The Joseph Smith Translation

[Snow]

In another thread we, FunkyTown and I, were discussing the Joseph Smith Translation (JST) of the Bible. I said that Joseph Smith didn’t actually “translate” the JST but freely changed the text to suit his understanding, not necessarily of what it was originally, but what it ought to have been. FunkyTown disputed that the alterations made by Joseph Smith were fundamental changes - rather that they were “clarifications.” Of course that was wrong, but I thought it was a good opportunity to discuss what the JST was and wasn’t.

Joseph Smith did not translate the Bible in the sense that we understand the word “translation.” At the time he spoke nor understood no ancient languages and had no access to ancient Bible manuscripts. Rather he rewrote and reworked portions as he felt inspired to do, or logic so indicated, to correlate with what he understood to be revealed truth as found in the Book of Mormon or in modern revelation.

Though Joseph did not address the specific manner of “translation,” apparently he and a scribe sat at a table with an open King James Version. Joseph with read from the Bible with the scribe making the indicated revisions. The Urim and Thummim were not used. The original documents behind the work are Joseph’s 1828 KJV with Apocrypha - having pencil markings , and hundreds of sheets of paper with writing on both sides.

The Joseph Smith Translation has 3410 verse with differ from their KJV counterparts - 1314 from the OT and 2096 from the NT. The majority of the changes are found in Genesis, Psalms, Isaiah, the Gospels, Romans and Revelations.

Joseph made six kinds of changes or emendations:

Long revealed additions that had little or no parallels with the Bible, such as the visions of Moses and Enoch. These additions fill in gaps in biblical history or theology or expanded upon established themes. One example of this kind of addition are the four verses inserted into Matthew 7 where the disciples interrupt the Sermon on the Mount with questions, offering Jesus the opportunity to clarify and expand his thoughts.

Commonsense changes: Smith revised Jeremiah to take out the part where God repents of his evil - the logic being that God, who is perfect, has no need to repent. Smith replaced the thought with “I will withhold the evil that I thought to do unto them.” Using that logic Smith changed other places in the OT where God is said to repent. Other examples include Matthew 6:13 - improved from “And lead us not into temptation.” (which God would not do) to “And suffer us not to be led into temptation.”

Interpretive additions - usually signaled by the phrase “in other words” where Joseph added to a passage he sought to clarify. When Jesus counsels to turn the other cheek, (Luke 6:29) Joseph added “or in other words it is better to offer the other [cheek], than to revile again.”

Harmonization: Scripture, being of God, should not contradict itself. The prophet reworked passages that conflicted with each other - for example the accounts of the death of Judas in Matthew 27 and Acts 1. Where John 1:18 says that no man has seen God, Joseph rewrote to harmonize with his own experience: “And no man hath seen God at any time, except he hath borne record of the Son, for except though him no man can be saved.”

Misc changes: an example is Smith tendency to heighten the miraculous effect in specific incidents... Joseph’s dream of an angel in Matt 2:13, 19 is changed to a vision. Another example is Smith’s inclination to remove the KJV italicized expansions.

Grammatical improvements, technical clarifications and modernization of archaic terms - this if the most common of Joseph’s changes.

Some of Smith changes seem no more than commonsense, some are meant to be understood as revealed restoration of original documents but other changes cannot be considered restoration, rather as Smith’s alterations based upon his logic, or alignment with other truths he had come to understand.

Interestingly, a number of LDS doctrines came about as JS went about “translating” the KJV and then taking off on a tangent... for example: the building of Zion based on the foundation of the City of Enoch, the age of accountability of Children, baptism at age 8, degrees of glory, plural marriage, and priesthood organization and responsibility, which went on to be covered in the D & C.

As compared to the JST, the JST put more emphasis on divinity of Christ, the innocence of children and God’s interaction with man.

(sources: Mormons and the Bible, Phillip L. Barlow; Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible - Encyclopedia of Mormonism; "A Plainer Translation:" Joseph Smith's Translation of the Bible, Robert Matthews, Introduction to Joseph Smith’s New Translation of the Bible, Herald)

[Finrock]

In another thread we, FunkyTown and I, were discussing the Joseph Smith Translation (JST) of the Bible. I said that Joseph Smith didn’t actually “translate” the JST but freely changed the text to suit his understanding, not necessarily of what it was originally, but what it ought to have been. FunkyTown disputed that the alterations made by Joseph Smith were fundamental changes - rather that they were “clarifications.” Of course that was wrong, but I thought it was a good opportunity to discuss what the JST was and wasn’t.

