Back to Mormonism Researched Page

The Bible, Unfortunately, Has Not Been Perfectly Preserved Through the Centuries

Research by Kerry A. Shirts (NEW Updated extensive additions and analysis from many new Textual Criticism scholarly sources Jan 3, 2003)

Critics though especially Fundamentalist Christians, have basically explained their position as this:
"The Bible was indeed still the perfect word of God was based on the following conclusions:

1. The vast overall majority of the "errors" the Mormons have "found" the Bible to have are either not really there or make no difference to the tune of 99.995% of them being totally invalidated claims.

2. Even of those that the Mormons would claim to be valid, the vast overall majority of those were due to understandable and real human error and not to intentional deception of any kind. (I would add, I agree there was, in many cases, not deliberate deception, but the issue is were there deliberate changes. I think there is enough to show that there were, and some of these changes were certainly for theological reasons).
3. The Biblical record is thousands upon thousands of records dating back (some of them) to almost 4000 BC that everyone is trying to find holes in like the Mormons are in order to discount the Bible.
4. The Bible has been "purged" and burned so many times throughout history that it ain't even funny that the Mormons can not ever publicly publish the original characters of the supposed "Golden Plates".
5. And last but not least, every deliberate error that exists in the Bible is still openly there for the open examination, consideration, and decision of the reader."

This is not necessarily all Christians arguments, rather is limited more or less to the strictly literalist Fundamentalist Christians I have encountered on the Internet. Many Christians have little to do with such a naive and overly literalist understanding of the Bible. I am not lumping all Christianity into this camp, but mainly the self-proclaimed Fundamentalist Christians who believe all words in the Bible belong to God and God alone, and are not man's words. Below are several examples of Bible scholars views on this, which I believe the majority of we Christians are more or less understanding and in sympathy with, as they bear a more realistic view of the Bible as a record of some of God's dealings with mankind.

As I researched into this I found that the scholars of Biblical Textual Criticism have shown that the human element in the scriptures is more prominant than Fundamentalist Christians are apparently willing to believe. We believe the Bible, not necessarily to be the very word of God throughout, authored and written by God alone, but certainly it contains the record of many of God's dealings with we humans, which is marvelous for us to read. That each and every word recorded in the Bible is spoken by God, is by no means defensible, as Textual Criticism has shown how human scribes have manipulated the word of God, whether intentionally or unintentionally. God works with we humans on our scale. This is shown in the Bible clearly. This does not denigrate the Bible as a record of some of God's dealins with mankind though. We are not attacking the Bible to try and fathom the common sense approach which Textual Critics utilize in order to try and figure out what the original scriptures said. Below are some comments by Textual Critics which demonstrate that the thesis of Fnudamentalist Christians that every single word in the Bible was written by God, is simply a naive view to believe in.
Philip W. Comfort, "Essential Guide to Bible Versions," Tyndale House Publishers, 2000, has shared some insights which the literalistsic Fundamentalist Biblicist types of Christians would do well to pay attention to. "For those who refuse to accept that God would have allowed the text to have been tampered with, I offer another theological perspective. God is a God of recovery. He is a God who allows things - his people, his nation, and even his word - to be lost and then found. This is the principle of recovery. The entire theology of redemption is one of recovering what had been lost." (p. 154)
Raymond Brown in his book "Responses to 101 Questions on the Bible" notes that the Gospels, the first 4 books of the New Testament were: "edited and reshaped by an evangelist in the last third of the first century in order to address the spiritual needs of Christian readers he envisaged." (p. 58, my emphasis). In other words, the Gospels are not perfect, nor are they original, but have been written from others' viewpoints from their own day, several decades after Jesus lived, in order to match an already preconceived understanding of Jesus and his ministry. This is not to say the Gospels are not scripture. What it does indicate is that the human authors obviously included their own views, with their own understanding into the recording of the events of Jesus' life.

