‘…The Songs of Solomon are not inspired writings…For some unknown reason the manuscript of the inspired translation contains no mention of the book of Ecclesiastes…Failure to include Ecclesiastes was probably an oversight…’
Ensign, ‘I Have a Question,’ October 1973; “When the Prophet Joseph Smith intently studied the Bible and made his inspired translation, did he say anything concerning the various books of the Old Testament that would suggest either their special importance or lesser value?
Robert J. Matthews: The original manuscript of Joseph Smith’s inspired translation of the Bible contains the terse statement: “The Songs of Solomon are not inspired writings.” (Old Testament Manuscript No. 3, page 97.) Since the manuscript does not contain this type of emphatic declaration about any of the other books of the Bible, the inference is that all the others are inspired writings. For some unknown reason the manuscript of the inspired translation contains no mention of the book of Ecclesiastes, though every other book of the Old and New Testaments is clearly cited with some comment or reference. Failure to include Ecclesiastes was probably an oversight.
I know of no other specific declarations by the Prophet Joseph concerning the relative value of the individual books of the Old Testament while making the inspired translation. He did, however, receive a revelation not to translate the books of the Apocrypha (D&C 91), but these are not in our present Old Testament. The revelations given through the Prophet Joseph solidly proclaim that the Bible is an inspired record written originally by men of God. He said, “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 have committed many errors.” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 327.)
Although all of the books except one have the touch of inspiration about them, obviously some contain greater messages than others. … Robert J. Matthews, assistant professor of ancient scripture, Brigham Young University” – Richard Lloyd Anderson
2 Timothy 3:16; “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
Isaiah 40:8; “The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.”
Questions of the day –
Just how did Smith come up with the notion the Song of Solomon wasn’t inspired?
What factors were included in making such a determination, and what criteria did he use?
How could the Joseph Smith Translation be inspired if he overlooked including Ecclesiastes?
How could all other books, but the Song of Solomon, be inspired when Smith emphatically taught ‘ignorant translators’, and others corrupted the Bible?
Did he not realize this wasn’t just a book about events that took place between Solomon and the Queen of Sheba, but an allegory of Christ and His bride; the body of Christ?
As adamant as Smith was in maligning God’s word, the Lord was more so in declaring its truth. If someone was so careless as to leave an entire book of writings out, what does it say about his (Smith’s) prophetic calling?
You do realize that corrupt Catholic leaders held the council that deemed the biblical canon, correct? Take a look at Enoch I (the only legitimate Enoch book) and compare it to SoS, which contains a lot of euphemisms. What if Smith is correct? What if an important book like Enoch should have been canon? The apostles were very well read and referenced it often. Does Jesus ever reference SoS when rebuking evil? Dod the apostles ever reference it when combating sexual sin? Nope. Solomon had many wives. SoS reads like a historical love poetry book. We’re only told the current canon is solid because a bunch of stuffy old men said so. Did you ask the Holy Spirit? If I could replace SoS with Enoch I’d do it. I feel spiritually troubled when I glance at SoS. Even the first time I’d read it, it just didn’t feel holy. I didn’t feel edified.