Sourceflix (PKA Living Hope Ministries) released a “documentary” in 2010 on the question of whether Joseph Smith were a prophet of God and the validity of unique LDS Scriptures. One can watch the “documentary” online on various venues, including the following:
A few years ago, I helped with the research for a rebuttal to this production which was written by my friend, Stephen Smoot (who runs a pretty good blog here) entitled, “Joel Kramer vs. the Bible and Joseph Smith.” I would recommend this as the "go-to" source whenever one encounters claims by Evangelicals that Joseph Smith failed the biblical test of being a prophet.
I link to both these works as I think it is pretty self-evident to any individual with even a modicum of critical-thinking skills that the production by Joel Kramer et al., lacks an iota of scholarship and biblical-exegetical prowess, while trying to defend the impossible, viz. their Fundamentalist Protestantism and their understanding of the Bible (ther understanding of sola scriptura, etc). I do think it is rather revealing that many Evangelical critics of the LDS Church endorse and sell this “documentary,” which shows a lot about their so-called research skills and fidelity to the truth (cf. Rev 21:8).
I will note that Joel Kramer's ministry sent me a link to this documentary when it came out, and requested that, after I viewed it, to forward any thoughts, comments, etc., I had on it to them. I am reproducing my email to them (sent directly to Joel Kramer himself on 6 April 2010) below, unedited--I will note that they never responded, and, just as they have not (and will not, at least meaningfully) responded to the review by Stephen Smoot, as they are incapable of any meaningful scholarly and exegetical discussions of the issues they raise:
The following are notes I made while watching the DVD; it is of the first ~38 minutes (much more could be written). I would be more than happy to expand upon the points I am forwarding, or other issues discussed after the 38 minute mark; however, the following should serve as a sampling of the many problems within this presentation:
Eisegesis of Deut 18--two-fold, not one test (call of the prophet is the first); Tigay et al.; also, Samson et al.; Richard L. Pratt, a Calvinist (ergo, accepts exhaustive foreknowledge and infallible decree) rejects such an interpretation of one false prophecy = false prophet interpretation. See “Historical Contingencies and Biblical Predictions,” URL:https://thirdmill.org/magazine/article.asp/link/https:%5E%5Ethirdmill.org%5Earticles%5Eric_pratt%5ETH.Pratt.Historical_Contingencies.html/at/Historical%20Contingencies%20and%20Biblical%20Predictions
In Judges 13, the angel appears to Samson’s mother, no contingencies are offered, and all the promises failed (using the approach of the video, it is a false prophecy and the angel of the Lord was a false prophet; ditto for other examples of prophecies that never were fulfilled in the Old and New Testament).
No discussion on the nature of God’s foreknowledge--contingent? Exhaustive? Simple? Middle Knowledge?
Introduction to the BOM cited--should be noted that it is not canonical (minor point, but something that cropped up in DNA vs. the Book of Mormon).
*Section on Nephi*
Should be noted that chapter headings are not canonical (even McConkie stated that such was the case, as recounted by Mark McConkie in his memoirs of his father).
Corruption of the Bible--Ps 29; 89; Deut 32; later insertions to the New Testament; also, there is no question of later insertions to the NT (longer Marcan ending; etc)
Proto-Orthodox scribes and Christological corruptions to the Bible
Robinson--text of 1 Nephi 13 refers to lost texts never being canonised (see How wide the Divide).
“Bible Alone”--no biblical evidence (e.g., 2 Tim 3:16-17 does not support such; Paul did not practice Sola Scriptura; Jesus did not; Apostles did not; Timothy did not and in light of this, 2 Tim cannot be interpreted to mean SS is true--even Webster and King in the 3 vol Holy Scripture [2001] can‘t get around that]; Paul uses ophelimos; not autakreia or hikanos; therefore, Scriptures are not formally sufficient; just "profitable"--qualitatively lesser word)
Greek linguist--
1. There is strong evidence against a naturalistic explanation of 1 Nephi--Nahom and Bountiful; pre-exilic religion (Peterson’s Nephi and his Asherah article) and the like.