Bruce M. Metzger, "The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration" notes that "a group of correctors working at Caesarea entered a large number of alterations into the text of both Old and New Testaments." (p. 46). Codex Bezae's special characteristic is the free addition as well as the occassional omission of words, sentences, and even incidents. (p. 50). As he reviews various traditions of manuscripts discussing their relative strengths and weaknesses, Metzger finally notes that "All known witnesses of the New Testament are to a greater or less extent mixed texts, and even the earliest manuscripts are not free from egregious errors..." (p. 246) Metzger also points out that there have been doctrinal changes in the Bible due to preconceived notions of what the scriptures ought to say, in order to conform to previous held beliefs in an early age of Christianity. (p. 201ff) A certain J.P Holding (author of a weak attempt to refute LDS scholars, "The Mormon Defenders," self published, 2001) has criticized this page as knowing nothing about textual criticism. He, obviously, has not understood that in light of what many Christians in the general public are believing, namely that the Bible is perfect, I am under necessity of pointing out that this is not the case. Textual criticism of the Bible shows, in one aspect, that the Bible has not been perfectly preserved, and that there have been doctrinal changes made in the manuscripts, and that *no two manuscripts are exactly alike* which demonstrates there have been human changes made in the Bible.
This is not to suggest that Metzger is refuting the Bible however. What he is showing is the rich and variegated manuscripts of the Bible do not all agree in exact wording, sentence structure or thought. J.P. Holding, apparently thinks I am unaware of this, hence his criticisms of this page are basically of no effect. Notice how Mr. Holding merely picks and chooses one or two items from this wealth of information on this site and ignores the rest of textual criticism scholarship which is available. He is not only misinforming the public about my website, he is also misinforming Christians about the nature of the doctrinal changes which have occurred in the Bible as any look into any of the sources I have listed right here will easily demonstrate. See Mr. Holdings's rather sparce and ineffective arguments against my webpage by clicking HERE

I think its obvious that Christian scholars are informed of the Bible, but they have failed miserably to inform their congregations, who still insist to we Mormons that the Bible is perfect. That there have been no changes in doctrine or theology, and that It is exactly as God wants it to be. I just received yet another email from a very concerned Christian gent who is intent on converting me because of two things. #1. I am not a Christian because I fight against God's *perfect* Word. The Lord simply would not allow the Bible to be lost or corrupted at all. #2. Because I believe the Bible in a limited way, i.e., as far as it is translated correctly. He also is castigating me for obviously not believing in the doctrine of the Trinity. Now this is as of January 18th a full two weeks *after* I have been talking to Mr. Holding! He says I am misunderstanding Christian's concerns and that mainstream Christians know the Bible is corrupt. Obviously Mr. Holding and his Christian scholars are not informing their Christian congregations very well of Textual Criticism. Mr. Holding furthermore says I misuse Dr. Tov? He complains that Tov is talking of the Samaritan Bible having differences than the mainstream and says I am misuing Tov?! Is Mr. Holding contending the Samaritan Bible somehow does not fit into the category of Bible? The point as Tov points makes it is that the Samaritans have differences in doctrines in their Bible from the mainstream Bible, which exactly underscores my point in showing Tov saying so. The Bible has not been perfectly preserved, but there are different ones in use, which have different contents, as well as different doctrines. Mr. Holding nowhere in his new review of my updates here deals with the rest of the 95% of the information I have here. He obviously cannot deal with it, so attempts to dismiss it as making mountains out of molehills. His contention that there are no doctrines effected completely and irresponsibly ignores the last three paragraphs of my paper here below.
This is not to make the Bible incorrect, but rather, an effort to gain an understanding of how copyists functioned, what their theological understandings may have been in relation to other areas and centers of copying.

Bart D. Ehrman, "The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture"
"scribes occassionally altered the words of their sacred texts to make them more patently orthodox and to prevent their misuse by Christians who espoused aberrant views." (p. xi). Ehrman has shown however, contrary to some certain Christian claims that "there were scribes who corrupted their texts for theological reasons..." (p. xii). After noting the varying differing understandings of Jesus as both divine and human, and tracing various methods of recording scripture, as well as arguing the finer points of theological discourse and speculation, Ehrman noted that Scripture was changed to refute antiDocetic tendencies in early Christian circles (p. 217).

