Click here for the PDF version.

Q: How did Joseph Smith make the translation of the Bible?

A: The Prophet had a large, family-size edition of the King James Version of the Bible. He read from this, marked certain passages, and dictated the revisions, corrections, and additions to a scribe, who wrote them on paper. Sometimes the entire verse was recorded, sometimes only the part to be revised. The translation was done by divine revelation to the mind of the Prophet.

Q: Did Joseph Smith use the Urim and Thummim in the translation of the Bible?

A: There is no evidence that he used the Urim and Thummim or a seer stone of any type during the actual translation. Elder Orson Pratt made a statement to the effect that it was not used. However, there is a report that prior to the translation the Prophet used the Urim and Thummim to "look at" the Bible.

Q: Did Joseph Smith use Greek and/or Hebrew manuscripts or a knowledge of these languages in making the Bible translation?

A: So far as we have any evidence, Joseph Smith did not use Biblical languages and manuscripts in the translation. His learning of Biblical languages came after his initial translation (ending in July 1833) and may have been employed by him in making some of the revisions and corrections in the manuscripts between 1835 and 1844.

Q: If Joseph Smith dealt basically only with an English text and language, why is his work with the Bible called a "translation"?

A: Joseph himself called his work a "translation." This is apparently the sense in which he understood the work he was doing with the Bible. Since in part he was effecting a restoration of lost meaning and material, and since the Bible did not originate in English, his work to some degree would amount to an inspired, or revelatory, "translation" into English of that which the ancient prophets and apostles had written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and/or Greek. [Robert J. Matthews, A Plainer Translation, pp. xxvii-xxx.]

The various translations of the Bible current in Joseph Smith's day were made by men of scholarly attainment, who had a knowledge of the Greek and Hebrew languages and who translated from ancient manuscripts. They pursued their task on the basis of understanding the ancient languages in which they believed the various books of the Bible to have been written; these translators did not claim to have been directly or divinely appointed by the God of heaven to make a Bible translation. The translations effected by these men were but slightly different from the Authorized, or King James, Version and the differences were chiefly in detail and in clarity of speech.

On the other hand, in making his translation of the Bible Joseph Smith neither had nor claimed a knowledge of the Greek or Hebrew languages, nor did he work from manuscripts written in these languages. He was not a novice at translation, however, for just previously, with divine assistance, he had translated the Book of Mormon from metal plates upon which was engraved what is known as the "reformed Egyptian" language. Later he did study German and Hebrew, but not until after he had "completed" the Bible translation.

The Prophet Joseph claimed a divine appointment to translate the Bible [D&C 45:60-61; 76:15], and he also claimed divine revelation in the translation process [D&C 76:15-18 ...]. As a consequence, his translation differed greatly from both the King James Version and the translations produced by nineteenth-century American scholars. It was not merely a clarification of language, but rather it introduced several new concepts and historical events of biblical times that are not contained in the King James Version. In other words, it appears that he supplied some of the missing parts which had been taken away from the Bible or which had been lost before it was compiled. Therefore, Joseph Smith's translation of the Bible was unique in inception, procedure, and content. [Ibid., pp. 11-12.]

[As a sidelight, there were over 500 separate editions of the Bible or parts thereof from 1777-1833 published in America alone. Ibid, p. 8.]

Unfortunately, neither the Prophet nor his scribes left a record explaining just how the work was accomplished....

The process necessarily was slow and perhaps often tiring. There must have been frequent periods of discussion about various passages and ideas, and no doubt progress was more rapid on some occasions than on others. The manuscripts show that there was sometimes editing and revising of the material after it was initially written....

The translation was not a simple, mechanical recording of divine dictum, but rather a study-and-thought process accompanied and prompted by revelation from the Lord. That it was a revelatory process is evident from statements by the Prophet and others who were personally acquainted with the work.... [Ibid., p. 39.]

The New Translation of the Bible is an amended rendition of the King James Version of the Bible. It is not a translation in the usual sense, although the Prophet Joseph Smith consistently referred to it as a translation [HC 1:132, 170, 215, 219, 324, 341]. In the Doctrine and Covenants, too, it is referred to as a translation [D&C 37:1; 41:7; 45:60-61; 73:3-4; 76:15-16; 90:13; 93:53; 94:10; 124:89]....

