Did Joseph Smith finish his revision of the Bible in 1833?

In the essay "What is the New Translation of the Bible?" in Joseph Smith's Translation of the Bible: Electronic Library (Provo, Utah: Religious Studies Center and Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship, 2010), we read the following about the question of whether the JST was considered finished by Joseph Smith:

Was the translation finished? Generally speaking, the answer is yes. The Bible, even in its purest and fullest form, never contained the complete records of those who are mentioned in it. The book of Genesis, for example, was a revelation to Moses that provided mere summaries of important lives and events. Certainly there are other truths that could have been revealed in the New Translation and other additions that could have been inserted to make it more complete. But from July 1833 on, Joseph Smith spoke no longer of translating the Bible but of publishing it, which he wanted and intended to accomplish “as soon as possible.”¹⁸ He sought to find the means to print it as a book, and he repeatedly encouraged Church members to donate money for the publication. But because of a lack of funds and the other priorities of the Saints, it was not printed in his lifetime.¹⁹ Excerpts were published in the Church’s newspapers and elsewhere, so some sections of it were available for early Church members.²⁰ Still, when Joseph Smith was martyred in 1844, he had not seen the realization of his desire to have the entire New Translation appear in print.

In the decades after the Prophet’s death, Latter-day Saints in Utah lacked access to the manuscripts of the New Translation and had only limited knowledge about how it was produced. None of the participants in the translation process were with the Church when the Saints moved west in 1846.²¹ This, and related circumstances, resulted in many misconceptions about it that eventually made their way into Latter-day Saint culture. Among those misconceptions are the beliefs that the Prophet did not finish the translation and that it was not intended to be published in his lifetime. Careful research shows that these ideas are refuted in Joseph Smith’s own words.²² But was the New Translation ready to go to press the day Joseph Smith died? Robert J. Matthews has pointed out: “The basic conclusion seems to be that the work of translation was acceptable as far as the Lord required it of the Prophet at that time, but the manuscript was not fully prepared for the press.”²³ Some work still needed to be done to refine the verse divisions and to provide consistent spelling and punctuation. And some of the individual changes had resulted in unevenness in wording that had not yet been smoothed out. In short, although the inspired work of translating had been completed by Joseph Smith as far as was intended, the text was still in need of some editing when he died. The Prophet probably thought that these refinements would be taken care of in the typesetting process.

Notes for the Above

¹⁸ “You will see by these revelations that we have to print the new translation here at kirtland for which we will prepare as soon as possible.” Joseph Smith, Sidney Rigdon, and Frederick G. Williams to Edward Partridge, 6 August 1833, Letters Sent, Oversized (Ms. 155, Box 6 folder 2), Joseph Smith Collection, Church History Library, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

¹⁹ The evidence is collected in Matthews, “Joseph Smith’s Efforts to Publish His Bible Translation,” Ensign, January 1983, 57–64.

²⁰ The Evening and the Morning Star 1, no. 3 (August 1832): 2–3 (Moses 7); 1, no. 10 (March 1833): 1 (Moses 6:43–68); 1, no. 11 (April 1833): 1 (Moses 5:1–16); 1, no. 11 (April 1833): 1–2 (Moses 8:13–30); Doctrine and Covenants of the Church of the Latter Day Saints (Kirtland, Ohio: F. G. Williams and Co., 1835), “Lecture First,” 9 (Heb. 11:1); “Lecture Second,” 13–18 (Moses 2:26–29; 3:15–17, 19–20; 4:14–19, 22–25; 5:1, 4–9, 19–23, 32–40); Times and Seasons 4, no. 5 (16 January 1843): 71–73 (Moses 1); Peter Crawley, A Descriptive Bibliography of the Mormon Church, Volume One, 1830–1847 (Provo, Utah: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 1997), 60–61 (Matthew 24).

²¹ Joseph Smith (died 1844), Oliver Cowdery (excommunicated 1838, died in the Church 1850), John Whitmer (excommunicated 1838), Emma Smith (did not go west), Sidney Rigdon (excommunicated 1844), Jesse Gause (excommunicated 1832) , and Frederick G. Williams (excommunicated 1839, died in the Church 1842).

²² See Matthews, “Joseph Smith’s Efforts.”

²³ Ibid., 64.

The nature of the Joseph Smith Translation

In the essay "What is the New Translation of the Bible?" in Joseph Smith's Translation of the Bible: Electronic Library (Provo, Utah: Religious Studies Center and Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship, 2010), we read the following about the nature of the Joseph Smith Translation:

Some remarkable passages in the New Translation were revealed in doctrinal and grammatical clarity the first time and had little need for later refining. But other passages show that the Prophet struggled with the wording until he was satisfied that it was acceptable to the Lord. His careful effort was in harmony with the instruction that he had received previously that we should “study it out in [our] mind” as we listen to the Spirit and apply our best efforts, after which a confirmation will come if it is correct (D&C 9:8; see D&C 9:7–9).

