{"id":6554,"date":"2026-02-15T23:18:28","date_gmt":"2026-02-16T06:18:28","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/novus2.com\/righteouscause\/?p=6554"},"modified":"2026-02-26T21:43:18","modified_gmt":"2026-02-27T04:43:18","slug":"king-james-copycat-the-truth-behind-joseph-smiths-translation-of-the-bible","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/novus2.com\/righteouscause\/2026\/02\/15\/king-james-copycat-the-truth-behind-joseph-smiths-translation-of-the-bible\/","title":{"rendered":"King James Copycat? The Truth Behind Joseph Smith\u2019s \u201cTranslation\u201d of the Bible"},"content":{"rendered":"

Photo:<\/strong> Google Gemini imagines Joseph Smith in a modern setting, “translating” a
\ncopy of the King James version of the Bible on the office copy machine.<\/em><\/p>\n

Questions of religious truth are ultimately matters of faith as well as evidence. But faith that is
\nunwilling to examine evidence is not strengthened faith but rather faith that fears examination.<\/em><\/p>\n

Introduction<\/strong><\/span><\/h2>\n

In the summer of 1830, just months after the publication of the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith embarked on one of the most ambitious and controversial projects of his prophetic career: a comprehensive revision of the King James Bible. This undertaking, known variously as the \u201cNew Translation,\u201d<\/em> the \u201cInspired Version,\u201d<\/em> or most commonly today as the Joseph Smith Translation (JST), would occupy much of Smith\u2019s attention for the next three years and continue to generate scholarly debate nearly two centuries after his death.<\/p>\n

The Joseph Smith Translation represents a fascinating intersection of religious authority, biblical interpretation, and questions about textual transmission that have divided Latter-day Saints and traditional Christians since its inception. For the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and related movements within the Latter Day Saint tradition, the JST stands as evidence of Joseph Smith\u2019s prophetic calling and his divine commission to restore \u201cplain and precious things\u201d<\/em> allegedly lost from the biblical text. For critics\u2014both secular scholars and Christian apologists\u2014the JST raises fundamental questions about Smith\u2019s claims to prophetic authority, his understanding of biblical languages, and the very nature of what constitutes legitimate biblical translation.<\/p>\n

This article will carefully examine the controversies surrounding the Joseph Smith Translation through multiple lenses: the historical context that gave rise to the project, the theological claims undergirding Smith\u2019s revision, the methodology he employed, and the ongoing debates about its legitimacy. Throughout, we will compare and contrast Joseph Smith\u2019s claims with the principles of traditional Christian biblical scholarship, textual criticism, and apologetics that have characterized mainstream Christian approaches to Scripture over the past two centuries. Our aim is not polemical but scholarly\u2014to present the evidence fairly and allow readers to draw their own informed conclusions.<\/p>\n

Historical Context of the Joseph Smith Translation<\/strong><\/span><\/h2>\n

The Religious Landscape of Early Nineteenth-Century America<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n
\"\"
This eighteenth-century woodcut shows George Whitefield preaching to a great crowd. Whitefield was an English minister who preached throughout the British colonies in the mid-1700s during the First Great Awakening.<\/em><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

To understand the Joseph Smith Translation, one must first appreciate the religious ferment of early nineteenth-century America. The period following the American Revolution witnessed an unprecedented explosion of religious experimentation, sectarian competition, and biblical debate. This Second Great Awakening<\/strong><\/a>, which swept through the young nation from roughly 1790 through the 1840s, represented a continuation and transformation of the revival spirit ignited decades earlier during the First Great Awakening<\/strong><\/a> (1730s-1740s), when preachers like George Whitefield<\/strong><\/a> electrified colonial audiences with passionate calls for personal conversion and direct religious experience. The Second Great Awakening intensified these themes, emphasizing personal scripture study, direct revelation, and individual encounters with the divine. Churches multiplied, denominations fractured and reformed, and the Bible became the subject of intense scrutiny and competing interpretations. This environment of religious enthusiasm, competing prophetic claims, and democratic access to Scripture created fertile ground for movements like Mormonism, which promised new revelation and restored truth in an era already saturated with revivalist fervor and biblical reinterpretation.<\/p>\n