2. Manuscript evidence--there was only one record made by Nephi. As with the Book of Mormon plates en toto, it was a unique text that was not copied (it was passed down, serving as a form of religious authority and monarchical authority, as seen with Benjamin and Alma).
Using such evidence against the Book of Mormon would necessitate one having to reject the historicity of many figures in history.
For someone who is meant to be an expert, such are silly arguments.
Joseph was not the only “guarantor” of the Book of Mormon; what about the 3 and 8 Witnesses? Anderson in “Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses” (1981) and his recent material refuting Vogel and Palmer, among others, should be consulted.
Many important things are not discussed about the NT and its textual criticism. For instance, in terms of papyri evidence (the earliest we have), in terms of the Gospel of John, B and P 75 reveals 80% agreement and 20% disagreement.
It is nothing short of deception that such textual variants are NEVER discussed. This is part and parcel of the modus operandi of Living Hope Ministries (Source Flix).
The text of 1 Nephi 13 seems to be talking only about the New Testament, not the Old Testament (per vv. 25-26).
In terms of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Price is wrong, as the DSS reveal that there are texts missing from our current texts of the Bible. A good discussion is found in “The meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls,” authored by Flint and Vander am (T&T Clarke). Also, again, no discussion of many important textual variants that reveal later (theologically-driven) textual corruptions, such as Deut 32; Ps 29 and 89. Immanuel Tov, in the book, “Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible” (rev ed. Fortress Press, 2001) discusses such in great detail, as do similar works.
What is really misleading here, though, is this claim that the Bible doesn't reflect changes or a need for change. And this simply isn't the case. In fact, while I might be willing to agree with the notion that it is remarkably preserved, it is not exactly a problem-free area. For instance: There are several large passages in the Old Testament that are quoted (from the Old Testament). Here is a basic list
2 Sam 22 = Ps 18
Ezra 2:1-67 = Neh 7:6-68
2 Kgs 18:13-20:19 = Isa. 36-39
2 Kgs 24:18-25:30 = Jer 52
Isa 2:2-4 = Mic 4:1-3
Ps 14 = Ps 53
Ps 40:14-18 = Ps 70
It's pretty easy to compare these passages (particularly in the "original" Hebrew). Take the first one--Ps 18 and 2 Sam 22. There are 104 differences between these two texts. 49 of these differences are words that added to one or the other. 3 involve a different word order. 52 cases involve some other change (including using a synonym). Since the hymn has 397 words (Ps 18) or 382 words (2 Sam 22), this means that we are uncertain of about 1 word in 4. This carries out over all of the texts that I listed above. But this is just comparing the Hebrew to the Hebrew. Since we have multiple versions of both of these texts from ancient times, we probably ought to consider them as well, right? So from the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the Syriac texts, and the Septuagint (the Greek text), we add another 73 variants which can be plausibly argued as representing a different Hebrew original source. Which brings the number of suspect words to 1 in 2. In his study of this issue, David Clines of the University of Sheffield wrote the following:
Eisegesis of Deut 18--two-fold, not one test (call of the prophet is the first); Tigay et al.; also, Samson et al.; Richard L. Pratt, a Calvinist (ergo, accepts exhaustive foreknowledge and infallible decree) rejects such an interpretation of one false prophecy = false prophet interpretation. See “Historical Contingencies and Biblical Predictions,” URL:https://thirdmill.org/magazine/article.asp/link/https:%5E%5Ethirdmill.org%5Earticles%5Eric_pratt%5ETH.Pratt.Historical_Contingencies.html/at/Historical%20Contingencies%20and%20Biblical%20Predictions
In Judges 13, the angel appears to Samson’s mother, no contingencies are offered, and all the promises failed (using the approach of the video, it is a false prophecy and the angel of the Lord was a false prophet; ditto for other examples of prophecies that never were fulfilled in the Old and New Testament).
