How the Bible Came to Be: Part 4, The Canon Becomes an Unread Relic

The Ensign ^ | By Lenet H. Read

[Grig]

It should be obvious that all the writings which now make up the New Testament did not jump from men’s pens into leather-bound books. As with the Old Testament, the process was slow and piecemeal. Each part was written separately, and those who were fortunate enough to privately possess any scriptures probably, like Paul, would have had separate parchments or scrolls.

Precisely what was accepted as authoritative scriptures by the early Christians A.D. is uncertain. Just as the early Christians A.D. accepted as authoritative far more Hebrew records than appear in our current Old Testament, so these church members drew upon a body of Christian literature far more extensive than that contained in our current New Testament. 1 The processes by which these manuscripts were sifted, with only some receiving recognition as “canon,” occurred at a much later date. 2

Furthermore, the scriptures they did have were made good use of. Just as the Christians inherited their scriptures from the Jews, so also did they inherit their methods of study and learning from the Jews. As in the synagogue, so in the early Christian meetings was the reading of scriptures a primary part of learning and of worship. In both places, the scriptures held a chief place of honor. To hear them read was a major purpose for attending services. 3 The fact that many members were not literate and could not read them for themselves, and the fact that copies of the scriptures were not readily available to all the members, contributed to this need for central reading. 4

By the end of the second century A.D., most Christians accepted a list of certain books as authoritative, called them the New Testament, and read them in services along with the Septuagint (the Old Testament translated into Greek). Furthermore, they began to appear in codex form (book-like collections of manuscript sheets) rather than on papyrus rolls. 5

But study and reading also went on in private, where possible. In fact, scripture reading was a central part of a devoted Christian’s life. The literate read to the illiterate in the privacy of their homes. Sometimes slaves read to illiterate masters. And some members attributed their conversions to the gospel to such scripture readings. 6

There is also little doubt that as time passed, the scriptures themselves produced incentive for illiterate Christians to become literate. Indeed, as in Jewish families, scripture study was the basis of a family’s education, with study begun when children were yet small. From the earliest time, scripture study had been encouraged by church leaders. Irenaeus (ca. A.D. 120 to 220) wrote, “Let a man take refuge in the Church. Let him be educated in her bosom and be nourished from the Holy Scriptures. … Eat ye from every Scripture of the Lord.” 7

The scriptures were memorized as well. Eusebius spoke of a blind man who “possessed whole books of the Holy Scriptures not on tables of stone, … nor on skins of beasts or on papyrus … but … in his heart, so that, as from a rich literary treasure, he could, ever as he wished, repeat now passages from the Law and the Prophets, now from the historical books, now from the Gospels and the Apostolic epistles.” 8

Just as Christians from the outset had recognized that the scriptures were germane to the spiritual well-being of the Church, so also did their enemies. As opponents saw the rapid-fire spread of this new religion, they realized that its books were a key to its destruction. Therefore, as they persecuted and slew the leaders, they also sought to destroy their scriptures. 9

Thus, intermittent waves of persecution, with their accompanying destruction of books, continued through the third century after Christ. 10

During this time, many scriptures were sought out for destruction, particularly the community caches in the churches. For protection, the churches appointed certain individuals as custodians of their scriptural treasures. Betrayal of this responsibility was regarded as a serious transgression, with excommunication its result. While there were those who were unfaithful to their charge and under pressure betrayed their trust, so were there the faithful. Some caches of the scriptures were even buried during periods of danger, so that they might be preserved. 11

But those eternal forces which seek to thwart the Lord’s work, when hedged up in one way, always seek other avenues of destruction. Thus, while at least some of the scriptures survived the onslaughts of persecution and burning, they suffered at the hands of another threat—a change in interpretation.

It is generally conceded that Christ, his Apostles, and the earliest Christian fathers interpreted the Old Testament as continual prophecy of the coming and mission of the Messiah. 12 One scholar admits, begrudgingly, that “the writings of early church fathers … differ little from that of New Testament authors, in that the Old Testament was regarded as a prediction of the New Testament and Christ as the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy.” 13 This writer goes on to explain that the early church fathers saw the Old Testament as “Christian literature,” as “parabolic throughout,” truly understood only by Christians because “everything in the Old Testament was a prototype of Christ.” 14 Among the writers who used this method of interpretation were Clement of Rome (A.D. 100), Justin Martyr (ca. A.D. 155), and Irenaeus (ca. A.D. 200). 15

Nevertheless, as time passed there were changes in the methods of interpretation. One individual who exerted a great influence in changing the interpretation of scripture was the Christian scholar Origen (A.D. 185–254). While Christ and his Apostles had opened the eyes of the Christians to the concept that Old Testament events were “types” or foreshadowings of Him, they never placed in question the basic realities of these events. But Origen, heavily influenced by Greek thought, came to feel that many Old Testament events were totally figurative, that there was no reality behind them. Moreover, he vastly broadened the scope of symbolic interpretation. Rather than seeing Old Testament events as types which taught specifically of Christ, he falsely saw them as more generalized “allegories” with a wide-ranging potential for interpretation. Tragically, this made it easy to read almost anything one wished into the scriptures. 16

Furthermore, he, like many during his time, rejected the anthropomorphisms in the Bible, asserting that any belief that Moses really saw God must “fall into the absurdity of asserting that God is corporeal.” 17 He interpreted scriptural references to immortality as meaning a “spiritual continuity” rather than a “resurrection of the physical body.” 18

However, in addition to these strong and misdirected changes in methods of interpretation, Origen exerted some sound influences upon scriptural studies. He saw a necessity to seek for truly accurate original texts. Beginning a work which took him more than twenty years, called the Hexapla because of its six parts, he made comparisons of the Hebrew, Septuagint, and other Old Testament translations. However, after his death, careless scribes did not include many symbols which kept his procedure clear, and the undertaking, mammoth as it was, in the long run caused as much confusion as clarification. 19

It is fundamental to know that Origen’s broadened method of interpretation and his research are generally praised by most scholars of today. They see his new interpretations as having a “lasting, liberating influence” upon biblical studies. 20 Sadly, these scholars have often tended to ignore the basic realities of the events. Thus, Origen’s attempt to locate original sources was a step forward in scriptural studies, but in general his work produced a great step backward. The change of interpretation had the unfortunate result of encouraging a wide-ranging allegorical interpretation that eventually was used to discourage lay Bible reading. Consequently, in Origen’s time grew the erroneous idea that only the learned could understand the scriptures. And eventually, because “allegory” came to be the major way to interpret the scriptures, church leaders felt that only they could understand them. 21 We will discover later how tragic was the movement in this direction.

By the fourth century A.D., many changes had occurred. On the one hand, outward appearances might indicate that the scriptures had triumphed. Under the influence of Constantine, the religious traditions of so-called Christianity and its holy scriptures seemed to prosper. In A.D. 332, the emperor Constantine ordered fifty sets of scripture made on vellum (animal skin), asking that they be “easy to read and conveniently portable” and stated as their purpose: “for the instruction of the church.” 22

But there are also clues that these open displays of success were deceiving, and that many things were amiss. For one thing, education in general had declined in the third century, and Bible study had dwindled because church members found it boring. It wasn’t that collections of scriptural writings weren’t being made or sold; in fact, merchandising of scripture increased, and they even became popular sellers. But the purposes of possession had changed. The wealthy sought very fine and elegant copies—not to be read, but for display. In fact, some church leaders found it necessary to reprove the rich for not reading their expensive copies and to remind them that in comparison many of the poor showed more faithfulness by sharing and reading the few scriptures they’d been able to copy for themselves by hand. 23

But in addition, for growing numbers of Christians the biblical records began to take on an aura of abnormal sanctity, becoming an object of superstition and even being used as a magic charm. The “lazy-minded found it easier to revere its pages than to try to understand them.” 24

The political upheavals of the fifth century, such as the invasions by the Goths and Vandals, also apparently contributed to declining scriptural usage. One fifth-century theologian in Antioch commented on the situation in his time: “Of other scriptures, most men know nothing. But the Psalms are repeated … by those who know them by heart, and feel the soothing power of their divine melodies.” 25

For most persons, the Psalms alone became the scriptures.

