Monday, June 27, 2011

A Small Matter of Paragraphing: Joseph Smith Translation Jeremiah 37:16

The paragraphing of the Authorized Version of Jeremiah 37 differs from that found in both the Hebrew Masoretic Text and the Joseph Smith Translation. In the Authorized Version verse 16 begins a new paragraph; in Hebrew manuscripts verse 16 ends one paragraph and verse 17 begins another:




The layout of medieval Hebrew Bibles, excluding the Psalms, apportions text into open and closed paragraphs (or parashot). The appearance of the letter peh, between two paragraphsmarks the beginning of a clear-cut, new paragraph. Peh marks a new act in the narrative or a new, distinct idea. Such a stand-alone paragraph can hardly begin on the same manuscript line as the previous paragraph; what space remains in the line must therefore be left blank. The blank space is what bears the name petuxa, peh for short, or "open section" of manuscript line. The new, or open paragraph accordingly begins on its own, fresh line.

The letter samekh marks a closed paragraph (setuma). A closed paragraph but momentarily pauses the flow of speech, idea, or narrative, and therefore continues to fill the very same line of manuscript on which the prior paragraph ends. No visible break is contemplated, however small or great the pause in action or idea--one letter follows another right to the end of the closely indited manuscript line (see Page H. Kelley, Daniel S. Mynatt, and Timothy G. Crawford, The Masorah of Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia: Introduction and Annotated Glossary [Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1998], 155, 167).

Another glance at the scheme recommends itself because the mind attuned to the English connotations will surely confuse the Hebrew sense of open and closed paragraphs. The scheme indeed contemplates two distinct kinds of parashot--semicolon and full stop--but what must be remembered, if we are to make sense of the terms, is that it is the manuscript line itself which is, in the first instance, open or closed:

"Peh 'Open.' 'Abbreviation for petuxa' (cf. setuma). This refers to the short paragraphs ('pareshyot') into which the entire Bible (except Psalms) was divided. Such paragraphs could be either 'open' ('ptuxa') or 'closed' ('stuma'). An open paragraph (indicated by peh placed between two verses) had to commence at the beginning of a new line, with the preceding line left partly or wholly blank. These rules applied to handwritten texts but are no longer valid for printed Bibles, since their line and paragraph divisions are of necessity different from those of ancient manuscripts" (ibid., 155).

In manuscripts--though not necessarily in printed Hebrew Bibles--an "open section" of blank line follows Jeremiah 37:16; verse 17 begins at the head of a new line.

Given the paragraphing of the Hebrew text of Jeremiah 37:16 as it also appeared in the Bomberg Bible, the print edition used by the English translators and which still preserved the manuscript notations, why did these translators and printers arrange and translate the verses as they did? Taking the Hebrew particle ki as the equivalent of English when, a dictionary definition, the translators of the Authorized Version render the Hebrew as a complex sentence opening with a subordinate temporal clause (When Jeremiah was entered into the dungeon, etc.), followed by a temporal main clause (Then Zedekiah the king sent, and took him out:), which, in its turn, is followed in this archaic English sentence syntax by what ought, by all rights, to be a new sentence or two (and the king asked him secretly in his house, and said, Is there any word from the Lord?). The tight clausal balance of English When. . .Then focuses our attention, with the insistence of argument, on the translators' own layout of the text, the new mise-en-page, with its altered view of the temporal relation between these two verses.

Because the translators supposed ki to match in meaning and usage English when, their translation required adjustments in the paragraphing of the chapter, and they accordingly moved the sign posts that marked the beginning of a new paragraph from verse 18 back to verse 16. But all such little words as ki make up the linguistic stumbling blocks of centuries to the awkward feet of scholars; for it is often the case that native speakers understand such nuanced linguistic markers differently than do the learned.

The verse in Hebrew reads: ki va yiremiyahu el-bet habor ve'el-haxanuyot vayeshev-sham yiremiyahu yomim rabim, which, if we parse word for word, says: when (or so it was, or indeed) came in Jeremiah to the house of the pit and the xanuyot [whatever those rooms might be] and he sat, or stayed there days a-plenty). Verse 17 follows: Veyishlax ha-melekh, etc: And he sent, the king (which yields: And the king sent).

