The nature of the Joseph Smith Translation

In the essay "What is the New Translation of the Bible?" in Joseph Smith's Translation of the Bible: Electronic Library (Provo, Utah: Religious Studies Center and Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship, 2010), we read the following about the nature of the Joseph Smith Translation:

Some remarkable passages in the New Translation were revealed in doctrinal and grammatical clarity the first time and had little need for later refining. But other passages show that the Prophet struggled with the wording until he was satisfied that it was acceptable to the Lord. His careful effort was in harmony with the instruction that he had received previously that we should “study it out in [our] mind” as we listen to the Spirit and apply our best efforts, after which a confirmation will come if it is correct (D&C 9:8; see D&C 9:7–9).

On many pages of the manuscripts are revisions that were made after the original dictation. These are of two types: (a) Some are simply mechanical, such as the insertion of punctuation and verse numbering, changes of ampersands to and, or changes of letters to upper- or lowercase. There are hundreds of these. (b) In other cases, words were added to the text, or existing wording was revised. Some of these changes simply correct errors in the original recording, such as when the Prophet’s eyes skipped words while he was dictating or when his scribe recorded words incorrectly. But in many insertions Joseph Smith revised the writing or added words or phrases to produce new meanings not recorded in the original dictation. Some of these insertions required more room than was available between the lines of the text and were written on small pieces of paper and attached in place with straight pins—the nineteenth-century equivalent of paper clips or staples. Even though some of the later corrections provide important clarifications and insights, an overwhelming majority of the significant contributions of the JST were made during the original dictation . . .

Types of Changes

Joseph Smith had the authority to make changes in the Bible as God directed. In one revelation he is called “a seer, a revelator, a translator” (D&C 107:92), and in several other Doctrine and Covenants passages his work with the translation is endorsed by the Lord (D&C 35:20; 43:12–13; 73:3–4; 90:13; 93:53; 94:10). The Prophet called his Bible revision a “translation,” though it did not involve creating a new rendering from Hebrew or Greek manuscripts. So far as the translation of the Bible is concerned, he never claimed to have consulted any text other than his English Bible, but he translated it in the sense of conveying it in a new form.

It appears that several different kinds of changes were involved in the process, but it is difficult to know with certainty the nature or origin of any particular change. The following five categories seem to include all of the revisions of the New Translation:²⁴

1. Restoration of original text. Because Nephi tells us that “many plain and precious things” would be “taken away” from the Bible (1 Ne. 13:28), we can be certain that the JST includes the restoration of content that was once in original manuscripts. To Moses, the Lord foretold the removal of material from his record and its restoration in the latter days: “Thou shalt write the things which I shall speak. 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—among as many as shall believe” (Moses 1:40–41). Joseph Smith was the man like Moses whom the Lord raised up to restore the lost words written by Moses, as well as lost material from the words of other Bible writers. But Joseph Smith did not restore the very words of lost texts, because they were in Hebrew or Greek (or other ancient languages), and the New Translation was to be in English. Thus his translation, in the English idiom of his own day, would restore the meaning and the message of original passages but not necessarily the literary trappings that accompanied them when they were first put to writing. This is one reason why the work can be called a translation.

2. Restoration of what was once said or done but which was never in the Bible. Joseph Smith stated, “From what we can draw from the scriptures relative to the teachings of heaven we are induced to think, that much instruction has been given to man since the beginning which we have not.”²⁵ Perhaps the JST includes teachings or events in the ministries of prophets, apostles, or Jesus himself that were never recorded anciently. The JST may include material of which the biblical writers were unaware or which they chose not to include or neglected to record (cf. 3 Ne. 23:6–13).

3. Editing to make the Bible more understandable for modern readers. Many of the individual JST changes fall into this category. There are numerous instances in which the Prophet rearranged word order to make a text read more easily or modernized its language. Examples of modernization of language would include the many changes from wot to know,²⁶ from an to a before words that begin with h, from saith to said, from that and which to who, and from ye and thee to you.²⁷ In some instances, Joseph Smith added short expansions to make the text less ambiguous. For example, there are several places where the word he is replaced by a personal name, thus making the meaning more clear, as in Genesis 14:20 (KJV “And he gave” = JST “And Abram gave”) and in Genesis 18:32 (KJV “And he said. . . . And he said” = JST “And Abraham said. . . . And the Lord said”).