Joseph Smith himself emerged from this environment of religious seeking. As he recounted in his 1838 autobiographical narrative, the \u201cunusual excitement on the subject of religion\u201d<\/em> in the Burned-over District<\/strong><\/a> of western New York led him to wonder \u201cwho of all these parties are right; or, are they all wrong together?\u201d<\/em> The fragmented nature of American Christianity\u2014with its bewildering array of competing biblical interpretations\u2014seemed to him to demand some resolution. If the Bible was truly God\u2019s word, why did sincere believers arrive at such divergent conclusions about its meaning?<\/p>\n

The Book of Mormon\u2019s Claims About Biblical Corruption<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n
\"\"
The Book of Mormon is a volume of holy scripture, often considered a companion to the Bible, that chronicles God’s dealings with ancient inhabitants of the Americas. Translated by Joseph Smith from gold plates, it tells the story of two main civilizations\u2014the Nephites and Lamanites\u2014and features the personal ministry of Jesus Christ among them after his resurrection.<\/em><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

The theological foundation for the Joseph Smith Translation was laid well before Smith ever put pen to paper on the project. The Book of Mormon, which Smith published in March 1830, contained an extended vision purportedly received by the ancient prophet Nephi concerning the transmission of biblical texts. According to this vision, found in 1 Nephi 13, the Bible originally \u201cproceeded forth from the mouth of a Jew\u201d<\/em> and \u201ccontained the fulness of the gospel of the Lord.\u201d<\/em> However, after passing through \u201cthe hands of the great and abominable church,\u201d<\/em> many \u201cplain and precious things\u201d<\/em> were \u201ctaken away from the book, which is the book of the Lamb of God\u201d<\/em> (1 Nephi 13:24-28).<\/p>\n

This claim of systematic biblical corruption served several theological purposes. It explained, from an LDS perspective, why the Christianity of Smith\u2019s day had allegedly departed from original apostolic teaching. It provided justification for additional scripture\u2014the Book of Mormon itself was presented as a remedy, restoring truths that had been lost or obscured. And it laid the groundwork for Smith\u2019s subsequent role as a prophetic corrector of Scripture.<\/p>\n

As the official LDS Church website acknowledges, the Book of Mormon text \u201cindicated that \u2018many plain and precious parts\u2019 of the Bible had been lost,\u201d<\/em> and \u201cin the summer of 1830, just a few short months after the Book of Mormon was published, Joseph Smith began a new translation of the Bible intended to restore some of those plain and precious parts.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

The Commencement of the Translation Project<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n

The genesis of the JST can be traced to revelations Smith received in June 1830. According to LDS accounts, Smith received what he termed \u201cthe visions of Moses\u201d<\/em>\u2014an extended revelation that now comprises the first chapter of the Book of Moses in the Pearl of Great Price. This visionary text, which claims to record events not found in the canonical book of Genesis, apparently catalyzed Smith\u2019s broader biblical revision project.<\/p>\n

The mechanics of the translation process are well-documented. In October 1829, while the Book of Mormon was being printed, Oliver Cowdery purchased from printer E. B. Grandin the King James Bible that would serve as Smith\u2019s working text. Using this Bible as his base, Smith dictated revisions to various scribes, including Oliver Cowdery, John Whitmer, Sidney Rigdon, and even briefly his wife Emma. The earliest manuscripts, beginning with Genesis 1, were created in Harmony, Pennsylvania, about one month after the June 1830 revelations, with Cowdery and Whitmer acting as scribes.<\/p>\n

\r\n
\r\n \"\"<\/a>Joseph Smith’s Bible Revision: Borrowing or Inspiration?<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

In the early 1830s, soon after the Book of Mormon’s publication, Joseph Smith embarked on a project that would become known as the Joseph Smith Translation (JST) of the Bible. This project aimed to revise and potentially correct the existing text. The original manuscript for this translation is currently held by the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (RLDS Church).<\/p>\n

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) has not included the JST in its official canon of scripture. However, they do reference the translation in footnotes within their standard works. A recent study by Brigham Young University (BYU) revealed significant parallels between Smith’s JST and the popular Bible commentaries of Adam Clarke<\/strong><\/a>, published around the same time.<\/p>\n

While accusations of plagiarism against Smith might be extreme, the BYU study highlights his clear reliance on Clarke’s work. The extent of these similarities suggests Clarke’s commentaries served as a major source for Smith’s revisions to the Bible.\r\n <\/div>\r\n <\/div>\n

