The statement made in Article 8 of the Articles of Faith of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, that “We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated Correctly,” has been at the center of much criticism by the critics. I found the above interesting video in which the presenter attempts to counter the implied suggestion that the Bible may not be “translated (transmitted) correctly,” without paying much attention to what the Church’s claim actually is, and what the Bible itself actually says. (The video on the original channel can be seen here.) Firstly, the Bible is part of the canonized scriptures of the Church, meaning that it is trusted as such. It is not considered “unreliable” or “untrustworthy,” as he claims (see D&C 42:12).
Sometimes the critics ask the leading question, “If you think the Bible is not translated (transmitted) correctly, show us where it isn’t!” The underlying assumption is that we believe that the Bible is somehow unreliable and untrustworthy, which is not the case. As canonized scripture, we assume the Bible is translated (transmitted) correctly—unless we have reason by revelation to know otherwise. The Prophet Joseph Smith was once commissioned by the Lord to make an “inspired” translation of the Bible (by revelation), known as the Inspired Version, or the Joseph Smith Translation. In the current edition of the KJV Bible published by the Church, the significant bits of that translation are printed as alternatives in the footnotes, prefixed with JST. (Longer passages are placed in the appendix.) Those interested in making a comparison can get hold of a copy of this edition of the Bible published by the Church (very cheaply), and compare the KJV text with the JST alternatives in the footnotes (and in the appendix). That is the answer to the question, “If you think the Bible is not translated (transmitted) correctly, show us where it isn’t!” The most extensive changes were in fact made in the New Testament. To get a good idea, just studying the New Testament portion is sufficient. The best way to make a comparison is to highlight all the JST references in the footnotes with a highlighting pen, and then read the KJV text, and compare it with the highlighted alternatives in the footnotes.
In the above video, the presenter wastes a lot of time referencing survived manuscripts, as if that is somehow in dispute; while ignoring how those manuscripts have survived and come down to us; and the numerous references made in the Bible itself to missing scripture in the Bible. One of the objections made to Church’s claims has been the “sufficiency of the Bible” theory. The idea is that the canon of scripture is closed, and the Bible contains all the revelation and scripture that need be given. The Bible itself, however, makes many references to missing scripture in the Bible, both in the Old Testament as well as the New. Here are some references from the Old Testament:
1 Kings 11:
41 And the rest of the acts of Solomon, and all that he did, and his wisdom, are they not written in the book of the acts of Solomon?
2 Chronicles 9:
29 Now the rest of the acts of Solomon, first and last, are they not written in the book of Nathan the prophet, and in the prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite, and in the visions of Iddo the seer against Jeroboam the son of Nebat?
2 Chronicles 12:
15 Now the acts of Rehoboam, first and last, are they not written in the book of Shemaiah the prophet, and of Iddo the seer concerning genealogies? And there were wars between Rehoboam and Jeroboam continually.
There are 6 sacred books of scripture mentioned in these verses (book of the acts of Solomon, book of Nathan the prophet, prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite, visions of Iddo the seer, book of Shemaiah the prophet, book of Iddo the seer) that are no longer found in our Old Testament. In the past when I have discussed this subject with the critics, their response has typically been, What evidence do we have that these books formed part of the original scriptural canon? The answer is, Because there is a recognizable pattern of expression used within the Bible to reference books which the original writers considered sacred and canonical, and to which they deferred. The following verses refer to sacred books that currently exist in the biblical canon. Note the common expression used in all of them:
1 Kings 14:
29 Now the rest of the acts of Rehoboam, and all that he did, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah?
1 Kings 15:
7 Now the rest of the acts of Abijam, and all that he did, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah? And there was war between Abijam and Jeroboam.
1 Kings 15:
23 The rest of all the acts of Asa, and all his might, and all that he did, and the cities which he built, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah? Nevertheless in the time of his old age he was diseased in his feet.
