Question: Should “the plains” of Moreh in the Book of Abraham actually be “the oak” of Moreh?

FAIR Answers—back to home page

Question: Should “the plains” of Moreh in the Book of Abraham actually be “the oak” of Moreh?

Introduction to Question

Evangelical critic Robert M. Bowman Jr. wrote the following about the Book of Abraham:

The Book of Abraham also repeats minor translation mistakes of the KJV, such as “the plains of Moreh” (Abr. 2:18; “plain of Moreh,” Gen. 12:6 KJV), when the Hebrew word ’ēlôn means “oak” (or perhaps a similar large, great tree), not “plain” or “plains.”

The implication of Bowman’s argument here (and the larger one surrounding it) is that Joseph Smith plagiarized from the King James Version of the Bible when “creating” the Book of Abraham.

Response to Question

The Claim of Translation Error is Correct

We’ll first note that Bowman’s claim above is entirely correct. Bowman may actually not have gone far enough since “[e]ven the name ‘Moreh’ might more technically be rendered ‘oracle, diviner, teacher’ in order to produce a name like ‘the teacher’s terebinth’ or ‘the oracle oak’ for the location.” Bowman mentions that ’ēlôn means "oak" but it can translated at times as "terebinth".

The implication or inference that Bowman wishes us to draw from the fact of the translation error, however, is incorrect.

The Book of Abraham Narrative Departs from the KJV Narrative

A claim of plagiarism would be more persuasive if it appeared that Joseph Smith were more mindlessly copying the narrative of the KJV Bible into the Book of Abraham but such is manifestly not the case as we have explored/documented on other places of the wiki.

Further, one should consider what Latter-day Saint scholars and Egyptologists Stephen O. Smoot, John Gee, Kerry Muhelstein, and John S. Thompson have observed regarding the “plains of Moreh” narrative specifically in both the King James Bible and Book of Abraham:

Although the Book of Abraham follows the KJV with the less-­accurate rendition of this passage, it nevertheless departs from the KJV in a subtle and significant way. As mentioned above, the Book of Abraham explicitly mentions that upon arriving at Sechem in the plains of Moreh—the first named location in Canaan—Abraham was shocked to discover that the land of Canaan was an “idolatrous nation” (Abr. 2:18). This detail is left unmentioned in the KJV, which merely notes that “the Canaanite was then in the land” (Gen. 12:6). This idolatry prompted Abraham to offer sacrifices and call on the Lord, details once again missing from Genesis.

How is this significant for the Book of Abraham? As multiple scholars have observed, it is very likely that the “oak of Moreh” (the “oracle oak”) was a local Canaanite cult site—that is, a sacred or holy tree that functioned as an oracular shrine or Canaanite sanctuary. “The oak of Moreh clearly belonged to the cultic center at Shechem. . . . The name of the oak . . . suggests that it functioned as an oracular tree.” It was, in effect, “a site of divination.” Speiser notes that one ancient Jewish source, Targum Onqelos, recognized this and so rendered ʾēlôn as “plain” (Aramaic: meyšar) instead of “oak,” probably to “avoid the pagan implications of a sacred tree.”

The Book of Abraham’s added detail about the patriarch’s encounter with Canaanite idolatry also reinforces the point made by Matthew L. Bowen: “Substantial parts of Genesis 12–22 [and Abraham 2] illustrate how Abraham ‘templifies’ the Promised Land—its re-­creation as sacred space—by Abraham’s building altars at Shechem, Mamre/Hebron, Bethel, and Moriah.” As told in the Book of Abraham, the idolatry Abraham confronted at the plains (oak) of Moreh near Shechem in Canaan prompted him to consecrate the land by erecting an altar. This he would repeat, as Bowen notes, at other Canaanite locations according to the biblical record (Gen. 12:7–8; 13:4, 18; 22:9). In response, the Lord appeared to Abraham and offered him his own (true) oracle about his seed inheriting the land of Canaan at the place called, literally, the “oracle oak” (Abr. 2:19; Gen. 12:7).

None of this is obvious from reading the King James translation of Genesis 12. So even if the translation of the Book of Abraham is in some degree dependent on the KJV, the underlying narrative captures something deeper and more authentic to the ancient world of Abraham.

Functional Sufficiency for Joseph Smith’s Scriptural Productions

Furthermore, as we have argued/documented in other places on the wiki, Joseph Smith was fine in retaining a translation if it performed the function that he wanted it to perform.

We have some of the Lord's own words about the nature of revelation to Joseph Smith. The Lord speaks to his servants "after the manner of their language that they may come to understanding" according to the Doctrine & Covenants (Doctrine & Covenants 1:24). That same idea is confirmed in 2 Nephi 31:3. He can sometimes exalt and use error for his own holy, higher purposes. The formal name for this is “accomodation” in the study of theology. We've talked about it on our page regarding the nature of prophetic revelation from a Latter-day Saint point of view. God can accommodate erroneous translations and even perspectives for higher, holier objectives. That should be comforting to us. Latter-day Saints should take comfort in fact that the Lord accommodates his perfection to our own weakness and uses our imperfect language and nature for the building up of Zion on the earth. Don't Latter-day Saints believe that the fulness of humanity is divinity? That humans are of the same species as God and can become like him? Joseph Smith himself quoted from Malachi 4:5–6 in Doctrine and Covenants 128:17–18. You can read the full quote here. Notice what he says at the top of verse 18: "I might have rendered a plainer translation to this, but it is sufficiently plain to suit my purpose as it stands.” Joseph Smith is comfortable with obtaining a translation that is functionally sufficient. It doesn’t need to be 100% perfect in order to be divine and achieve divine purposes.

It seems entirely within the realm of possibility that the Lord could have revealed the text of the Book of Abraham, warts and all, to the mind of Joseph Smith. The Lord can start with the papyri, use Joseph's culturally and KJV-saturated mind as a springboard and filter for further modification of the text, and then provide that "accommodated", functionally-sufficient translation, word-for-word, to Joseph's mind.

Consider what the term "plains of Moreh" functions as in the text of the Book of Abraham: it's only an indication of where Abraham was at when he discovered that the Canaanites were in the land/that they were apostate. The translation error doesn't serve to teach something necessarily incorrect about God, morality, and what we need to do through morality to become like God. It is only incorrect in conveying more accurate information about a minor detail in the life of the patriarch Abraham.

Conclusion

Although the inclusion of the ‘plains of Moreh’ might be jarring to the Book of Abraham’s more sophisticated readers, there is nothing here that immediately and necessarily suggests that Joseph Smith plagiarized from the King James Version of the Bible and, indeed, there is some solid evidence to the contrary.

Notes