A December 1830 revelation addressed to Sidney Rigdon, recently converted from the Campbellite movement<\/strong><\/a>, assigned him as Smith\u2019s primary scribe: \u201cThou shalt write for him & the scriptures shall be given even as they are in mine own bosom to the salvation of mine own elect.\u201d<\/em> From this point forward, Rigdon became Smith\u2019s chief collaborator on the translation project.<\/p>\n

Historical note:<\/strong><\/span> Following Smith’s death, his wife Emma<\/strong><\/a> held onto the manuscripts of his Bible translation project. She aligned with the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints<\/strong><\/a> (RLDS), a breakaway group led by Smith’s son. This church, now known as the Community of Christ, retains the copyright to the “Joseph Smith Translation.<\/strong><\/a>”<\/p>\n

Evidence of Biblical Corruption: Smith\u2019s Claims<\/strong><\/span><\/h2>\n

The Nature of the Corruption Alleged<\/span><\/strong><\/h3>\n

Joseph Smith\u2019s claims about biblical corruption evolved throughout his ministry, and careful examination reveals a more nuanced position than critics sometimes attribute to him. Smith never explicitly claimed that the entire Bible was corrupted or unreliable.<\/strong><\/span> Rather, his position acknowledged the Bible\u2019s divine origin while maintaining that errors had accumulated through processes of transmission, translation, and\u2014according to the Book of Mormon narrative\u2014deliberate removal.<\/p>\n

As Smith stated in an 1843 discourse, \u201cI 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.\u201d<\/em> This statement identifies three distinct mechanisms by which the biblical text could have become compromised: honest mistakes by translators lacking full understanding, careless copying errors, and intentional alterations by religious authorities with theological agendas.<\/p>\n

The official LDS position, as expressed in the church\u2019s Articles of Faith, captures this qualified affirmation: \u201cWe believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly.\u201d<\/em> This formulation accepts biblical authority while reserving judgment on specific passages that may not accurately represent the original intent of the biblical writers.<\/p>\n

Arguments Smith Presented to His Followers<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n

\"\"Several lines of argument undergirded Smith\u2019s claims about biblical corruption and resonated with his early followers:<\/p>\n

Missing Books Referenced in Scripture.<\/b> <\/em><\/span>Smith pointed to biblical references to books that no longer exist in the canonical text. The Book of Jasher, mentioned in Joshua 10:13 and 2 Samuel 1:18, the lost letters of Paul referenced in 1 Corinthians 5:9 and Colossians 4:16, and numerous other texts mentioned but not preserved, all suggested to Smith that the biblical canon was incomplete. If these divinely inspired writings had been lost, what else might have disappeared?
\nDenominational Confusion.<\/b><\/em><\/span> The existence of multiple Christian denominations, each claiming biblical warrant for their distinctive teachings, functioned as evidence that something was amiss with biblical interpretation\u2014if not the text itself. If the Bible clearly taught one consistent doctrine, Smith reasoned, why would sincere Christians arrive at mutually contradictory conclusions? The logical possibilities were that either the Bible was unclear, the Holy Spirit failed to guide readers to truth, or something had corrupted the transmission of Scripture.
\nProphecies of Apostasy and Restoration.<\/b> <\/em><\/span>Smith interpreted various biblical passages as predicting a general apostasy from true Christianity followed by a latter-day restoration. The prophecy in Amos 8:11-12 of a \u201cfamine\u2026 of hearing the words of the LORD,\u201d<\/em> the warnings in 2 Thessalonians 2 about a coming apostasy, and similar texts were read as anticipating the very corruption that the Book of Mormon diagnosed and that Smith\u2019s translation project would address.
\nThe Book of Mormon as Testimony.<\/b> <\/em><\/span>The existence of the Book of Mormon itself served as evidence for Smith\u2019s claims about the Bible. The Book of Mormon, according to Smith, preserved the gospel in its original purity as taught among the Nephites. Where it diverged from or expanded upon the King James Bible, this could be explained by the corruption of the biblical text. Significantly, the Book of Mormon often quoted biblical passages\u2014particularly from Isaiah and the Sermon on the Mount\u2014with variations that could be presented as evidence of what the \u201coriginal\u201d<\/em> texts actually said.<\/p>\n

Weaknesses in Smith\u2019s Evidence<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n

Critics have identified several significant problems with the evidence Smith marshaled for his claims of biblical corruption:<\/p>\n