Evening Snow! I hope you are doing well tonight.

I don't have much to say except I think that the Joseph Smith translation both clarified existing parts of the KJV Bible and in some cases fundamentally changed the verses. In each case, I'm confident that the purpose, really, was that the intended meaning or original text of any scripture was revealed. Whether it fundamentally changed the verse, clarified it, or did whatever else to the KJV verses, is moot, in my opinion. In the end, what we have in the JST are restored truths brought forth through revelation.

Take care, friend!

Kind Regards,

Finrock

[Snow]

Evening Snow! I hope you are doing well tonight.

I don't have much to say except I think that the Joseph Smith translation both clarified existing parts of the KJV Bible and in some cases fundamentally changed the verses. In each case, I'm confident that the purpose, really, was that the intended meaning or original text of any scripture was revealed. Whether it fundamentally changed the verse, clarified it, or did whatever else to the KJV verses, is moot, in my opinion. In the end, what we have in the JST are restored truths brought forth through revelation.

Take care, friend!

Kind Regards,

Finrock

Hi Finrock,

I'm well thank you.

I agree that some changes are as you described but there are other changes where then are completely new text (not changes or clarifications to text) are added. These are changes that are inaccessible through scholarly means - meaning that there is no evidence that the changes have anything to do with the original text... so, believing that they are restorations of originals is a completely unverifiable / untestable hypothesis, and thus is not, imo, a useful way to look at it, being merely dogmatic.

[Finrock]

Hi Finrock,

I'm well thank you.

I agree that some changes are as you described but there are other changes where then are completely new text (not changes or clarifications to text) are added. These are changes that are inaccessible through scholarly means - meaning that there is no evidence that the changes have anything to do with the original text... so, believing that they are restorations of originals is a completely unverifiable / untestable hypothesis, and thus is not, imo, a useful way to look at it, being merely dogmatic.

Snow,

Yeah, it's a matter of faith. It's simply my testimony of the matter. Thank you for sharing your opinion. :)

Kind Regards,

Finrock

[Snow]

Snow,

Yeah, it's a matter of faith. It's simply my testimony of the matter. Thank you for sharing your opinion. :)

Kind Regards,

Finrock

Is your faith based on anything in particular? Did Joseph Smith represent that all his emendations were restorations of the originals?

[Maxel]

I remember reading in some very scholarly and impressive (to a pre-college kid) book- I think it was By the Hand of Mormon by Terryl Givens (great author, by the way- have to add my plug for him here)- that the term 'translation' had a broader definition in the early-to-mid-1800's. At the time, the word 'translation' meant what we think about- translating one body of text from one language to another- as well as expansion, clarification, etc.

When looking at the JST in that light, it becomes not just a translation of incorrect English (what the author's didn't really write or mean) into correct English (what the authors did write/mean) but also a prophetic expansion and clarification of the written word of God.

Ultimately, that's a prophet's role: to clarify and expand on previously received truth, as well as reveal new God-given truth to the children of men in his dispensation.

[Snow]

Ultimately, that's a prophet's role: to clarify and expand on previously received truth, as well as reveal new God-given truth to the children of men in his dispensation.

In that sense - much of the JST is akin to inspired midrash or Bible commentary. Yet Joseph actually took liberties with the author's original text, changing what they wrote. What are we to make of that?

[Maxel]

In that sense - much of the JST is akin to inspired midrash or Bible commentary. Yet Joseph actually took liberties with the author's original text, changing what they wrote. What are we to make of that?

Personally, I see it as a true mark of a seer. Here we have the current prophet adding to and changing the current, canonized word of God. The sole reason prophets wrote those words in the first place was for the edification and eventual salvation of their fellow man. Different times accompany different social circumstances and concerns, and the prophets emphasize different doctrines to account for those changes. What Joseph Smith did was to take the Bible and recast bits and pieces of it in a light that is more helpful to us. Also, we have entire sections of scripture- the Book of Moses and JST- Matthew, for instance- that arose from the JST project.

[Finrock]

Is your faith based on anything in particular?