It was by the fourth century that what precisely was “official scripture” was finally decided. Athanasius (A.D. 293–373), the bishop of Alexandria, publicly listed as authoritative scripture the same twenty-seven books we have in our present New Testament. Some books whose authority scholars like Origen had questioned were included on this list—among them the books of James, Hebrews, 2 Peter, and 2 and 3 John. Other books that had been held dear by some early Christians were not on the list, including the Epistle of Barnabas, the Didache, 1 Clement, the Apocalypse of Peter, and the Shepherd of Hermas. 26

The list which Athanasius drew up was also accepted as canonical (though not without debate), by the majority of those church leaders present at the councils of Laodicea (A.D. 363), Hippo (A.D. 393), and Carthage (A.D. 397). The latter council, after much disagreement on certain books, did ratify as New Testament canon these same twenty-seven books and decreed that none besides these should be read in the churches as divine scripture. 27

It should be pointed out that the questions of canonicity taken up in these councils (in particular the councils at Hippo and Carthage) pertained to Old Testament scriptures as well as New. Some scriptures of the Old Testament period which were not in the Hebrew Bible but were in the Greek Septuagint were accepted as canon by these councils, although there had also been prior disagreements about their respective worth. These became the Apocrypha, which were reaffirmed by Catholicism at the Council of Trent in 1546 and are still today a part of the Catholic scriptural body. 28

But in addition to these writings which were passed on as the Apocrypha, there were others that were not passed on. In particular, apocalyptic or prophetic writings were those most often cast aside—such works as the book of Enoch, for example. Dr. Hugh Nibley points out the irony that these writings, which had been rejected as canon by Pharisaic Judaism but accepted as precious by the first Christians, were in time also rejected by later Christians. 29

Jerome and the Vulgate

Obviously, any message that is to be taken to the whole world must go forth in the languages of the world. As we recall, the first set of scriptures taken abroad was the Greek Septuagint, and when the New Testament scriptures began to multiply, for the most part they were also in the Greek language. But at length the need arose to take the scriptures into Latin-speaking areas, such as northern Africa; therefore, Latin translations were made. However, these translations were not closely controlled, and before long, church leaders became concerned about the many corruptions and variances in the separate texts.

To meet this problem, Pope Damasus in A.D. 384 commissioned his secretary, Jerome, a very able scholar in Greek and Latin, to produce an acceptable version.

Jerome was extremely reluctant to undertake such a task, correctly anticipating that such a work would stir up bitter opposition. But because it was the pope who asked, he also hesitated to say no. In a response to this request, he expressed his inner turmoil:

“You have urged me to make a new work out of an old, and to sit in judgment, as it were, on the copies of the scriptures which are now scattered throughout the whole world; and, inasmuch as they differ from one another, you would have me decide which of them agree with the Greek original. This is a labor of piety, but at the same time one of dangerous presumption; for in judging others, I will myself be judged by all; and how dare I change the language of the world’s old age and carry it back to the days of its childhood? Who is there, whether learned or unlearned, who, when he takes up the volume in his hands and discovers that what he reads therein does not agree with what he is accustomed to, will not break out at once in a loud voice and call me a sacrilegious forger, for daring to add something to the ancient books, to make changes and corrections in them?

“On the other hand, there are two considerations which console me: in the first place, the order comes from you, who are the supreme pontiff; secondly, even those who speak against us have to admit that divergent readings cannot [all] be right. For if we are to pin our faith to the Latin copies, our opponents must tell us which; for there are almost as many forms of texts as there are copies. If, on the other hand, we are to search out the truth by a comparison of many, why not go back to the original Greek and correct the mistakes introduced either by inaccurate translators or by the blundering emendations of self-confident but ignorant critics, or the additions and changes made by copyists who were only half-awake?” 30

And so Jerome accepted the challenge. His initial work was on the Psalms and the New Testament. As he himself said in his work, he “restrained his pen,” correcting only passages that seemed to change the meaning from their original intent and leaving the rest as they were.

The opposition that Jerome expected did arise, and indeed pursued him most of his life. Unfortunately his protector, the pope, died the year the project began, but Jerome continued the work anyway.

After his work on the New Testament was completed (a labor of five years), Jerome journeyed to Bethlehem with the intent of revising the Old Testament as well. He settled and lived there the rest of his life. One of his purposes in going to Bethlehem was to learn as much about Hebrew as he possibly could to aid him in his translation. Because of the great antipathy between Jew and Christian at that time, there was resentment from both sides toward this purpose. There were elements among the Jews who felt that any assistance toward a Christian (and gentile) Bible was traitorous, and there were already some restrictions against Jews teaching Christians. Consequently, one of those who taught him Hebrew dared not be seen with him by day and visited him only in the dark of night. 31

With the help of such Jews, Jerome continued to perfect his Hebrew and to learn Aramaic and study Jewish traditions and scriptural interpretations—all those things which he felt might be helpful in producing the most correct Latin versions of the Old Testament. His work on the Old Testament was completed by A.D. 405. It was a forceful translation which relied upon his understanding of the meaning or sense of the original rather than upon the literal word-by-word translation.

From the Christian side, he was attacked very fiercely by those who felt he betrayed Christianity by seeking knowledge from the Jews and by going to the Hebrew Old Testament text for help rather than relying solely on the Greek Septuagint, which they considered of higher spiritual value. But Jerome argued (by letter and book) that Christianity’s ignorance of Hebrew was an impediment to their understanding, bred prejudice, and was even dangerous as far as establishing correct theology. His advocacy of Hebrew studies to other Christians, however, was very unsuccessful. He wrote of the fierceness of the attacks against himself, “I beg you to confront with the shields of your prayers the mad dogs who bark and rage against me and go about the city and in this think themselves learned if they disparage others.” 32

Jerome saw the value of his work in these terms, making reference to the ancient Israelite wilderness tabernacle which was made both with fine and expensive materials as well as with common ones:

“I beg you, my reader, not to suppose that my labors are in any sense intended to disparage the ancient translators. For in the service of the tabernacle of God each one offers what he can: some gold and silver and precious stones, others linen and blue and scarlet; we shall do well if we offer skins and goat’s hair. And yet the Apostle [Paul] pronounces our more contemptible parts the more necessary. Accordingly, the beauty of the whole tabernacle and of its various parts … was covered with skins and goats’ hair cloths, and so the heat of the sun and the injurious rain were warded off by those things which were of less account.” 33

So Jerome felt that although his contribution to scriptural accuracy was inferior to the contributions of others, yet it was a necessary and helpful step as well.

By the end of his life, the opposition toward Jerome’s work had abated somewhat. But it was a century or more before his Latin Old and New Testaments really replaced the Old Latin versions, and for many centuries thereafter there were those strong minority voices who continually raised opposition to its origins.

Nevertheless, Jerome’s Bible in time supplanted all others, though there are those who contend that in its final victorious form his translation had become substantially corrupted by others. But pronounced authentic at the Council of Trent, the Vulgate, as Jerome’s Latin Bible was known, became the Bible of the Western world for a thousand years. One writer believes that it was the pillar which preserved Europe’s spiritual and intellectual heritage against attacking waves of northern barbarism. He further points to it as the “source from which the Church has drawn the largest part of its ecclesiastical vocabulary. Terms now so familiar as to arouse no curiosity as to their origin, [such as] scripture, spirit, penance, sacrament, communion, salvation, propitiation, elements, grace, glory, conversion, discipline, sanctification, congregation, election, eternity, justification, all come from Jerome’s Bible. It is an imperishable record of that commanding genius that could so manipulate and mould the majestic but inflexible language of Rome as to make it a fit and pliant instrument for the expression … of thought, of sentiments and images.” 34

But while the influence of Jerome’s work would become longlasting, during the time of its supposed glory its influence was actually quite weak—because, for the most part, it was not read.

Through the centuries that followed the translation of the Vulgate, many different forces contributed to a waning influence of the scriptures in the average Christian’s life. While the reading of the scriptures had originally been a very central part of the earliest Christian services, scripture reading was replaced with ceremony. While private scripture study was energetically encouraged by the earliest Christian priesthood, in time it was actually discouraged. “The Bible was subordinated to the church itself as custodian of the truth.” 35 Substituted for the scriptures were legends about saints, and the church began to argue that since the true meaning of the scriptures was to be found in allegory, the scriptures were really too obscure for common members to comprehend. So the masses were to be kept from the “deep and obscure: and fed instead the simple and open, defined as the lives and deeds of the saints, the passions and triumphs of the martyrs, and other teaching concerning vices and virtues, … and the miseries of the damned.” 36 Obviously, there was little scriptural content in such teachings.