Circular Reasoning.<\/b><\/em><\/span> The Book of Mormon itself becomes the primary evidence for biblical corruption, but the Book of Mormon\u2019s authenticity depends in part on the claim that the Bible is corrupted. This creates a circular argument: the Bible is corrupted because the Book of Mormon says so, and the Book of Mormon is true because it restores what was lost from the corrupted Bible.<\/span>
\nLack of Manuscript Evidence.<\/b><\/em><\/span> Smith never pointed to actual manuscript evidence of biblical corruption. He did not identify specific ancient manuscripts that showed evidence of tampering, nor did he engage with the emerging science of textual criticism that was, even in his day, demonstrating the remarkable preservation of the biblical text across thousands of manuscripts.
\nOverstated Claims.<\/b><\/em><\/span> The claim that \u201cmany plain and precious things\u201d<\/em> were deliberately removed from the Bible by the \u201cgreat and abominable church\u201d<\/em> lacks historical support. While there are indeed textual variants among biblical manuscripts, these are overwhelmingly minor and do not support the claim of systematic doctrinal alteration. As textual critic Daniel Wallace<\/strong><\/a> has noted, scholars can reconstruct the original New Testament text with 99.75% accuracy\u2014a level of certainty unmatched by any other ancient document.
\nTiming Problems.<\/b><\/em><\/span> The Book of Mormon\u2019s claim that the Bible was corrupted before it \u201cwent forth unto all the nations of the Gentiles\u201d<\/em> (1 Nephi 13:28-29) presents chronological difficulties. The New Testament was copied and distributed across the Roman Empire with remarkable speed, before any single institution could control its transmission. The idea that a \u201cgreat and abominable church\u201d<\/em> could have systematically altered the text before its widespread dissemination does not align with what we know about early Christian manuscript transmission.<\/p>\n

The Translation Process: Genuine Effort or Theological Editing?<\/strong><\/span><\/h2>\n

How Smith Conducted the \u201cTranslation\u201d<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n
\"\"
The Joseph Smith Translation (JST) is a revision of the King James Version (KJV) Bible produced by Joseph Smith between 1830 and 1844, aimed at restoring lost doctrines, clarifying passages, and enhancing understanding through inspiration. It is not a translation from ancient manuscripts but rather an inspired editing of the English text.<\/em><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

The term \u201ctranslation\u201d<\/em> as applied to the Joseph Smith Translation requires careful examination, as it does not correspond to translation in any conventional sense. The official LDS Church website is candid about the process: \u201cJoseph\u2019s translation was not carried out in the traditional sense. He didn\u2019t consult Greek and Hebrew texts or use lexicons to create a new English version. Rather, he used the King James Version of the Bible as his starting point and made additions and changes as he was directed by the Holy Ghost.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

This description reveals the fundamental nature of the JST: it was not a translation from original languages but a revision of an existing English translation.<\/strong><\/span> Smith worked from the 1769 Oxford edition of the King James Bible, reading through it systematically and dictating changes to his scribes. He did not engage with Hebrew or Greek manuscripts, did not consult scholarly commentaries (with one notable exception discussed below), and had no formal training in biblical languages during the years he conducted the bulk of his work.<\/p>\n

The physical evidence of the translation process consists of two types of materials now held in the archives of the Community of Christ (formerly the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints): marked sections of the King James Bible itself, with words crossed out and symbols indicating where changes should be inserted, and manuscripts containing the expanded or revised passages.<\/p>\n

Categories of Changes<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n

Scholars who have analyzed the Joseph Smith Translation identify several distinct types of changes:<\/p>\n

Grammatical and Stylistic Corrections.<\/b> <\/em><\/span>Many JST changes are minor adjustments to grammar or wording that do not affect doctrinal meaning. These include modernization of archaic King James language and clarification of ambiguous phrasing.
\nHarmonization.<\/b><\/em><\/span> The JST frequently harmonizes parallel passages in the Gospels, smoothing out differences between Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Where the canonical Gospels present slightly different versions of Jesus\u2019s words or describe events with varying details, the JST tends to make them more uniform.
\nDoctrinal Additions.<\/b><\/em><\/span> Some JST passages add substantial new material that introduces or supports distinctively Mormon doctrines. The most dramatic examples appear in the early chapters of Genesis, which are extensively expanded to include material about the premortal existence, the nature of God, and the role of Satan.
\nDeletions.<\/b> <\/em><\/span>Though less common, the JST occasionally removes material from the biblical text. Most notably, Smith indicated that the Song of Solomon was \u201cnot inspired writings\u201d<\/em> and excluded it from his revision.
\nClarifications.<\/b> <\/em><\/span>Many changes appear designed to clarify potentially confusing passages by specifying subjects, expanding abbreviations, or making implicit meanings explicit.<\/p>\n