Snow,

Yes, my faith is based on many things. My faith is based on my life experiences; primarily spiritual experiences. I've learned, by revelation, that Joseph Smith is a prophet. Over time and on various occasions, the Spirit has confirmed and reconfirmed my belief that Joseph Smith is a prophet. Not only that, but I've felt the Spirit confirm to me that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the true church of Jesus Christ. My faith leads me to trust the Church and to trust the Church leaders. So, when the Church says that, "[t]he Lord inspired the Prophet Joseph Smith to restore truths to the Bible text that had become lost or changed since the original words were written. These restored truths clarified doctrine and improved scriptural understanding," I believe it (JST LDS.org).

Did Joseph Smith represent that all his emendations were restorations of the originals?

I don't know, but that isn't really that important to me. That is what I was trying to say earlier is that the important thing, I think, anyways, about the JST has less to do with whether these were changes, restorations, or clarifications and more to do with what the truths JST provided to us. In short, I just know that Joseph Smith was inspired to make the changes he did and these changes restored truths that were lost.

Thanks for the questions and thank you for giving me an opportunity to clarify!

Kind Regards,

Finrock

[Dravin]

Yet Joseph actually took liberties with the author's original text, changing what they wrote.

I'd like to point out that unless I'm very mistaken we don't have the author's original text. So it'd be more correct to say he took liberties with the text of the earliest/most reliable sources that we posses. Which may or may not be the same, I honestly don't know but they also may not be.

[Traveler]

In truth there are no translations of the Bible available in any modern language. The most prominent English Bible is the King James Version that is called a version because it was not a literal translation. The closest we have to a translation is the New World Translation. For the most part there are no translations of any ancient scripture text to any modern language. The only exception that I know of is the Isaiah Scroll that is part of the Dead Sea Scriptures that were found. I have a copy in my library of a translation of that particular scroll.

The Bible as it is published is at best a smorgasbord version where scholars select from a cacophony of variant readings possible from a variety of ancient textual types and origins based on the most popular notions of such things at the time of translation.

When we consider the Bible I am reminded of a joke where two friends that had not seen each other in a long time met with the usual pleasantries. The first asked, “Well Joe how’s the wife and kids”.

To which Joe responds, “Compared to what?”

For the most part the Joseph Smith Translation was never intended to stand on its own. But underpinning the overall LDS concept of scripture I believe no individual scripture is intended to stand on its own. This is both a unique and important notion that is supported within Biblical text. As we view the methods of G-d in dispensing his “word” among man we find that in his economy of things that G-d does not operate on a once and done method. Those that argue that the Bible is sufficient demonstrate a complete disconnect to G-d and his “word”. Even Jesus said that man must live by every word that comes from G-d. And he said this before any of the books of the New Testament of the Bible were even written.

I submit that the Joseph Smith translation of the Bible is a very useful tool to any student of Christianity that can read English.

The Traveler

[Jim108]

What would you call the change where Joseph Smith added his name to the text of the bible? ...and are any alarms going off in your head regarding this? Jim

[Just_A_Guy]

I would call it "modern revelation". Next, please?

[TruthSeekerToo]

I like calling it the "Inspired Version" of the Bible. That really explains what it is better than saying translation.............if we wanna get technical.

I believe the RLDS call it the Inpired Version. And you can see the entire thing online. Pretty nifty. I love using it!

[Dravin]

What would you call the change where Joseph Smith added his name to the text of the bible? ...and are any alarms going off in your head regarding this? Jim

Why would they're be alarm bells over a Prophet of God restoring scripture? Pretty much the same prophecy is made in the Book of Mormon so we as members already believe its true so the fact that it was once in the Bible but since removed/lost doesn't bother us at all, especially considering the prophecy in the BoM is coming from the brass plates meaning that records of such a prophecy were extant in the past in sacred writings and thus its no great stretch to consider that they may have become lost over the ~2000 years between the removal of the brass plates from Jerusalem and the JST.

[Justice]

It's important to note that Joseph Smith did not finish his "translation" of the Bible.

I believe he "translated" the bible from revelation, even if that revelation came over time in the form of understanding, and through conversations with the very people who wrote those passages.

I believe it was intended to be a "translation" but was never finished.

