Commenting on the need for textual criticism (a careful analysis of the text) of the Hebrew Bible, Tov explains:

The biblical text has been transmitted in many ancient and medieval sources which are known to us from modern editions in different languages: We now have manuscripts (MSS) in Hebrew and other languages from the Middle Ages and ancient times as well as fragments of leather and papyrus scrolls two thousand years old or more. … All of these textual witnesses differ from each other to a greater or lesser extent. Since no textual source contains what could be called “the” biblical text, a serous involvement of biblical studies clearly necessitates the study of all sources, including the difference between them…¹

Not only are there differences in all ancient manuscripts, but also in our Bibles that have been published in modern times:

Textual differences are also reflected in modern editions of the traditional text of the Hebrew Bible, the so-called Masoretic Text…, since these editions are based on different manuscripts…Similar discrepancies between the various ancient witnesses are even reflected in the modern translations.

One would not have expected differences between the printed editions of the Hebrew Bible, for if a fully unified textual tradition would have been possible at any one given period, it would certainly seem to be so after the invention of printing. Such is not the case, however, since all the editions  of the Hebrew Bible, which actually are editions of [the Masoretic Text], go back to different medieval manuscripts of that tradition, or combinations of such manuscripts…, so that the editions also necessarily differ from each other. Moreover, these editions reflect not only the various medieval manuscripts, but also the personal views of the different editors. Furthermore, each edition contains a certain number of printing errors. Therefore, there does not exist any one edition which agrees in all of its details with another… Some editions even differ from each other in their subsequent printings…without even informing the readers.²

Differences in the different versions of the text go from structural differences in chapter and verse divisions to more significant variations in letters and whole words (again, this is in the basic Masoretic Text of the Hebrew Bible). Tov notes that these differences go back to the differences that can be seen in the medieval manuscripts that are behind the modern versions.  He then goes on to give some reasons behind these differences. The first reason for variations is that they are caused by textual “corruptions” or “mistakes” made in the transmission of the text.

Most of the texts–ancient and modern–which have been transmitted from one generation to the next have been corrupted in one way or another. For modern compositions the process of textual transmission from the writing of the autograph until its final printing is relatively short, so that the possibilities of its corruption are limited.8 In ancient texts, however, such as the Hebrew Bible, these corruptions (the technical term for various forms of “mistakes”) are found more frequently because of the difficult physical conditions of the copying and the length of the process of transmission, usually extending until the period of printing in recent centuries. The number of factors which could have created corruptions is large: the transition from the “early’ Hebrew to Assyrian (“square”) script…, unclear handwriting, unevenness in the surface of the material (leather or papyrus) on which the text was written, graphically similar letters which were often confused…, the lack of vocalization…, and unclear boundaries between words in early texts…, etc.

The above corruptions to the text are accidental. Tov discusses another reason for textual variations, but these are not accidental.

A second phenomenon pertains to corrections and changes inserted in the biblical text. In contradistinction to mistakes, which are not controllable, the insertion of corrections and changes derives from a conscious effort to change the text in minor and major details, including the insertion of novel ideas. Such tampering with the text is evidenced in all textual witnesses…, including [the Masoretic Text]. Tradition ascribes to the soferim, “scribes,” 8, 11, or 18 such “corrections” in [the Masoretic Text] itself…, but even if these transmitted corrections are questionable, many other similar ones are evidenced elsewhere…
Corruptions as well as various forms of scribal intervention (changes, corrections, etc.) are thus evidenced in all textual witnesses of the Hebrew Bible, including the group of texts now called the (medieval) Masoretic Text as well as in its predecessors, the proto-Masoretic texts. Those who are unaware of the details of textual criticism may think that one should not expect any corruptions in or any other sacred text, since these texts were meticulously written and transmitted. Indeed, the scrupulous approach of the soferim and Masoretes is manifest in their counting of all the letters and words of [the Masoretic Text]… Therefore, it is seemingly unlikely that they would have corrupted the text or even corrected it. Yet, in spite of their precision, even the manuscripts which were written and vocalized by the Masoretes contain corruptions, changes, and erasures. More importantly, the Masoretes, and before them the soferim, acted in a relatively late stage of the development of the biblical text, and before they had put their meticulous principles into practice, the text already contained corruptions and had been tampered with during that earlier period when scribes did not as yet treat the text with such reverence.  Therefore, paradoxically, the soferim and Masoretes carefully preserved a text that was already corrupted…
The preceding analysis has surmised that [the Masoretic Text], too, contains occasional errors. In our analysis of the witnesses of the biblical test no exception is made in this regard for [the Masoretic Text], because that text, like all other texts, may have been corrupted in the course of the scribal transmission.³