The Adam Clarke Controversy<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n

Perhaps the most significant modern challenge to claims about the inspired nature of the Joseph Smith Translation emerged in 2017 when BYU professor Thomas Wayment and undergraduate researcher Haley Wilson-Lemmon published preliminary findings indicating that Smith had borrowed extensively from Adam Clarke\u2019s famous Bible commentary<\/strong><\/a>, a widely-available Methodist resource first published between 1810 and 1826.<\/p>\n

Their research, published in full in 2020 in the volume Producing Ancient Scripture<\/i><\/strong><\/a>, identified what they claimed were hundreds of parallels between the JST and Clarke\u2019s commentary. According to their analysis, Smith or his associates (particularly Sidney Rigdon, who had Methodist connections) appeared to have consulted Clarke\u2019s work and incorporated his textual suggestions into the JST as inspired changes.<\/p>\n

The implications were significant. As the researchers wrote: \u201cWhat is noteworthy in detailing the usage of this source is that Adam Clarke\u2019s textual emendations come through Smith\u2019s translation as inspired changes to the text. Moreover, the question of what Smith meant by the term translation should be broadened to include what now appears to have been an academic interest to update the text of the Bible.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

However, the claims of Wayment and Wilson-Lemmon have been contested by other scholars. Kent P. Jackson<\/strong><\/a>, a BYU professor who has extensively studied the JST, published a detailed rebuttal arguing that the claimed parallels were superficial, coincidental, or mischaracterized. Jackson maintained that \u201cnone of the examples they provide can be traced to Clarke\u2019s commentary, and almost all of them can be explained easily by other means.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

The debate remains unresolved, with critics pointing to the parallels as evidence that Smith used human sources while presenting his work as divine revelation, and defenders arguing that the similarities are insignificant or that even if Smith consulted external sources, this does not necessarily undermine the inspired nature of his revisions.<\/p>\n

What Kind of \u201cTranslation\u201d Is This?<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n

The terminology of \u201ctranslation\u201d<\/em> applied to the JST requires theological rather than linguistic explanation. LDS scholars have offered several frameworks for understanding what Smith was doing:<\/p>\n

Restoration of Original Text.<\/b> <\/em><\/span>In some cases, LDS scholars argue, Smith was restoring original wording that had been lost from the biblical text. The Book of Moses, comprising the first chapters of Genesis as revised by Smith, is often presented as recovering prophetic material that was originally part of the Hebrew scriptures but subsequently removed.
\nInspired Commentary.<\/b><\/em><\/span> Some JST passages may function as prophetic commentary rather than restoration of lost text. Robert J. Matthews, a prominent LDS scholar of the JST, acknowledged that \u201cthe JST is not solely a restoration of the original Bible text\u201d<\/em> and that \u201csome changes may constitute prophetic commentary on the text.\u201d<\/em>
\nHarmonization with Revelation.<\/b> <\/em><\/span>Other changes may represent Smith harmonizing the biblical text with additional revelation he believed he was receiving. Where the Bible as transmitted seemed to conflict with doctrines revealed through the Book of Mormon or later revelations, Smith may have adjusted the biblical text accordingly.
\nAlternative Perspectives.<\/b> <\/em><\/span>In some cases, LDS scholars suggest, the JST may offer an alternative prophetic perspective on a passage without claiming to represent the \u201coriginal\u201d<\/em> text. As Elder Bruce R. McConkie noted regarding Romans 13, \u201cboth of them are true,\u201d<\/em>\u2014suggesting that Smith\u2019s revision and the canonical text could both be valid for different purposes.<\/p>\n

This flexibility in interpretation, however, raises its own questions. If the JST is sometimes restoration, sometimes commentary, and sometimes an alternative perspective, how is the reader to know which category any given passage falls into? And if the boundaries are unclear, what does this say about the claims of inspired restoration that originally motivated the project?
\n

\r\n
\r\n \"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

The Phinney Bible is significant in the history of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. In 1829, Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery bought “a quarto-size King James translation published in 1828 by the H. and E. Phinney company of Cooperstown, New York”<\/em> (Jackson). This Bible was used in the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible.<\/p>\n

