Two very interesting posts at T&S (as well as the ensuing discussions), have got me thinking about how we approach the bible in our church. This is not a new topic for me, despite my complete lack of familiarity with the scholarly knowledge-base surrounding it. And despite that ignorance, I thought it might be worthwhile to re-publish an old post of mind about my difficulties with the bible, to see what thoughts it might elicit from the very sophisticated audience here.
The Invisible Clauses of the Eighth Article of Faith
The Eighth Article of Faith reads as follows: We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.*
*and we mean “translated correctly” in the loosest sense, contemplating caveats for historical omissions, bad-faith additions, and all the weird stuff that’s just too strange to accept.
You may never have seen that little coda there at the end, but for most of the church, it is real and relevant. Once, while reading the New Testament with a group, I asked what Jesus meant when he said he came not to send peace but a sword. The leader of the group said simply: “That’s a mistranslation,” and moved on.
I’ve recently had some very involved arguments about what happens to scripture once you open the door of allowing that there is unspecified error in it. (See here and here, if you have the stomach for it). And I think Article of Faith number Eight suffers from the same problem: we have opened the door of errancy in the book, and from there it’s an easy ride to not really being sure if any of it happened at all. How do we Latter-day Saints draw the line between the truth and error of the Bible?
Of course our perspective differs based on which part of the Bible we’re talking about. It seems the New Testament is accepted almost wholesale among members of the church (with some holdouts on various Pauline ‘idiosyncrasies’ if you will). But when it comes to the complete morass of strange stories and behaviors we find in the Old Testament, it’s hard to escape the feeling that we’re lucky to have the qualifying clause of A of F 8 to let us out of having to believe it all.
Here’s the thing though: read literally, that article of faith only lets us out of accepting text that results from translation problems. I’m no expert in ancient languages, but I’m guessing the stories of Balaam’s Ass and Elijah and the bear didn’t suddenly appear because some scribe somewhere missed the nuance of the syntax in the original documents (“Oh, you thought it said ass, it really said ‘mouth.’ Easy mistake.”). And yet many in the church dismiss these stories and others like them, that seem so hard to explain in light of our modern understanding of gospel principles.
What is our authority for disbelieving parts of the Bible? Is there more to the “translated correctly” caveat than appears there, or are we all too faithless in our understanding of difficult biblical passages? We could attempt to construct elaborate defenses of these stories, to make them somehow make sense. Or we could just be content with the parts of the bible we feel comfortable with, leaving the rest to the Jehovah’s witnesses and others.
The scriptures provide a footnote above the word “correctly” in the Eighth Article of Faith. That footnote cites 1 Nephi 13:26, which reads in part:
. . . for behold they have taken away from the gospel of the lamb many parts which are plain and most precious, and also many covenants of the Lord have they taken away.
It’s worth mentioning that Nephi’s focus on the “gospel of the lamb” as well as “many covenants of the Lord” might suggest things missing from the New Testament, as well as the Old. That’s just speculative though. The real import of this footnote is that when we speak of translation, we don’t just mean someone reading something in one language and writing it down incorrectly in the other language. Nephi’s concerned about broad omissions that may either help explain what was included, or maybe even add completely new parts to the canon. Well, if omissions are a part of “incorrect translation,” could it be that the phrase is broad enough to include erronious inclusions? Does the Bible include stuff that is either incorrect or useless?
It almost certainly does. The mere existence of the Song of Solomon as a Biblical book strains the credibility of the Old Testament as a whole. Our approach to an errant Bible might be easier if we had a list of the non-trustworthy parts. But we don’t. And that’s why we find it easy to degrade the entire book to a position of secondary importance, subordinate to our ‘most correct’ book, because we don’t know which parts are dependable and which aren’t. I’m partially okay with this. I do believe that the Book of Mormon is and should be pre-eminent in our gospel study. However, I think it’s sad that we’ve turned the Bible into a bit of non-canonical canon. So many in the church are fluent in the stories and characters of the Book of Mormon and know nothing about the Bible. It would strike early church members as very odd, but as far as many LDS are concerned, the Bible is now only a teaching aid and supplement to the Book of Mormon. It’s true, it’s scripture, but there’s stuff in there we’re not sure about. So in reality, it’s never more reliable than your basic non-canonical general authority talk, which is probably great, but can’t pass for unequivocal doctrine.