Furthermore, the language of the Bible—Latin—and the ever-changing languages of the people became divergent; nor was there much effort to make copies of the Bible available to the people themselves. In a sense, the uniting of the Old and the New Testaments contributed to the Bible’s lack of availability. Before, certain portions might be obtained as separate parchments or scrolls. But the full latin Bible, copied by hand by monks in monasteries, could not be contained even in one volume. In spite of using a writing style that ran all the letters together and included some shorthand (for example: “THBEGINNINGOTH GOSPEL OJESUSXTHESONOGOD”), the space required for handwriting and the greater thickness of vellum increased the bulk of these copies of the Bible to two and sometimes four volumes. Such copies were rare, expensive, and very cumbersome. Because there was little motivation to produce Bibles for the masses, those made were elaborate, with covers and cover pages beautifully ornamented and gilded, and with painstaking embellishments in the copy. The effect of such labor was to make the scriptures “treasures of art” but not of knowledge.

In a sense, then, the Bible became a holy relic. It was not meant to be read or studied, for even monks came to regard its contents as “sacrosanct but ill-understood lore, a venerable mystery.” 37 Its contents were no longer penetrated by eager minds, nor memorized, nor treasured by softened hearts. In general, it became an unopened enigma, only to be kissed and shallowly, superstitiously revered.

End of Part 4. To be continued.

Gospel topics: Bible, scriptures

Notes

  1. Hugh W. Nibley, Since Cumorah (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1967), pp. 33, 103.

  2. Fred Gladstone Bratton, A History of the Bible (Boston: Beacon Press, 1969), pp. 190–95.

  3. Frederick C. Grant, Translating the Bible (Greenwich, Conn: The Seabury Press, 1961), pp. 16, 31.

  4. Geddes MacGregor, The Bible in the Making (Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott Co., 1959), pp. 69–70.

  5. MacGregor, pp. 61–63.

  6. MacGregor, pp. 87–88.

  7. As quoted by H. G. G. Herklots, How Our Bible Came to Us (New York: Oxford University Press, 1954), p. 96.

  8. Herklots, p. 96.

  9. Harry Thomas Frank, The Bible through the Ages (New York: The World Publishing Co., 1967), p. 131; Herklots, p. 81.

10. MacGregor, pp. 90–92.

11. Herklots, p. 81; MacGregor, pp. 90–92.

12. Bratton, pp. 285–89; Enid B. Mellor, The Making of the Old Testament (Cambridge: At the University Press, 1972), pp. 185–89.

13. Bratton, p. 287.

14. Bratton, pp. 287–88.

15. Bratton, pp. 287–89.

16. Mellor, pp. 188–90; Bratton, pp. 290–93.

17. Bratton, p. 292.

18. Bratton, pp. 292–93.

19. Herklots, pp. 120–21.

20. Mellor, p. 190.

21. Margaret Deanesly, The Lollard Bible (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1920), p. 27.

22. Herklots, p. 82.

23. MacGregor, pp. 90–93.

24. MacGregor, pp. 93–94.

25. MacGregor, p. 95.

26. Bratton, p. 195.

27. Bratton, p. 195.

28. See D&C 91 for the word of the Lord to Joseph Smith concerning the Apocrypha.

29. Nibley, p. 103.

30. Grant, pp. 36–37.

31. David Daiches, The King James Version of the English Bible (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1941), p. 89.

32. Grant, p. 42.

33. Grant, pp. 41–42.

34. H. W. Hoare, The Evolution of the English Bible (London: John Murray, 1902), p. 236.

35. Bratton, p. 296.

36. Herklots, p. 46.

37. MacGregor, p. 103.

[Grig]

There are 8 parts in total

Part 1, A Testament Is Established
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2033073/posts

Part 2, The Word Is Preserved
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2033622/posts

Part 3, A New Word Is Added to the Old
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2038304/posts

[Pelham]

I’d recommend FF Bruce’s “The Canon of Scripture”.

http://tinyurl.com/3nbe63

[sobieski]

The richest development is how those ‘bible believing’ Protestants believe in a bible that was chosen by Luther. Yep, throw out any books that are too close to Catholic doctrine, even though they were included in the Bible by the Church Fathers. Then gather a group of scribes and ‘translate’ so to ensure that no ‘catholic’ themes remain (See the KJV).

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

***The richest development is how those ‘bible believing’ Protestants believe in a bible that was chosen by Luther. Yep, throw out any books that are too close to Catholic doctrine, ***

So, why did both the Geneva and KJV contain the Apocrypha if protestants were following Luther who died long before these were printed?

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

So Are you saying Jesus LIED?

Mat 24:35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

Mar 13:31 Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.

Luk 21:33 Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.

[Grig]

Not at all, his words will all be fulfilled, even if we don’t have a perfect record of all his words.

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

***Not at all, his words will all be fulfilled, even if we don’t have a perfect record of all his words.***

Will all be fulfilled, or WERE fulfilled.

If his words DID NOT PASS AWAY then there was no apostacy.
If his words did pass away till Joesph Smith recovered them then JESUS LIED!

You can’t have it both ways.

[Pelham]

Considering that Luther had been a Catholic monk your version of history is particularly amusing.

[Pelham]

“The richest development is how those ‘bible believing’ Protestants believe in a bible that was chosen by Luther. Yep, throw out any books that are too close to Catholic doctrine, even though they were included in the Bible by the Church Fathers.”

In fact the “Luther Bible” came from the Textus Receptus assembled by the Dutch Catholic scholar Erasmus. Maybe you can try declaring Erasmus a Protestant in order to rescue your argument.

[thefrankbaum]

Erasmus' translation was of the NT - the Textus Receptus did not include a translation of the Old Testament. The only change Luther made to the NT was placing Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation in the back.

Using Luther's redacted OT (removing books which had been declared authoritative around 400 AD) for study and spiritual growth is about as useful as using Jefferson's redacted NT, which removed all references to miracles, the Trinity, angels, etc. Both are bastardizations of the Holy Scripture, IMHO.

[brytlea]

Islam believes that the Bible has been mistranslated, and that explains where it disagrees with the Koran.
susie

[colorcountry]

Oh joy! Now the Mormons are attempting to prove that the canon of scripture is corrupted.

Of course, you won’t be introduced to that “meat” until a later chapter.

[MHGinTN]

Perhaps it would help you to obtain and read a copy of Constantine Tischendorf's Bible, which he derives from the oldest known Greek manuscripts. This obsession of mormonism apologists to denigrate the Bible as 'missing major passages', incorrectly translated, and or full of errors is getting rather amusing ... if it weren't so stark an expose' of mormon/smithian thinking.

I have read the Joseph Smith 'Translation' --into King James English-- of the King James Bible. Have you read the absurdities which your teachers and founders are trying to pass off as Smithian additions by pure revelation, with zero text to refer to? The fraud didn't even use his peepstone! Try reading the eight hundred plus words Smith added to the end of Genesis, for a flavor of the demonic absurdities. The man fabricated, for one instance, a lengthy addition to write a 'prophecy' into the Bible of his 'coming in these latter days.' He even had the gall to add to The Revelation of John!

I have yet to see how pointing out an error in the King James Bible does anything to authenticate the fiction of Joseph Smith.

[greyfoxx39]

Oh joy! Now the Mormons are attempting to prove that the canon of scripture is corrupted.

Hasn't the complaint from mormons consistently been that the non-mormons are guilty of posting the 'non' scriptural RECORDED teachings and beliefs of mormon leaders?

So, now, the mormons are going to retaliate by posting propaganda that claims that the Christian scriptures are "corrupted".

AND THEN....they are going to come along and post the "inspired" revelations of the mormon prophets to "correct" the "corrupt scripture"? Do I have that right

[SENTINEL]

In the heat of the Missouri “Mormon War” of 1838, Joseph Smith made the following claim: “I will be to this generation a second Mohammed, whose motto in treating for peace was ‘the Alcoran [Koran] or the Sword.’ So shall it eventually be with us ’Joseph Smith or the Sword!’ “ (Joseph Smith made this statement at the conclusion of a speech in the public square at Far West, Missouri on October 14, 1838. This particular quote is documented in Fawn M. Brodie, No Man Knows My History, second edition, (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1971), p. 230231.)