1 Kings 15:
31 Now the rest of the acts of Nadab, and all that he did, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel
1 Kings 16:
5 Now the rest of the acts of Baasha, and what he did, and his might, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel?
1 Kings 16:
14 Now the rest of the acts of Elah, and all that he did, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel?
1 Kings 16:
20 Now the rest of the acts of Zimri, and his treason that he wrought, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel?
1 Kings 16:
27 Now the rest of the acts of Omri which he did, and his might that he shewed, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel?
1 Kings 22:
39 Now the rest of the acts of Ahab, and all that he did, and the ivory house which he made, and all the cities that he built, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel?
1 Kings 22:
45 Now the rest of the acts of Jehoshaphat, and his might that he shewed, and how he warred, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah?
2 Kings 1:
18 Now the rest of the acts of Ahaziah which he did, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel?
2 Kings 8:
23 And the rest of the acts of Joram, and all that he did, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah?
2 Kings 10:
34 Now the rest of the acts of Jehu, and all that he did, and all his might, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel?
2 Kings 12:
19 And the rest of the acts of Joash, and all that he did, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah?
2 Kings 13:
8 Now the rest of the acts of Jehoahaz, and all that he did, and his might, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel?
2 Kings 13:
12 And the rest of the acts of Joash, and all that he did, and his might wherewith he fought against Amaziah king of Judah, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel?
2 Kings 14:
15 Now the rest of the acts of Jehoash which he did, and his might, and how he fought with Amaziah king of Judah, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel?
2 Kings 14:
18 And the rest of the acts of Amaziah, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah?
2 Kings 14:
28 Now the rest of the acts of Jeroboam, and all that he did, and his might, how he warred, and how he recovered Damascus, and Hamath, which belonged to Judah, for Israel, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel?
2 Kings 15:
6 And the rest of the acts of Azariah, and all that he did, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah?
2 Kings 15:
21 And the rest of the acts of Menahem, and all that he did, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel?
2 Kings 15:
36 Now the rest of the acts of Jotham, and all that he did, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah?
2 Kings 16:
19 Now the rest of the acts of Ahaz which he did, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah?
2 Kings 20:
20 And the rest of the acts of Hezekiah, and all his might, and how he made a pool, and a conduit, and brought water into the city, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah?
2 Kings 21:
17 Now the rest of the acts of Manasseh, and all that he did, and his sin that he sinned, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah?
2 Kings 21:
25 Now the rest of the acts of Amon which he did, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah?
2 Kings 23:
28 Now the rest of the acts of Josiah, and all that he did, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah?
2 Kings 24:
5 Now the rest of the acts of Jehoiakim, and all that he did, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah?
2 Chronicles 25:
26 Now the rest of the acts of Amaziah, first and last, behold, are they not written in the book of the kings of Judah and Israel?
These verses all refer to books that currently exist in the Bible. In these verses the authors of the sacred writings are effectively referring the reader to those other writings for a more complete account of the events described, using a standard kind of idiomatic phraseology to do so. Now contrast that with the following verses where exactly the same phraseology is used, referencing books that no longer exist in the Bible:
1 Kings 11:
41 And the rest of the acts of Solomon, and all that he did, and his wisdom, are they not written in the book of the acts of Solomon?
2 Chronicles 9:
29 Now the rest of the acts of Solomon, first and last, are they not written in the book of Nathan the prophet, and in the prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite, and in the visions of Iddo the seer against Jeroboam the son of Nebat?
2 Chronicles 12:
15 Now the acts of Rehoboam, first and last, are they not written in the book of Shemaiah the prophet, and of Iddo the seer concerning genealogies? And there were wars between Rehoboam and Jeroboam continually.
We conclude that these are all sacred books which were considered by the writers of the original sacred texts to be inspired and scriptural, or of the same standing with the rest, but which no longer exist in our current Bible. The evidence for missing scripture from within the biblical text is overwhelming. For a further example consider the following:
2 Chronicles 32:
32 Now the rest of the acts of Hezekiah, and his goodness, behold, they are written in the vision of Isaiah the prophet, the son of Amoz, and in the book of the kings of Judah and Israel.
