Setting The Stage: What Latter-day Saints Mean By “Translation”

When Latter-day Saint leaders and materials refer to the “Joseph Smith Translation” (often abbreviated JST), they do not mean translation in the ordinary linguistic sense of converting Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek source texts into English. Joseph Smith did not work from Hebrew and Greek manuscripts to produce a critically established English rendering. Rather, beginning in June 1830 and continuing in stages through 1833, Smith read the English King James Version aloud and dictated revisions—additions, deletions, paraphrases, re-punctuations, and harmonizations—which scribes recorded. He described this as a divine “revision,” sometimes calling it a “new translation,” and his followers later published it as the “Inspired Version.” The process involved no systematic engagement with the original languages, no collation of manuscript evidence, and no documented, traceable method that would meet the standards of textual or translational work. It was, by Smith’s own characterization, an inspired revision of the English Bible as he possessed it.

The historical record shows a rotating group of scribes—Oliver Cowdery, John Whitmer, Emma Smith, Sidney Rigdon, and others—assisting while Smith dictated. The project unfolded in waves. Portions of Genesis, now printed in Latter-day Saint editions as the “Book of Moses,” were produced early. A substantial redrafting of Matthew 24—now “Joseph Smith—Matthew” in the Pearl of Great Price—appeared later. The New Testament “revision” ran primarily from late 1831 into 1832, while Old Testament work continued into 1833. The notion that this process restored ancient readings the churches had lost harmonizes with a larger Latter-day Saint narrative, derived from the Book of Mormon, that “plain and precious” truths were removed from Scripture after the apostolic era. Yet that premise must be tested by evidence, not by assertion.

Publication History And Canonical Status In Latter-day Saint Traditions

Joseph Smith died in 1844 without publishing the full work. The complete “Inspired Version” appeared in print only in 1867, issued not by the Utah-based Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS) but by the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (RLDS), now Community of Christ. The LDS Church never canonized the JST as a whole. Instead, it adopted selected excerpts into its standard works while leaving the bulk of Smith’s alterations outside formal canon. The Pearl of Great Price contains the “Book of Moses” (drawn from Smith’s reworking of Genesis 1–6 and 8) and “Joseph Smith—Matthew” (an edited conflation of Matthew 24 and parallel materials). The official LDS Bible (King James Version, 1979/2013) prints a limited set of JST excerpts as footnotes and a back-matter appendix. This piecemeal reception already signals an internal caution: if the JST restored ancient, inspired readings wholesale, why are only fragments treated as binding while most of the work remains ancillary?

The Historical-Grammatical Standard And Why It Matters

Faithful Christian study must be governed by the conviction that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant Word of God in its original writings, and that God has preserved that Word with extraordinary fidelity. Textual criticism is the sober, disciplined work of analyzing extant manuscripts and early versions to reconstruct the original text as closely as possible. On the Old Testament, thousands of Hebrew manuscripts, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Septuagint, the Samaritan Pentateuch, and translations such as the Syriac Peshitta and Latin Vulgate provide cross-checks that demonstrate the remarkable stability of the Masoretic tradition. On the New Testament, we possess more than 5,800 Greek manuscripts (from tiny fragments to nearly complete codices), along with thousands of versions and lectionaries. While these witnesses exhibit the normal, mostly minor variation of hand-copied documents, the cumulative evidence brings us within a hair’s breadth of the autographs; the critically established Hebrew and Greek texts are 99.99% accurate to the originals. Where meaningful variants exist, they are identified and weighed transparently.

The historical-grammatical method insists that the meaning of Scripture is what the human authors wrote, in the grammar and vocabulary of their own time, to their first audiences, under the superintendence of the Holy Spirit. The task, then, is to recover that meaning by sober analysis of language, context, genre, and history, not to expand or reshape the text according to later doctrinal programs. Any proposed “restoration” of biblical wording must be tested against manuscript evidence, linguistic plausibility, and historical coherence. By those standards, the Joseph Smith “Translation” does not qualify as a translation and cannot be regarded as a credible textual restoration.

What The JST Actually Does: Patterns Of Expansion, Harmonization, And Doctrinal Editing

When one reads the JST in parallel with the underlying KJV, recognizable patterns emerge. Smith often inserts long, free expansions that narrate details absent from any known Hebrew or Greek witness. He routinely harmonizes parallel passages, smoothing out tensions that arise from the Bible’s multiple human authors and diverse perspectives. He alters theological statements to align them with his developing system. He occasionally modernizes or paraphrases archaic English. The result is not a more ancient or more literal text but a mid-nineteenth-century re-presentation of the KJV carried along by Joseph Smith’s evolving theology and ecclesial needs.