No discussion on the nature of God’s foreknowledge--contingent? Exhaustive? Simple? Middle Knowledge?
Introduction to the BOM cited--should be noted that it is not canonical (minor point, but something that cropped up in DNA vs. the Book of Mormon).
*Section on Nephi*
Should be noted that chapter headings are not canonical (even McConkie stated that such was the case, as recounted by Mark McConkie in his memoirs of his father).
Corruption of the Bible--Ps 29; 89; Deut 32; later insertions to the New Testament; also, there is no question of later insertions to the NT (longer Marcan ending; etc)
Proto-Orthodox scribes and Christological corruptions to the Bible
Robinson--text of 1 Nephi 13 refers to lost texts never being canonised (see How wide the Divide).
“Bible Alone”--no biblical evidence (e.g., 2 Tim 3:16-17 does not support such; Paul did not practice Sola Scriptura; Jesus did not; Apostles did not; Timothy did not and in light of this, 2 Tim cannot be interpreted to mean SS is true--even Webster and King in the 3 vol Holy Scripture [2001] can‘t get around that]; Paul uses ophelimos; not autakreia or hikanos; therefore, Scriptures are not formally sufficient; just "profitable"--qualitatively lesser word)
Greek linguist--
1. There is strong evidence against a naturalistic explanation of 1 Nephi--Nahom and Bountiful; pre-exilic religion (Peterson’s Nephi and his Asherah article) and the like.
2. Manuscript evidence--there was only one record made by Nephi. As with the Book of Mormon plates en toto, it was a unique text that was not copied (it was passed down, serving as a form of religious authority and monarchical authority, as seen with Benjamin and Alma).
Using such evidence against the Book of Mormon would necessitate one having to reject the historicity of many figures in history.
For someone who is meant to be an expert, such are silly arguments.
Joseph was not the only “guarantor” of the Book of Mormon; what about the 3 and 8 Witnesses? Anderson in “Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses” (1981) and his recent material refuting Vogel and Palmer, among others, should be consulted.
Many important things are not discussed about the NT and its textual criticism. For instance, in terms of papyri evidence (the earliest we have), in terms of the Gospel of John, B and P 75 reveals 80% agreement and 20% disagreement.
It is nothing short of deception that such textual variants are NEVER discussed. This is part and parcel of the modus operandi of Living Hope Ministries (Source Flix).
The text of 1 Nephi 13 seems to be talking only about the New Testament, not the Old Testament (per vv. 25-26).
In terms of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Price is wrong, as the DSS reveal that there are texts missing from our current texts of the Bible. A good discussion is found in “The meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls,” authored by Flint and Vander am (T&T Clarke). Also, again, no discussion of many important textual variants that reveal later (theologically-driven) textual corruptions, such as Deut 32; Ps 29 and 89. Immanuel Tov, in the book, “Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible” (rev ed. Fortress Press, 2001) discusses such in great detail, as do similar works.