[Traveler]

What would you call the change where Joseph Smith added his name to the text of the bible? ...and are any alarms going off in your head regarding this? Jim

It might have - if I had not done research in ancient literature – specifically the Dead Sea Scrolls. That addresses a “Prophet to the Gentiles” in the last days and specifically states that the name of the prophet was named in scripture and would be a descendent of Joseph that was sold into Egypt.

My point is that if Joseph was creating a hoax why pick one that looks so obvious until documents are found over 100 years later?

The Traveler

[TruthSeekerToo]

Actually, the translation was complete according to most sources-including Mormonwiki. It was being prepared for printing at the time of the martyrdom.

The church was also commanded to publish it to the inhabitants of the earth.

[Justice]

What would you call the change where Joseph Smith added his name to the text of the bible? ...and are any alarms going off in your head regarding this? Jim

I would think if there was something future as big as a "restoration of the Gospel of Jesus Christ," it would have been in scripture more than once. It wouldn't surprise me that those who did not want there to be a restoratrion would have emoved it, and it just so happens they are he very ones who had control of the Bible for a very long time. They didn't even want the public to read it for themselves. Imagine what changes they could have made?

[Justice]

Actually, the translation was complete according to most sources-including Mormonwiki. It was being prepared for printing at the time of the martyrdom.

The church was also commanded to publish it to the inhabitants of the earth.

It was being prepared to be printed, yes. They claim he was finished as early as 1838, but he made many changes after that, and even up until a month or two before he died.

Some sources that were close to him said he did not look at every book in his "translation." It is probable there would have been more corrections.

[Snow]

Snow,

Yes, my faith is based on many things. My faith is based on my life experiences; primarily spiritual experiences. I've learned, by revelation, that Joseph Smith is a prophet. Over time and on various occasions, the Spirit has confirmed and reconfirmed my belief that Joseph Smith is a prophet. Not only that, but I've felt the Spirit confirm to me that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the true church of Jesus Christ. My faith leads me to trust the Church and to trust the Church leaders. So, when the Church says that, "[t]he Lord inspired the Prophet Joseph Smith to restore truths to the Bible text that had become lost or changed since the original words were written. These restored truths clarified doctrine and improved scriptural understanding," I believe it (JST LDS.org).

There are several reasons why that is a limiting way to look at it:

1 The introduction that you quoted is not scripture nor does it represent doctrine. It merely conveys the editors understanding of what the JST was. Interestingly, the Church made a change in the explicatory introduction to the Book of Mormon. The change was clearly arrived at, not by revelation, but because of the findings and influence of LDS scholarly insight.

2 Furthermore, the evidence that JS was restoring original text is mostly non-existent. That is - in most JST instances, the evidence points away from restoration of original text, not towards it. If JS had restored text, the evidence, obviously, would likely point toward it, not away from it.

3 The quote doesn't necessarily say that JS restored original text, rather original truth... that happened to be lost through a faulty transmission process.

4 When JS or the Church uses the word "translation" they do not mean strict translation, rather they me other things as well, like inspired expansion and clarification. In the context of the Articles of Faith it means translation, transmission, editing, fraudulent changes, etc. So when the Church talks of restoring truth, it can also be understood to mean something other than, or in addition to, simple restoration of text.

5. The Articles of Faith says that we believe the Bible to be the word of God and yet JS did not believe that the Songs of Solomon were inspired of God - so the exact meaning of what is said is loose and imprecise.

I don't know, but that isn't really that important to me.

Well actually JS did comment on it and according to what he said, at least about some of the emendations, he based his changes on logic - not of a revelation of what the original text had supposedly said.

Best regards,

Snow

[Snow]

I'd like to point out that unless I'm very mistaken we don't have the author's original text. So it'd be more correct to say he took liberties with the text of the earliest/most reliable sources that we posses. Which may or may not be the same, I honestly don't know but they also may not be.

Scholars have done a remarkable job at arriving at an understanding of what original autographs said. There is some uncertainty left of course, and although there is some small evidence that JS did restore some original text or truth in some cases, in most cases there is no such evidence - meaning that the evidence points toward original texts that did not include JS later changes.