Several features illustrate this.

In Genesis, Smith introduces entirely new paragraphs that forecast a latter-day “seer” named Joseph who will “bring [Jehovah’s] word” to his people and carry the very name “Joseph,” a transparent self-reference that has no foundation in the Masoretic Text, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Septuagint, or any other ancient tradition. These additions serve apologetic ends within early Mormonism but have no textual footing. The expansionist method continues in the so-called “Book of Moses,” where Smith provides lengthy revelations regarding Enoch, Adam, and the “only begotten” that go far beyond the Hebrew text of Genesis. Again, no ancient witnesses corroborate these details.

In the New Testament, Smith’s rewording of John 1 is emblematic. Instead of “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God,” the JST recasts the sentence around the theme of “the gospel,” inserting explanatory material that reshapes the prologue from a densely packed Christological hymn into a doctrinal paraphrase. Where the Apostle John employs the term Logos to unveil the pre-existent deity of the Son in relationship with the Father, Smith substitutes a concept that guides the reader toward his own theological emphases. This is not a restoration of a Greek original; it is a doctrinal overlay in English.

Where the KJV’s later, secondary readings had crept into English tradition, a genuine restorative translation would tend to remove such intrusions. The famous Trinitarian gloss known as the Comma Johanneum at 1 John 5:7–8 is absent from the earliest Greek manuscripts and entered the Textus Receptus by a tortured history; modern conservative translations omit it or relegate it to a note. The JST does not function as a principled textual correction of this kind. At points it leaves late readings unaddressed while altering other, well-established passages in ways that introduce unprecedented phrasing without manuscript support. This unevenness is the mark of ad hoc revision, not disciplined engagement with the documentary record.

Smith also repeatedly harmonizes passages that present complementary but distinct angles. The Synoptic Gospels often frame Jesus’ eschatological discourse with differing emphases and narrative seams. The JST reworks Matthew 24 into a consolidated narrative that blends first-century judgment on Jerusalem with Latter-day Saint eschatology, culminating in Joseph Smith—Matthew. It reads smoothly for Mormon doctrine, yet the smoother reading comes at the cost of flattening inspired diversity and relocating meaning from the first-century horizon to nineteenth-century concerns.

The Absence Of Manuscript Support And The Witness Of Archaeology

If the JST were truly restoring ancient readings lost by scribal error or malice, one would expect at least occasional confirmation from the manifold witnesses that have surfaced across the centuries. The Dead Sea Scrolls, discovered in the mid-twentieth century and dating more than a millennium earlier than the medieval Masoretic manuscripts, have again and again vindicated the essential stability of the Hebrew Bible’s text. Where they differ in minor ways, those variants are carefully cataloged and weighed. None of the large, distinctive JST expansions finds support in the Scrolls or any other ancient Hebrew tradition.

The same verdict applies to the New Testament. Papyri from the second and third centuries, great uncial codices from the fourth and fifth, and a vast array of later witnesses map the living transmission of the apostolic writings. These witnesses exhibit no trace of JST-specific content. When Joseph Smith inserts new narrative details, recasts the structure of arguments, or alters doctrinal assertions, the claim that he is restoring lost apostolic wording collapses under the weight of real data. The assertion that wholesale “plain and precious” truths vanished from Scripture cannot survive the cumulative manuscript evidence, the early patristic citations that quote verse after verse, and the coherence of the biblical canon across time and geography.

What Smith’s Method Reveals About His Doctrine

Because the JST proceeds by free revision, it becomes a window into Joseph Smith’s developing theology. Early in his career, Smith presented teachings that sounded broadly Protestant, though already marked by unique claims of restored priesthood and new scripture. As the 1830s advanced, his doctrine shifted. The JST reflects this trajectory by strategically inserting language that anticipates later Mormon dogmas, including the identity of a latter-day prophet with special authority, an expanded cosmos of prophetic figures, and a salvation structure in which ordinances mediated by his church play a focal role.

Where the Bible teaches that salvation is a path of obedient faith grounded in the atoning sacrifice of Christ, Who died a substitutionary death and rose bodily, Smith’s revisions tend to interlace covenantal obedience with institutional authority claims distinctive to his movement. Where Scripture reveals one true God, Jehovah, and distinguishes the Persons of the Father and the Son without dividing the divine nature, Smith’s later teachings moved toward a plurality of gods and a mutable vision of deity. The JST does not yet contain every later Mormon distinctiveness, but its patterns push in those directions by shifting biblical emphases and by importing novel content.