This Phinney Bible<\/strong><\/a> was printed in Cooperstown, New York, just four years before Joseph Smith bought his own copy. It is an example of an innovation in printing that came to America in 1812: stereotyping. Stereotypes were plates of type… made from plaster of paris molds that allowed printers to print certain works without having to reset the type every time or keep large volumes of loose type set standing in molds.<\/p>\n

\r\n <\/div>\r\n <\/div><\/p>\n

James White: Letters To A Mormon Elder<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n

In “Letters to a Mormon Elder, Chapter 2<\/strong><\/a>,” Christian apologist James R. White engages in written correspondence with a fictional LDS missionary Elder Hahn, systematically addressing foundational differences between Mormon and traditional Christian theology. Chapter 2 focuses on one of the most significant theological divides: the reliability and authority of the Bible. White responds to the common Latter-day Saint claim that the Bible has been corrupted through centuries of transmission and translation, a premise that underpins the LDS Church’s assertion that additional scripture was necessary to restore lost truths. Through careful examination of manuscript evidence, translation methodology, and historical documentation, White defends the textual integrity of Scripture while challenging contradictory statements from early Mormon leaders about biblical reliability. His response aims to demonstrate that the Bible’s preservation through history is far more robust than Mormon teaching typically acknowledges, undermining a key justification for the Book of Mormon’s existence as a corrective text. The following is a summary of the chapter:<\/p>\n

In Chapter 2 of Letters to a Mormon Elder, titled “But it IS Translated Correctly!”<\/strong><\/span>, James R. White addresses a foundational LDS objection to biblical reliability\u2014the claim that the Bible has been corrupted through successive translations. Writing to the fictional Elder Hahn, White dismantles this common misconception by clarifying the crucial distinction between transmission (how manuscripts were copied and preserved) and translation (how texts are rendered into other languages).<\/p>\n

White explains that most Latter-day Saints fundamentally misunderstand the translation process, imagining a sequential chain\u2014Hebrew to Greek to Latin to French to German to English\u2014like a children’s game of telephone. In reality, modern English Bibles translate directly from Hebrew and Greek manuscripts, involving only a single translational step. This direct access to original-language texts preserves textual integrity in ways the “telephone game” analogy fails to capture.<\/p>\n

The chapter examines the remarkable manuscript evidence supporting biblical reliability, noting that over 5,000 Greek New Testament manuscripts exist, with 75% of the text showing no variation whatsoever. Of remaining variants, 95% are easily resolved through textual criticism, leaving less than 1.5% with any uncertainty\u2014none affecting core doctrines. White argues that the manuscript tradition’s “tenacity” actually protects the text, as original readings remain preserved among variants, making systematic corruption impossible across thousands of manuscripts spread throughout the ancient world.<\/p>\n

White exposes an internal inconsistency in LDS claims: Mormons routinely dismiss biblical passages contradicting their doctrine as “mistranslated” without providing linguistic evidence, while the Book of Mormon itself has undergone thousands of changes since 1830. This double standard undermines Mormon credibility when challenging biblical reliability, demonstrating that Latter-day Saint scriptures face far greater textual challenges than the Bible they critique.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Divine Authority and the Restoration Narrative<\/strong><\/span><\/h2>\n
\"\"
Sometimes called the ‘Caractors document,’ this slip of paper includes characters written by John Whitmer. The characters were purportedly copied from the Gold Plates, which were translated and published as the Book of Mormon. Photograph taken while the document was on display at the Church History Museum in Salt Lake City during the Sacred History: Treasures from the Restoration of the Gospel of Jesus Christ exhibition, held soon after the document was acquired by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints from the Community of Christ. There is no archaeological, linguistic, or other evidence of the use of Egyptian writing in the ancient Americas.<\/em><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Smith\u2019s Self-Understanding as Translator<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n

Joseph Smith understood his translation work as a divine mandate. In a December 1831 journal entry, he referred to the project as \u201ca branch of my calling\u201d<\/em> as a prophet. Revelations now canonized in the Doctrine and Covenants repeatedly directed him to continue the translation and characterized it as divinely appointed work.<\/p>\n

The title \u201cseer, translator, and prophet,\u201d<\/em> as applied to Smith in early revelations (see D&C 21:1), was understood to authorize precisely this kind of work. Just as Smith claimed to have translated the Book of Mormon \u201cby the gift and power of God\u201d<\/em> without knowledge of the \u201creformed Egyptian\u201d<\/em> in which it was allegedly written, so he claimed divine guidance in revising the Bible without knowledge of Hebrew or Greek.<\/p>\n