• • Both prophet’s claims of having angelic visitations and of receiving divine revelation to restore pure religion to the earth again. Mohammed was told that both Jews and Christians had long since corrupted their scriptures and religion. In like manner, Joseph Smith was told that all of Christianity had become corrupt, and that consequently the Bible itself was no longer reliable. In both cases, this corruption required a complete restoration of both scripture and religion. Nothing which preceded either prophet could be relied upon any longer. Both prophets claim they were used of God to restore eternal truths which once existed on earth, but had been lost due to human corruption.

[Grig]

You are interpreting the phrase ‘pass away’ to mean that we have a compete and accurate record of what he said, but Christ ministered for 3 years and the amount of actual text from his mouth in the NT could be read in an afternoon. The forty days after he rose from the dead record only a few sentences of what Christ said in that time.

We clearly do not have a transcript of everything Christ said as he ministered, in fact the gospels tell us plainly that they only record a small fraction of his words. So, by your interpretation a great deal of his word has already passed away.

I reject your interpretation of that phrase though. I draw a difference between his words (what came out of his mouth) and the record we have of his words (what made it to paper and survived to this day) I take the meaning of ‘not pass away’ to mean none of his words will fail to come to pass, everything that he said will happen, will happen, even if we don’t have a record today today of his saying it will happen. So, by my interpretation, none of his words have or will pass away.

[Grig]

Feel free to actually address the contents of the article on the merits for a change.

I’m presenting a researched and factually supported case for my view. It seems the only replies you objectors have are to smear and sneer. If that is all you can do, if you have no compelling argument based on the merits, then that just leads honest, intelligent people to doubt you even can address the merits.

[MHGinTN]

Taunting for replies to give your thread credibility is not becoming of you.

[Grig]

“Taunting for replies to give your thread credibility is not becoming of you.”

Actually, the low-brow sneer and smear replies do a lot to establish the credibility of it by themselves, I don’t need anything more than that. Where is your credibility when you avoid the issue? Avoiding a discussion of the merits seems to be par for the course for you guys.

Besides, what do I care of what you consider becoming?

[P-Marlowe]

Furthermore, the scriptures they did have were made good use of.

Wow this guy sure has a way with grammar.

This screed reads like a sophomore high school term paper.

Tell me Grig, what is the author's point?

And when you are done, tell me, what are his credentials? Does he have a high school diploma?

[P-Marlowe]

Oh wait, I found the author's credentials:

Lenet Hadley Read, mother of five, is a Sunday School teacher in her Gainesville, Florida, ward.

With credentials like that, who am I do criticize her for ending her sentences with prepositions?

[P-Marlowe]

do=to

[greyfoxx39]

With credentials like that, who am I do criticize her for ending her sentences with prepositions?

IMPRESSIVE! And I bet she makes great cookies, too!

[P-Marlowe]

This is the first one of these I actually took the time to read and it is by and large unreadable. The author takes quotes from tertiary sources, when obtaining the original or secondary sources is quite easy, especially given the fact that most of the historical documents of the Christian Church are online and easily accessible. She makes sweeping statements of fact without anything other than vague references to tertiary sources and she doesn't even quote the tertiary sources, but paraphrases them with somewhat tortured English.

The fact that the LDS Church would publish this article in their premier Sunday School magazine tells me that they really have a dearth of scholarship at the LDS Church.

There's nothing quite as impressive as a scholarly article published by a mother of 5 and a Sunday School Teacher in Gainesville Florida.

[Colofornian]

Feel free to actually address the contents of the article on the merits for a change. I’m presenting a researched and factually supported case for my view...if you have no compelling argument based on the merits, then that just leads honest, intelligent people to doubt you even can address the merits...Avoiding a discussion of the merits seems to be par for the course for you guys. [Grig]

Big presumption on your part that everything in here has "merits."

I suppose the line below is an example of what you mean by "presenting a researched and factually supported case for my view?"

From your posted thread: ...and Bible study had dwindled because church members found it boring.

(Oh, I'm sure this highly scholastic observation came from a third-century Barna study)

I'd say much of this gets open "demerits":

From your posted thread:

...these church members drew upon a body of Christian literature far more extensive than that contained in our current New Testament.

So what? Contemporary Christians draw upon an even wider body of Christian literature than contained even in the entire Bible. (And there's a big difference, IMA, between "drawing upon a body of Christian literature" vs. recognizing it as God's inspired word).

From your posted thread: This writer goes on to explain that the early church fathers saw the Old Testament as “Christian literature,” as “parabolic throughout,” truly understood only by Christians because “everything in the Old Testament was a prototype of Christ.” Among the writers who used this method of interpretation were Clement of Rome (A.D. 100), Justin Martyr (ca. A.D. 155), and Irenaeus (ca. A.D. 200).

Sloppy writing. Your thread writer says "the early church fathers" and then can only point to four such church fathers -- mentioning Origen in the next graph. (So "THE early church fathers" consisted of only a quartet, eh?) The truth is that allegory-minded interpreters were only "some" of the early commentators (a minority!) & even their figurative parabolic interpretations had limitations.

From your posted thread: ...most scholars of today..see his [Origen's] new interpretations as having a “lasting, liberating influence” upon biblical studies. [cites footnote #20]

Is this yet another mythical Barna poll of all scholars (to be able to say "most scholars" means either you talked to 51% & they all agreed re: a warm fuzzy response about Origen, or you talked to 75-100% of them, of which 51%--if you talked to 100% or higher--if you talked to only 3/4 of them...I can't help but highly doubt that & call you out on it! (So much for a "factually...researched" approach) And while, we're on this line, where did the comment re: "lasting, liberating influence" come from? Apparently, Enid B. Mellor, whose Cambridge Univ. book The Making of the OT is cited in footnote #20.

Does Mellor seem to be a vastly quoted author? (No).
And when he is cited, who cites him? (Rbt I Bradshaw in his paper, "Archaelogy & the Patriarchs.")
What did Bradshaw conclude, citing Mellor? ("It would be too much to expect, even if the data were less fragmentary, that we would find any direct evidence of the biblical patriarchs, and indeed none has been discovered.(42) Nor indeed has any historical figure from Genesis 12-50 been identified.(43)" Footnotes from Bradshaw's paper: (42) Dever, 52; Enid Mellor, ed. The Making Of The Old Testament. (Cambridge: CUP, 1972), 8. (43) Bright, 74; Chapman & Tubb, 61; Mellor, 10-11.)

So, Mellor isn't exactly "stellar" as far as reinforcing the historicity of biblical patriarchs. (And this is a guy you're goin' to for your biblical filter?)

From your posted thread: Precisely what was accepted as authoritative scriptures by the early Christians A.D. is uncertain.

AD 85: By this time, all of the writings we include in our New Testament are in their present form and are in use by Christians. http://www.kencollins.com/bible-c1.htm

Some believe all NT books were completed by 85 AD...some go 20 years later than that. "It is clear that the sayings of Jesus had a scripture-like status from the very beginning of the church." (McDonald) We know that by 90 AD the church had already settled its Old Testament canon. By 95 AD, Clement had mentioned at least 8 NT books. Ignatius acknowledged 7 NT books in 115 AD--in fact, at this time, he is already referencing it as the new "Bible." Polycarp, a disciple of John, acknowledged 15 books in 108 AD. So these Christian documents cite the gospels, the Pauline epistles, and the Epistle to the Hebrews as authoritative. (It continued in this vein: Irenaeus mentions 21 books in 185 AD and Hippolytus, recognized 22 books shortly thereafter, dying in 235).

From your posted thread: Other books that had been held dear by some early Christians were not on the list, including the Epistle of Barnabas, the Didache, 1 Clement, the Apocalypse of Peter, and the Shepherd of Hermas. 26

By 200 AD, the only books that were still under uncertainty were: Hebrews, 2 Peter, Jude, 2 & 3 John, and Revelation--most of these for authorship questions. (Some also put James in there). Some felt that the following books should be part of the New Testament: Epistle of Barnabas; The Epistles of Clement; The Shepherd of Hermas, and the Gospel of Thomas (Thomas was probably not written til 140 AD...was not written by Thomas...none of the early church fathers from Clement to Irenaeus quoted this book).