This obviously refers to the writings of the great prophet Isaiah, whom we are familiar with. How great a loss would it be if this great book had not survived, and was missing from the Bible? Now contrast that with the following:
2 Chronicles 9:
29 Now the rest of the acts of Solomon, first and last, are they not written in the book of Nathan the prophet, and in the prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite, and in the visions of Iddo the seer against Jeroboam the son of Nebat?
2 Chronicles 12:
15 Now the acts of Rehoboam, first and last, are they not written in the book of Shemaiah the prophet, and of Iddo the seer concerning genealogies? And there were wars between Rehoboam and Jeroboam continually.
These verses clearly refer to whole books or writings of equally great prophets and seers and visionary men of Israel in ancient times whose books have not survived, and which the sacred writer considered of equal standing with the rest. Who can doubt that these writings must have been just as inspired, scriptural, canonical, and revelatory in nature as the other prophetic books we already have in the Bible, and therefore would have been equally valuable to us today?
The Book of Mormon also confirms this loss. 1 Nephi 13:23 informs us that the book of Old Testament scripture which Lehi and his family took with them to the promised land, known in the Book of Mormon as the “brass plates of Laban,” had a much larger content than the volume that we have today; and 1 Nephi 19:10; Alma 33:15; 34:7; Helaman 8:20; 3 Nephi 10:16; also mention three other Old Testament prophets by name, Zenos, Zenock, and Neum (and quote from them), that are no longer found in our current Bible. 2 Nephi chapter 3 also quotes from the prophecies of Joseph (son of Jacob, who was sold into Egypt) recorded in the brass plates that are no longer found in our Bible.
Moving on into the New Testament, there is equally compelling internal evidence that the scriptural canon of the New Testament that we have today is not as complete as it had been originally. All the four Gospels are in fact abridgements of larger records, the originals of which have not survived. The first three Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) were compiled from a common set of records, which is why they are called the “Synoptic Gospels”. It is possible to create a “synopsis” (a side-by-side comparison) of the three books, which shows passages that are practically identical with each other, and which could only have come from a common source; while at the same time there are sufficient differences between them to prove that they could not have just been copied from each other; because each contains material not found in any of the others. This can only be explained on the basis that they were copied from other larger sources the originals of which have not survived. A Google search for the “Synoptic Gospels” will provide much useful and interesting information.
The Gospel of Luke is particularly interesting in this regard, because at the beginning of his Gospel he actually tells us that there were other larger sources from which he has compiled his record. The Book of Acts is a continuation of the Gospel Luke; and both contain information relevant to this subject, so I will quote them both together:
Luke 1:
1 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,
2 Even as they delivered them unto us, [i.e. writing is implied] which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word [Apostles being implied];
3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order [i.e. make a compilation or abridgement], most excellent Theophilus,
4 That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.
Acts 1:
1 The former treatise [i.e. Gospel of Luke] have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach,
2 Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen:
In these verses Luke is making it clear that he is using other sources available to him at that time to write a “treatise” about the life of Christ. He is acting as an editor to compile a short treatise from a larger source. That larger source has not survived.
The Gospel of John originates from a different source than the Synoptic Gospels; but internal evidence indicates that that too is an abridgement from a larger source. That is suggested by the following verses:
John 20:
31 But these are written [i.e. the Gospel of John as we have it—being an abridgement of a larger work], that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.
John 21:
24 This [John] is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true.
25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.
From these verses we learn two things: Firstly, we learn that the Apostle John was not the author of the Gospel of John as we now have it. Secondly, we learn that it is an abridgement of the original record of John made by someone else. That original record has not survived.
