Recently I've seen several Bloggernacle posts kicking off discussion of the Old Testament. Here's mine, relying in part on comments in Christoph Levin's The Old Testament: A Brief Introduction (Princeton Univ. Press, 2005; translation of Das Alte Testament, 2001). Levin likens the process by which the separate books of the Old Testament took their present form to a small snowball (the core original text) that gathers additional layers of snow (additional commentary) as it rolls down a hill (is transmitted over time). He sees the process by which scriptural texts are transmitted as adding material to the texts.
The Scriptural Snowball Effect
In a short section at pages 25-28 titled "The Nature of the Interpretive Process," Levin summarizes his view of how Old Testament texts came to be initiated and transmitted: (1) "The key event was the downfall of Jerusalem." (2) This confirmed the credibility of earlier prophets who had warned of the catastrophe: "History had confirmed the prophecy. From now on what the prophets said was vouched for as the true Word of God." (3) "The first versions of the great historical works date from about this time. Since they are a religious interpretation of history, the same criteria were applied to them." (4) These early texts were preserved by later scribes (nothing was "taken away"), but interpretation was added to the texts over time to keep them relevant to new generations of readers. Only after several centuries did the texts become fixed so nothing was "added to" them either.
Here's the key paragraph that explains Levin's view of this process.
The purpose of the continual process of interpretation was not to add something new and alien to the text, but to bring to light its profound meaning. An exploration of the text of this kind is called in Hebrew midrash. The Old Testament is distinguished from later Jewish midrash in that no distinction was made between interpretation and already existing tradition. At the next stage, in each given case, the two were presented as a unity: a single text, which was once again given an interpretation in just the same way. We might call this kind of growth a "snowball system." Once it has started rolling, the snowball picks up a new layer with every revolution. In this way the Old Testament has become to a great extent its own interpretation .... There is hardly a single textual unit which is not composed of several literary strata. The unit as a whole is interwoven with important cross-links to an extent that can hardly be plumbed. Recent research calls this phenomenon "intertextuality."
The LDS View of Textual Transmission
The theory of textual transmission evident from LDS scripture is somewhat different. First, in many cases key prophetic figures write particular scriptural texts that get passed down to later editors, who then incorporate them verbatim into amalgamated texts or collections and add their own editorial commentary. For example, Mosiah 9-22 is "the Record of Zeniff"; Helaman 13-15 are the prophecies of Samuel the Lamanite (see 3 Ne. 23:7-13); the Book of Abraham is a translation of "the writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt," complete with crytpic illustrations; and D&C 7 is "a translated version of the record made on parchment by John and hidden up by himself."
At the same time, LDS scripture depicts instances of early editorial intervention that remove rather than preserve material in the text. For example, the first chapter of Moses (in the Pearl of Great Price) is described as "the words of God, which he spake unto Moses ..." (Moses 1:1). Later, it is noted, "And now of this thing Moses bore record; but because of wickedness it is not had among the children of men" (1:23). This explanation is repeated a second time: "And in a day when the children of men shall esteem my words as naught and take many of them from the book which thou shalt write, behold, I will raise up another like unto thee; and they shall be had again among the children of men ..." (1:41).
Ironically, while the Book of Moses holds itself out to be a text restoring words spoken verbatim to Moses (see 1:1, 2:1, 4:1), the verses cited above (1:23, 1:41) plainly add explanatory material or midrash to the text. Moses 1 in its entirety constitutes the first chapter of the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible ("JST"), itself a form of midrash expanding on the King James text of the Bible.
Another example is found in 1 Nephi 13. In verse 20, Nephi views (in his vision) a book carried by the Gentiles into the promised land. An angel (in the vision) then explains the book to Nephi:
The book that thou beholdest is a record of the Jews, which contains the covenants of the Lord, which he hath made unto the house of Israel; and it also containeth many of the prophecies of the holy prophets; and it is a record like unto the engravings which are upon the plates of brass, save there are not so many. (1 Nephi 13:23; emphasis added)
Again, the effect of scribes or editors is here described as removing material from the text, not adding interpretation to the text. Yet, later in the chapter, the Book of Mormon as a whole is held out to be complementary to the Bible, adding latter-day midrash explaining or correcting what is unclear or has been excised from the Bible. Here is Nephi recounting what the angel (in the vision) explained to him: "These last records, which thou hast seen among the Gentiles, shall establish the truth of the first, which are of the twelve apostles of the Lamb, and shall make known the plain and precious things which have been taken away from them" (1 Nephi 13:40).
The bottom line is that LDS scripture supports both the idea that editors remove large chunks of material from the text and also the idea that editors add new material to the text. Interestingly, the JST presents inspired commentary and interpretation that, like the early Jewish midrash discussed by Levin, is integrated into a single new text, whereas the Book of Mormon, like later Jewish midrash, is presented as a separate text complementing the Bible.
No doubt there are articles in the LDS literature that discuss these themes (links welcome). Here are a couple of suggestive quotations (with some citations omitted) from the Encyclopedia of Mormonism article "Scriptures," authored by W. D. Davies and Truman G. Madsen.
The perpetual unending character of the scripture, a corpus ever augmented by living witnesses in a setting of prophecy and testimony, is a sign and symbol of the inclusiveness of LDS faith. Such a position is in contrast with finalist and minimalist views ("one canon is enough"). The Samaritans, for example, accorded scriptural status to the Pentateuch alone. For Latter-day Saints, scripture is not "final revelation." There is no unexpandable "circle of faith." No sacred texts, because of their acknowledged holiness, forbid the addition of more sacred texts.
Here's another quote, this one sketching the rather broad LDS view of scriptural transmission that I tried to illustrate above.
In the history of canon, various stages or periods have witnessed exegesis, expansion, and the glosses and stylistic alterations that also change substance. One can argue that over the centuries this process has worked in the direction of textual improvement and power; but one can maintain equally that there have been departure and dilution and textual corruption. Latter-day Saints see both processes at work. "Ignorant translators, careless transcribers, or designing and corrupt priests have committed many errors" (TPJS, p. 327). On the other hand, the Bible and other texts are impressively preserved, with sufficient light to bless and condemn. For their part, Latter-day Saints ultimately trust the inspiration of the Spirit.
So how can we summarize the LDS position for the benefit of one embarking on the study of the Old Testament? I suggest that the statements affirming there has been plenty of fiddling with the texts ("dilution and textual corruption") caution against taking any verse or passage at face value or as determinative. Instead, one should make some effort to distinguish between original passages or pronouncements and those that reflect editing or addition by later scribes or editors. In addition, a reader should make the attempt to compare and contrast a passage or verse with similar pronouncements elsewhere in that biblical book and in other biblical books so as to not ground one's understanding on a single passage or verse.
Any other suggestions for the latter-day reader of the Old Testament?