What is really misleading here, though, is this claim that the Bible doesn't reflect changes or a need for change. And this simply isn't the case. In fact, while I might be willing to agree with the notion that it is remarkably preserved, it is not exactly a problem-free area. For instance: There are several large passages in the Old Testament that are quoted (from the Old Testament). Here is a basic list
2 Sam 22 = Ps 18
Ezra 2:1-67 = Neh 7:6-68
2 Kgs 18:13-20:19 = Isa. 36-39
2 Kgs 24:18-25:30 = Jer 52
Isa 2:2-4 = Mic 4:1-3
Ps 14 = Ps 53
Ps 40:14-18 = Ps 70
It's pretty easy to compare these passages (particularly in the "original" Hebrew). Take the first one--Ps 18 and 2 Sam 22. There are 104 differences between these two texts. 49 of these differences are words that added to one or the other. 3 involve a different word order. 52 cases involve some other change (including using a synonym). Since the hymn has 397 words (Ps 18) or 382 words (2 Sam 22), this means that we are uncertain of about 1 word in 4. This carries out over all of the texts that I listed above. But this is just comparing the Hebrew to the Hebrew. Since we have multiple versions of both of these texts from ancient times, we probably ought to consider them as well, right? So from the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the Syriac texts, and the Septuagint (the Greek text), we add another 73 variants which can be plausibly argued as representing a different Hebrew original source. Which brings the number of suspect words to 1 in 2. In his study of this issue, David Clines of the University of Sheffield wrote the following:
The More Manuscripts, the More Variants, We saw earlier a text in the Hebrew Bible in parallel transmission (2 Kings 22 // Psalm 18) that displayed a sizeable number of variants (104) when the two forms were compared with one another. When we went on to compare with those Masoretic Hebrew Bible texts the Hebrew text that Septuagint manuscripts witness to in common we found more variants (9). When we considered an individual Septuagint manuscript, Vaticanus, we found more variants still (9). When we examined a group of manuscripts, the Lucianic recension, we found yet more variants (39). When we brought the Syriac into the frame, we discovered again more variants (9). When we looked at the one Qumran fragment of 2 Samuel, we found further variants (9). We can hardly doubt that if the Qumran text of 2 Samuel 22 were entire, or if there were more than one Qumran manuscript containing this chapter, there would be more variants still. Every time we find a manuscript, we find variants. Let us consider the situation with the text of Isaiah. Our textbooks tell us that 1QIsaa has many variants compared with the Masoretic text, but no one tells us how many. In an early article, Millar Burrows listed (by my count) 536 variants, excluding 'a great many other variants', whatever they were, and excluding corrections made to the original manuscript of 1QIsaa by the original scribe or an early corrector. If that is the correct number of variant, it would mean that in this single manuscript alone, there is a difference from the Masoretic text in at least one out of every 31 words. But that is too small a number; if we look at the variants that Otto Eissfeldt collected for the seventh edition of Biblia Hebraica (the 1951 edition of what is usually called the third edition of Biblia Hebraica, BH3), we find (again by my count) that the figure is more like 1698 variants, i.e. one in every 9.77 words. It seems highly probable that the more manuscripts we find, the more variants we will identify. Perhaps we will not find any more manuscripts, but we can be certain that many more existed than those we have now. (From David J. A. Clines, "What Remains of the Hebrew Bible? Its Text and Language in a Postmodern Age." Studia Theologica 54 (2001):76-95. Online: http://www.shef.ac.uk/bibs/
[me again]
Also, let us not forget how the Book of Mormon’s use of the Old Testament receives striking vindication in light of Old Testament textual criticism. For instance, Nephi uses (whether directly; through allusion; and other like inter-textual methods, the A-source, but never the later B-source, of the David Goliath story in 1 Sam 16-17 in 1 Nephi 3-4). For a treatment of this, see Benjamin McGuire’s essay, “Nephi and Goliath,” published in 2009 in the Journal of Book of Mormon and Restoration Scriptures. For a non-LDS tretament of the issue of the David-Goliath story and its redaction, see Tov’s essay in Jeffrey Tigay, ed., Empirical Models for Biblical Criticism.