The general conclusion that we arrive at from this analysis is that none of the four Gospels we have today are in fact the original records that were prepared by the original “eyewitnesses” of the events (i.e. the Apostles). They are abridgements of them made by others at a later period. Print was not available in those days. Manuscripts had to be copied by hand, which was a tedious and laborious thing to do. Therefore people tended to make abridgements, rather than copy entire manuscripts. Those original documents have not survived. Therefore what we have today is not the perfect or complete record. They contain omissions, deletions, and abridgements. It does not make what we have “unreliable” or “untrustworthy;” but it does make it incomplete. The Joseph Smith Translation (JST) supplies many of the missing bits; but not all of them. That too is not complete. The complete record will be revealed by the Lord at some future date, when the time for it is right (D&C 93:6, 18).
The “manuscripts” that the above video keeps harping on about only provide us with what has survived. They don’t provide us with what hasn’t survived. It is absurd logic to conclude from what has survived that it is the only thing that ever existed—when those same manuscripts testify of the prior existence of even greater and more complete sources which haven’t survived. Christianity during the first 300 years was under constant (though intermittent) persecution in the Roman Empire. That persecution included, among other things, the destruction of churches, and burning of manuscripts. I agree that we are lucky to have what has survived. But it is absurd reasoning to conclude that it is the only thing that ever existed—especially when those same sources tell us of greater manuscripts which haven’t survived.
At around 13 minutes into the video he says, “… these Jews went home with the gospel, and so the gospel is proliferating from Spain to the west, to India, to the east and southeast, to Arabia, into Africa, to Ethiopia; … and so the gospel is being disseminated throughout the known world at the time at which Paul wrote his epistles.” That is great! How many manuscripts have survived from Arabia, Ethiopia, or India?
At around 13 minutes into the video he says, “… these Jews went home with the gospel, and so the gospel is proliferating from Spain to the west, to India, to the east and southeast, to Arabia, into Africa, to Ethiopia; … and so the gospel is being disseminated throughout the known world at the time at which Paul wrote his epistles.” That is great! How many manuscripts have survived from Arabia, Ethiopia, or India?
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is based on revelation, as the primitive Church had been. People can choose not to believe; but it doesn’t invalidate the claim. Unbelievers have existed in every age, whenever the gospel was revealed; but that has never invalidated the prophetic claim. It is the sign of a false and apostate religion to claim that the canon of scripture is closed, and that God no longer speaks, nor gives additional revelation or scripture to be added to the canon. Whenever there has been a true church and religion of God on earth, this power has always been given, to receive revelation, and add scripture to the canon.
_____________________
P. S.
After I had posted the above, an article was brought to my attention on CARM website, written by Luke Wayne, in criticism of the Joseph Smith Translation, as though it somehow poses a challenge to what I have written, which of course it doesn’t. The article can be seen here. In that article he argues that the JST can’t be genuine because it doesn’t match any known manuscripts, which is a meaningless criticism, because Joseph Smith does’t claim to be translating from any known manuscripts. The underlying assumption of the JST is that it is a revelation from God, and is based on more complete manuscripts the originals of which have not survived. In this post I have convincingly argued that there is a case to be made for missing scripture in the Bible, and for incomplete or abridged manuscripts on which the current New Testament is based. When Luke Wayne has successfully addressed those, he can then start raising criticisms against the JST.
_____________________
P. S.
After I had posted the above, an article was brought to my attention on CARM website, written by Luke Wayne, in criticism of the Joseph Smith Translation, as though it somehow poses a challenge to what I have written, which of course it doesn’t. The article can be seen here. In that article he argues that the JST can’t be genuine because it doesn’t match any known manuscripts, which is a meaningless criticism, because Joseph Smith does’t claim to be translating from any known manuscripts. The underlying assumption of the JST is that it is a revelation from God, and is based on more complete manuscripts the originals of which have not survived. In this post I have convincingly argued that there is a case to be made for missing scripture in the Bible, and for incomplete or abridged manuscripts on which the current New Testament is based. When Luke Wayne has successfully addressed those, he can then start raising criticisms against the JST.