Ehrman in another very fine text co-authored with Gordon D. Fee, and Michael W. Holmes, "The Text of the Fourth Gospel in the Writings of Origen," Scholars Press, 1992, The Society of Biblical Literature, The New Testament in the Greek Fathers," demonstrated the importance of understanding the location of from where copyists of scripture were copying their scripture from. In the Alexandrian arm of location the importance stressed there was the "concern to establish the texts of ancient writings that had experienced corruption in the surviving copies." (p. 11). These authors note that Origen's move and relocation to Caesarea around 233 A.D. is significant because some of Origen's writings were penned in Alexandria, while others were in Caesarea, and the different locations are reflected in how he quotes the Gospel of John, perhaps, as they note, because there were different concerns theologically, as well as historically in the understanding of the Gospel of John and what it was saying. (pp. 14ff). There were, as early as Origen's day different texts in different areas, and this is reflected in Origen. Hence his importance as a witness to this phenomena.

Stanley R. Maveety, "The Glossary in the Rheims New Testament of 1582", in the "Journal of English and Germanic Philology," Vol. 61, 1962,
"Tyndale was guilty of deliberately mistranslating the Bible in order to conform to Luther doctrine... (p. 566).
The Protestants were guilty of adding words to the scriptures in order to condemn Catholic doctrines (p. 572)

Emanuel Tov, "Textual Criticsm of the Hebrew Bible,"
The Masoretes had preserved a text in the Hebrew Bible, which had already been corrupted. (p. 9, 28ff). We simply don't have the original untarnished manuscript, but even a supposed proto-Masoretic text, comes to us already in corrupted and changed form.The Samaritans added their own theological biases to the scriptures (p. 19).
words were added that change the meaning of biblical passages (pp. 57, 63, 65, 60).
There is a large scale differences between the manuscript witnesses, not minor mere variations (p. 177).
Scribes took the liberty of changing the manuscripts as they felt suited to (p. 189)
Scribes deliberately altered the contents of the manuscripts and scriptures (pp. 258, 262, 306, 269, 290)
Every chapter in the Bible has changes. (p. 293f)

He notes the significance being that we, by using all available and variant readings in the manuscripts, are better able to understand the scribes exegetical considerations which they had themselves anciently, as well as how they read and interpreted the Bible. (p. 295). The assumption that everyone in all times anciently all read the Bible the same way is far too simplistic to account for the numerous variant readings Tov has explored in his book. On p. 258ff, Tov demonstrated with numerous examples how the ancient scribes took the liberty to a greater or lesser extent of altering the actual content of the manuscripts in order to fit into their own worldview. These changes "reflect the copyists' wish to adapt the text to their own understanding or to an exegetical tradition known to them." (p. 263) He further demonstrates, due to theological reasons, the ancient scribes literally took away the meanings of the ancient scriptures which advocated a polytheistic stance concerning the Gods. They altered the manuscripts and changed Gods into a singular God. The early manuscripts have the polytheistic flavor, but later scribes' worldview had changed by then, hence the changes. (pp. 267-271)

Tov on pp. 262-275 shows more deliberate changes in the text of the Bible. The point Textual Criticism definitely shows is that there were instances of intentional changes, sometimes linguistic, sometimes doctrinal, sometimes for other reasons, but there have been changes.
The theological changes Tov mentions on pp. 264ffff ought to be required reading for one who contends that no one was corrupting the manuscripts. Tov knows what he is talking about obviously. Tov on page 269 is *really good* on this! REALLY GOOD!
In his most excellent book, Robert B. Chrisholm, Jr, "From Exegesis to Exposition: A Practical Guide to Using Biblical Hebrew," Baker Books, 1998: 26f he discusses the actual change of words to fit preconceived theological concepts on this scripture, Deuteronomy 32:8, among others he examines. He notes that The Massoretic text is interpretative here, demonstrating that the phrase "Sons of God" "was a reference to the Israelites on the basis of Hosea 1:10, which calls the Israelites 'the sons of the living God' (Beni El hai) The evidence suggests that the text originally read 'sons of God/gods,' not 'sons of Israel.'" (p. 26-27)

McCarter in his book on Textual Criticism, pp. 58f, (note the title of his chapter, "The Causes of Textual Corruption"!) also discusses this verse, among others where there have been changes in theological concepts. McCarter is not as extensive as Tov is however in this.