Following the Greek Septuagint, which has kai elthein (and he went in), some students have postulated the Hebrew is corrupt. They accordingly emend ki va to veva (and he entered). Yet, says Professor McKane: "It should not be too readily assumed that Sept. kai elthen (v. 16) is evidence of a Vorlage (v-b-') different from MT (ki va), though this may be correct (so Giesebrecht, Cornill, Volz, Rudolph). Kai elthen, however, may be no more than a free rendering of the awkward ki va in order to secure a smoother translation" (William McKane, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Jeremiah [Edinburgh, 1996], vol. 2: 929). A smoother translation? Here is belated but good advice for the old English translators: Loosen up, go with a free rendering here and there; secure the smoother idiom, let the awkward alone. Alas! the advice comes just a nod after the 17th century scholars sent the manuscript off to the printers. Another student (S. R. Driver) "supposes that ki is a corruption of koh, 'So Jeremiah came'"; another, Ehrlich, "emends to keva, 'When Jeremiah came.'" Comes along just one little Hebrew word, and we're all completely bowled over.

The wording in both the Greek Septuagint and the Masoretic Hebrew show the verse as marking the end of an act: "And (or So it was that) Jeremiah went into the pit, and there he sat"--end of idea--end of paragraph. And that's how modern translators render the matter today.

Let's consider both Anchor Bible editions of Jeremiah.

John Bright (page 225): Verse 16: "Jeremiah was, indeed, put in one of the vaults in the cistern house and left there for some time."

Verse 17 [New Paragraph] But then King Zedekiah sent and had him brought to him," etc.

(Page 225 note): Heb. "Indeed [or "when"] Jeremiah went into. . ." (ki va). LXX  (wayyavo'), "and Jeremiah went into. . .," may be preferable.

(Page 230 note): and left there. Literally "and he stayed there," Hebrew awkwardly repeats 'Jeremiah' as the subject, which we omit with LXX for smoothness' sake."
The Anchor Bible  Jeremiah  John Bright (Garden City, New York, 1965, 2nd ed, 1980).

Jack R. Lundbom (Pages 3-4): Verse 16: "Indeed Jeremiah went to the Pit House, yes, to the cells! And Jeremiah dwelt there many days."

17 "Then King Zedekiah sent and brought him"

(Page 60): "The initial ki is best read as an asseverative, i.e., 'Indeed.' Some commentators get a comparable reading from the LXX's 'And Jeremiah came' (kai elthen Ieremias). The AV and RSV render as 'When,' beginning an awkward dependent clause. This is remedied in the NRSV, although for some reason the final 'Jeremiah' in the verse continues to be untranslated. The Hebrew reads: 'And Jeremiah dwelt there many days.'" Further: "...The LXX omits 'Jeremiah,' which could be more haplography (homoeoarcton y. . .y)." Jack R. Lundbom Jeremiah 37-52 (The Anchor Bible; NY, 2004).

Still it comes as a surprise that Joseph Smith, as we shall see, should follow the ancient Hebrew mise-en-page, and not that of the Authorized Version. The Prophet had not yet studied Hebrew, and the Authorized Version lay open before him as he worked. But what's the surprise? Joseph Smith is a Prophet--like Jeremiah. And like Jeremiah, Joseph was often detained, tried, and imprisoned (he calls Liberty Jail a "dungeon") on charges of blasphemy and treason. Yet despite the constant persecution, Brother Joseph was given sight and power to reveal the fullness of the scriptures, including changes to the history of Jeremiah. The whole thing is marvelous; thus we shouldn't be surprised when the Prophet, going beyond paragraphing, also changes the Authorized Version yet a bit more by dropping the verse's second, and thus superfluous, Jeremiah. Professor McKane, after all, reads: "Jeremiah was taken to dungeons under the house and there he was held for a long period" (922). That lopping makes for smoother translation into English; it would have made for a better text in the original Hebrew as well (the Septuagint, after all, drops a Jeremiah or two in verses 16 and 17).

Here's how verses 16-17 read in Sir Lancelot C. L. Brenton's translation (The English Translation of the Greek Septuagint Bible as found on

LXX (Greek Septuagint) Chapter 44:15
And the princes were very angry with Jeremias, and smote him, and sent him into the house of Jonathan the scribe: for they had made this a prison.