On many pages of the manuscripts are revisions that were made after the original dictation. These are of two types: (a) Some are simply mechanical, such as the insertion of punctuation and verse numbering, changes of ampersands to and, or changes of letters to upper- or lowercase. There are hundreds of these. (b) In other cases, words were added to the text, or existing wording was revised. Some of these changes simply correct errors in the original recording, such as when the Prophet’s eyes skipped words while he was dictating or when his scribe recorded words incorrectly. But in many insertions Joseph Smith revised the writing or added words or phrases to produce new meanings not recorded in the original dictation. Some of these insertions required more room than was available between the lines of the text and were written on small pieces of paper and attached in place with straight pins—the nineteenth-century equivalent of paper clips or staples. Even though some of the later corrections provide important clarifications and insights, an overwhelming majority of the significant contributions of the JST were made during the original dictation . . .

Types of Changes

Joseph Smith had the authority to make changes in the Bible as God directed. In one revelation he is called “a seer, a revelator, a translator” (D&C 107:92), and in several other Doctrine and Covenants passages his work with the translation is endorsed by the Lord (D&C 35:20; 43:12–13; 73:3–4; 90:13; 93:53; 94:10). The Prophet called his Bible revision a “translation,” though it did not involve creating a new rendering from Hebrew or Greek manuscripts. So far as the translation of the Bible is concerned, he never claimed to have consulted any text other than his English Bible, but he translated it in the sense of conveying it in a new form.

It appears that several different kinds of changes were involved in the process, but it is difficult to know with certainty the nature or origin of any particular change. The following five categories seem to include all of the revisions of the New Translation:²⁴

1. Restoration of original text. Because Nephi tells us that “many plain and precious things” would be “taken away” from the Bible (1 Ne. 13:28), we can be certain that the JST includes the restoration of content that was once in original manuscripts. To Moses, the Lord foretold the removal of material from his record and its restoration in the latter days: “Thou shalt write the things which I shall speak. And in a day when the children of men shall esteem my words as naught and take many of them from the book which thou shalt write, behold, I will raise up another like unto thee; and they shall be had again among the children of men—among as many as shall believe” (Moses 1:40–41). Joseph Smith was the man like Moses whom the Lord raised up to restore the lost words written by Moses, as well as lost material from the words of other Bible writers. But Joseph Smith did not restore the very words of lost texts, because they were in Hebrew or Greek (or other ancient languages), and the New Translation was to be in English. Thus his translation, in the English idiom of his own day, would restore the meaning and the message of original passages but not necessarily the literary trappings that accompanied them when they were first put to writing. This is one reason why the work can be called a translation.

2. Restoration of what was once said or done but which was never in the Bible. Joseph Smith stated, “From what we can draw from the scriptures relative to the teachings of heaven we are induced to think, that much instruction has been given to man since the beginning which we have not.”²⁵ Perhaps the JST includes teachings or events in the ministries of prophets, apostles, or Jesus himself that were never recorded anciently. The JST may include material of which the biblical writers were unaware or which they chose not to include or neglected to record (cf. 3 Ne. 23:6–13).

3. Editing to make the Bible more understandable for modern readers. Many of the individual JST changes fall into this category. There are numerous instances in which the Prophet rearranged word order to make a text read more easily or modernized its language. Examples of modernization of language would include the many changes from wot to know,²⁶ from an to a before words that begin with h, from saith to said, from that and which to who, and from ye and thee to you.²⁷ In some instances, Joseph Smith added short expansions to make the text less ambiguous. For example, there are several places where the word he is replaced by a personal name, thus making the meaning more clear, as in Genesis 14:20 (KJV “And he gave” = JST “And Abram gave”) and in Genesis 18:32 (KJV “And he said. . . . And he said” = JST “And Abraham said. . . . And the Lord said”).

These examples are merely word choices and usually have no bearing on how the original text is to be interpreted. But other modernizations may have a more significant aim. Some could be called cultural translations—the conversion of aspects of ancient culture into modern counterparts to make them communicate better to modern readers. An example might include 1 Thessalonians 5:26, in which “Greet all the brethren with a holy kiss” is changed to “Greet all the brethren with a holy salutation” (see also Rom. 16:16; 1 Cor. 16:20; 2 Cor. 13:12). It is likely that the King James text here accurately represents Paul’s original words and intent. Yet to modern Western readers, unaccustomed to Mediterranean displays of friendship and brotherhood, Paul’s words might miscommunicate and misdirect, and thus the Prophet made a change.²⁸

4. Editing to bring biblical wording into harmony with truth found in other revelations or elsewhere in the Bible. Joseph Smith said, “[There are] many things in the Bible which do not, as they now stand, accord with the revelation of the Holy Ghost to me.”²⁹ Where there were inaccuracies in the Bible, regardless of their source, it was well within the scope of the Prophet’s calling to change what needed to be changed. Where modern revelation had given a clearer view of a doctrine preserved less adequately in the Bible, it was appropriate for Joseph Smith to add a correction—whether or not that correction reflects what was on the ancient original manuscript. And where a passage was inconsistent with information elsewhere in the Bible itself, a change needed to be made.