These examples are merely word choices and usually have no bearing on how the original text is to be interpreted. But other modernizations may have a more significant aim. Some could be called cultural translations—the conversion of aspects of ancient culture into modern counterparts to make them communicate better to modern readers. An example might include 1 Thessalonians 5:26, in which “Greet all the brethren with a holy kiss” is changed to “Greet all the brethren with a holy salutation” (see also Rom. 16:16; 1 Cor. 16:20; 2 Cor. 13:12). It is likely that the King James text here accurately represents Paul’s original words and intent. Yet to modern Western readers, unaccustomed to Mediterranean displays of friendship and brotherhood, Paul’s words might miscommunicate and misdirect, and thus the Prophet made a change.²⁸

4. Editing to bring biblical wording into harmony with truth found in other revelations or elsewhere in the Bible. Joseph Smith said, “[There are] many things in the Bible which do not, as they now stand, accord with the revelation of the Holy Ghost to me.”²⁹ Where there were inaccuracies in the Bible, regardless of their source, it was well within the scope of the Prophet’s calling to change what needed to be changed. Where modern revelation had given a clearer view of a doctrine preserved less adequately in the Bible, it was appropriate for Joseph Smith to add a correction—whether or not that correction reflects what was on the ancient original manuscript. And where a passage was inconsistent with information elsewhere in the Bible itself, a change needed to be made.

Three examples may illustrate this kind of change: (a) The Gospel of John records the statement, “No man hath seen God at any time” (John 1:18), which contradicts the experience of Joseph Smith (JS—H 1:17–20) as well as biblical examples of prophets seeing God (e.g., Ex. 24:9–11; 33:11; Num. 12:6–8; Isa. 6:1; Amos 9:1). The JST change at John 1:18 clarifies the text. (b) The Gospel of Matthew contains what appears to be a misunderstanding of the donkey used in Jesus’ triumphal entry (Matt. 21:2–3, 7). The JST revises the text to agree with the clearer accounts in Mark, Luke, and John. (c) Matthew 27:3–5 and Acts 1:16–19 contain conflicting information about Judas’ death. The JST revises Matthew to harmonize the two accounts. It is possible that in examples like b and c the Bible preserves accurately what the original authors wrote, based on misunderstanding, incomplete recollection, or the imperfection of writing. Joseph Smith was called to provide a more accurate translation, and responding to divine inspiration, he made the necessary changes even if they corrected the words of ancient writers.

5. Changes to provide modern readers teachings that were not written by original authors. Perhaps there are JST changes in which Joseph Smith was inspired to alter or adapt an author’s original words, or even to remove them from their original context, to reveal teachings needed by the latter-day Church. Elder Bruce R. McConkie, speaking of the differences between the early Genesis chapters in the Bible and the JST, said “both of them are true.” He stated that John 1 in the Bible “is true,” yet the JST gives it “an entirely new perspective.” “These are illustrations of the fact that there can be two translations of the same thing and both of them can be true.”³⁰ There is an important JST change at Romans 13 in which Paul’s teaching regarding the Saints’ submission to secular political power is changed to submission to the authorities of the Church. Perhaps both versions are correct. If the Bible preserves accurately Paul’s original thoughts and intent, then the JST revision would be viewed as a latter-day revelation intended to instruct us on a topic not anticipated by Paul.³¹

Some have dismissed the JST because its changes are not verified in ancient manuscripts.³² The claim is that if the JST revisions were justifiable, they would agree with the earliest existing manuscripts of the biblical books. But this reasoning is misdirected in two ways. First, it assumes that all JST changes are intended to restore original text, a claim made neither by the JST itself nor by the Prophet Joseph Smith. Second, it assumes that extant ancient manuscripts accurately reproduce the original text. Joseph Smith taught that “many important points, touching the salvation of man, had been taken from the Bible, or lost before it was compiled,”³³ corroborating Nephi’s testimony that “many plain and precious things” would be “taken away” from it (1 Ne. 13:28; see 13:23–29). The careful study of ancient biblical manuscripts seeks to determine the content of the no longer existing originals. But the earliest copies of most New Testament manuscripts date from a century or two after they were first written, and the earliest Old Testament manuscripts date from hundreds of years after the authors wrote their books. Given the prophetic assurance that changes would be made in the texts and considering the ample window of time during which those changes could have been made, we cannot have confidence that the earliest existing manuscripts today are identical to those that “came from the pen of the original writers.”³⁴

The first category of changes listed above, restoration of original text, is the only one that necessarily involves correcting the biblical text to read as in the ancient authors’ earliest manuscripts—though not in the original words but in the language and idiom of nineteenth-century America. The changes identified in categories 2 through 5 are not restorations of original text but are wordings that likely had never been in the Bible, had never been written in Hebrew or Greek, and had never been cast in the ancient literary style of Bible writers. The original language of those changes is the English of Joseph Smith. Perhaps this explains some difficulties with the JST—why some JST additions to Old Testament poetic material do not match the style of the passages in which they are found, or why some JST changes in the New Testament do not use vocabulary or style common to the ancient writer’s other preserved words, or why JST changes sometimes produce a reading different from that found on the plates of brass and copied in the Book of Mormon.³⁵ Because some JST passages were perhaps never in the Bible, we would not expect to find evidence for them in ancient manuscripts, no matter how close in date those manuscripts are to the original biblical texts.

