292 [Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgessellschaft, 1998], 47). The indecision as to the priority of one tradition over the other remains unclear even after the Qurman evidence is considered (ibid., 57). Modern research thus puts the MT in the centre of study, knowing it is also a part of the history of interpretation (ibid., p.59). Such obvious evidence forces the commentator to take a close look at the different readings and attempt to understand what processes were at work in the scribal and liturgical worlds that resulted in the differing textual readings. Van der Meer concludes from this evidence along that “there is every reason to assume that the divergences between the oldest textual witnesses of this biblical composition, LXX-Joshua, 4QJosh^a, and MT-Joshua, are the result of editorial activity (Formation and Reformulation, 17)

Source: Trent C. Butler, Joshua 1-12 (2d ed.; Word Biblical Commentary; Grand Rapids Mich.: Zondervan, 2014), 34-35.

A Post in Honour of the Prophet Joseph Smith

"[M]y name should be had for good and evil among all nations, kindreds, and tongues, or that it should be both good and evil spoken of among all people" (Joseph Smith History 1:33 [Joseph Smith's record of the prophetic words of the angel Moroni in September 1823])

Today is the 209^th anniversary of the birth of the Prophet Joseph Smith (1805-1844), the founding prophet of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the human instrument through whom the Lord restored His Gospel to the earth. While, as with all of us, he was fallen and imperfect, he was a great man who played a pivotal role in salvation history that places him among the greatest prophets of all dispensations. As a result of the great revelations he received, his writings, teachings, and the scriptures he translated through divine inspiration, most notably the Book of Mormon, the lives of countless millions, my own included, have been (eternally) changed for the better.

All I can say is “Amen” whenever I read D&C 135:3, written on the occasion of the death of Joseph and his brother, Hyrum:

Joseph Smith, the Prophet and Seer of the Lord, has done more, save Jesus only, for the salvation of men in this world, than any other man that ever lived in it. In the short space of twenty years, he has brought forth the Book of Mormon, which he translated by the gift and power of God, and has been the means of publishing it on two continents; has sent the fulness of the everlasting gospel, which it contained, to the four quarters of the earth; has brought forth the revelations and commandments which compose this book of Doctrine and Covenants, and many other wise documents and instructions for the benefit of the children of men; gathered many thousands of the Latter-day Saints, founded a great city, and left a fame and name that cannot be slain. He lived great, and he died great in the eyes of God and his people; and like most of the Lord’s anointed in ancient times, has sealed his mission and his works with his own blood; and so has his brother Hyrum. In life they were not divided, and in death they were not separated!

 Suggested reading:

Richard L. Bushman, Joseph Smith, "Rough Stone Rolling": A Cultural Biography of Mormonism's Founder (New York: Knopf, 2005).

John A. Tvedtnes, Hebraisms in the Book of Mormon and The Isaiah Variants of the Book of Mormon

The Neal A. Maxwell Institute (PKA Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies) has recently posted a number of the FARMS Preliminary Reports, dating from the 1970s onwards, researched and written when FARMS (now NAMI) focused a lot of their attention on the historicity of the Book of Mormon.

One highly recommended one (actually two in one) offering would be this link that contains two important studies by John A. Tvedtnes, “Hebraisms in the Book of Mormon” and “The Isaiah Variants in the Book of Mormon.”