This self-understanding placed Smith in a unique position. Unlike conventional biblical scholars who appeal to manuscript evidence, linguistic expertise, and historical analysis, Smith appealed directly to divine revelation. The truth of his translation rested not on scholarly demonstration but on the same prophetic authority that undergirded all his other revelations.<\/p>\n

The Restoration Framework<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n

The Joseph Smith Translation must be understood within the broader LDS framework of \u201crestoration.\u201d<\/em> According to this narrative, the original gospel taught by Jesus Christ and his apostles was lost shortly after the apostolic era through a \u201cGreat Apostasy.\u201d<\/em> This apostasy involved not only ecclesiastical corruption but also the loss or corruption of scripture itself. Joseph Smith was called as the prophet of the restoration, commissioned to bring back what had been lost.<\/p>\n

Within this framework, the JST is not merely a translation project but a prophetic act of restoration. Smith was not simply correcting copyist errors or improving English style; he was recovering truths that had been deliberately suppressed or inadvertently lost. The JST thus becomes evidence for the restoration narrative: its existence demonstrates both that Scripture was corrupted (otherwise, why would restoration be necessary?) and that God has provided a remedy through his chosen prophet.<\/p>\n

This restorationist framework gives the JST its theological significance within the LDS tradition. It is not simply a paraphrase or study Bible but a prophetic witness to the restoration of all things. To question the JST\u2019s validity is, implicitly, to question the entire restoration narrative and Smith\u2019s prophetic calling.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Problems with the Restoration Claims<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n

Critics identify several difficulties with the restoration framework as it applies to the JST:<\/p>\n

Lack of Ancient Manuscript Support.<\/b> <\/em><\/span>If the JST truly restores original text, one might expect at least occasional confirmation from ancient manuscripts. Yet when JST readings are compared with early Greek and Hebrew manuscripts\u2014including manuscripts discovered after Smith\u2019s time, such as the Dead Sea Scrolls\u2014the JST readings are not confirmed. The manuscript tradition consistently supports the text that Smith was \u201ccorrecting.\u201d<\/em>
\nInternal Inconsistency.<\/b><\/em><\/span> In some instances, Smith translated the same passage differently on different occasions, resulting in variant JST readings of identical texts. This inconsistency seems difficult to reconcile with the claim that Smith was restoring specific lost content.
\nTheological Retrofitting.<\/b> <\/em><\/span>Many JST changes appear designed to align the biblical text with distinctive Mormon doctrines. Critics argue that Smith was not restoring ancient truth but projecting nineteenth-century theology back onto the text. The extensive additions about the premortal existence, for example, articulate a doctrine developed in Mormonism but not found in the broader Christian tradition or supported by biblical exegesis.
\nThe Incompleteness Problem.<\/b> <\/em><\/span>Smith never finished the translation and never published it during his lifetime. If this was such a vital prophetic task, why was it never completed? LDS apologists note that Smith continued working on the manuscripts until his death and might have made additional changes had he lived. But this explanation raises further questions about how an unfinished, unpublished work can be considered definitively inspired.<\/p>\n

Traditional Christian Approaches to Biblical Scholarship<\/strong><\/span><\/h2>\n

The Science of Textual Criticism<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n
\"\"
The Codex Climaci Rescriptus<\/strong><\/a>, a 7-8th century Greek uncial manuscript of the New Testament as well as a 6th century Christian Palestinian Aramaic uncial manuscript of the Old and New Testament, represents in its Christian Palestinian Aramaic version of the New Testament, “the closest surviving witness to the words of Jesus Christ. It preserves the Gospels in the nearest dialect of Aramaic to that which he spoke himself, and unlike all other translations, those here were composed with a living Aramaic tradition based in the Holy Land.”<\/em><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

To appreciate the differences between Smith\u2019s approach and traditional Christian biblical scholarship, we must understand the discipline of textual criticism. Textual criticism is the scholarly discipline that examines ancient manuscripts to determine the original wording of texts. For the Bible, this means analyzing the thousands of surviving manuscripts in Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, Latin, Syriac, and other languages to identify scribal errors and establish the most reliable reading.<\/p>\n

The New Testament alone is attested by more than 5,800 Greek manuscripts, over 10,000 Latin manuscripts, and thousands more in other ancient languages.<\/strong><\/span> While these manuscripts contain hundreds of thousands of variant readings, the vast majority are trivial differences in spelling, word order, or other matters that do not affect meaning. Serious textual critics estimate that we can establish the original text of the New Testament with 99.5% or higher certainty.<\/p>\n