(A new paragraph follows in Sir Lancelot's translation of the LXX! something which we should not find in the original Greek):

16 So Jeremias came into the dungeon, and into the cells, and he remained there many days. 17 Then Sedekias sent, and called him; and the king asked him secretly, saying, Is there a word from the Lord? and he said, There is: thou shalt be delivered into the hands of the king of Babylon.

Now for the Prophet Joseph Smith, another type and witness of Christ, for whom the following verse from his New Translation prefigures both the tortured months in the dungeon of Liberty, Missouri and the bloodstained moments of witness in Carthage Jail, Illinois:

And Jeremiah was entered into the dungeon, and into the cabins, and he remained there many days.

End of Paragraph.


While I make no claim to priority in pointing out how the Joseph Smith Translation of Jeremiah 37:16 matches the ancient mise-en-page of the text, and thus avoids the trap into which the KJV translators fell, I have not found any published studies of JST Jeremiah 37:16. Still there are many Latter-day Saint students of the Hebrew Bible and Septuagint. . .p

Tuesday, June 21, 2011

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

Among the Bible's dramatic episodes is that of Jeremiah prophesying in the court of the Temple, whereupon an angry assemblage of priests, prophets, princes, and people try him for his life right on the spot. Or nearly so, the proper spot for such trials being the New Gate of the Temple, where, perhaps, "trials involving sacral law were regularly heard" (William McKane, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Jeremiah, Edinburgh, 1996, 678; on the supposed legal model for the narrative see McKane, ps. 676-681 and see also John W. Welch, "The Trial of Jeremiah: A Legal Legacy from Lehi's Jerusalem," in David R. Seely, JoAnn Seely, and J. Welch (eds), Glimpses of Lehi's Jerusalem (Provo, 2004), which shows parallels with legal procedure in the Book of Mormon narrative but does not mention JST Jeremiah 26:17-23; cf. also David R. Seely, "The Ministry of Jeremiah," in Kent Jackson (ed), Studies in Scripture 4).

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

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

5 To hearken to the words of my servants the prophets, whom I sent unto you both rising up early, and sending them, but ye have not hearkened;

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


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

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


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


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

19 Did Hezekiah king of Judah and all Judah put him at all to death? did he not fear the Lord, and besought the Lord, and the Lord repented him of the evil which he had pronounced against them? Thus might we procure great evil against our souls [Joseph Smith Translation: Thus by putting Jeremiah to death we might procure great evil against our souls].
23 And they fetched forth Urijah out of Egypt, and brought him unto Jehoiakim the king; who slew him with the sword, and cast his dead body into the graves of the common people [Vulgate: in sepulchris vulgi ignobilis; Targum: lqbry gly', "graves of the heaps", "common graves" = W. McKane, 664].



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The sentence deserves close analysis:

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

ish (man, a man)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


In Hebrew the word akh is a powerful affirmative--a word of power--that rings out, without further ado, the stunning conclusion of a dramatic moment. Thus we read: akh yad Ahikam ben Shaphan (Yet it was so, that the Hand of Ahikam ben Shaphan, the Power of Ahikam, a powerful elder who lends his support to Jeremiah at the very moment of fever crisis, the Hand of Ahikam ben Shaphan was with Jeremiah, that they should not give him into the hands of the people (Hand versus hands) to put him to death). The priestly spokesman rises up to condemn the prophet, but now we meet Ah-i-kam, or "My Brother has Risen Up."

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

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

Copyright 2011 by Val H. Sederholm

Wednesday, June 15, 2011

Joseph Smith Translation Psalm 125 and the Syriac Old Testament

An exceedingly simple but instructive instance of prophetic inspiration comes to light in the Joseph Smith Translation of Psalm 125:1, as comparison to the Authorised Version shows:

They that trust in the Lord shall be as mount Zion, which cannot be removed, but abideth for ever (KJV).

They that trust in the Lord in mount Zion, cannot be removed, but abide for ever (JST).

In the details lies the prophetic instance: thus we have "in mount Zion" rather than "as mount Zion," a single shift in preposition from k to b. 

Can we find any manuscript support for the reading? In my copy of Biblia Hebraica (Stuttgartensia), a famous Hebrew Bible for students, I see the following note attached to the lemma kehar-tsiyyon (as mount Zion): "Ps 125,1 (a) mlt Mss S bhr." The note tells us that many manuscripts of the Syriac Old Testament show preposition b (in) + the place name har-tsiyyon (mount Zion).