From your posted thread: The list which Athanasius drew up was also accepted as canonical (though not without debate), by the majority of those church leaders present at the councils of Laodicea (A.D. 363), Hippo (A.D. 393), and Carthage (A.D. 397). The latter council, after much disagreement on certain books, did ratify as New Testament canon these same twenty-seven books and decreed that none besides these should be read in the churches as divine scripture. 27

One author named McDonald wrote: Although a number of Christians have thought that church councils determined what books were to be included in the biblical canons, a more accurate reflection of the matter is that the councils recognized or acknowledged those books that had already obtained prominence from usage among the various early Christian communities.

NONE of the non-canonical works of the NT are recognized or quoted as authoritative by AD 130 like we have the canonical books. As one writer said: We DO have several quotations that were evidently preserved by means of oral tradition - but NONE that appear uniquely in the non-canonical works. This would point to the non-canonical works being of a later date than the canonical works (range of 50-100 AD), and would certainly move to destroy any claim that they were written by authoritative eyewitnesses to the life of Jesus!

From your posted thread: ...there were others that were not passed on. In particular, apocalyptic or prophetic writings were those most often cast aside—such works as the book of Enoch, Dr. Hugh Nibley points out the irony that these writings, which had been rejected as canon by Pharisaic Judaism but accepted as precious by the first Christians, were in time also rejected by later Christians.

You fully realize don't you that canonization of the New Testament wasn't a matter where a bunch of church folks got together several dozen scrolls & cast die to see which, from scratch, they would toss in as ingredients for a recipe on Scripture? IOW, canonization was a process where they simply confirmed what was already authoritative to the early church because of who wrote it!

LOOK AT WHAT THE NEW TESTAMENT ITSELF PROCLAIMS ABOUT THESE WRITINGS

As Warfield wrote, "The Christian church...was never without a 'Bible' or a 'canon'" because revelation was preached "in the Holy Ghost" (1 Peter 1:12)...clothed by the Holy Ghost (1 Cor. 2:13)...and even the leaders' own commands "were, therefore, of Divine authority" (1 Thess. 4:2) and their writings were the depository of these commands (2 Thess. 2:15; 3:14; 1 Cor. 14:37). These writings were read during early worship meetings of the church (1 Thess. 5:27; Col. 4:16; Rev. 1:3).

From your posted thread: These became the Apocrypha, which were reaffirmed by Catholicism at the Council of Trent in 1546 and are still today a part of the Catholic scriptural body. 28 But in addition to these writings which were passed on as the Apocrypha, there were others that were not passed on.

Footnote #28 cites D&C 91...So I need to ask you, Grig: Why don't you take what Joseph Smith said at face value? (As applying to extra-canonical books from a Protestant perspective). "...concerning the Apocrypha--There are many things contained therein that are true, and it is mostly translated correctly; 2. There are many things contained therein that are not true, which are interpolations by the hands of men." (D&C 91:1-2).

[Pelham]

You’re begging the question. sobieski derided “Bible believing Protestants” for relying on a Bible “chosen by Luther”.

I pointed out that Luther based his German translation on the Textus Receptus, a Greek text assembled by the Catholic scholar Erasmus. Ergo to criticize Luther’s “chosen” text is to criticize the able Catholic scholar Erasmus.

So far sobieski hasn’t defended his charge, and I don’t see that he has much wiggle room other than to abandon his line of attack and look for another one.

“Using Luther’s redacted OT (removing books which had been declared authoritative around 400 AD)”

Luther didn’t remove anything. He used the Palestinian Canon of the Jews, you’re arguing for the Alexandrian Canon:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm

[Colofornian]

I’m presenting a researched and factually supported case for my view... [Grig]

So your "view" is characterized by...
From your posted thread: ...and Bible study had dwindled because church members found it boring....Through the centuries that followed...the Bible became a holy relic. It was not meant to be read or studied...Its contents were no longer penetrated by eager minds, nor memorized, nor treasured by softened hearts. In general, it became an unopened enigma, only to be kissed and shallowly, superstitiously revered.

Hmm...you're talking about approximately 13-16 centuries there ("through the centuries that followed..." is quite vague). During 13-16 centuries of time, I'm sure there were...
...plenty of bored Bible readers (but how do you quantify that so long ago?)
...Bible-as-relic reducers (but that's not the same thing as saying the Bible ONLY became a "relic"--is that your "view?")
...Bible avoiders (but there was no "inside" 13-16-centuries-long campaign NOT to read it other than dark-ages illiteracy, lack of available copies (remember, no printing press til Gutenberg) & some leaders who felt they could not trust the grassroots to interpret it correctly -- & those leaders were not generationally consistent for all 13-16 centuries)
...Its contents were no longer penetrated by eager minds, nor memorized, nor treasured by softened hearts.
DO YOU REALLY BELIEVE THIS? IF SO, HOW CAN THIS BE STATED IN SUCH A SWEEPING ABSOLUTE MASS GENERALIZATION AS IF IT REPRESENTED EVERY CHRISTIAN FOR 13-16 CENTURIES!!!
...So the Bible became ..."an unopened enigma", eh?
All I can say about these last statements is that if this is indeed your "view"--then I guess both you & the writer you posted must have been the personal Holy Ghost to every Christian for these past 13-16 centuries to be able to determine that the Bible remained "unopened" and "unmemorized" (as if singing hymns & praise songs of their periods wasn't one of the best ways for Christians--especially illiterate ones--to memorize Scripture)!

Finally I have some other questions for you, Grig:
(1) The "Joseph Smith" show of the Bible (JST) was Smith's "open season" to get the Bible right. To correct all those things left out. (He added gobs of words @ the end of Genesis, didn't he?). Well, he didn't. I guess, he failed in his "mission" from God despite numerous alleged "commandments" from God to Jos. Smith translate AND publish the Bible (see D&C 35:20; 42:56-57; 45:57-62).
(2) Has the "JST" been canonized by the Mormon church? (Why not????)
(3) Instead of taking aim at the Bible, maybe you should take a better gander at the multitude of problems of a supposed "inspired"-and-perfectly-translated-by-the-power-of-God-&-checked-off-on-as-perfectly-"correct"-saith-the-angel-in-Documented-History-of-the-Church-vol.1, pp.54-55... only to have thousands of changes -- some theological in nature (1 Nephi 11:18, 21; 13:40; 20:1; Mosiah 21:28; Alma 29:4; 37:21,24; 46:19) -- from the original 1830 edition.
You have 27,000 words copied verbatim-- Elizabethen English & all--from the Bible into the Book of Mormon.
Gaps? You want gaps -- supposed "abridgments" in the BoM (1 Nephi 1:16-17).
You have underwhelming impotent "confirmations" that this is the Word of God -- statements like "I think it be sacred" (1 Nephi 19:6) and "according to my memory" (Ether 5:1) and "being commanded by my [earthly] father" to write (Omni 1:1 and Moroni 8:1).

[P-Marlowe]

It's really not fair. This is like shooting fish in a barrel.

Grig should have known not to bring the scholarship of the Author into issue. This article is so poorly written as to be laughable, yet it is presented by Mormons as an example of their scholarly research on the history and authenticity of the scriptures.

The author's credentials are that she is a Sunday School Teacher in Gainsville Florida. I guess in the minds of Mormons that makes her an expert on Early Church history and the historical development of the scriptures.

If it's published in the official LDS Magazines, then it must be the gospel truth.

[thefrankbaum]

You’re begging the question. sobieski derided “Bible believing Protestants” for relying on a Bible “chosen by Luther”.

I pointed out that Luther based his German translation on the Textus Receptus, a Greek text assembled by the Catholic scholar Erasmus. Ergo to criticize Luther’s “chosen” text is to criticize the able Catholic scholar Erasmus.

In no way is that true - he criticized reliance on a BIBLE chosen by Luther. Said Bible includes both the Old Testament and the New. It is not inclusive, and as such, not a direct criticism of the work of Erasmus. It is similar to a statement from a Catholic saying they do not agree with the doctrinal positions of Protestantism - such a statement is not a denial of the Trinity, despite the fact such a doctrine is held by Protestants. Rather, it is an inclusive statement which serves as a starting position for further discussion.