These types of textual corruption or even found in many of the very oldest copies of the biblical texts that we have — the versions found among the Dead Sea Scrolls.  These biblical texts from Qumran are sometimes more like the Septuagint and older Greek texts than the Masoretic texts (see, e.g., Exod., Sam./Kings, minor prophets); sometimes have multiple versions in Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic which do not match each other (see, e.g., Lev., Deut., Josh., Sam./Kings, Ezek.); and sometimes there are longer and shorter versions of the same text (see, e.g., Judg., Jer., Psalms). The Psalter at Qumran is not complete and includes extra psalms not found in our Bible.

In summary, Tov explains:

It has become clear from the preceding paragraphs that one of the postulates of biblical research is that the text preserved in the various representatives (manuscripts, editions) of what is commonly called the Masoretic Text, does not reflect the “original text” of the biblical books  in many details. ((Ibid., 11))

1. Tov, 2; bold emphasis mine
2. Ibid., 3
3. Ibid., 9; italics in original, but bold is mine

As I went through my first year of graduate school at Marquette University, I had the opportunity to be exposed to and ponder about the views of many Christian denominations regarding the infallibility of the Bible. I met conservative evangelicals who absolutely could not admit that there might be a single error in the biblical text–”What kind of a God would so powerless as to allow errors to creep into His holy Word?” I met more liberal Protestants who saw the Bible as the Word of God, but viewed it as mostly metaphorical–”It doesn’t really matter if there are errors in transmission as long as the story is still inspirational.” As it is a Catholic school, the most prevalent view was the scholarly opinion that recognizes that there have been a good many errors in the transmission and translations of the texts–but that for faithful Catholics, it is the holy tradition passed down to them that makes up for any inadequacies in the written word.  Some of my peers may disagree with that assessment, but such is the general perspective that I have been able to perceive.  One thing that I am sure that they all agree on, however, is that the canon of scripture is full–there is to be no more revelation from Heaven that can be counted as scripture alongside the Holy Bible.

It has been interesting for me to compare these opinions with Joseph Smith’s views on the Bible. Obviously, this last point about the canon of scripture being closed with the end of the New Testament was not accepted by the Prophet. He did not speak much on the topic of canon, but the following quote says quite enough:

 “Is not the canon of the Scriptures full?” If it is, there is a great defect in the book, or else it would have said so (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Section Three: 1838-39, p. 121).

Many critics of the Church–and many not-so-critical, but curious colleagues–have imagined that Joseph’s insistence on producing additional scripture outside of the Bible amounts to his rejection of the Bible, or at least to his diminishing of its value. However, this was simply not the case.  As I was reading W.J. Walsh’s post-exam dissertation, The Ascension Theology of Joseph Smith, I was reminded of just how profoundly Joseph Smith knew and valued the Bible–both the Old and New Testaments.

Joseph Smith’s Knowledge and Use of the Bible

The Prophet truly knew the Bible forwards and backwards and it showed in everything he said and did.  Walsh conveys this point well in Chapter 2 of his paper, as he launches into his discussion of why Smith found it necessary to “add” to the Bible. It was certainly not because he wanted to discount the word of God as found in that book. Walsh expounds on the extent of Smith’s biblical knowledge:

Smith’s own knowledge of the Bible was nothing short of profound, though his interpretations have been considered heterodox by Nicaeans [modern Christians]. While Smith’s knowledge of the bible has always been appreciated, a fairly recent study has suggested his knowledge of the OT and NT was extremely deep. Richard C. Galbraith painstakingly compared many of Smith’s most important writings and sermons to the biblical text and was able to find OT and NT phrases and partial phrases buried consistently throughout almost every one of his works, including impromptu ones. This linkage is strong evidence Smith was so engrossed in biblical literature that its language became his own (p. 59).

This trait is easily noticed by anyone who reads Joseph Smith’s words.  The Bible was certainly of great importance to Joseph Smith. However, despite this strong endorsement of the Bible, Joseph did not believe that it was infallible. As we know, he believed it to be the Word of God, “as far as it is translated correctly.”

Inadequacies in the Biblical Text

Walsh goes through and summarizes (pp. 59-60) what Joseph Smith saw that was missing from our modern biblical text. He says:

To summarize Smith’s view, the Bible alone is inadequate in conveying God’s will to mankind because it is sometimes ambiguous, irrelevant, transmitted and translated erroneously, and incomplete.

