Thank you for this post. Canonical approaches to scripture have been of great interest to me over the last few years. I love that you have underlined that all people have a “canon within a canon” or “add to and take away.” Even the most strident “every word is from God” individual has her/his favorite and not so favorite verses. Since the thread has leaned towards LDS concepts of canon, I will add a few thoughts.

I like your appraisal of the term “open canon”. I have tried on several occasions during presentations on canons and canonical development to answer questions about the LDS notion of canon (in front of non-LDS audiences). I have tended to move quickly to the term “open canon” (-ish), or try and compare it to Rabbinic writings. Obviously LDS do not have a problem with the “adding to” the bible category and while my mostly Protestant audiences doesn’t like the idea they understand the idea. I have used sources like -Katie’s Canon- by the Womanist theologian Katie Cannon to describe the adding to.

The taking away practice seems to be an all-encompassing occurrence though many won’t admit it. I have used, like you stated in the OP, any ideological position (i.e. everyone) to show that parts of scripture are excised both formally and/or informally, both consciously and/or unconsciously . For me, the most striking example of this is Howard Thurman’s grandmother refusing to read the Pauline epistles because they were used constantly by her slave owners to justify slavery. Today, just take a look through many OT Sunday School manuals (LDS or other) and you won’t find extended lesson material on Lot’s daughters or Ruth’s marital status when she uncovered Boaz’ feet (if you don’t know what to do with it or you don’t agree with it, ignore it)

So…if open canon doesn’t work, and I think your argument is convincing, how do we describe LDS canon(s)? for the average LDS? in academic terms?

and…is more helpful to view the LDS canon(s) through a diachronic lens (James Sanders) or a synchronic lens (Brevard Childs)? or somewhere between?

Thanks Again for this post TYD!!!

In my opinion, this is a big part of how most Mormons look at the texts within their Canonical tradition. Hence, it is difficult for many to start to deal with the complicated textual and compositional history of them. Moreover, anytime a modern scripture is added to the Canon (such as JST Book of Moses) it assumes the character of other texts already within the Canon and the conventions of this particular “genre” are applied.

Hopefully the point of what I’m trying to say has come across and isn’t too divergent from the OP.

Dear Enoch and g.wesley,

I believe that the canonical process–that is, the composition and transmission of the biblical texts as discussed in the post–may be a meaningful lens for evaluating the JST. The JST itself was never completed in Joseph Smith’s lifetime, and indeed underwent various revisions over time. The biblical texts were harmonized, expanded, and edited in the process, and I am in agreement with those Mormons (e.g., Kevin Barney and Stephen Robinson) who view the JST not as representing primarily restorations of an “original text” (as that term has been used classically) but rather as prophetic midrash or commentary which sought, like some of the scribal modifications identified in the original post, to update the scriptures in a way that was meaninful for Joseph Smith and his contemporaries while yet attempting to remain faithful to the original base text. That is, the biblical texts were modified, both by Joseph Smith as well as by ancient tradents, in a way that sought to be true to the original but that also made the texts more applicable or relevant to a certain faith group or tradition.

For LDS Christians, furthermore, it is, seemingly, a commandent to follow a similar practice to that of Joseph Smith and the ancient scribes, that is, to “liken the scriptures unto ourselves.” The classic proof-text from the Book of Mormon for this idea is 1 Nephi 9:23: “And I did read many things unto them which were written in the books of Moses; but that I might more fully persuade them to believe in the Lord their Redeemer I did read unto them that which was written by the prophet Isaiah; for I did liken all scriptures unto us, that it might be for our profit and learning.” For the Mormon tradition, then, it is not simply a matter of Joseph Smith “changing” the biblical texts, but that all God’s faithful are to update and expand the scriptures to apply to themselves and their contemporary situation (indeed, given the fact that reading texts, whether ancient or not, is itself a dialectical process in which readers both derive meaning from and bring meaning to the texts, and in so doing necessarily add to and take away from the original, this seems inevitable). Thus many modern LDS Christian leaders have said that the average member is to follow a process similar to that of Joseph Smith and/or the ancient tradents–except to the extent that modern members don’t usually alter the actual wording of the base texts (however, there is no prohibition for members not write in their scriptures, and in fact it seems, from my experience, to be encouraged). Moreover, such an idea seems to be supported by passages elsewhere in uniquely Mormon scripture where significant bodies of lay members are said to have the ability to produce “scripture” themselves. For example, D&C 68:4 reads: “And whatsoever they [all those ordained to the priesthood; v.2] shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the bpower of God unto salvation.” “Scripture” is not limited to the biblical texts, or even the “Standard Works” for Mormons, but is applicable to anything uttered under the influence of the Holy Spirit.