Just on the issue of 1 Nephi 13:24-28, I am reproducing the following commentary from Brant Gardner, Second Witness: Analytical and Contextual Commentary on the Book of Mormon (6 vol; Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books), 1:236-7 (I have renumbered the footnotes):
History: Verse 28 contains the scriptural basis of the eight Article of Faith's reservation that we should believe the Bible "as far as it is translated correctly." Of course, we tend to be more interested in the record of the "plain and precious things" from our copies of the Bible,[1] but that cannot be the meaning that Nephi understood, as most of what we have as our Bible comes after his time. It is quite probable that this reference to the removal of plain and precious things had only one meaning for Nephi, and it was related to the whole purpose of his writing. Nephi "restores" the understanding of the Atoning Messiah to his people. That restoration was required because of Josiah's reforms discussing in 1 Nephi, Part 1: Context, Chapter 1, "The Historical Setting of 1 Nephi." Scholars tie Josiah to the Deuteronomic reform, which resulted in the contents of the received Old Testament. That reform apparently attempted to remove or diminish the doctrine of Yahweh as Atoning Messiah. Margaret Barker has been working on information and clues in the Bible, but more to the pseudepigraphical writings that were not controlled by the Deuteronomists. As she summarises her experience, she desribes the state of the texts:
There is good reason to beleive that other information about the first temple and the older high priesthood was deliberately suppressed. When the final form of Exodus was compiled, Moses was told that no person could make atonement for another. After the sin of the golden calf, he offered himself if the Lord would forgive the people's sin, but he was told: "Whoever has sinned against me, him will I blot out of my book" (Ex. 32:33). Why had Moses thought such an atonement possible? Perhaps the older ways were being superseded.
And how has it come about that so many important texts are damaged or have alternative versions? The sons of God texts in Deuteronomy is vital for reconstructing the older religion of Israel, and yet it exists in two different versions, one without the sons of God. The verse in Psalm 110 which describes how the king became a son of God is damaged. The vital messianic passage in Isaiah exists in two different forms--and there are many more examples. These are not random variations or damge. There is a pattern.[2]
The beginngs of the textual alterations that Barker sees came during Lehi's lifetime. When the angel discusses the plain and precious things that have been removed, Nephi could have understood that in only one way based upon his own experience. The Atoning Messiah was the "plain and precious" thing that had been removed. Nephi will create his record to repair the damage and return Yahweh the Messiah to his rightful place in scriprue. This is the mssage that permeates the Book of Mormon. In a very literal way, Nephi sets in motion the recovery of the most precious part of the sacred scripture that he understood to have been removed.
[1] Robert L. Millet, "Plan and precious things, loss of and restoration of," in Booko f Mormon Reference Companion, general editor Daniel L. Largey (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2003), 636-39 treats the phrase as a reference to the actual removal of passages. He provides and excellent overview of textual transmission and corruption issues. Millet's interpretation represents the traditional reading of this verse.
[2] Margaret Barker, "The Great High Priest," Brigham Young University Forum address, May 2003, 14.
There is good reason to beleive that other information about the first temple and the older high priesthood was deliberately suppressed. When the final form of Exodus was compiled, Moses was told that no person could make atonement for another. After the sin of the golden calf, he offered himself if the Lord would forgive the people's sin, but he was told: "Whoever has sinned against me, him will I blot out of my book" (Ex. 32:33). Why had Moses thought such an atonement possible? Perhaps the older ways were being superseded.
And how has it come about that so many important texts are damaged or have alternative versions? The sons of God texts in Deuteronomy is vital for reconstructing the older religion of Israel, and yet it exists in two different versions, one without the sons of God. The verse in Psalm 110 which describes how the king became a son of God is damaged. The vital messianic passage in Isaiah exists in two different forms--and there are many more examples. These are not random variations or damge. There is a pattern.[2]
The beginngs of the textual alterations that Barker sees came during Lehi's lifetime. When the angel discusses the plain and precious things that have been removed, Nephi could have understood that in only one way based upon his own experience. The Atoning Messiah was the "plain and precious" thing that had been removed. Nephi will create his record to repair the damage and return Yahweh the Messiah to his rightful place in scriprue. This is the mssage that permeates the Book of Mormon. In a very literal way, Nephi sets in motion the recovery of the most precious part of the sacred scripture that he understood to have been removed.
[1] Robert L. Millet, "Plan and precious things, loss of and restoration of," in Booko f Mormon Reference Companion, general editor Daniel L. Largey (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2003), 636-39 treats the phrase as a reference to the actual removal of passages. He provides and excellent overview of textual transmission and corruption issues. Millet's interpretation represents the traditional reading of this verse.
[2] Margaret Barker, "The Great High Priest," Brigham Young University Forum address, May 2003, 14.