Three examples may illustrate this kind of change: (a) The Gospel of John records the statement, “No man hath seen God at any time” (John 1:18), which contradicts the experience of Joseph Smith (JS—H 1:17–20) as well as biblical examples of prophets seeing God (e.g., Ex. 24:9–11; 33:11; Num. 12:6–8; Isa. 6:1; Amos 9:1). The JST change at John 1:18 clarifies the text. (b) The Gospel of Matthew contains what appears to be a misunderstanding of the donkey used in Jesus’ triumphal entry (Matt. 21:2–3, 7). The JST revises the text to agree with the clearer accounts in Mark, Luke, and John. (c) Matthew 27:3–5 and Acts 1:16–19 contain conflicting information about Judas’ death. The JST revises Matthew to harmonize the two accounts. It is possible that in examples like b and c the Bible preserves accurately what the original authors wrote, based on misunderstanding, incomplete recollection, or the imperfection of writing. Joseph Smith was called to provide a more accurate translation, and responding to divine inspiration, he made the necessary changes even if they corrected the words of ancient writers.

5. Changes to provide modern readers teachings that were not written by original authors. Perhaps there are JST changes in which Joseph Smith was inspired to alter or adapt an author’s original words, or even to remove them from their original context, to reveal teachings needed by the latter-day Church. Elder Bruce R. McConkie, speaking of the differences between the early Genesis chapters in the Bible and the JST, said “both of them are true.” He stated that John 1 in the Bible “is true,” yet the JST gives it “an entirely new perspective.” “These are illustrations of the fact that there can be two translations of the same thing and both of them can be true.”³⁰ There is an important JST change at Romans 13 in which Paul’s teaching regarding the Saints’ submission to secular political power is changed to submission to the authorities of the Church. Perhaps both versions are correct. If the Bible preserves accurately Paul’s original thoughts and intent, then the JST revision would be viewed as a latter-day revelation intended to instruct us on a topic not anticipated by Paul.³¹

Some have dismissed the JST because its changes are not verified in ancient manuscripts.³² The claim is that if the JST revisions were justifiable, they would agree with the earliest existing manuscripts of the biblical books. But this reasoning is misdirected in two ways. First, it assumes that all JST changes are intended to restore original text, a claim made neither by the JST itself nor by the Prophet Joseph Smith. Second, it assumes that extant ancient manuscripts accurately reproduce the original text. Joseph Smith taught that “many important points, touching the salvation of man, had been taken from the Bible, or lost before it was compiled,”³³ corroborating Nephi’s testimony that “many plain and precious things” would be “taken away” from it (1 Ne. 13:28; see 13:23–29). The careful study of ancient biblical manuscripts seeks to determine the content of the no longer existing originals. But the earliest copies of most New Testament manuscripts date from a century or two after they were first written, and the earliest Old Testament manuscripts date from hundreds of years after the authors wrote their books. Given the prophetic assurance that changes would be made in the texts and considering the ample window of time during which those changes could have been made, we cannot have confidence that the earliest existing manuscripts today are identical to those that “came from the pen of the original writers.”³⁴

The first category of changes listed above, restoration of original text, is the only one that necessarily involves correcting the biblical text to read as in the ancient authors’ earliest manuscripts—though not in the original words but in the language and idiom of nineteenth-century America. The changes identified in categories 2 through 5 are not restorations of original text but are wordings that likely had never been in the Bible, had never been written in Hebrew or Greek, and had never been cast in the ancient literary style of Bible writers. The original language of those changes is the English of Joseph Smith. Perhaps this explains some difficulties with the JST—why some JST additions to Old Testament poetic material do not match the style of the passages in which they are found, or why some JST changes in the New Testament do not use vocabulary or style common to the ancient writer’s other preserved words, or why JST changes sometimes produce a reading different from that found on the plates of brass and copied in the Book of Mormon.³⁵ Because some JST passages were perhaps never in the Bible, we would not expect to find evidence for them in ancient manuscripts, no matter how close in date those manuscripts are to the original biblical texts.

The scriptures give examples of prophets revising, reusing, editing, and adding to the writings of earlier prophets. There are places in Old Testament books where it appears that a later writer may have added to an original author’s words.³⁶ New Testament authors frequently used in their own writings passages from the Old Testament in ways that may not have been anticipated by the earlier prophets.³⁷ Matthew and Luke seem to be, to some extent, expansions on Mark.³⁸ Moroni put together a lengthy string of Old Testament passages from various diverse contexts to teach Joseph Smith.³⁹ Elder Bruce R. McConkie suggested that much of the content of Malachi is actually reused from the earlier prophet Zenos.⁴⁰ Nephi apparently wove his own revelation in and out of the words of Isaiah in order to teach the destiny of his prophetic record (see 2 Nephi 27). And Mormon so thoroughly infused his own inspired commentary into the teachings of Nephite prophets that it is sometimes difficult to tell where Alma, for instance, ends and Mormon begins. Joseph Smith’s labor on the Bible was to make it not a museum piece for antiquity but a living revelation for the Saints of the latter days. He was appointed to the work by God (see D&C 76:15), and God endorsed it in strong language: “And the scriptures shall be given, even as they are in mine own bosom, to the salvation of mine own elect” (D&C 35:20). Because the Lord revealed the Joseph Smith Translation for the salvation of His elect, Latter-day Saints can embrace it as they do the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price.