The scriptures give examples of prophets revising, reusing, editing, and adding to the writings of earlier prophets. There are places in Old Testament books where it appears that a later writer may have added to an original author’s words.³⁶ New Testament authors frequently used in their own writings passages from the Old Testament in ways that may not have been anticipated by the earlier prophets.³⁷ Matthew and Luke seem to be, to some extent, expansions on Mark.³⁸ Moroni put together a lengthy string of Old Testament passages from various diverse contexts to teach Joseph Smith.³⁹ Elder Bruce R. McConkie suggested that much of the content of Malachi is actually reused from the earlier prophet Zenos.⁴⁰ Nephi apparently wove his own revelation in and out of the words of Isaiah in order to teach the destiny of his prophetic record (see 2 Nephi 27). And Mormon so thoroughly infused his own inspired commentary into the teachings of Nephite prophets that it is sometimes difficult to tell where Alma, for instance, ends and Mormon begins. Joseph Smith’s labor on the Bible was to make it not a museum piece for antiquity but a living revelation for the Saints of the latter days. He was appointed to the work by God (see D&C 76:15), and God endorsed it in strong language: “And the scriptures shall be given, even as they are in mine own bosom, to the salvation of mine own elect” (D&C 35:20). Because the Lord revealed the Joseph Smith Translation for the salvation of His elect, Latter-day Saints can embrace it as they do the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price.

Notes for the Above

²⁴ Categories somewhat similar to these are found in Matthews, “A Plainer Translation,” 253; and in Robert L. Millet, “Joseph Smith’s Translation of the Bible: A Historical Overview,” in The Joseph Smith Translation: The Restoration of Plain and Precious Things, ed. Monte S. Nyman and Robert L. Millet (Provo, Utah: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 1985), 43–45.

²⁵ The Evening and the Morning Star 2, no. 18 (March 1834): 143.

²⁶ The manuscript at Exodus 32:1 revises wot to know with a note that know “should be in the place of ‘wot’ in all places.”

²⁷ These changes are not universally consistent in the manuscripts.

²⁸ Perhaps the changes at Genesis 24:2, 9 fit this same category. Explanations reflecting the vantage point of the nineteenth century, rather than the first, are found at Matthew 9:9 (NT2.1, p. 16, pinned note), and Mark 2:14 (NT2.2, p. 11).

²⁹ The Words of Joseph Smith: The Contemporary Accounts of the Nauvoo Discourses of the Prophet Joseph, ed. Andrew F. Ehat and Lyndon W. Cook (Provo, Utah: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 1980), 211, spelling and capitalization modernized.

³⁰ Doctrines of the Restoration: Sermons and Writings of Bruce R. McConkie, ed. Mark L. McConkie (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1989), 269.

³¹ The footnotes in the LDS Bible acknowledge both readings by including the JST changes as well as cross-references to “Citizenship,” “Governments,” and Doctrine and Covenants 58:21–22, which enjoins obedience to secular political authority.

³² E.g., Kevin L. Barney, “The Joseph Smith Translation and Ancient Texts of the Bible,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 19 (fall 1986): 85–102; Edward H. Ashment, “Making the Scriptures ‘Indeed One in Our Hands,’” in The Word of God: Essays on Mormon Scripture, ed. Dan Vogel (Salt Lake City: Signature Book, 1990), 240–44, 252–53.

³³ The Papers of Joseph Smith, Vol. 1: Autobiographical and Historical Writings, ed. Dean C. Jessee (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1989), 372.

³⁴ Words of Joseph Smith, 256.

³⁵ Perhaps Doctrine and Covenants 1:24 is applicable here. The changes were “given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language.”

³⁶ This is always done anonymously. The clearest example is the addendum to the writing of “the Preacher” in Ecclesiastes 12:9–14.

³⁷ Theoretically, examples might include Matthew 2:15 (Hosea 11:1); Acts 2:16–21 (Joel 2:28–32); and Romans 10:13 (Joel 2:32).

³⁸ See Kent P. Jackson and Frank F. Judd Jr., eds., How the New Testament Came To Be (Provo and Salt Lake City: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University; Deseret Book, 2006), 109–56.

³⁹ See Oliver Cowdery, “Letter IV. To W. W. Phelps, Esq.,” Latter Day Saints’ Messenger and Advocate 1, no. 5 (February 1835): 77–80; “Letter VI. To W. W. Phelps, Esq.,” ibid., 1, no. 7 (April 1835): 108–12; “Letter VII. To W. W. Phelps, Esq.,” ibid., 1, no. 10 (July 1835): 156–59. See also Kent P. Jackson, From Apostasy to Restoration (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1996), 102–15.

⁴⁰ Bruce R. McConkie, “The Doctrinal Restoration,” in The Joseph Smith Translation, ed. Nyman and Millet, 18.