Luther didn’t remove anything. He used the Palestinian Canon of the Jews, you’re arguing for the Alexandrian Canon:

Yes, you are correct. However, such Canon was declared infallibly and authoritatively at the Synod of Hippo and the Council of Carthage. I always find it interesting that Protestants pick and choose amongst the early Councils for their doctrinal positions, agreeing with some and rejecting others.

[Osage Orange]

Oh no.....don’t hose me, bro!

[Osage Orange]

Wait just a minute....Grig said, "I’m presenting a researched and factually supported case for my view."

/s

[greyfoxx39]

It's really not fair. This is like shooting fish in a barrel. Grig should have known not to bring the scholarship of the Author into issue. This article is so poorly written as to be laughable, yet it is presented by Mormons as an example of their scholarly research on the history and authenticity of the scriptures.

The author's credentials are that she is a Sunday School Teacher in Gainsville Florida. I guess in the minds of Mormons that makes her an expert on Early Church history and the historical development of the scriptures.

If it's published in the official LDS Magazines, then it must be the gospel truth.

AND...wait a minute now...grig says "There are 8 parts in total"

Ready....aim........!

[Pelham]

“In no way is that true - he criticized reliance on a BIBLE chosen by Luther. Said Bible includes both the Old Testament and the New. It is not inclusive, and as such, not a direct criticism of the work of Erasmus. “

You have an odd grasp of logic. If relying on the Bible chosen by Luther is wrong, it must be because there is something unreliable about that Bible. But Luther used the Textus Receptus assembled by the Catholic scholar Erasmus. The Textus Receptus is a Catholic text. Luther did nothing more than translate Erasmus’ Greek text into everyday German. That’s all. He even included the Apocrypha.

You apparently believe that you aren’t charging Erasmus with being unreliable since you aren’t making a “direct” criticism of him. The logic of your argument says otherwise. It’s a simple syllogism:

Erasmus Textus Receptus = Luther Bible

Luther Bible = Unreliable

ergo Erasmus Textus Receptus = Unreliable.

That is the logic of your argument. If you don’t like the way it turns out, I’d suggest there is a flaw in one of your premises.

[Grig]

I’m not even sure if this should get marks for effort.

“From your posted thread: ...and Bible study had dwindled because church members found it boring.

(Oh, I’m sure this highly scholastic observation came from a third-century Barna study) “

The paragraph references pages 90-93 of Geddes MacGregor’s ‘The Bible in the Making’ as the source for these observations. Can you present good reason to call the validity of this source into question? It appears to be a widely quoted and respected work. Do you have another source equally respected or better than reaches the opposite conclusion?

Just picking out sentences or fragments of sentences that you don’t link and heaping scorn on them is not really.

“Your thread writer says “the early church fathers” and then can only point to four such church fathers — mentioning Origen in the next graph. (So “THE early church fathers” consisted of only a quartet, eh?)”

The author was speaking generally, and any reasonable reader will see that. Nor would any reasonable ready expect a full list of every early church father. The point being made was that Origen changed the direction and instead of trying to present a case against that view you snipe at the semantics.

“So, Mellor isn’t exactly “stellar” as far as reinforcing the historicity of biblical patriarchs”

All he said there was to state the fact that there is little archeological evidence of the historicity of biblical patriarchs. So what, it’s a true fact and it has no bearing on if they actually were historical persons or not. Once again, instead of actually addressing the merits of the claim you just cast about looking for an excuse to dismiss it and don’t present anything resembling a decent counter argument.

“Some believe all NT books were completed by 85 AD...some go 20 years later than that”

You say ‘some’, validating the claim that there is uncertainty in this area, you also focus on what books of the NT were accepted when, ignoring that there is good reason to think that many (if not most) Christians also accepted all or some of several other books not in the NT, so the full extent of what was and was not cannon back then is unclear, as the author stated.

“NONE of the non-canonical works of the NT are recognized or quoted as authoritative by AD 130...canonization was a process where they simply confirmed what was already authoritative to the early church because of who wrote it! “

So you say, but then why did it take about 30 years to define a cannon of scripture, and why was it not defined until nearly 400AD? Why then was there debate over what should and should not be included? I’ve heard that Revelation barely made the cut.

Also, 130AD is still a couple generations after Christ died. The time from 40-80AD is far more relevant. The point being made is that the first Christians looked to other writings like the Book of Enoch as scripture, but (as you pointed out) later generations dropped them.

“The Christian church...was never without a ‘Bible’ or a ‘canon’” because revelation was preached “in the Holy Ghost”

That is dogma, not research. Just because there were readings from sources we accept as cannon today doesn’t mean that there was universal agreement on what was and what was not authoritative.

“So I need to ask you, Grig: Why don’t you take what Joseph Smith said at face value?”

What makes you think I don’t? Pointing out that early Christians didn’t follow the exact NT cannon that we use today doesn’t conflict with that.

“DO YOU REALLY BELIEVE THIS? IF SO, HOW CAN THIS BE STATED IN SUCH A SWEEPING ABSOLUTE MASS GENERALIZATION AS IF IT REPRESENTED EVERY CHRISTIAN FOR 13-16 CENTURIES!!!”

It is a generalization, and presented as such. The author gives examples and references the sources he draws his conclusions from (try it some time)

And yes I do believe it is an accurate generalization and I believe it is accurate even to this day. My kids attend a Catholic school and I’m stunned at the stories they bring home of how utterly ignorant the RELIGION teacher is of what is in the Bible. They rarely every even open a Bible up in class.

As for the JST, Joseph was killed before he completed it. It is a work in progress and so it has not been canonized for that reason.

There is no textual change in the BoM that represents a doctrinal change. The vast majority of changes are grammatical changes to conform the text better to English grammar rather than the source language grammer, and a very few additions to clarify, not change, the original intended meaning. Also, snatching little bits of it out of context to try and make it sound like the BoM questions it’s own rightness is dishonest.

[thefrankbaum]

That is the logic of your argument. If you don’t like the way it turns out, I’d suggest there is a flaw in one of your premises.

You are mistaken. My argument goes:

Textus Receptus + redacted Old Testament = Luther's Bible.

Another analogy:

I posit: There is but One God, He exists in Three Persons, and One Person is a Flying Spaghetti Monster.
You respond: You are incorrect, that is a false statement.
I reply: So there is more than One God?

The Textus Receptus is merely one part of Luther's Bible. Saying said Bible is unreliable does not, ipso facto, argue the Textus Receptus is unreliable.

[thefrankbaum]

Just to clarify - you do understand the Textus Receptus is *only* the New Testament, correct?

[Colofornian]

… why was it [canon] not defined until nearly 400AD? Why then was there debate over what should and should not be included?

It WAS defined because even the early recognition of what was authoritative for the church was realized right away. (What? You think the early church was in this holding pattern/ quandary for almost 400 years wondering what to teach, waiting only from some official word from the Middle East Salt Lake City before deciding, “Oh, we guess we’ll teach this as authoritative, after all”??? You make it sound like these Biblical teachings weren’t treated authoritatively. They were. Even non-Canonical books “on the bubble” were highly treated.)

Let me give you an analogy: At NFL football camp or Major League Spring training all the players – whether they wind up making the team or not – are initially treated as “professionals.” To hear you tell it, a trainer or a batboy on those teams won’t treat any of the “bubble” players as true professionals until the head haunchos make up their minds & “define” the final rosters. Nothing could be further from the truth. A baseball player who gets “cut” and goes on to be a career minor leaguer still accords a measure of respect. Still, he wasn’t a true big leaguer. He is forever set apart.

As for the reason why it did all finally come to a head – it was because of the Gnostics, Arians & other cultists making inroads into the church with their claims about revelation.

Just because there were readings from sources we accept as cannon today doesn’t mean that there was universal agreement on what was and what was not authoritative.