Notes for the Above

²⁴ Categories somewhat similar to these are found in Matthews, “A Plainer Translation,” 253; and in Robert L. Millet, “Joseph Smith’s Translation of the Bible: A Historical Overview,” in The Joseph Smith Translation: The Restoration of Plain and Precious Things, ed. Monte S. Nyman and Robert L. Millet (Provo, Utah: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 1985), 43–45.

²⁵ The Evening and the Morning Star 2, no. 18 (March 1834): 143.

²⁶ The manuscript at Exodus 32:1 revises wot to know with a note that know “should be in the place of ‘wot’ in all places.”

²⁷ These changes are not universally consistent in the manuscripts.

²⁸ Perhaps the changes at Genesis 24:2, 9 fit this same category. Explanations reflecting the vantage point of the nineteenth century, rather than the first, are found at Matthew 9:9 (NT2.1, p. 16, pinned note), and Mark 2:14 (NT2.2, p. 11).

²⁹ The Words of Joseph Smith: The Contemporary Accounts of the Nauvoo Discourses of the Prophet Joseph, ed. Andrew F. Ehat and Lyndon W. Cook (Provo, Utah: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 1980), 211, spelling and capitalization modernized.

³⁰ Doctrines of the Restoration: Sermons and Writings of Bruce R. McConkie, ed. Mark L. McConkie (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1989), 269.

³¹ The footnotes in the LDS Bible acknowledge both readings by including the JST changes as well as cross-references to “Citizenship,” “Governments,” and Doctrine and Covenants 58:21–22, which enjoins obedience to secular political authority.

³² E.g., Kevin L. Barney, “The Joseph Smith Translation and Ancient Texts of the Bible,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 19 (fall 1986): 85–102; Edward H. Ashment, “Making the Scriptures ‘Indeed One in Our Hands,’” in The Word of God: Essays on Mormon Scripture, ed. Dan Vogel (Salt Lake City: Signature Book, 1990), 240–44, 252–53.

³³ The Papers of Joseph Smith, Vol. 1: Autobiographical and Historical Writings, ed. Dean C. Jessee (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1989), 372.

³⁴ Words of Joseph Smith, 256.

³⁵ Perhaps Doctrine and Covenants 1:24 is applicable here. The changes were “given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language.”

³⁶ This is always done anonymously. The clearest example is the addendum to the writing of “the Preacher” in Ecclesiastes 12:9–14.

³⁷ Theoretically, examples might include Matthew 2:15 (Hosea 11:1); Acts 2:16–21 (Joel 2:28–32); and Romans 10:13 (Joel 2:32).

³⁸ See Kent P. Jackson and Frank F. Judd Jr., eds., How the New Testament Came To Be (Provo and Salt Lake City: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University; Deseret Book, 2006), 109–56.

³⁹ See Oliver Cowdery, “Letter IV. To W. W. Phelps, Esq.,” Latter Day Saints’ Messenger and Advocate 1, no. 5 (February 1835): 77–80; “Letter VI. To W. W. Phelps, Esq.,” ibid., 1, no. 7 (April 1835): 108–12; “Letter VII. To W. W. Phelps, Esq.,” ibid., 1, no. 10 (July 1835): 156–59. See also Kent P. Jackson, From Apostasy to Restoration (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1996), 102–15.

⁴⁰ Bruce R. McConkie, “The Doctrinal Restoration,” in The Joseph Smith Translation, ed. Nyman and Millet, 18.

Brief note on παραδεισος in Luke 23:43

I have discussed Luke 23:43 before, with respect to (1) baptism and (2) Mortalism:

The Good Thief on the Cross

Luke 23:43 vs. Mortalism

In this post, I wish to briefly discuss the term “paradise” in this verse (παραδεισος).

In his 11 June 1843 diary entry, Wilford Woodruff (1807-1898) recorded the following statement of the Prophet Joseph Smith:

I will say something about the spirits in prision. Theire has been much said about the sayings of Jesus on the cross to the thief saying this day thou shalt be with me in paradise. The commentators or translators make it out to say Paradise. But what is Paradise? It is a modern word. It does not answer at all to the original that Jesus made use of. Their is nothing in the original in any language that signifies Paradise. But it was this day I will be with thee in the world of spirits & will teach thee or answer thy inquiries. The thief on the Cross was to be with Jesus Christ in the world of spirits. He did not say Paradise or heaven. (Wilford Woodruff's Journal, volume 2: 1841-1845 [ed. Scott G. Kenny; Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1985], 240)

With respect to other biblical evidence, Joseph's comments are correct--the thief did not go to heaven the day he died, as Christ did not go to heaven on that day, too. In John 20:17, after revealing himself to Mary Magdelene the day he was resurrected, he read that:

Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and day unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

Where Jesus spent the three days between his death and triumphant resurrection was the “spirit world,” as seen in 1 Pet 3:18-20 (cf. D&C 138):

For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit. By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is eight, souls were saved by water.