Ronald S. Hendel, Chapter 13 in the book "Understanding the Dead Sea Scrolls," Herschel Shanks, ed., 1992,
extensively analyzes the changes in Deuteronomy 32:8 as well, and notes, among other things, "Someone felt the need to clean up the text by literally rewriting it and substituting "sons of Israel" for the original "Sons of God" in Deuteronomy 32:8." (p. 170) He further notes that the reading "Sons of God" is based on the Septuagint version of the Bible. It is a fragment from the Dead Sea Scrolls which has the reading "Sons of God" (pictured on p. 171) which shows the Septuagint has the correct meaning.

Cf. Abegg, Flint, & Ulrich, "The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible," HarperSanFrancisco, 1999: pp. 191ff, for the Dead Sea Scroll Bible version of Deuteronomy 32:8-43. Also see James C. Vanderkam, "The Dead Sea Scrolls Today," Eerdman's, 1994: 128, where he notes this was a theologically motivated change in the Bible. Also Harold Scanlin, "The Dead Sea Scrolls & Modern Translations of the Old Testament," Tyndal House, 1993: 109, who also asserts it was for theological reasons that this text was changed, thus showing the ordinary Christian thinker in our public, that believing the Bible is unchanged, and perfectly preserved, is simply not understanding the nature of the Bible. Jacob Neusner, William S. Green, Ernest Frerichs, "Judaisms and their Messiahs at the Turn of the Christian Era," Cambridge University Press, reprint, 1993: 102 shows that Jubilees confirms the real reading of the Bible which originally had "Sons of God" instead of the corrupt and theologically changed reading we now have "Sons of Israel."

James A. Sanders article "Understanding the Development of the Biblical Text" in "The Dead Sea Scrolls After Forty Years" Symposium at the Smithsonian Institute, Oct. 27, 1990, says that we ought to start acknowledging the differences in the Bible and quit pretending there are none, and that we ought to realize that there have been differences from the very start of the Bible. (p. 71). He mentions how some people ask him concerning the Bible and he asks what is the Bible? The NRSV is not the Bible; no translation is the Bible. So what is the Bible? What and whence these texts? We have thousands of manuscripts of the two testaments. There are over 5200 Greek New Testament manuscripts, no two of which are alike. They come from different areas and communities in antiquity and that accounts for some differences." (p. 60-61)

Emanuel Tov, "The Corrections in the Biblical Texts", in "The Dead Sea Scrolls: Forty Years of Research", says there have been many different systems of scribal intervention and changing of the scripture. (pp. 300ff). Tov notes that it is true in some manuscript transmissions, the scribes would not allow interventions, but kept the copies strictly as is, including the problems from earlier times. At other times scribes definitely wanted to intervene in their transmissions of texts. Throughout his study Tov demonstrates that different systems of scribal intervention have been recognized. All the scribal interventions of the Biblical manuscripts at Qumran appear to be corrections of a base text. i.e., the Bible manuscripts they had were already corrupted in some manner. The Bible manuscripts at Qumran was changed according to the later scribes own vorlage, and insights, and understandings. (p. 314)

P. Kyle McCarter, Jr., "Textual Criticism: Recovering the Text of the Hebrew Bible",
"parablepsis...frequently resulted in an extensive loss of material..." (p. 39ff). The reason is the scribe overlooked a greater or lesser amot of materials as he was copying. He shows how certain names were put into the manuscripts to explain somethign that originally was not there. "the inserted names represent a scribe's attempt to render his text more intelligible according to his own interpretation of its meaning." (p. 36)