The manuscript abundance stands in stark contrast to other ancient literature. Homer\u2019s Iliad, the second-best attested ancient work, survives in approximately 1,900 manuscripts. Caesar\u2019s Gallic Wars exists in only about ten manuscripts, the earliest of which dates 900 years after the original composition. By any standard of ancient textual transmission, the Bible is extraordinarily well-preserved.<\/p>\n

The Dead Sea Scrolls and Old Testament Preservation<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n

The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls beginning in 1947 provided remarkable confirmation of Old Testament textual stability. The scrolls include manuscripts of nearly every Old Testament book, some dating to the third century BC\u2014roughly a thousand years earlier than the previously oldest known Hebrew manuscripts.<\/p>\n

When scholars compared the Dead Sea Scrolls to the later Masoretic Text (the standard Hebrew text used in modern Bibles), they found remarkable agreement. The Isaiah scroll, for example, showed 95% identity with the Masoretic Text of Isaiah, with most differences being minor spelling variations. This discovery dealt a severe blow to theories of widespread Old Testament textual corruption.<\/p>\n

Principles of Biblical Hermeneutics<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n

Traditional Christian biblical scholarship also employs hermeneutics<\/strong><\/a>\u2014the science of interpretation. Sound hermeneutical principles include:<\/p>\n

Exegesis over Eisegesis.<\/b> <\/em><\/span>Exegesis means \u201cleading out\u201d<\/em> the meaning from the text, allowing the text to speak for itself within its original context. Eisegesis means \u201cleading into\u201d<\/em> the text\u2014reading one\u2019s own ideas into Scripture. Responsible interpretation prioritizes exegesis.<\/strong><\/span>
\nContext Is King.<\/b> <\/em><\/span>The meaning of any passage must be determined by its immediate literary context, its place within the book, its relationship to the testament as a whole, and its historical-cultural setting.
\nScripture Interprets Scripture.<\/b> <\/em><\/span>Obscure passages should be interpreted in light of clearer passages, and individual texts should be read in harmony with the broader teaching of Scripture.
\nAuthorial Intent.<\/b> <\/em><\/span>The goal of interpretation is to understand what the original human author, under divine inspiration, intended to communicate to the original audience.
\nGenre Awareness.<\/b> <\/em><\/span>Different biblical genres (historical narrative, poetry, prophecy, apocalyptic, epistle, etc.) require different interpretive approaches.<\/p>\n

These principles stand in tension with the approach demonstrated in the Joseph Smith Translation, which often seems to impose later theological concepts onto earlier texts regardless of original context or authorial intent.<\/p>\n

Apologetics and the Defense of Scripture<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n

Christian apologetics\u2014the rational defense of the faith\u2014has long included defense of biblical reliability. This defense operates on multiple levels:<\/p>\n

Textual Apologetics.<\/b><\/em><\/span> Demonstrating that the biblical text has been reliably transmitted from the originals to the present, using manuscript evidence and textual criticism.
\nHistorical Apologetics.<\/b><\/em><\/span> Showing that the Bible\u2019s historical claims are confirmed by archaeology, external historical sources, and internal coherence.
\nTheological Apologetics.<\/b><\/em><\/span> Defending the Bible\u2019s divine inspiration and inerrancy through examination of fulfilled prophecy, doctrinal consistency, and transformative power.<\/p>\n

Conservative Christian scholarship has produced substantial works defending biblical reliability against skeptical challenges. Josh McDowell\u2019s Evidence That Demands a Verdict <\/i><\/strong><\/a>(PDF download), F.F. Bruce\u2019s The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?<\/i><\/strong><\/a>, and countless other works have marshaled evidence for the trustworthiness of the biblical text.<\/p>\n

This apologetic tradition stands in direct tension with Joseph Smith\u2019s claims of biblical corruption. If traditional Christian scholars are correct that the Bible has been remarkably preserved, then Smith\u2019s foundational claim\u2014that \u201cplain and precious things\u201d<\/em> were removed from the text\u2014is undermined.<\/p>\n

James White, Director of Alpha and Omega Ministries<\/strong><\/a>, explains the historic process that led to the Bible we hold in our hands today.<\/p>\n

Just Thinking about the Bible<\/strong><\/span>
\nWashington DC Regional Conference 2022<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n