Furthermore, with respect to lexical evidence, Joseph’s comments are correct. In BDAG, the leading Koine Greek lexicon on the market, we read the following definition of παραδεισος:

5565  παράδεισος

• παράδεισος, ου, ὁ (Old Persian pairidaêza [Avestan form; s. WHinz, Altiranisches Sprachgut der Nebenüberlieferungen, ’75, 179[=‘enclosure’; Hebr. פַּרְדֵּס. In Gk. X.+; gener. ‘garden’; freq. pap., s. also New Docs 2, 201) in our lit., except GJs 2:4, not of any formal garden (as also TestAbr A 4 p. 80, 23 [Stone p. 8, 23] ApcrEzk fgm. a) or park, but only

1. the garden of Eden, paradise (Gen 2f; Philo; Jos., Ant. 1, 37; SibOr 1, 24; 26; 30; Iren. 5, 5, 1 [Harv. II 331, 3]; Orig., C. Cels. 7, 50, 31; Hippol., Did., Theoph. Ant. 2, 22 [p. 154, 21]), lit. Dg 12:3, and in the same connection fig., of those who love God, οἱ γενόμενοι παράδεισος τρυφῆς who prove to be a luscious paradise, in so far as they allow fruit-laden trees to grow up within them 12:1 (cp. PsSol 14:3).

2. a transcendent place of blessedness, paradise (ὁ παράδεισος τῆς δικαιοσύνης appears as such En 32:3; cp. 20:7; TestLevi 18:10; SibOr fgm. 3, 48 and other passages in the OT pseudepigrapha not preserved in Gk., as well as other sources in the lit. given below.—Dssm., B 146 [BS 148]) Lk 23:43 (JWeisengoff, EcclRev 103, ’40, 163-67). ὡς ἐν π. AcPl Ha 3, 23. More fully ὁ π. τοῦ θεοῦ (Gen 13:10; Ez 28:13; 31:8; PGM 4, 3027 ἐν τῷ ἁγίῳ ἑαυτοῦ [=τ. θεοῦ] παραδείσῳ) Rv 2:7. ἁρπάζεσθαι εἰς τὸν π. be caught up into Paradise 2 Cor 12:4.—S. on οὐρανός 1e and τρίτος 1a. Further, Bousset, Rel.³ 282ff; 488ff; PVolz, D. Eschatologie der jüd. Gemeinde im ntl. Zeitalter ’34, 417f; Billerb. IV 1118-65; Windisch on 2 Cor 12:4; AWabnitz, Le Paradis du Hadès: RTQR 19, 1910, 328-31; 410-14; 20, 1911, 130-38.—DELG. M-M. TW.

Positive Descriptions of Man in the Bible

Enoch

And Enoch walked with God: and he was not, for God took him. (Gen 5:24)

By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God. (Heb 11:5)

Noah

These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God. (Gen 6:9)

And the Lord said unto Noah, Come though and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation. (Gen 7:1)

Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. (1 Pet 3:20)

Abraham

And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the Lord appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect. (Gen 17:1)

And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised. (Rom 4:12)

Job

There was once a man in the land of Uz whose name was Job. That man was blameless and upright, one who feared God and turned away from evil. (Job 1:1 | NRSV)

Daniel

Though these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, they should deliver but their own souls by their righteousness, saith the Lord GOD. (Ezek 14:14)

Elizabeth and Zacharias

And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless. (Luke 1:6)

David

And when he had removed him, he raised up unto them David to be their king; to whom also he gave testimony, and said, I have found David the son of Jesse, a man after mine own heart, which shall fulfil all my will (Acts 13:22)

απαραβατος in texts contemporary with Hebrews

I have written about the Latter-day Saint understanding of the Priesthoods many times on this blog (see my The LDS Priesthoods: Resource Page); one such argument that I have spent much time refuting is the claim that απαραβατος in Heb 7:24 means “untransferable.” One such example would be the relevant section of my article:

Refuting Jeff Durbin on Mormonism and the Atonement

Indeed, when one examines Koine Greek texts contemporary with Hebrews shows that, as modern scholarship has shown, this meaning is not part of the semantic domain of the term, contrary to many Protestant apologists; instead, it means “eternal/permanent." I will present such to further the discussion about Heb 7:24 and issues relating to Latter-day Saint claims about the Melchizedek Priesthood in this post.

The term appears twice in the writings of Josephus (AD 37-100). In Antiquities of the Jews 18:266, we read:

Then the Jews replied, ``Since, therefore, you are so disposed, O Petronius! that you will not disobey Gaius' letters, neither will we transgress the commands of our law; and as we depend upon the excellency of our laws, and, by the labours of our ancestors, have continued hereto without allowing them to be transgressed, we dare not by any means allow ourselves to be so timorous as to transgress those laws out of the fear of death.