[me again]
*Old Testament prophets section*
Ignores the development of Messianic thought in the Old Testament.
Engages in eisegesis of biblical texts.
Ignores the NT use of the Old Testament, as discussed by Dunn et al. (e.g., Unity and Diversity in the New Testament) and how, from a modern exegetical perspective, such use of the OT would never stand up. Hosea 11:1 is a prime example (the context it not about Jesus or a Messianic figure but the children of Israel; Matthew, in typical 1st c. CE Jewish style, re-works and re-interprets that and other-like texts).
*Micah*
Most interpreters of Micah 5:2 (v. 1 in the Hebrew) understand the passage to be directed, not to a location, but a people (a tribe). Of course, this is never discussed . . .
Alma 7:10
This section ignores the articles by Robert F. Smith (then non-LDS) and John Tvedtnes’ study on the use of eretz and ir (land and city) in the Old Testament and the Book of Mormon. See their treatment in Reexploring the Book of Mormon (1992) and Pressing Forward with the Book of Mormon (1999).
It is just not the argument of “proximity,” though such has to be considered, not dismissed glibly as Kramer did; Bethelehm, according to ancient texts (discussed in articles by Robert F Smith; John Tvedtnes; Dan Peterson et al., and many others) show that it was considered part of the “land of Jerusalem” in ancient texts (Amarna among others).
Alma was taking to people who would have been ignorant of the geography of the Old World; a suburb of Jerusalem would not have been knowledge passed down, but the capital city, one whose rule would have expanded to nearby suburbs (cf. Tvedtnes’ article) would have been passed down by their fathers.
Is Bolen aware of the Amarna literature and other texts, such as Pseudo-Jeremiah from the DSS, that uses “land of Jerusalem” which incorporated Bethlehem? This is a failing on his behalf (as well as the video); not the Book of Mormon.
*Isaiah*
Again, see above about the NT use of the OT.
Scholars believe that the Messianic figure was Hezekiah. Isa 52:13ff cannot be divorced from Isaiah 36-39 and 2 Kings 18-20 and Hezekiah's illness (cf. Barker's essay on the original setting of the Fourth Sevant hymn, "Hezekiah's Boil").
No interaction with arguments critical of the long-standing “Christianised” approach to Isaiah and other OT figures. Again, gives the impression that “all is well” within the Evangelical Protestant camp; this is FAR from the case.
Eusebius comes a few centuries *after* Jesus, so such is hardly compelling evidence (though I am not claiming Jesus was not part of the House of David; NT Wright has used such evidence, for instance, in a guest lecture back in 2005 in Maynooth when I was a student there).
*David*
Wrenching texts out of context, not giving them the historical context and the like, is nothing short of eisegesis (which plagues the presentation). For e.g., the text speaking of the author (not a future Messianic figure, per the *context*) being pierced--where in the passage is crucifixion mention? Self-sacrifice and such being a propitiatory sacrifice to appease God, etc? I accept Jesus as being a propitiatory sacrifice, but such ignores how NT authors used the OT (something which has been long discussed by scholars from all perspectives). It is deceptive that such is not once discussed (of course, such would not be as with past “”””documentaries””””” by LHM to give the impression that the Evangelical camp have nothing to defend and the LDS side have nothing to support them).
On Josephus--there is questions about the authenticity of the passage in Flavius Josephus discussing Jesus (see Jesus outside the NT and Josephus and the NT, among other volumes and articles). And, yet again, nothing from LHM on this issue.
*Daniel*
Most scholars place Daniel at 165 BCE--no defence of an exilic, not post-exilic providence. One cannot help but think that a double-standard is part and parcel of LHM's "documentaries" (cf. DNA vs. the Book of Mormon and The Bible vs. the Book of Mormon).
Ignores most scholarly commentators on the eschatologlical prophecies of Daniel as well as the debate about the meaning of keret in Daniel 9.
FWIW,
Robert Boylan