The answer, of course: personal revelation. But there are multiple reasons why a large institution like the church can’t rely only on that to parse the meaning of all biblical text. We need clarity on a larger scale if the Bible is ever to truly take its place beside the Book of Mormon. The JST is a great start, but obviously only affects a small percentage of the book, and doesn’t claim to correct it completely. For now, we are stuck with a book that claims to be the word of God, but admits to some amount of error. You figure out which is which. The rest of the church may just stick with the Book of Mormon.
If you’re interested in seeing the original comments to the post, click here and scroll down to the haloscan link (you may enjoy seeing how many people were rightfully able to find errors in my thinking).
I too have thought about what that 8th article means. As near as I can tell, it basically says, “We believe the Bible to be the word of God, inasmuch as it is true.” While that may exaggerating it a bit, it’s not that far off. What I also find very interesting is Brigham Young’s admission that the Book of Mormon is not “translated” entirely correctly either. Does this mean that this clause in the 8th article of faith would apply to it as well?
My biggest complaint about the role of the Bible in the Church is that we could delve much deeper into what the Bible scriptures say. At the same time, the Old Testament is such a extensive collection of works and thoughts that it would be hard to do it justice.
I’m intrigued by this question. In particular, what happens to your “source” texts when a prophet comes along and says that he’s been called as a restorer? My (still superficial) studies of Islam got me interested in this question initially, as Mohammed claimed to be restoring the true religion that Adam and Eve, Moses, Abraham (um, Ibrahim) and Jesus taught. But because of Mohammed’s restoration, the Biblical characters we meet in the Quran have the same names as the ones actually in the Bible, but they’re different people (an example is Ishmael’s almost-sacrifice by Ibrahim, rather than Isaac’s). Further, the covenant idea of the Bible is dropped as well.
In the LDS church I think we face similar issues. With Joseph taking up the role of reformer, how much of the original texts matters relative to the new things we get. As a believer, I’m inclined to accept our additions to the Bible. But where do we drop the Bible and just go with our other texts? We reject the inerrancy of the Bible in favor of a more historical approach, yet we’re still pretty much *satisfied* (in the very qualified way that you mention, Ryan) with the version of the Bible that has come down to us, “Song of Solomon” and all.
The fact is, even with the “correctness” of the Book of Mormon, how do we deal with the vagaries that come along with BoM prophets claiming right on the title page that any errors contained are the errors of men.
I’m willing to accept much of the Biblical text, even while I wonder how much of it is mistranslated. However, I think if we’re going to claim that something is a mistranslation, I think we’d better have support for such a claim. While I appreciate the way that the JST corrects a few of these brainteasers (like the evil Spirit from the Lord that settled on Saul). Frankly, given that we’re working with such old texts and so many of us have such poor understandings of the social/economic/political contexts that make understanding texts possible, it’s probably only b/c of modern revalation that we have *any* hope of understanding the scriptures.
I didn’t intend to come off so, um, pessimistic about the scriptures as I think I have here. But if we think enough about it (as Ryan and others obviously have), we come against lots of walls. At the same time I’m grateful to be able to wonder about these issues, even if they are so confusing.
As one who loves the old Testament, let me toss out a few ideas.
Frequently, members simply reject what they don’t understand. Given that the OT is the most “foreign” book of scripture in terms of language and culture, it’s easy to see why large chunks are ignored or rejected.
The rejection of certain passages by members is often based on a near knee-jerk reaction, frequently a result of (unreasonable) assumptions, such as importing present ideas of what constitutes “The Gospel” into the past. “Passage x doesn’t match our (culturally conditioned and woefully incomplete) understanding of “The Gospel”, so it must be translated wrong.”
Ignorance of Old Testament culture or other relevant knowledge can also lead us to reject a passage that is not nearly as foreign as it seems on the surface. Such knowledge can recontextualize the passage and make it less strange, or significant, even. For example, check out this article about Elishah and the bears, which does a wonderful job contextualizing and making it understandable.
I have reached a point where I reject almost nothing, but take an agnostic approach to nearly everything besides the fundamental points of the gospel, in the sense that I have no claim to certainty, I ‘ve made no final judgements. I think the following is a good guide.
-George Q. Cannon, GOSPEL TRUTH, p. 270
Ryan,
What of 1 Nephi 13, which indicates that the additional records we have received in the latter days are given to us to restore the plain and precious parts and to establish the truth of the Bible. It seems clear to me that the Book of Mormon is supposed to corroborate the record of the prophets (The Old Testament I would think) and the twelve apostles of the Lamb (the New Testament):
The Lord makes a clear distinction between the Bible as scripture and works like the Apocrypha. This distinction is evident in the Lord’s command to Joseph to translate the Bible while telling him that there was no need to translate the Apocrypha (D&C 91). The Apocrypha has truths to be discerned from its falsehoods by those with the Spirit, but the Bible seems to be held in higher esteem.