Frank Moore Cross, "The Text Behind the Text of the Hebrew Bible," in Herschel Shanks, "Understanding the Dead Sea Scrolls," notes how "the history of the text of the Hebrew Bible has been confused and obscured by an assumption, or rather a dogma, that the Hebrew text was unchanged and unchanging." (p. 143). In light of Cross's examination, William P. Brown's Doctoral Dissertation, "Structure, Role, and Ideology in the Hebrew and Greek Texts of Genesis 1:1 - 2:3, Scholars Press, 1993, Society of Biblical Literature, describes how Fishbane has uncovered the extent to which scribal activity transformed the texts they were working with in ancient Israel. They responded to the texts, not dryly and mechanically simply copy them off word for word. "Consequently, the ancient texts, were not simply copied, studied, transmitted, or recited. They were also, and by these means, subject to redaction, elucidation, reformulation, and outright transformation." (p. 13). The importance of understanding translation is discussed by Brown as well. He noted that When one person translates another person's words, the translator necessarily takes up the 'pre-owned' words, images, concepts, and structures of the first person, so the translator understands them in relation to his world view and presuppositions and publically disseminates these words, images, concepts, and structures, which the translator appropriated into a different language, culture, and social situation, of his later day. (p. 8)

Frank Moore Cross, Jr., "Light on the Bible From the Dead Sea Caves," (Chapter 12), in Herschel Shanks, "Understanding the Dead Sea Scrolls," notes that the ending of Samuel in the Bible is far shorter than the Biblical text found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. This demonstrates that our Bible has lost some of its contents. How far this has gone can only be speculated about. But the fact is before us today that the Bible has suffered from losses, which is now confirmed via archaeology of the Dead Sea Scrolls finding. (pp. 158ff) "There are a number of telltale signs that the additional passage was in the original." (p. 161) Further he shows how Josephus was paraphrasing this passage in the Dead Sea Scrolls, but which we do not have in our current Bible. Cross notes "In such ways do the Dead Sea Scrolls help us to restore a more original stage of the biblical text." (p. 162)

Leon Vaganay/Christian Bernard-Amphoux, "An Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism," 2nd ed., Cambridge Univ. Press, 1991 -
"corrections were made boldly, things were added and things omitted..." (p. 57, 80, 81 - scribes felt free to modify texts to fit their own views of the scriptures). They further claim that Celsus complained that some early Christians have changed the original text of the Gospels three or four times, or even more, with the intention of thus being able to destroy the arguments of their critics. Origen does not deny the existence of such claims either. (p. 95-96)
Now there are at least a few major witnesses as to the corruptions in the Bible. This is not to refute the Bible as a book of scripture. Far from it. What this exercise does is demonstrate a naive understanding of the Bible as we now have it as original and pristine as the day it was written thousands of years ago. It is the Biblicist argument of a perfect Bible which Textual Criticism demonstrates is incorrect.