A Contrast In Authority: Inspired Scripture Versus Later Religious Revisions

Jesus and His Apostles treated the Old Testament text available to them as the very Word of God. They engaged it carefully, quoted it reverently, and drew doctrine from its grammar. When the New Testament writers penned their letters and Gospels, they wrote in the common Koine Greek of their audiences under the Spirit’s superintendence, producing words that carry God’s authority in their plain sense. The church’s responsibility has always been to receive these writings, to labor diligently to preserve them, and to translate them faithfully for each generation. That labor does not grant the right to add scenes, expand doctrines, or retrofit texts to a new theological program.

Smith’s “translation” claims de facto authority to do those very things. It presumes that the Bible’s deficiencies are so profound that a nineteenth-century revelator must intervene to restore essential content. But Jehovah has preserved His Word. That Word exposes sin, reveals the path of salvation, commands repentance and faith, and builds up the congregation through trustworthy teaching. The confidence Christians have in Scripture does not rest on a church hierarchy or a modern prophet; it rests on the God Who spoke and on His providential care in the transmission of that speech. Because of that care, the responsible student does not need a nineteenth-century revision to know the mind of God in Scripture. He or she needs to read the text as God gave it, using sound tools and yielding to the text’s own voice.

Case Studies: Representative JST Alterations And Why They Fail

Consider first the long, self-referential additions to Genesis regarding a latter-day “seer” named Joseph. The Masoretic Text’s close parallel lines and ancient poetic structures in Genesis 49, for example, display the cohesion of a traditional Hebrew blessing. Smith’s expansions fracture that cohesion and import alien themes without manuscript witness. They function apologetically to validate Joseph Smith, not exegetically to clarify the patriarchal blessings. This is not translation; it is programmatic rewriting.

Second, observe the treatment of Johannine Christology. The prologue of John exhibits a carefully crafted progression from eternity (“In the beginning was the Word”) through distinction (“the Word was with God”) to identity (“the Word was God”), followed by creation through the Word and His incarnation (“the Word became flesh”). Smith’s rephrasing to center “the gospel” breaks the parallelism, relocates the focus, and subordinates the high Christology that John exalts. It thereby obscures the Apostle’s inspired structure and replaces it with a catechetical paraphrase that advances Mormon categories.

Third, pay attention to harmonizations in the Olivet Discourse. Jesus addressed both the imminent devastation of Jerusalem and the long horizon of His future return. The evangelists relay this address with their own inspired emphases, allowing readers to feel both the historical urgency of 70 C.E. judgment and the enduring call to vigilance. Smith’s consolidation in Joseph Smith—Matthew, geared toward nineteenth-century eschatological expectations, smooths the seams and replaces the evangelists’ distinct textures with a single, sectarian reading. Modern conservative exegesis preserves the inspired contours rather than planing them down to fit later systems.

Fourth, examine moral and ecclesial insertions. Where the Epistles expound sanctification by the Word and the Spirit’s work through the Word, the JST’s expansions can nudge readers toward ordinances and structures particular to Joseph Smith’s movement. This is not the New Testament’s own voice but a religious system seeking itself in the text.

The Reliability Of The Bible Without The JST

Christians can trust that God’s Word has reached us with remarkable fidelity. The Hebrew text, anchored by the consonantal tradition and illuminated by the Dead Sea Scrolls, displays stability across more than a thousand years of transmission. The Greek New Testament, triangulated by papyri, uncials, minuscules, and early versions, allows us to identify and evaluate variants with sober confidence. Responsible evangelical translations render this text into clear, accurate modern English without adding doctrine or cutting passages to suit denominational agendas. The work of translation remains translation. It weighs words, idioms, and syntax; it does not invent new narratives or embed contemporary movements into ancient paragraphs.

By contrast, the JST proceeds not from manuscripts and grammar but from a claim of ongoing prophetic authority licensed to reshape Scripture. That claim is theologically unnecessary and textually indefensible. Jehovah has not left His people with a mangled Bible that requires nineteenth-century expansion to be intelligible. He has given His people a reliable Word and has called them to feed on it, to test all claims by it, and to reject revisions that place human authority over the text.