Back to my sports analogy above. The coaches who make the cuts on players are not always in full agreement as to who is cut & who isn’t. Only time tells which coach was right & which was wrong. Those coaching staffs don’t have “universal agreement” on every single player – but time both proves which coaches are right and time has proved the councils who reinforced what was already recognized as canon to be correct. But really…you would highly offend these coaches if you tried to portray the cutting process as some controversial decision-making democratic vote for every player out there! The coaches know exactly who the veteran “keepers” are. On an injury-free Super Bowl team with all the vets comin' back, there’s no controversy. There’s no ”decision” except for a few bubble players. The “recognition” is as plain as day, and I resent writers who likewise twist councils into something they are not – whether we’re talking about contemporary coaches or church councils 1600-1700 years ago.

The paragraph references pages 90-93 of Geddes MacGregor’s ‘The Bible in the Making’ as the source for these observations. Can you present good reason to call the validity of this source into question?

(Yes, dozens…see my next post)

It [MacGregor’s book] appears to be a widely quoted and respected work.

[Oh, yeah, quoted by the likes of Moid Amjad in his article, “Corruption in the Bible: The Muslim Stance”…Amjad cites MacGregor six times in his brief footnotes & quotes MacGregor spouting off on his “higher criticism” of numerous “authors” who wrote the Torah – authors other than Moses:”In other words, J and E are the two most primitive narrations of the life and teachings of Moses (though not written or dictated by him).” (MacGregor, The Bible in the Making, p. 26) http://www.usislam.org/christianity/muslimstance.htm ]

Do you have another source equally respected or better than reaches the opposite conclusion? Just picking out sentences or fragments of sentences that you don’t link and heaping scorn on them is not really.

(I’ll pick it up here on the next post)

[Colofornian]

Do you have another source equally respected or better than reaches the opposite conclusion? Just picking out sentences or fragments of sentences that you don’t link and heaping scorn on them is not really. [Grig]

Where were we? (Oh, yes, Dr. Geddes MacGregor, the Anglican priest-turned reincarnationist-karma-gnostic who teaches/taught at the University of Southern California). Well, I guess that’s a “revelation” that you deem Dr. MacGregor as one who is thus ”respected”!

Let’s see. Lenore Hadley Read published this series in the LDS Ensign Magazine in 1982. MacGregor is her A#1 footnote for Part 2…She footnotes MacGregor EIGHT TIMES in Part 4—22% of her footnotes showing exactly how heavily she was leaning on him for theological perspective…then she sources him again in Part 5 that you just posted. (How many more times are you, Grig, going to continue posting content that relies HEAVILY on a discredited ex-Christian-turned ocultist source???)…

Let's see, Hadley-Read...this series...1982...Ensign Magazine...What book did Dr. MacGregor come out with in 1979? (Hmmm…)

Well, allow me to cite some unknown anonymous Baptist Kings James-only advocate-researcher:

”During my research for version 3.0 of this paper, I stumbled across a much newer work (1979) by Geddes MacGreggor. Curiously it was titled "Gnosis" and was about Gnostics. In the inner leaf, the publisher's name was given as The Theosophical Society of America - an occult book publisher! MacGreggor is now pushing gnostic thought, and accusing the early church, particularly Iraneaus, of error in stopping the movement. He is enthralled by the Alexandrian cults and believes that Jesus can only be understood within His gnostic setting. He calls for a twentieth century reformation of the church along Alexandrian lines. This is not surprising. In majority, the texts used to "correct" the Recieved Text are Alexandrian in origin.” http://www.baptistpillar.com/bd0206.htm

So, you mean to tell me that this anonymous backyard researcher came up with the fact that MacGregor had authored a Gnostic book by an occultic publisher (Theosophy) in 1979, but an LDS Ensign author couldn’t come up with that little fact? Well, about the Ensign editor? What? They don't fact check non-Mormon sources they cite? They’ll just publish anything occultic & cultic? (Oh, yeah, I briefly forgot, we are talking about the Mormon church, after all)

Well, what do you know? And what kind of reader reaction has MacGregor’s book received? ”BTW, I read and enjoyed his book on Gnosis. It was a turning point for me: after reading it, I accepted to identify myself as a neo-gnostic. I’ve felt “at home” ever since.” See http://www.timboucher.com/journal/2005/04/15/the-holodeck-vs-the-prime-directive/

And what kind of reaction has MacGregor’s books (yes, plural) rec’d from the Gnostic folks? Why Gnostic Magazine did a review of his follow-up book, Angels: Ministers of Grace [gotta love that “angel theme” the Mormon church has going here] (See http://www.gnosismagazine.com/issue_contents/contents13.html ). Why the review of MacGregor’s book was sandwiched right between The Goddess Re-Awakening: The Feminine Principle Today compiled by Shirley Nicholson and Dimensions: A Casebook of Alien Contact by Jacques Vallee, foreword by Whitley Strieber [I kid you not!]

And in case you get “bored” in reading the Bible, as Mormon author Hadley Read accused early Christians of being in the same graph she quoted MacGregor…as if either Hadley Read or MacGregor could have taken a second or third century poll of that would widely reflect all such Christians, why you can go to that same Gnostic Magazine issue that reviewed MacGregor’s “Angels” book and read these other “stellar” religious works [sarc]:
In Search of the Primordial Tradition and the Cosmic Christ by Father John Rossner, Ph.D.
Practical Magic in the Northern Tradition by Nigel Pennick
Persuasion's of the Witch's Craft: Ritual Magic in Contemporary England by T.M. Luhrmann
Blavatsky and Her Teachers by Jean Overton Fuller
The Elements of the Celtic Tradition by Caitlin Matthews
Inside the Brotherhood: Further Secrets of the Freemasons by Martin Short
The Temple and the Lodge by Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh
Black Square and Compass: 200 Years of Prince Hall Freemasonry by Joseph A. Walkes, Jr.

And so, Hadley Read made this MAJOR scholarly blunder in 1982, so did the Ensign magazine editor. And here we are, 26 years later, and so you would think that the scholars at BYU would have alerted the LDS church to this huge blunder during this generational interim. But, no. No one’s brought up the fact that Geddes Mac keeps on chugging to occult fame with additional books and CDs:
Reincarnation in Christianity
Reincarnation in Christianity: A New Vision of the Role of Rebirth in Christian Thought [Separate from the resource above]…According to the brief review on this book, it apparently attempts to show how ”Christian doctrine and reincarnation are not mutually exclusive belief systems.“ http://www.questbooks.net/title.cfm?bookid=350
The Christening of Karma: The Secret Evolution
Theosophical Perceptions in Christian Orthodoxy
Evolution, Transmission, and the Inner Meanings of Bible
Rebirth of Christian Gnosticism (CD)

He has edited a book Immortality and Human Destiny that includes a chapter called “Humanistic Self-Judgment and After-Death Experiences” [does that mean humanists believe that they step right up to the Judgment seat and make themselves comfy??? Kind of sounds like temple-worthy Mormon men & women who expect to be omniscient, omnipotent, and worshipped as gods in the life to come, eh?]

What utter gall and anti-Christian and unscholarly Mormons have to be leaving up Lenore Hadley-Read’s series on its officially sanctioned church Web sites for over a quarter of a century to this very hour!!!, and now to have online apologists like yourself, Grig, helping to not only spread the false Mormon gospel but the false Gnostic/Reincarnation/Karma/Esoteric gospel!!!

(I guess as long as it's "anti-Christian," anything goes, eh, Grig?)

[MHGinTN]

I think this is down your ‘rabbit hole’, DU. You might want to pay attention.

[P-Marlowe]

Where were we? (Oh, yes, Dr. Geddes MacGregor, the Anglican priest-turned reincarnationist-karma-gnostic who teaches/taught at the University of Southern California).

LOL!

Great research Colo!

Too bad Mrs. Read was too busy teaching Sunday School to do any fact checking for her "scholarly" article.

[Colofornian]

As for the JST, Joseph was killed before he completed it. It is a work in progress and so it has not been canonized for that reason.

Oh, that's unique. So you're going to tell all of us with a straight face, then, that Mormons regard the JST -- the Joseph Smith "translation' of the King James Bible as a "work in progress" and therefore "it has not been canonized for that reason" -- yet somehow other LDS "Scripture" like "Doctrine & Covenants" is a "closed book" & is therefore canonized? (That can't be... I thought one of the big LDS missionary "sales pitches" was Amos 3:7 where LDS tout that they have a "living prophet" and Christians don't--as if Jesus doesn't count...Heb. 1:1-2).