And finally recently on the internet (January 2003), I have been recently told by Bible enthusiastic Christians that the Bible manuscripts are reliable. That there is excellent agreement with them all, and in fact, no single doctrine of Christianity is in a disputed variant or deliberate change made in the manuscripts. That everything I have written and researched here is just wrong.
But Emanuel Tov in his book "Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible" has noted that many of the pervasive changes in the Bible are entire sentences, if not downright sections and books, which should not be ascribed to the copyists. What happened was the earlier generations of editors allowed the changes in the formative stages of the biblical literature (pp. 265f) The Septuagint shows such examples, as well as the Qumran Dead Sea Scrolls manuscripts as for instance the fact that the versions of Jeremiah are one-sixth shorter than that of the Massoretic text, and the order of the verses have been changed. (Tov, pp. 320-321). This changing of the context, of course, changes the meaning. The Septuagint version of Joshua is four to five percent shorter than the Massoretic text (Tov, p. 328). The story of David and Goliath is 44 percent shorter in the Septuagint, and this same phenomena is indicated in Ezekiel as well. (Tov, pp. 333, 334-335). The chronological information of Genesis chapters 5, 8, and 11 is different (not just minor either) between the Samaritan Pentateuch, the LXX, and the Massoretic traditions (Tov, p. 337). 1 Samuel in the 11th chapter is much longer at Qumran than in the Massoretic. (Tov, pp. 342ff). Based on the graphic and fundamental textual criticism information which Tov has amassed, it is impossible to claim that the Massoretic Hebrew text of the Bible is the original Hebrew Bible form the 6th to 7th centuries B.C. The LDS position that the Bible has been changed, and rather substantially, is amply confirmed via Textual Criticism.
It is no better with the New Testament, where Metzger has noted that the Western texts of Acts is nearly 10% longer than the form which is commonly regarded to be the original text of that book. Then there is the famous problem of the ending of Mark 16:9-20 which is lacking in the earliest manuscripts. The point is that our New Testament is but one version of the many which existed in the earliest times, and it has been changed dramatically in some instances, such as the bloody sweat of Jesus not being in all the manuscript versions. Bruce Metzger, "Manuscripts of the Greek Bible: An Introduction to Greek Paleography," Oxford Univ. Press, 1981: 106, discusses this and notes that "On the page shown in the plate the passage concerning the bloody sweat (Luke 22: 43-44) is marked on the left hand margin (lines 13-19) to signify that it is regarded as doubtful or spurious. Some ancient witnesses omit the verses entirely." On p. 74, Metzger notes that the Codex Vaticanus (4th century) of 2 Thess. 3:11-18, Hebrews 1:1-2:2, on the left hand margin opposite of Hebrews 1:3, is a note from a corrector who corrected a text which had been changed. The writer said "Fool and knave, can't you leave the old reading alone, and not alter it!" This is yet another demonstration that things were changed in the Bible, and it caused consternation with later scribes of the scriptures.

The famous verse of 1 John 5:7, the trinity characteristic of Christian understanding, is actually a forgery, which is *still included* in our Bible! Isn't this doctrinal? Where else in the entire New Testament does it indicate that the Holy Ghost is one with the Father and the Son? Wouldn't this qualify as a serious doctrinal omission from our scriptures? Is the trinity not in fact, a point of orthodoxy which, in fact, does hinge on this disputed text? Marc Schindler has written an article on this in "Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought," Vol. 29/3 (Fall 1996): 157-164, wherein he demonstrates it is a forgery, and the reason it is found in our Bibles. It was a monk who was aspiring to make Erasmus look bad! He was taken to task for excluding it in his translation of the Bible, and so he declared if anyone can show him just one Greek manuscript which has the idea, he would include it. A monk, it was presumed, added it, so Erasmus included it in his translation, which is why it is still found in the King James Version! Even the Evangelical scholar Norman Geisler has noted that there is absolutely no textual evidence in its favor of being genuine. (Schindler, p. 162). "The acceptance of this verse as genuine breaks almost every major canon of Textual Criticism." (p. 160, quoting Geisler again). Yet it's still in the King James Version....a patent forgery in the scripture today.
How else would we classify the softening of anthropomorphisms of God (He being like a man, but this is softened), except as a direct *doctrinal* change of a major doctrine in Christian as well as Mormon thought? The above demonstration of Deuteronomy 32:8 where men are called the "Sons of God" is a direct doctrinal issue, since, to Latter Day Saints who accept the scripture, see this as a demonstration that God is the Father of our spirits, and is the father of many children, which clearly is different from the orthodox view of God as separate from His Creation, He being Creator, whilst we are mere creatures. Deuteronomy 32:8 refutes such orthodox doctrine. Not to mention what it does to monotheism, another *direct doctrinal issue* on a disputed text.
The case is solidly clear that Textual Criticism demonstrates Joseph Smith knew whereof he spoke when he claimed the Bible had been changed. And the doctrines which the Prophet restored are, in fact, on many of the disputed texts claims in the Bible.