When I think of the “translation” of the scriptures, I wonder if we concentrate to much on transmitting the text and ignore the necessity of transmitting the ideas that the text was meant to convey. I have tried my hand at translating poetry from one language to another. There is a balance to be achieved between translating the actual words of the poem and the meaning that the poem is trying to communicate.
A poem that uses significantly different imagery, metaphor, and words, but communicates more exactly the intended meaning of the poem being translated can be considered a better translation of the poem than one that sticks closely to the imagery and text of the original poem, but fails to communicate the same message.
Some of Joseph Smith’s translation seems to relate to this idea. He is not always restoring the text to its original form, he is often rendering the text in a way to restore the correct meaning, even if his rendering does not necessarily match the text of the original.
So when we say that we believe the Bible to be the Word of God as long as it is translated correctly, we are saying that it is God’s word as long as the truths contained therein are rendered correctly.
Ben,
That quote from George Q. Cannon is exactly how I feel. To me, I never understand people who fight against the “trickier” parts of the doctrine. I loathe hearing “Well, Brigham Young was a little crazy, that wasn’t doctrine, just his opinion” or “That’s a mistranslation or something” I’ve never found something in the scriptures or in the teachings of the prophets that I have not been able to reconcile, to understand and eventually accept. If we seek revelation the Lord will help us to understand. Right on brother!
I think given the JST and some other texts in the D&C that were all “translated” that we ought realize that “translate” meant something a little more expansive than merely “render in an other language as literally as possible.”
Were I to render it in more modern speech, I think one might say, “we believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is communicated correctly.” That deals with problems that arise when something is transmitted more or less accurately, but lacks the context which gives it the proper meaning. I think we can see this phenomena when Joseph inquires about various texts, asking for further information.
I’ve always found the tendency of Mormons to unquestionably accept the authority of the New Testament to be odd. It’s interesting to note that by effectively arguing against the primacy of Alexandrian texts accorded by Westcott & Hort, President Joshua Clark essentially undermined the entire textual basis of the New Testament.
I’ve said elsewhere that one is no more likely to learn about the real “historical Jesus†from the New Testament than one is to learn about the real “historical Achilles†from the Illiad. I’m just glad that we have the Book of Mormon, because the New Testament is a pretty infirm foundation upon which to build a church.
Do we unquestioningly accept the authority of the New Testament? I’m not sure we do. Indeed I think that LDS approaches to scripture precisely don’t give them the authority that one finds in the Protestant tradition. We’re much closer to the various Catholic traditions in that. Even the so-called neo-orthodoxy of such figures as McConkie don’t treat scripture the way Protestants do.
It’s a facsinating disussion. I’ve always used the scapegoat that it’s more important to understand the doctrines necessary to salvation as my excuse not to even read most of the OT much less worry about its proper translation (like many others I’m sure, I get my Isaiah from 2 Nephi and 3 Nephi). But the more I have dealings with mainstream Christians — who of course have nothing but the Bible as the basis for their religion — I’ve thought more and more about my lack of biblical knowlegde and the fact that I often use the 8th AF excuse as my reason to not really study it. The BOM’s easier to read anyway. I’m devoting some time to this, Ryan. I’m going to figure just where I sit.
Ryan, I think the leader of that discussion who simply said “that’s a mistranslation” just messed up. I don’t know if it was laziness, insecurity/discomfort at trying to explain it, or what. Probably he just didn’t understand it. But I can agree that it seems like a total cop out.
Still, is there really that much difference between the way we deal with the Book of Mormon and the Bible? Sure, some over-use the 8th A of F to justify glossing over what they don’t understand. But if they’re just reading at home or in class, what should they do instead? They may not have their friendly neighborhood Bible scholar’s home phone number.
When I read the Book of Mormon, I often find things I don’t understand. You and I have discussed some of those things, Ryan: Lehi’s missionary work, Alma’s parenting, etc. Sometimes I’m forced to say to myself, ‘I just don’t see how the way I understand this passage can be what really happened.’ Even if it’s the case that I’m *wrong* instead of the BoM, I’m in the same position as I would be if I found such a passage in the Bible. I just say “I don’t understand this” instead of “this isn’t translated right.”
Of course, that’s probably what we should say in either case. But in a roundabout way I think that’s what people mean anyway.