So which is it? Is the D&C an "open book" or not?
If it's an "open book" subject to additional "revelations" from ensuing "prophets," then how can its content be deemed as 'canonized?' - while you are saying out of the other side of your mouth that the JST is also an "open book" and therefore it cannot be canonized?

Which is it? Pick A or B, not A and B!

[MHGinTN]

It’s actually “C” ... can’t canonized that which the whole world would laugh at as obvious fraudulent fabrication when compared to the Bible. They want to live by and trust their eternity on the fabrications of Joe Smith ... is it any worse than trusting some existential writer to guide their after-life?... Actually, belay that, Sartre was a better writer, and Kierkegaard was more coherent. Atheists are at least pseudo-intellectuals.

[Godzilla]

As for the JST, Joseph was killed before he completed it. It is a work in progress and so it has not been canonized for that reason.

Nothing that a little honest review of mormon history cannot clear up. First point - it was never finished - is reputed by Joseph Smith himself

In the History of the Church, under the date of February 2, 1833, we find this statement by Joseph Smith: "I completed the translation and review of the New Testament, on the 2nd of February, 1833, and sealed it up, no more to be opened till it arrived in Zion" (History of the Church, vol. 1, p.324).

In the Church Chronology, by Andrew Jenson, we find the following under the date of February 2, 1833: "Joseph Smith, jun., completed the translation of the New Testament." Under the date of July 2, 1833, this statement appears: "Joseph the Prophet finished the translation of the Bible."

In a letter dated July 2, 1833, signed by Joseph Smith, Sidney Rigdon, and F. G. Williams, the following statement is found: "We this day finished the translation of the Scriptures, for which we return gratitude to our Heavenly Father ..." (History of the Church, vol. 1, p.368).

Sad day when an anti has to teach mormon history out of mormonism's own documented history.

[Godzilla]

There is no textual change in the BoM that represents a doctrinal change. The vast majority of changes are grammatical changes to conform the text better to English grammar rather than the source language grammer, and a very few additions to clarify, not change, the original intended meaning.

It is taught by mormons that the bom was translated by the power and inspiration of God and not man. Testamony by the scribes indicate that the process was as detailed as word for word, and that it would not go on until the portion was written down correctly. Therefore, at a fundamental level, ANY change to the bom represents a violation of the teaching that it was translated by the power of God.

Some of the many doctrinal related changes include:

1830 - 1 Nephi 3, p. 25 And the angel said unto me, behold the Lamb of God, even the Eternal Father!
Altered - 1 Nephi 11:21 And the angel said unto me, behold the Lamb of God, even the Son of the Eternal Father!

1830 - 2 Nephi 12, p. 117 … and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a white and a delightsome people.
1981 - 2 Nephi 30:6 … and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a white pure and a delightsome people.

1830 - 1 Nephi 5, p. 52 … O house of Jacob, which are called out of the waters of Judah, which swear by the name of the Lord …
1 Nephi 20:1 … O house of Jacob, which are called out of the waters of Judah, or out of the waters of baptism, which swear by the name of the Lord …

These are a few of the changes. Remember this is supposedly “the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion…” If the bom was was translated by the gift and power of God, and not by any power of man, the thousands of changes including punctuation and grammar indicate otherwise - unless God has a poor grasp of grammar and spelling.

[Zakeet]

Sad day when an anti has to teach Mormon history out of Mormonism's own documented history.

This is by no means the first time this has happened!

For example, on the matter of the First Vision, the infamous anti-Mormons, Gerald and Sandra Tanner have documented with annotations direct from Mormon historical documents the nine different versions of the vision. You can review them at your convenience HERE, where you will see rather profound differences. You will also note the first account did not appear until 1830-31 – and the official account did not appear until 1838 – a full eighteen years after it purportedly happened and at the exact moment when Joseph Smith greatly needed a magnificent event to shore up his authority and silence critics.

Mark Hofmann was a documents forger who foisted four dozen fake documents onto Mormon Church Leadership. Hofmann's amazing discoveries were purchased by devout Mormons and the donated to the Church. Writings favorable to Mormonism were placed on prominent display – writings deemed damaging to the cause were secreted away.

Hofmann's most famous fabrication was the Salamander Letter. In this writing, supposedly by Book of Mormon Witness Martin Harris, a tenth version of the First Vision surfaced. Fortunately for the Mormon Church, the first account of the visitation was extended back in time a full five years to the mid-1820's. Unfortunately for the Church, in this telling Joseph was visited by an elf who took the form of a salamander.

Mormon leadership verified the authenticity of the letter, apparently relying in large part on the opinion of forensic documents examiners. Based on his vast knowledge of Mormonism, Gerald Tanner on the other hand immediately denounced the document as a fraud. Tanner was proven right.

The effects of the Salamander Letter haunt the Mormon Church to this day.

As can be seen in the photograph above, two Mormon Prophets, Ezra Taft Benson and Gordon Hinckley, were among the duped.

President Hinckley would later candidly admit:

I accepted [Hofmann] to come into my office on a basis of trust … I frankly admit that Hofmann tricked us. He also tricked experts from New York to Utah, however … I am not ashamed to admit that we were victimized. It is not the first time the Church has found itself in such a position. Joseph Smith was victimized again and again. The Savior was victimized. I am sorry to say that sometimes it happens. – Dew, S. (1996). Go Forward with Faith: The Biography of Gordon B. Hinckley. Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, p. 432.

But according to LDS doctrine at the time, this was impossible.

In his February 26, 1980 speech at BYU titled Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet, LDS President Ezra Taft Benson maintained the Mormon Church President spoke with inerrant authority on "any matter, temporal or spiritual ," was "not required to have any particular earthly training or credentials to speak on any subject or act on any matter at any time," and "would never lead the Church astray".

Following the Hofmann debacle, less than a decade after President Benson's pronouncement, an embarrassed Mormon Church was forced to proclaim:

Prophets are mortal men who have been ordained and chosen by God to be a mouthpiece for revelation and guidance, but that revelation only comes when God wills it, making it somewhat sporadic in both ancient and modern times. There is no expectation that every act, every decision, and every purchase by a prophet will be divinely and infallibly guided. As Joseph Smith said, "a prophet is only a prophet when acting as such." – Jeff Lindsay, The Salamander Letter and Mark Hofmann

The incident also led to the founding and naming of the Salamander Society, an organization founded by disgruntled Mormons for the purpose of Lampooning the LDS faith.

If you desire, I would be pleased to provide many more examples where anti-Mormons were more truthful and/or accurate with respect to church history than LDS leaders.

[Zakeet]

There is no textual change in the BoM that represents a doctrinal change.

There have been dozens of changes in LDS doctrine

This is due in part to the thousands of changes to the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants.

Interestingly, even after all of those changes, hundreds of obvious errors still remain.

And even after all of those changes, there are still many serious contradictions in Mormon Scripture.

A few of the changed doctrines include:

• One god <> Plural gods
• God is spirit <> God has a body
• God dwells in heart <> God does not dwell in heart
• God cannot lie <> God commands lying
• God's word unchangeable <> God's word can change
• No pre-existence of man <> Man pre-existed
• Death seal's man's fate <> Chance after death
• Heaven saved without baptism <> Baptism for dead
• Heaven or Hell <> Three kingdoms in heaven - most saved
• Polygamy condemned <> Polygamy commanded
• Adam in America <> Adam in Old World

The bottom line:

In light of these facts, I wonder how someone can know the Standard Works are true and Joseph Smith was not a false prophet? And I wonder, is it wise to trust in my feelings and rely on prayer in light of such convincing evidence?

[Godzilla]

If you desire, I would be pleased to provide many more examples where anti-Mormons were more truthful and/or accurate with respect to church history than LDS leaders.

How DARE you make such a claim! It is well established and proven that anti-Mormons are inherently dishonest and lie regularly regarding mormon history and doctrine.

[Osage Orange]

Wow....I hear crickets.

Probably ought to bump this "outing" to the top...every day.

[Godzilla]

In light of these facts, I wonder how someone can know the Standard Works are true and Joseph Smith was not a false prophet? And I wonder, is it wise to trust in my feelings and rely on prayer in light of such convincing evidence?

That is because you just weren't sincere enough in your prayers and acceptance of joseph smith as a true prophet. It is faith that overrules facts.