The Joseph Smith Translation — What It Is and Why It Matters
Critics argue that Joseph Smith revised the Bible without knowledge of Hebrew or Greek, producing a “translation” that is really commentary — and that conflicts with the Book of Mormon text he had already produced. These objections deserve careful examination.
The Claims
1. Joseph had no Hebrew or Greek expertise yet claimed to “translate” the Bible
2. The JST changes contradict the Book of Mormon in some passages
3. The JST was never finished and never officially published by the Church
4. The changes were Joseph’s own theological commentary, not recovered ancient text
The Response
1. What the JST Actually Claims to Be
The Joseph Smith Translation was never described as a word-for-word recovery of lost manuscripts. The Lord described it as an “inspired revision” — Joseph himself called it “a branch of my calling.” D&C 35:20 describes it as Joseph writing and “expounding all scriptures unto the church.” This is not a claim to Egyptological scholarship. It is a claim to prophetic revelation expanding and clarifying biblical meaning.
The objection assumes that because Joseph called it a “translation,” he must have been working from manuscripts in the way a classical scholar does. But Joseph used the word “translation” in a broader prophetic sense throughout his ministry — the same sense in which he “translated” the Book of Mormon without access to Egyptian linguistic dictionaries. The Restoration consistently redefines academic categories in prophetic terms.
2. No Hebrew Required for Inspired Revision
Moses, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel did not conduct textual scholarship before receiving their revelations. Isaiah did not cross-reference the Septuagint. Revelation does not require academic credentials. The JST is best understood as prophetic commentary and restoration — bringing additional light to texts that had passed through centuries of transmission — not as a critical-textual reconstruction.
The premise of the objection — that a valid revision of scripture requires Hebrew and Greek fluency — would disqualify every prophet who ever lived. God has never required academic credentials before revealing truth. The credential He requires is a willing heart and a prophetic calling. Joseph had both.
3. JST vs. Book of Mormon
Some passages in the JST modify Sermon on the Mount texts in ways that differ from 3 Nephi’s version in the Book of Mormon. This is a genuine textual question. The most coherent explanation: the Book of Mormon records what Christ said to the Nephites (3 Nephi 11–18), and the JST records what was said in the Galilean context — with adaptations for each audience. This is consistent with how great teachers adapt their teaching.
An alternative explanation: the JST represents continuing prophetic insight that builds on but does not replace the Book of Mormon text. Either reading is textually defensible.
What the objection cannot explain is why Joseph would introduce contradictions between two of his own texts if he were simply fabricating both. The presence of variant parallel texts is, paradoxically, evidence of authenticity — authentic prophetic documents develop over time and across audiences. Fabricated documents tend toward internal consistency because the fabricator is trying to avoid detection.
4. Never Finished, Never Officially Canonized
The JST was not completed before Joseph Smith’s death. The RLDS/Community of Christ published it; the LDS Church uses JST footnotes in its scriptures. The unfinished nature reflects Joseph’s death at 38, not a theological problem.
The key point: the passages that are in the JST add significant content — Moses 1, JST Matthew, and others — that expand our understanding in ways consistent with the broader Restoration framework. An incomplete work is not a discredited work. The New Testament itself was written in fragments across decades by multiple authors before being canonized centuries later. Incompleteness is not a disqualifier.
The Church’s use of JST footnotes in the official LDS scriptures is not a hedge — it is an affirmation that the work has prophetic value even without formal canonization. The standard works tell us to “seek learning, even by study and also by faith” (D&C 88:118). The JST is scripture studied by faith.
5. The Positive Contributions
JST Genesis 1 provides the creation narrative in a way that harmonizes with the Book of Abraham’s “Gods organized and formed” account. JST Matthew 24 provides the “JST Matthew” section now included in the Pearl of Great Price as a separate document. These additions are doctrinally significant and coherent — not random alterations.
“And a commandment I give unto thee — that thou shalt write for him; and the scriptures shall be given, even as they are in mine own bosom, to the salvation of mine own elect.”
Moses 1 — entirely absent from the King James Bible — provides Moses’s theophany before the burning bush, establishing his prophetic commission in a way that gives context to the entire Pentateuch. This is not commentary. This is recovered scripture. Its theological coherence and literary sophistication are evidence of its authenticity, not artifacts of fabrication.
The Verdict
The Joseph Smith Translation is an inspired prophetic revision of the Bible — not a scholarly translation and never claimed to be. Its methodology — revelation and prophetic expansion rather than textual criticism — is consistent with how the Restoration has always operated.
The genuine textual questions (JST vs. 3 Nephi parallels) have coherent explanations. The objection that Joseph lacked academic credentials assumes revelation requires academic credentials. It does not.
The standard works tell us God uses weak things to confound the mighty — exactly what the JST represents. A farm boy from upstate New York, working by revelation alone, produced Moses 1, JST Matthew, and dozens of clarifying expansions that make the Bible more internally consistent, not less.
That is not the profile of a fraud. That is the profile of a prophet.