Additionally, a number of the modern revelations found in the Doctrine and Covenants, as well the Book of Mormon, have undergone editing (both by Joseph Smith and his contemporaries as well as in more recent times). Some of the current revelations are in fact compilations or amalgamations of several different revelations, and the wording at various places in some of the revelations, as well as in the Book of Mormon, have at times been changed, whether for grammatical reasons or to clarify meaning, etc. What, then, is the original text of these revelations? Is it the revelations in their individual form or after they were edited together? Are we to use the original text of the Book of Mormon at all times or the modern edition, or both? We can ask similar questions of the biblical texts, as was done in the original post.

Concerning the post’s discussion of canon, it seems clear that the idea of a canon is a post-biblical development. Moreover, although a canon can exist in the sense that a certain collection of books chosen as authoritative in contradistinction to all other books may be made, it is impossible to use one’s canon in isolation as though one’s faith is nothing more nor less than what is contained in that canon. As I have said before, readers necessarily add to and take away from their texts–and this includes their canonical texts. In this sense then, although I have no idea where the term comes from historically, I like the LDS term “Standard Works,” because it does not necessarily entail that the only religiously authoritative or spiritually valid texts are those found within its covers. Additionally, I believe that if we use the term “canon” in the strict sense I have stated above–and not to refer generally to just any authoritative collection of texts but specifically to an authoritative collection of books consciously chosen as over against all other texts–then the term “open canon,” which I sometimes hear used, seems to make little sense (indeed, is a contradiction ofterms) and so should probably be abandoned.

Finally, I believe it may be worth addressing the subject of pseudepigraphical writings, since you (g.wesley) brought it up. It is clear that certain biblical authors considered certain pseudepigraphical writings authoritative (e.g., Jude’s use of 1 Enoch–my next post here at FPR is about this subject). And most modern scholars believe that a number of biblical texts are pseudepigraphical, such as the Pastoral epistles, 1 or 2 Peter (or both), James, etc., and certainly that a number of traditional authorial attributions of various biblical books are wrong (such as Moses being the author of the Pentateuch, David having written the Psalms, or Solomon having written Proverbs, Ecclesiates, or the Song of Songs, etc.). However, if we view the JST as primarily prophetic expansions or midrashic commentary, then not only is it no longer necessary to have to find ancient parallels to every idea or term in the Book of Moses but we would have a modern parallel to what ancient authors were seemingly doing in their activities. I am of the opinion then (probably in opposition to what Stephen Robinson thinks, given what you said above g.wesley) that pseudepigraphy was not just pious fraud but a meaningful genre for authors to convey their views. Thus there is in the JST (and especially in the Book of Moses section) a way to view pseudepigraphy in the Bible as harmless to one’s faith, at the very least. Pseudepigraphy may at times simply be a means of channeling one’s views for public conssumption or for relaying a divine message.

Best wishes,

TYD

It is true that I did not originally write this as a post for FPR (you ask for the original source Enoch: it is simply something I wrote because I like to write about subjects I am researching–in this case, the textual composition and transmission of the biblical texts in the Second Temple Period). The reason I did not add my own contributions for how the above relates to Mormonism is because there are so many interesting issues that could be addressed that I just didn’t want to pick one. I wanted to leave it up to the readers to pick out what they thought might be of interest for discussion and further reflection. Perhaps this approach was foolish of me. Alas.

Thank you all for commenting, however.

Enoch,

I take an approach to the Book of Mormon very similar to Blake Ostler’s “Expansion Theory,” and it sounds similar (in application, at least) to the way you deal with 1 Nephi 13:20.

g. wesley,

I like your questions and I will address them later today or early tomorrow (hopefully). Since I have been asked specifically how this impacts Mormonism by both you and Enoch, I think I may discuss how the post could influence Mormon approaches to the JST (including the Book of Moses, as you suggest). Finally, I don’t know Robinson’s “Lying for God” essay–is this Stephen Robinson of BYU, or another Robinson?

Best wishes,

TYD

thanks for sharing what obviously represents a significant amount of time and study.

with enoch, i would be interested to hear your thoughts on how this impacts mormonism.

for instance, does the fact that ancients rewrote scripture make it easier for you to accept, say, the book of moses as an apocryphal addition to the bible, as i think bushman describes it in rough stone rolling? or does it introduce further problems, such as whether pseudepigraphy is ever innocent, as i think robinson doubts in his ‘lying for god’ essay?

A direction of thinking I have found to be productive is: what picture of canon is presupposed by LDS scripture? For example, the idea of a “book” that clearly describes the Bible in 1 Ne. 13:20 would have been foreign to a sixth century Judean, and the contents of the brass plates described in 1 Ne. 5:11-13 deserve a post of their own. In effect it describes *our* Bible up until precisely 597 BCE–good thing those scribes were so punctual. This one example brings up a wealth of problems to chew on.

I think that the original post raises a number of interesting issues that could have meaningful responses from a Mormon perspective (among others, of course). I am still not sure how your response(s) relate to the content and questions posed in the post.

Best wishes,

TYD

My point is simply this. Understanding that the biblical texts have gone through such understandable changes, how could someone today grab an obscure section or piece of today’s bible and build a whole mythology over it, like, say, Gog and Magog, and expect it to actually occur as he or she built up the mythology.