• Ambiguous–Smith believed that many parts of the Bible were ambiguous and open to conflicting interpretation.

 …[T]he teachers of religion of the different sects understood the same passage of Scripture so differently as to destroy all confidence in settling the question by an appeal to the Bible (History of the Church, Vol. 1, Ch. 1, p. 4).

• Irrelevant–While some universal truths are taught in the Bible, Smith believed some of the biblical messages are not relevant because they are no longer in their original historical context.

The Bible contains revelations given at different times to different people, under different circumstances… (HC, Vol. 1, Ch. 20, p. 277).

• Transmitted and translated erroneously–Smith believed the Bible was transmitted to later generations in a way that did not accurately reflect the intent of the original prophetic and apostolic authors.

I believe the Bible as it read when it came from the pen of the original writers. Ignorant translators, careless transcribers, or designing and corrupt priests [David's note: see my post on corrupt priests here] have committed many errors (HC, Vol. 6, Ch. 3, p. 57).

From sundry revelations which had been received, it was apparent that many important points touching the salvation of man, had been taken from the Bible, or lost before it was compiled (HC, Vol. 1, Ch. 18, p. 245).

There are many things in the Bible which do not, as they now stand, accord with the revelations of the Holy Ghost to me (HC, Vol. 5, Ch. 22, p. 425).

We believe the bible to be the word of God, as far as it is translated correctly… (HC, Vol. 5, Ch. 17, p. 342).

I am now going to take exceptions to the present translation of the Bible in relation to these matters. Our latitude and longitude can be determined in the original Hebrew with far greater accuracy than in the English version. There is a grand distinction between the actual meaning of the prophets and the present translation (HC, Vol. 5, Ch. 17, p. 342).

• Incompleteness–Even when the Bible was transmitted correctly as far as possible, Smith believed it was incomplete.

From what we can draw from the Scriptures relative to the teachings of heaven, we are induced to think that much instruction has been given to man since the beginning which we do not possess now…We have what we have, and the Bible contains what it does contain: but to say that God never said anyting more to man than is there recorded, would be saying at once that we have at last received a revelation; for it must require one to advance thus far, because it is nowhere said in that volume by the mouth of God…(HC, Vol. 2, Ch. 1, p. 18).

Joseph Smith Works to Complete the Bible

In agreement with these views, Joseph Smith believed that he was chosen to receive revelation, by way of the Holy Spirit, that would add to the Bible. As Walsh points out (p. 61), Joseph was not simply creating the equivalent of ”holy tradition”, scriptural commentary, exegesis, or midrash–but “legitimate new revelation equal to the original apostolic and prophetic biblical writings.”

Besides adding additional books of scripture (Book of Mormon, D&C, PofGP) to stand alongside the Bible, confirming and completing its doctrine, Joseph worked during most of his prophetic career on an “inspired version” of the Bible, often referred to as the Joseph Smith Translation. Of this work, Walsh explains:

In 1830, Smith attempted to correct the deficiencies of the Bible noted earlier. His corrections consist of additions, deletions, and rearrangements to over 3,400 verses in the OT and NT. His corrections vary from minor editing to reconstructions of whole chapters…In my view, the JST attempts to clarify ambiguous passages, eliminate irrelevant verses, correct transmission and translation errors, and fill in incomplete portions of the text through prophetic commentary. Thus, Smith intended the JST to be a combination of restoration and commentary. In all cases, Smith believed he was creating a version of the Bible closer to the intent of God than the one handed down through the generations (p. 64).

For those who have a testimony of Joseph Smith’s prophetic calling, his contribution to our understanding of the Bible and the Gospel of Jesus Christ in its fullness is incalculable. That there have been uncountable errors in the transmission of biblical texts is now commonly held scholarly opinion. Bart Ehrman for one (although he is a very outspoken and controversial one), suggests that among all the many thousands of New Testament manuscripts that we know of (counting Greek, Latin, Syriac, Coptic, and other manuscripts), there are up to 400,000 or more variants known. He says:

We do not know for sure because, despite impressive developments in computer technology, no one has yet been able to count them all. Perhaps, as I indicated earlier, it is best simply to leave the matter in comparative terms. There are more variations among our manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament (Misquoting Jesus, New York: HarperCollins, 2005, pp. 89-90).

Ehrman indicates that these variations include both accidental changes and intentional changes, as the Prophet suggested. Joseph Smith knew that because of errors such as these, and also because many “plain and precious” truths were removed or excluded before the canon was even compiled, the Bible is not infallible or complete–although it should still be read as the word of God.