ὦ Πετρώνιε φασὶν οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι ὡς μὴ ἂν ἐπιστολὰς τὰς Γαΐου παρελθεῖν οὐδ᾽ ἂν αὐτοὶ παραβαίημεν τοῦ νόμου τὴν προαγόρευσιν θεοῦ πεισθέντες ἀρετῇ καὶ προγόνων πόνοις τῶν ἡμετέρων εἰς νῦν ἀπαράβατοι μεμενηκότες οὐδ᾽ ἂν τολμήσαιμεν ἐπὶ τοσοῦτον κακοὶ γενέσθαι ὥστε ὁπόσα ἐκείνῳ δόξειεν μὴ πρασσόμενα ἀγαθοῦ ῥοπὴν ἡμῖν φέρειν αὐτοὶ παραβαίνειν ποτ᾽ ἂν θάνατον φοβηθέντες

Further, in Against Apion 2:293 the term again appears:

On which account I am so bold as to say that we are become the teachers of other men, in the greatest number of things, and those of the most excellent nature only; for what is more excellent than inviolable piety? what is more just than submission to laws?

διόπερ ἐγὼ θαρσήσας ἂν εἴποιμι πλείστων ἅμα καὶ καλλίστων ἡμᾶς εἰσηγητὰς τοῖς ἄλλοις γεγονέναι τί γὰρ εὐσεβείας ἀπαραβάτου κάλλιον τί δὲ τοῦ πειθαρχεῖν τοῖς νόμοις δικαιότερον

Philo of Alexandria (25 BC to AD 50) used απαραβατος once in his writings. In On the Eternity of the World (De aeternitate mundi) 1:112 we read the following:

That equalized proportion of the elements which is attempered by itself being thus preserved eternal and uninjured, as is not only probable but absolutely inevitable; since what is unequal is essentially unjust, and injustice is the offspring of wickedness, and wickedness is banished from the abode of immortality. But the world is of a divine magnitude, and has been shown to be the abode of those gods which are visible to the outward senses; and to affirm that this world is destroyed is the part of those who do not see the connection of nature and the united consequence and coherence of things.

ἀπαραβάτου δὴ καὶ συνεχοῦς τῆς αὐτοκρατοῦς ἰσονομίας ταύτης ἀεὶ φυλαττομένης, ὥσπερ οὐκ εἰκὸς μόνον ἀλλὰ καὶ ἀναγκαῖον, ἐπεὶ τὸ μὲν ἄνισον ἄδικον, τὸ δ᾽ ἄδικον κακίας ἔγγονον, κακία δ᾽ ἐξ οἴκου τῆς ἀθανασίας πεφυγάδευται, θεῖον δέ τι διὰ τὸ μέγεθος ὁ κόσμος καὶ οἶκος θεῶν αἰσθητῶν ἀποδέδεικται, τὸ δὴ φάσκειν ὅτι φθείρεται μὴ συνορώντων ἐστὶ φύσεως εἱρμὸν καὶ πραγμάτων συνηρτημένην ἀκολουθίαν.

Plutarch (AD 45-120) in section 1 of De Fato wrote:

You are first then to know that this word Fate is spoken and understood two manner of ways; the one as it is an energy, the other as it is a substance. First therefore, as it is an action, Plato¹has under a type described it, saying thus in his dialogue entitled Phaedrus: ‘And this is a sanction of Adrastea (or an inevitable ordinance), that whatever soul being an attendant on God,’ &c. And in his treatise called Timaeus: ‘The laws which God in the nature of the universe has established for immortal souls.’ And in his book of a Commonweal he calls Fate ‘the speech of the virgin Lachesis, who is the daughter of Necessity.’ By which sentences he not tragically but theologically shows us what his sentiments are in this matter. Now if any one, translating the fore-cited passages, would have them expressed in more familiar terms, the description in Phaedrus may be thus explained: That Fate is a divine sentence, intransgressible because its cause cannot be divested or hindered. And according to what he has said in his Timaeus, it is a law ensuing on the nature of the universe, according to which all things that are done are transacted. For this does Lachesis effect, who is indeed the daughter of Necessity,—as we have both already related, and shall yet better understand by that which will be said in the progress of our discourse. Thus you see what Fate is, when it is taken for an action.

πρῶτον τοίνυν ἴσθι, ὅτι εἱμαρμένη διχῶς καὶ λέγεται καὶ νοεῖται· ἡ μὲν γάρ ἐστιν ἐνέργεια ἡ δʼ οὐσία. πρῶτον μὲν οὖν ἐνέργειαν τύπῳ ὑπέγραψεν ὁ Πλάτων ἔν τε τῷ Φαίδρῳ λέγων ‘θεσμός τε Ἀδραστείας ὅδε, ἥτις ἂν ψυχὴ θεῷ ξυνοπαδὸς γενομένη·’ ἐν δὲ τῷ Τιμαίῳ ‘νόμους’ οὓς ἐπὶ τῇ τοῦ παντὸς φύσει ὁ θεὸς εἶπε ταῖς ἀθανάτοις ψυχαῖς· ἐν δὲ τῇ Πολιτείᾳ ‘ἀνάγκης θυγατρὸς κόρης Λαχέσεως λόγον’ φησὶν εἶναι τὴν εἱμαρμένην, ουʼ τραγικῶς ἀλλὰ θεολογικῶς τὸ ἀρέσκον αὑτῷ ἀποφαινόμενος. ειʼ δὲ κοινότερον ἐθέλοι τις ταῦτα μεταλαβὼν ὑπογράψαι, ὡς μὲν ἐν Φαίδρῳ λέγοιτʼ ἂν ἡ εἱμαρμένη λόγος θεῖος ἀπαράβατος διʼ αἰτίαν ἀνεμπόδιστον· ὡς δʼ ἐν τῷ Τιμαίῳ νόμος ἀκόλουθος τῇ τοῦ παντὸς φύσει, καθʼ ὃν διεξάγεται τὰ γιγνόμενα. τοῦτο γὰρ ἐκεῖ ἡ Λάχεσις ἐργάζεται, ἡ τῆς Ἀνάγκης ἀληθῶς θυγάτηρ, ὡς καὶ πρότερον παρελάβομεν καὶ ὕστερον ἔτι μᾶλλον εἰσόμεθʼ ἐν τοῖς κατὰ σχολὴν λόγοις. ἥδε μὲν οὖν ἡ κατʼ ἐνέργειαν εἱμαρμένη.