Readers of the New Translation probably deserve some explanation with regard to the liberties thus taken with the standard biblical text. They may in all fairness ask just what the New Translation purports to be....

Opinions vary among those who have considered the nature of the New Translation. Some feel that it is a restoration of material lost from the Bible as a result of transmission through the centuries. This position requires a belief that direct revelation and inspiration played major roles in the Prophet's work of Bible translation. In connection therewith is a concept that during the translation process the Prophet himself received a knowledge of what should be written in the text.

Others regard the New Translation primarily as an effort by the Prophet to render the biblical text more acceptable to his particular theology. This premise generally minimizes the need for direct and immediate revelation and carries the thought that changes were more or less incorporated into the biblical text so as to produce the desired effect. This position presupposes that the Prophet had determined beforehand what changes needed to be made. Associated with this view is a tendency to regard the changes more as commentary material than as actual restorations. This position naturally has difficulty accommodating an idea that the work should be called a translation.

I know of no statement by the Prophet categorically affirming or denying that the New Translation was a restoration of the original text of the Bible. However, the thrust of the Prophet's utterances on the matter shows that, from the very first, divine revelation was regarded as a prominent factor in the translation. Furthermore, his consistently calling it a "translation" and not a "revision" or "commentary" or anything else may suggest something of his attitude toward it. Joseph Smith was very much aware of the meaning of the word translate since he had recently made a translation of the Book of Mormon. Furthermore the Doctrine and Covenants, without exception, speaks of his work with the Bible as a translation.... Whether or not translation is the technically correct term, it is certain that his work was not to be a mere Bible amplification or an arranging of texts to match his pretranslation concepts, since it was for his benefit, first of all, that the work was to be done. When viewed from that perspective, divine revelation and inspiration are seen to be indispensable to the project.

From time to time objections have been raised against an acceptance of the New Translation as a restoration of the original text. Two such are discussed below.

Objection 1: The Prophet used no ancient manuscripts. One objection to the New Translation being a restoration is that the Prophet did not use ancient manuscripts, nor did he (at that time) possess a knowledge of biblical languages. Hence, it has been suggested, because he used only an English text he could not produce a restored record. This view holds that the additions and changes made by Joseph Smith were primarily his own commentaries and explanations about the meaning of the text of the King James Version.

Response to objection 1. The ancient scriptures were written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. A literal restoration would require that the Prophet Joseph Smith write in the same languages as the originals. This he could not do, nor would it have been meaningful to English-speaking members of the Church had he done so. But the writing of what amounted to an English translation or equivalent of the original would be extremely informative. Perhaps this is why the Prophet felt justified in calling the work a translation. The important thing was the content, and in either case (that is, actual translation of language from an ancient document or divine revelation of the same content, but in English) it would have had to be given to the mind of the Prophet by revelation from God. This situation makes a distinction between a literal restoration of ancient texts and what amounts to a translated version of some of the original information--in other words, a restoration of the original sense. Since the work was not fully completed, it could at best be only a partial restoration, or a restoration in some parts.

While doing the work of translation, the Prophet said he was given a particular wording of John 5:29. The wording, which "was given by the Spirit" (D&C 76:18), differs from that of the King James Version. Being given words by the Spirit meant that something extraordinary was associated with this translation, which supplied variant wordings independent of a supplementary manuscript. Since this was done with one passage, it is possible that it could have been done with many.

Another passage of scripture which bears upon this subject is the writing known as Doctrine and Covenants, section 7. This revelation, in English, is said to be "the translated version of a record made on parchment by John, and hidden up by himself" (D&C 7, prefatory note). John would have written in Aramaic, or perhaps in Greek. At that time in Joseph Smith's life (1829), he could not read either of these languages. It might be asked whether the Prophet actually had the parchment that was written and hidden up by John, or even a copy of it. If so, how did he obtain it and what became of it? Currently we have no information with which to answer these questions. However, it would not be necessary for the Prophet to have or to see John's parchment, or a copy of it, in order to get the information it contained. It was the content, more than the document, that was important. An even more significant question is, If he had the document, how could he read it? Had he been given the parchment, neither the Prophet nor his scribe, Oliver Cowdery, could have read it except through revelation. Would it not be possible for the Lord to reveal the contents to the Prophet as it would be to give him the parchment and then inspire him to be able to read it? Either case would be miraculous, and both would have the same end result: either could qualify (in substance) as a translation and as a restoration.