How A Historical-Grammatical Reading Answers The Latter-day Saint Narrative

The claim that “plain and precious” truths were removed from Scripture presupposes a conspiracy of loss so sweeping that no trace of the supposed originals remains in the most ancient and diverse witnesses. It asks readers to believe that the earliest Christians—who quoted Scripture copiously in Greek and Latin and who preserved texts across continents—either did not notice or were complicit in erasing core doctrines, and that these doctrines were then restored only to Joseph Smith in English. The historical-grammatical method, anchored in real manuscripts and real history, finds this implausible and unnecessary. The truths Latter-day Saints claim were lost—prophetic validation of a modern “seer,” structural elements of Mormon ecclesiology, and doctrinal revisions that anticipate Mormon cosmology—bear the unmistakable marks of nineteenth-century origin.

Scripture’s own story is better than that. Jehovah’s providence guides history. He entrusted His Word to Israel and the church. He raised up copyists, translators, and teachers. He preserved His revelation through persecution, dispersion, and the hazards of hand-copying. When we encounter genuine variants, we do not panic; we examine them, weigh them, and render judgments with transparency. The church does not need a latter-day revelator to bridge some catastrophic gulf. The bridge has been present all along in the God-breathed text preserved and proclaimed.

Reading The Bible As God Gave It

A faithful reader will approach the Bible as the coherent, sufficient revelation of God’s purpose, centered in Jesus Christ the Son. The Pentateuch bears witness to creation, the fall, and the gracious promises culminating in the seed of Abraham. The Prophets confront sin and hold out the hope of restoration. The Gospels reveal the incarnate Son, Who fulfilled the Law and the Prophets, died as an atoning sacrifice, and rose bodily. Acts recounts the spread of the good news. The Epistles instruct congregations and their overseers in sound doctrine and holy living. Revelation unveils the consummation. None of this requires nineteenth-century supplementation. It requires careful reading, obedient faith, and a church committed to teaching what the text says.

Therefore, when confronted with claims that Joseph Smith “translated” the Bible, Christians should ask the right questions. Where are the manuscripts that support these readings? What linguistic evidence explains the new wording? How do these changes fit the historical context of the original authors and audiences? Does this “translation” preserve the text’s structure and flow, or does it install a later system into the text? When those questions are pressed, the JST fails every essential test. It is neither translation nor restoration. It is an ecclesiastical rewrite whose authority and content stand outside the stream of God’s preserved Word.

Pastoral Counsel For Conversations With Latter-day Saints

Christians must speak truthfully and charitably with Latter-day Saint friends and missionaries. That means patiently explaining why confidence in the Bible rests on God’s providence and on an unrivaled body of manuscript evidence, not on the claims of a modern prophet. It means opening the Scriptures directly, asking what the apostolic author wrote, and tracing the inspired argument. It means refusing to let later religious systems redefine words that the Spirit inspired. Encourage your Latter-day Saint friend to compare the JST’s expansions with any conservative, literal translation of the Hebrew and Greek texts, and to ask why no ancient witness supports the distinctive JST readings. Invite them to consider that when the Bible is allowed to speak for itself, with its own grammar and in its own context, it yields a coherent gospel centered wholly on Jesus Christ crucified and risen, proclaimed by the Apostles, and preserved by Jehovah for the salvation of those who believe.

Why This Matters For The Church’s Life And Mission

The issue is not merely academic. If the church yields the right to reshape Scripture to any modern authority, it has surrendered the very ground on which Christ rules His congregation by His Word. Sound doctrine comes from the text God gave, not from sectarian emendation. Discipleship grows as believers hear, read, memorize, and obey Scripture as Scripture. Evangelism bears fruit when the pure message of repentance and faith in Christ is proclaimed without admixture. The church’s worship is regulated by what God has said, not by what a later movement wishes He had said. The JST thus becomes a cautionary example of how religious enthusiasm can place itself over the Bible and, in the process, obscure the voice of God that alone gives life.

The Way Forward: Confidence In Jehovah’s Preserved Word

Christians can move forward with deep confidence that Jehovah has preserved His Word and that accurate, conservative translations render that Word faithfully into today’s tongue. Study helps, original-language tools, and reliable commentaries all serve the church as it seeks to understand the Bible’s meaning, verse by verse, paragraph by paragraph, book by book. Where Latter-day Saints commend the JST as a necessary aid, the church should gently but firmly decline, standing on the sufficiency of the inspired Scriptures as God gave them and as He has preserved them. The path of life and godliness does not run through nineteenth-century revisions; it runs through the living and abiding Word of God, which endures forever and equips the people of God for every good work.

You May Also Enjoy

Are Mormons Christians?

Is the Book of Mormon the Word of God?

The Book of Mormon Compared with the Bible

About the Author

CLICK LINKED IMAGE TO VISIT ONLINE STORE

CLICK TO SCROLL THROUGH OUR BOOKS