In chapter 51 of his Enchiridion, Epictetus (AD 50-135) wrote:

How long, then, will you delay to demand of yourself the noblest improvements, and in no instance to transgress the judgments of reason? You have received the philosophic principles with which you ought to be conversant; and you have been conversant with them. For what other master, then, do you wait as an excuse for this delay in self-reformation? You are no longer a boy, but a grown man. If, therefore, you will be negligent and slothful, and always add procrastination to procrastination, purpose to purpose, and fix day after day in which you will attend to yourself, you will insensibly continue to accomplish nothing, and, living and dying, remain of vulgar mind. This instant, then, think yourself worthy of living as a man grown up and a proficient. Let whatever appears to be the best, be to you an inviolable law. And if any instance of pain or pleasure, glory or disgrace, be set before you, remember that now is the combat, now the Olympiad comes on, nor can it be put off; and that by one failure and defeat honor may be lost - or won. Thus Socrates became perfect, improving himself by everything, following reason alone. And though you are not yet a Socrates, you ought, however, to live as one seeking to be a Socrates.

[1] Εἰς ποῖον ἔτι χρόνον ἀναβάλλῃ τὸ τῶν βελτίστων ἀξιοῦν σεαυτὸν καὶ ἐν μηδενὶ παραβαίνειν τὸν διαιροῦντα λόγον; παρείληφας τὰ θεωρήματα, οἷς ἔδει σε συμβάλλειν, καὶ συμβέβληκας. ποῖον οὖν ἔτι διδάσκαλον προσδοκᾷς, ἵνα εἰς ἐκεῖνον ὑπερθῇ τὴν ἐπανόρθωσιν ποιῆσαι τὴν σεαυτοῦ; οὐκ ἔτι εἶ μειράκιον, ἀλλὰ ἀνὴρ ἤδη τέλειος. ἂν νῦν ἀμελήσῃς καὶ ῥᾳθυμήσῃς καὶ ἀεὶ προθέσεις ἐκ προθέσεως ποιῇ καὶ ἡμέρας ἄλλας ἐπʼ ἄλλαις ὁρίζῃς, μεθʼ ἃς προσέξεις σεαυτῷ, λήσεις σεαυτὸν ουʼ προκόψας, ἀλλʼ ἰδιώτης διατελέσεις καὶ ζῶν καὶ ἀποθνῄσκων. [2] ἤδη οὖν ἀξίωσον σεαυτὸν βιοῦν ὡς τέλειον καὶ προκόπτοντα· καὶ πᾶν τὸ βέλτιστον φαινόμενον ἔστω σοι νόμος ἀπαράβατος. κἂν ἐπίπονόν τι ἢ ἡδὺ ἢ ἔνδοξον ἢ ἄδοξον προσάγηται, μέμνησο, ὅτι νῦν ὁ ἀγὼν καὶ ἤδη πάρεστι τὰ Ὀλύμπια καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν ἀναβάλλεσθαι οὐκέτι καὶ ὅτι παρὰ μίαν ἡμέραν καὶ ἓν πρᾶγμα καὶ ἀπόλλυται προκοπὴ καὶ σῴζεται. [3] Σωκράτης οὕτως ἀπετελέσθη, ἐπὶ πάντων τῶν προσαγομένων αὐτῷ μηδενὶ ἄλλῳ προσέχων ἢ τῷ λόγῳ. σὺ δὲ ειʼ καὶ μήπω εἶ Σωκράτης, ὡς Σωκράτης γε εἶναι βουλόμενος ὀφείλεις βιοῦν.

Robert Sungenis on the Immaculate Conception

Critics of Roman Catholicism's Mariology often point out that, notwithstanding Rome's claims that the Immaculate Conception (dogmatised in 1854) and Bodily Assumption (1950) were "apostolic traditions," history and Scripture prove otherwise. On the Immaculate Conception, see, for example:

Answering Tim Staples on Patristic Mariology and the Immaculate Conception

Luke 1:28 and κεχαριτωμενη: Evidence for the Immaculate Conception of Mary?

This can be seen with crystal-clear clarity in an exchange that took place on Robert Sungenis’ facebook page. A Catholic asked Sungenis the following question:

Dr. Robert Sungenis

I was hoping you could respond to this being that it is the day we celebrate the solemnity of the immaculate conception.