[Snow]

Why would they're be alarm bells over a Prophet of God restoring scripture? Pretty much the same prophecy is made in the Book of Mormon so we as members already believe its true so the fact that it was once in the Bible but since removed/lost doesn't bother us at all, especially considering the prophecy in the BoM is coming from the brass plates meaning that records of such a prophecy were extant in the past in sacred writings and thus its no great stretch to consider that they may have become lost over the ~2000 years between the removal of the brass plates from Jerusalem and the JST.

Because there isn't evidence that he restored scripture text - rather that he added to it or changed it. So, the Gospel according to Matthew (or whoever really wrote Matthew) now because the Gospel according to the author of Matthew AND Joseph Smith.

What he did is more like inspired midrash. Why not actually make it midrash?

[Finrock]

There are several reasons why that is a limiting way to look at it:

1 The introduction that you quoted is not scripture nor does it represent doctrine. It merely conveys the editors understanding of what the JST was. Interestingly, the Church made a change in the explicatory introduction to the Book of Mormon. The change was clearly arrived at, not by revelation, but because of the findings and influence of LDS scholarly insight.

2 Furthermore, the evidence that JS was restoring original text is mostly non-existent. That is - in most JST instances, the evidence points away from restoration of original text, not towards it. If JS had restored text, the evidence, obviously, would likely point toward it, not away from it.

3 The quote doesn't necessarily say that JS restored original text, rather original truth... that happened to be lost through a faulty transmission process.

4 When JS or the Church uses the word "translation" they do not mean strict translation, rather they me other things as well, like inspired expansion and clarification. In the context of the Articles of Faith it means translation, transmission, editing, fraudulent changes, etc. So when the Church talks of restoring truth, it can also be understood to mean something other than, or in addition to, simple restoration of text.

5. The Articles of Faith says that we believe the Bible to be the word of God and yet JS did not believe that the Songs of Solomon were inspired of God - so the exact meaning of what is said is loose and imprecise.

Well actually JS did comment on it and according to what he said, at least about some of the emendations, he based his changes on logic - not of a revelation of what the original text had supposedly said.

Best regards,

Snow

Snow,

Greetings!

Even though I haven't made any claims in regards to most of what you wrote, your points sound really reasonable. There is definitely some value to be gleaned from your opinions and thoughts on this issue.

The Introduction to JST and the entry in the Guide to the Scriptures on the JST is scripture enough for me. These texts are approved by the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve and I feel confident in trusting the content of these texts. More importantly for me, however, is that my understanding on this matter feels right to me and I've learned to trust those feelings through-out my life.

Lastly, I just want to point out once more that the important thing here, in my view, is to understand that the JST restored and clarified many truths about the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Whether these truths were a product of fundamental changes made to the text, restorations, clarifications, logical deductions, or wild guesses, is ultimately irrelevant. The fact is that what we have in the JST is truth and all truth, I believe, is revealed either through the Light of Christ or by the Holy Spirit (btw, deriving truth via logic doesn't necessarily exclude the assistance of the Holy Spirit or the discerning power of the Light of Christ that is in all of us).

Thank you very much for taking the time to share and to respond.

Kind Regards,

Finrock

[Snow]

Snow,

Greetings!

Even though I haven't made any claims in regards to most of what you wrote, your points sound really reasonable. There is definitely some value to be gleaned from your opinions and thoughts on this issue.

The Introduction to JST and the entry in the Guide to the Scriptures on the JST is scripture enough for me. These texts are approved by the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve and I feel confident in trusting the content of these texts. More importantly for me, however, is that my understanding on this matter feels right to me and I've learned to trust those feelings through-out my life.

Lastly, I just want to point out once more that the important thing here, in my view, is to understand that the JST restored and clarified many truths about the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Whether these truths were a product of fundamental changes made to the text, restorations, clarifications, logical deductions, or wild guesses, is ultimately irrelevant. The fact is that what we have in the JST is truth and all truth, I believe, is revealed either through the Light of Christ or by the Holy Spirit (btw, deriving truth via logic doesn't necessarily exclude the assistance of the Holy Spirit or the discerning power of the Light of Christ that is in all of us).

Thank you very much for taking the time to share and to respond.

Kind Regards,

Finrock

I agree wholeheartedly with your last paragraph. Well said.

The reason I pursue my owning line of reasoning on the other parts of my posts is that it helps me to understand or gain insight into LDS history and motivations and that what keeps me so interested in Church and theology related fields of study.