Another incident may shed further light upon the subject. In June 1830 the Lord revealed to Joseph Smith the "Visions of Moses," a record of a manifestation once given to Moses. (See Moses 1:1, 42.) In this vision Moses was informed that designing men would take many things out of the book he (Moses) would write, but through another prophet the information would "be had again among the children of men," at least "among as many as believe" (Moses 1:40-41). Today Moses' writings are in the Old Testament, but we are thus warned that some of what he wrote is missing from present Bible versions. However, the new translation of Genesis appears to be a restoration of some of Moses' writings-a restoration brought about through the use of the King James Version plus divine revelation, but without an ancient manuscript. If the Prophet could have recorded Moses' writing and thus fulfilled the prophecy without actual possession of an ancient manuscript, he could have done the same with the records of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, and with other books of the Bible. The necessary ingredient for a prophet is not a manuscript, but a revelation.

Objection 2: Modern translations of the Bible do not support the major variants of the New Translation. In the past fifty years there have come many translations of the Bible, each with the claim that it has the benefit of a wide variety of documents more ancient than were available to the King James translators. These early documents, some of which for the New Testament are of third-, fourth-, and fifth-century origin, are believed by many scholars to permit a closer approximation of our Lord's actual words than do the manuscripts of much later date used by the translators of the King James Version. The Dead Sea Scrolls, the first of which were discovered in 1947, date back to as early as the first century before Christ and are also highly regarded by some students as a text of the Old Testament.

The versions of the Bible produced from these sources are the work of substantial scholarship; yet there is very little support for Joseph Smith's New Translation to be found in them. Since these modern versions are the product of the earliest available manuscript sources, and since they do not basically support the New Translation, the Prophet's work is thought by some to suffer by comparison, and the inference is that it could not be a restoration of the original text.

[I did a study for a class from Robert J. Matthews that I took subsequent to the publication of A Plainer Translation. I found that a fairly large number, but certainly less than half of the changes or differences overall, but a large number of Joseph Smith's changes did correspond with modern English translations. One that comes to mind is 2 Pet 1:20-21. These verses are usually interpreted by KJV readers to put the burden on the reader - that the reader should be cautious of mistranslating the scriptures. Both several modern translations and the Greek text and the JST put the burden on the giver of the revelation. RLM]

Response to objection 2. It is to be remembered that none of the original manuscripts of the Bible are available today, having all disappeared by the end of the second century. At best, the sources available even to the translators of the modern versions of the Bible are third- or fourthhand and are but copies and/or translations of earlier copies. There was much heresy even in the days of the apostles; it is possible that corruption of the New Testament came soon after the death of the original Twelve and could have affected the very earliest copies. The Old Testament undoubtedly was corrupted much earlier. Since corruptions of the Bible consist primarily of omissions rather than additions, and many changes of the text were deliberate (and therefore immediate rather than gradual), it is entirely probable that serious omissions occurred in the text even in the first or second copies. (See 1 Ne 13:24-29.) Hence, even documents as early as the fourth century would not be exempt from grave errors and omissions.

Some biblical scholars have indicated that "omissions" of words and clauses are "the largest of all classes of corrupt variations from the genuine text" of the New Testament. [J. W. Burgon & E. Miller, The Causes of the Corruption of the Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels, pp. 203-204.] This is in harmony with the Book of Mormon, which says that "many plain and precious things" were taken from the Bible (1 Ne 13:26-27), but says nothing about the addition of anything to the biblical text. It is also consistent with Moses 1:40-41, referred to above.

In this connection, it is significant that the changes made by the Prophet Joseph in the New Translation contain numerous and lengthy additions. He made very few deletions. A restoration would be expected to follow the same pattern-that is, have more additions than deletions. While the foregoing items are not proof that the New Translation is a restoration of the original text, they are factors that must be considered in making a judgment in the matter. [Ibid., pp. 234-237.]