There were three early views concerning Mary’s condition in the patristic period:

1) Mary sinned at times

• This view forfeits an immaculate conception

• Those teaching this doctrine include Tertullian, Irenaeus, Basil, John Chrysostom, Origen, Justin Martyr, and Cyril of Alexandria

2) Mary was purified from sin around the time of the birth of Christ

• This is not an immaculate conception

• This view was held by such fathers as Gregory Nazianzen and Cyril of Jerusalem (who wrote the Catechetical Lectures). The “Lectures”, Cyril said, contained everything needed for salvation – yet neither the “immaculate conception” nor the “bodily assumption” of Mary is mentioned in this extensive writing.

3) Mary was fully sanctified sometime while in her mother’s womb, though not at the first instance of conception.

• This is not an immaculate conception

• This view was embraced by the likes of Augustine and Ambrose, who affirmed that only Christ was conceived without the stain of original sin.

All of these views are contrary to the modern Roman claim that Mary was preserved from any stain of original sin in the first instance of conception, never contracting it in the first place.

As I have said before, this doctrine was first introduced to the Church in the 5th century by heretics, at which time it was universally rejected by the Church. According to Ludwig Ott, it was not re-introduced to the church until the 12th century, when it continued to be rejected by the leading theologians of the 12th and 13th centuries – such as St. Bernard of Clairvaux, Petrus Lombardus, St. Alexander of Hales, St. Bonaventure, St. Albert the Great, and St. Thomas Aquinas.

Roman Catholic historian Juniper Carol admits, “Theologically, we must face up to an evolution. From the extant philological data it does not seem that the personal sinlessness of Mary or her Immaculate Conception were explicitly taught as Catholic doctrine in the patristic West” (Mariology, vol. I, p. 147).

This is a direct denial to the claim of Pope Pius IX who stated that this teaching “always existed in the Church as a doctrine that has been received from our ancestors”.

And, even worse, church historian Phillip Schaff has identified at least 7 different popes who rejected the idea that Mary was born free of original sin: Leo I, Gelasius I, Gregory I, Innocent III, Innocent V, John XXII, and Clement VI.

Let me know if you would like the quotes from these popes. The question is, though, how can one “infallible” pope make a declaration that was rejected by previous “infallible” popes?

In any event, the teaching of the Immaculate Conception of Mary cannot be supported by Church tradition.

Sungenis’ response to the following (excellent) query reveals that there is indeed no biblical or apostolic tradition supporting the Immaculate Conception; while one appreciates Sungenis’ honesty and integrity, it does show the problematic nature of Rome’s claims that such a dogma is apostolic in origin:

Myles, the real question here is: does the Church have the authority to declare something as dogma that is not taught in Scripture (but certainly not denied in Scripture) and has scant and/or polemical testimony in the tradition? The answer is yes. That answer was given at the first council in Jerusalem recorded in Acts 15. The apostles and bishops were arguing about whether the Gentiles should be circumcised. Scripture gave no help. In fact, it would seem that Scripture in the OT would be in favor of circumcision. Tradition gave little help, since the issue was never brought up before. Even the apostles were arguing with one another, yet the apostles were supposed to be the originators, after Jesus, of church doctrine. So, in the end, there really is no precedent to rescind circumcision. But that is what Peter does, as the first pope, and the doctrine has never changed since, and it won’t change. I use this as the basis to argue for the doctrine of The Assumption of Mary in my debate against James White.

You’ll find that the same is true with a number of doctrines. The doctrine of the Eucharist, for example, had evolved over time. All the Fathers knew there was a change from the bread and wine to some kind of presence of Jesus, but they had many different concepts about how that change occurred. The eastern church had about a half dozen different words from various Fathers it used to describe the change, and the Latin church had at least three, but no one had thought of “transubstantiation” until the Lateran Council of 1215, which was when the Church finally dogmatized it. The Church was forced into this decision because Berengarius had protested the Real Presence (and he was allowed to do so because they Church had not settled the issue prior to Berengarius). So, one of the Church’s most important doctrines, wasn’t settled until 1200 years after Christ. (See my book Not By Bread Alone for the details on this history and the various words used by East and West to describe the Eucharist prior to 1215).

The same was true with the Canon of Scripture. The Fathers debated the canon for quite a while. And although the Church ended up with the same canon that was finally proposed in 382 at the Council of Rome, it wasn’t until the Council of Trent in 1563 that the canon was infallibly dogmatized and no more discussion on it was allowed. Prior to that there were a few debates, one of them being from Cardinal Cajetan who, like Luther, wanted to eject the OT apocrapha and seven books in the NT. He was allowed to reject these books without ecclesiastical discipline since the Church had not yet made an infallible decision on the canon. But once the Church made its final decision in 1563, no more debate was allowed.

So the same is true with the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. Like the issue of the Eucharist, there were many ideas floating around both in the patristics and the medieval period, but most of the Fathers and medievals knew that something was different about Mary in regard to sin. Like the issue of circumcision, there was no Scripture to consult and very little tradition. Like the canon issue, debates were allowed right up until the Church dogmatized the canon.

As such, this is when the pope has to step in and make the final decision, just as Peter did in Acts 15 with the issue of circumcision.